Wait...How do we know if most of the major political polls are rigged?

Are the polls rigged?
Seriously how do we know?
With the recent leaks from wikileaks about the DNC how do we know the polls are rigged also?

They can easily fake polls that are from liberal leaning media ,but how can they fudge polls from fox news, which is the propaganda mouth piece of the gop.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Good point.

But doesn't the GOP hate Trump?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

It's not rigging-it's extrapolation then exaggeration.

When polls are conducted they only use a few people-lets say one hundred thousand. If sixty thousand prefer Trump or Hillary then they extrapolate previous polls and somehow concludes that Two thousand more folk support Hillary, however those two thousand folk do not represent 300 million people which is not always the case.

Then one can argue that media bias (something that Murdoch has been accused of) and certain locations and beliefs muddy the waters and polls do not represent the population as a whole. Social media is the best form of opinion poll.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

There are individual on-air personalities at Fox in the USA who loathe Trump, and the recently booted Roger Ailes was enmeshed with that part of the Republican Party that is in open rebellion against Trump. I think it is very easy for their polling to be skewed in Clinton's favour.

I have some friends and a couple of family members who live in the USA who have been repeatedly used by some of the major pollsters. With regard to one family member, she said she feels with each call as if she is being tested rather than polled. As a result of the way the questions have been put to her, she has answered she will vote for Clinton, but she has no intention of voting for Clinton and will be voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

I am left to wonder just how many people in the USA are afraid to say to pollsters that they are not voting for Clinton and who also fear that their phone number, name, and other information is making its way to some sort of loyalty list.

Are the polls rigged?

Well, if the candidate you happen to be supporting is shown as losing - then yes, they're rigged.

However, if the candidate you happen to be supporting is shown as winning - then no, they're not rigged.

That's the general attitude I see coming from those who believe in polls.

Most Pollsters want to be right as that gives them more credibility. Any given poll could be off and not much weight should be given to it. But when you group them together they become stronger. There are several sites that do that and their results have in the end been really close to what actually happened. Why is that? Part of the answer goes to what someone above said, sample size. Most polls have hundreds to low thousands of people sampled. When you average them together you get a much larger sample size. Averaging also helps to smooth out the outlier polls that may have some bias. Here is RCP, a right leaning site, with it two main averages:
General Election: Clinton vs Trump

No Toss Up States - Electoral College

So the thing to ask what is the probability all these polls are biased in the exact same way?

RCP predicted 49 of 50 states with this approach in 2012.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Um..... YES they are rigged!

According to past presidents and politicians...


Theodore Roosevelt stated that “presidents are selected, not elected.” He also told us that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I don't think the polls are per se rigged.

The polls can be and sometimes are, manipulated in the sense that they are either conducted in a manner, i.e., who they call or target, or they are crafted, i.e., the questions are designed to produce a desired result.

At this point...................the polls don't much matter. From what I've learned, the polling data this far out is pretty speculative because so many haven't made up their minds. October polling will be more definitive.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman


Cant really count anything out here onec you see how hard the press works for their chosen candidate. Looking not that closely one can see how all things pull together when the need arises, shattering the illusion of free press, fair elections, two parties ect.

We just had two major election laws struck down......for simply requiring photo identification. There is only one primary reason a person cant obtain photo ID. You going to tell me that the courts are not rigged here politically by sympathy?

Both the DNC and GOP and both candidates campaigns also do internal polling. It is what they base every decision of the campaign on. If those internal numbers were coming up with different results than the public polls. They would blast them publicly showing their own data.

Also some polls are conducted by media groups, some by Colleges, some by polling companies, some by think tanks others by political groups. Then you have state level and local level polling by all kinds of groups. All these polls would have to be in some sort big conspiracy with thousands of people of all political leanings keeping the secret.

The the candidates own party and own campaign pollster would have to be in on it.

Even then what would be the point? Candidates do not like to have a lead as large as Clinton's because it makes it much harder to get the vote out if people think it is a done deal. You will find both the person ahead and behind telling people to ignore the polls and get out and vote.

So not only would it require a conspiracy of massive size between all kinds of groups, it would also be pointless.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

If it's on TV, it's been scripted.

If it's on MSM, it has been cleared and approved by the CIA.

Follow the money. How do you make money by conducting polls? From a business standpoint, you are producing a product. You need to find a buyer for that product. Who is going to pay for a product they don't want?

I have read, in threads here at ATS, where pollsters have changed exit polling data to reflect how the voting tallied up.
They called it 'recalculating'.
It was done to keep people from seeing how the black box voting machines are rigged.

If they will change the data after it has already been released to make you think what they want you to think.... Why wouldn't they change the data before they release it for the same reasons???

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

It's not rigging-it's extrapolation then exaggeration.

When polls are conducted they only use a few people-lets say one hundred thousand. If sixty thousand prefer Trump or Hillary then they extrapolate previous polls and somehow concludes that Two thousand more folk support Hillary, however those two thousand folk do not represent 300 million people which is not always the case.

That's not how either polling or statistics works at all. A given poll might get up to 2000 people, but is more likely about 1,000 people, with many using a lot less. The key is to get a representative random sample of the populace. And when you do that, 1,000 people polled is representative of the entire voting population of the US within a margin of 5%, i.e.: A given poll will be accurate 19 out of 20 times. One in 20 will be the result of chance. If you poll more people, you can reduce this error rate to, say, 1%, so that the poll will be accurate 99 out of 100 times, but when you do that, the cost of the poll goes up. It's an exponential curve so increasing past 1% is cost prohibitive because you have to interview so many more people. Most of these news organization polls are done at 5% because it's cheaper and quicker. Those percentages are called "confidence levels" and include a "Margin of Error."

The Margin of Error is a function of the formula. You will often see a poll expressed like this: This poll is accurate with a margin of error of 3%, which means that AT A 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL (19 out of 20 being accurate) the poll is correct within three percentage points, so if it's "Clinton=47%; Trump=43%" the that is OUTSIDE the Margin of Error. If it is "Trump=47%; Clinton=45%" then that is WITHIN the Margin of Error and, statistically speaking, they are tied. If you INCREASE from a 95% level to a 99% level, that Margin of Error also increases--unless you poll more people.

These pollster do not "cheat" by interviewing more Democrats than Republicans. That's a completely ignorant and simplistic assumption. That's not the issue here in this video at all. The issue is that they took out the "Neither" option and re-computed, giving them different results. Now THAT is a clear manipulation of statistics because had there NOT been a "Neither of the above" option in the original poll, those polled may have answered differently. It is not a given that they would have gone 50/50.

In terms of trusting polls, IMO polls done by news organizations are suspect because doing statistics is not their primary business, so their expertise in statistics is more limited and the introduction of bias is "easier." A professional polling organization such as Gallup, which employs hundreds of actuaries and statisticians, is much more trustworthy because that is their primary business and their reputation depends upon it. Also, take polls in aggregate rather than singly. If you have ten polls that all show the same trend, it's much more likely to be accurate than a single poll by a single organization.

a reply to: MamaJ

“behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

Whoever stated that was quite correct. Actually there are two versions of the "Shadow" government. One is the COG, "Continuity of Government" group of entities tasked with insuring the organs of government survive a nuclear attack.

The other is the "Deep State" comprised of various gov't and private enterprise contractors that pretty much run the foriegn affairs, wars and security apparatus.

You can read about the Deep State here: billmoyers.com...

After reading that article, you'll come to realize that these POTUS elections really don't count for much. What really counts is who's elected to the House of Representin' and the Senate.

What does make this election a bit different is the Supreme Court nominations HRC will be able to make once she's installed as POTUS. She'll doubtless appoint very liberal anti-American people to the Court who will work to erode Constitutionally guaranteed rights. But, realistically speaking, in the long run that doesn't much matter either because the Court is becoming more and more controlled by anti-American Globalists and foreign courts and jurisprudence.

originally posted by: MrSpad

Even then what would be the point? Candidates do not like to have a lead as large as Clinton's because it makes it much harder to get the vote out if people think it is a done deal. You will find both the person ahead and behind telling people to ignore the polls and get out and vote.

So not only would it require a conspiracy of massive size between all kinds of groups, it would also be pointless.

But it wouldn't be pointless if the higher polling numbers coincide with a week long massive negative campaign against the candidate that previously was holding a slight margin and climbing. Just look what they have had to do to accomplish that.

a reply to: TonyS

Its maybe never mentioned through their outlets much......but its on their minds. Americans operating under some sort of collective mind set, there's a word for that, have been loading up on combat style weapons, ammo and gear. Another record month just happened in July.

The fact the people are specking so loudly is deafening in some chambers and why the regulation of firearm talk still leaks out of the mouth of these puppets.

They suppose that a supreme court take over will settle it but it wont. And you know that 2nd amendment will be top priority in the next SC selection.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: MrSpad

Even then what would be the point? Candidates do not like to have a lead as large as Clinton's because it makes it much harder to get the vote out if people think it is a done deal. You will find both the person ahead and behind telling people to ignore the polls and get out and vote.

So not only would it require a conspiracy of massive size between all kinds of groups, it would also be pointless.

But it wouldn't be pointless if the higher polling numbers coincide with a week long massive negative campaign against the candidate that previously was holding a slight margin and climbing. Just look what they have had to do to accomplish that.

You mean look what Trump did to accomplish that. All of this was self inflicted. The Khan debacle was started by Trump, ignore the speech and it would have been Khan who? Not endorsing Ryan and McCain is another self inflected wound. The day have the RNC he goes after Cruz, for what? Everything that has happened to Trump since the RNC has been self inflected.

In today's world of modern technology and now that 99% of voting machines are electronic anything can be hacked. I have posted and older documentary on electronic voting machines to give you an example of what can be done maybe you have seen it and maybe you have not but it's interesting to watch on how VOTING can be Rigged !

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: blargo

Well first stop an say to yourself.....were did I get all that spin and interpretation of Trumps action? His opponents press and PR people otherwise known as CBS ect. They could do the same with Hillary.......she has years of gaffing in public on film and with some spin ect they could turn her into mud in a week.


As far as endorsements of party heads......these guys are badly beaten lame ducks getting put in their place. He doesn't have to do anything for them. I hope he doesn't not it will make him look weak and political after all. They act all ass hurt like they are still queens of the ball getting jilted. They want Trump to do political mouth to mouth resuscitation on these two damaged and disloyal political ducks.

As far as Kahn.....he was bait set in a trap by Hillary. A tool. His son sacrificed not him. He wants to get up in a high stakes political contest and pull that act? Shame on him and Hillary. They started a fight and act like scalded dogs when they get what they ask for.