New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"

a reply to: Greggers
Considering the ridiculously obvious left-leaning bias by the bulk of the mainstream media this election - to the extent that some of them will actually cut their feed on anyone who brings up potentially damaging talking points regarding Hillary - is it that unlikely a possibility that the MSM polls are being deliberately skewed in favor of Hillary in order to dissuade and discourage any potential momentum/support towards the Trump campaign?

I mean surely, even to those that hate Trump/support Hillary, it should by now be clear as day the bulk of the MSM have practically teamed up with the DNC. If you're being honest now.

And for the record - before this election cycle began - I actually thought CNN was one of the few MSM outlets that really was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". More than a minute watching Fox News and I'd start cringing. So it really isn't about left vs right for me - my reasons for supporting Trump have nothing to do with liking the guy - I just think he (or just about anyone else) is a better option than the corrupt establishment's choice of Hillary.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Greggers

No they don't know anything about the scientific use of statistics, no, rigging the polls is not what any email is talking about, yes, this is their own internal polls (so why would they want to lie to themselves) etc. etc. etc.

You are watching the most insidious form of dishonesty take root in some of the right-wing (drifting toward alt-right): they're now believing their own lies.

Well......... not too many people use statistics in the workplace, let alone home. Hell I took statistics in college, and haven't used once since despite being in differing fields of science. I mean who requires being trained in 'em, anyways? Are you trained in using them, and and actually apply the as aroutine?

If they're 'internal polls' then why do they need to adjust the results?

The hypocrisy in your last statement there is over the top!

Evil can not win honestly and there is a lot of it.

However we all know what happens to evil once it runs it's course, it destroys it's selfe every time.

My "opinion" is Hillary is going to lose this one, she has met her match and she is going to try and steal this election.

However we all know Trump people are collecting all the evidence as we speak, this time in American history, stealing an election is going to fail miserably. Hillary will lose.

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: Greggers
Considering the ridiculously obvious left-leaning bias by the bulk of the mainstream media this election - to the extent that some of them will actually cut their feed on anyone who brings up potentially damaging talking points regarding Hillary - is it that unlikely a possibility that the MSM polls are being deliberately skewed in favor of Hillary in order to dissuade and discourage any potential momentum/support towards the Trump campaign?

I mean surely, even to those that hate Trump/support Hillary, it should by now be clear as day the bulk of the MSM have practically teamed up with the DNC. If you're being honest now.

And for the record - before this election cycle began - I actually thought CNN was one of the few MSM outlets that really was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". More than a minute watching Fox News and I'd start cringing. So it really isn't about left vs right for me - my reasons for supporting Trump have nothing to do with liking the guy - I just think he (or just about anyone else) is a better option than the corrupt establishment's choice of Hillary.

Media bias is a legitimate topic of debate.

What's NOT legitimate is the blatant lying being done in the OP.

This has unfortunately become par for the course with these wikileaks.

As I've pointed out numerous times, there are some legitimately sketchy things in the leaked emails, but you'd never know it for all the blatantly erroneous reports being pushed by alt-right news.

All they're doing is creating a smoke screen around Hillary.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If they're 'internal polls' then why do they need to adjust the results?

Go have a look at the Atlas Report. It gives specific examples of recommended oversamples, and explains why.

a reply to: Greggers

Yeah, I think you're right.

That is... unless somehow Podesta is coordinating 'all' of the national or something, somehow. Under that pretense I suppose I could see where someone would over read into it, looking for 'coded language'.

Especially when done in haste.

Occam's razor is definitely on your side.

There is just that one pesky dilemma, where so many of these polls (that actually do release the party affiliations of the respondents) again and again show higher sampling rates of DEM over REP. Assuming they're 'all' doing itthat would be something of a coordinated effort.

But even accounting for such a hypothetical, your arguments do make the most sense yet still.



Kruphix, IF by "they" were talking about Zero hedge, and not everybody here in the thread to (with that what a bunch of idiots insinuation I had perceived), then apologies for snapping so quick.

The "statistics" I was referring to was specifically the field of math.


That guide thingie there doesn't get into the math per se, its more about demographic analysis and where to put the most energy into polling crisp number sets (to then be computed via statistical analysis).


Even if 'Podesta' (or who ever over there) did have 'all' the poll outlets marching to their drummer, this one upon deeper analysis is polling for how to best target potential voters, is the general appearance I too see.


Now that doesn't mean I'm calling case closed on this one. There could too be 'code language' in there. Atlas is an affirmed DEM mechanism so they know the game (of 50 years of DEM busing phoney voters around between polling stations and even over state lines, now ADMITTED).

For example, this statement about Arizona might mean more than meets the,well what the hell does it mean:

Voter registration is more important than Democratic performance. Democrats can be turned out blindly in most parts of the state for statewide campaigns, even in a heavily Republican county such as El Paso. The Western Slope and Plains regions are areas where Democrats may not be turned out blindly.

?

a reply to: DBCowboy Agree with all except one thing,we won`t be at war with Russia-all they have to do is watch the second civil war.That will absolutely happen if the socialists elect her as dictator,oops-president.Oh, and the South has the big industrial base this time as well as a HELL of a lot of very pissed-off good old boys.What a shame it`d be and ironic,a second civil war over slavery,and the south fighting to remain free people.

A reminder that this is NOT the Mud Pit.

Which basically means no personal attacks, no mudslinging and no trollery. Posts will be removed as deemed appropriate and you run the very real risk of having your posting privileges suspended. So let's not go there.

Remember that posts removed as political trollery automatically count as TWO warnings.

Let's at least try to remain civil. Consider this fair warning.

As usual, do NOT reply to this post.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thank you for your reasonable and cordial reply.

My personal take is that the quote in question speaks of the portion of the Dem base that will turn out automatically, without any particular outreach or effort.

a reply to: xuenchen

How dumb is this Zero-hedge Blog article?...

It hinges on this email:

"I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling when we start in February by Markets, Regions, Etc. I want to get this compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling"

AND while this stupid article declares "Oversampling" as some nefarious technique to over represent Democrats in polling..in reality land...like the actual definition...it is used to take the pulse of sub-groups..Like stated above in the actual email...Regions...Hillary might lose Texas, but do better in Austin..lose SC but lead amongst African Americans.

SO YES...Oversampling is useful and good to understand exactly who is voting for whom amongst a given state, city or region.

AND YES...Oversampling gets the most out of their internal polling...helps them understand who they are connecting with and who they aren't

oversample

Definitions


from Wiktionary,
n. An additional sample of a subpopulation, above and beyond the portion of a main sample that already belongs to that subpopulation.
v. To sample additional members of a subpopulation, above and beyond the members included in the main sample.

www.wordnik.com...


SO...EFFEN...EXHAUSTING...the right wing INVENTING new definitions to actual known words and then screaming conspiracy.

It is Obamacare inserting tracking microchips into everyone...

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: Greggers
Considering the ridiculously obvious left-leaning bias by the bulk of the mainstream media this election - to the extent that some of them will actually cut their feed on anyone who brings up potentially damaging talking points regarding Hillary - is it that unlikely a possibility that the MSM polls are being deliberately skewed in favor of Hillary in order to dissuade and discourage any potential momentum/support towards the Trump campaign?

I mean surely, even to those that hate Trump/support Hillary, it should by now be clear as day the bulk of the MSM have practically teamed up with the DNC. If you're being honest now.

And for the record - before this election cycle began - I actually thought CNN was one of the few MSM outlets that really was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". More than a minute watching Fox News and I'd start cringing. So it really isn't about left vs right for me - my reasons for supporting Trump have nothing to do with liking the guy - I just think he (or just about anyone else) is a better option than the corrupt establishment's choice of Hillary.

Media bias is a legitimate topic of debate.

What's NOT legitimate is the blatant lying being done in the OP.

BUMP that...

Oversampling (as explained by the leaked email) is for "markets and regions"...

The polling was for the campaign (internal)

And the definition of "Oversampling" is when you drill down on sub-groups...HRC's polling among College educated vs. Non-Degree...Hispanic vs. White ...Those making between 50-80k...Those living in Austin vs. Texas at large..
Etc. Etc.

They asked for a guide on how to drill deeper on their internal polling. Not for a guide to bias public polls...they weren't running public polls.

a reply to: Indigo5

I really don't know why, but the alt-right has a history of just making things up. Every time I turn around, there is some new bastardization of reality. And yes, it is tiring.

I do have a theory about why this happens, and it has nothing to do with "hurting the left."

I feel like the alt-right know their audience well. They know they don't fact check. They know they're just dying to consume anything that makes Hillary look bad. So they put zero effort into vetting their stories, and in some cases make things up out of thin air.

This drives traffic to their pages. It also has the unfortunate side-effect of making Republicans look like insane conspiracy theorists (even though not all Republicans consume such media), and of creating a smoke screen around the left (because accusation's from the right have been proven wrong so often that they've essentially become toothless).

Here's my call to all conservatives:

Stop consuming news outlets that have been caught fabricating, as a matter of course, a large percentage of their stories. Demand more of your media outlets. Go in ASSUMING the story is false, and force them to PROVE it's true. I implore you to do this, or you're just going to contribute to the downfall of your own party.

originally posted by: Greggers
a reply to: Indigo5

I really don't know why, but the alt-right has a history of just making things up. Every time I turn around, there is some new bastardization of reality. And yes, it is tiring.

It is ugly...

It's dishonest to the core. Intentional lying. Not searching for facts or truth, but rather searching for ways to molest the truth to fool people.

Lastly..It's insulting to the people they are trying to recruit to their ideology (and everyone else).
It begins with the premise that the people are too stupid to spot where they lie. If I was a far-right conservative I would be perpetually offended that the mouthpieces of the far right consistently believe I am either stupid or dishonest.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Evil can not win honestly and there is a lot of it.

However we all know what happens to evil once it runs it's course, it destroys it's selfe every time.

My "opinion" is Hillary is going to lose this one, she has met her match and she is going to try and steal this election.

However we all know Trump people are collecting all the evidence as we speak, this time in American history, stealing an election is going to fail miserably. Hillary will lose.

No she won't because elections aren't real and the popular vote doesn't even matter. Presidents are installed not voted in -- the whole process is a dog and pony show, and has been for at least the last 4 presidents, if not since 1914.

originally posted by: Greggers
a reply to: Indigo5

I really don't know why, but the alt-right has a history of just making things up. Every time I turn around, there is some new bastardization of reality. And yes, it is tiring.

Republican's & Democrat's, and endless other binary mentality opposing groups, have long histories of consistently doing the same sorts of things they each consistently complain about and criticize the others for doing.

Down with hypocrisies 2016!

Forget about poll rigging nonsense. The EU is attempting to completely rig the US election through hack attacks.

Any hacking or DDOS attack against the US between now and Nov 8th, can only come from the EU under EU political order.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'll just drop these here:





But no, there's no shenanigans going on with the national polls published in the media.