Active Now

Discussion » Questions » Politics » Should the pollsters be fired? They failed their job once again. Or is their job to manipulate the electorate?

Should the pollsters be fired? They failed their job once again. Or is their job to manipulate the electorate?

Sen Collins did not win 1 poll. But she solidly won re-election.

All the toss-ups were supposed to go blue....big blue wave coming.  That is did not happen.  Sen was supposed to go Blue...House was supposed to gain blue seats....Did not happen. 

Posted - November 5, 2020


  • 12548
    The blue wave is happening. Of course in-person votes were for His Royal Orangeness, most of his supporters still think that the current pandemic is some sort of bizarre hoax (despite 230,000-plus deaths and counting). The postal are trending solidly blue, at least 3 Republican senate seats are likely to change hands (2 to candidates not affiliated with either major party), AZ, NV and WI have definitely flipped and the postals are, barring any major shift, going to deliver Biden a clear majority in PA and MI as well. It's why Trump wants the count to stop, he's losing.
      November 5, 2020 6:12 PM MST

  • 26704
    Blue Wave is happening? Rep will still have the Senate. And Rep gained seats in the House. 

    They may cheat Trump out of the Presidency but they still spent millions on the Senate with nothing to show for it. They are still the minority.  NO Rep House seats lost NONE.  

    No blue wave...sorry.  
      November 5, 2020 6:43 PM MST

  • 12548
    Cheat be damned, he's been soundly thrashed. In the days before telegraph communication, the count took MONTHS. That's why inauguration doesn't occur until January.
    Even in GA the count is neck-and-neck, that state has been redder than the Chinese flag for a generation (the exception being 1992 - Clinton was a southern bo-ah. They turned on him four years later).
    Count. Every. Vote. 

      November 6, 2020 1:33 AM MST

  • 26704
    Legal vote. 
    GA has not counted the military votes....I believe GA will move back to Trump column. 
    If PN is forced to count only the votes recieved by 11/3 as their state law stipulates...that also will stay in Trump column. 

    Judges do not make laws. They are supposed to apply as written.
      November 6, 2020 7:09 AM MST

  • 12548
    Do you seriously think that the military is going to vote as a bloc for a man who has spent the last four years systematically insulting veterans? Some of them may have been moronic or robotic enough to do so, it won't be all of them and probably won't even be a majority.
    Biden is ahead in PA and the late votes haven't been counted yet (and may not need to be - they've been segregated and Biden is winning without them).
    Unless Trump's armed goons manage to stop the count in Michigan, that will go blue as well. Trump is finished and good riddance.
    As for the Senate, the GOP is practically certain to lose one seat - Mark Kelly (D) has a comfortable lead in the race for the late John McCain's vacant seat, and Georgia will go to a run-off - Raphael Warwick (D) is also ahead by plenty but nobody won and there aren't enough uncounted votes for any candidate to gain a clear majority. Two seats have been called for "other parties", so the Republicans need at least 3 of the four "in doubt" seats to retain a majority. The current climate says it's unlikely, so those other parties will hold the balance of power. It's hung. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at November 6, 2020 8:54 PM MST
      November 6, 2020 6:35 PM MST

  • 26704
    man who has spent the last four years systematically insulting veterans? Some of them may have been moronic or robotic enough to do so....

    Ironic don't you think? 

    Military leans to the right.  They want to end wars...Trump is the one who is ending wars. 
      November 7, 2020 7:13 AM MST

  • 12548
    Trump is gone (doesn't need GA now, Biden has won in PA even without the lates) and at least 2 senate seats have flipped (Arizona and Colorado). It will take a run-off to determine a third (Georgia). Any more misstatements to make that require correction?
      November 7, 2020 4:44 PM MST

  • 26704
    Most likely. But it is not over until all challenges are done. 

    There are confirmed software counting issues. And voter/vote issues. The courts will sort it out. Or they will ignore it. We will see. 
      November 8, 2020 8:37 AM MST

  • 7343
    How about moronic or robotic victims of rape?---would that justify systematically insulting them also?

      November 7, 2020 5:14 PM MST

  • 26704
    Topic was alleged insulting soldiers costing votes then it was followed with an insult to soldiers. 
     Deflect somewhere else. 
      November 8, 2020 8:35 AM MST

  • 12548
    "Trump is the one who is ending wars"
    By killing off the Iran peace deal and hiring Bolton and Pompeo, both noted hawks who are ON THE RECORD as favouring pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran and North Korea.
    Yeah, right.
      November 10, 2020 11:52 PM MST

  • 26704
    What war have we started? 
    Peace deals with Israel. Troops being brought home. 
    We are not at war with NK, Syria, Iran, etc.  And if it were up to the establishment we would be. That is why Bolton quit. He wanted war. We crushed ISIS. 
      November 11, 2020 6:14 AM MST

  • 448
    I am surprised at the outcome of the Presidential race - I was expecting Trump to win, or at least narrow the gap in the popular vote, and the reverse has happened. But from what I have read so far, any claims of electoral fraud are purely conjectural. There have been no complaints from election observers, that I am aware of. 
      November 6, 2020 3:11 AM MST

  • 26704
    They are not allowing the observers to observe. It is in court. 
      November 6, 2020 7:00 AM MST

  • 12548
    They already admitted to a "non-zero number" of observers within each building. They do NOT need to be within six feet.
    I've been a scrutineer. Sixty feet is plenty close enough. 
      November 11, 2020 1:43 PM MST

  • 26704
    To see a ballot you have to be able to see it.  To see the post have to be able to see it.  They we only being allowed within 20-50 feet that is not close enough.  To verify anything. And legally each party/candidate is allowed to have observers.  
      November 11, 2020 3:21 PM MST

  • 2362
    Do pollsters ask the right questions? Are they manipulating the wording of questions to get the responses they want?  Whom did they interview? How many did they interview? Five, ten, 50, a hundred people? How often are they correct? Many of the doubts about pollsters stem from a mistrust of the political parties, marketers, and media giants that pay for the polls.

      Personally, I have never trusted polls/pollsters of any kind and never will. If they stopped taking polls completely and fired every pollster tomorrow, I would welcome it and would still sleep just fine at night. I don't need to participate in a poll nor am I manipulated by any poll. I do my own research and make up my own mind.
      November 5, 2020 9:04 PM MST

  • 448
    I can think of four main reasons why pre-election polls often turn out to be at variance with the result, when it finally comes:

    1) Faulty methodology;

    2) Respondents lying outright about their voting intention, either because of acceptability bias or just for the hell of it;

    3) Respondents not being completely honest about their voting intention - for instance, saying "don't know" when they are in fact strongly leaning to one candidate;

    4) Respondents saying "don't know" because they genuinely haven't made their minds up, then come election day it turns out that the majority of the don't-knows and non-respondents vote for one party rather than the other in a way that doesn't reflect the polling data;

    5) The opinion polls themselves influencing voter behaviour. In some circumstances this may favour the candidate or party who is already ahead because it will cause the rival candidate's supporters to become despondent or have doubts about their choice; in other circumstances it may benefit the candidate or party who is behind in the polls, because their supporters may feel more motivated to vote if they think it's going to be close, while the front-runner's supporters may become complacent and not bother to vote. Or, conceivably, both these trends may occur at the same time and cancel each other out.

    So, polls being inaccurate isn't necessarily a sign that the pollsters are trying to manipulate people, although in some cases that may be their intention.
      November 6, 2020 3:29 AM MST

  • 14736
    No.  They will work themselves out of their jobs unless they devise a way to poll conservatives.  I do not and have  never known of a single person to talk to a pollster.  Not one.  I would never.  I hang right up on them if I happen to answer.  I rarely answer numbers I don't know.   Also I pay no attention to them.  I have never heard poll figures and felt swayed in any way.  It's nonsense. 
      November 6, 2020 5:23 AM MST

  • 4161
    I don't know. I didn't pay attention to polls at all this year. I barely did in the last election but after what happened last time, I can't imagine anyone taking polls seriously anymore. They've lost all credibility. 
      November 6, 2020 9:06 AM MST

  • 7343

    Las Vegas may set the odds for the football games---and overall the house always wins overall---but we still have to actually play the games, and we do.

    The methodology is well established. Statisticians determine which quantitative model is correct for a given type of problem and they decide what kinds of data should be collected and examined. The assumption of normalcy is---one might say---a "theorem"---which---if conditions are met---suggests that the data set for which you wish to develop an inferential model can be accurately represented by the normal (also called "bell" curve).

    Handily, the mathematical characteristics of that curve and well known and can be a very useful model for making predictions.


    I think that Reverend Muhammadovsky is right when he mentions that voters don't always tell the truth (nor are they required to do so), or change their minds, or hedge their bets by voting for a candidate down ballot that may be a member of the opposite party if their presidential candidate doesn't win.

    Here is an interesting site about how the methodology to forecast the election of was developed for The Economist magazine:

      November 7, 2020 5:29 PM MST