Longroom.com is a scam

Inb4 Hillary shill.

So this website pops up. Interesting. Never heard of it before. They have 3 past presidential analysis yet no raw data. Hmm. They say that CNN has a +7.1 bias against Clinton yet there's no explaining of the methodology behind it. Why 7.1? Why not 8.1?

But prod deeper. When was the website made?

whois.domaintools.com/longroom.com

2008. So how can it show the Kerry vs Bush analysis?

Ok.

Let's check waybackmachine.

web.archive.org/web/20100114172024/http://www.longroom.com/(Earliest known date).

FFS, it shows a page full of advertisement crap.

Check their "About us" page. Their editors have photographs that have been DRAWN. Anyone seriously believe this shit? Check out their "articles." It's all pro-trump stuff. Same with their Twitter.

Their "listen live" button? It's random Piano music.

Other urls found in this thread:

longroom.com/polls/methodology/
longroom.com/polls/methodology/
fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Really makes a Brit thank

Wat

Pretty sure they just look at polling data and re-do the statistics on a more even ground (eg having an even number of gop against dnc voters)

C U C K S H I L L

Not an argument.

I need more info. Where's their raw data? They have 0 history. Look at my links. It only startest to be active in 2016.

I support trump u fag

who cares

...

Sounds like shills swimming in their own sweat to me.

Considering they have 0 history, i am right to be skeptical about them. They predict within 0.3% yet I've never heard of them till today??

M8 i want to believe but they have no history. No actual methodology. No editors. No contact email address. No article pre 2016.

Who the fuck is longroom?

Shill.

Sage.

>FFS, it shows a page full of advertisement crap.
>Doesn't know what domain parking is
Audible keks

Beings as computer and tech illiterate as you, I wouldn't be surprised if you truly are a Hillary shill.

Being new does not mean they are wrong. Having drawn photos on their website does not mean they don't have a methodology behind their poll corrections. Having advertisements does not make their points invalid.

You do not have an argument.

Also not a shill.

I agree, I don't want to look back on this election like and look like the fucking Bernie supporters that were swearing California could save him (even though clinton rigged all of it)

I think we should be satisfied knowing that the polls are swayed democratic, I'm not going to spread that website, because it will only make it look like we're grasping at straws trying to do anything to make it look like we're right (even though we are) let them think hillary is winning. who fucking cares

A FUCKING MUSLIM MAYOR

I dont know about them and they have no article archived before 2016. Go figure.

Yes i do. They have no record of posting anything before 2016. Literally 0. You dont find that fishy?

Shekel is spelt with a q? My life is a fucking lie.

I just want to be able to check their methodology the way they are doing it too.

Im POSITIVE the polls are grossly mistaken. They are polling 15%+ democrat, when the republicans BTFOd them in the primaries, by a long shot. If Trump and hillary are this close when they're over sampling dems by 25-30% it's going to be insane if everything is an honest election

Ikr. I want trump to win and i really want this to be true but its some website made up that no one knew about u til 5 hours ago and supposedly has analysis until 2004.

Dont live in london so i dont give a fuck lol

If the media is as compromised as it is-there are literally no old untainted news sources.

Yep.

I just want fucking proof of this shit. Any asshole can make a website like this. I could make one up like this in 1 hour. Its not hard.

Where's their calculations? Explanations?

An argument is where you use reason and evidence to rationally prove a claim. What you are saying is that being new makes this website wrong, which is not a rational proposal. Every political website has to start in some given election year. Just because the website is new doesn't mean that the writers aren't educated or that they don't have a methodology.

You mean because the news outlets that host pro DNC narratives and polls are completely in bed with each other?

Those facts were leaked and what did the news stations do?

They pushed the narrative about an accusation that Donald Trump paid the Russians to do it. They completely ignored the FACTS of the leaked emails because it implicated their own news stations.

After I saw that, my vote for Trump was solidified. I don't even care if the RNC does the same shit with Fox news. It's all propaganda and this point and it's so polarizing that the only chance is voters will stay home because there is a 0% chance that anyone will switch who they're voting for at this point.

>FFS, it shows a page full of advertisement crap.
from the looks of it they probably didnt own the domain name at this time

I never said they were wrong. I said i was skeptical of them.

Why dont they give explanations instead of saying muh bias cnn? Im sure cnn is biased, but they give no explanation where they got their figures from (+7.1 hillary).

Give me explanations and calculations.

It is almost certainly pro-Trump propaganda, but Sup Forums will eat it up like they always do

>I never said they were wrong. I said i was skeptical of them.
Interesting.
>longroom.com is a scam
So scams can sometimes be right, in your mind?

>Why dont they give explanations instead of saying muh bias cnn? Im sure cnn is biased, but they give no explanation where they got their figures from (+7.1 hillary).
>Give me explanations and calculations.
You just have to scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find a link to their methodology and sources.
longroom.com/polls/methodology/

Shills out in full force eh?

longroom.com/polls/methodology/
longroom.com/polls/methodology/
longroom.com/polls/methodology/
longroom.com/polls/methodology/

Even provides sources at bottom of the page :^)

Look, seriously, I'm not a shill. I'm just saying, I will personally not post this or try to use it as a source, just as I wouldn't use a blatantly right leaning news website as a source, only because there is no way to use that in an arguement with someone because they go "Nice source you have there!" As fucked up as the media really is, there are some gems out there in "trustworthy" sources that you can still use.

I'm just saying, you can use this because it truly probably gives a better idea of what the polls look like, but if you show this to a normie they're going to laugh you back into your basement.

A good way to try to show the skewed polls is this

1. Show the polls

2. Show a news source talking about how they sample percentages of dems and republicans

3. Show another source showing how many more republicans voted in primaries

4. That will show how fucked their polling is because the GOP will have a much better turn out

See, that's a better way to put it, and you can link them to news sources like CNN and shit that they really trust. There's no way out of that arguement

True you caught me the word scam was too strongly worded. My fault.

There is no methodology or sources. It literally says, we do some calculations and can come to the conclusiom that it is biased somewhat

It took me about two minutes to find sources

>longroom.com/polls/methodology/
I'm looking at it, but they don't offer any explanation as to how they unbias it. You could argue that they're just using 20/20 hindsight. HOW do they look at the polls and make them un biased.

You don't understand the difference between a political blog meant for the general public and an academic journal article that your college professors make you read. It is not at all normal for them to go into that kind of detail in this kind of format.

And that's good! It's easy to shove that in peoples faces. I'm just saying they won't take you seriously if you use a website like the OP. As much as you might hate CNN or whatever, other people trust it, so the more MSM sources you can use to prove your own point, the better.

That's why drudge is so powerful, you can create a narrative from your enemies narrative

Not a shill.

Read your page.

The LongRoom Polling Analysis uses the latest voting data from each state's Secretary of State or Election Division. The voting data is kept current by incorporating the latest updates from each state as they become available. This means that the LongRoom Polling Analysis accurately reflects the actual voting demographics, precinct by precinct, county by county, and state by state.

Because the LongRoom Polling Analysis is exclusively data based, it makes it possible to demonstrate from the crosstabs of an individual poll whether that poll is either left or right leaning.

The analysis of the polls of each polling organization and the associated bias is illustrated in a line chart. The most recent poll results are displayed separately and a graphic representation of the amount the poll leans either left or right is shown.

0 comparisons, 0 numbers.

I could pluck bias numbers out of my arse. Would you believe me? Where did the +7.1 cnn bias part come from? It literally just says it.

The way it explains it is pretty vague. There's just data on voter registration, there is no methodology or how the math was conducted.

Plus, if you look at the website's articles, you could see that there's nothing but pro-trump articles. Doesn't seem very unbiased to me.

Holy fuck just listen!

NORMAL PEOPLE WON'T TRUST IT!

What's the point in showing this to people if they don't believe what it says?

They dont give any proof. Im not asking for an essay. Just some basic numbers and calculations. You dont have to write reams to show how you came to the conclusion that cnn is + 7.1 biased for shillary. It only requires 1 paragraph or so.

Literally first paragraph, they take the actual demographics reported by the state and cross reference them with the polls conducted by the media and "Bias Percentage" is calculated as some sort of error value.

>As much as you might hate CNN or whatever, other people trust it,

People don't trust CNN - trust in the mainstream media is at an all time low, with only 6% of the public having a lot of trust in the media - but poll adjustment is nothing new. Even left-leaning Nate Silver adjusts polls before using them in his models. Yes, that includes CNN's "trusted" polls.

that actually doesnt describe their actual methodology.

0.04 corrections have been added to your record.

Are you guys retarded or something?

Someone asks how valid a source is and you idiots spout out "SHILL SHILL KEK SHILL" the same way a leftist would call someone a racist. I appreciate some people on here are actually contributing to the conversation, but not everyone who is critical of something is opposed to it, but might want to examine its validity.

> (You)
Ya but what the hell is the longroom? I've never even seen a shill on facebook reference it, this is the first i've ever heard of them

They BACKTESTED their methods on previous elections. If they had predicted them within 0.3% at the time, they would be famous now.

What they do is project the results within poll demographics onto actual partisan demographics within the USA. The actuals are known. Democrats outnumber Republicans, but not by as much as in most of the poll samples. Also, Independents are consistently undersampled very heavily. All longroom does is project onto actual USA demographics.

I get that you're sceptical but this is a pretty sound methodology.

Okay, Trust might have been the wrong word. But democrats will still use them as sources, otherwise, they have nothing left except snopes and buzzfeed. I'm just saying to use their own tools against them

How is the bias error calculated? I want to know that.

Do they also correct the numbers according to how many people vote in the primaries? I just wonder if that's a way to tie into it as well?

So email them and ask for further detail. Don't yell at me because you think political blogs should be academic journal articles.

What you consider to be "proof" is actually irrelevant. The little explanation they give explains perfectly how they arrived at the 7.1 CNN bias for Democrats. Maybe you should read it again.

If you can't understand the explanation they gave, there, there is no guarantee that it would be any more comprehensible to you if they went into further detail.

Fivethirtyeight.com is a perfect example.
>fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
Silver goes into a lot of detail about his methodology - literally pages upon pages - but, in the end, he doesn't give his calculations for every single poll. He's just explaining how he handles the data. I would consider this to be equivalent to the much shorter explanation given on the longroom website.

There is a first for everything.

I'm a fucking trump supporter and this page looks shady as shit, also I've never heard of it before.

Backtesting doesn't prove anything

I actually BELIEVE that Trump still leads , simply because I don't trust the MSM but i'm very sceptical of this page

Based on how much they overpoll the democratic side.


Since it's not hard to get the numbers of each they'll polling.


>Looks like their polling more democrats than republicans in this poll
>Now we'll just use SIMPLE MATHEMATICS to get a percentage of bias as a result
>HURRDURR

No shit, it's literally only being pushed by delusional Trumptards.

Do you actually have any background in conducting opinion polls or are you just armchair philosophizing?

>these baked polls aren't legitimate like my baked polls!

you faggots will NEVER get past the fact that your shitty little opinion polls are slanted 40% democrat 30% republican

I'm not saying that they need to explain to me their methodology. I'm saying that they are not recognizable enough for people to take it seriously. Maybe next time around people might listen

>longroom.com is a scam

If you can't tell this from reading their methodology page, then you're a fucking idiot anyway.

longroom.com/polls/methodology/

One mistake with the model is that they confuse registered party members with self-identified members.

Self-identified and leaning party members always change based on the news cycle or how unpopular a candidate is.

Its pretty dumb though because the traffic they get is pretty non existent.

I do understand what longroom say. I just want them to elaborate on it. You reference silver's methodology. If longroom did such an extensive explanation i would have no suspicion.

I am just saying that Backtesting does not prove a thing, because without seeing their methodology, they could just have tried until they got the "right" result

It's not what you think or how you percieve this page. It's how normal people will.

They'll look at the polls and think "wow, this is very different from other polls I've seen, let me look at this website a little bit more" Then they'll click around and see that all they talk about is Trump and it will be automatically discredited in their minds

>u
>lol
>i'm not a shill I swear

To be fair before this election cycle the media bias hasn't really been a problem.

From this post, we have created more traffic on longroom.com than there was the past 4 years.

>. You reference silver's methodology. If longroom did such an extensive explanation i would have no suspicion.
You missed my point. By referencing Silver's long explanation of his methodology, I'm showing how it's possible to blather on for pages but still avoid giving comprehensible, concrete details.

>they could just have tried until they got the "right" result
How would that work? I am having a hard time thinking of how their methodology could come up with anything but a single result.

Why don't we just create our own polling metrics?

If we've identified all the inherent biases within mainstream media's polling numbers we should be able to take the raw data, remove said bias, and get actual poll results.

There's got to be a few nerd anons with enough coffee in their blood to do some work on this, right?

How new can you get?

Are you fucking serious? The media has been biased for years and years. The only reason Bill Clinton was impeached is because of FRINGE journalists like Matt Drudge and publications like the National Enquirer reporting on the stories that were too "far-right" for the mainstream media.

>implying longroom.com even existed before it appeared in 2016 as a pro-Trump website

I was more referring to polls (An example being the Brexit ones). Everyone knows that media has a liberal bias

>FFS, it shows a page full of advertisement crap

you do know domain name can be transferred
right?

You saying silvers' point is not detailed??? I find it fsirly constructive and easy to understand.

I don't know. I think they stick to verified numbers, but in theory the verified numbers should reflect the primary turnout.
It's a way to verify your model. Literally the only way to prove anything is to wait until the election. A bit of speculation comes with the territory.
Self identified and leaners are measured monthly as well. Not sure how exactly longroom implements leaners.

okay NOOOW i see what you're trying to say, my autism got the best of me

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a attention divert from a Hillary shill at CTR

Somebody will research this

>This means that the LongRoom Polling Analysis accurately reflects the actual voting demographics, precinct by precinct, county by county, and state by state.

Yeah, bullshit. People are polled randomly. Polls aren't done precinct by precinct or county by county, rather, they are done state by state or nationally. There is no point to doing an analysis on this.

All I can say is that this election has for the first time clearly demonstrated to me something I had seen hints of before and should have noticed. That is that EVERY private group that comments on the election knows its all the same big game, have picked the side they want to win and will lie, cheat, steal, disinform, demoralize, rig, and shill to get the outcome that they want, within the boundaries defined by "will the public notice this and fuck us or not." Opinion polls are included, their constraints are the historical record of "wow holy shit they had X up by 15% and they lost, maybe they're full of shit." Smaller margins mean they have plausible deniability.

>longroom.com
>No web of trust ranking
Top Kek

>Don't look goy there's nothing to see here

>If it's not done my way it doesn't exist!

It doesn't have enough detail to re-create his results.

Top kek

Shills' on maximum damage control. Just kill yourselves already or embrace the inevitable Trump presidency.

I just don't see Trump even needing Longroom to begin with

i shill for him for free, as do many others, because we actually like him

see

is this the new phenomenon then?

Just as how liberals shout "racist", republicans shout "Shill"?

I support Trump so....

pretty much. if it doesnt fit into your narrative just shout shill til the other person leaves. it's the (((trump))) of tactics.

>Self identified and leaners are measured monthly as well. Not sure how exactly longroom implements leaners.

Yeah, but the leaners and self-identified come only from polls. The state data doesn't actually measure this, so I don't see how they could get it from any other source outside of polls.

>hey guys I'm hip like you too!

Shilling is not new to Sup Forums. You, however, are.

Hold on a minute. Are you telling me Sup Forums is unable to tell if a source is trustworthy or not?

I am shocked!

Been here since 2009. Longer than your ass.

It's a meme and besides, we are actually being raided with a ton of low effort shillpost or bait threads that are attempting to derail the normally productive conversation (when there's happenings at least). So replying to shills pointing them out for being shills is about the only strategy that will work. And there are newfags, gotta redpill the newfags about what's going on. It's a clusterfuck right now, really.

>why CNN is 7.1 points in favor of clinton and not another random number like 8.1?

Did you learn primary school maths?
Hillary (pollster): 52
Hillary (LR unbiased): 44.5
Trump (pollster): 43
Trump (LR unbiased): 42.6

pollster = CNN

Do I need to explain the calculation they made?

How the fuck is this a question for most of Sup Forums? If you cannot see the raw data or the methodology DISREGARD THE POLL.

You guys are just staring at nice graphs. For all we know they made the numbers up.

Seriously where the fuck do the numbers come from and how do they get there?

Bingo.

there were 63 shill threads in the catalog yesterday
SIXTY THREE

not to mention all the goddamned "how can white bois even compete" "zips dee :DDD" "really makes you think" and "Sup Forums btfo" threads that constantly appear and no one does anything about

Hillary 2016!

>For all we know they made the numbers up.
no shit, Sherlock. Its 'juggle, till Trumps slightly in front' metholodogy.

This was all fine and good, and, someone put at least half-an-hours effort in here, but.. why all the crap about 'previous elections' and 'backtested results that prove the metholodogy' - for a site that was a GD landing page till last week (or whenever) and falls over like a western film backdrop as soon as you look beyond the first screengrab.. why the previous results crap, that is/was never gonna fly.

I'm borderline retarded. Please elaborate. Spoonfeed me plz

It will be interesting to see what they have to say on the Fox poll that showed a 10pt swing for Hillary yesterday.