S-someone please correct the record!

s-someone please correct the record!

Other urls found in this thread:

longroom.com/polls/methodology/
m.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4w73i1/should_we_trust_the_longroom_unbiased_polls/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

why exactly is this poll unbiased

The "unskewed" polls in 2012 were absolute bullshit.

..... We want Hillary to destroy Trump in the polls..... Polls aren't votes ......polls don't win elections .....the left are notoriously lazy on election day.... they will think Hillary has it in the bag....and not show up to vote......example provided: BREXIT.
Trump & our allies are the Trojan Horse.

you mean the ones that got it right?
or was that 2008, cause they got it right then too.
same for 2004, when they started doing these unskewed polls.
i wonder if CTR reads what you post and pays you if they actually work

Never heard of this poll before. Do they disclose their methodology?

yep
>longroom.com/polls/methodology/

Interesting

Shills BTFO

>rasmussen has a left leaning bias

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>inb4 ctr shill
>on a norwegian cartoon board

Sup Forumstards in denial, explain this user

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to predicate a vote for Trump on someone generally voting Republican, and ditto for Hillary and Democrats. It can't really apply in an election where both parties are pretty much at war with themselves. .

The website didn't even exist back before 2008, yet It managed to predict an election in 2004. interesting.

>Every poll shows Trump losing
>But this obscure poll I found in the corner of the internet has Trump winning so it's unbiased!

The webpage wasn't even registered in 2004, & the Internet Wayback Machine only has screenshots of the website starting in 2010. They can easily lie & say they predicted any election before 2010. Face it trump shill, you're BTFO & saged.

Gee, Thanks for Correcting The Record!

If you weren't a shill you'd know that "Norwegian" doesn't fit, you retarded dipshit.

They are showing the methodology they use applied to polls from older elections.

Nice rebuttle Trumptard

Whoa
Really makes you think

Trump by counting the delegates and votes.
>is at around 88%

they should show the bad math of the other polls so far as being non-representative. that's the graphic you want to post not some look alike people will dismiss.

this presentation is just stupid. show your work because it takes no effort to show the polls are a joke.

off by over 2% on both isn't getting it right

the data doesn't change. their same very basic adjustments still apply if they can get the data.

the website didn't exist, but the methodology they use, demographics/population densities/etc, can be brought up and applied to older polls
if there are poll numbers from the 60's, i'm sure they can take population demographics and apply their methodology to see what the bias was all the way back then

>8.4%

that's some top tier delusion there. Hillary is ahead now, that's probably true but 91.6%? That's a complete fabrication.

user this "poll" has already been found to be nearly completely shit. If your going to counter shill anything, the only predictor we have is the primary model.

It's not even one poll shill. It's literally every poll that doesn't have a selection bias

Its Nate Silver's prediction if the election was held today

Not really. Hillary winning by .5% in all the swing states, 50% of the time guarantees her near total victory in every way.

Thats it! I'm a #cruzmissile now.

except the "biased" polls in both 08 and 12 showed obama winning as well.

Can you show me their 2004 polls (not the most likely fake one they have on their website) published on a credible website in 2004?

>credible website

You mean a biased one that fits your narrative? C'mon shill, be honest for once.

A Sup Forumslack is cashing in on that ad revenue. Sup Forums is such an easy target

What exactly makes your random ass website credible?

>Poll with numbers pulled from the state

vs

>poll with numbers pull from the ass
Rly makes u think huh?

The thing with this website is that it says the polls are biased, but it doesn't even offer a source for the claims of bias.

Are you seriously going to trust this website when every article on it has a pro-trump bias?

yes, and he won. this website has an algorithm that takes polls and corrects them by compensating for over/undersampling through using the actual demographics of the counties at the time
the reason they have the 2004 presidential poll is explained andthey're just taking the polls that were already there and applying their algorithm to correct it for what the unbiased polls should have read

And your corrupt website is somehow "more" credible?

>WHAT IS BASIC MATH GUYS?

>HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE'S BIAS?

>THEY CAN'T USE DIVISION TO FIGURE OUT A PERCENTAGE OF BIAS, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
You graduated highschool, didn't you?

Speaking of bias. Go to breitbart and see if you can find an article about recent polls.

Okay. Show me a source that shows that the polls are biased.

For every single poll on the rcp averages right now.

stop dude, you're btfoing them too hard

He makes a good point though. For a website that claims to unskew biased polls; It most definitely has a pro-Trump bias. So don't we need another website to now unskew Long Room's bias?

You mean the one about Pat Caddell, the man who got Carter elected, outlines in very specific and accurate terms the manner in which Reuters have fudged their numbers by removing the 'Neither' option from their ongoing polls and retroactively allocating Neither votes in their older polls to either Clinton or Trump based on criteria they're unwilling to share with anyone? Yeah, I read that.

...

Nope, only conspiracy theories and right wing clickbait.

It's truly the HuffPost of the right

They didn't retroactively redistribute the 'neither' votes. They took out another poll using the new methodology.

LongRoom uses explanatory modeling to fit the three previous elections. Explanatory models are not predictive.

See: Global warming predictions based on explanatory models.

Of course but right wing logic doesn't go that far.

As soon as their current beliefs are validated, they move on.

I can smell the desperation from the trumptards

>when every article on it has a pro-trump bias?
There is literally zero percent chance you are not a shill. Nobody can be this out of touch with reality.

MY MODEL IS AMAZING BECAUSE I USED DIFFERENT DATA POINTS THAN SOMEONE ELSE.

Do you think pollsters just throw darts at the board? Most use data, and a combination of historical projections to create polls. Variance in polling come from the weights they place on certain factors and issues to choose their sample. Other polls have a track record and use that record to improve on their sampling. This guy just fit his technique to three elections and called it a day. Which is fucking shit. The Romney predictor machine backfit their data all the way till 1980, and still got btfo.

You can't keep denying reality. The MORE YOU DO, the more likely it is the ELECTION GOES TO HILLARY.

>longroom is the rasmussen of this year now that not even rasmussens' bias is enough to project trump winning

every election, regardless of who is up in the polls, there's always the one biased poll that projects the loser up

and I don't mean biased politically. They're polls biased by easy money. Easiest thing in the world to get shares from radiohosts and whatever side is losing by picking the loser

It's not a poll %, but a statistical chance of winning the election if it were held today.
Trump actually had a 55% chance about 10 days ago when he was ahead slightly in the polls.

Isn't that the guy who "prediction" ability was disgraced?

SHILLS ON SUICIDE WATCH

LETS SEE HOW HARD THEY TRY TO SLIDE IT

I BATHE IN YOUR NU MALE TEARS DEAR SHILLS, PLS GIVE KEK MORE REASONS TO LAUGH

538 got every primary correct except one democratic one. Similarly they've gotten 99 of 100 states correct in the last two elections.
Just ignore the opinion articles and look at the data.

This isn't even a fucking poll. It's RCP with a data correction model that they built from the past 3 elections and voter registration data.

And if they hadn't skipped several notable polls that came out recently IN ADDITION TO APPLYING THEIR MODEL. Clinton would be leading in this shit too.

THANKS FOR CORRECTING MY RECORD

>538 got every primary correct

what the fuck are you smoking? He predicted trump would lose the primaries on super Tuesday and then predicted he'd hit his ceiling 8 fucking times and said trump would never hit his delegate goal before promptly shutting the fuck up.

nope, he's the guy who expected that, despite his own predictions showing trump likely to win, the gop would still never shoot themselves in the foot and nominate trump. So his opinion isn't accurate but his statistic method is, especially in sports. I bet based on his sport predictions and make bank on it.

though even he acknowledges his predictions are just percentages. It's not that clinton will win 70% of the vote, just she has a 70% chance of winning. 30% chance of losing.

I'll give a bump

The final predictions were always correct though.
The problem was the polling, trump took time to build up steam, so early polls rated shit like yeb highly and made it look like trump had no chance initially.

his blog articles predicted his loss, but his stats predicted trump winning

although there's also that data on primary elections isn't as overall reliable as the general

>final predictions were always correct

Okay if I predict trumps going to win a state an hour after the polls close of course i'm going to be fucking right.

The fact that 538 went from 58% chance of Trump winning to 91% Clinton in like a week kind of makes the whole thing seem meaningless, if it can jump around that sporadically.

The polls a day or two before were correct. Again, the opinion blogs are shit, ignore it and look at the statistics. The statistics was sound, the opinion was shit.

or they can just make up up a number close to what it was and pretend their methodology works so that they can get clicks from pathetic trumpfaggots desperately searching for a win

He had trump up months before. You can even find his blogs where he's acknowledging his own poll system predicting trumps win but he denies it actually happening

He was very sure that the gop wouldn't let trump win.

...

He's explained this. The 'now' poll is really really volatile and just a snapshot of the moment. It, in no way, reflects the likely outcome of a race. It's mostly for poll wonks that love analyzing every little bump/decline.

I like how it's a site with no real explanation or examples of it's methedology with no proof it's existed before this election that just happens to predict every single poll in the past election - even though there's no evidence it did and no explanation how said crosstabs are wrong or don't fit in with vote registration rolls.

For all I know it could be some random retard throwing numbers onto a site to make it look reasonable and like Trump will win which he won't.

Thanks OP im screenshotting your delusion to the collection

This site is the dumbest fucking trash. Why isn't Breitbart or Hannity propping them up, if they're the only people in the universe who have data that Trump is really winning this?

>Polls are not representative guys, seriously they are just lies don't listen to them at all, except for that one time Trump goes above Hillary, then make sure to spam it non stop

To be fair, the actual trendlines aren't too far off. But that's, uh... not how trendlines work.

even trump supporters on reddit don't trust this place

m.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4w73i1/should_we_trust_the_longroom_unbiased_polls/

>I'll vote Hillary out of spite!
>I'll vote Trump out of spite!

Most wont do this though since they hate their actual opponents more than their internal struggles.

...

Well, the CNN poll didn't sample millenials and dems between 35 and 49, so that right there makes it kinda meaningless. Pic related.

And in general a lot of those polls oversample dems and undersample independents.

> →
do you really think those millenials are going to skew republican?

If CNN thought the millenials would vote Clinton, why didn't they include them to pad the numbers more?

They probbly couldn't get enought millenials to answer their landlines

these are phone polls.

It is mind-blowing that anyone thinks millenials would be voting Republican.

And republished the old polls with their fresh new slant on how voting works

>Miller: Trump, we've got some pretty bad news
>Trump: What is it?
>Miller: You're ahead too much in the polls, if this keeps up the DNC may consider pulling something sneaky or running Biden
>Trump: Hey Miller?
>Miller: Yes sir?
>Trump: Ever read The Art of War?
>Miller: No sir
>Trump: "when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
>Miller: Sir... you arent-
>Trump: Bribe the polls immediately, she mustn't know our true power.

Jesus. How does information analysis work? If you ha e a methodology and a data set you can analyze any event from any point in time. This is how you actually prove a methodology works, you look at previous out comes and use them as a control. So yes, you should be able to pull up old elections and as long as the data set used in the methodology is available for that yet you can see how the polls worked that year. Plus that should confirm for you, more or less, that the methodology isn't complete bullshit. Not saying this is 100 percent accurate, but for fucks sake think about how shit works before you yell "Lolz that not work cause date and time and shit."

It's been over a decade since I first heard your song "Smoke 2 Joints" on K-ROQ in L.A. I dug the tune but then they stoped playin' it so I've only heard it once or twice since then. We jammed the tune when Sublime hooked up in 88. I had to fake it cuz I barely remembered how it went. In the studio, we fucked w/ it and dropped some turntables on there & just generally faked it!...I was wondering if you and your brother still play live or if you are in other bands and if you still jam "reggae". Mabey we could rock out together next time we are up in Oregan... I'm looking forward to sharing some of that super Oregan green w/y'all. Sorry this letter got so long, I'm stoned to the bone at the moment. The main thing I wanted to say was thanx for being cool too about the...cover we did on 40 oz. Everybody else that we covered, or in some instances sampled, demanded mass cash or, as w/"RAW HIDE", said we strait up can't use their shit and must take it off the album or else face some funky law suit. I get the feeling that most of this publishing shit is handled by some fucker in a suit and air conditioned office. I doubt the musicians ever even know what's up. Kinda makes ya wanna just go burn the fern, eh vern? Got any? Musicians gotta stick togeather and stick it to the corporate pig useless shitbag fucks who can all suck my ass.

here is the record
the second we could feel our blood and knew that our brothers and sisters were also feeling its power for the first time is the second we won
no matter what happens we win

pic is worse case scenario, and it would actually be pretty fun

This isn't Sup Forums.....
You're all uses less corperate pig shitbag fucks who can suck my ass.
Later

im a trump supporter i shouldnt be laughing

but im still confident that he'll win, also, who would trust a site that literally confessed that they tweaked the polls and then there service in "temporarily unavailable" when trump starts getting points