CTR & SHILLS ON SUICIDE WATCH

One of the few unbiased/unrigged polls out there and TRUMP IS IN THE LEAD! Bonus, it shows how fucked news outlets like CNN are with their polls giving Shillary a 7.1% fake boost. THE BEST PART, EVEN WITH THE FAKE BOOSTS TRUMPS BARELY BEHIND IN THEIR POLLS! Can't wait till they are forced to accept PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP!

>inb4 hurdur same site said Romney would win in 2012
Sites only a year old, try again shill
>inb4 b-b-but its j-just one poll!
It's the one of few accurate polls out there, feel free to subtract the fake boosts given to Shillary on listed sites then see how close it really is.

Other urls found in this thread:

longroom.com/polls/methodology/
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_line_(technical_analysis)
theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/28/beware-the-predictable-polling-onslaught-to-paint-the-potemkin-village/
fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
pastebin.com/xhjXJHHg
longroom.com/polls/
blog.dilbert.com/post/148413098031/clinton-takes-the-persuasion-lead
salon.com/2012/09/25/the_website_where_mitt_romneys_winning_in_a_landslide/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

DELET TTHIS

>unskew the polls
How did that work out in 2012?

WTF DELETE THIS NOW

Also Shills, if your having trouble tying the rope to hang yourselves, there's a neat little .GIF just above the announcement bar that will help you out, its even blue so you know its for you.

We didn't have an accurate measure of the skewing then, this site provides it for us nice and clear as day.

DELETE THIS

What is the system to measure skew?

Here ya go, says it all here

longroom.com/polls/methodology/

Also
>unbiased

Read the methodology page, it really is unbiased.

Kek wills it.
I'll sacrafice one of my coworkers tomorrow to the Kek for more meme magic.

The site )or at least the organization) is more than a year old. Right here on this page it shows their predictions for 2012, 2008, and 2004. They were correct on all, though.

>leaf post

>muh unskewed polls

New site, same old bullshit. Because some random site knows better than the polling firms who make tens of thousands of dollars to conduct these polls for the media outlets.

He is pleased with this offering, it shall be done!

If they weren't making the tens of thousands from Hillary I'd actually believe them. Once again, Read the methodology before you shill.

I am somewhat pleased with their description of the methodology, but I would prefer a step by step. I do believe it's more accurate as it draws from data from lots of polls and weights it according to county population and party data, but any site that openly shows its political bias like that shouldn't be considered the end all be all of polling.

>trump does well in polls
LOOK AT THESE LEGIT SOURCES, WE'RE WINNING

>trump does shit
lmao shills shills bought out rigged polls biased sources

fucking manchildren

You need to be WOKE user

I see it as mode of one writers opinion rather than the whole conglomerates, but I feel it's solid, they could say Trumps 20 points up if they wanted like everywhere else does with Clinton. But they just show what the data shows them. A 0.9% lead for Trump.

What is interesting is that public polling at the time showed remain with a solid lead in the Brexit referendum, yet a few days before the vote the prime minister went on TV and literally begged people not to vote leave. The other day we saw Obama go on TV and beg people not to vote Trump, something a sitting president has not done before. Does it mean that internal polling is showing Trump in the lead while public polls are intentionally biased?

...

Those aren't trend lines, did you make it past elementary school math?

Rightards in denial...again.

Are you trying to tell me that Main stream massively liberal sided media is biased?

Called it. Read the methodology bro. Not some Trumphumping fan site, takes the bullshit straight out of the polling for theirs and shows the bullshit of everyone else's with firm sound logic.

No, I'm trying to show you how biased they actually are, we all knew they were biased, but not by how much till now.

Related:

>Mathematicians? We don't need any mathematicians! Math has (((liberal))) bias!

They just pick and choose which polls to include and their media bias seems to be completely made up.
Their so-called historical proofs are just made-up, they have no sources, no data, and they just add in a random small error towards the end to say "SEE WE WERE RIGHT!" without seeming like it's complete bullshit because they were within 0.5% or something like that.

Besides, 538 already corrects for likely voter biases in polls
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
You can see it in their chart at the bottom

>the poll that mirrors the exact thing all the MSM news outlets are showing in their polls is unbaised and better

You tried

I can't see this and take anything they say seriously.
Methodology is more than likely far from the truth.

The Wikipedia page for trend lines shows the exact same kind of lines being drawn.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_line_(technical_analysis)

But you can watch CNN and all that and believe there polls. One writers opinion not the whole teams on the news site. I guarentee the person who wrote those didn't do the polls.

There's websites that give so called "unbiased" poll numbers all the time.
Where's the method in how they determine bias? Why are they neglecting so many polls as well? They have no methodology or reason behind anything they are doing. They're manipulating data to fit their opinion.

Why would you need mathematicians to conduct a poll?

But I don't watch CNN at all.
Or any mainstream media for that matter, I look at polls from RCP And 538 and digest the polls they use for averages individually, and I veiw them through a lens of incredulity.
Fuck off faggot.

Yes they are.
That doesn't that trend lines mean dick In polls.

Yes they are.
That doesn't mean that trend lines mean dick In polls.

Already linked the methodology page. Good try though leaf.

She was predicted.

theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/28/beware-the-predictable-polling-onslaught-to-paint-the-potemkin-village/

Their methodology page has nothing about their methodology though lol
Sure they cited all 50 states voter database records, wow what great research. But they don't give an explanation for anything else. There's no explanation of what they mean by media bias, they don't explain how they calculate it, they don't explain why they choose certain polls over others, they don't explain poll weighting, they don't explain why they might take one reuters poll but not another. It's data manipulation.

Compare it to 538's page, which you can essentially personally reconstruct their entire source code based off their description
fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

If they're going to try to do statistics at least maybe hire a statistician as well.

This board sure is talking about Crash Team Racing alot.

>theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/28/beware-the-predictable-polling-onslaught-to-paint-the-potemkin-village/
Good read.

The fact that most polls have "suddenly" changed their polling methods just adds to this ridiculousness. Pollsters are now counting democrat votes as 106%, 18-34 year olds are now excluded, third party candidates are no longer choices, etc.. And that's just what we know about. God knows if they're just hand mashing votes into the Hillary pile for ease of effort.

Regardless of model, the simple reality is: garbage in, garbage out.

You have to take it on faith that they haven't artificially inflated or skewed one candidate or the other.

I think their plan for skewing the polls is retarded. Trump voters aren't going to be disheartened by bad polls, they'll be more likely to vote for him. My guess is that by the time November comes about the polls will be so skewed that if Trump wins they'll say the vote was rigged in his favor, using rigged polls as a source.

FiveThirtyEight shows this...

They're pretty credible, aren't they?

Please don't just come up with some lame reason as to why they're non-credible, solely because they have Trump losing.

Trump intentionally didn't want to hire pollsters so if he bitches about media biases it's his own damn fault.
The democrats collect huge swaths of statistics and hire lots of pollsters. It's beneficial since they can better calculate campaign attacks against Trump. Chances are Clinton conducts focus groups, polling, etc. before every little thing she says whereas Trump just does it and hopes for the best. So of course his numbers are going to be volatile.
Clintons will generally never go down based on what she says since they have statistics backing up every move she makes. The only way her numbers will go down are events out of the parties control.

There you have it guys... this is the problem...

wow thats SAD
your move trumpets

>Clintons will generally never go down based on what she says since they have statistics backing up every move she makes.
Which is largely the reason why Trump hasn't invested the same type of money & effort into such things. His voter base appreciates he doesn't give a fuck what's socially trendy, and that he speaks from a place of honest commitment.

To be fair, he's right. If they're intention is to "remove bias" from polls, someone with a basic knowledge in statistics, which could be a CS major; would have enough background knowledge to conduct an accurate study of polls.

great site, also here's a pastebin with all the articles of poll shenanigan's we've discovered so far:

pastebin.com/xhjXJHHg

If have any more that I missed, reply to this post

*their

Which worked in the primaries and now he has no statistics supporting that statement because he hasn't hired anyone to collect such data. From what has been seen it's not working.
He's flying blind basically. He only knows what his core group of voters want and nothing else because he refuses to figure out what everyone else wants.

>unbiased/unrigged

keep it up

They're doing some crazy shit to calculate "Polling bias" yet unless they're doing these calculations with a statistician who takes into account various averages and deviations, I can't see why there should be any trust in their readings.

Obama was goading Republican elected officials to withdraw their endorsements of Trump.

Trump's odds were half that number earlier today. As with every other time hillbillies counted him out, he just comes back stronger.

Check.

...

"What everyone else" wants doesn't matter. They don't want anything. They just want to hear niceties. Their lives won't change an iota regardless of whether Trump or Hillary are in the white house. The people that are heavy in either camp have serious skin in the game.

As for the current state of polls, it's hard to say whether they're legitimate or not. Whether they're a response to Trump's comments, or whether they're used as another political chess piece to destroy morale.

Clinton barely won her own primary with all the "stastics" and "research" backing up her talking points. And even then it took massive collusion with media and the DNC. Collusion that is now leaked and public information.

Lel, good luck getting Bernie voters to vote for her.

Awesome! I guess I don't even have to vote now. MAGA!

The website actually tracked the past several presidential elections with a 0.3% margin, using the same unskewing methodology.

>I never went past high school math

I don't believe this is accurate, I mean who even owns "LONG ROOM"? Is it done by the Media or just some dudes in a basement

Sounds questionable. No github or anything advertising their code for pulling in polling data?

Do you truly think there is no statistical analysis in polling ? Do you believe it's just some magic numbers pulled from a hat all added together.

>Trump is in the lead
>It's an average of polls
>ignores +10, +15, and +9 polls that all came out in the past couple day
Not to mention
>Fox is left biased according to this site

You're probably referring to their Now-Cast which had him at 8%. It's still 8% now. That's for who would win if the election was today.

The previous one I posted was the Polls-Only forecast (20.1%)

[citation needed]

This website seems legit user,trumps lead is small at best.

Both Bernie and Clinton used pollsters and statisticians quite a bit actually. They are on fairly level ground in that regards, perhaps Bernie less so due to less funding of course.
Republicans have always lagged in collecting statistics due to various funding and hiring issues, which always hurts them every election, and now Trump is just putting the nail in the coffin and refused to hire pollsters. He did inevitably cave and hire just one single person though. I believe hillary has like hundreds of statisticians and pollsters though. Republicans were supposed to be working toward competing with the Democrats, not committing suicide. Trump is literally the first candidate ever in history to actively speak out against statistics.

Trump is gonna get his orange ass kicked by a woman so badly he will have to legally change his name to Donna Frump.

>This website seems legit

You must be kidding. Polling companies hire staticians. Why are you pretending otherwise?

This is something Sup Forums can work on. What do the effeminate, delusional faggots on the left actually want? Gibmedats of course. But what from a president?

Maybe the only way to push Trump toward those people is to point out the gross corruption of Clinton, make the point she will NEVER live up to any commitments she made to Bernie about shifting the Democrat's platform, her long held desire to pass TPP.

I have heard several democrats say they really hate Clinton but feel Trump would start WWIII (even though last week they thought he was in the pocket of Putin).

FiveThirtyEight already was caught straight-up making up numbers against Trump during the primaries

Even the more credible pollsters are skewing against Trump now, I guess they think they're justified because 'he's a fascist!!!1' or whatever, we've already been through a round of the media insisting Trump is finished until he won

Don't mind if I look at the polls-plus forecast and observe Clinton's leads in North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire that could be blown away by a light breeze.

Ah.

Wow! This really fired neurons in my brain placing me in a pensive state!

longroom.com/polls/

The Fox poll yesterday had Clinton up 10 points, dude.

Nate Silver is the absolute worst

Polling companies make their money on predictive models. They hire more than statisticians, they hire people that specialize in AI and machine learning.

This company seems interested in taking known polling data and "de-skewing" it. This could be something as simple as taking raw polling data, and applying no predictive model. Which gives us a representation of polling data as it is today. Or it could mean something else. I don't know, as far as I know they don't publish their methods as open-source material.

I'm snooping trying to do some superficial Doxing.

i want to put my dick in it.

...

Everybody panics (if they're a Trumpet) and gloats (if they're a reptilian Hillary supporting Hebe monster) every time this happens.

If he's still getting the same results in two weeks then I'd be concerned.

For now, listen to le Dilbert Man:

>In related news, Trump’s comment on Mrs. Khan’s silence at the Democratic convention made the country go nuts for a week. On the surface, it looked like a terrible week for Trump, as team Clinton successfully framed his comment about Islam and gender into something about their son, which it wasn’t. In the long run, you’ll forget Trump’s insult. But you will never forget the optics of Mrs. Khan deferring to her husband on stage. Short term, Trump got slaughtered on that issue. Long term, Trump has enough credibility with veterans that it won’t matter any more than the McCain joke did.

>But you won’t forget the visual of the Khans on stage, and the husband looking in charge. That will stick with you. It was a gutsy persuasion play from Trump, but we will never know if it worked. My best guess is that the whole situation is just a bump in a long road.

blog.dilbert.com/post/148413098031/clinton-takes-the-persuasion-lead

>"Predictive models influenced by influx of mentions of Hillary supporters on twitter"
Watch the news for this one.

>99% of polls show hillary winning
>find one that shows trump barely ahead, not even by more than an acceptable margin of error
>HAHA! BTFO SHILLS!

It's basically clickbait shit to reap advertising money. It occurred during 2012 election with Romney as well.
salon.com/2012/09/25/the_website_where_mitt_romneys_winning_in_a_landslide/

If you make a bunch of fancy graphs, make the data skewing look like it's legit statistics, and provide just enough information that your average retard won't look any further into it you're guaranteed to make money.
It really wouldn't surprise me if the person that created longroom is someone from Sup Forums trying to get free advertising.

fiddling with the model to make it match known data isn't all that exciting though. this is the first live run.

>Fox is pro-Trump
Nope. Trty again.
>Fox is unbiased
AHAHAHAHAHA

Also shows why Hillarys winning in those polls, and if you subtract the game boost in about every poll Trumps winning or damn close.

Fake boost*

RCP polls more Democrats and FiveThirtyEights founder, Nate Silver, is biased against Trump. Don't be a fucking retard.

His projections always showed Trump winning. The editorials were mostly about his belief that he is not getting it right. But he did.

So many fucking idiots who can't understand the simplest of models.

1. It's not a poll, it's an aggregate just like RCP, except it has an unbiasing model applied to it.

2. The model is straightforward. It just adjusts the polling results to what they would be if the pollsters used actual real life demographics and not their fudged +10% democrats.

3. They don't claim to have "predicted" the past elections. What they did was apply their unbiasing model to past election polls and thus got the result within 0.3% accuracy.

4. This tells us that polls can be extremely accurate, within 0.3%, but only if they sample correct demographics.