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.
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.
Christopher Cook
We didn't have an accurate measure of the skewing then, this site provides it for us nice and clear as day.
Kek wills it. I'll sacrafice one of my coworkers tomorrow to the Kek for more meme magic.
Jason Johnson
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.
Matthew Cox
>leaf post
Oliver Stewart
>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.
Connor White
He is pleased with this offering, it shall be done!
Adrian Ramirez
If they weren't making the tens of thousands from Hillary I'd actually believe them. Once again, Read the methodology before you shill.
Josiah Morales
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.
Adrian Martinez
>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
Xavier Brown
You need to be WOKE user
Daniel Watson
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.
Easton Parker
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?
Nicholas Peterson
...
Nathan Long
Those aren't trend lines, did you make it past elementary school math?
Adrian Butler
Rightards in denial...again.
Jaxon Evans
Are you trying to tell me that Main stream massively liberal sided media is biased?
Nicholas Perez
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.
Cameron Collins
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.
Jayden Bell
Related:
Jose Myers
>Mathematicians? We don't need any mathematicians! Math has (((liberal))) bias!
Wyatt Butler
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.
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.
Tyler Peterson
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.
Levi Ward
Why would you need mathematicians to conduct a poll?
Asher Peterson
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.
Juan Smith
Yes they are. That doesn't that trend lines mean dick In polls.
Luis Kelly
Yes they are. That doesn't mean that trend lines mean dick In polls.
Xavier Perez
Already linked the methodology page. Good try though leaf.
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.
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.
Charles Jones
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.
Owen Howard
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.
John Thompson
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.
Connor Anderson
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.
Anthony Parker
There you have it guys... this is the problem...
Caleb Flores
wow thats SAD your move trumpets
Lincoln Murphy
>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.
Eli Gray
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.
Alexander Murphy
great site, also here's a pastebin with all the articles of poll shenanigan's we've discovered so far:
If have any more that I missed, reply to this post
Owen Moore
*their
Daniel Nelson
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.
Sebastian Gutierrez
>unbiased/unrigged
keep it up
Colton Diaz
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.
Hunter Foster
Obama was goading Republican elected officials to withdraw their endorsements of Trump.
Brayden White
Trump's odds were half that number earlier today. As with every other time hillbillies counted him out, he just comes back stronger.
Check.
Samuel Carter
...
Justin Peterson
"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.
Nicholas Rivera
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.
Eli Rogers
Awesome! I guess I don't even have to vote now. MAGA!
Julian Long
The website actually tracked the past several presidential elections with a 0.3% margin, using the same unskewing methodology.
Kevin Evans
>I never went past high school math
Jason Baker
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
Benjamin Green
Sounds questionable. No github or anything advertising their code for pulling in polling data?
Luis Rivera
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.
Angel Allen
>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
Jose Perez
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%)
Lucas Cooper
[citation needed]
Cameron Reed
This website seems legit user,trumps lead is small at best.
Gavin King
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.
Blake Morales
Trump is gonna get his orange ass kicked by a woman so badly he will have to legally change his name to Donna Frump.
Gavin King
>This website seems legit
Carson Hall
You must be kidding. Polling companies hire staticians. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Dominic Cox
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).
Isaac Scott
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
Jacob Taylor
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.
Nathan Garcia
Ah.
Michael Reed
Wow! This really fired neurons in my brain placing me in a pensive state!
The Fox poll yesterday had Clinton up 10 points, dude.
Tyler Long
Nate Silver is the absolute worst
Benjamin Murphy
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.
Samuel Myers
I'm snooping trying to do some superficial Doxing.
Chase Adams
i want to put my dick in it.
Dominic Sullivan
...
Dylan Morris
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.
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.
Dylan Jenkins
fiddling with the model to make it match known data isn't all that exciting though. this is the first live run.
Juan Miller
>Fox is pro-Trump Nope. Trty again. >Fox is unbiased AHAHAHAHAHA
Nathaniel White
Also shows why Hillarys winning in those polls, and if you subtract the game boost in about every poll Trumps winning or damn close.
Liam Bell
Fake boost*
Joseph Morris
RCP polls more Democrats and FiveThirtyEights founder, Nate Silver, is biased against Trump. Don't be a fucking retard.
Camden Phillips
His projections always showed Trump winning. The editorials were mostly about his belief that he is not getting it right. But he did.
Adrian Cruz
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.
