28-28

gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Reminder that the polls are always oversampling Democrats despite the two parties being roughly the same size. Ignore the shills and quit panicking like retards. Trump is going to take this in a landslide.

Other urls found in this thread:

answers.com/Q/Are_there_more_registered_democrats_or_republicans
ncsl.org/documents/Elections/Primary_Types_Table_2016.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

the other day I was telling my friend this and he said that they do this because democrats go out and vote more

is that even true? I honestly feel like he makes shit up when I bring up valid points sometimes

Trump has 70% support among 33% dems/republicans/independent and Hillary has only 20%.

Spread the fuck out of this and expose the bullshit polls as meaningless and from corrupt institutions.

Your friend is full of shit, dems have record low turnout and republicans are up like 60%, a record high.

If anything it should be skewing it in favor the other way.

That's definitely bullshit. It might have been true for Obama but not in general and certainly not on this matchup. Hillary is going to draw record low turnout even with all of the media's lies.

As far as I remember, Democrats had a high turnout for the Obama election, because he was the guy who was supposed to fix everything and Yes We Can and all that shit. But that was an anomaly, not the norm.

Going by the primaries for both parties this time around, it could very well be the opposite, with a record amount of Republicans voting.

OP here, saving my phone thread from my laptop. I'm going to get on Real Clear Politics and calculate the results based on even demographics. It's going to be slow especially since I just got home from work and I'm burned out but I welcome anyone competent with math to join me. Shouldn't be hard. Post poll date, source (CNN, Reuters, etc) and before/after results. Let's spread this and destroy the shills.

Okay so I did some math. Unfortunately, the poll doesn't seem to note anywhere how many Rs are for Hilldog and how many Ds are for Trump. We all know Trump would win that ratio though but still, let's look at the poll without that data:

79% of Rs were for Trump, 90% of Dems for Hillary, 32% Independents for Trump, 30% of them for Hillary. 53% of the voters polled were women and 47% were men. Factor all of that together and...

Trump:
R=(.79)(.28)=22.12
I=(.32)(.42)=13.44
D=?
Total=35.66

Hillary:
R=?
I=(.3)(.42)=12.6
D=(.9)(.28)=25.2
Total=37.8

So before factoring in gender, she's up 2.14%. It was just 13% if you were paying attention. Now let's see what happens when you assume gender is a non-factor (50/50):

Trump=35.66(1/(.47*2))=37.94
Hillary=37.8(1/.53*2))=35.66

WAH-WAH-WEE-WAH!

>roughly the same size
Bullshit

Did you open the link you fucking retard? The parties are the same size. Proof is right there.

Next I'm going to do the Fox News poll from last Wednesday. It's loading horribly slow on my shitty laptop but so far I already see the sampling error for Democrats is half that of Independents and significantly smaller than that of the Republicans meaning they took a much larger sample of Democrats than Republicans and Independents as well. If you've been following along, you can probably guess what I'm going to find there but give me a few minutes to calculate.

Fox News (8/3):

They don't show exact sampling numbers beyond the MoEs for each subgroup so we're shit out of luck there. Fortunately, there's still a lot of data to go on.

Trump lost this one 49 to 39, just for the record.

Support by percentage:
Trump=78% R, 5% D, 41% I
Hillary= 12% R, 87% D, 33% I

Apply the 28-28-42 distribution and...

Trump= .78(28)+.05(28)+.41(42)=40.46
Hillary= .12(28)+.87(28)+.33(42)=41.58

Again, it's within the margin of error. They have no raw gender stats besides the fact that male and female both have an error rate of 7% so we can call it a wash. The margin of error in this poll? THREE PERCENT.

>being roughly the same size

Hahaha oh god my sides

Thanks for bumping my thread, Correct the Record. :)

Oh I'll bump this delusion all day

>delusion
>actual, correctly represented statistics
Pick one, Sgt fgt.

>it's only correct if they sample democrats and republicans exactly the same!
>just look at the primary turnout :((((

Kys. Statisticians know more about their job then you. Were you here in 2012?

What is the normal sample size for the MSM polls? I imagine it is between 100-1000

31 million primary votes for the Rs, 29.9 million for the Ds. You were saying?

Typically on the high side of that, generally closer to 1000. Some are in the multiple thousands and some are more like 700. You can review all of the numbers on Real Clear Politics. They show all of the polls by date and MoE, sample size, %s, etc. If you click on the name of the polling group, it'll take you to their shitty page of bullshit where they detail how they sampled.

I was saying that there is no correlation to primary turnout and general turnout.

Especially when your candidate is a bumbling idiot who his own party doesn't want to vote for, to the point that they got an independent conservative to run.

Hahaha

Funny because he set a record for number of votes in a Republican primary despite having 16 opponents. Republican primary voting was up 60% while Democrap was down 21%, I think it was, from 4 years ago. You're absolutely wrong even though I know you're just doing this for trolling purposes and
>$0.05
Still, I appreciate all of your bumps. I want more people to see these stats because they don't lie. We all know the polls are rigged but I'm SHOWING you how they are.

How are you showing me the polls are wrong?

In 2012 they based the "MUH SKEWED POLLS" off of the fact that dems don't vote in midterms, and they got BTFO when dems came to vote in the general.

In 2016, it's "MUH SKEWED POLLS" based off of the fact dems don't vote in primaries, and they're getting BTFO in polls and the resulting election.

Your tears will sustain me for eternity

I was wondering if the over sampling was due to there simply being more registered dems vs. republicans, so i did a really quick search and found this to be interesting:

answers.com/Q/Are_there_more_registered_democrats_or_republicans
>Thirty States in the USA require some kind of party affiliation (or non-affiliation) as a part of their voter registration system. So if you are looking for "registered Democrats or Republicans" you are limited to those 30 states and can't look in 20 states that do not require registration

>If you are looking for the number of people who "consider" themselves as Democrat or Republican you can look to statistically significant surveys, such as the Rasmussen survey. Rasmussen reported 35.4% reported themselves as Republican and 32.7% reporting themselves as Democrats. 32.4% said they were "Independent." This polling asks 15,000 Americans to report their affiliation. This may seem like a few, but it is a very good number over all for determining the breakdown nationally.

So this does seem to indicate that the overall breakdown is roughly split in thirds on an aggregate level, but I didn't know previously that so many states require a party declaration or register as independent in order to vote.

(cont)

Also Clinton received more votes than trump
>MUH 16 candidates!!

Yea and only 3 received actual significant numbers of votes, and the runner up hates trump and so do a lot of his voters.

This election is the opposite of those two. The narrative has been either "vote for X" or "vote against X". In 2008 and 2012, X was Obama. No one cared about Romney or McCain. This time, it's Trump and no one gives a shit about Hillary. Get ready to watch her get beaten so hard that she has a seizure in front of the nation at that first debate, gay boy. You can't stop it no matter how much you "lol trollzzzz" us.

This might be true for Presidential years, but Dems usually underperform mid-term elections because their minority/youth voter blocks stay home. Only time this didn't hold true in recent memory was the 2006 landslide into the House due to Bush fucking up badly.

Here's where the kicker comes in:

>There are several other major polls (Pew and Gallop, to name a few), which show slightly different numbers indicating a Democratic advantage, but, over time, the longer-term trend for a decade has been for more people to identify as Independent (now almost 40%) than either Democrat or Republican (both which vay from about 25 to 35%, depending on the year and poll). However, if the question includes "leaners" (self-identified Independents who usually vote for one party), the percentages change significantly. Democrats consistently have about 50%, while Republicans muster a variable 35-45%, looking at data from the past decade.

What this seems to indicate is that by focusing on only registered democrats and republicans, then the oversampling of democrats comes from the tendency of more independents to lean democrat. So of course if you over sample democrats in order to "correct" for independent leaning, then of course the poll is going to be more favorable toward democrats due to party retention.

Meanwhile, Hillary actually had to cheat to beat her only competitor and most of his supporters are pissed now that it's been proven. Cruz alienated himself and looked like a faggot at the RNC Convention while we got Pence to pick up all of that supposedly lost support. Hillary did nothing to win over the Bernie people. Every single one I know converted to Trump or Stein. You're hearing only the narrative being fed to you and not reality. She is fucked.

That was why I linked the Gallup poll at the top. That's for nationwide stats and it shows Dems and Reps split at 28% with independents being 42% (2% other). Trump is running away with the independent vote and he's going to easily draw more people than her to the polls on November 8th. It'll be a bloodbath.

Yes yes, very well shill, very well...

HOWEVER

>disprove poll numbers
>argument is posting the same poll numbers
It's like you're not even trying...

>he thinks a significant amount of bernouts went over to trump/stein/Johnson and not Clinton despite statistical evidence

>disprove poll numbers

still can't get over that big ass gash on his face

Oh, right, you didn't bother to read the thread. Keep bumping though.

Absolutely. Keep shilling

I thought this was interesting:
ncsl.org/documents/Elections/Primary_Types_Table_2016.pdf

>States with closed primaries (must be a registered party member to vote in a primary election):
Delaware, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, Kentucky, New York, Maryland, Oregon

>States with partially closed primaries (parties can choose whether to allow or disallow non party members from voting in a primary
Alaska, Oklahoma, Connecticut, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, North Carolina

>States with partially open primaries (Voters must choose a party ballot, but do not have to be registered member of the party. Ballot is defacto registration)
Illinois, Tennessee, Indiana, Wyoming, Iowa, Ohio

>States open or unaffiliated voters (only restriction is that registered party members cannot vote in other party's primary)
Arizona, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Kansas, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island

>States with open primaries (Voters can choose whomever they want without restriction. Must be a registered voter is the only requirement)
Alabama, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, Arkansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Missouri, Texas

>States with "Top-Two" format. No party registration needed.
California, Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington

bump to remind the shills they're trying to convince a crowd of skeptics that their candidate of choice isn't suspicious in any way whatsoever

It would be really nice if we could reliably look at how voter affiliation looks specifically in the swing states but goddamn that sounds like way too much effort for me right now. Besides, a lot will change in three months. I fully expect her to be trailing everywhere after the debate curb-stomping she's sure to get.

this kind of delusion is one of those rare treasures that comes out of this kind of election cycle. it is inspiring to behold friends

Okay

They're truly a gem. The likes of which we see only a couple times a decade. Take it in

Or if she sustains a stress induced psychotic breakdown or seizure on stage during the debate which now seems very possible.

Nah. They're doing this so when they rig the voting machines people have numbers to point at when the questions start coming.

If anything, over sampling like this would make leas demos show up because they don't see a dire need. Realistically, they have so much confidence in the vote rigging they don't give a shit.

As someone stated earlier, this is the tactic: oversample now, create this narrative that she's going to win in a tidalwave, get her as much bandwagon support as possible, then slowly push the numbers closer to 50/50 as the election nears to garner her the support of people scared she could potentially lose once they've already committed to siding with her. It's pretty sick but it makes sense.

I'm seeing a lot of shit tier methodology in a lot of these national polls. The RCP average is obviously an average of all polls, but the methodology is all over the fucking place, and it is not just oversampling. For example, CNN/Opinion Research have Clinton +24. Huh? Turns out that they went out of their way to make sure that roughly 30% of all respondents were black. That may fly in some states with heavy black populations, but nationwide?

When you start to factor all these bizarre outcomes and methodologies, I'm surprised that Turmp is as close as he is when you average it all out.