ADVERTISEMENT

Study: Polls underestimate support for TRUMP

The Tradition

HB King
Apr 23, 2002
128,216
102,782
113
Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some polls may actually be understating his support, according to a new study.

The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally does better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.

Why is that, and which polls are more accurate -- the online surveys that tend to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have generally shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer?

Morning Consult ran an experiment: It polled 2,397 potential Republican voters earlier this month using three different methods -- a traditional telephone survey with live interviewers calling landlines and cellphones, an online survey and an interactive dialing technique that calls people by telephone and asks them to respond to recorded questions by hitting buttons on their phone.

By randomly assigning people to the three different approaches and running all at the same time, they hoped to eliminate factors that might cause results to vary from one poll to another.

The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Morning Consult's polling director, Kyle Dropp.

"People are slightly less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, Dropp said.

The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a bigger difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.

Social-desirability bias -- the well-known tendency of people to hesitate to confess certain unpopular views to a pollster -- provides the most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe.

Blue-collar voters don't feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities. But many college-educated Republicans hesitate to admit their attraction to the blustery New York billionaire, the experiment indicates.

That finding suggests that the online surveys, which show Trump with a larger lead, provide the more accurate measure of what people would do in the anonymity of a voting booth, Dropp said. That might not be as true, however, in a public setting such as the Iowa caucus, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors.

"It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-polls-20151221-story.html
 
No surprise that GOPers find it easier to admit they are racist bigots online than in a phone call. Just read HROT for a day and you will understand this phenomenon.

Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some polls may actually be understating his support, according to a new study.

The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally does better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.

Why is that, and which polls are more accurate -- the online surveys that tend to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have generally shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer?

Morning Consult ran an experiment: It polled 2,397 potential Republican voters earlier this month using three different methods -- a traditional telephone survey with live interviewers calling landlines and cellphones, an online survey and an interactive dialing technique that calls people by telephone and asks them to respond to recorded questions by hitting buttons on their phone.

By randomly assigning people to the three different approaches and running all at the same time, they hoped to eliminate factors that might cause results to vary from one poll to another.

The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Morning Consult's polling director, Kyle Dropp.

"People are slightly less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, Dropp said.

The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a bigger difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.

Social-desirability bias -- the well-known tendency of people to hesitate to confess certain unpopular views to a pollster -- provides the most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe.

Blue-collar voters don't feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities. But many college-educated Republicans hesitate to admit their attraction to the blustery New York billionaire, the experiment indicates.

That finding suggests that the online surveys, which show Trump with a larger lead, provide the more accurate measure of what people would do in the anonymity of a voting booth, Dropp said. That might not be as true, however, in a public setting such as the Iowa caucus, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors.

"It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-polls-20151221-story.html
 
No surprise that GOPers find it easier to admit they are racist bigots online than in a phone call. Just read HROT for a day and you will understand this phenomenon.

I don't think it is your traditional GOPers that are causing this support of Trump. The Teapublicans certainly are not in his corner (what was once considered the racist element of the party by the left), the establishment isn't supporting him, and the libertarians are not supporting him.

Trump's support is coming from slight right leaning and straight up independents and THAT has to scare the shit out of both the republicans and democrats (but more so the democrats). If he finds a way to pull back and soften his tone on his Hispanic rhetoric, good night Irene, he will run away with this thing.
 
No surprise that GOPers find it easier to admit they are racist bigots online than in a phone call. Just read HROT for a day and you will understand this phenomenon.

"Racist bigots"

Is that the only club you guys have in your bag now days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepperman
All these polls are hot garbage right now if you're trying to predict the actual election results. The sampling error is at a point where the data is essentially meaningless.
 
All these polls are hot garbage right now if you're trying to predict the actual election results. The sampling error is at a point where the data is essentially meaningless.
The last several elections polls have missed out comes badly
 
I have a feeling that Trump initially ran for selfish reasons, as his is life track record. He ran to increase his "brand" name and get publicity and attention. he had no idea he would be leading this deep into the election.
 
I've heard the argument made that reality is just the opposite. First less than 20% of voters participate in the primary season. Half of those are voting in the D primary and have no impact on the R nominee. Trump pulls ~35%. So you have roughly 35% of just 10% of the population voting for Trump. Power of the people! Trump may get the nomination based on the wishes of less than 4% of the population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulldogs1974
I've heard the argument made that reality is just the opposite. First less than 20% of voters participate in the primary season. Half of those are voting in the D primary and have no impact on the R nominee. Trump pulls ~35%. So you have roughly 35% of just 10% of the population voting for Trump. Power of the people! Trump may get the nomination based on the wishes of less than 4% of the population.
much like insane obama
 
I went to a comedy show that had 4 blacks and George Lopez at the Sprint Center. George Lopez had the entire audience ( maybe 8,000) saying F*ck Donald Trump several times to no resistance. The others bashed him as well to enthusiastic support. IOW, I think he's only getting a certain segment of R's in the end and that won't get him in office.
 
You keep switching positions on this topic. Its nothing like what you used to say was true about Obama. You used to say Hillary won, but the creators installed Obama.
exactly, less than 4% of the population got Obama installed in the whitehouse, against the wishes of the majority. probably less than 1%
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I never switch natural, you try and catch me off guard and then say I switched, but it never works
 
I went to a comedy show that had 4 blacks and George Lopez at the Sprint Center. George Lopez had the entire audience ( maybe 8,000) saying F*ck Donald Trump several times to no resistance. The others bashed him as well to enthusiastic support.

If that's what passes for "comedy" now days, thanks for the head's up so I don't buy a ticket for such garbage.
 
I went to a comedy show that had 4 blacks and George Lopez at the Sprint Center. George Lopez had the entire audience ( maybe 8,000) saying F*ck Donald Trump several times to no resistance. The others bashed him as well to enthusiastic support. IOW, I think he's only getting a certain segment of R's in the end and that won't get him in office.

119rpug.png
 
I noticed, good job. So is your position here that Trump is being installed?
see that is where I have a slight problem. if the new world order killed jfk because he would not go full commie, and they tricked us into a treaty after WW2 where we signed our lives away to communism, and they installed bush jr and had Reagan doing iran contra and installed Obama over Hillary, then the next natural progression would be that they install jeb bush. or Clinton. I don't know what they are going to do with trump. I know they cannot have him win, that's for sure. they cannot and will not have a woman in power. so jeb it is I guess. but trump is so popular and he's polling so well. will they bring him down somehow? I guess. brietbart heart attack gun maybe?
 
how will the new world order get rid of trump? that is certainly a topic which needs its own thread
 
see that is where I have a slight problem. if the new world order killed jfk because he would not go full commie, and they tricked us into a treaty after WW2 where we signed our lives away to communism, and they installed bush jr and had Reagan doing iran contra and installed Obama over Hillary, then the next natural progression would be that they install jeb bush. or Clinton. I don't know what they are going to do with trump. I know they cannot have him win, that's for sure. they cannot and will not have a woman in power. so jeb it is I guess. but trump is so popular and he's polling so well. will they bring him down somehow? I guess. brietbart heart attack gun maybe?
I think you skipped Ford and Carter. They must have been asleep at the wheel.
 
There are things that I like about GL, for example his take on how kids are raised today. However (maybe I'm just a xenophobe), I don't like his concept of "revolution". Frankly, sometimes he pisses me off.

I must be missing the correlation between revolutions and xenophobia.

This guy is white and all.

revolution_usa_ron_paul_politician_us_america_desktop_1920x1200_wallpaper-114251.jpeg
 
see that is where I have a slight problem. if the new world order killed jfk because he would not go full commie, and they tricked us into a treaty after WW2 where we signed our lives away to communism, and they installed bush jr and had Reagan doing iran contra and installed Obama over Hillary, then the next natural progression would be that they install jeb bush. or Clinton. I don't know what they are going to do with trump. I know they cannot have him win, that's for sure. they cannot and will not have a woman in power. so jeb it is I guess. but trump is so popular and he's polling so well. will they bring him down somehow? I guess. brietbart heart attack gun maybe?
You need to turn back the dial a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moral_victory
see that is where I have a slight problem. if the new world order killed jfk because he would not go full commie, and they tricked us into a treaty after WW2 where we signed our lives away to communism, and they installed bush jr and had Reagan doing iran contra and installed Obama over Hillary, then the next natural progression would be that they install jeb bush. or Clinton. I don't know what they are going to do with trump. I know they cannot have him win, that's for sure. they cannot and will not have a woman in power. so jeb it is I guess. but trump is so popular and he's polling so well. will they bring him down somehow? I guess. brietbart heart attack gun maybe?
Oh, the NWO is communist? So Reagan was a communist? Why did they let the Soviet Union fail if that's what they wanted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sijoint
Oh, the NWO is communist? So Reagan was a communist? Why did they let the Soviet Union fail if that's what they wanted?
STOP CONFUSING ME!! I've watched all the vids, I've read up on Rothchilds, and the commy narrative is wildly inconsistent. On one hand communism needed capitalism and they knew communism would never succeed, on the other hand they're all commies.
 
STOP CONFUSING ME!! I've watched all the vids, I've read up on Rothchilds, and the commy narrative is wildly inconsistent. On one hand communism needed capitalism and they knew communism would never succeed, on the other hand they're all commies.
I honestly thought I had heard the opposite in these lunatic NWO rants. That they are all crony capitalists dividing up the world amongst the 1% and only wanting enough surplus population to do their bidding. Why would they want to keep around billions of people and then try to provide for their needs? Easier to just kill us off I think.

Usually leaders go communist when they don't have the wealth or military on their side. Wealth, military and people being the sources of political power. I thought OiT's vision assumed the NWO controlled the wealth and military and was actively bypassing the people to install elements as they saw fit, the people be damned. If the organization is willing to bypass the people, why take care of them? It makes no sense to pay for a thing you can just take for free.
 
It was all a distraction. You probably didn't even notice the FEMA camps as they went up. It is exactly how they intended it. All things are as they intended as they unfold perfectly in hindsight.
OR, sometimes things are just what they appear to be . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I honestly thought I had heard the opposite in these lunatic NWO rants. That they are all crony capitalists dividing up the world amongst the 1% and only wanting enough surplus population to do their bidding. Why would they want to keep around billions of people and then try to provide for their needs? Easier to just kill us off I think.

Usually leaders go communist when they don't have the wealth or military on their side. Wealth, military and people being the sources of political power. I thought OiT's vision assumed the NWO controlled the wealth and military and was actively bypassing the people to install elements as they saw fit, the people be damned. If the organization is willing to bypass the people, why take care of them? It makes no sense to pay for a thing you can just take for free.
Nope . . . they're Lucifarians (sp). It's not a political or money thing because they're beyond money. Read up on Pike, the Free Mason at the time of the first Rothchild (Mayor I think).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT