|
|
 Originally Posted by ImSavy
You realise people cancel appearances in places they put down as wins too right? The idea is to battle it out in close seats not waste your time in places where you already have it won. I'd imagine the people running her campaign are going off the real evidence that everyone else uses rather than your posts on here.
The early vote data in those states are far more favorable to Republicans than it was in 2012. While you are correct in theory, in this case it would not be that they're leaving those states because they think they're winning. In addition, even if they were 10 points ahead in those states, they would not leave since Trump's path to victory is devastating if he loses one of those states. Also the other states where the Clinton camp has its remaining rallies are in states that favor Clinton even more.
Also if they're pushing all this fake poll shit and trying to rig it then what is the point when it completely undermines the reliability of polls in the future & is so exposed come the end of the cycle?
You're telling me. This is why those that claim the polls are deliberately misleading also claim that they will tighten as the race gets close. This happens in lots of races. We don't know to what degree, if any, that it is due to unethical behavior. The existence of "bad" polls isn't evidence of unethical behavior. Regardless, the answer to your question does include the fact that pollsters can retain credibility by converging on the final result close to the election.
Also why are there no people exposing this?
Lots of people are. The mainstream media is not. Most people do not hear about it because the vast majority of people consume mainstream sources even when they think they do not.
Why are there no people doing the same thing on the opposite side?
Probably because credibility would be stripped immediately. Polling exists in a Democrat ethos, and all pollsters -- except a small few -- are hardcore Democrats. The vast majority of polling entities are owned by hardline Democrats. Not all of them are, but ones that aren't also exist within an establishment Republican (like Fox) ethos as well as require the Democrat ethos giving them credibility.
In order for a pollster to fudge numbers for the opposite side, they would have to give the finger to the entire juggernaut of mainstream media. It's not really something that happens. There is no incentive to do this since it would only work if somebody had a strong enough foresight that their side would win. That would be the only way they could survive the election cycle. The mainstream media owns the airwaves even when it looks like they don't. Instead people take to twitter and other forums to try to expose the polls using their methodologies and parameters. A polling company trying to fudge numbers for the other side would get little air time too. The media already doesn't report polls that don't favor Clinton.
Do polls really play that big a part of how people vote in the first place?
Very much so. They're a persuasion tactic to get undecideds on your side (everybody likes backing a winner) and demoralizing the opposition.
In this particular cycle, I think it backfires.
BTW none of what I posted here is evidence for unethical polling. I merely responding to your questions with the rationale behind why things could be a certain way. I would use an entirely different approach if I were trying to demonstrate unethical polling.
|
Reply With Quote
