Tuesday, June 27, 2017

The Increasing Unreliability Of Modern Political Polls, And Their Systems

                                                   

                                                   

The reliance on polls, and polling firms, themselves, has been affected by the advent of differing technologies until their accuracy must now seriously be called into question. The 2016 election saw the greatest number of polling firms in any US election, almost entirely predicting a Clinton landslide, while only political scientists knew this to be inaccurate.

  1. The advent of caller ID has affected a linear model clearly depicting a decrease in poll accuracy
  2. The mysterious and unproven claims of 538 were used as a baseline to confirm the results of polls run by the major networks in the US, or in partnerships between the major networks and less-than-scientific Democratic Party-funded polling firms, as if it were an authority. 
  3. Only one polling firm, the oldest one still up and running in the US, the Gallup Poll, reflected with any accuracy that Trump would win.

Caller ID

Caller ID was first fielded by Bellsouth in Floridian markets as early as the late eighties. From there, the technology proliferated, improved, and was in daily use in the Southern United States by 1996. 

The technology ended a lot of criminal, as well as hilarious behavior, and snuffed it for good. The Jerky Boys, a comedy duo who rose to fame as the first test markets in Florida were underway, pretty much lost their career because of caller-ID. Their act, which consisted of hilariously real prank calls in which the duo would work in-tandem, was forever changed by the technology. As were harassing and threatening phone calls which plagued people such as those cruelly harassed by what appeared to be the people whom kidnapped and murdered their loved ones.

Old episodes of television shows, and old movies, will invariably one day provoke the inevitable questions of young people who are watching, "What does, trace a phone call mean?"

But never before has the technology, nor its effect upon especially older Americans, so profoundly been overlooked by polling firms. Either that, or they were using numbers that they knew were tainted in some sort of "we are the elite media, and we said, "Vote Clinton" dark, and conspiratorial fashion.

Either way, there is no excuse. 

How many older people, (45-90) do you personally know that do not examine the caller-ID readout before they pick up? How many people of all ages do you know who do not use the feature as a means of screening their calls? Therefore, does it take a genius to figure out that there are only two kinds of people who do answer unrecognized numbers, and that those people are those without the feature, who probably are very few in number, and people whom are curious as to why this strange number is on their caller-ID?

And, of those, every single one of them past forty is going to hang up when they find out that, after waiting several minutes, sometimes, that they are on hold for a poll! The only people whom shall remain on the line are people whom are very young. And, of those, maybe one eighth of them vote Republican. 

The numbers that wrecked the media's credibility, as well as the associated "polling firms" which they partnered with, were based, 90% of them, upon these types of phone calls. Phone calls which 100% of older Americans refer to as, "annoying".
                                                   
Nate Silver's June 29, 2016 declaration seems funny, now. What is funnier is, who is he, why did people believe him, and what do his numbers say about stealing chickens from the same village twice?
                                                 
                                                
                                                 

I have been in political science for a long time, and neither I, nor any one of my professors, nor any fellow graduates, have ever heard the name, Nate Silver. This person, whom may be honestly claiming to be a statistician, however, is not an honest statistician.

His firm, 538, named for the number of electoral votes available for a candidate to win, was providing numbers so false that it bears true investigation as to where he came from, and how he managed to fool so many people. I couldn't break the spell, even with people I know, people I went to high school with, since 1981! 

They bought his backstory, however, and they bought it completely: hook, line, and sinker. So, in 2016, when Silver, via his 538 website, fielded numbers never heard before in the HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE, numbers like, "Hillary has an almost 93% chance of beating Trump!"(Nate Silver, after the first televised debate between Trump and Clinton) alarm bells were sounding on our side of the University. 

Strangely absent it is, and continues to remain, that any critical examination of Silver, as well as his bombastic, and "ready for fake news" claims like, "Hillary is Still Ahead! 80% chance of winning!"(Election Day, 8:00am EST, 538 Website) has yet to be undertaken. And this seems to indicate more of it in 2020. But in 2016, all we could do is wait for the reality to come home to roost. Political scientists pretty much do that for a living. But had I known, I still love people enough to ask them, "Now, why did you believe 538, again?"

Noting their answers, normally not based in fact, but in suspicions that Trump, somehow, stole the election. Hmmm...I seem to recall yet another Clinton lie, "If I win, he (Trump) will not accept the result. But if he wins, I will be surprised, but I shall not question the result because I trust the American people." (HClinton, Second Round of the Second Televised Clinton, Trump Debate)
When 2020 comes, and we see this cycle repeat, will you believe us, then?

Nate Silver, as well as his 538 Organization, were effective at smoke and mirrors, and at using biased statistical information to find "trends" that didn't truly exist, and pushing his agenda based on this flawed analysis criteria, but they could not conjure victory despite all the phony effort. 

(They were inventing trends, like, who wins the first debate wins the election...the debate was not won by Clinton, this was an assertion pushed by the media. And the qualifying statement, "debate winners also win elections" is just plain horse-hooey. Either that, or Trump won the debate! Which one is it? That is a quantification of yet more reading-into numbers that which 538 wanted to see in political history!)

Silver, and his firm, should both be investigated. Maybe not for being the only causes of the media sensation, but for their part in attempting to subvert the electorate. The journalistic atom bomb of pro Hillary data and media obsession, which the media should be investigated for, was only so much white noise which drowned-out reason. 

But media hype is not victory in an election. It is this man, as well as the journalists whom failed to fact check, and check this man out thoroughly, at whom the Clintons, as well as their supporters, should be directing their incredulity.

The seeds of Russiahacked: Black Lives Matter, Loretta Lynch, Obama dogma which nearly destroyed coal mining in America, and the transfer to the Clinton campaign of a general underestimation, and/or apathy, as to how much this injured a huge and unconsulted group of Americans, the Emailgate Scandal, as well: these are the actual reasons Americans disposed themselves of the Clinton brand of controversy/mea culpa laden, and diabolical leadership, which is also ineffective leadership. 
                                                   

                                                   

The Rise of the Dot.Com Poll Firms, And the Proliferation of Bias To Replace Actual Numbers...

The use of dotcom polling firms, which often appeared in a digitally-targeting effort, automatically means that any results are disposable. However, these biased results, which were only baptized by the confirmation of 538, and that company's authoritative role in confirming results, didn't yield bad numbers....because it is true: if you targeted those people whose on-line activities included long periods of time on Black Lives Matters' official web-site, then it should be that the result of that poll holds Clinton 90% to Trump 10%. But what went wrong was less of a mistake, and far more sinister in-nature. 


I took one statistics class, at one of the most difficult junior colleges in the nation, and I learned a lot. Mostly, I acquired the sort of horse-sense, or, you can call it what you will, my dad would say I was full of something else that was once inside of a horse...anyway, I acquired the knowledge that any organization using polls, knows how to honestly interpret the numbers, as well as to dishonestly manipulate the numbers. Wolf Blitzer, I am looking at you.....
I find it very hard to believe that the MSM doesn't have ten guys like me on staff saying, "But....why? Wolf? Whyyy?!"

But they not only did it. They also got away with it. And the Russiahacked crap will one day be revealed to be the curtain that it was, concealing the rats and the true enemies of free thought as they attempted to distract the attentions of people away from they, whom caused all this rage by having lied to Hillary voters for over a year. I am a political scientist, I do not have a dog in that fight, so to speak. Both candidates, to me, represent the demolishing of democracy, and the huge offense Globalism really is. But Trump beat the pants off of Clinton. And, for us, over to the political science side of the building, it was a year long last laugh which only a real dick would bring up Nov 09, 2016. 

How Right Was ANYBODY?


This is the rub, isn't it? Who both got the numbers right, and published an unbiased number? Well, that leaves everybody out. But certainly an honorable mention goes to the long standing and venerable polling firm, Gallup. And it is that they predicted, consistently, that Trump was AHEAD. The firm never published a winner's name, because they are the first, and the last name in polling in America. 

Right off the bat, their practices must include a multi disciplined approach, careful to cross section the population based on accurate and available population demographics, and most of all, and for this the firm should be praised: they were the only ones that published any facts and figures upon which the public could rely. 

But, because those facts and numbers were placed into a field rampant with bogus numerically interpreted results, they polarized the field and pissed everyone off. But, if history teaches us anything, it is that Americans despise the truth. 

And the polling firms of 2016's election provide zero exceptions to that rule. I bet the inboxes at Gallup were full of the vicious poisoned pen emails from the very rich, and famous, to the poorest members of American society. I bet they also got their fair share of angry R emails laughing at the merely slight lead Trump had, according to Gallup, not that I know personally....cos I do not.

But, again, that is what you get anymore for telling the truth, it is kinda the proverbial price of doing business...

The Legacy of Election 2016

The aftertaste lingering upon the palette following Election: 2016 blends saccharin with burnt pasta: you know, with other stuff which you shouldn't put into your mouth. But it is a lesson to probably be repeated by the android mentality of media mind control, as it plays this same song with the same results, to the same crowds who will someday recall that the media SELLS information, and rarely gets caught. But when they do, the American public has no other loving master to indicate how afraid, or how angry they should be, and the media pretends you chose it, but a little digging reveals that, no, the media is lying, disgusting, and laughably stupid. None of them are reliable. All of them are controlled by the Bilderberger Group. Were it not for the love of money, we would all paint them green, and throw rocks at them. But, they are going to soldier slanderously on, while the lies such as CNN's huge "Proof Russiahacked Is Real!" caused the termination of jobs this week. CNN got caught...again.

But until you, the people, turn it off, then this is the endless cycle. And, occasionally, the ghosts of Election: 2016 shall be conjured by more slander, and the people who were most hurt by it will continue to ignore who the real suckers are. 

Btw: once you have been proven to be a sucker, only by admitting it shall you ever again, know what it is to not be a sucker.

But that is a whole other article.

And, if I die before 2020, do what I would do: think for yourself, and confirm it with Gallup. 

                          

                          

5 comments:

  1. The dotcom polls, like those for Breitbart, though arguably biased, did technically predict Trump as the winner of Election: 2016. The thing is, this publication also used targeted polling, aa well as the fact that Breitbart, itself, exists solely on-line. The real test of Breitbart will come the next time a D candidate wins a national election, but my hunch is all dotcom entities reflect biased analysis in a negative way. Trust Gallup, they were wrong a LITTLE, but have been a part of the American polling landscape longer than anyone else. If you checked their record, it immediately comes to mind that there are more than one polling firm because Gallup isn't biased, and I challenge you to find a national election where the ball got dropped.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Nate Silver Effect, which is still proven to be not-yet-widely understood due to scandals like Russiahacked, turns out to be the boogeymonster which all these political and governmental entities are going to find to be the sabateur of Election:2016. Turns out that Democrats hacked themselves via promoting a non existent victory. Americans should be wary of this type of abuse and excuse making in both major parties. Nate Silver should be investigated, not jailed, but public hearings would better explain what phenomenon actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Correction
    The last statement of the first comment should read,
    "...there are many more polling firms than one because Gallup is not biased...."
    KD

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd like to add that Gallup has also fallen off the neutrality wagon and gone full Globalist D.

    ReplyDelete

The Legal End of Trump's Ousting

By: Kevin Drummond No reason to water this down. Though rhetoric slams both sides of the issue, the fact is, Donald Trump, in a mani...