Quote:

---

.......for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are rigged, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in startling detail, exactly how to rig them. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

Quote:

---

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

---

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters." Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

Quote:

---

- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
- On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

---

Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."

Quote:

---

- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
- Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
- Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed

---

---

Quote:

---

Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary. Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.

Quote:

---

"METHODOLOGY This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

---

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

The polls can't be rigged! It's not American.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why would they over sample their internal polls?

---

Not clear. But the email is dated Jan 18 2008, during the primaries. From what I can tell, Podesta wasn't central to either the Clinton or Obama campaigns then. He was at the Center for American Progress, which he was involved in creating as a left version of the Heritage Foundation. The Atlas Project referred to is a left research/analysis/polling service.

My speculation from those facts is that Podesta knew that the major D candidates were using Atlas and he was trying to cook the research to push them all further to the left, consistent with CAP policy preferences.

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Is that like asking "scientists" at a global warming convention if they agree in global warming?

Sure then 97% of them will agree.

No ethics or moral values whatsoever. Win or lose, I vote for secession. Media/government/Hollywood own America. They ain't gonna change until it's too late.

Before I comment on this topic I must be certain of my opinion by asking myself for my opinion.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why would they over sample their internal polls?

---

Because they want to get a good handle on the opinions of minority demographics that are important for intra-Dem elections. Note the context of this poll (early in the 08 primary against Obama).

If you take a normal randomly sampled poll, crosstabs of smaller groups like blacks and Hispanics will be vulnerable to larger sampling error. See Carlton Banks and the LA Times tracking poll for an example of this.

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why does he refer to them as "media polls"?

2 sets of books.

External polling that the public sees and internal polling the campaigns use to determine their focus.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

I've been telling you MoFos for months that the Dem/Media playbook is to suppress the GOP/Conservative vote by making it seem like a Hillary win was inevitable.

This is further proof of the rigging.

Trump is going to win this thing in a landslide.

---

Lolol. Wanna bet?

captkirk said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why does he refer to them as "media polls"?

---

For all we know they were polling people on media prefs. What networks, shows, news feeds, podcasts. How do we accurately reach these people.

This is one of the problems when you are spoon fed emails with no context. Spoon fed emails that are picked for release to puch an agenda. You don't know what they are talking about so you are free to assume it means the worst.

Assume away, Trump is still losing.

biobioprof said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why would they over sample their internal polls?

---

Not clear. But the email is dated Jan 18 2008, during the primaries. From what I can tell, Podesta wasn't central to either the Clinton or Obama campaigns then. He was at the Center for American Progress, which he was involved in creating as a left version of the Heritage Foundation. The Atlas Project referred to is a left research/analysis/polling service.

My speculation from those facts is that Podesta knew that the major D candidates were using Atlas and he was trying to cook the research to push them all further to the left, consistent with CAP policy preferences.

---

Nailed it.


Have you guys all forgotten 2012 already?? These exact same arguments were being made to a T. It's Deja vu all over again.

Unfortunately Romneys camp bought in and their internal polls used incorrect methodology and they ended up wasting resources and thinking they were in good shape going in to November.

His internal pollsters were embarrassed and all the conspiracy theorists talking about rigged polls just disappeared. Now they are apparently back.

I will say one thing, Trump's team learned. They have their own internal polling and its evidently not looking good just like the media polling.

They may be referring to over sample certain target demographics to determine if their media strategy is working or needs to shift. Poll group X to see of our message to them is helping or hurting. Poll group Y to see if we need more ads targeting them or not. But the language is still odd, why would want an "over sample" as oppose to just a sample, or target demographic.

It seems, as with a lot of these emails, people are able to read in pretty much any bias they already have.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

I've been telling you MoFos for months that the Dem/Media playbook is to suppress the GOP/Conservative vote by making it seem like a Hillary win was inevitable.

This is further proof of the rigging.

Trump is going to win this thing in a landslide.

---

LOL. You have been drinking the Aggie Kool-aid on a dirrent Forum Topic called Football lately..

Scroll down to the explanation of "oversampling" if you want the full explanation.

Creating poll results has two parts. First, you take a poll of a bunch of people. You get some number of responses, along with demographic information.

Then, you use that information to weight your results to accurately represent the population you sampled. So, say your poll just happened to have more white voters than the population; you would weight those votes less. Interestingly, this portion is part of the explanation for the LATimes/USC tracking poll. There is one young black man in Illinois who is a Trump supporter, and due to weighting he has an outsized impact on the poll. That doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong, it's just how polling works.

So, oversampling is getting more responses from a particular demographic group so that the margin of error is lower. Overweighting would be the part that would skew results.


Do the people posting this realize it's going to make any actual revelation have zero credibility because it follows so much made-up or misunderstood garbage?

Considering it was 2008, about all you can take from it is the Dems are big into push polling in general to manipulate outcomes, even internally within the party.

They don't want to know what is, they want to manipulate a different reality. That is why you can't entirely trust polling by a progressive organization, as it very well may simply be a manipulative tool to drive a desired outcome, rather than a reflection of reality.

Some public polls may be this way, others may not, and if the conservatives had any media pull and dominance, they would try it too.

Desperation leads people to believe odd things

It's fairly simple. Pollsters have to build samples representative of likely voters, so the obvious thing to do would be to look would be the last two elections and construct your sample right?

The problem with that is Hillary will not get the same numbers as the first black president, so the better approach would be to build a sample using averages of several previous elections, or estimate somewhere in the middle.

Unethical pollsters take advantage of this, because it's defensible to say it will be roughly the same likely voters as 2008/2012. Thus we end up with lopsided polls used as propaganda to push the narrative that the election is over.

"For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup."

Tldr: Y'all are dumb.

srx said:

---

"For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup."

Tldr: Y'all are dumb.

---

You're not using your whole brain right now. What is their ideal sample, that they are oversampling various demographics to reach? 2012, 08, 04, 00? You flat out can't tell me because you don't know.

Yes, oversampling is common in polling, but Podesta and co. are pushing oversampling that favors ther performance in 'media polls' per his own e-mail chain.

unmade bed said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why would they over sample their internal polls?

---

Not clear. But the email is dated Jan 18 2008, during the primaries. From what I can tell, Podesta wasn't central to either the Clinton or Obama campaigns then. He was at the Center for American Progress, which he was involved in creating as a left version of the Heritage Foundation. The Atlas Project referred to is a left research/analysis/polling service.

My speculation from those facts is that Podesta knew that the major D candidates were using Atlas and he was trying to cook the research to push them all further to the left, consistent with CAP policy preferences.

---

Nailed it.


Have you guys all forgotten 2012 already?? These exact same arguments were being made to a T. It's Deja vu all over again.

Unfortunately Romneys camp bought in and their internal polls used incorrect methodology and they ended up wasting resources and thinking they were in good shape going in to November.

His internal pollsters were embarrassed and all the conspiracy theorists talking about rigged polls just disappeared. Now they are apparently back.

I will say one thing, Trump's team learned. They have their own internal polling and its evidently not looking good just like the media polling.

---

Bingo!

While I feel sorry for our voters, especially me, since one of them has to win, I remember "polls being skewed" repeatedly in favor of Obama in '12. Turned out to be correct. Is it possible, sure. Is it likely, hell no.

I hope I'm wrong.

fasthorses05 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

Why would they over sample their internal polls?

---

Not clear. But the email is dated Jan 18 2008, during the primaries. From what I can tell, Podesta wasn't central to either the Clinton or Obama campaigns then. He was at the Center for American Progress, which he was involved in creating as a left version of the Heritage Foundation. The Atlas Project referred to is a left research/analysis/polling service.

My speculation from those facts is that Podesta knew that the major D candidates were using Atlas and he was trying to cook the research to push them all further to the left, consistent with CAP policy preferences.

---

Nailed it.


Have you guys all forgotten 2012 already?? These exact same arguments were being made to a T. It's Deja vu all over again.

Unfortunately Romneys camp bought in and their internal polls used incorrect methodology and they ended up wasting resources and thinking they were in good shape going in to November.

His internal pollsters were embarrassed and all the conspiracy theorists talking about rigged polls just disappeared. Now they are apparently back.

I will say one thing, Trump's team learned. They have their own internal polling and its evidently not looking good just like the media polling.

---

Bingo!

While I feel sorry for our voters, especially me, since one of them has to win, I remember "polls being skewed" repeatedly in favor of Obama in '12. Turned out to be correct. Is it possible, sure. Is it likely, hell no.

I hope I'm wrong.

---

I also hope you're wrong, and I believe you are.

Hillary is not Obama, Trump is not Romney. The enthusiasm is flip flopped this time around, we'll see if that translates into votes.

With videos of national Clinton and DNC operatives talking about busing people to vote, who knows if the polls were rigged for Obama over Romney.

National polls generally aren't pushing, because they have a reputation to protect. I think among of these smaller polls from various Interest groups are nothing but push polls.

FtWorthHorn said:

---

Scroll down to the explanation of "oversampling" if you want the full explanation.

Creating poll results has two parts. First, you take a poll of a bunch of people. You get some number of responses, along with demographic information.

Then, you use that information to weight your results to accurately represent the population you sampled. So, say your poll just happened to have more white voters than the population; you would weight those votes less. Interestingly, this portion is part of the explanation for the LATimes/USC tracking poll. There is one young black man in Illinois who is a Trump supporter, and due to weighting he has an outsized impact on the poll. That doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong, it's just how polling works.

So, oversampling is getting more responses from a particular demographic group so that the margin of error is lower. Overweighting would be the part that would skew results.


Do the people posting this realize it's going to make any actual revelation have zero credibility because it follows so much made-up or misunderstood garbage?

---

more here

Quote:

---

The problem is that it can be hard to find enough people to get robust enough sample sizes to offer the necessary information. Normal polling in a state will usually have no problem getting enough white people in the mix to evaluate where they stand, but you may need to specifically target more black or Hispanic voters to get a statistically relevant sample size.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dr. Dre said:

---

He is talking about internal polls.

---

You don't rig your own internal polls. You want them accurate, no matter how good or bad.

---

You're right. He's saying that they want to use oversampling, a technique that is a perfectly legitimate part of polling, to get more accurate results. As has been explained in this thread, oversampling does not mean what you're assuming it means.

Ha! Didn't take long. Behold, docs from Kellyanne Conway's polling firm: