Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Exit polling is about as worthless as titties on a bull. Whenever I’ve been asked I’ve politely told the person to piss off. The next time I might just lie to screw with their results..

BDKJMU wrote:Exit polling is about as worthless as titties on a bull. Whenever I’ve been asked I’ve politely told the person to piss off. The next time I might just lie to screw with their results..

I lie to pollsters all the time. I had one call last year before the election. I was a Native Alaskan living in Iowa, liberal independent that was supporting Trump.

HI54UNI wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Exit polling is about as worthless as titties on a bull. Whenever I’ve been asked I’ve politely told the person to piss off. The next time I might just lie to screw with their results..

I lie to pollsters all the time. I had one call last year before the election. I was a Native Alaskan living in Iowa, liberal independent that was supporting Trump.

You guys are kidding yourselves. I've been through the whole thing before about how the idea that the polls were wrong about the 2016 election is way overblown. The polls on the popular vote said Clinton would win it by about 3 and she won by 2.1. The polls of the individual States had States like Michigan and Pennsylvania too close to call. When you looked at them overall they had the general election too close to call in the electoral college. Also the latest State by State polls had the candidate who led in the point estimate winning in all but two cases. Wisconsin had Clinton up and Trump won while North Carolina was a tie.

The idea that the polls were way off for that election is a myth. It's a very persistent myth. But it's a myth. The ONLY State that was a real surprise in terms of leaning one way or another was Wisconsin; which was indicated by polls as leaning to Clinton.

The way in which these popular myths take hold is just amazing. You can say you personally have lied to pollsters but the bottom line is that when you look at the polls of what the overall vote would be they were generally very close.

JohnStOnge wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
I lie to pollsters all the time. I had one call last year before the election. I was a Native Alaskan living in Iowa, liberal independent that was supporting Trump.

You guys are kidding yourselves. I've been through the whole thing before about how the idea that the polls were wrong about the 2016 election is way overblown. The polls on the popular vote said Clinton would win it by about 3 and she won by 2.1. The polls of the individual States had States like Michigan and Pennsylvania too close to call. When you looked at them overall they had the general election too close to call in the electoral college. Also the latest State by State polls had the candidate who led in the point estimate winning in all but two cases. Wisconsin had Clinton up and Trump won while North Carolina was a tie.

The idea that the polls were way off for that election is a myth. It's a very persistent myth. But it's a myth. The ONLY State that was a real surprise in terms of leaning one way or another was Wisconsin; which was indicated by polls as leaning to Clinton.

The way in which these popular myths take hold is just amazing. You can say you personally have lied to pollsters but the bottom line is that when you look at the polls of what the overall vote would be they were generally very close.

It was the economy.

How many of them have voted anyways?

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:It doesn't really matter in the long term. I mean, if it happens it might make Florida move into the column of a reliably blue state in Presidential elections a little quicker. But Florida is already moving in that direction and it will happen unless something changes in the fundamental trends pertaining to the way demographic groups vote.

Why don’t you just change your registration to D and get it over with, you self-righteous, faux-conservative bloviator? You probably have a photo of Edwin Edwards (that Donk moral paragon) on your mantel.

I think it always has been. JSO is the King Troll hereabouts...

GannonFan wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: 1. I do not take the people giving the information seriously.
2. I do not take the people gathering the information seriously.
3. I do not take the people publishing the information seriously.

Yup, in this day and age people are fantastic at masking their information. I have zero faith in exit polling because I think people have gotten so much better at lying, especially in surveys. Gallup regularly acknowledges that exit polling is extremely difficult these days in this and other political environments.

It isn't just this day and age. The first thing you notice when you start researching family history is that everybody lied to the census taker.

GannonFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:It doesn't really matter in the long term. I mean, if it happens it might make Florida move into the column of a reliably blue state in Presidential elections a little quicker. But Florida is already moving in that direction and it will happen unless something changes in the fundamental trends pertaining to the way demographic groups vote.

No matter how many times you say it it doesn't make it true. Minority groups, other than Blacks, have not, do not, and will not vote in large reliable blocs for one particular party for every election in the future, forever, as you like to claim they will. Even the guy who did the research that you now parrot over and over again reversed his findings and said that they do not point to a reliable voting bloc as you contend they will. Not that this will stop you from quoting faulty, disproven research, but it doesn't alter the fundamental premise that you are just flat out wrong (in this and in many other things).

JSO hasn't figured out yet that to the extent that they have voted as a bloc, and it has been enough to generate the current stereotype, it is because they had to, not because they necessarily wanted to. Right now the limiting factor is the innate racism of the Republican establishment. They're just more comfortable with a smaller, whiter, political party and they'd like to keep it that way.

Again: If you don't think the fact that the proportion of Whites in the population is a shrinking one is a problem for the Republican Party you are kidding yourself.

JohnStOnge wrote:Again: If you don't think the fact that the proportion of Whites in the population is a shrinking one is a problem for the Republican Party you are kidding yourself.

...and I just told you why.

JohnStOnge wrote:Again: If you don't think the fact that the proportion of Whites in the population is a shrinking one is a problem for the Republican Party you are kidding yourself.

It ultimately doesn't matter, John

There will always be a voice for conservatism somewhere. It may not always reside in the Republican Party - but the Rs have not been very good custodians of true conservatism. And that long predates Trump. Maybe the current iteration of the GOP really deserves to die off. Or eject the religious wing. But they need the votes. Just like the Dems need their own fringe

The "progressive" movement, if given its way, would impose those things that most human beings abhor - which is why that even in the most utopian countries, "progressive" government policies either run out of a) money, b) constituency, or c) both. The flip side is that when conservatism gets infused with religion, we go in the other direction. We are too moderate (and independent) as a country to slip too far in either direction

Which is why there will always be a voice for conservatism. And "progressivism".

Trump isn't damaging the GOP or its message at all. He is just a symptom of the damage that already exists