Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering As Hillary's "Lead" Shrinks To 2-Points
10-30-2016, 06:58 AM,
#1
ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering As Hillary's "Lead" Shrinks To 2-Points
ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering As Hillary's "Lead" Shrinks To 2-Points

<p>Just <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-28/rigged-abc-poll-shows-hillary-lead-collapse-12-points-6-points-two-days">yesterday we wrote about the very curious ABC / Wapo poll</a> which seemed to show Hillary's blow-out 12-point lead from last Sunday get cut in half in a matter of just two days.&nbsp; But the ABC/Wapo enigma continues to grow today as their latest poll shows the <strong>presidential race has now tightened to just 2 points,</strong> which is within the margin of error.&nbsp; Ironically, these new results <strong>do not reflect the latest FBI bombshell as polling was concluded on October 27th and it still includes an 8-point sampling advantage for democrats</strong>.</p>
<blockquote><div class="quote_start">
<div></div>
</div>
<div class="quote_end">
<div></div>
</div>
<p>METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was <strong>conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 24-27, 2016,</strong> in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,148 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are <strong>37-29-29 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>So what happened?</strong>&nbsp; For months we have argued that these goal-seeking reports (aka "Polls") can be easily manufactured to show whatever results are desired by simply "tweaking" the sample pool.&nbsp; WikiLeaks even exposed a handy guide <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples">37-page poll-rigging guide</a> on how to <strong>"include ethnic 'oversamples' as required"</strong> to manufacture the desired poll numbers.&nbsp; But, with today's latest ABC / Washington Post poll, the real <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">"smoking gun" admission</span> is revealed</strong> as the <strong>pollsters admit that the narrowing of their polling results are "not mainly about people shifting in their candidate preference" but about how their sample pool was constructed.</strong></p>
<blockquote><div class="quote_start">
<div></div>
</div>
<div class="quote_end">
<div></div>
</div>
<p><strong>"Changes in the poll’s latest four nights compared with the previous four are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not mainly about people shifting in their candidate preference</span>, but about <span style="text-decoration: underline;">changes in who’s intending to vote</span>." </strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So that's how you manufacture inane results like this:<strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/29/2016.10.29%20-%20ABC%20Poll%201.JPG"><img src="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/29/2016.10.29%20-%20ABC%20Poll%201_0.JPG" alt="ABC / Wapo Poll" width="600" height="516" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, while ABC / Wapo claim that the 10-point swing (in less than a week) was driven by changes in "who's intending to vote," we find it quite curious that their own data shows just a 2-point swing in people who said they were "certain to vote" on 10/23, when the poll reflected a 12-point Hillary lead, and 10/27 when the lead had collapsed to just 2 points.&nbsp; So, are we really expected to believe that a 2-point swing in voter intentions somehow translated to a 10-point swing in the poll results?&nbsp; <strong>Not likely...something tells us it had a little more to do with including </strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">"<strong>ethnic 'oversamples' as required."</strong></span><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/29/2016.10.29%20-%20ABC%20Poll%202_1.JPG"><img src="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/29/2016.10.29%20-%20ABC%20Poll%202_1_0.JPG" alt="ABC" width="600" height="276" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, <strong>now that ABC / Wapo have effectively declared their own poll utterly useless</strong>, the question is what were their motivations for skewing their polling data?&nbsp; We have a couple of ideas:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong style="font-size: 13.008px;">Trump is simply experiencing a huge surge in momentum</strong><span style="font-size: 13.008px;">...seems odd to have this kind of surge on minimal news (remember the poll was taken prior to the recent FBI disclosures).</span></li>
<li><strong style="font-size: 13.008px;">ABC / Wapo pollsters got a slap on the wrist from the Hillary campaign</strong><span style="font-size: 13.008px;"> for getting a bit overzealous on their manufactured 12-point "lead" which could have resulted in lower voter turnout for Hillary.</span></li>
<li><strong style="font-size: 13.008px;">ABC / Wapo reviewed early voting stats starting to come in around the country and realized that their polls were in no way reflective of reality</strong><span style="font-size: 13.008px;"> and decided they'd rather not lose ALL credibility (though it may be a bit too late for that).</span></li>
</ul>
<p>Anyway, those are a couple of our ideas...what say you?</p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/329326697/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-vr7Br26S0Eypgfj8Z9TG&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>


<div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="600" height="249" alt="" src="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/abc%20poll%20teaser.jpg?1477757785" /> </div>
</div>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~4/ow01CJadQA4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge...s-2-points
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)