"the AP/GFK poll, it was ranked DEAD LAST for accuracy:"

[riversedge]

Thanks to JaneyVee for this important link about accuracy of polls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=449409


JaneyVee (11,777 posts)

PPPpoll Virginia: Hillary-64. Bernie-14. Webb-8. O'Malley-2.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/bush-leads-gop-field-in-virginia-but-clinton-ahead-for-general.html

Also, I see some people using the AP/GFK poll, it was ranked DEAD LAST for accuracy:
http://legacy.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/topstories_2590.asp

Stick with the top 3 on that list.

[DURHAM D]

1. Perhaps this should be shared on this GD-P thread titled

Hillary Clinton's standing with Democrats suddenly plunged

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251448653

[Capt. Obvious]

2. .

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[Iliyah]

3. K & R

It doesn't matter, its negative about HRC and they are sticking with it. But alas, AP/GFK poll go negative against BS, the tune will change.

[aspirant]

4. "accuracy"

In your link, "final,national pre-election ESTIMATES" so it's based on 1 poll.

Not over a 5 year period of thousands of polls but simply 1 poll. This is a joke, right?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[PATRICK]

5. We've had a lot of old

discussions about polling per se, the use abuse and the usual suspects. Since in the first leap of early enthusiasm most of that seems to have been totally set aside it's good to raise the questions again.

What you know without polls- logic doesn't lead to landslides inertia and history seem the muddy give or take of astrologers easy- many are sponsored propaganda from the first dishonesty to the hammerlike usage to FORM public opinion- they do have a use in matching our crooked voting system and late GOTV to the actual vote.

We don't get to question the US vote when the polls, judiciously used at least by the candidates who need to know, don't match the final digital tally at all, and in fact are corrected and weighted to match questionable vote tallying next time.

And do we ever get the internal polling done by the candidates? That is supposed to be happening and maybe is somewhere in that opinion creating fraud industry. So what is the diamond in the dung heap? Nate Silver the statistician?

Applied to Bernie we see startling momentum, accentuated all the more by media silence or hostility. With Hillary we see solidity and solid growth. We see the sobering viability of truly dangerous sociopaths and idiots with the the best demagogue
getting a good chance to lead us all to hell. The worst of them is provided a chance to screw us all before even a glimmer of fair choice is afforded anyone else in the universe. We are still fighting against utter madness.

[tritsofme]

6. This is a pretty silly line of attack. Nate Silver rates them at "A-"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

Don't sweat individual polls, view them in aggregate. Nothing irritates me more than partisans who celebrate polls when they like the results, and attack the ones they don't, based on little else.

Sometimes even a perfectly conducted poll will have a garbage result, pollsters can typically only have confidence that their survey will fall within the margin of error 95% of the time. That means that even in ideal situations approximately 1/20 polls will be complete hooey.

[DCBob]

7. Their numbers make no sense..

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AP-GfK_Poll_July_2015-Topline_Clinton.pdf

[hootinholler]

8. How so?

Take B.O.'s line: (24 + 22 = 46 favorable) + (13 + 34 = 47 unfavorable) = 93% of the sample + 5% not sure and 2% refused the question, for 100% of the sample.

I wonder why Bernie isn't there.

[DCBob]

9. No other dem candidate is there besides Hillary.

Almost like they are wanted to highlight Hillary's numbers.