Funny how glorified poll readers attack @Rasmussen_Poll for a 1-point lead for @realDonaldTrump after weeks of tracking.
They have no objection and entertain wholly unrealistic results from "gold standard" pollsters who failed miserably in 2016 and 2018.
It's a total scam.
Any poll showing a competitive race these know-nothings take as evidence of wrongdoing. But unrealistic leads for their preferred candidates cannot possibly be related to known challenges in the industry, even when track-records support them.
Freakin' hucksters. The lot of them.
Reuters, YouGov, Morning Consult, Harvard/Harris and many more, all use online collection.
DIFFERENT GROUPS respond to DIFFERENT MODES at DIFFERENT RATES.
Each collection mode has their own benefits and drawbacks.
The live-caller to cellphone skews badly female and metro.
Again, this is not a secret in the industry and is only taken as gospel by the media pundits who help prop up narratives and the status quo in the industry.
Yes, IVR has downsides, which we've all heard about. But point being, we only hear about the downsides of certain modes.
I understand harping on the 2018 generic ballot is very helpful to cover for media/university polling failures at the state level. But it's dishonest.
Given the split decision, it's very plausible ambiguous wording was at play. Wording matters a lot.
peoplespunditdaily.com/polls/2019/04/…
In Apr 19, I wrote "it’s becoming clear big media polling critics and analysts have taken few lesson to heart. Instead, they are overstating the performance of their outlets, ignoring significant failures, and attacking those who won’t run with the herd." peoplespunditdaily.com/polls/2019/04/…
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.