November 17, 2016

The Donald Trump supporter pollsters missed: "I'm the guy who never answered the phone when caller ID said 'Number Unavailable.'"

"I don't want every opinion, every perspective, and every trend to be visible to those who would mold public opinion," writes Bill Duncan.
I am suspicious that had the power brokers in Washington known what was coming, they'd have found a way to get Hillary Clinton into office. I didn't want that. I'm fed up. Enough is enough. I want my country back. This is supposed to be a government of the people — not of the banks, lobbyists and foreign donors. I am one of an endangered species called the American middle class.....

[Y]ou, the pollsters and the incredibly biased "mainstream" media, wouldn't listen to me. You have been too busy promoting your own poisonous agenda. You did everything you could to brand conservatives as homophobic, xenophobic, greedy racists...

America is not intolerant, it is kind and welcoming and insists only that people follow the rule of law and assimilate if they come here....
You fail to understand this because you are listening exclusively to America's worst critics; people who believe only in tearing down the traditions, perspectives and governmental foundations that made us great. You were trained up by liberal professors... And now, you scratch your heads, wondering how you could have been so clueless. You spend endless television and radio hours interviewing not the typical Americans like me, but one another — asking what happened.
That was actually kind of incoherent. He says he wouldn't talk to the pollsters and then he complained that the pollsters didn't listen to people like him. I get that he's angry. And his side won, so go ahead and taunt them for not figuring out how to see you. I'm not quite sure why this man is able to think that he personally is the voice the pollsters didn't hear. He's a voice that wasn't heard. Except it was, wasn't it? It just wasn't counted accurately, and — more aptly — it was discounted. People like this should be ignored because they can be overwhelmed by other voters. But not enough of those voters — the unreliable reliable Democrats — showed up.

105 comments:

buwaya puti said...

Way too many people are too emotional about this, and there is no healthy emotional release.
Whats really needed is a Thunderdome, where clean physical violence is possible, to release the emotion, either personally or vicariously. There is a reason we have physical bodies and violent instincts.

exhelodrvr1 said...

It's not incoherent - "I am suspicious that had the power brokers in Washington known what was coming, they'd have found a way to get Hillary Clinton into office."

He clearly says that he was concerned that if the "power brokers" knew how middle America felt, they would figure out a way around it, as opposed to addressing the underlying issues.

Which is true.

Bill Peschel said...

"[Y]ou, the pollsters and the incredibly biased "mainstream" media, wouldn't listen to me."

So if he had said: "The incredibly biased "mainstream" media, wouldn't listen to me," you would have been fine with it?

You hinge your whole "don't listen to him" argument on that? That's it?

Pretty shabby argument, professor. How about taking on the rest of his argument, considering we know that The New York Times has an agenda set that they ask reporters to write to, that at least one major Times reporter asked the Hillary campaign to approve the quotes she gave directly to the Times, the opposition by the Democratic Party to just clean up the voter rolls of dead people and those who've moved, the double-standard in the recent coverage of Trump's steak dinner vs. Obama's social ghosting, and ... need I say more?

Bill Peschel said...

And another thing!

"I'm not quite sure why this man is able to think that he personally is the voice the pollsters didn't hear."

He has the sense to recognize that he is one voice. He's not so hubristic to think he's the voice of his generation, or of hack journalists who writes sweeping generalizations that is really his own biases.

OK, I'll settle down now.

Owen said...

Exhelodrvr: what you said. He is not in the least incoherent. And he's not complaining that the Prog media *don't* understand people like him; he's saying that they *won't.*

Owen said...

Exhelodrvr: what you said. He is not in the least incoherent. And he's not complaining that the Prog media *don't* understand people like him; he's saying that they *won't.*

Owen said...

Exhelodrvr: what you said. He is not in the least incoherent. And he's not complaining that the Prog media *don't* understand people like him; he's saying that they *won't.*

ngtrains said...

"They" don't want to listen. They have their agenda, and that's where they are going. Sorta like 'like it or leave.' Maybe things will change. They certainly changed under BO, but not for the better.

MadisonMan said...

Over-parsing/fisking of a column should be reserved for the people who are paid to put out a column. I rather like reading the not-so-perfect musings of Joe the Plumber, so to speak.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

That made up angry middle classian was all smoke and mirrors to boot strap the hoax polls creators back into us giving them one more chance to be Lucy holding Charlie Brown's football.

Weaponized fake polls bought and paid for by donor money to suppress Trump's voters was part of the MSM bag of tricks...and they want belief in them bac. It was those lying Angry Rubes.

Fritz said...

It's good for democracy to have doubt in the ability of pollsters to predict the vote too closely before the election; it tends to kill the rationale for people to vote. It's either "well, my guy can't win" or "my girl has it in the bag". A good scare like this will serve as a reminder that no matter what the polls say, you actually need to vote.

dreams said...


"Exhelodrvr: what you said. He is not in the least incoherent. And he's not complaining that the Prog media *don't* understand people like him; he's saying that they *won't.*"

I agree, Althouse is trying to spin rather than face the truth.

Lauderdale Vet said...

Incoherent? Perhaps. It resonated with me, however.

Clyde said...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

rhhardin said...

Let's sue another pizza shop and show him he's wrong.

Owen said...

All: apologies for multiple posts. These Interwebz are complicated.

MayBee said...

I get what he's saying because I feel it too.

It takes almost more bravery than I have to express a conservative opinion to outsiders at this point. Why do it if there is nothing to gain from it personally?

It's what makes Althouse brave.

tim in vermont said...

Wikileaks: "So we can maximize what we get out of our media polling." - John Podesta

The context was an attached lengthy report enumerating the many known ways to subtly skew a poll Democrat. Podesta had billions of dollars at his disposal, through campaign money, third parties, etc. He had no need whatsoever to get actual data from media polls. What he needed from media polls was propaganda value, in particular, suppression of Republican votes through discouragement. "Keep hope alive!" It was their strategy to not count certain voters.

Tim Wright said...

In all the arguments about reliability of polls, what doesn't seem to be discussed is the role played by caller ID. I absolutely don't answer the phone, and particularly did not this election, when it says private caller, or is a weird out of state number, an 800 number, etc. I don't have any use for pollsters, and if the people doing as I do lean conservative or "populist," that would seem to skew the polls would it not?

Roy Lofquist said...

"People like this should be ignored because they can be overwhelmed by other voters."

Yup. The pollsters ignored him. The Clinton camp ignored him. The MSM ignored him. Turns out they were right. Amirite?

Michael K said...

I was never called by a pollster but I am in California so maybe they assumed a Hillary voter. Since Orange County voted for her, maybe they were right.

The assumption by both Republicans and Democrats that she would win is an interesting phenomenon.

I was not impressed with Trump until about June. The Hillary server thing and then Wikileaks, made me wonder if he might pull it off.

I think Trump, maybe because of his experience with alternative media, saw something politicians don't. The hysterical attacks on Bannon suggest the left now recognizes what a mortal enemy he is to their ambitions. I expect riots until after January 20, maybe until June if Soros' money holds out.

Larry J said...

Like a lot of people, I don't answer poll calls. They called me, meaning they have my phone number and know who I am. Given what happened to the people in California who donated to Prop 8, letting them know how I intended to vote had no upside and a lot of downside risk. Screw them and their polls.

The press uses polls to shape the news rather than reflect it. They cover elections like horse races - who is pulling ahead, who is falling behind - and cherry pick their data to feed the all important "narrative". "Hillary will win. Hillary MUST win! Trump is losing, you hear me, LOSING! You shouldn't even bother to get out of bed on election day if you want to vote for him." They then wonder why their ratings are declining, why their advertising income is declining, and why 70% of Americans believe their coverage was biased. It's only that low because the remaining 30% supported the side the press was biased towards.

campy said...

I expect riots until after January 20, maybe until June if Soros' money holds out.

Or they might stop in early January when Congress counts the electoral votes.

Sebastian said...

"That was actually kind of incoherent. He says he wouldn't talk to the pollsters and then he complained that the pollsters didn't listen to people like him." Correct. But the incoherence of populist resentment nonetheless makes statement.

"It just wasn't counted accurately, and — more aptly — it was discounted." Correct. And mainly because, as most people assumed, me included, that there weren't enough deplorables to overcome the Dem registration/GOTV/polling advantage. But the reverse-shy potential pro-Hill voters didn't show up while the Romney/McCain folks, plus some switchers in the north, did turn out as usual.

@MK: "I expect riots until after January 20." I expect riots on January 20.

EMD said...

"You spend endless television and radio hours interviewing not the typical Americans like me, but one another"

This is a huge point. Anchors interview reporters non-stop. It's bullshit and an endless feedback loop inside the media bubble. That's all the Sunday shows are is insiders talking to insiders. People who go nowhere and learn nothing new.

Curious George said...

Althouse fails to think "over time." The man complains that pollsters didn't listen, so he stopped talking. How hard is that to figure out? Even for a government employee.

Simon Kenton said...

In Boulder your vote counts for little to nothing if you are not a Democrat. I became one because of a county commission race where there was actually an extremely competent candidate, running as a Dem, of course. He lost, to a set of 3 women, the Erinyes. Infernal goddesses indeed. I digress; through torpor I remain a Democrat, and therefore received a couple of GOTV calls from local numbers ending, "So can I count on you to get out and support Hillary!?" I told them indignantly, "No! What do you take me for? She is the most corrupt candidate in my lifetime. Far worse than Nixon, even. And you expect me to vote for her? Give my vote ... to her?" That was as far as I got before the click of social outcastery.

One pollster's post mortem I read indicated various problems that spoiled their results - outreach, sampling bias, cellphones, blah blah - but closed by saying that at least voters don't lie to pollsters. Isn't it pretty to think so? Of course she had to say that; otherwise there was a cold hand clamping the throat of the goose laying golden eggs. Personally, I never fail to lie to pollsters, with zest, invention, artistry. It's so gratifying to think of the campaign that would be based on my responses, assuming (correctly, I think, with Hillary!) that the candidate dons and doffs positions based on polled responses.

Freder Frederson said...

I expect riots until after January 20, maybe until June if Soros' money holds out.

There is zero evidence that anyone is funding these demonstrations. Just like the "2 million illegal voters", you are full of shit, and so is anyone who furthers this myth.

Bob Ellison said...

The Professor was astute in whipping out the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" tag months ago. TDS took over before the election.

Reagan inspired a similar syndrome, and of course Krauthammer gave it a name under George W. Bush. But those took a little time to develop.

TDS is strong and wide, and he's still a private citizen! This is gonna be bad, really bad, and it's going to get worse and stronger with each passing week.

Freder Frederson said...

Weaponized fake polls bought and paid for by donor money to suppress Trump's voters was part of the MSM bag of tricks

This is nonsensical in the extreme. If you are stupid enough to be discouraged because the polls are against you, that is not suppression, you are just being lazy.

I have lived in deep red states (Kansas and Louisiana), and I know most of the national and statewide candidates I support are going to lose. But I still get out there and vote for them.

John said...

We have a moral obligation to lie to political pollsters.

John henry

tom swift said...

Seemed crystal clear to me.

And I don't answer the phone, period. The phone is for calling out for pizza (which I don't do anymore), calling the police about those damn kids on my lawn again, and that's about it. Everything of importance - or even mere interest - I do via internet, and I don't answer most of my e-mail either.

But I vote anyway.

Todd said...

traditionalguy said...
That made up angry middle classian was all smoke and mirrors to boot strap the hoax polls creators back into us giving them one more chance to be Lucy holding Charlie Brown's football.

Weaponized fake polls bought and paid for by donor money to suppress Trump's voters was part of the MSM bag of tricks...and they want belief in them bac. It was those lying Angry Rubes.

11/17/16, 7:06 AM


There is some truth to what you say. Also truth in the referenced article. We turned off our land-line earlier this year because 85% of the calls we got on it were either solicitations or polls or scams. We just have our cells now. We both don't answer the phone when we don't recognize the number. For the cells it is much easier as "if I want to talk to you, you are in my contacts". My rule of thumb is if you call me twice and leave no message [and you are not in my contacts], I block you. iPhones make this much easier nowadays. Sometimes I will call back the number that called me from another phone just to see who was there. 90% of the time it was a poll. I don't do polls. First it confirms you are a "good" number, second most polls are worded so poorly that they are designed to get the results the funder wants and third now they know more about you for later follow-up (only slight paranoia on that last one).

Long story short, you are both right.

rhhardin said...

You can defeat pollsters by not answering their questions but stalling. They're not allowed to hang up because it biases the poll.

That raises the costs to the pollster.

Similarly with junk phone calls, try to find a common interest with the calling party, say pets. Talk for an hour.

Todd said...

Freder Frederson said... [hush]​[hide comment]
I expect riots until after January 20, maybe until June if Soros' money holds out.

There is zero evidence that anyone is funding these demonstrations. Just like the "2 million illegal voters", you are full of shit, and so is anyone who furthers this myth.

11/17/16, 8:08 AM


Really? Well 3 seconds with Google turns up lots of "proof" including this: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/heres-proof-soros-money-funding-anti-trump-leftist-protest-riots/

Take a minute, Google for your self and "expand your mind"...

M Jordan said...

Incoherent? Then to hell with coherence.

Mike said...

Freder Frederson: I expect riots until after January 20, maybe until June if Soros' money holds out.

There is zero evidence that anyone is funding these demonstrations. Just like the "2 million illegal voters", you are full of shit, and so is anyone who furthers this myth.


Anti-Trump protests funded by left wing charity.

Gusty Winds said...

Thank God the Electoral College isn't run by liberal professors.

dreams said...

Trump was right when he said the election was rigged, the media used polls to try to suppress Republican voters.

"Such is the conservative’s relationship to the American mainstream media. Older readers may remember an era when the media generally reported facts and left spin to the mind of the viewer, or at least wasn’t so crookedly biased. In accurately predicting President-Elect Trump’s victorious path through Michigan and Pennsylvania, I indicated that the media was distorting polling numbers deliberately to keep Trump supporters from bothering to vote. While Trump won an electoral landslide, only a relatively small chunk of votes made the difference in those two states and in Florida. Yes, the lying, propagandizing jackals in media nearly won the election for Clinton. They decided to hang together up until the bitter end, and are now predictably circling the wagons trying to figure out what went wrong. Everyone knew there was a secret Trump vote, and they still lied. Guess what? When you spend a year calling half of the country Nazis, there is going to be a secret vote."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/drown_out_the_lying_msm.html#ixzz4QHCNgZbz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

campy said...

"expand your mind"...

You realize you're talking to Freder, right?

tim in vermont said...

More for dispatches from reality for Freder:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/blocks-anti-trump-protest-buses-caught-tape

He uses that phrase "zero evidence," but I do not think he knows what it means.

Seeing Red said...

It was coherent.


They kept calling, he kept telling, but no one listened.


He also could have participated on line.

Or called his rep's office.


My hair stylist messed with their phone push polls.

Kept telling them she was gonna vote dem, no additional questions to her.

A week before, she decided to Trump Them. Then she started getting extra questions and explained her positions.


They didn't like that.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Every hysterical melodramatic Facebook liberal thinks they're the Conscience of a Generation. You're overthinking this, Althouse. Its the way we live now.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"Incoherent? Then to hell with coherence.

Well, that seems to sum up modern America, doesn't it?

Fabi said...

Freder will have a difficult time with those two links -- they've been declared fake news sites by his Google overlords.

Seeing Red said...

No evidence the rabble is being funded?

Bwaaaaaaa


Buses don't pay for themselves, neither do pre-printed signs.


But, were there puppets?

CWJ said...

"I have lived in deep red states (Kansas and Louisiana)"

Governor Blanco, governor Sebelius, Senator Landrieu off the top of my head. Now to be fair they've been out of office for the Obama adminiustration, but 8 years's is the majority of Freder's adult life so there's that.

Laslo Spatula said...

I'm Renfro Jeffries. Nazi And Proud Of It!.

The Government-Media-Cosmopolitan Complex will never listen until they are lined up against the bullet-pocked wall, rifles pointed at their chests. Then will come the feeble excuses, the rationalizations and the outright lies they have taught themselves to believe...

They are lucky to live in such a soft country: very few would be willing to be standing there, holding the rifles. Oh, many would say they'd love to do it, but put the rifle in their hand as those of the Complex sob and beg and the Will to pull the trigger will fade away: "I can't shoot a woman," they'll say, and with that the Fight is lost...

Is America too soft to save itself? The Government-Media-Cosmopolitan Complex is our own Viet Cong, and even when they lose they are winning, because they know they just have to wait us out until our Will wanes: we need scalps on belts, America, we need napalm and skull-fucking...

You are on the wrong side of the barbed wire, friends. Helter Skelter is coming, and it's coming with Cattle Cars: don't say I didn't tell you.

I'm Renfro Jeffries, Nazi And Proud Of It!

I am Laslo.

Robert Cook said...

I don't typically answer unknown numbers simply because I don't want my time taken up with solicitation calls. I never assume it will be a pollster. The few times I have answered calls and they were conducting a poll, I have answered their questions, honestly, but my main gripe is the time they take up. Now, if I act without thinking and answer a call whose number I don't recognize, and if it turns out to be a sales call or other unwelcome call, I just hang up. I used to be too polite to do that, and then I was faced with protracted discussions explaining why I wasn't interested.

Charles said...

Don't see that many "out-and-proud" Nazis anymore. Yay First Amendment!

tim in vermont said...

they've been declared fake news sites by his Google overlords.

Right, and "legitimate news sites" are remarkably incurious regarding the issue. Once again to Wikileaks:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

Of course the news media will give the above story a good leaving alone too. You know, those emails were stolen, so we shouldn't see what is in them! I remember when the left was like "question authority!" Now it's all "Don't question authority!"

I wonder what changed?

madAsHell said...

Since Orange County voted for her, maybe they were right.

Wow, when I lived in LA (in the 80's), Orange County was a very, very Republican place. Did they all move to San Diego?...Coronado?

Seeing Red said...

I thought Kansas' last gov was dem?

Louisiana was blue until Katrina.


That BS Freder is flinging only applies to the young'uns here or those who don't pay attention.

It's like saying Bloomberg was actually a republican.

No, he ran as one because the dem primary was crowded.


Or like Trump is a republican.

He's still a New York dem, a possibly somewhat enlightened dem, but he is.

That's the funniest thing about this whole election.

Kristian Holvoet said...

It is only incoherent because y'all are (intentionally?) misunderstanding his point. He says he won't talk and give important intelligence because he doesn't trust you (establishment / liberals / progressives) not to use it against him. Either to destroy him personally (Joe the Plumber), professionally (Bakeries / Pizzarias) or politically (IRS and Tea Party). Don't complain that he is saying y'all don't listen so he won't talk and that doesn't make sense. He just doesn't trust you! You are now other to him and he is done helping you. If you assimilate back in to Americans rather the 'Citizens of the World', I am sure he would be happy to discuss things with you.

tim in vermont said...

Well, Freder, I think it's nonsense that asking somebody in the United States of America to provide proof of citizenship is voter suppression. But your sainted Democrats themselves seem to disagree with your take:

Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes. - National Review

Gusty Winds said...

Our Sales and Marketing departments have completely changed their strategies accepting the fact that nobody answers a call where the caller ID number is either unknown or unrecognized.

Makes sense this would cause difficulty for the pollsters too.

Todd said...

madAsHell said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Since Orange County voted for her, maybe they were right.

Wow, when I lived in LA (in the 80's), Orange County was a very, very Republican place. Did they all move to San Diego?...Coronado?

11/17/16, 8:58 AM


No, they are still there but their votes have been drowned in a sea of illegals that vote Democrat as has been the CA plan for the last couple of decades.

Carol said...

Since I'm a known Republican I get polls during primary season. I don't mind answering at all. Told my husband to not hang up, give me the phone. It helps me figure out what the GOP is up to. So few people answer or cooperate that you can have a lot of influence.

So I recall getting one long survey last spring, and I could tell it was the GOP scoping us out. I made sure to give immigration and trade as my issues i.e. a Trump voter, then at the end they asked about each GOP candidate and I said I favored Trump. I like to think people like me who let the GOP/RNC know how we leaned encouraged them to back off pushing Bush or Rubio on us.

But no matter how long the call, the pollster isn't going to find out what you really think and why, because the questions are so narrow.

I Callahan said...

Well, that seems to sum up modern America, doesn't it?

Good thing we have New York lefties like Bob to point that out to us rubes.

PB said...

I never answer the phone if caller id shows as unavailable or someone I don't know. I let it go to voice mail. I can call back if I want to.

I don't have the Pavlovian response to answer the phone when it rings. The power to ignore is great.

Charles said...

Re: Orange County, CA -- Hillary did win because of Santa Ana, but keep in mind that many of those votes were from naturalized (and, even, U.S. born) Hispanics. While I don't discount some illegals voting as well, not the 64,000 vote difference. Lots of us who could not vote for either of them, voted for Gary Johnson, who received 38,610 votes here.

tim in vermont said...

Our Sales and Marketing departments have completely changed their strategies accepting the fact that nobody answers a call where the caller ID number is either unknown or unrecognized.

Yeah, you fucking bastards diddle with the signalling to show some local number unrelated to your business. When I get a call like that, I save an extra special fuck you, and you better hope I get it out and hang up before I find out what the product is you low-lifes are selling or it will go on my growing "banned for life" list.

Michael K said...

Lots of us who could not vote for either of them, voted for Gary Johnson, who received 38,610 votes here.

Yes, I suspected the NeverTrumpers contributed considerably to her total.

Charles said...

Luckily, California was always going to go for Hillary (even if she had been indicted). If I was living in Michigan (or even Orange County, FLORIDA), I would have voted for Trump instead.

Michael K said...

There is zero evidence that anyone is funding these demonstrations.

Freder is stamping his tiny feet again. The evidence is all over but, with your eyes firmly closed, you can't see it.

Wow, when I lived in LA (in the 80's), Orange County was a very, very Republican place. Did they all move to San Diego?...Coronado?

11/17/16, 8:58 AM

No, they are still there but their votes have been drowned in a sea of illegals that vote Democrat as has been the CA plan for the last couple of decades.


Plus lots of NeverTrumpers who voted Johnson or left the president slot blank.

Charles said...

I mean "[l]uckily" for making my decision easier, not that I am a Hillary supporter at all. Instead of DENOUNCING the violence at these protests following her defeat, she says to: "fight for our values and never, ever give up." If she had won instead, and TRUMP supporters were rioting, wouldn't the media be going crazy and demanding that he denounce it?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Well, that seems to sum up modern America, doesn't it?

If you mean that people are more worried about substance than superficialities that appeal to their condescending inferiors, then yes, it does.

That's probably troubling for you and your dreams of a utopian dictatorship, but it's a good thing for normal people.

robother said...

Anonymous caller who purports to be a pollster (who could be polling for the Democrats) wants to know if you support Trump. If you answer "yes" its not like you're risking vandalism, physical violence or your career, is it?


Earnest Prole said...

You spend endless television and radio hours interviewing not the typical Americans like me, but one another — asking what happened.

Looking for the lost keys under the streetlight: “A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, ‘this is where the light is.’”

Big Mike said...

I think the writer is saying that there's something wrong with the pollsters that they totally overlooked his demographic. But I think there's a parallel with 1948. I need to caveat this by noting that I was a toddler in 1948, and what I know of the Dewey-Truman election comes from reading (and rereading) William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream. But Dewey was thought to be hopelessly ahead, everybody knew it, the polls showed it. But at the end of the campaign the polls were showing movement towards Truman, and Manchester quoted one of Truman's advisors thinking that if only the election was one week later, his man would have a chance. In the end we know that Truman won handily because the polls were lagging behind the electorate.

Which brings us to 2016, a mere sixty-eight years later. Hillary Clinton was hopelessly ahead and everybody knew it, but the LA Times broke ranks and showed Trump ahead weeks before the election, while some other polls also showed him ahead during the week of October 31-November 6. The RealClearPolitics state by state analysis of the Electoral College showed a race that was loosening and tightening based on Florida's 29 votes, and the last "no toss ups" poll showed Hillary's lead collapsing down to 272 - 268. If Trump held all the states where he was ahead and also took New Hampshire from Hillary it was game over. I went to bed Monday night thinking that if only the campaign went on one more week, despite knowing that November 8th was the latest that the election can possibly be held.

As we know now, Trump lost New Hampshire's 4 votes in exchange for Pennsylvania's 20, Wisconsin's 10, and, apparently, Michigan's 16.

LYNNDH said...

SimonKenton, at least I live in Larimer Cty. but we too are too Dem to oust Polis.

Ann, not everyone is a college "Professor" with a great command of language. Your basis is showing.

Christopher B said...

Big Mike .. the group the LAT assembled for their unorthodox 'Nielsen rating' style poll (they questioned the same 3000 people repeatedly during the campaign) was analyzed demographically and found to be both older and whiter than the general population (not really a surprise) but I suspect they mirrored the people who turned out to vote fairly closely.

Charles said...

Another "unorthodox" poll was on Andy Cohen's "Watch What Happens Live" (which I still think a few Trump voters skewed, but it reflected the enthusiasm gap, at the very least).

Bruce Hayden said...

In all the arguments about reliability of polls, what doesn't seem to be discussed is the role played by caller ID. I absolutely don't answer the phone, and particularly did not this election, when it says private caller, or is a weird out of state number, an 800 number, etc.

How the heck does anyone think that polls can be accurate these days, with caller-id and cell phones? I haven't answered an unknown or suppressed number in years, and wasn't about to during this last election campaign. And, I expect that much of America is the same. I couldn't tell between campaign calls (from around the country - I know some that definitely are, in particular, from one number in Aspen), pollsters, and just sales calls. If I don't recognize your phone number (or, more accurately, in most cases, if Apple doesn't find it in my Contacts), I won't answer your call. You can leave me a voice mail, and I will, maybe, call you back. I know that > 90% of the calls I don't answer are junk calls, because they don't leave voice mail. Just think of the demographics willing to take anyone's incoming calls these days, and give them the time to ask polling questions. I would guess mostly lonely people with a lot of time on their hands. Or, those who can't, or won't, read their phone's caller ID.

Real American said...

the proof that they didn't want to listen is that they still don't. they've already decided what drove people to vote for Trump - the lie that conservatives and/or regular Americans are racist, sexist, bigots, etc. Of course, that's their answer for everything. It's why they're smug assholes who can go fuck themselves. We don't give a shit what they think anymore. They are clueless and their opinions are worthless.

Mac McConnell said...

The traditional polls the media and the Dems relied on were flawed. The Princeton model was wrong, Nate silver was wrong, but closer.
The Repub's internal polls were correct, the Trafalgar Group was spot on during both the primaries and the general election. The MSM refused to believe the Repub's internal polls, they didn't match their prejudices.
Trump voters didn't answer pollsters' questions honestly, mostly because of Soros / Dem brownshirt activities (those activities continue) and the MSM constant disdain for Trump voters. In my suburban neighborhood folks were afraid to display Trump signs, I went through eight of them. I think the Dems finally got tired of stealing them in the last days prior to the election.
So how did the Repubs do it, first find registered voters that didn't vote in the last two elections and add them to the polling. Second, ask voters who they supported, but more importantly to get around voters' reluctance to admitting to supporting Trump, ask them who their neighbors and co-workers support.

mikeski said...

Polling cell phones can't work unless you ask (and get honest answers to) "where do you live?"

I have friends who moved from other states who still have their old area codes.

Despite living in the same area code for almost two decades, my own phone has an area code from a different part of this state.

If you just robocall cells with a 603 area code, what percent of them will really be current New Hampshire residents?

Todd said...

mikeski said...

If you just robocall cells with a 603 area code, what percent of them will really be current New Hampshire residents?

11/17/16, 11:03 AM


Not a problem at all. When Dem orgs do polling, they compare the phone logs with the NSA history of where the phone was used and so can determine state of residency from that. If there are any questions, they just get the IRS involved to see what the tax forms list. They can also get a list of your friends (from same NSA) to know who you mean when you answer the "friends and co-workers" questions. Easy peasy...

Darrell said...

there is zero evidence that anyone is funding these demonstrations.

People being bused in using long-distance coaches might be a tell. Or the Craigslist ads. Or the Move-On ads.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I think he's saying something closer to: I wasn't counted because I chose not to be counted, and I chose not to be counted because I don't trust the people who would do the counting (either to represent my views correctly or to not use my views to further their own causes against me) and I don't trust the people who do the counting because they're biased & untrustworthy.

So he's still blaming the Media and the Left, see? He would like to be in a situation where he could trust the Media and let his voice be heard, but instead he as to hide his real views and only express those in the privacy of the voting booth. He blames that situation (correctly) on the Media.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yeah; what Kristian Holvoet said at 9:01.

traditionalguy said...

There is a livestream of the Trump Tower Lobby at a Drudge link. Lots of very good energy comes from the people coming and going. Ivanka came in early when the carriers of treys loaded with carry out Starbucks were mostly going up. Ivanka talked with the Elevator Concierge for 5 minutes and then took the freight elevator up followed by her posse.

Rocketeer said...

"[Y]ou, the pollsters and the incredibly biased "mainstream" media, wouldn't listen to me."

It's not incoherent, it's just that the anyway at the end of the sentence is implied.

SukieTawdry said...

Yeah, Ann, that was my take as well. If you're bitching about pollsters not wanting to listen to you, next time pick up your phone.

SukieTawdry said...

I've been asked to participate in phone surveys several times. I always ask to hear some of the questions and response choices first. Normally I decline to participate because there's no response that would accurately reflect my opinions. That's the problem with most polls, I think.

SukieTawdry said...

Man, what is up with CAPTCHA these days. Driving me nuts.

Barry Dauphin said...

He does not make the point well, but there is a point to be made about polling in this election cycle. Despite the enormous amount of money and effort that went into the wide variety of polls, very few predicted these results. When landlines are used, the pollsters apparently were not getting a representative sample of actual voters (people who would vote in the election). Trump voters were under sampled, especially in key battleground states. The best explanation is that Trump supporters were less likely to pick up the phone.

Do pollsters have any data on how many people let the phone ring without picking up or are not at home at times of calls and what their preferences are likely to be? I suspect there is a greater percentage of all people who do no pick up the phone these days, due to the existence of caller ID and voicemail rather than simply not being home.

Gahrie said...

I suspect there is a greater percentage of all people who do no pick up the phone these days, due to the existence of caller ID and voicemail rather than simply not being home.

That's me. I have never owned a cellphone, and do not pick up my home phone if I do not recognize the number.

Gahrie said...

Man, what is up with CAPTCHA these days. Driving me nuts.

Ignore it

Big Mike said...

The best explanation is that Trump supporters were less likely to pick up the phone.

Actually, some of us have given up our land lines entirely. My Gen-X children never did use land lines after moving out of the house and into apartments, and given that my old land line crashed during the last Verizon strike and was not fixed for a number of weeks, I thought why bother?

gbarto said...

I think there's another angle: If you live out-state and don't reveal your preference, they don't know how many absentee ballots to have at ready in Milwaukee or Detroit.

cornroaster said...

Absentee ballot fraud is subject of post election litigation in North Carolina.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/33718588/protest-filed-in-bladen-county-over-alleged-fraudulent-absentee-ballots

cornroaster said...

Barry Dauphin said:

Do pollsters have any data on how many people let the phone ring without picking up or are not at home at times of calls and what their preferences are likely to be? I suspect there is a greater percentage of all people who do no pick up the phone these days, due to the existence of caller ID and voicemail rather than simply not being home.

Or were more Trump voters at work?

Barry Dauphin said...

Or were more Trump voters at work?

Could be, but I thought pollsters have been trying to take that into account. Their models appear to have some gaps.

Jason said...

Did you think that polling is the only way to listen?

Barry Dauphin said...

Did you think that polling is the only way to listen?

Of course not, but it is one useful way of gathering information about elections, especially if it's done well.

dwick said...

"That was actually kind of incoherent."

Typical academic elite attitude... The sort I read in the Comments section of NY Times' editorials every day - only with more of that tired Althouse pedanticalness.

Jon Ericson said...

Yeah, the sneer comes through.

tim in vermont said...

The problem with opinion polls is the need to reduce them to a single number. To get to that number, one has to put in a ton of assumptions, and these assumptions are not openly discussed for probably both honest and dishonest reasons.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Ann's problem is the Democrats' problem in the sense is that they are now the student whereas they are usually accustomed to thinking of themselves as the teacher. When the teacher says something you don't understand, it's not incoherent, your understanding is incomplete/inadequate.

It's the teacher who tells the studentsthat their remarks are incoherent. It's a power relation. They prize power above all, and have no humility, so cannot learn. Who dares imply they don't know it all? Seize them!

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also there are gradations: don't hear, don't listen, don't heed.

Listening to her because she's pretty, or because her voice is pretty, is different from listening to him because he has new information, is different from listening for them because the lights are out and you want to hit them in the dark, or at least know if they're coming.

Qwinn said...

"Zero evidence"

Yeah, it's not like we have multiple people, extremely frequent visitors to the White House no less, on video saying they're paid by the Democrats to create protests, and it's not like they had to resign after those videos were released.

Oh wait. We do.

Asd the buses, the printed signs and the Craigslist ads.

It's pretty obvious that whatever your standard is for "evidence" is literally impossible to meet, R&B.

Or, more likely, when you're dealing with people willing to fund mass riots, a little thing like bald faced lying in the face of MOUNTAINS of IRREFUTABLE evidence isn't going to make your shriveled leprous conscience itch in the slightest.

Jon Ericson said...

Wrong dummkopf.