Not sure if you guys watched the interview Kamala had on Fox News. Why did she agree to that? Is she that delusional?
Is the leftist bubble that strong that she did not expect questions on immigration or economy?
There was a part where she said the experts agree that her economic plan will increase economy unlike Trump and she did not expect to be asked what she did for the past 3.5 years if she can save the economy.
She then became unstable and full TDS crazy.
Mark Halperin made the point to Tucker that the public polls are as reliable as Baghdad Bob and that the private polls commissioned by candidates, which cost a lot of money, are the only real data to anyone in the race.
Nate Silver (who is apparently persona non grata with the leftists now??) wrote a piece saying the exact opposite. Or, more precisely, he said that the internal polling that candidates publicly release or leak is less reliable than public polling.
Internal polling is used as a campaign piece to drive a narrative.
Nate Silver is also a liar who looks like he should be asking strangers for spare change. He's just about the most pathetic looking mother fucker I've ever seen and I once met that old skeleton Harry Reid.
That's true in terms of appearance.
Is he a liar?
He's kind of another case of a former golden child of the left getting chased out of town for slightly disagreeing. https://archive.ph/iCAC7 (Vox, "What happened to Nate Silver")
Yes he is a liar. Nobody should be so fluent in statistics, that then fails to mark on how extraordinarily fraudlent 2020 was.
There can be no respect for liars.
The other guy who replied to you got to it first, but his answer is correct. The steal. Anyone who purports to understand statistics knows that Biden's vote curve is less likely than winning the lottery while being struck by lightning.
So maybe candidates commission junk polls and leak them to drum up support, but don't release the valuable real-time polls.
Sure, maybe. But since nobody outside of campaigns sees these internal results, we just have to take their word for it (or not)?
It's not so much they talk about the results as they change their behavior based on internal polling. Kamala just made a kamikaze run on Fox News with only a few weeks to go until the election.
Of course he's going to say that because he generates public polls that he wants people to put eyeballs on. Silver is a faggot.
Silver is not a pollster and he doesn't generate any polls.
"Why you should mostly ignore 'internal polls'" https://archive.ph/Q56il
If you've got a problem with anything in the article, go for it.
You're right, he actually generates analysis on public polls rather than any polls himself. He would be out of a job if no one thought they were valid, and further, he actually did do some polling of his own (via FiveThirtyEight) in the now distant past. It's perfectly reasonable to think and believe that campaigns will publicly release "internal polling" results that are fabrications to develop a public narrative, but this doesn't actually address the question of whether real internal polls are more or less valid than public ones.
Here's the thing -- we ALL know that public polls are almost entirely Left slanted and intentionally erroneous to some degree, not even speaking to their other inherent flaws. Which is to say, they're unreliable just on the face of them. While internal polls could suffer the same problem, hitting on Silver's claim of "principal-agent" and "true believer" bias, there is a much, much stronger incentive for candidates to operate on precise internal polls. After all, there is a tremendous amount of money and power involved, not merely ego stroking, and the people backing these candidates apply even more pressure for them to use good internal data to get the desired outcome -- won elections that solidify regulatory capture, corruption and all the other things being paid for by these external parties.