Honestly

This is Wisconsin

Just don't waste your time studying polls for candidates

I think on policy they tend to be more reliable.

Anyways, it's still something to keep track of, simply for the movements and how it reacts to certain events

But they pull urban areas more often.

^

not if it's random numbers

Even if it's random

They end up pulling urban areas more often.

what

Just because of proportions

Most people live in cities

So if you pull random

You're going to pull a urban voter most of the time.

that still is significant though

it's not like it's biased

K

if you have random numbers it's objective

Polls can sometimes fail miserably and sometimes be extremely accurate. they're certainly worth considering

^

(random)

Not really, polls have been wrong as a whole for the last like 20 years.

2016 there were wrong everwhere

Even the national polls.

It's a matter of which polling organisation is right the most.

Online polling should definitely be discarded, landline polls are generally good

how can no one see the pattern?

PA-18: Trump job approve 49% Saccone (R) - 49%

GA-06: Trump job approve 52%
Handel (R): 52%

MT-AL: Trump job approve: 50%
Gianforte (R): 50%

The problem is polls don't depict turnout.

And to frame your marketing according to the policy concerns of your constituents.

Those are cherry picking

@🎃Boo-ton🎃 those numbers looked like whoever did them pulled them out of their ass

We've had so many elections Button Mash

You need to do every special election

there's no fucking way they just neatly match up

If they predict results then that is something to think about

Yeah he cherry pciked

Trump got the same percent of the vote as Gillespie did too

He missed all of Alabama and Virginia

@🎃Boo-ton🎃 that's not true

I'm going to defend him on this