The biggest “fake news” story of the last few years was that Donald Trump had almost no chance of being elected president. The entire pundit-polling-news establishment (including myself) was wrong, and the expectation was that these institutions would recalibrate their coverage to reflect a true picture of the country. They made an enormous miscalculation and they would, of course, make changes.

Almost two years later, very little has changed in polling and analysis at major institutions and news media. If anything, the polling has drifted even further from reality when you look at the questions being asked and, more importantly, the questions not being asked. You don’t need polls to see the America you live in. You need polls to understand the part of America you don’t know, don’t see, and don’t understand.

I believe that, in 2016, many of the national election polls were basically accurate, depicting a fairly close race, but the analysis of them was sophomoric, failing to understand the electoral college power of the unique coalition Trump amassed. His daily Midwest rallies were dismissed as curiosities of a desperate candidate with no real chance of winning. Boy, were they wrong.


This disconnect could be happening all over again. Take a look, for example, at the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll for July. It’s very professional and a generally accurate poll. Look at what it found this month: Trump’s approval rating edged up 1 point and his “strong approval” went up 3 points. His personal image improved several points. The congressional horserace closed 4 points in the direction of Republicans.

Yet, the rest of the poll documents how people want more immigration, want to continue the Robert Mueller investigation, see tariffs as increasing prices for consumers and, of course, that Trump was too friendly to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The headlines on NBC screamed negative clickbait, while the poll shows Trump and the Republicans advancing. The more intense support for Trump was attributed by one of the pollsters to Trump’s attacks on the press.

Notice a disconnect between the polls and the people? The questions focus on the anti-Trump storyline as though the point of the questions is to prove the validity of that coverage. Except for a single query about Trump’s performance on the economy, the rest of the questions are framed in ways that would lead any reader to believe everything the president does is wrong and opposed by the public. Some of it is. But not to the extent depicted. That’s the danger in polls that miss the full story.

 How is it fake news?  Are you saying the polls had data that indicated Trump would win and intentionally published contradictory results?

 I was under the impression that the methods used in polling data assessment were dated compared to the methods used in creating votes.

 When Russia associates create unverified information and post it as fact, or even opinion it could be considered fake news.

 How was polling data altered to create a false assessment versus an inaccurate one?

I read it but didn't see information about it being twisted prior.

"They "interpreted" it, more like TWISTED IT, to favor Clinton.

Didn't you read the article?"

 Did you?  I cant find a single mention of Clinton.


"I believe that, in 2016, many of the national election polls were basically accurate, depicting a fairly close race, but the analysis of them was sophomoric, failing to understand the electoral college power of the unique coalition Trump amassed. His daily Midwest rallies were dismissed as curiosities of a desperate candidate with no real chance of winning. Boy, were they wrong."

 So from what I can see the polls were accurate, but the assessment was "sophomoric" but not manipulative or otherwise intentionally altered to convey a result.

 That is potentially being done now, but not in 2016, that article contradicts itself:

"The biggest “fake news” story of the last few years was that Donald Trump had almost no chance of being elected president."

"I believe that, in 2016, many of the national election polls were basically accurate, depicting a fairly close race, but the analysis of them was sophomoric,"

 Fake News as far as I can tell is used to define inaccurate or fabricated information in a news type media.  Basically accurate but poorly interpreted, versus fabricated to show false results, are not the same to me.

 The article as I read it indicates that there are manipulative polling methods being used now. not with Clinton in 2016.



NOTE: This post was typed by a person other than the represented poster "Eegore". All content within this post was typed verbatim and verified by means of audio, video, or in-person by Eegore before being posted on this forum.

Polls claiming Hillary was Out in Front were lies, intended to get weak willed followers to support the Obvious Winner. As the election approached they were forced to Adjust the claims more toward reality, in order to not destroy the value of polls.
When I see a poll I consider the political climate and the people or topic of the poll.

Early polls were showing her wiping out trump.
I'm old and watched the Game before.
Brazile ADMITTED she
Saw no big support for Hillary
When she traveled the country.
I'm willing to conclude, based on evidence, without a government study, that pollsters are just as biased as the media and will use a poll to Create support, when it's not there to report.

I didn't SAY they were All wrong.
And the fact that the Trump team didn't announce that they saw the polls as lies doesn't mean they didn't.
He did do his own, so, what does that say?

"I didn't SAY they were All wrong."

 I didn't say you did.  

 What I meant to convey is that given the methods used by the Trump digital campaign, why would I think that 100's of analysts were incorrect in using the actual, unadjusted poll data.

"And the fact that the Trump team didn't announce that they saw the polls as lies doesn't mean they didn't."

 This is true, but given the released metrics on the digital components post-poll release there is a significant response from the Trump campaign that reflects a response to poll data as released, with no adjustments for falsification.  They may have thought they were lies but the digital record, and their statements react to actual poll data.  So yeah they may have thought there was mass-falsification however the counter strategy did not take that into effect to a degree  large enough to be measurable, or to be mentioned by the very people who took on the task.