| I'm sorry, but offhandedly dismissing "these dishonest polls", when, frankly, 1. They're the best data we have 2. We have no reason to believe they're incorrect 3. There is REALLY no reason to believe they're dishonest Is 100% intellectually dishonest. This is exactly what happened 4 years ago, and apparently some people have not learned from their tremendous mistake. If you want to know why "turnout at a campaign event" is a crappier metric than "real actual scientific data", I don't know how else to help, other than to point to other instances in which it has failed: "Mitt drawing larger crowds"
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/mitt-drawing-larger-cr... "Donald Trump continues to draw YUGE crowds. That matters less than he thinks."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/do... "Trump brags about crowd size but will it turn into votes?"
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d74fbd472f7a420a90737e55cfb20... I do not know or care who you support in the Presidential election. However, I suggest you get realistic about your metrics, as you're way off in fantasyland at the moment, as far as I can tell. If you turn out to be incorrect, I hope you learn from this experience. I know I will, if the data turns out to be wrong. |