A top spokesman for Donald Trump refused to admit Thursday that unscientific online polls are “bogus” when pressed repeatedly by MSNBC host Chuck Todd.
“Why do you think the multiple polls, scientific polls, have said Hillary Clinton won the debate by a two-to-one margin?” Todd asked. “I mean, it’s not even close.”
“All right, well I got to set you straight on that one,” said Jason Miller, a senior communications adviser to Trump, before citing unscientific online polls.
- youtube
- oEmbedUrl
- http://www.youtube.com/oembed?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-F8cvoMoDE?rel=0
Online polls are dismissed by professional pollsters and analysts as inaccurate because the sample is made up of self-selecting participants and does not reflect the full composite of the electorate.
"What scientific poll had Donald Trump winning? Give me one scientific poll," Todd demanded. "Everything else - those are fan polls, man."
Miller insisted the unscientific web polls are "snapshots of what people are thinking who are actually watching the debate."
Todd, growing frustrated, explained to Miller that online web polls do not accurately reflect the opinion of voters.
"Those are all like robot polling. It's not real polling. They're not!" he exclaimed.
He continued: "Jason, you've been doing this a while! You know those are bogus! You know these are bogus! They are beyond non-scientific! … They're not real, Jason!"
Miller, undeterred, kept to his talking points.
"Chuck, the energy and the enthusiasm in this race are all with Mr. Trump," he said.
All four scientific polls conducted in the aftermath of the debate found viewers thought Clinton won handily. However, before the slew of scientific polls was released, Trump touted unscientific online polls that his supporters had flooded to declare him the winner.
Fox News host Sean Hannity and some of his colleagues helped fuel Trump's narrative by also citing such unscientific online polls, ultimately resulting in a network executive sending out a memo reminding employees that online polls "do not meet ... editorial standards."
Dit artikel is oorspronkelijk verschenen op z24.nl
