- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 338
All I see is a bunch of rambling (Azevedo, figures) about how they got the winner right nearly every single time but were off on the actual margins. And then a handful of times they got the winner wrong. The sky truly is falling.If you actually voted in the last few ellections you would not ask for a source
https://veja.abril.com.br/blog/rein...ra-que-o-eleitor-e-o-culpado-por-suas-falhas/
https://br.noticias.yahoo.com/datafolha-erra-mais-que-ibope-em-pesquisas-no-1º-turno-234630119.html
Dilma was supposed to win by a confortable margin but was in the end a close decision, Doria was supposed to have a second turn but won in the first turn, the mistakes in other states have 10/5 points in last elections. Just read up
The amount of positive posts for Bolsonaro, how much he gets talked about over other candidates tell me Ibope and folha are at it again
Sorry, but that's not enough for a reasonable person to replace polls with what they see on social media and supposed crowd sizes. What you're saying is essentially "hey there's a bunch of people attending his rallies, he must be the winner!". Thousands of people attended the white supremacist rally last year at Charlottesville, doesn't mean the US is turning into a fascist state. Just that there's a bunch of fascists willing to band together while other people stay home.
Look, nobody is saying polls are perfect. They can be right and they can be wrong. The key point is that they are right more often than not and there's no better substitute. I'm not going to debate anecdotal evidence since it heavily relies on the circles you navigate.