Blue Wave Drought: Reuters Shows a SIX POINT LEAD for Republicans

[Circe]

Out of 50 states, Wisconsin was the only one in which the polls were wrong. Well within the 95% expected accuracy within a margin of error. And Pennsylvania was not wrong. The polls there showed Hillary would win by 1.9 points and she lost by 0.7 points, within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

I see you have an article from my bete noir there: RealClearPolitics the shameless. I spent all late summer of 2016 going carefully over all its state polls and doing charts and calculations --- anyone who followed RCP obsessively as I did knows that they had Hillary winning BIGLY in both the polls and the articles. Huge win predicted. They were wrong, wrong, wrong ----------- and an amazing waste of time.

I haven't been on that site from then till now. Because they are demonstratively worthless. People --- when something fails as dramatically and decisively as polling and media predictions failed with our 2016 elections, it IS time to pull back and consider that what you've got here could be a completely nonfunctional process. That happens sometimes, like Theranos' failed bloodtesting, the whole company went under, or Enron's business model, when they suddenly went bankrupt. It happened with polls and predictions in 2016: complete and total failure.

I'd recommend not continuing to believe in what doesn't work.

 

[Avatar4321]

heres your blue wave ..

there are 10 seats in the Senate that could flip from Red to Blue - Dems need 2 of those to to take control.

if that happens any law Trump even thinks about pushing through is history ... he might as well go to florida and crawl on his old knees looking for golf balls.

There may be 10 senate seats currently controlled by Republicans that could theoretically flip to Democrat in the November 6, 2018 election.

However, there are 25 senate seats held by Democrats that are up for grabs.

10 Republican senate seats up for grabs.
25 Democrat seats up for grabs.

THINK!

Thinking requires effort. When you start thinking you get addicted and like it. So you stop wanting to let the government think for you

 

[Avatar4321]

Polls are fake. The President said so.

And he sure ought to know, after 83,000 newsies and pollsters gave Hillary a 90% chance to win. I never read any article with a poll in it since 2016, didn't read this one. It's truly pointless, you know. You can't poll a hostile population. The newsies and pollsters were on the left and so the people on the right wouldn't cooperate, and then we won. Surprise!

The polls close to the election predicted a popular vote win for 4 to 6 percent for Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Seems that the polls were not that far off. The polls do not predict the outcome of the EC vote, as it would be impossible for a national poll to do so.

Actually, the polls did try to predict the EC. They predicted the popular vote in each state. The predicted wrong in states like Wisconsin and Penssylvania.

Both states were won by just about 1%. So again not a massive failure by the polls.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So you’re saying Democrats should be worried

 

[Faun]

Polls are fake. The President said so.

And he sure ought to know, after 83,000 newsies and pollsters gave Hillary a 90% chance to win. I never read any article with a poll in it since 2016, didn't read this one. It's truly pointless, you know. You can't poll a hostile population. The newsies and pollsters were on the left and so the people on the right wouldn't cooperate, and then we won. Surprise!

The polls close to the election predicted a popular vote win for 4 to 6 percent for Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Seems that the polls were not that far off. The polls do not predict the outcome of the EC vote, as it would be impossible for a national poll to do so.

Actually, the polls did try to predict the EC. They predicted the popular vote in each state. The predicted wrong in states like Wisconsin and Penssylvania.

Out of 50 states, Wisconsin was the only one in which the polls were wrong. Well within the 95% expected accuracy within a margin of error. And Pennsylvania was not wrong. The polls there showed Hillary would win by 1.9 points and she lost by 0.7 points, within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

In other words, they were wrong.

Fucking moron... scientific polling is inherently outside the margin of error about 5% of the time.

 

[Faun]

Out of 50 states, Wisconsin was the only one in which the polls were wrong. Well within the 95% expected accuracy within a margin of error. And Pennsylvania was not wrong. The polls there showed Hillary would win by 1.9 points and she lost by 0.7 points, within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

I see you have an article from my bete noir there: RealClearPolitics the shameless. I spent all late summer of 2016 going carefully over all its state polls and doing charts and calculations --- anyone who followed RCP obsessively as I did knows that they had Hillary winning BIGLY in both the polls and the articles. Huge win predicted. They were wrong, wrong, wrong ----------- and an amazing waste of time.

I haven't been on that site from then till now. Because they are demonstratively worthless. People --- when something fails as dramatically and decisively as polling and media predictions failed with our 2016 elections, it IS time to pull back and consider that what you've got here could be a completely nonfunctional process. That happens sometimes, like Theranos' failed bloodtesting, the whole company went under, or Enron's business model, when they suddenly went bankrupt. It happened with polls and predictions in 2016: complete and total failure.

I'd recommend not continuing to believe in what doesn't work.

They were not wrong. National polls, on average, were off by 1.2 points.that’s remarkably close. State polling accurately predicted every non-swing state and had only 1 swing state outside of the margin of error.

Plus, for most of the campaign, Hillary was way ahead and the polls accurately reflected that to. It only became a close race in the last two weeks leading up to the election.

The ones who were wildly wrong were the pollsters, not the polls. They were counting any swing states, too close to call, for Hillary. That’s not a flaw in the polls.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Polls are fake. The President said so.

And he sure ought to know, after 83,000 newsies and pollsters gave Hillary a 90% chance to win. I never read any article with a poll in it since 2016, didn't read this one. It's truly pointless, you know. You can't poll a hostile population. The newsies and pollsters were on the left and so the people on the right wouldn't cooperate, and then we won. Surprise!

The polls close to the election predicted a popular vote win for 4 to 6 percent for Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Seems that the polls were not that far off. The polls do not predict the outcome of the EC vote, as it would be impossible for a national poll to do so.

Actually, the polls did try to predict the EC. They predicted the popular vote in each state. The predicted wrong in states like Wisconsin and Penssylvania.

Both states were won by just about 1%. So again not a massive failure by the polls.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So you’re saying Democrats should be worried

Way too early for such things.

The country as a whole though might want to worry, nothing good has ever come from one party holding all seats of power. The best thing for the country is for the Senate to be held by one party and the White House by another.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Out of 50 states, Wisconsin was the only one in which the polls were wrong. Well within the 95% expected accuracy within a margin of error. And Pennsylvania was not wrong. The polls there showed Hillary would win by 1.9 points and she lost by 0.7 points, within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

I see you have an article from my bete noir there: RealClearPolitics the shameless. I spent all late summer of 2016 going carefully over all its state polls and doing charts and calculations --- anyone who followed RCP obsessively as I did knows that they had Hillary winning BIGLY in both the polls and the articles. Huge win predicted. They were wrong, wrong, wrong ----------- and an amazing waste of time.

I haven't been on that site from then till now. Because they are demonstratively worthless. People --- when something fails as dramatically and decisively as polling and media predictions failed with our 2016 elections, it IS time to pull back and consider that what you've got here could be a completely nonfunctional process. That happens sometimes, like Theranos' failed bloodtesting, the whole company went under, or Enron's business model, when they suddenly went bankrupt. It happened with polls and predictions in 2016: complete and total failure.

I'd recommend not continuing to believe in what doesn't work.

They were not wrong. National polls, on average, were off by 1.2 points.that’s remarkably close. State polling accurately predicted every non-swing state and had only 1 swing state outside of the margin of error.

Plus, for most of the campaign, Hillary was way ahead and the polls accurately reflected that to. It only became a close race in the last two weeks leading up to the election.

The ones who were wildly wrong were the pollsters, not the polls. They were counting any swing states, too close to call, for Hillary. That’s not a flaw in the polls.

The hillary lost. You still mad bro.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And he sure ought to know, after 83,000 newsies and pollsters gave Hillary a 90% chance to win. I never read any article with a poll in it since 2016, didn't read this one. It's truly pointless, you know. You can't poll a hostile population. The newsies and pollsters were on the left and so the people on the right wouldn't cooperate, and then we won. Surprise!

The polls close to the election predicted a popular vote win for 4 to 6 percent for Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Seems that the polls were not that far off. The polls do not predict the outcome of the EC vote, as it would be impossible for a national poll to do so.

Actually, the polls did try to predict the EC. They predicted the popular vote in each state. The predicted wrong in states like Wisconsin and Penssylvania.

Both states were won by just about 1%. So again not a massive failure by the polls.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So you’re saying Democrats should be worried

Way too early for such things.

The country as a whole though might want to worry, nothing good has ever come from one party holding all seats of power. The best thing for the country is for the Senate to be held by one party and the White House by another.

Libs were saying the exact opposite in 2010.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The polls close to the election predicted a popular vote win for 4 to 6 percent for Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Seems that the polls were not that far off. The polls do not predict the outcome of the EC vote, as it would be impossible for a national poll to do so.

Actually, the polls did try to predict the EC. They predicted the popular vote in each state. The predicted wrong in states like Wisconsin and Penssylvania.

Both states were won by just about 1%. So again not a massive failure by the polls.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So you’re saying Democrats should be worried

Way too early for such things.

The country as a whole though might want to worry, nothing good has ever come from one party holding all seats of power. The best thing for the country is for the Senate to be held by one party and the White House by another.

Libs were saying the exact opposite in 2010.

The exact opposite of what?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Actually, the polls did try to predict the EC. They predicted the popular vote in each state. The predicted wrong in states like Wisconsin and Penssylvania.

Both states were won by just about 1%. So again not a massive failure by the polls.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So you’re saying Democrats should be worried

Way too early for such things.

The country as a whole though might want to worry, nothing good has ever come from one party holding all seats of power. The best thing for the country is for the Senate to be held by one party and the White House by another.

Libs were saying the exact opposite in 2010.

The exact opposite of what?

Saying the dems needed to hold power.

 

[conserveguy877]

Summer is here! KAG!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Out of 50 states, Wisconsin was the only one in which the polls were wrong. Well within the 95% expected accuracy within a margin of error. And Pennsylvania was not wrong. The polls there showed Hillary would win by 1.9 points and she lost by 0.7 points, within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

I see you have an article from my bete noir there: RealClearPolitics the shameless. I spent all late summer of 2016 going carefully over all its state polls and doing charts and calculations --- anyone who followed RCP obsessively as I did knows that they had Hillary winning BIGLY in both the polls and the articles. Huge win predicted. They were wrong, wrong, wrong ----------- and an amazing waste of time.

I haven't been on that site from then till now. Because they are demonstratively worthless. People --- when something fails as dramatically and decisively as polling and media predictions failed with our 2016 elections, it IS time to pull back and consider that what you've got here could be a completely nonfunctional process. That happens sometimes, like Theranos' failed bloodtesting, the whole company went under, or Enron's business model, when they suddenly went bankrupt. It happened with polls and predictions in 2016: complete and total failure.

I'd recommend not continuing to believe in what doesn't work.

They were not wrong. National polls, on average, were off by 1.2 points.that’s remarkably close. State polling accurately predicted every non-swing state and had only 1 swing state outside of the margin of error.

Plus, for most of the campaign, Hillary was way ahead and the polls accurately reflected that to. It only became a close race in the last two weeks leading up to the election.

The ones who were wildly wrong were the pollsters, not the polls. They were counting any swing states, too close to call, for Hillary. That’s not a flaw in the polls.

How can you say Hillary was ahead the whole race when it is clear that no conclusions can be drawn from modern polls.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Both states were won by just about 1%. So again not a massive failure by the polls.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So you’re saying Democrats should be worried

Way too early for such things.

The country as a whole though might want to worry, nothing good has ever come from one party holding all seats of power. The best thing for the country is for the Senate to be held by one party and the White House by another.

Libs were saying the exact opposite in 2010.

The exact opposite of what?

Saying the dems needed to hold power.

Yeah, the same thing the Repubs are saying now. There is no difference between the two parites anymore, it is all smoke and mirrors.

I have been saying for 25 years that nothing good ever comes from one party holding all 3 and have yet to be prove wrong.

 

[abrere]

we've never seen anything like Trump, Napolitano, Gowdy, Chavez, Pirro or Coulter before, either. I think that they'll make a great team. Chavez or coulter as AG, cause Gowdy wont prosecute the FBI, the other 3 on the supremes. Colter's a nut about the blacks being owed something, and about the wall. So I'd prefer chavez, but he might not be interested. She's a real hardass in the right way about everything else. Maybe make her head of homeland security, with Sheriff Clark as head of the FBI, and Sherrif Joe as head of the DOJ.

 

[edward37]

we've never seen anything like Trump, Napolitano, Gowdy, Chavez, Pirro or Coulter before, either. I think that they'll make a great team. Chavez or coulter as AG, cause Gowdy wont prosecute the FBI, the other 3 on the supremes. Colter's a nut about the blacks being owed something, and about the wall. So I'd prefer chavez, but he might not be interested. She's a real hardass in the right way about everything else. Maybe make her head of homeland security, with Sheriff Clark as head of the FBI, and Sherrif Joe as head of the DOJ.

And Putin as VEEP

 

[Circe]

They were not wrong. National polls, on average, were off by 1.2 points.that’s remarkably close. State polling accurately predicted every non-swing state and had only 1 swing state outside of the margin of error.

Plus, for most of the campaign, Hillary was way ahead and the polls accurately reflected that to. It only became a close race in the last two weeks leading up to the election.

The ones who were wildly wrong were the pollsters, not the polls. They were counting any swing states, too close to call, for Hillary. That’s not a flaw in the polls.

Absolutely amazing. I'd have supposed people wrong quite THAT direly would creep quietly away and never look at another poll or believe another wound-up leftwing news anchor, but no -----------

Some people will continue to believe something no matter how disastrously wrong it was in fact, I suppose just to defend against the idea that they could be wrong. No! No! I'm never, never wrong, they claim. Against all evidence.

I'm glad I don't have to cling to what didn't happen and pretend it did. I'm all for subjective reality, that we all live in our own reality bubble, but --------- at some point, you gotta let in a little fact and reality. Like, all the polls and all the leftwing predictors, were so incredibly wrong, that it's real, real important never again to believe any poll or any newsie.

 

[OnePercenter]

Hey, British Patriot, what's your game sir? You're a Canadian, why does this make a difference to you? Who's paying your salary?

 

[DOTR]

Polls are meaningless. People, it IS time that we accepted that. I'd have thought 2016 polls of Brexit and the U.S. presidential election would have taught everyone to JUST STOP TRUSTING POLLS.

Polls are meaningless for predictions. But that isnt their purpose. Polls are weapons. You rightfully mention Brexit...but remember that Britain was also shocked when the Conservatives retained power. All the polls said, at best, a hung Parliament. Polls are the way elites hammer the people into a funk which they hope represses the vote. Polls are also a way for the media elites to call actual democracy into question.
They arent even embarrassed about it as witness the same people who swore Hillary was going to win now shouting about a "blue wave". And the same people here taking it as gospel again.
It isnt about predicting a blue wave...it is about creating one. We are still fighting the same entrenched power and money.

 

[Moonglow]

Missouri just flipped another red seat in the Senate for a blue one..

 

[DOTR]

So them why are people trying to predict congressional elections with the same polls?

Excellent question.