Conservatives continue to worship pollster who predicted Romney would beat Obama

[gipper]

Okay.

Then what do you conclude about liberals, who worship the lying thieves Obama and Mrs. BJ? Anything?

I dunno......THIS:

is shit worthy of some propers right there...........

So, it is all about wealth going to the top 10%. Yeah...Obama does deserve credit for that, along with the Fed.

Since when do libs commend income inequality? Oh yeah almost forgot, since a D is in the WH all this peaches and creme. That will change if an R gets in.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

Rasmussen fucking up the Senate races, which distinguishes among the sucky ones. And Gallup was so embarrassed that it stopped making polls at all this year.

Seriously????????

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is so cute to watch the far left drones actually believe they get a choice in their nominations..

They do!

Old white person number 1
Old white person number 2
Old white person number 3

Hey, now one of those candidates is younger than me! They are not old!

 

[IcebergSlim]

I dunno......THIS:

is shit worthy of some propers right there...........

So, it is all about wealth going to the top 10%. Yeah...Obama does deserve credit for that, along with the Fed.

Since when do libs commend income inequality? Oh yeah almost forgot, since a D is in the WH all this peaches and creme. That will change if an R gets in.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, it is all about wealth going to the top 10%. Yeah...Obama does deserve credit for that, along with the Fed.

Since when do libs commend income inequality? Oh yeah almost forgot, since a D is in the WH all this peaches and creme. That will change if an R gets in.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Yeah, that is ironic. That Obama is such a piker, he only added over $8 trillion. We would be so lucky to have the national debt we had in January, 1989.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Yeah, that is ironic. That Obama is such a piker, he only added over $8 trillion. We would be so lucky to have the national debt we had in January, 1989.

Remarkable how he managed to do so while holding annual growth in federal spending below 2%.........while receipts grew at nearly 8% per year....

Imagine of that piece of shit for whom you recently cast 2 enthusiastic votes had done the same, eh?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Yeah, that is ironic. That Obama is such a piker, he only added over $8 trillion. We would be so lucky to have the national debt we had in January, 1989.

Remarkable how he managed to do so while holding annual growth in federal spending below 2%.........while receipts grew at nearly 8% per year....

Imagine of that piece of shit for whom you recently cast 2 enthusiastic votes had done the same, eh?

How do you know who I voted for? Were you peaking inside the curtain when I wasn't looking?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The polls are leaning republican far too much...Hillary has at least a 4-6% lead over Cruz and a 6-9% lead over Trump. This election is nearly in the bag for Hillary!

 

[IcebergSlim]

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Yeah, that is ironic. That Obama is such a piker, he only added over $8 trillion. We would be so lucky to have the national debt we had in January, 1989.

Remarkable how he managed to do so while holding annual growth in federal spending below 2%.........while receipts grew at nearly 8% per year....

Imagine of that piece of shit for whom you recently cast 2 enthusiastic votes had done the same, eh?

How do you know who I voted for? Were you peaking inside the curtain when I wasn't looking?

Within another few years EVERYONE will have been at Woodstock and NO ONE will have voted for that unmitigated disaster.....

The Federal Debt in 1989 was 3 times that in 1981......by 1993, the legacy of the guy Easy Al Greenspan described as a "Reckless Steward" had caused the debt to quadruple.....

No.....I wouldn't want that again.......ever....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Yeah, that is ironic. That Obama is such a piker, he only added over $8 trillion. We would be so lucky to have the national debt we had in January, 1989.

Remarkable how he managed to do so while holding annual growth in federal spending below 2%.........while receipts grew at nearly 8% per year....

Imagine of that piece of shit for whom you recently cast 2 enthusiastic votes had done the same, eh?

How do you know who I voted for? Were you peaking inside the curtain when I wasn't looking?

Within another few years EVERYONE will have been at Woodstock and NO ONE will have voted for that unmitigated disaster.....

The Federal Debt in 1989 was 3 times that in 1981......by 1993, the legacy of the guy Easy Al Greenspan described as a "Reckless Steward" had caused the debt to quadruple.....

No.....I wouldn't want that again.......ever....

Still could not answer my questions, huh? Typical lib!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

At this point polls are worthless to me. You can show me all the polls you want but until a candidate is nominated for both parties the polls are just fun to look at but meaningless to someone like me.

Cruz is polling well in Iowa, so if he win Iowa will this mean Trump poll numbers did not sway the Iowa voter?

Someone like Kasich is polling solidly well in New Hampshire, so if Trump loses that state does that mean those polls that show Trump being liked did not sway the New Hampshire voter?

The same question about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and if Bernie does well enough like winning both Iowa and New Hampshire did the polls fail to sway the voter to understand that their poll had Hillary to be the better candidate?

Polls are fun to look at but once again they are worthless to me, and I will wait until after South Carolina before I start looking at polls because by then you will know where the electorate is swaying, and I have a funny feeling the Trump camp and Clinton camp are about to be given a rude dose of reality and discover that not everyone agree with their choice to lead the two big political parties.

But that is my opinion and of course both sides will explain how fucking retarded I am for not being so blinded and just support the nutter of the month!

 

[gipper]

So, it is all about wealth going to the top 10%. Yeah...Obama does deserve credit for that, along with the Fed.

Since when do libs commend income inequality? Oh yeah almost forgot, since a D is in the WH all this peaches and creme. That will change if an R gets in.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Actually this is my guy. Ever heard of him

?
Now why do you hate W, but love BO?

 

[Redfish]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

But you are free to buy their bullshit if you choose.

 

[Redfish]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

 

[Redfish]

So, it is all about wealth going to the top 10%. Yeah...Obama does deserve credit for that, along with the Fed.

Since when do libs commend income inequality? Oh yeah almost forgot, since a D is in the WH all this peaches and creme. That will change if an R gets in.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the history of Trump vs. Clinton in the polls:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

 

[NYcarbineer]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). .

No, they don't claim that.

 

[Redfish]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.