Fox News says that Polls dont matter. Dana Perino's mind is blown

[ClosedCaption]

The only time Polls were accurate is when they showed Trump winning lol

Nope. None of them are accurate. You can win one day via a poll and lose the next time via a poll.

Anyone who takes poll results seriously is dumber than a box of rocks. Just like you. LOL

You meant to say all of them are accurate and mistyped it.

Nope. None of them are accurate.

You meant to say all of them are accurate.

See? I'm doing the same thing you're doing. You say their wrong and I say you meant to say they're right. Who's right?

Me

 

[JimBowie1958]

The only time Polls were accurate is when they showed Trump winning lol

Nope. None of them are accurate. You can win one day via a poll and lose the next time via a poll.

Anyone who takes poll results seriously is dumber than a box of rocks. Just like you. LOL

You meant to say all of them are accurate and mistyped it.

Nope. None of them are accurate.

You meant to say all of them are accurate.

See? I'm doing the same thing you're doing. You say their wrong and I say you meant to say they're right. Who's right?

Me

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

2. History does not exactly repeat itself. In theory even if we had the same exact candidates we would very likely have different results in the election.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

6. There is also a fear factor here as many people know that direct harm can come to them, their families their jobs and careers if they admit to being in favor of Trump. IT is a documented fact, google it.

So the rough adjustment would be to reduce Clintons numbers by anywhere from 5% to 10% and add it to Trumps total to get a more accurate data.

 

[bodecea]

It takes more effort to go to a rally than to be "selected" to answer a poll. Numbers don't lie. See you in November mother fuckers!

100,000 at a rally does not translate to millions of voters. Ask Bernie about that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The only time Polls were accurate is when they showed Trump winning lol

Nope. None of them are accurate. You can win one day via a poll and lose the next time via a poll.

Anyone who takes poll results seriously is dumber than a box of rocks. Just like you. LOL

You meant to say all of them are accurate and mistyped it.

Nope. None of them are accurate.

You meant to say all of them are accurate.

See? I'm doing the same thing you're doing. You say their wrong and I say you meant to say they're right. Who's right?

Me

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

So?

2. History does not exactly repeat itself. In theory even if we had the same exact candidates we would very likely have different results in the election.

So?

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

So? That doesnt mean all polls are wrong. Some math is wrong that doesnt mean math books are meaningless silly

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

Everything has bias. That doesnt mean they are wrong either

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Speculation

6. There is also a fear factor here as many people know that direct harm can come to them, their families their jobs and careers if they admit to being in favor of Trump. IT is a documented fact, google it.

More speculation

So the rough adjustment would be to reduce Clintons numbers by anywhere from 5% to 10% and add it to Trumps total to get a more accurate data.

EXTREME speculation and a formula built on previous speculation

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope. None of them are accurate. You can win one day via a poll and lose the next time via a poll.

Anyone who takes poll results seriously is dumber than a box of rocks. Just like you. LOL

You meant to say all of them are accurate and mistyped it.

Nope. None of them are accurate.

You meant to say all of them are accurate.

See? I'm doing the same thing you're doing. You say their wrong and I say you meant to say they're right. Who's right?

Me

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

So?

2. History does not exactly repeat itself. In theory even if we had the same exact candidates we would very likely have different results in the election.

So?

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

So? That doesnt mean all polls are wrong. Some math is wrong that doesnt mean math books are meaningless silly

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

Everything has bias. That doesnt mean they are wrong either

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Speculation

6. There is also a fear factor here as many people know that direct harm can come to them, their families their jobs and careers if they admit to being in favor of Trump. IT is a documented fact, google it.

More speculation

So the rough adjustment would be to reduce Clintons numbers by anywhere from 5% to 10% and add it to Trumps total to get a more accurate data.

EXTREME speculation and a formula built on previous speculation

ROFLMAO, the classic 'Duh!' response, but why should anyone expect anything more from ClosedMinded?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[ClosedCaption]

Another guy who thinks that he's onto something but just cant say what

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another guy who thinks that he's onto something but just cant say what

Lol, I gave a detailed list of what I am claiming and you made a mental fart, scratched your ass then chewed your finger nails.

You are such a loser fagot.

roflmao

 

[Skylar]

The only time Polls were accurate is when they showed Trump winning lol

Nope. None of them are accurate. You can win one day via a poll and lose the next time via a poll.

Anyone who takes poll results seriously is dumber than a box of rocks. Just like you. LOL

You meant to say all of them are accurate and mistyped it.

Nope. None of them are accurate.

You meant to say all of them are accurate.

See? I'm doing the same thing you're doing. You say their wrong and I say you meant to say they're right. Who's right?

Me

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

Your argument isn't about the candidates. But who takes the polls. Making your point irrelevant to your own argument.

2. History does not exactly repeat itself. In theory even if we had the same exact candidates we would very likely have different results in the election.

You're ignoring history....because your theory has already been proven nonsense. 'The polls are unreliable' was a GOP staple right up until election night. With your ilk confident in a Romney victory, some even calling for a 'Romney landslide'.

Romney lost be over 100 electoral votes and 6 million popular votes.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

That would be the week that Trump's numbers crashed. And since, a dozen polls have all confirmed Trump trails Clinton badly.

So you ignore a dozen polls. Willful ignorance is the only common thread of your entire argument.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And that exact same argument was proposed in 2012.

It failed spectacularly.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump loses if we measure registered voters. Trump loses if we measure likely voters.

You ignore both outcomes and imagine what you want the polls to say. And your imagination isn't a polling standard.

6. There is also a fear factor here as many people know that direct harm can come to them, their families their jobs and careers if they admit to being in favor of Trump. IT is a documented fact, google it.

Same argument was made in 2012. It failed.

So the rough adjustment would be to reduce Clintons numbers by anywhere from 5% to 10% and add it to Trumps total to get a more accurate data.

Ask 'unskewedpolls.com' how that worked out for them.

'Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'

'Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'

Remember that phrase.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Willful ignorance is the only common thread of your entire argument.

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. No two elections are the same, especially not when the candidates are so different. Just because Trump has an (R) by his name does not mean he is no different than Romney. So this election is ALREADY different than 2012.

Your argument isn't about the candidates. But who takes the polls. Making your point irrelevant to your own argument.

no, my comments have nothing to do with deliberate rigging of the polls, which is what was being claimed in 2012.

2. History does not exactly repeat itself. In theory even if we had the same exact candidates we would very likely have different results in the election.

You're ignoring history....because your theory has already been proven nonsense. 'The polls are unreliable' was a GOP staple right up until election night. With your ilk confident in a Romney victory, some even calling for a 'Romney landslide'.

Romney lost be over 100 electoral votes and 6 million popular votes.

My observations do not constiute a theory, ignoramus. And you have certainly not disproven a damned thing, roflmao.

3. Not ALL the polls are reliable as the gaps show in the polling. We have some polls in the same week of sampling showing Trump down by 14% and others showing he is up by 0.5%. You cant have both ALL perfectly accurate polls and totally different spreads at the very same time.

That would be the week that Trump's numbers crashed. And since, a dozen polls have all confirmed Trump trails Clinton badly.

So you ignore a dozen polls. Willful ignorance is the only common thread of your entire argument.

Horse shit. Not all of the polls are accurate because they so wildly differ, can you prove which ones are accurate and which ones are 'outliers'? How does Clinton lose about 13% in two days?

roflmao, you are simply being a partisan hack again and repeating your bullshit is not the same thing as proving it, doofus.

4. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am not saying the polls are rigged. I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

And that exact same argument was proposed in 2012.

It failed spectacularly.

No, in 2012 the predominant argument was that Republicans were being under represented in the polls and if one loaded the polls up with a correct amount of Republicans then one would see Romney was winning. What the GOP failed to realize was ho unpopular Romney was with the GOP base and about 40% of them failed to vote. So Romney was actually getting a better poll standing than he got in the election because the polls failed to show enthusiasm and commitment to go out and vote.

I am not arguing that there should be a n equal representation, etc, but only that using the 2012 election as a baseline is a bad assumption, and also that many of Trumps supporters are new voters.

That is exactly nothing like what was said in 2012, you stupid cock sucking cum bucket.

5. Polls shift toward Trump if done on likely voters vrs registered voters. That too is not rigging the polls, but due to the FACT that Trump is bringing in new people that have never registered and voted before.

Trump loses if we measure registered voters. Trump loses if we measure likely voters.

You ignore both outcomes and imagine what you want the polls to say. And your imagination isn't a polling standard.

No, I am saying that there are percentage differences in favor of Trump with likely voters instead of registered votrers.

IT would be apparent to you were you not just a lying sack of shit.

6. There is also a fear factor here as many people know that direct harm can come to them, their families their jobs and careers if they admit to being in favor of Trump. IT is a documented fact, google it.

Same argument was made in 2012. It failed.

No, that was a different argument, you stupid retard.

So the rough adjustment would be to reduce Clintons numbers by anywhere from 5% to 10% and add it to Trumps total to get a more accurate data.

Ask 'unskewedpolls.com' how that worked out for them.

They made a different set of observations then I have, so why would I care?

'Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'

'Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'

Remember that phrase.

You are incredibly stupid. IT is just funny how some people can be glib, and still very literate, and yet remain jaw droppingly asinine and stupid like you are.

I have repeated what I have claimed about a dozen times and yo still do not grasp the difference between what I am claiming in this election,a nd what GOP supporters claimed in 2012. Why you are so incapable of discerning these differences, I dont know.

Part of it may be that you have fallen into a state of denial and no matter what is said you reflexively deny it in some twisted sense of party loyalty. It maybe that you are a such a liar that your whole life you have lied to yourself to convince yourself of whatever you prefer to do no matter what the evidence or common sense may have dictated. You ignore it and make up a rationalization afterwards.

For you it is conclusion first and bullshit to cover for it later.

Generally people like you dont have a very happy life because your lies keep catching up to you. You are a sad and bvoring person who cannot handle honest discussion and you get angry when people point out your flawed arguments and erroneous 'facts', like the 16 elections straight bullshit you were spouting out ealier and you more recent assertion that Trump cannot possible know more about ISIS than many of our generals.

You are a boring person, and you have little to ever offer unless you are in, I guess, a good mood and feel like being honest and trying to actually think.

I dont know why you are such a moron, but I have to admit it tickles me to see you posting and representing libtards to all the lurkers who may come across your posts.

lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Willful ignorance is the only common thread of your entire argument.

Dont you have some white people to hate on, loser?

 

[Skylar]

no, my comments have nothing to do with deliberate rigging of the polls, which is what was being claimed in 2012.

You're claiming that because of who is taking the polls that there is a built in bias against republicans. The same claims were made in 2012. The same people took the polls then as now.

And there was a bias TOWARD republicans in 19 of 23 polls.

Your theory is quite simply garbage. While polling analysts like Nate Silver called the election with amazing accuracy.

How did Nate accomplish this feat, if polling has that unreliable? Explain it to us.

 

[JimBowie1958]

no, my comments have nothing to do with deliberate rigging of the polls, which is what was being claimed in 2012.

You're claiming that because of who is taking the polls that there is a built in bias against republicans.

No, I am not claiming that, idiot.

Try again.

 

[Silhouette]

Eric Bolling Dismisses Polling Data Citing Trump Crowds; Dana Perino Incredulous (VIDEO) | RedState

Talk about denial. While a poll here or there can be considered an outlying figure, the trends do not lie. It doesn't matter if 10,000 people show up at a rally. Bolling is just being absurd here and it was right for Dana to call him out on his crap.

Yes. Correct. Just because 10,000 people show up to watch a train wreck, doesn't mean they will support train wrecks for president.

 

[Skylar]

no, my comments have nothing to do with deliberate rigging of the polls, which is what was being claimed in 2012.

You're claiming that because of who is taking the polls that there is a built in bias against republicans.

No, I am not claiming that, idiot.

Except when you are:

I am saying the polls have a built in bias due to the bias of the people that buy the polls from the pollsters they hire. IF the editors at the Washington Post think that Trump is way behind, by the way the 'bad' polling responses get culled, they indirectly bias their polls.

If even you are going to ignore the blithering nonsense you post, surely you can understand why the rest of us just don't take it seriously.

 

[JimBowie1958]

no, my comments have nothing to do with deliberate rigging of the polls, which is what was being claimed in 2012.

You're claiming that because of who is taking the polls that there is a built in bias against republicans.

No, I am not claiming that, idiot.

Except when you are:.

Lol, this is hilarious.

I say "The assertion A is true because of supporting evidence B and C."

Then you say, "No, your claim that evidence X, Y, Z are wrong."

Me: "I didnt say X, Y, Z are true, they are irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying that because B and C are true, therefore A is true."

You: "But X, Y, Z is not ture."

Me. " I didnt say X, Y, and Z are true. I said B and C are and theerfefore A is also true."

You: "But X, Y, and Z are not True!"

Etc, etc, rinse and repeat twelve times.

What makes this so ludicrously funny is that you seem to think that no one can simply go back the chain of posts and see who said what.

But to make it easy for them:

My claims as to why the polls are not accurate ine very case:
Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

My destruction of the ridiculous claim that the last 16 elections ahve been successfully indicated by the polls after the two parties held their conventions.
Fox News says that Polls dont matter. Dana Perino's mind is blown

Lol, some come on back no, Skylar, poor little thing, and repeat you lies that I am attacking the pollsters as rigging polls against Trump, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Eric Bolling Dismisses Polling Data Citing Trump Crowds; Dana Perino Incredulous (VIDEO) | RedState

Talk about denial. While a poll here or there can be considered an outlying figure, the trends do not lie. It doesn't matter if 10,000 people show up at a rally. Bolling is just being absurd here and it was right for Dana to call him out on his crap.

Yes. Correct. Just because 10,000 people show up to watch a train wreck, doesn't mean they will support train wrecks for president.

Who goes to train wrecks to vote for train wrecks for president?

That is absurd. Its like saying that no one goes to chess tournaments to play golf, so therefore golf is not as popular as listening to nails scrape across a chess board.

roflmao

 

[Mac1958]

Perino's just displaying honesty & integrity.

Bolling has joined the alternate universe club.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Perino's just displaying honesty & integrity.
Bolling has joined the alternate universe club.
.

Because Perino agrees with you and Bolling does not?

Lol, way to go Einstein.

 

[Skylar]

no, my comments have nothing to do with deliberate rigging of the polls, which is what was being claimed in 2012.

You're claiming that because of who is taking the polls that there is a built in bias against republicans.

No, I am not claiming that, idiot.

Except when you are:.

Lol, this is hilarious.

I say "The assertion A is true because of supporting evidence B and C."

Then you say, "No, your claim that evidence X, Y, Z are wrong."

Me: "I didnt say X, Y, Z are true, they are irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying that because B and C are true, therefore A is true."

You: "But X, Y, Z is not ture."

Me. " I didnt say X, Y, and Z are true. I said B and C are and theerfefore A is also true."

You: "But X, Y, and Z are not True!"

Etc, etc, rinse and repeat twelve times.

What makes this so ludicrously funny is that you seem to think that no one can simply go back the chain of posts and see who said what.

Laughing.....and your theory about the polls being inaccurate against republicans because of who is conducting them is still factually disproven claptrap backed by nothing.

With the 2012 election demonstrating the exact opposite of your claim. With 19 of 23 polls biased toward republicans. Not against them.

Your theory has a perfect record of failure. While polling did a pretty awesome job of predicting the election. Just ask Nate Silver....who absolutely nailed the 2012 election.

My claims as to why the polls are not accurate ine very case:
Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.

Your problem is.....that your basis of credibility is whether or not a poll agrees with you. You're ignoring EVERY poll that contradicts what you want to believe.

And that's not an argument. That's just plain old confirmation bias.

My destruction of the ridiculous claim that the last 16 elections ahve been successfully indicated by the polls after the two parties held their conventions.
Fox News says that Polls dont matter. Dana Perino's mind is blown

Where I affirm that the polls in August in the weeks after the election have correctly forecast the the winner of the popular vote for the last 16 of 16 elections......and you posted this in reply.....

Which proved me right, by showing that Reagan was ahead in August of 1980, and went on to win the popular vote.

Exactly as I said. So....um, tel me again how polling in August doesn't forecast the popular vote? Because your own chart proves me right.