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

[JimBowie1958]

And fine, Trump is not a RINO. Who knows what the criteria is at this point.
.

Well people use it to mean something a little different with each person. The people I know who are reflective in their political system of values and who make thoughtful assertions primarily to mean the person is a fraud conservative, but many simply mean that the person is a liberal in a party meant for conservatives.

Those that think along the latter terms are in for a huge disappointment down the road as the GOP will likely abandon Kirkian conservatism entirely if Trump loses.

 

[bodecea]

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

Pretty Ironic considering how much the world and most of the U.S. is laughing at you and your "candidate"....

 

[cereal_killer]

Are you saying she's not displaying honesty & integrity?

Oh wait, don't tell me, she's a RINO.
.

Wow, you play that through your head like its true or do you realize that you are misrepresenting what I said?

Neither Perino or Bolling are RINOS, dude, and thae point about RINOS is not relevant to a discussion about accuracy in the polls as far as I can tell?

You are not about to morph into a lying PoS like Skylar now, are you?

Perino is just behind in the times. She's an "old dinosaur" who can't see things outside of the way that "things are supposed to be". There's a lot of pundits like her. No perception beyond their little box.

And by an 'old dinosaur', you mean one who *hasn't* ignored the spectacular failure of the 'skewed polling' argument from 2012?

You realize that we can still see all of the 'skewed poll' narratives from 2012, right? That we can read the creator of 'unskewed polls.com' admitting he was wrong. We can read Fox pundits admitting they were wrong.

That the entire theory has been weighed and measured and was laughably, incompetently wrong?

But this time its different?

It's very different.

Prove it.

You want proof? Wait until November 9, 2016....you'll have your proof.

 

[Claudette]

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

Pretty Ironic considering how much the world and most of the U.S. is laughing at you and your "candidate"....

Not as many who are still laughing at douchebag in the WH and Hitlery on the campaign trail. LOL

 

[Silhouette]

Eric Bolling is going through the stages of grief on realizing Trump can't win. He is the chief sychophant dingleberry clinging to the ass that is Donald Trump, over at Fox. Rivaled only maybe by Sean Hannity. Both of these men are...how shall I say this delicately...they're more of physical beings...not particularly intellectual men.