I'm just raising the question ... could the polls be wrong?

[longknife]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Do you truly believe that crap?

 

[Norman]

We know, we know....it’s just awfully bizarre...somehow, someway you ALWAYS seem to be posting the same “truth and facts” that all our resident LibTardians post...the narrative you hope to induce with your noble truths always seems to align with those same narratives of the filthy Left....weird huh? Ironic huh?

The only narrative I hope to induce is for you mindless sheep on both sides to quit parroting talking points that have been proven false 1000 times already.

What is ironic is how often you admit that your side does not like truth and facts, the only point you miss is that neither does the left.

Hahaha...you just can’t stop yourself..haha...the smartest guy in the room shit is hilarious. Anybody who firmly stands for something is a “blind sheep” to all you super smart muthafuckers...haha
Most of you extra terrestrial, ridiculously intelligent types are way too smart for religion and God as well...are you ‘that guy’ too?

When dealing with people like you, my dog would be the smartest person in the room. That is a pretty damn low bar when you are involved.

Religion and God are two separate things, for example today's Christianity has little to do with God.

Please tell me you do not consider yourself a Christian...

Ringing endorsement for your intelligence.

"My dog is smarter than me".

Certainly explains the positions. The tail is in charge of the dog so to speak.

Well no, the dog was in the room instead of me.

Sorry you were too dumb to catch on to that, but do not feel bad, you are in good company.

Everyone here knows you were in that room. Cut the crap. And with comments such as "Christianity has nothing to do with god"... it's not hard to see how it happened.

 

[Redfish]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

the polls were not predicting the PV, they were predicting who would win the election, and they were wrong or they were lying. why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

the polls were not predicting the PV, they were predicting who would win the election, and they were wrong or they were lying. why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

Hes a liberal that's why

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

the polls were not predicting the PV, they were predicting who would win the election, and they were wrong or they were lying. why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

The only thing the polls can predict is the PV since the polls in question are national polls. They never claimed to be able to predict the EC, but most of the time the EC follows the PV.

Why is this so hard to you to understand?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

the polls were not predicting the PV, they were predicting who would win the election, and they were wrong or they were lying. why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

Hes a liberal that's why

ha, coming from a big government statist like you that is damn funny!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Do you truly believe that crap?

It is not a matter of belief, facts do not need belief.

I posted the final polls numbers from the day before the election, are you claiming the numbers I posted were made up?

 

[Redfish]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

BS, they were predicting who would win the election and become president, that outcome is determined by the EC not the PV
the polls were not predicting the PV, they were predicting who would win the election, and they were wrong or they were lying. why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

The only thing the polls can predict is the PV since the polls in question are national polls. They never claimed to be able to predict the EC, but most of the time the EC follows the PV.

Why is this so hard to you to understand?

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

the polls were not predicting the PV, they were predicting who would win the election, and they were wrong or they were lying. why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

The only thing the polls can predict is the PV since the polls in question are national polls. They never claimed to be able to predict the EC, but most of the time the EC follows the PV.

Why is this so hard to you to understand?

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

 

[Crepitus]

View attachment 223718

View attachment 223717

Of course they could.

In either direction.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

 

[Crepitus]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Haha..once again GG posts just like a filthy LefTard would...But, but, but...he’s only telling the truth...haha

Why yes, thank you for recognizing all I did was report the truth and facts.

We know, we know....it’s just awfully bizarre...somehow, someway you ALWAYS seem to be posting the same “truth and facts” that all our resident LibTardians post...the narrative you hope to induce with your noble truths always seems to align with those same narratives of the filthy Left....weird huh? Ironic huh?

That's because they are thruths and facts. You guys should get some, they are all the rage these days.

 

[leftwinger]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

Like Jake, they said Trump had no chance (daily). They do this to make Trump voters give up and stay home alllowing leftist commmee MacGator to continue the con game. But they are smarter than the extremist lol!

 

[Norman]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

With the models these guys are pulling out their asses, anything is possible.

They probably get their news from the same source.

 

[Redfish]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

I am not here to be your teacher, everyone knows about those polls.

better quit here gator, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In your own link the maximum is 6%, not 4%. How difficult is it to read a chart?

hmmmm...that must have been why I said "most polls".

I guess that word "most" is a bit too complicated for you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

I am not here to be your teacher, everyone knows about those polls.

better quit here gator, you are embarrassing yourself.

In other words you are just making shit up and cannot support a single thing you say.

Well, some things never change I suppose.

 

[Darkwind]

I like polls...er...poles

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

 

[Norman]

In your own link the maximum is 6%, not 4%. How difficult is it to read a chart?

hmmmm...that must have been why I said "most polls".

I guess that word "most" is a bit too complicated for you.

It's you who have the problem with the concept. There is only one poll with 2%. Did you not have a degree in statistics?

In any case that comment was posted accidentally. Only the bottom of it was supposed to be posted.

 

[Redfish]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

I am not here to be your teacher, everyone knows about those polls.

better quit here gator, you are embarrassing yourself.

In other words you are just making shit up and cannot support a single thing you say.

Well, some things never change I suppose.

I don't feel the need to post cites for things that are common knowledge, sorry if the facts don't support your left wing rhetoric.

BTW, Hillary will NEVER be president and will always be a criminal who should be in a jail cell.