Poll: Which way did you vote?

[Pogo]

Did you vote mostly FOR a candidate, or TO BLOCK the other candidate?

Both.

I voted for Trump in the primary and general election because he was clearly the best candidate.

And it was also imperative to prevent an alcoholic compulsive liar and career criminal from becoming the president.

I don't know where you wags get the idea that Rump is an alcoholic. By all accounts he doesn't even touch the stuff. Perhaps you're thinking of cocaine :::snort::::

The poll is asking which was the more important of the two. From your post I'd say definitely the block was more important. Thanks.

 

[Pogo]

But looking at the results ---------- aren't they correct?

Rump won Florida by less than 113,000 votes. Third parties pulled 297,000, two and a half times that differential.

Doesn't that go against your pet theory? Same for Nader in 2000 and Perot in 1992? Third party candidates may not have a chance of winning, but they certainly can affect the outcome of elections.

Nope, it supports it. Take those 297k votes for 3P in Florida. Give less than half to Clinton and the whole state turns. It shouldn't have that effect but again ----- Electrical College short circuit. Take Louisiana 2000. Please. The grand sum aggregate total of all third parties combined was some 44 thousand. You could TRIPLE that, give every one to Gore, and he still comes out second. That's how much the Duopoly dominates. And the EC perpetuates it.

If Bush, Gore and Hillary had been more appealing to the Third Party group's interests, they might have won the election.

That's equally true for those who did win, including while losing the PV (Bush and Rump). If the Duopoly appealed to more interests on both sides they'd get more votes from those quarters. But that would mean a conflict with those poorly-educated to whom they pander for numbers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not American, don't live there, can't vote. I think though that the "the two most despised candidates ever" were probably Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon ..... or did that sexy idiot from Alaska every run for the presidency?

That's a pretty dumb comparison when she received 3 million more votes than Trump.

Sarah Palin would have got 4 million more votes, just on her tits alone. But Trump still won and that's what matters.

It's pretty hard to say she is disliked more than Trump when 3 million more people voted for her. The whole premise is dumb.

 

[Divine Wind]

This poll looks just like those CNN/NBC Fake News polls. The voting options are shite. The OP needs to try again.

The OP has already proven his (my) point. This is where you end up when you don't bother to read the thread.

Dude, you created a biased poll that limited options many people executed during the actual election. This skews your results just like I warned you about shortly after you started this thread:

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

None of the above. I voted Libertarian because I couldn't hold my nose long enough for either Clinton nor Trump, although if I had to pick between just those two (i.e. couldn't abstain or vote 3rd party), it would have been Trump for him to stop "more of the same" bullshit.

Texas, red state. 52.2% Trump 43.2% Clinton

 

[GLASNOST]

Not American, don't live there, can't vote. I think though that the "the two most despised candidates ever" were probably Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon ..... or did that sexy idiot from Alaska every run for the presidency?

That's a pretty dumb comparison when she received 3 million more votes than Trump.

Sarah Palin would have got 4 million more votes, just on her tits alone. But Trump still won and that's what matters.

It's pretty hard to say she is disliked more than Trump when 3 million more people voted for her. The whole premise is dumb.

You might be an expert on premises, for all I know. But I am exceptionally astute when it comes to the obvious: and that is >>> Trump has been Democratically voted to be the 45th. President of the United States.

 

[kaz]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Suddenly you get that? Funny how you complain about my polls not giving 50 answers with every granularity. This is exactly what I told you, exactly what I told you, pick the best answer

 

[Divine Wind]

It's pretty hard to say she is disliked more than Trump when 3 million more people voted for her. The whole premise is dumb.

Nice spin. Keep spinning it until 2020 and see what it gets you.

The fact remains Hillary only garnered 48.1% of the vote, 65,844,610. The other 51.9% of American voters, 71,167,934 out of 137,012,544 votes, went to other candidates. While Hillary did have 2.1% more than Trump, let's not forget that she only received 48.1% of all votes cast.

Let's also not forget this election set a 20 year record low of 55.3% turnout. If Hillary was such a popular candidate for all Americans, why wasn't the turnout higher?

 

[9thIDdoc]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Suddenly you get that? Funny how you complain about my polls not giving 50 answers with every granularity. This is exactly what I told you, exactly what I told you, pick the best answer

What invalidates this "poll" is the possibly large (majority?) number of people who didn't respond at all because they found all listed responses unacceptable and so did not respond to the poll at all. There is no way to even guess at the number or percentage and so no way to gauge the importance of any of the accepted responses.

 

[Pogo]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Suddenly you get that? Funny how you complain about my polls not giving 50 answers with every granularity. This is exactly what I told you, exactly what I told you, pick the best answer

What invalidates this "poll" is the possibly large (majority?) number of people who didn't respond at all because they found all listed responses unacceptable and so did not respond to the poll at all. There is no way to even guess at the number or percentage and so no way to gauge the importance of any of the accepted responses.

What invalidates this post ^^ is that the assumption that what the poll is going after is directly stated.

It isn't.

I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that. Currently 23 to 4 not counting narratives. Those who did not vote are simply not part of the target. That exclusion is intentional.

Next time try actually reading the thread before you stick your foot in your mouth. See post 34.

 

[Pogo]

This poll looks just like those CNN/NBC Fake News polls. The voting options are shite. The OP needs to try again.

The OP has already proven his (my) point. This is where you end up when you don't bother to read the thread.

Dude, you created a biased poll that limited options many people executed during the actual election. This skews your results just like I warned you about shortly after you started this thread:

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

None of the above. I voted Libertarian because I couldn't hold my nose long enough for either Clinton nor Trump, although if I had to pick between just those two (i.e. couldn't abstain or vote 3rd party), it would have been Trump for him to stop "more of the same" bullshit.

Texas, red state. 52.2% Trump 43.2% Clinton

It isn't "baised" at all. I actually have background in this stuff and I know exactly how to keep it neutral which is exactly what I did. Didn't even use the term "Rump". Four neutral choices.

It is however limited in not mentioning third parties. That's because third parties are not a part of what it's here to establish. For this particular purpose that's IRRELEVANT. If you voted third party then you're simply not eligible for this poll ---- although your narrative does put you in the "block" majority so again thanks for that.

What's more you're already on record corroborating the point here with those charts you posted early in the thread. They say the same thing this poll is saying.

 

[kaz]

This poll looks just like those CNN/NBC Fake News polls. The voting options are shite. The OP needs to try again.

The OP has already proven his (my) point. This is where you end up when you don't bother to read the thread.

Dude, you created a biased poll that limited options many people executed during the actual election. This skews your results just like I warned you about shortly after you started this thread:

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

None of the above. I voted Libertarian because I couldn't hold my nose long enough for either Clinton nor Trump, although if I had to pick between just those two (i.e. couldn't abstain or vote 3rd party), it would have been Trump for him to stop "more of the same" bullshit.

Texas, red state. 52.2% Trump 43.2% Clinton

It isn't "baised" at all. I actually have background in this stuff and I know exactly how to keep it neutral which is exactly what I did. Didn't even use the term "Rump". Four neutral choices.

It is however limited in not mentioning third parties. That's because third parties are not a part of what it's here to establish. For this particular purpose that's IRRELEVANT. If you voted third party then you're simply not eligible for this poll ---- although your narrative does put you in the "block" majority so again thanks for that.

You have a background in editing too and you don't know how to quote or paraphrase

 

[Divine Wind]

...I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that......

Wow! You must work for the Democratic National Committee! That's exactly how they choose their political candidates.

 

[Divine Wind]

It isn't "baised" at all. I actually have background in this stuff and I know exactly how to keep it neutral which is exactly what I did. .....

Bullshit. I have a background in this too and not only is your survey biased but you deliberately used it to force you opinion. You even confessed to doing so:

...I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that......

 

[Pogo]

It isn't "baised" at all. I actually have background in this stuff and I know exactly how to keep it neutral which is exactly what I did. .....

Bullshit. I have a background in this too and not only is your survey biased but you deliberately used it to force you opinion. You even confessed to doing so:

...I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that......

Nothing at all was "forced". I left it open ended and didn't state directly what I was looking for. That's how you get honest answers.

I left the reader to ASSUME I wanted a survey of who voted for who. That's why I get complaints that you "didn't include this, didn't include that". They weren't needed for my purpose. But ALL votes here have been voluntary. Prove me wrong.

And while you're at it try to demonstrate where the "bias" is.

 

[Pogo]

...I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that......

Wow! You must work for the Democratic National Committee! That's exactly how they choose their political candidates.

T'hat's how everybody chooses anybody for any position. Got nothing to do with anything here.

Again --- what I was going for was the level of negative "block" voting. The same point you were making with the charts you posted as well. When I started I had no way to know what that level would be. If they didn't show what I expected I would not have had a point to follow through and I might have had to revisit my theory.

But in the event they showed even *more* of that dynamic than I expected, and affirmed my theory Bigly. It's no more complex than that.

 

[9thIDdoc]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Suddenly you get that? Funny how you complain about my polls not giving 50 answers with every granularity. This is exactly what I told you, exactly what I told you, pick the best answer

What invalidates this "poll" is the possibly large (majority?) number of people who didn't respond at all because they found all listed responses unacceptable and so did not respond to the poll at all. There is no way to even guess at the number or percentage and so no way to gauge the importance of any of the accepted responses.

What invalidates this post ^^ is that the assumption that what the poll is going after is directly stated.

It isn't.

I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that. Currently 23 to 4 not counting narratives. Those who did not vote are simply not part of the target. That exclusion is intentional.

Next time try actually reading the thread before you stick your foot in your mouth. See post 34.

If the purpose was to generate meaningless information that in no way supported your assumptions then you have done well. But it remains invalid even so.

 

[Pogo]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Suddenly you get that? Funny how you complain about my polls not giving 50 answers with every granularity. This is exactly what I told you, exactly what I told you, pick the best answer

What invalidates this "poll" is the possibly large (majority?) number of people who didn't respond at all because they found all listed responses unacceptable and so did not respond to the poll at all. There is no way to even guess at the number or percentage and so no way to gauge the importance of any of the accepted responses.

What invalidates this post ^^ is that the assumption that what the poll is going after is directly stated.

It isn't.

I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that. Currently 23 to 4 not counting narratives. Those who did not vote are simply not part of the target. That exclusion is intentional.

Next time try actually reading the thread before you stick your foot in your mouth. See post 34.

If the purpose was to generate meaningless information that in no way supported your assumptions then you have done well. But it remains invalid even so.

Then it's interesting you can't make that case with anything more tangible that ipse dixit.

I don't think you understand the point of this poll at all. Pop quiz----- what is it?

 

[9thIDdoc]

If you did in fact want to know if pop. vote vs electoral vote affected how people voted why was that not the question the question asked in the poll? A simple yes/no question that doesn't rely on the truth of all these unwarranted assumptions you make?

 

[Divine Wind]

T'hat's how everybody chooses anybody for any position. Got nothing to do with anything here.

Again --- what I was going for was the level of negative "block" voting. The same point you were making with the charts you posted as well. When I started I had no way to know what that level would be. If they didn't show what I expected I would not have had a point to follow through and I might have had to revisit my theory.

But in the event they showed even *more* of that dynamic than I expected, and affirmed my theory Bigly. It's no more complex than that.

Not the RNC. Do you really believe the RNC elite wanted Trump? They were throwing their weight behind Jeb! Just not the same way and with the same force as the DNC chose Hillary and you your "survey".

 

[Divine Wind]

Nothing at all was "forced". I left it open ended and didn't state directly what I was looking for. That's how you get honest answers......

Dude, why are you flip-flopping? You already admitted you "designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that."