Thank God we have fair and impartial polls in now this country

[Cellblock2429]

the Dems were gonna pick up their St special election

We were behind in every poll leading up to election day

Atlanta Urinal and Constipation had pajama boy up 7 to 10 points

And Hillary was a lock to be president

Polls are used to manipulate the final vote

It's not working anymore

Makes me distrust the presidential approval polls as well

And no, I'm not tired of all this winning

Polling methods are badly outdated and can't be trusted at all.

The pollsters are struggling. They try and try, but continue to fail. Most people have tuned out the propaganda.

/---- Rasmussen runs reliable polls. I've posted their demographics and methods only to be lectured that RCP averages are better. Libs live in a parallel universe .


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

 

[miketx]

the Dems were gonna pick up their St special election

We were behind in every poll leading up to election day

Atlanta Urinal and Constipation had pajama boy up 7 to 10 points

And Hillary was a lock to be president

Polls are used to manipulate the final vote

It's not working anymore

Makes me distrust the presidential approval polls as well

And no, I'm not tired of all this winning

Polling methods are badly outdated and can't be trusted at all.

I think polls could be trusted, if not for the pollsters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the Dems were gonna pick up their St special election

We were behind in every poll leading up to election day

Atlanta Urinal and Constipation had pajama boy up 7 to 10 points

And Hillary was a lock to be president

Polls are used to manipulate the final vote

It's not working anymore

Makes me distrust the presidential approval polls as well

And no, I'm not tired of all this winning

Polling methods are badly outdated and can't be trusted at all.

The pollsters are struggling. They try and try, but continue to fail. Most people have tuned out the propaganda.

/---- Rasmussen runs reliable polls. I've posted their demographics and methods only to be lectured that RCP averages are better. Libs live in a parallel universe .


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

 

[The Original Tree]

We were behind in every poll leading up to election day

Except that statement is made up bullshit.

RCP Average 6/7 - 6/18 -- -- 49.0 48.8 Handel +0.2
RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Georgia 6th District Run-Off Election - Handel vs. Ossoff


Dummies need to learn - polling is not some sort of crystal ball, but it is best available methodology to predict how people will vote.

Weather forecast is not always right, but I don't go around spreading bullshit about how Republicans are manipulating the predictions.

This constant ridiculous bitching and conspiracy theorizing about polling needs to stop.

The polsters are liars and so are people who use them.
The Polls are ALL RUN by THE LEFTIST MEDIA. Nearly every one of them, and the idea is to use them as propaganda for the purpose of VOTER SUPPRESSION.

The game is to try to manipulate an election. Early Polls will show The Left's favorite candidate with 7-10 points of a lead, and always without fail, the poll narrows right before the election so The Polsters can claim they were "WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR"

Phuck them and phuck people who try to manipulate us with them.

 

[Papageorgio]

We were behind in every poll leading up to election day

Except that statement is made up bullshit.

RCP Average 6/7 - 6/18 -- -- 49.0 48.8 Handel +0.2
RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Georgia 6th District Run-Off Election - Handel vs. Ossoff


Dummies need to learn - polling is not some sort of crystal ball, but it is best available methodology to predict how people will vote.

Weather forecast is not always right, but I don't go around spreading bullshit about how Republicans are manipulating the predictions.

This constant ridiculous bitching and conspiracy theorizing about polling needs to stop.

Why does it need to stop? The polls are often wrong, the fact needs to be pointed out. The polls if manipulated can influence elections.

it needs to stop because it is rediculous, baseless bullshit.

Poll manipulation is a serious matter that would kill any credibility of a polling company that conducts it. Throwing around these accusations without a shred of evidence is completely inapropriate.

And there is zero reason to think that a poll that shows one candidate up a few points does him any favors - it drives his people to the polls probably less than it pumps up urgency for opponent's voters to get to the polls.

So it's the polling companies errors not the Republicans, maybe he pollsters need to get it right, maybe they are sampling wrong and that is why their numbers are wrong. Just like our last special election, they were off by 5%. The polling companies already have no credibility, so why can we not criticize them?

 

[The Original Tree]

We were behind in every poll leading up to election day

Except that statement is made up bullshit.

RCP Average 6/7 - 6/18 -- -- 49.0 48.8 Handel +0.2
RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Georgia 6th District Run-Off Election - Handel vs. Ossoff


Dummies need to learn - polling is not some sort of crystal ball, but it is best available methodology to predict how people will vote.

Weather forecast is not always right, but I don't go around spreading bullshit about how Republicans are manipulating the predictions.

This constant ridiculous bitching and conspiracy theorizing about polling needs to stop.

Why does it need to stop? The polls are often wrong, the fact needs to be pointed out. The polls if manipulated can influence elections.

it needs to stop because it is rediculous, baseless bullshit.

Poll manipulation is a serious matter that would kill any credibility of a polling company that conducts it. Throwing around these accusations without a shred of evidence is completely inapropriate.

And there is zero reason to think that a poll that shows one candidate up a few points does him any favors - it drives his people to the polls probably less than it pumps up urgency for opponent's voters to get to the polls.

So it's the polling companies errors not the Republicans, maybe he pollsters need to get it right, maybe they are sampling wrong and that is why their numbers are wrong. Just like our last special election, they were off by 5%. The polling companies already have no credibility, so why can we not criticize them?

They aren't sampling wrong.
They Intentionally OVER SAMPLE.
The Polls are run by The Leftist Media.
They are used as Propaganda on The Dumbed Down Population.
They only narrow them near an election to claim they have some kind of accuracy stating "they are within the margin of error."

They basically play a game of political chicken, pulling out of the game and trying to be more accurate just before voting starts.

 

[JBond]

Polling methods are badly outdated and can't be trusted at all.

The pollsters are struggling. They try and try, but continue to fail. Most people have tuned out the propaganda.

/---- Rasmussen runs reliable polls. I've posted their demographics and methods only to be lectured that RCP averages are better. Libs live in a parallel universe .


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So you lied. They do not "add" points.

 

[AntonToo]

So it's the polling companies errors not the Republicans, maybe he pollsters need to get it right, maybe they are sampling wrong and that is why their numbers are wrong. Just like our last special election, they were off by 5%. The polling companies already have no credibility, so why can we not criticize them?

Turnout in June 20 vote was 25% higher than in the runoff - how do you account for that in your predictive modeling? How would one know who these people will vote for?

You are grossly under-playing the difficulty of the task of down-to-1% predicting who will vote and how.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Polling methods are badly outdated and can't be trusted at all.

The pollsters are struggling. They try and try, but continue to fail. Most people have tuned out the propaganda.

/---- Rasmussen runs reliable polls. I've posted their demographics and methods only to be lectured that RCP averages are better. Libs live in a parallel universe .


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So their method is more precise because it offers degrees of approval/disapproval. Thanks for clarifying! It's like showing a swatch of color from white to black, and asking people to pick their favorite color. You will get different results if you show just black and white versus white, shades of grey and black.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The pollsters are struggling. They try and try, but continue to fail. Most people have tuned out the propaganda.

/---- Rasmussen runs reliable polls. I've posted their demographics and methods only to be lectured that RCP averages are better. Libs live in a parallel universe .


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So you lied. They do not "add" points.

You are correct sir, they don't add points. They ask a more precise question to yield more precise results.

 

[The Original Tree]

So it's the polling companies errors not the Republicans, maybe he pollsters need to get it right, maybe they are sampling wrong and that is why their numbers are wrong. Just like our last special election, they were off by 5%. The polling companies already have no credibility, so why can we not criticize them?

Turnout in June 20 vote was 25% higher than in the runoff - how do you account for that in your predictive modeling? How would one know who these people will vote for?

You are grossly under-playing the difficulty of the task of down-to-1% predicting who will vote and how.

Global Warmers have no issues in relying on Unreliable Predictive Modeling and calling it gospel....so what's your beef?

 

[The Original Tree]

/---- Rasmussen runs reliable polls. I've posted their demographics and methods only to be lectured that RCP averages are better. Libs live in a parallel universe .


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So you lied. They do not "add" points.

You are correct sir, they don't add points. They ask a more precise question to yield more precise results.

And they also try to balance the sampling at the last minute too.

Like I said, the goal is to deceive and manipulate the public with false data.

Any Poll that does not give you access to the demographic data, and all of the questions they ask the respondents, as well as the time of day they conduct the poll, and what parts of the country they surveyed, as well as denies you access to the history of the poll conducted and all earlier versions of it and demographic data of those earlier polls is being conducted for the sole purpose of propaganda.

500-1,000 people surveyed do not reflect the opinions of a country with over 300 Million people in it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Rasmussen uses a method that adds about 4 points to an incumbent president's approval rating. They have admitted it.

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So you lied. They do not "add" points.

You are correct sir, they don't add points. They ask a more precise question to yield more precise results.

And they also try to balance the sampling at the last minute too.

Like I said, the goal is to deceive and manipulate the public with false data.

Any Poll that does not give you access to the demographic data, and all of the questions they ask the respondents, as well as the time of day they conduct the poll, and what parts of the country they surveyed, as well as denies you access to the history of the poll conducted and all earlier versions of it and demographic data of those earlier polls is being conducted for the sole purpose of propaganda.

500-1,000 people surveyed do not reflect the opinions of a country with over 300 Million people in it.

/----
For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.
Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

- See more at: Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[AntonToo]

They aren't sampling wrong.
They Intentionally OVER SAMPLE.
The Polls are run by The Leftist Media.
They are used as Propaganda on The Dumbed Down Population.
They only narrow them near an election to claim they have some kind of accuracy stating "they are within the margin of error."

They basically play a game of political chicken, pulling out of the game and trying to be more accurate just before voting starts.

Instead of getting triggered by dog-whistle keywords, do everyone a favor and educate yourself.

Read "Oversampling" section and understand why it's not a dirty word, but rather an important step to take to get more accurate polling samples.

Sampling

 

[The Original Tree]

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So you lied. They do not "add" points.

You are correct sir, they don't add points. They ask a more precise question to yield more precise results.

And they also try to balance the sampling at the last minute too.

Like I said, the goal is to deceive and manipulate the public with false data.

Any Poll that does not give you access to the demographic data, and all of the questions they ask the respondents, as well as the time of day they conduct the poll, and what parts of the country they surveyed, as well as denies you access to the history of the poll conducted and all earlier versions of it and demographic data of those earlier polls is being conducted for the sole purpose of propaganda.

500-1,000 people surveyed do not reflect the opinions of a country with over 300 Million people in it.

/----
For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.
Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

- See more at: Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

/---- If they admitted it then you should be able to post a link. TIA.

You mean for the 50th time?

"Last week, Rasmussen offered this explanation:

When comparing Job Approval ratings between different polling firms, it's important to focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. One reason for this is that different firms ask Job Approval questions in different ways. At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they "Approve" are willing to say they "Somewhat Approve." It's worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a "Not Sure" response when asked about the President."

Mystery Pollster: Rasmussen Update: A Lesson in Measurement Error

So you lied. They do not "add" points.

You are correct sir, they don't add points. They ask a more precise question to yield more precise results.

And they also try to balance the sampling at the last minute too.

Like I said, the goal is to deceive and manipulate the public with false data.

Any Poll that does not give you access to the demographic data, and all of the questions they ask the respondents, as well as the time of day they conduct the poll, and what parts of the country they surveyed, as well as denies you access to the history of the poll conducted and all earlier versions of it and demographic data of those earlier polls is being conducted for the sole purpose of propaganda.

500-1,000 people surveyed do not reflect the opinions of a country with over 300 Million people in it.

/----
For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.
Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

- See more at: Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

As far as polls go, Rasmussen tries to be accurate and tries to publish it's polling data.
Polls really should only be used for guess work on where an issue may be trending towards with regard to public opinion, but you should not use them to support any kinds of arguments, or to form public policy. They are inaccurate no matter how accurate you try to make them.

It's because they are based on Opinion and Mood, and that changes with the time of the year, the time of the day, the time of month, current events, a person's income, and so many variables that you cannot use them as a reliable source of information.

They are useful for trying to judge the direction of the ever changing wind... so they still have usefulness, but you cannot rely on them as being "concrete affirmations" of sentiment for an entire nation.

 

[The Original Tree]

They aren't sampling wrong.
They Intentionally OVER SAMPLE.
The Polls are run by The Leftist Media.
They are used as Propaganda on The Dumbed Down Population.
They only narrow them near an election to claim they have some kind of accuracy stating "they are within the margin of error."

They basically play a game of political chicken, pulling out of the game and trying to be more accurate just before voting starts.

Instead of getting triggered by dog-whistle keywords, do everyone a favor and educate yourself.

Read "Oversampling" section and understand why it's not a dirty word, but rather an important step to take to get more accurate polling samples.

Sampling

I think you have oversampled too much Liberal Dogma.
Now you are trying to argue the veracity and accuracy of polls that have consistently favored Liberalism, and Leftist Policies, and The Left's Undeniable March towards power.

Why even offer opposition to THE LEFT?

All the Polls say NO ONE can win against them!

Yet the day after an election, Liberal's weep.
Because the polls promise them victory after victory and they experience nothing but failure after failure.

Sucks to be you and be consistently deluded by the propaganda you daily ingest.

 

[AntonToo]

They aren't sampling wrong.
They Intentionally OVER SAMPLE.
The Polls are run by The Leftist Media.
They are used as Propaganda on The Dumbed Down Population.
They only narrow them near an election to claim they have some kind of accuracy stating "they are within the margin of error."

They basically play a game of political chicken, pulling out of the game and trying to be more accurate just before voting starts.

Instead of getting triggered by dog-whistle keywords, do everyone a favor and educate yourself.

Read "Oversampling" section and understand why it's not a dirty word, but rather an important step to take to get more accurate polling samples.

Sampling

I think you have oversampled too much Liberal Dogma.
Now you are trying to argue the veracity and accuracy of polls that have consistently favored Liberalism, and Leftist Policies, and The Left's Undeniable March towards power.

Why even offer opposition to THE LEFT?

All the Polls say No one can win against them.

Yet the day after an election, Liberal's weep.
Because the polls promise them victory after victory and they experience nothing but failure after failure.

Sucks to be you and be consistently deluded by the propaganda you daily ingest.

What the fuck are you talking about?

what polls "consistently favored Liberalism, and Leftist Policies, and The Left's Undeniable March towards power."

You are seriously out to lunch with your crazy nonsense.

 

[The Original Tree]

They aren't sampling wrong.
They Intentionally OVER SAMPLE.
The Polls are run by The Leftist Media.
They are used as Propaganda on The Dumbed Down Population.
They only narrow them near an election to claim they have some kind of accuracy stating "they are within the margin of error."

They basically play a game of political chicken, pulling out of the game and trying to be more accurate just before voting starts.

Instead of getting triggered by dog-whistle keywords, do everyone a favor and educate yourself.

Read "Oversampling" section and understand why it's not a dirty word, but rather an important step to take to get more accurate polling samples.

Sampling

I think you have oversampled too much Liberal Dogma.
Now you are trying to argue the veracity and accuracy of polls that have consistently favored Liberalism, and Leftist Policies, and The Left's Undeniable March towards power.

Why even offer opposition to THE LEFT?

All the Polls say No one can win against them.

Yet the day after an election, Liberal's weep.
Because the polls promise them victory after victory and they experience nothing but failure after failure.

Sucks to be you and be consistently deluded by the propaganda you daily ingest.

What the fuck are you talking about?

what polls "consistently favored Liberalism, and Leftist Policies, and The Left's Undeniable March towards power."

You are seriously out to lunch with your crazy nonsense.

Trying to undermine my credibility will not win the failing argument you are trying to promote.

I studied statistics and polling. The results of polls are easily slanted towards the way "THE CLIENT" wants them slanted. They are after all based on Opinion and Mood, so they are COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS.

And all of these polls since 2015 have been slanted Left in their wording and their direction.
It's called "Guiding a Predetermined Outcome"

According to all the polls in the last two years, Clinton should be president, and The House and Senate should be controlled by The Democrat Party, and ISIS is just a minor annoyance, and New York should be under 30 feet of water.

But those are opinions directed at predetermined outcomes to convey and promote political propaganda, and the polls are used to legitimize such political agendas, as if they are all foregone conclusions so why "resist the inevitable"

And that right there is how LIBERALS USE POLLING TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION, in an attempt to Interfere with the outcome of elections and political processes.

Using polls in that fashion is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, but no one ever accused The Democrat Party of having any moral character, so people should be informed on how they operate in their SITUATIONAL ETHICS BUBBLE.

Lying and Misinformation are just handy tools to achieve desired outcomes for such people. So people who value ethics and honest and fair play need to realize that their opponents do not share their values. In fact, THE LEFT DESPISES AND HATES THEIR VALUES.

And THE LEFT HATES THEM TOO...and not just a little bit...

 

[AntonToo]

According to all the polls in the last two years, Clinton should be president

Ok so the grand conspiracy started in 2015. Before 2015, while Obama was in office and the polls underestimated his popular vote results in two election, there was not a grand conspiracy. Gotcha.

Can tell me which poll claimed that Clinton will win the Electoral College? While answering this question you may want to keep in mind that national polls do not measure state-by-state Electoral College point outcomes.

Also, how do you explain that among this grand conspiracy to skew numbers left, on aggregate the national polls correctly predicted down to 1% outcome of popular vote?

 

[The Original Tree]

According to all the polls in the last two years, Clinton should be president

Ok so the grand conspiracy started in 2015. Before 2015, while Obama was in office and the polls underestimated his popular vote results in two election, there was not a grand conspiracy. Gotcha.

Can tell me which poll claimed that Clinton will win the Electoral College? While answering this question you may want to keep in mind that national polls do not measure state-by-state Electoral College point outcomes.

Also, how do you explain that among this grand conspiracy to skew numbers left, on aggregate the national polls correctly predicted down to 1% outcome of popular vote?

You should know when to give up.

You and your party bombarded social media and the public with an onslaught of polls in every media outlet possible in nauseating and repetitive fashion covering every topic imaginable and beating Conservatives over the head with the "so called" results showing us all how WRONG WE WERE, and How hopeless it was for us to RESIST THE LIBERAL AGENDA.

And you have gotten your asses handed to you losing 1,000 some offices, an unprecedented number of state legislatures and governorships, and you are 0-6 in special elections you claimed were Referendums on The Trump Agenda.

You sir are a deluded fanatic supporting a failed agenda, for a failed party, and now you are defending a failed tactic designed to manipulate public opinion in the favor of your failed ideologies.

L isn't for "Liberal" it stands for LOSER.