Trump Camp Smells Defeat

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts in this thread have conveniently forgotten how they all fell for the 'unskewed polls' guy's nonsense in 2012.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I suspected, you don't understand how odds work.

Nigga you lost.....and you don't understand how the Constitution works

You're in the wrong thread.

You're in the wrong country.
Why don't you move to Venezuela?

Is there an adult version of that post you could give us?

If there is, you surely ain't gonna supply it.
You're so unhappy here...move.

I'd rather be in my shoes than in those of a Trump defender, like you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nigga you lost.....and you don't understand how the Constitution works

You're in the wrong thread.

You're in the wrong country.
Why don't you move to Venezuela?

Is there an adult version of that post you could give us?

If there is, you surely ain't gonna supply it.
You're so unhappy here...move.

I'd rather be in my shoes than in those of a Trump defender, like you.

Hilarious. Please keep blathering on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Donald Trump’s Campaign Knows He’s Losing

The campaign’s internal models show him trailing Hillary Clinton.

With less than two weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump is, for the most part, still insisting to his supporters that he’s in the lead.

While he conceded in one radio interview Monday that he was “somewhat behind in the polls,” Trump said the same day that “I really believe we are winning” and claimed that “Democrats are making up phony polls.”

Members of his campaign, though, are openly admitting that the businessman is lagging behind.

Trump’s campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway, also conceded that the GOP nominee was trailing, saying Sunday “we are behind.”

Although Trump says he no longer believes the polls, his internal data apparently mirrors what publicly available surveys are showing.

The campaign’s San Antonio-based research team is spending $100,000 a week on polling and is running simulations of the election, according to Bloomberg Businessweek ― and it’s coming up with results that look like most of the public forecasts, all of which give Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton an 85 percent or higher chance of victory.

“Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, told Bloomberg, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.”

Silver’s website, FiveThirtyEight, currently gives Clinton a nearly 7-point national lead and shows her on track to win about 338 electoral votes to Trump’s 199.

HuffPost Pollster’s average currently shows Trump about 8 points behind in a national head-to-head race, with Clinton holding substantial leads in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia and a smaller edge in battlegrounds such as Nevada and Florida.

Chart: Trump Camp Smells Defeat

Sounds like it's time for the fat lady to sing.

How'd that work out?

It proves that all this RWnut blather about how it was only the Democrats who thought they'd win was wrong as well.

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

You realize education doesn't come from pills, right?

I realize you're ineducable.

 

[Indeependent]

Nigga you lost.....and you don't understand how the Constitution works

You're in the wrong thread.

You're in the wrong country.
Why don't you move to Venezuela?

Is there an adult version of that post you could give us?

If there is, you surely ain't gonna supply it.
You're so unhappy here...move.

I'd rather be in my shoes than in those of a Trump defender, like you.

Thanks for the dissertation.
You may now resume being the idiot you always are.

 

[Avatar4321]

How'd that work out?

It proves that all this RWnut blather about how it was only the Democrats who thought they'd win was wrong as well.

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

You realize education doesn't come from pills, right?

I realize you're ineducable.

So that's a no you didn't realize it

 

[flacaltenn]

Donald Trump’s Campaign Knows He’s Losing

The campaign’s internal models show him trailing Hillary Clinton.

With less than two weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump is, for the most part, still insisting to his supporters that he’s in the lead.

While he conceded in one radio interview Monday that he was “somewhat behind in the polls,” Trump said the same day that “I really believe we are winning” and claimed that “Democrats are making up phony polls.”

Members of his campaign, though, are openly admitting that the businessman is lagging behind.

Trump’s campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway, also conceded that the GOP nominee was trailing, saying Sunday “we are behind.”

Although Trump says he no longer believes the polls, his internal data apparently mirrors what publicly available surveys are showing.

The campaign’s San Antonio-based research team is spending $100,000 a week on polling and is running simulations of the election, according to Bloomberg Businessweek ― and it’s coming up with results that look like most of the public forecasts, all of which give Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton an 85 percent or higher chance of victory.

“Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, told Bloomberg, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.”

Silver’s website, FiveThirtyEight, currently gives Clinton a nearly 7-point national lead and shows her on track to win about 338 electoral votes to Trump’s 199.

HuffPost Pollster’s average currently shows Trump about 8 points behind in a national head-to-head race, with Clinton holding substantial leads in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia and a smaller edge in battlegrounds such as Nevada and Florida.

Chart: Trump Camp Smells Defeat

Sounds like it's time for the fat lady to sing.

How'd that work out?

It proves that all this RWnut blather about how it was only the Democrats who thought they'd win was wrong as well.

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nigga you lost.....and you don't understand how the Constitution works

You're in the wrong thread.

You're in the wrong country.
Why don't you move to Venezuela?

Is there an adult version of that post you could give us?

If there is, you surely ain't gonna supply it.
You're so unhappy here...move.

I'd rather be in my shoes than in those of a Trump defender, like you.

We don't defend Trump as much as we see he is doing a lot of great things

We know he is a blue collar guy going up against everyone


We know he doesn't have the political skills and talk like the elites like JFK , FDR, like queen Elizabeth, like Julius Caeser..

Once again All Trump is a blue collar guy with alot of money

 

[Lakhota]

Trump camp smells defeat in 2018 and 2020.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Trump camp smells defeat in 2018 and 2020.

Yep. Dems will lose 1100 more seats next year, the remaining balance in 2020.

 

[Indeependent]

Trump camp smells defeat in 2018 and 2020.

Maybe you're smelling yourself?

 

[flacaltenn]

Trump camp smells defeat in 2018 and 2020.

Tripling down huh? You're gonna end up hocking everything for the next "sure thing"..

Just saw a flurry of activity as your "fans" bookmark this page into their day planners..

 

[hadit]

Trump camp smells defeat in 2018 and 2020.

Let's just say it this way. If the democrats do NOT post gains in the mid terms, they're hopeless and deserve to be demolished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Donald Trump’s Campaign Knows He’s Losing

The campaign’s internal models show him trailing Hillary Clinton.

With less than two weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump is, for the most part, still insisting to his supporters that he’s in the lead.

While he conceded in one radio interview Monday that he was “somewhat behind in the polls,” Trump said the same day that “I really believe we are winning” and claimed that “Democrats are making up phony polls.”

Members of his campaign, though, are openly admitting that the businessman is lagging behind.

Trump’s campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway, also conceded that the GOP nominee was trailing, saying Sunday “we are behind.”

Although Trump says he no longer believes the polls, his internal data apparently mirrors what publicly available surveys are showing.

The campaign’s San Antonio-based research team is spending $100,000 a week on polling and is running simulations of the election, according to Bloomberg Businessweek ― and it’s coming up with results that look like most of the public forecasts, all of which give Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton an 85 percent or higher chance of victory.

“Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, told Bloomberg, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.”

Silver’s website, FiveThirtyEight, currently gives Clinton a nearly 7-point national lead and shows her on track to win about 338 electoral votes to Trump’s 199.

HuffPost Pollster’s average currently shows Trump about 8 points behind in a national head-to-head race, with Clinton holding substantial leads in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia and a smaller edge in battlegrounds such as Nevada and Florida.

Chart: Trump Camp Smells Defeat

Sounds like it's time for the fat lady to sing.

How'd that work out?

It proves that all this RWnut blather about how it was only the Democrats who thought they'd win was wrong as well.

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Donald Trump’s Campaign Knows He’s Losing

The campaign’s internal models show him trailing Hillary Clinton.

With less than two weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump is, for the most part, still insisting to his supporters that he’s in the lead.

While he conceded in one radio interview Monday that he was “somewhat behind in the polls,” Trump said the same day that “I really believe we are winning” and claimed that “Democrats are making up phony polls.”

Members of his campaign, though, are openly admitting that the businessman is lagging behind.

Trump’s campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway, also conceded that the GOP nominee was trailing, saying Sunday “we are behind.”

Although Trump says he no longer believes the polls, his internal data apparently mirrors what publicly available surveys are showing.

The campaign’s San Antonio-based research team is spending $100,000 a week on polling and is running simulations of the election, according to Bloomberg Businessweek ― and it’s coming up with results that look like most of the public forecasts, all of which give Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton an 85 percent or higher chance of victory.

“Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, told Bloomberg, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.”

Silver’s website, FiveThirtyEight, currently gives Clinton a nearly 7-point national lead and shows her on track to win about 338 electoral votes to Trump’s 199.

HuffPost Pollster’s average currently shows Trump about 8 points behind in a national head-to-head race, with Clinton holding substantial leads in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia and a smaller edge in battlegrounds such as Nevada and Florida.

Chart: Trump Camp Smells Defeat

Sounds like it's time for the fat lady to sing.

i love predictions from lakhota, hes a fucking tool.

they lady that sung was hot and banging trump, the fat lady got her ass kicked in the electoral college

 

[Snouter]

Leftwingnuts need to stop trying to rationalize away their butthurtness. The fake news establishment did what they could to make US citizens think Crooked Hillary would win the Presidential election, but The Donald won in a landslide! Reliving and trying to rationalize the devastating defeat of Crooked Hillary will probably only make it hurt more for the morons who voted for Crooked Hillary.

 

[mamooth]

What MATTERS is the state by state polls.

And they were accurate, as they were taken _before_ Comey deliberately threw the election to Trump.

By leaving out that fact, you're dishonestly cherrypicking. All of the Trumpflakes are dishonest in that way. But then, if they were honest, they'd be liberals.

 

[flacaltenn]

How'd that work out?

It proves that all this RWnut blather about how it was only the Democrats who thought they'd win was wrong as well.

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It proves that all this RWnut blather about how it was only the Democrats who thought they'd win was wrong as well.

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

 

[flacaltenn]

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

But NOT by the "pop vote".. Makes no sense to claim "you won the pop vote" if more people VOTED AGAINST you than FOR you.. By a couple million votes actually..

In a Prez election, the pop vote is like getting "Miss Congeniality". But ONLY if more contestants like you than hated you..