Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JimH52]

You only have to look back in recent history to see where polls were wildly off the mark. It's all there to see. With respect to media bias, The FBI and the US Attorney General in New York opened up a joint investigation into the Clinton Foundation on Thursday. This big event went unreported by the MSM. Literally unreported. My question to you is Why would the press ignore this?

More accurately the The Daily Caller claims that such an investigation is underway. It didn't get much play beyond right wing pundit websites.....as there's nothing to back the claims up.

No source, no evidence, no quotes from anyone at the FBI or US Attorney generals office in NY. Nothing.

So why are you accepting it as fact despite the lack of supporting evidence? Simple: Because you want it to be true. Your entire argument is an expression of your desires. Not the evidence.

Maybe you're right, I guess. But you could be wrong. Who knows?

November will tell us one way or the other. But polling has a pretty solid track record. You may not want to discount it quite yet.

They don't discount it. They just don't read it.

 

[Flopper]

The links for the polls are on RCP. Just click on each poll and a pdf of the poll will come up or an article usually love linking the poll will come up.

If he wanted to know how the polls were conducted, he'd have already done this. But he doesn't want to know...as he's already dismissed them all, despite admitting he doesn't know how they were conducted.

Cont doesn't care. And it doesn't matter what this Cont ignores. The election in November won't change a bit one way or the other.

I am very aware that you will tolerate corruption and criminality so long as they favor your candidate and your fascistic tendencies.


.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

He hasn't managed to convince enough people to support him. As demonstrated by litanies of polls.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Show me where those polls were actually conducted.


Provide a link where we can here the questions asked, who answered the questions and the name of the pollster.


.

If you don't know how the polls were conducted....why are you dismissing the polls?

If you don't know if or how the polls were conducted....why are you referencing the polls?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Their general record of accuracy.

If you don't know how the polls are conducted, why ignore them? You can't claim its a failure of process when you don't know what the process is. Remembering of course that the App you've cited in the OP has accurately called 0.0% of presidential elections.

While Nate Silver, for example, nailed the 2012 election. Every state, the popular vote within 2%, the electoral count, every senate race save one and every congressional race.

If polls have no accuracy, how do you explain the stunning accuracy?

If polls are stunningly accurate, why bother to vote. Abolish suffrage and make Nate Silver the king maker.
.

Most polls have a margin of error due to sampling error of 3% at a 95% confidence. So if Clinton is polling at say 42% she may really be at 39% to as high as 45% and still be with the margin of error. If Trump were polling at 40%, he may really be anywhere from 37% to 43%% and still be within the margin of error.

So what this means is: This poll will report Clinton leads Trump 42% to 40% but the real numbers could be Trump leads Clinton 43% to 39%and the poll would still be valid because the numbers are withing it's margin of error. If the difference between the two candidates is just equal to or less than the margin of error, 3% the poll really doesn't tell you much.

However, it the difference between the candidates exceeds 6%, then the numbers becoming significant.

There are other types of error that aren't included in margin of error. These can be mostly eliminated by taking an average of a number of polls say 6 polls. When an average of the 6 polls shows a difference between the candidates of more than 6%, then this figure becomes very significant.

In the event the poll has no margin error, you can bet that it's not a scientific poll which means the sample being polled is not known to be representative of the population. This is common with Internet polls and phone in polls.

Polling Fundamentals - Total Survey Error - Roper Center
How to Interpret the Margin of Error in Statistics - For Dummies

 

[bodecea]

Gateway Pundit: Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory


Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slanderthat Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!


.

I agree...Drumpf is looking at a landslide victory.......

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I agree...Drumpf is looking at a landslide victory.......

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

My best friend and I have a $100 bet on who wins the election. I owe him $100 if Trump wins; he owes me $100 if Hillary wins. This will be the easiest $100 I make this year.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Democrats like to point out to 2012 when the same argument was made but what were the participation rates for the average conservative voter? I suspect it was way down because no body got excited for Romney. This time, however, it seems the enthusiasm advantage belongs to republicans which could tilt the republican party into the whitehouse.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

My best friend and I have a $100 bet on who wins the election. I owe him $100 if Trump wins; he owes me $100 if Hillary wins. This will be the easiest $100 I make this year.

It will probably be the only $100 you make this year. How is life living with mom and dad?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gateway Pundit: Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory


Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slanderthat Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!


.

Funny post, given that Breitbart's newly sponsored poll has Hillary Clinton winning by 4.

Breitbart/Gravis Poll: Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump 42% to 37% Nationally in 4-Way with Johnson 9%, Stein 3% - Breitbart

 

[NYcarbineer]

My best friend and I have a $100 bet on who wins the election. I owe him $100 if Trump wins; he owes me $100 if Hillary wins. This will be the easiest $100 I make this year.

It will probably be the only $100 you make this year. How is life living with mom and dad?

He lives with your mom and dad? Weird.

But on topic, Hillary is winning. Deal with it.

 

[Flopper]

Democrats like to point out to 2012 when the same argument was made but what were the participation rates for the average conservative voter? I suspect it was way down because no body got excited for Romney. This time, however, it seems the enthusiasm advantage belongs to republicans which could tilt the republican party into the whitehouse.

I think you've been going to too many Trump rallies. The fact is regardless of the number of Republican Trump supporters that show at the polls, it's statistically impossible for Trump to win without picking up more support from anti-Trump Republicans which seem to be growing daily, Democrats, Independent, Blacks, or Hispanics. Republican Support for Trump is 84% which is down from 91% for Romney in Aug 2012. Independents are split.

On the other side, Democrat support for Hillary stands at 94%. The Black vote is somewhere between 95% to 99% depending on the poll. The Hispanic vote for Clinton is just under 75%.

More disturbing for Trump is Clinton has been gaining support in most key demographic groups over the last 2 months.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

When Hillary needs to take a huge crapper, I guess thats a "Landslide Poopery"

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Democrats like to point out to 2012 when the same argument was made but what were the participation rates for the average conservative voter? I suspect it was way down because no body got excited for Romney. This time, however, it seems the enthusiasm advantage belongs to republicans which could tilt the republican party into the whitehouse.

I think you've been going to too many Trump rallies. The fact is regardless of the number of Republican Trump supporters that show at the polls, it's statistically impossible for Trump to win without picking up more support from anti-Trump Republicans which seem to be growing daily, Democrats, Independent, Blacks, or Hispanics. Republican Support for Trump is 84% which is down from 91% for Romney in Aug 2012. Independents are split.

On the other side, Democrat support for Hillary stands at 94%. The Black vote is somewhere between 95% to 99% depending on the poll. The Hispanic vote for Clinton is just under 75%.

More disturbing for Trump is Clinton has been gaining support in most key demographic groups over the last 2 months.

I don't understand why polls oversample democrats when democrat enthusiasm is down and republican enthusiasm is up. In fact, I don't understand why they oversample democrats at all. Perhaps they just can't find any anymore.

 

[Flopper]

Democrats like to point out to 2012 when the same argument was made but what were the participation rates for the average conservative voter? I suspect it was way down because no body got excited for Romney. This time, however, it seems the enthusiasm advantage belongs to republicans which could tilt the republican party into the whitehouse.

I think you've been going to too many Trump rallies. The fact is regardless of the number of Republican Trump supporters that show at the polls, it's statistically impossible for Trump to win without picking up more support from anti-Trump Republicans which seem to be growing daily, Democrats, Independent, Blacks, or Hispanics. Republican Support for Trump is 84% which is down from 91% for Romney in Aug 2012. Independents are split.

On the other side, Democrat support for Hillary stands at 94%. The Black vote is somewhere between 95% to 99% depending on the poll. The Hispanic vote for Clinton is just under 75%.

More disturbing for Trump is Clinton has been gaining support in most key demographic groups over the last 2 months.

I don't understand why polls oversample democrats when democrat enthusiasm is down and republican enthusiasm is up. In fact, I don't understand why they oversample democrats at all. Perhaps they just can't find any anymore.

That's because they don't. The major polling services are careful to select participants so they are a true match to the actual population. Typically the error is plus or minus 3%. Skewing polls will destroy the creditably of the polling service and their credibility is damn important to them. They have customers who trust them and pay for their services. Their polling services go well beyond just political polls. The details of ever poll is available to their paid subscribers so any efforts to distort a poll can be easily uncovered.

 

[EriktheRed]

This time, however, it seems the enthusiasm advantage belongs to republicans which could tilt the republican party into the whitehouse.

They were saying that in 2012, too.

 

[Skylar]

The links for the polls are on RCP. Just click on each poll and a pdf of the poll will come up or an article usually love linking the poll will come up.

If he wanted to know how the polls were conducted, he'd have already done this. But he doesn't want to know...as he's already dismissed them all, despite admitting he doesn't know how they were conducted.

Cont doesn't care. And it doesn't matter what this Cont ignores. The election in November won't change a bit one way or the other.

I am very aware that you will tolerate corruption and criminality so long as they favor your candidate and your fascistic tendencies.


.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

He hasn't managed to convince enough people to support him. As demonstrated by litanies of polls.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Show me where those polls were actually conducted.


Provide a link where we can here the questions asked, who answered the questions and the name of the pollster.


.

If you don't know how the polls were conducted....why are you dismissing the polls?

If you don't know if or how the polls were conducted....why are you referencing the polls?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Their general record of accuracy.

If you don't know how the polls are conducted, why ignore them? You can't claim its a failure of process when you don't know what the process is. Remembering of course that the App you've cited in the OP has accurately called 0.0% of presidential elections.

While Nate Silver, for example, nailed the 2012 election. Every state, the popular vote within 2%, the electoral count, every senate race save one and every congressional race.

If polls have no accuracy, how do you explain the stunning accuracy?

nothing like getting the quotes wrong as usual.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

Are you sure that's what he said? Are you confident, that's what he said?

Even Trump admits that waterboarding is torture. Trump has called for the return of waterboarding and 'worse'. And just so that there's not the slightest confusion that its actual torture that Trump is advocating.......Trump offered us this:

"Would you start torturing him right away or see if he would cooperate and share information? Belgian police say he has been talking," Blitzer asked Trump.

"He may be talking but he'll talk faster with the torture," Trump remarked.

Trump: "They Can Chop Off Heads, We Can't Waterboard"; Should "Torture" Arrested Paris Terrorist

With Trump commiting to going even farther than waterboarding and inflicting 'worse' on our prisoners. Which is ludicrously fascist.

Trump has called for ordering the US military to kill non-combatant women and children in revenge killings, where we 'take out the entire families of terrorists', with Trump reiterating 'entire families' just to make sure he knew what he was talking about.

Which is flagrantly criminal and wildly fascist.

Trump has called for a 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S. until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Donald Trump Back-Pedals on Banning Muslims From U.S.

As for Trump's call for 'deportation teams', he said this:

"You're going to have a deportation force, and you're going to do it humanely," Trump said.

Trump favors a 'deportation force'

So a better question is....do you know what Trump is saying? Because I have a pretty clear idea. And it is some hellaciously fascist shit.

 

[Skylar]

Democrats like to point out to 2012 when the same argument was made but what were the participation rates for the average conservative voter? I suspect it was way down because no body got excited for Romney. This time, however, it seems the enthusiasm advantage belongs to republicans which could tilt the republican party into the whitehouse.

I think you've been going to too many Trump rallies. The fact is regardless of the number of Republican Trump supporters that show at the polls, it's statistically impossible for Trump to win without picking up more support from anti-Trump Republicans which seem to be growing daily, Democrats, Independent, Blacks, or Hispanics. Republican Support for Trump is 84% which is down from 91% for Romney in Aug 2012. Independents are split.

On the other side, Democrat support for Hillary stands at 94%. The Black vote is somewhere between 95% to 99% depending on the poll. The Hispanic vote for Clinton is just under 75%.

More disturbing for Trump is Clinton has been gaining support in most key demographic groups over the last 2 months.

I don't understand why polls oversample democrats when democrat enthusiasm is down and republican enthusiasm is up. In fact, I don't understand why they oversample democrats at all. Perhaps they just can't find any anymore.

That's because they don't. The major polling services are careful to select participants so they are a true match to the actual population. Typically the error is plus or minus 3%. Skewing polls will destroy the creditably of the polling service and their credibility is damn important to them. They have customers who trust them and pay for their services. Their polling services go well beyond just political polls. The details of ever poll is available to their paid subscribers so any efforts to distort a poll can be easily uncovered.

For fuck's sake, Breitbart weeped and wailed and gnashed their teeth about how the MSM was 'skewing the polls against Trump'. And conducted their own poll.

Hillary won. Easily.

Polling at this point in the election has correctly called the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections. But still Trump supporters will ignore it all and pretend that polling doesn't work.

 

[Skylar]

The links for the polls are on RCP. Just click on each poll and a pdf of the poll will come up or an article usually love linking the poll will come up.

If he wanted to know how the polls were conducted, he'd have already done this. But he doesn't want to know...as he's already dismissed them all, despite admitting he doesn't know how they were conducted.

Cont doesn't care. And it doesn't matter what this Cont ignores. The election in November won't change a bit one way or the other.

I am very aware that you will tolerate corruption and criminality so long as they favor your candidate and your fascistic tendencies.


.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

Show me where those polls were actually conducted.


Provide a link where we can here the questions asked, who answered the questions and the name of the pollster.


.

If you don't know how the polls were conducted....why are you dismissing the polls?

If you don't know if or how the polls were conducted....why are you referencing the polls?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Their general record of accuracy.

If you don't know how the polls are conducted, why ignore them? You can't claim its a failure of process when you don't know what the process is. Remembering of course that the App you've cited in the OP has accurately called 0.0% of presidential elections.

While Nate Silver, for example, nailed the 2012 election. Every state, the popular vote within 2%, the electoral count, every senate race save one and every congressional race.

If polls have no accuracy, how do you explain the stunning accuracy?

If polls are stunningly accurate, why bother to vote. Abolish suffrage and make Nate Silver the king maker.
.

Most polls have a margin of error due to sampling error of 3% at a 95% confidence. So if Clinton is polling at say 42% she may really be at 39% to as high as 45% and still be with the margin of error. If Trump were polling at 40%, he may really be anywhere from 37% to 43%% and still be within the margin of error.

So what this means is: This poll will report Clinton leads Trump 42% to 40% but the real numbers could be Trump leads Clinton 43% to 39%and the poll would still be valid because the numbers are withing it's margin of error. If the difference between the two candidates is just equal to or less than the margin of error, 3% the poll really doesn't tell you much.

However, it the difference between the candidates exceeds 6%, then the numbers becoming significant.

There are other types of error that aren't included in margin of error. These can be mostly eliminated by taking an average of a number of polls say 6 polls. When an average of the 6 polls shows a difference between the candidates of more than 6%, then this figure becomes very significant.

In the event the poll has no margin error, you can bet that it's not a scientific poll which means the sample being polled is not known to be representative of the population. This is common with Internet polls and phone in polls.

Polling Fundamentals - Total Survey Error - Roper Center
How to Interpret the Margin of Error in Statistics - For Dummies

Another factor to consider are polling agregates. While a single poll may have results that can vary depending on which part of the margin of error they lay....when you have dozens of polls all breaking in the exact same direction it becomes remarkably unlikely that they're all 'erroring' in the same direction. And much more likely that that is the direction where actual support lays.

 

[Skylar]

The links for the polls are on RCP. Just click on each poll and a pdf of the poll will come up or an article usually love linking the poll will come up.

If he wanted to know how the polls were conducted, he'd have already done this. But he doesn't want to know...as he's already dismissed them all, despite admitting he doesn't know how they were conducted.

Cont doesn't care. And it doesn't matter what this Cont ignores. The election in November won't change a bit one way or the other.

I am very aware that you will tolerate corruption and criminality so long as they favor your candidate and your fascistic tendencies.


.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

He hasn't managed to convince enough people to support him. As demonstrated by litanies of polls.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Show me where those polls were actually conducted.


Provide a link where we can here the questions asked, who answered the questions and the name of the pollster.


.

If you don't know how the polls were conducted....why are you dismissing the polls?

If you don't know if or how the polls were conducted....why are you referencing the polls?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Their general record of accuracy.

If you don't know how the polls are conducted, why ignore them? You can't claim its a failure of process when you don't know what the process is. Remembering of course that the App you've cited in the OP has accurately called 0.0% of presidential elections.

While Nate Silver, for example, nailed the 2012 election. Every state, the popular vote within 2%, the electoral count, every senate race save one and every congressional race.

If polls have no accuracy, how do you explain the stunning accuracy?

If polls are stunningly accurate, why bother to vote. Abolish suffrage and make Nate Silver the king maker.


.

Polling at this point in the election has accurately forecast the winner of the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections. That's an unbroken record of perfect prediction for more than 60 years.

Tell me, now many elections have your 'app' accurately forecast? Just round it to the nearest 'jack shit' for us.

 

[Flopper]

The links for the polls are on RCP. Just click on each poll and a pdf of the poll will come up or an article usually love linking the poll will come up.

If he wanted to know how the polls were conducted, he'd have already done this. But he doesn't want to know...as he's already dismissed them all, despite admitting he doesn't know how they were conducted.

Cont doesn't care. And it doesn't matter what this Cont ignores. The election in November won't change a bit one way or the other.

I am very aware that you will tolerate corruption and criminality so long as they favor your candidate and your fascistic tendencies.


.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

Show me where those polls were actually conducted.


Provide a link where we can here the questions asked, who answered the questions and the name of the pollster.


.

If you don't know how the polls were conducted....why are you dismissing the polls?

If you don't know if or how the polls were conducted....why are you referencing the polls?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Their general record of accuracy.

If you don't know how the polls are conducted, why ignore them? You can't claim its a failure of process when you don't know what the process is. Remembering of course that the App you've cited in the OP has accurately called 0.0% of presidential elections.

While Nate Silver, for example, nailed the 2012 election. Every state, the popular vote within 2%, the electoral count, every senate race save one and every congressional race.

If polls have no accuracy, how do you explain the stunning accuracy?

nothing like getting the quotes wrong as usual.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

Are you sure that's what he said? Are you confident, that's what he said?

Even Trump admits that waterboarding is torture. Trump has called for the return of waterboarding and 'worse'. And just so that there's not the slightest confusion that its actual torture that Trump is advocating.......Trump offered us this:

"Would you start torturing him right away or see if he would cooperate and share information? Belgian police say he has been talking," Blitzer asked Trump.

"He may be talking but he'll talk faster with the torture," Trump remarked.

Trump: "They Can Chop Off Heads, We Can't Waterboard"; Should "Torture" Arrested Paris Terrorist

With Trump commiting to going even farther than waterboarding and inflicting 'worse' on our prisoners. Which is ludicrously fascist.

Trump has called for ordering the US military to kill non-combatant women and children in revenge killings, where we 'take out the entire families of terrorists', with Trump reiterating 'entire families' just to make sure he knew what he was talking about.

Which is flagrantly criminal and wildly fascist.

Trump has called for a 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S. until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Donald Trump Back-Pedals on Banning Muslims From U.S.

As for Trump's call for 'deportation teams', he said this:

"You're going to have a deportation force, and you're going to do it humanely," Trump said.

Trump favors a 'deportation force'

So a better question is....do you know what Trump is saying? Because I have a pretty clear idea. And it is some hellaciously fascist shit.

Trump's statements show clearly why he is so unqualified for the presidency. Is his only qualifications for the presidency his age and citizenship?

 

[Flopper]

If he wanted to know how the polls were conducted, he'd have already done this. But he doesn't want to know...as he's already dismissed them all, despite admitting he doesn't know how they were conducted.

Cont doesn't care. And it doesn't matter what this Cont ignores. The election in November won't change a bit one way or the other.

I am very aware that you will tolerate corruption and criminality so long as they favor your candidate and your fascistic tendencies.


.

Facicist tendancies? Like calling for the return of torture and 'worse'? Calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the US. Calling for massive 'deportation teams' to scoure the country

If you don't know how the polls were conducted....why are you dismissing the polls?

If you don't know if or how the polls were conducted....why are you referencing the polls?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Their general record of accuracy.

If you don't know how the polls are conducted, why ignore them? You can't claim its a failure of process when you don't know what the process is. Remembering of course that the App you've cited in the OP has accurately called 0.0% of presidential elections.

While Nate Silver, for example, nailed the 2012 election. Every state, the popular vote within 2%, the electoral count, every senate race save one and every congressional race.

If polls have no accuracy, how do you explain the stunning accuracy?

If polls are stunningly accurate, why bother to vote. Abolish suffrage and make Nate Silver the king maker.
.

Most polls have a margin of error due to sampling error of 3% at a 95% confidence. So if Clinton is polling at say 42% she may really be at 39% to as high as 45% and still be with the margin of error. If Trump were polling at 40%, he may really be anywhere from 37% to 43%% and still be within the margin of error.

So what this means is: This poll will report Clinton leads Trump 42% to 40% but the real numbers could be Trump leads Clinton 43% to 39%and the poll would still be valid because the numbers are withing it's margin of error. If the difference between the two candidates is just equal to or less than the margin of error, 3% the poll really doesn't tell you much.

However, it the difference between the candidates exceeds 6%, then the numbers becoming significant.

There are other types of error that aren't included in margin of error. These can be mostly eliminated by taking an average of a number of polls say 6 polls. When an average of the 6 polls shows a difference between the candidates of more than 6%, then this figure becomes very significant.

In the event the poll has no margin error, you can bet that it's not a scientific poll which means the sample being polled is not known to be representative of the population. This is common with Internet polls and phone in polls.

Polling Fundamentals - Total Survey Error - Roper Center
How to Interpret the Margin of Error in Statistics - For Dummies

Another factor to consider are polling agregates. While a single poll may have results that can vary depending on which part of the margin of error they lay....when you have dozens of polls all breaking in the exact same direction it becomes remarkably unlikely that they're all 'erroring' in the same direction. And much more likely that that is the direction where actual support lays.

I agree completely. By taking an average of 4 to 6 polls you eliminate coverage, measurement, and non-response errors. I've found that people who question the accuracy of polling don't understand them. When the polling aggregates show a 3% lead by a candidate it's significant. When it exceeds 6%, it's very significant. However, we have to keep in mind that polling results are like a weather forecast. Unexpected changes in conditions can change the forecast.