Trump leads when polls not skewed!

[Skylar]

Skewed polls just try to take into account that Dems cheat whenever they can; it's a way of showing the non-living, Illegal Aliens, multiple voters and destroying votes for the opponent in Big Cities in Swing States, so yeah, its legitimate sampling method

Unskewedpolls.com tried the same process that your ilk are trying now: they 'adjust' the polls to match what they think the electorate should be. Rather than what it actually is.

And as 2012 demonstrated.......that's wildly incompetent.

Ok we get it, we're wrong, we'll see in Nov.

More accurately you are wrong and you WERE wrong. You're rewarming 4 year old dogshit and trying to pretend its not dogshit.

Um, yeah. It is. As your process is demonstrably inaccurate. And you haven't changed your process.

Its the *exact* same nonsense that didn't work in 2012. And still doesn't work in 2016. And when the Democrats tried the exact same nonsense argument in 2004, arguing that the polls that showed Bush ahead of Kerry were 'oversampling' republicans....it didn't work then either.

 

[Skylar]

Skewed polls just try to take into account that Dems cheat whenever they can; it's a way of showing the non-living, Illegal Aliens, multiple voters and destroying votes for the opponent in Big Cities in Swing States, so yeah, its legitimate sampling method

Unskewedpolls.com tried the same process that your ilk are trying now: they 'adjust' the polls to match what they think the electorate should be. Rather than what it actually is.

And as 2012 demonstrated.......that's wildly incompetent.

2012 where Dems blatantly destroyed any non-Obama votes in 59 precincts in Philly?

Show us a single non-Obama vote that was destroyed in any of those 59 precincts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it doens't. The most accurate polling method was Live Phone.
Sitting at number 1.

And you're just completely abandoning the fact that the 'skewed polls' claim is just the same rewarmed dogshit from 2012?

Completely ignoring the fact that those claims were laughably wrong?

And completely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of polling agencies (19 of 23) skewed to the right.....in explicit contradiction of your 'depressing the vote' narrative?

If so.....damn. That was easy.

Average the internet and live phone..Internet is waaaay better using your own numbers.

Relook those numbers and tell us which way they generally lean.

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Average the internet and live phone..Internet is waaaay better using your own numbers.

Relook those numbers and tell us which way they generally lean.

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

 

[Skylar]

Relook those numbers and tell us which way they generally lean.

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I thought democrats believe in fairness. How about we count each Trump vote as two votes in states like New York and California so it can be fair and equal in those states.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

Because a 26 percent sample of republicans isn't near correct.....31 percent is much closer to reality.

 

[Siete]

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

he's dog shit ?

 

[Skylar]

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

Because a 26 percent sample of republicans isn't near correct.....31 percent is much closer to reality.

Your ilk said the same thing in 2012, insisting that the 'oversampling' of democrats by about 6% skewed the polls.

Yet in exit polls, self identified democrats led self identified republicans by (gasp) about 6%. Exactly as the polls indicated.

The 'oversampling' horseshit doesn't work. It didn't work for Democrats in 2004, Republicans in 2008 or 2012.

Why would it suddenly work in 2016?

 

[Skylar]

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

he's dog shit ?

The 'oversampling' whining of the Democrats in 2004 was certainly dogshit. As was the exact same whining in 2008 and 2012 by Republicans.

The oversampling argument has been tried, weight, and measured against the election results.

Its record of failure in modern politics is perfect. Yet, with no changes whatsoever its supposed to suddenly start working in 2016?

Nope.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

But this time its different, huh? Did you guys learn *nothing* from 2012?

This is not 2012 and your not running against a wimp.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Look at the party samples........it matters

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

Because a 26 percent sample of republicans isn't near correct.....31 percent is much closer to reality.

Your ilk said the same thing in 2012, insisting that the 'oversampling' of democrats by about 6% skewed the polls.

Yet in exit polls, self identified democrats led self identified republicans by (gasp) about 6%. Exactly as the polls indicated.

The 'oversampling' horseshit doesn't work. It didn't work for Democrats in 2004, Republicans in 2008 or 2012.

Why would it suddenly work in 2016?

Ok I'm gonna go slow


Not all polls have the same sampling correct?

 

[Skylar]

But this time its different, huh? Did you guys learn *nothing* from 2012?

This is not 2012 and your not running against a wimp.

Romney was polling far better than Trump at this point in the election. And he still lost badly.

But keep those eyes screwed shut. Though you may want to pick out the lies you'll have to start telling yourself in November early, just so you don't steal anyone else's thunder.

It would be awkward. Like two girls arriving at prom in the exact same dress.

 

[AceRothstein]

No it doens't. The most accurate polling method was Live Phone.
Sitting at number 1.

And you're just completely abandoning the fact that the 'skewed polls' claim is just the same rewarmed dogshit from 2012?

Completely ignoring the fact that those claims were laughably wrong?

And completely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of polling agencies (19 of 23) skewed to the right.....in explicit contradiction of your 'depressing the vote' narrative?

If so.....damn. That was easy.

Average the internet and live phone..Internet is waaaay better using your own numbers.

Relook those numbers and tell us which way they generally lean.

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

The party samples are the number of people they reach that say they are registered or lean towards one party. They don't sample for a certain number of each party and there aren't an equal number of people belonging to the parties in this country.

 

[AceRothstein]

But this time its different, huh? Did you guys learn *nothing* from 2012?

This is not 2012 and your not running against a wimp.

Yes, we are running against a functional retard.

 

[Skylar]

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

Because a 26 percent sample of republicans isn't near correct.....31 percent is much closer to reality.

Your ilk said the same thing in 2012, insisting that the 'oversampling' of democrats by about 6% skewed the polls.

Yet in exit polls, self identified democrats led self identified republicans by (gasp) about 6%. Exactly as the polls indicated.

The 'oversampling' horseshit doesn't work. It didn't work for Democrats in 2004, Republicans in 2008 or 2012.

Why would it suddenly work in 2016?

Ok I'm gonna go slow


Not all polls have the same sampling correct?

Sigh....just make your argument. You've already completely abandoned your 'depress the vote' horseshit. So can we move this along?

 

[AceRothstein]

then you tell us what the correct party samples should be, and how you know that.

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

Because a 26 percent sample of republicans isn't near correct.....31 percent is much closer to reality.

Your ilk said the same thing in 2012, insisting that the 'oversampling' of democrats by about 6% skewed the polls.

Yet in exit polls, self identified democrats led self identified republicans by (gasp) about 6%. Exactly as the polls indicated.

The 'oversampling' horseshit doesn't work. It didn't work for Democrats in 2004, Republicans in 2008 or 2012.

Why would it suddenly work in 2016?

Ok I'm gonna go slow


Not all polls have the same sampling correct?

Tell us what you think sampling is.

 

[konradv]

- New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) moves from "battleground" to "lean Democrat"
- Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) moves from "battleground" to "lean Democrat"
- Virginia (13 electoral votes) moves from "battleground" to "lean Democrat"
That adds 37 more electoral votes to Clinton's total and puts her at 273 electoral votes -- just ahead of the needed 270 electoral votes to win the White House.

Road to 270: CNN's general election map - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Skylar]

Average the internet and live phone..Internet is waaaay better using your own numbers.

Relook those numbers and tell us which way they generally lean.

Internet margin - 1.37
Live phone- 1.93

Internet margin is smaller therefore more accurate.

How do 19 of 23 polling agencies having a bias toward republicans 'depress the vote'?

Why would the 'skewed poll' schtick have any more value this election, than it did in 2012 when it was laughably wrong?

Look at the party samples........it matters

The party samples are the number of people they reach that say they are registered or lean towards one party. They don't sample for a certain number of each part and there aren't an equal number of people belonging to the parties in this country.

Exactly. These are self identified affiliations. The pollsters don't assign them. They merely ask.

Which is why the 'oversampling' argument is such horseshit. Its not that there was a polling error in 2004 with too many many people being mistakenly recorded as republicans.

There were more people self identifying as republicans in 2004. Which is why Bush won.

The oversampling argument is a losers whine. A hapless, soothing lie that the losers tell themselves to balm the sting of impending defeat. But the self deception doesn't change the election in the slightest.

 

[buckeye45_73]

34 31 that is legit

1. Voters’ general election preferences

26 35 39 is bullshit
Monmouth University

Again, the democrats made the *exact* same argument in 2004, claiming that polls showing Bush leading Kerry 'oversampled' republicans.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Bush won.

Republicans made the exact same argument in 2012, insisting that polls that showed Obama leading Romney oversampled democrats.

Their claims were dogshit. The polls were right. Obama won.

And after 2 obvious and unimpeachable examples of your theory failing spectacularly, you're going to return to the *exact* same theory again with no modifications...expecting it to magically work this time?

Um, why would you ever do that?

Because a 26 percent sample of republicans isn't near correct.....31 percent is much closer to reality.

Your ilk said the same thing in 2012, insisting that the 'oversampling' of democrats by about 6% skewed the polls.

Yet in exit polls, self identified democrats led self identified republicans by (gasp) about 6%. Exactly as the polls indicated.

The 'oversampling' horseshit doesn't work. It didn't work for Democrats in 2004, Republicans in 2008 or 2012.

Why would it suddenly work in 2016?

Ok I'm gonna go slow


Not all polls have the same sampling correct?

Sigh....just make your argument. You've already completely abandoned your 'depress the vote' horseshit. So can we move this along?

No I haven't so as I said before 31 percent is much closer to reality than 26 percent republican. That's 4 to 5 percent in the polls it makes a huuuuuuge difference. That ls how they skew polls.

I'm they.had a sample of 70 percent republican 10 percent democrat....it would be incorrect...so the percentage matters.