Trump leads when polls not skewed!

[Skylar]

When you say 'my ilk' does that mean liberal? Because that is what I am. I'm not sure about the state of the current democratic party but that is what I am.

I call bullshit.

I really detest what Obama thinks and he showed me that most democrats agree with him and would prefer him to anyone else.

My honest opinion of Obama

And your references to 'libtards' is certainly what a democrat would say:

I already thought we are living through the libtard nightmare right now. It's called the nightmare on every f'n street in America.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lie to us if you want to. But don't drink your own fucking Kool-Aid dude.

It was true then and true now but in 2012 no one on the right wanted to vote for Romney because of a lack of enthusiasm so his lead didn't really matter in the end. The question to ask is why are they oversamplying democrats when enthusiasm for Hillary is much less than Trump?

It doesn't have a thing to do with party: the Democrats tried the same idiocy in 2004, insisting that polls showing Bush beating Kerry 'oversampled republicans'.

The Dems were wrong then too.

The oversampling argument doesn't work. Not on 2004, not in 2008, not in 2012. And you've given us exactly jack shit to justify it magically and suddenly working in 2016.

'Oversampling' is the election funeral dirge of losers.....who are well aware they're losing.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

How do you know the percentage of Republicans out there? When the pollsters are all coming up with similar numbers, you should trust them.

The numbers they come up with before tampering show Trump is ahead. You should trust that.

There is no tampering, you clearly have not a clue of which you speak of.

The raw data gives Trump an advantage and I decided to take your advice. Since they are coming up with the same conclusion then that must be right.

What 'raw data'? You're literally inventing polls out of nothing, citing your imagination as polling data.

When you have to cite your imagination as a scientific poll, you've really made some poor choices.

Now raw data doesn't exist? What the hell do they base their polls on then?

 

[Skylar]

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.

How do you know the percentage of Republicans out there? When the pollsters are all coming up with similar numbers, you should trust them.

That's the part that is so laughably hillarious. His source on party affiliation numbers......is pollsters recording self identified party affiliation.

Yet in his next breath, he insists that pollsters recording self identified party affiliation can't be trusted.

Its like watching Norman slowly winding down on an episode of Star Trek

Wow you have no clue...you know people have precinct data....they know where certain voters live.

Dude, you're literally citing pollsters asking about party affiliation as your justification for IGNORING pollsters asking about party affiliation.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As any argument you would apply to the poll you want to ignore would apply just as equally to the poll you're citing.

You're engaged in willful, desperate, even frantic confirmation bias.....assessing credibility on whether or not a source says what you want to believe.

Even when you have to cite and ignore the same source on the same topic!

Lying to yourself is not going to give you useful information. It only makes you *feel* better. It doesn't actually help you predict any outcome.

 

[Skylar]

How do you know the percentage of Republicans out there? When the pollsters are all coming up with similar numbers, you should trust them.

The numbers they come up with before tampering show Trump is ahead. You should trust that.

There is no tampering, you clearly have not a clue of which you speak of.

The raw data gives Trump an advantage and I decided to take your advice. Since they are coming up with the same conclusion then that must be right.

What 'raw data'? You're literally inventing polls out of nothing, citing your imagination as polling data.

When you have to cite your imagination as a scientific poll, you've really made some poor choices.

Now raw data doesn't exist? What the hell do they base their polls on then?

You said the raw polling data indicates Trump is winning.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

When you say 'my ilk' does that mean liberal? Because that is what I am. I'm not sure about the state of the current democratic party but that is what I am.

I call bullshit.

I really detest what Obama thinks and he showed me that most democrats agree with him and would prefer him to anyone else.

My honest opinion of Obama

And your references to 'libtards' is certainly what a democrat would say:

I already thought we are living through the libtard nightmare right now. It's called the nightmare on every f'n street in America.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lie to us if you want to. But don't drink your own fucking Kool-Aid dude.

It was true then and true now but in 2012 no one on the right wanted to vote for Romney because of a lack of enthusiasm so his lead didn't really matter in the end. The question to ask is why are they oversamplying democrats when enthusiasm for Hillary is much less than Trump?

It doesn't have a thing to do with party: the Democrats tried the same idiocy in 2004, insisting that polls showing Bush beating Kerry 'oversampled republicans'.

The Dems were wrong then too.

The oversampling argument doesn't work. Not on 2004, not in 2008, not in 2012. And you've given us exactly jack shit to justify it magically and suddenly working in 2016.

'Oversampling' is the election funeral dirge of losers.....who are well aware they're losing.

You people are not liberal in any sense of the word anymore. Libtards is the only thing I got to use because as much as I think that conservatives are not liberal their economic and government arguments are right. Does being a 'liberal' mean I have to sign up for the communist party? The conservatives I've ran into in my life really don't give a fuck how I feel about social issues but 'liberals' I ran into tell me what to think, what to believe, what is right and what is wrong. I have no leeway for being myself and having my own thoughts when dealing with 'libtards'

Here is another thing. Do you know how black people call other black people *******? That is how it is. You are to libtards are to liberals as ******* are black people.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The numbers they come up with before tampering show Trump is ahead. You should trust that.

There is no tampering, you clearly have not a clue of which you speak of.

The raw data gives Trump an advantage and I decided to take your advice. Since they are coming up with the same conclusion then that must be right.

What 'raw data'? You're literally inventing polls out of nothing, citing your imagination as polling data.

When you have to cite your imagination as a scientific poll, you've really made some poor choices.

Now raw data doesn't exist? What the hell do they base their polls on then?

You said the raw polling data indicates Trump is winning.

Show us. Don't tell us.

you just said they don't exist.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

How do you know the percentage of Republicans out there? When the pollsters are all coming up with similar numbers, you should trust them.

That's the part that is so laughably hillarious. His source on party affiliation numbers......is pollsters recording self identified party affiliation.

Yet in his next breath, he insists that pollsters recording self identified party affiliation can't be trusted.

Its like watching Norman slowly winding down on an episode of Star Trek

Wow you have no clue...you know people have precinct data....they know where certain voters live.

Dude, you're literally citing pollsters asking about party affiliation as your justification for IGNORING pollsters asking about party affiliation.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As any argument you would apply to the poll you want to ignore would apply just as equally to the poll you're citing.

You're engaged in willful, desperate, even frantic confirmation bias.....assessing credibility on whether or not a source says what you want to believe.

Even when you have to cite and ignore the same source on the same topic!

Lying to yourself is not going to give you useful information. It only makes you *feel* better. It doesn't actually help you predict any outcome.

You are stupid.....I'm saying they rig the polls..how?

By calling areas with more democrats.

It's really not hard

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What I don't understand is why not call the same number of people from each zip code or call the same proportion of people from each zip code. Why even allow the questionee's party affiliation become an issue in the first place. In fact, why even ask it in the first place? It is possible that once a polling place knows party affiliation that they could use it to manipulate the data. Why not take a poll where the questionee's party affiliation is completely unknown so that we could get a completely unbiased poll?

 

[buckeye45_73]

What I don't understand is why not call the same number of people from each zip code or call the same proportion of people from each zip code. Why even allow the questionee's party affiliation become an issue in the first place. In fact, why even ask it in the first place? It is possible that once a polling place knows party affiliation that they could use it to manipulate the data. Why not take a poll where the questionee's party affiliation is completely unknown so that we could get a completely unbiased poll?

Nah that's not the issue. Party affiliation is good to know. If not i could call nyc for my poll and skew it bigtime.You can look at voting data and see where they are concentrated or not.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

How do you know the percentage of Republicans out there? When the pollsters are all coming up with similar numbers, you should trust them.

That's the part that is so laughably hillarious. His source on party affiliation numbers......is pollsters recording self identified party affiliation.

Yet in his next breath, he insists that pollsters recording self identified party affiliation can't be trusted.

Its like watching Norman slowly winding down on an episode of Star Trek

Wow you have no clue...you know people have precinct data....they know where certain voters live.

Dude, you're literally citing pollsters asking about party affiliation as your justification for IGNORING pollsters asking about party affiliation.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As any argument you would apply to the poll you want to ignore would apply just as equally to the poll you're citing.

You're engaged in willful, desperate, even frantic confirmation bias.....assessing credibility on whether or not a source says what you want to believe.

Even when you have to cite and ignore the same source on the same topic!

Lying to yourself is not going to give you useful information. It only makes you *feel* better. It doesn't actually help you predict any outcome.

You are stupid.....I'm saying they rig the polls..how?

By calling areas with more democrats.

It's really not hard

Did the Breitbart poll that matches the rest of the polls also call areas with more Democrats? I don't know if your argument is hilarious or sad.

 

[oreo]

View attachment 86123

Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?

Results are weighted to match demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and are aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using self-reported votes in that election.

These charts are updated daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week's responses. The Daybreak Poll began on July 4, 2016, and will run through the November election. It is being conducted in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times. For more information about the survey's methods and to download the source data please visit The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll | Understanding America Study.

Now since this poll doesn't tell us how many of the 3,000 were democrats or GOP, we can use the study done by HuffPollster, which aggregates hundreds of polls across nearly 100 different pollsters, finds that averaging across 2016 polls, 34.8 percent of Americans identify as Democrats and 28.7 percent identify as Republicans—roughly a six-point Democratic advantage. This is very similar to the CBS poll’s partisan composition. Democrats maintain this advantage even among the national electorate.
HuffPollster finds on average that among likely voters 38 percent are Democrats and 32.9 percent are Republicans—a 5.1-point Democratic advantage.
No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

So if as the above study of 100 different pollsters Democrats have a 5.1% advantage, Trump is WINNING by subtracting 5.1% from Hillary's 44% and you have Trump 43.4% and Hillary's 39%!

The only time polls are skewed is when Trump is leading--LOL
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans think that unless a poll has 50% Trump voters and 50% Hillary voters it must be skewed

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Republicans think that unless a poll has 50% Trump voters and 50% Hillary voters it must be skewed

I've seen it where 'liberals' do systematically lie to pursue their own political agenda so it might be natural to wonder if people really do think this is true.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What I don't understand is why not call the same number of people from each zip code or call the same proportion of people from each zip code. Why even allow the questionee's party affiliation become an issue in the first place. In fact, why even ask it in the first place? It is possible that once a polling place knows party affiliation that they could use it to manipulate the data. Why not take a poll where the questionee's party affiliation is completely unknown so that we could get a completely unbiased poll?

Nah that's not the issue. Party affiliation is good to know. If not i could call nyc for my poll and skew it bigtime.You can look at voting data and see where they are concentrated or not.

I actually think it has to be a true random sample without any possibility of being bias.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans think that unless a poll has 50% Trump voters and 50% Hillary voters it must be skewed

I've seen it where 'liberals' do systematically lie to pursue their own political agenda so it might be natural to wonder if people really do think this is true.

You mean every poll in all 50 states is skewed against Trump?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Trump is leading in the polls,

why are he and his campaign undergoing an obvious overhaul and makeover?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JC456 is angry, desperate, and hoping against hope. He knows it is piling up on the Trump Campaign. After Red Donnie's loss, he will say the election was stolen and refuse to look into the mirror as well millions of others like JC456 and accept their collective fault: that they were several steps down, not a cut above.

I am? How many threads about hillary have I made? Oh yeah one. How many for you bunch of losers, tens upon tens about trump. So I let the factual data on thread count prove my point of your willing behavior in here. Let me take a moment and laugh

All of which means nothing, podjo. You are angry and desperate and hoping against hope. You will survive Trump's defeat.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary at 273 EVs not counting battlegrounds

Now THAT is some skewing

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

 

[healthmyths]

I strongly urge you to check the electoral math.

You are right. Good position for Trump.
Hillary is only 43 votes at 227 shy of the 270 while poor Trump is 107 shy.
Wow... and to think Hillary has spent what in advertising? $116 million versus Trump?? $700,000!
Clinton outspending Trump by $116 million on ads - CNNPolitics.com
Think about that. Hillary has spent $511,013 for EACH ELECTORAL vote.. versus Trump??? $4,294!
So to get her remain 43 votes based on her spending she needs to spend another $21 million while Trump?... less then $500,000!
So where will Hillary get more $? Trump has a lot of room to grow!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Hillary at 273 EVs not counting battlegrounds

Now THAT is some skewing

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

And we are going to continue another eight years of this rotten economy.