While newsreaders scream, "Hillary won!!!", their own polls tell a different story

[Pogo]

Online polls, LOL. I always knew Little Nut was a moron but I didn't think he was this stupid.

If one poll after another has Trump winning, what does that tell you? Does the term aggregate not exist in your world?

It tells you that there are a bunch of rabid Trump supporters who will vote in any poll for their orange messiah for any reason.

The proof is in the pudding. Trump gets 30X supporters at his rallies. The polls, which everyone has access to, show Trump winning. And Trump supporters know this and have better things to do than to pour onto what we know. If anything, they'd stay away due to the systematic rigging that seems to be taking place. Nobody wants to spins their wheels.

Your fatal flaw here is the ass-umption that Rump supporters, and Rump detractors, both view online polls as equally important.

Go ahead and try to prove that.

 

[paulitician]

The Globalist Establishment Elites will fight to the bitter end to get Clinton elected. They'll continue to lie and cheat. They despise Trump. He stands for everything they're against. He wants to put American Citizens first again. Go Trump!

 

[jc456]

given that the wacko o/p hasn't provided any links...just pictures (which is probably all he can read... I have to wonder where he's getting this garbage....

cbs poll...

Hillary 62% dumb Donald 27%

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of debate watchers said Hillary Clinton won

so where are you getting your lies, nutbar?

online polls. seriously. the op believes online polls to be representative of how the public feels.

It certainly attests to motivation, mirroring Obama's victory in 2008. The point is that that no one is excited about Hillary ( not even Bill), rather that the flow is in Trump's direction.

This is something called nuance and needs a bit of thought.

You're seeing what you want to see. There's nothing "nuanced" about reddit and 4chan users trolling Internet polls.

Maybe I'm confusing you with some other poster, but weren't you supposed to be a graduate student in politics or something? If so, perhaps you've been spending too much time is in "safe spaces".

Mind you, given the level of education in the US, we cannot preclude that you are a hack perusing an education...as it were.

Actually, I have completed my degree - in public opinion and political statistics.

But as I said, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

yeah cause we're on an internet and you just told us you can't trust what's on the internet so you just lied.

 

[jknowgood]

Etc. etc. etc.

Read 'em and weep, liberals.

Contrary to what the media talking heads say at maximum volume, you're still losing.

(Cure the liberals to frantically make up more lies like, "Well, those polls were bombed by conservatives but not by liberals!")

where are you getting the lying pictures, little boy?

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of debate watchers said Hillary Clinton won

I thought she was actually doing pretty good until she called Trump a racist. Doesn't she realize at one time she considered Trump a good friend. So in liberal terms, that also makes her a racist.

 

[jc456]

Okay, so these polling organization go out, force some registered voters of THEIR choosing, to sit down an give them their opinion.

Nice.


OTH, you have several on-line polls that have voters that are motivated to go out of their way to go out and vote.


Hmmmm. . . I wonder what is going to be more representative of the real world?




I sure hope the establishment has their election fraud thugs out in force, that is all I can say.

Not quite. A real poll uses a random sample of registered voters - whereas the population of the "polls" that have so excited you guys are made up of anyone in the world who feels like voting - including both actual voters AND 13-year-old Internet trolls from reddit and 4chan.

There's a rear guard action if ever one there was.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Alrighjt then. At least drop that shit about your PhD or whatever the hell you were lying about. Again, I apologize if you didn't claim anything as such, but if you did you were obviously lying.

Watching confirmation bias at work is my favorite hobby.

mine too. thanks for making my day.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're seeing what you want to see. There's nothing "nuanced" about reddit and 4chan users trolling Internet polls.

Maybe I'm confusing you with some other poster, but weren't you supposed to be a graduate student in politics or something? If so, perhaps you've been spending too much time is in "safe spaces".

Mind you, given the level of education in the US, we cannot preclude that you are a hack perusing an education...as it were.

Actually, I have completed my degree - in public opinion and political statistics.

But as I said, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

I am sorry. I refuse to accept that anyone so patently ignorant has achieved the educational status even for public education, realizing of course that not everything you see claimed on the internet is factual.

I don't expect you to actually post your diploma. Given your record and claims, your are obviously at least obfuscating but more likely outright lying.

As I said before, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

So have at it. Keep that faith alive as long as you can.

Doc, it is not a question of something making me feel better. It is simply a question of what is believable. You simply have not demonstrated the ability to articulate beyond that of a high school graduate, and your analysis in this particular exchange is well below that.

Fail.

Try it on others more gullible. Aim for a younger and more naive audience.

Of course it's about making you feel better.

Why else would you throw common sense and even the smallest bit of critical thinking out the window and embrace any piece of "data" that supports your own personal opinion, no matter how dubious and meaningless it may be?

 

[jc456]

Etc. etc. etc.

Read 'em and weep, liberals.

Contrary to what the media talking heads say at maximum volume, you're still losing.

(Cure the liberals to frantically make up more lies like, "Well, those polls were bombed by conservatives but not by liberals!")

where are you getting the lying pictures, little boy?

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of debate watchers said Hillary Clinton won

I thought she was actually doing pretty good until she called Trump a racist. Doesn't she realize at one time she considered Trump a good friend. So in liberal terms, that also makes her a racist.

dude she invoked the George Dubya rule, automatic loser.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh no, I actually watched. I couldn't find a good ball game or a rerun of "F Troop". So it was either that or jam an ice pick into my eyes, but I couldn't find an ice pick. So yes I do know what I'm talking about --- that's how I knew about that emphysematic wheezing.

Back to the subject: The polls at the only ones currently available. And nearly all of them show Trump "winning".

Exactly. Real (scientific) polls aren't available for instant gratification. They take time.

 

[MisterBeale]

Online polls, LOL. I always knew Little Nut was a moron but I didn't think he was this stupid.

Find one, just one, poll that says Hillary won. I bet you can't. Oh, almost forgot, there aren't any "scientific" polls out yet, so... what else would they use? The know-nothing talking heads on TV?

All three scientific polls that were released showed Clinton won.

CNN/ORC
PPP
Gravis

Okay, so these polling organization go out, force some registered voters of THEIR choosing, to sit down an give them their opinion.

Nice.


OTH, you have several on-line polls that have voters that are motivated to go out of their way to go out and vote.


Hmmmm. . . I wonder what is going to be more representative of the real world?




I sure hope the establishment has their election fraud thugs out in force, that is all I can say.

Not quite. A real poll uses a random sample of registered voters - whereas the population of the "polls" that have so excited you guys are made up of anyone in the world who feels like voting - including both actual voters AND 13-year-old Internet trolls from reddit and 4chan.

Or so you believe.


We have folks call here all the time. My son answers. They ask for me. He could say he is me, or, he could say I am not home. His voice sounds just like mine.

Is a minor a registered voter? NO.

Those pollers don't know shit.


Don't tell a political scientist how this shit works, I know how it works, I've done it before. 521 people that they have called, on land lines, doesn't mean shit. It is statistically insignificant.

The poll surveyed 521 registered voters who watched the debate with a 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of debate watchers said Hillary Clinton won

Added to that, it is more than likely, these are folks that they have in a data base, who they already know what their preference is, who they already know are verified and legitimate registered voters. There was more than likely NOTHING random about those samples. In the age of cell phones, it has become next to impossible to conduct, "random samplings," and know that your sample has not been tainted or polluted. (That's why the complex calculus for the 4.5 margin of error.)

Sure, you can criticize the sample of an on-line poll, and your criticisms are wholly justified, I completely agree with them. I am not refuting them one bit.

However, if you want the forum to believe that the media does not have an agenda to create polls that support the journalism they are producing, you need to find some other idiots. The on-line polls clearly show the overall mood of the nation, whether they are folks that cleared their cookies and voted multiple times, or people that were two young to vote, it makes not a whole lot of difference for the over all total. Don't young people tend lean liberal anyway? Your argument falls flat.


Then you want to bring up the "Ron Paul" example. Another argument that falls flat. The populist mood, and the entire nation NOW KNOW the truth. Everyone knows that the establishment rigs the parties to get who they want. The jig is up. Of course Paul should have had that nomination. It is clear now. He would have beat the shit out of Obama.

The Wikileaks release of the DNC emails clearly show how the party elites don't give a shit what the population wants.

Paul's fund raising totals from the masses should have made it clear what was going on. . .

His support among enlisted should have clued the nation what was best.

 

[Pogo]

Online polls, LOL. I always knew Little Nut was a moron but I didn't think he was this stupid.

If one poll after another has Trump winning, what does that tell you? Does the term aggregate not exist in your world?

If they are scientific polls, sure. Nobody but idiots and children think online polls have any value.

Everyone uses the interenet pretty much. If poll after poll shows Trump winning, you can know, scientifically speaking, that he won the debate.

President Ron Paul agrees with you.

President Trump agrees with me.

Yeah, fantasy projections always do. By definition.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

online polls. seriously. the op believes online polls to be representative of how the public feels.

It certainly attests to motivation, mirroring Obama's victory in 2008. The point is that that no one is excited about Hillary ( not even Bill), rather that the flow is in Trump's direction.

This is something called nuance and needs a bit of thought.

You're seeing what you want to see. There's nothing "nuanced" about reddit and 4chan users trolling Internet polls.

Maybe I'm confusing you with some other poster, but weren't you supposed to be a graduate student in politics or something? If so, perhaps you've been spending too much time is in "safe spaces".

Mind you, given the level of education in the US, we cannot preclude that you are a hack perusing an education...as it were.

Actually, I have completed my degree - in public opinion and political statistics.

But as I said, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

yeah cause we're on an internet and you just told us you can't trust what's on the internet so you just lied.

I couldn't possibly care less about whether you believe me or not. In fact, it's more fun for me to watch you guys deny reality.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Online polls, LOL. I always knew Little Nut was a moron but I didn't think he was this stupid.

Find one, just one, poll that says Hillary won. I bet you can't. Oh, almost forgot, there aren't any "scientific" polls out yet, so... what else would they use? The know-nothing talking heads on TV?

All three scientific polls that were released showed Clinton won.

CNN/ORC
PPP
Gravis

Okay, so these polling organization go out, force some registered voters of THEIR choosing, to sit down an give them their opinion.

Nice.


OTH, you have several on-line polls that have voters that are motivated to go out of their way to go out and vote.


Hmmmm. . . I wonder what is going to be more representative of the real world?




I sure hope the establishment has their election fraud thugs out in force, that is all I can say.

Not quite. A real poll uses a random sample of registered voters - whereas the population of the "polls" that have so excited you guys are made up of anyone in the world who feels like voting - including both actual voters AND 13-year-old Internet trolls from reddit and 4chan.

Or so you believe.


We have folks call here all the time. My son answers. They ask for me. He could say he is me, or, he could say I am not home. His voice sounds just like mine.

Is a minor a registered voter? NO.

Those pollers don't know shit.


Don't tell a political scientist how this shit works, I know how it works, I've done it before. 521 people that they have called, on land lines, doesn't mean shit. It is statistically insignificant.

The poll surveyed 521 registered voters who watched the debate with a 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of debate watchers said Hillary Clinton won

Added to that, it is more than likely, these are folks that they have in a data base, who they already know what their preference is, who they already know are verified and legitimate registered voters. There was more than likely NOTHING random about those samples. In the age of cell phones, it has become next to impossible to conduct, "random samplings," and know that your sample has not been tainted or polluted. (That's why the complex calculus for the 4.5 margin of error.)

Sure, you can criticize the sample of an on-line poll, and your criticisms are wholly justified, I completely agree with them. I am not refuting them one bit.

However, if you want the forum to believe that the media does not have an agenda to create polls that support the journalism they are producing, you need to find some other idiots. The on-line polls clearly show the overall mood of the nation, whether they are folks that cleared their cookies and voted multiple times, or people that were two young to vote, it makes not a whole lot of difference for the over all total. Don't young people tend lean liberal anyway? Your argument falls flat.


Then you want to bring up the "Ron Paul" example. Another argument that falls flat. The populist mood, and the entire nation NOW KNOW the truth. Everyone knows that the establishment rigs the parties to get who they want. The jig is up. Of course Paul should have had that nomination. It is clear now. He would have beat the shit out of Obama.

The Wikileaks release of the DNC emails clearly show how the party elites don't give a shit what the population wants.

Paul's fund raising totals from the masses should have made it clear what was going on. . .

His support among enlisted should have clued the nation what was best.

I wonder if you realize that you're proving my point.

 

[Pogo]

Etc. etc. etc.

Read 'em and weep, liberals.

Contrary to what the media talking heads say at maximum volume, you're still losing.

(Cure the liberals to frantically make up more lies like, "Well, those polls were bombed by conservatives but not by liberals!")

anyone watch CNN afterward last night? seven to two represented on the panel afterward. All saying how she kicked his ass and had him on the defensive all night. 7 to 2 with two clinton reps on the panel. and one black dude that I think was gonna cry over the birther piece. OMG hilarious TV. and where was old hitlery for an interview afterward? Trump stopped several times. for hitlery she had her campaign someone on the air.

media bias made to look like fools over and over and over and over.

In Frank Luntz's focus group, exactly 0 participants thought Trump won.

Yep, I happened to be watching that. And that group actually DID watch the debate and had specifics on who said what.

It's illustrative of the purely emotional basis of the Rumbots that (a) they think online polls, and message board threads about online polls, prove anything more than a naked confirmation bias, and (b) that they think they can make a point by posting "" 157 times.

 

[jc456]

Online polls, LOL. I always knew Little Nut was a moron but I didn't think he was this stupid.

Find one, just one, poll that says Hillary won. I bet you can't. Oh, almost forgot, there aren't any "scientific" polls out yet, so... what else would they use? The know-nothing talking heads on TV?

All three scientific polls that were released showed Clinton won.

CNN/ORC
PPP
Gravis

Okay, so these polling organization go out, force some registered voters of THEIR choosing, to sit down an give them their opinion.

Nice.


OTH, you have several on-line polls that have voters that are motivated to go out of their way to go out and vote.


Hmmmm. . . I wonder what is going to be more representative of the real world?




I sure hope the establishment has their election fraud thugs out in force, that is all I can say.

Not quite. A real poll uses a random sample of registered voters - whereas the population of the "polls" that have so excited you guys are made up of anyone in the world who feels like voting - including both actual voters AND 13-year-old Internet trolls from reddit and 4chan.

And a Yuuuge swath of those online poll voters ---- we'll never know how may ---- didn't even watch the debate at all.

Somebody should run an online poll saying "who won the debate last night"? ---- on a day when there was no debate last night. Just to see how many show up to cast a "vote".

go for it.

 

[jillian]

If they are scientific polls, sure. Nobody but idiots and children think online polls have any value.

Everyone uses the interenet pretty much. If poll after poll shows Trump winning, you can know, scientifically speaking, that he won the debate.

President Ron Paul agrees with you.

President Trump agrees with me.

LOL, Trump will be heading back to his gaudy apartment come November.

If true, we'll know that a rigging has occurred. Nobody is doubting that Americans are on The Trump Train.

you should probably doubt that because it would be false.

see, this is why you nutters are always surprised when you lose. you don't understand that you aren't mainstream

 

[jc456]

Etc. etc. etc.

Read 'em and weep, liberals.

Contrary to what the media talking heads say at maximum volume, you're still losing.

(Cure the liberals to frantically make up more lies like, "Well, those polls were bombed by conservatives but not by liberals!")

anyone watch CNN afterward last night? seven to two represented on the panel afterward. All saying how she kicked his ass and had him on the defensive all night. 7 to 2 with two clinton reps on the panel. and one black dude that I think was gonna cry over the birther piece. OMG hilarious TV. and where was old hitlery for an interview afterward? Trump stopped several times. for hitlery she had her campaign someone on the air.

media bias made to look like fools over and over and over and over.

In Frank Luntz's focus group, exactly 0 participants thought Trump won.

good for him and them. i really don't care. you think my post proves CNN is balanced? I mean 7=2 doesn't it? excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

 

[Meathead]

Maybe I'm confusing you with some other poster, but weren't you supposed to be a graduate student in politics or something? If so, perhaps you've been spending too much time is in "safe spaces".

Mind you, given the level of education in the US, we cannot preclude that you are a hack perusing an education...as it were.

Actually, I have completed my degree - in public opinion and political statistics.

But as I said, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

I am sorry. I refuse to accept that anyone so patently ignorant has achieved the educational status even for public education, realizing of course that not everything you see claimed on the internet is factual.

I don't expect you to actually post your diploma. Given your record and claims, your are obviously at least obfuscating but more likely outright lying.

As I said before, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

So have at it. Keep that faith alive as long as you can.

Doc, it is not a question of something making me feel better. It is simply a question of what is believable. You simply have not demonstrated the ability to articulate beyond that of a high school graduate, and your analysis in this particular exchange is well below that.

Fail.

Try it on others more gullible. Aim for a younger and more naive audience.

Of course it's about making you feel better.

Why else would you throw common sense and even the smallest bit of critical thinking out the window and embrace any piece of "data" that supports your own personal opinion, no matter how dubious and meaningless it may be?

Look kid, there are several posters who would love to roll over silly conversations like this endlessly. Just stop trying to challenge or bait me into squabbling with someone below my station. I called you on it in part because of your use of smiley faces and in part the simplistic petulance of your posts.

Sorry, some dingbat on the internet with visions of grandeur is not going to keep me interested for very long. As I told you before , and I suspect you will verify shortly with some juvenile retort, you are simply not in my league.

Ciao

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, I have completed my degree - in public opinion and political statistics.

But as I said, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

I am sorry. I refuse to accept that anyone so patently ignorant has achieved the educational status even for public education, realizing of course that not everything you see claimed on the internet is factual.

I don't expect you to actually post your diploma. Given your record and claims, your are obviously at least obfuscating but more likely outright lying.

As I said before, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

So have at it. Keep that faith alive as long as you can.

Doc, it is not a question of something making me feel better. It is simply a question of what is believable. You simply have not demonstrated the ability to articulate beyond that of a high school graduate, and your analysis in this particular exchange is well below that.

Fail.

Try it on others more gullible. Aim for a younger and more naive audience.

Of course it's about making you feel better.

Why else would you throw common sense and even the smallest bit of critical thinking out the window and embrace any piece of "data" that supports your own personal opinion, no matter how dubious and meaningless it may be?

Look kid, there are several posters who would love to roll over silly conversations like this endlessly. Just stop trying to challenge or bait me into squabbling with someone below my station. I called you on it in part because of your use of smiley faces and in part the simplistic petulance of your posts.

Sorry, some dingbat on the internet with vision of grandeur is not going to keep me interested for very long. As I told you before , and I suspect you will verify shortly with some juvenile retort, you are simply not in my league.

Ciao

No one is forcing you to respond to my posts, clown shoes.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[Pogo]

I thought she was actually doing pretty good until she called Trump a racist.

I must have missed that. Got a quote?

Doesn't she realize at one time she considered Trump a good friend. So in liberal terms, that also makes her a racist.

Really.

So if I have a friend who's a stamp collector ---- that makes me a stamp collector?

Logic. Such a deal.

 

[jc456]

It certainly attests to motivation, mirroring Obama's victory in 2008. The point is that that no one is excited about Hillary ( not even Bill), rather that the flow is in Trump's direction.

This is something called nuance and needs a bit of thought.

You're seeing what you want to see. There's nothing "nuanced" about reddit and 4chan users trolling Internet polls.

Maybe I'm confusing you with some other poster, but weren't you supposed to be a graduate student in politics or something? If so, perhaps you've been spending too much time is in "safe spaces".

Mind you, given the level of education in the US, we cannot preclude that you are a hack perusing an education...as it were.

Actually, I have completed my degree - in public opinion and political statistics.

But as I said, you're going to believe whatever makes you feel better, no matter what.

yeah cause we're on an internet and you just told us you can't trust what's on the internet so you just lied.

I couldn't possibly care less about whether you believe me or not. In fact, it's more fun for me to watch you guys deny reality.

it means absolutely nothing today or tomorrow. there are two more debates, two more. she can stay shut in another month preparing good for her. just shows she doesn't like her base supporters cause she can't get out and campaign.