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

[MisterBeale]

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.

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

 

[jc456]

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.

yep she said it trying to catch him in the entire birther distraction question. yeppers. I was hoping trump was going to respond so she could say it clearer. Ms, Secretary are you saying I'm a racist? I was wanting him to ask her. he failed me. but yeah, it's what she said.

 

[jc456]

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.

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

they're scientific, the libs run em. The only polls that count. remember that now.

 

[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.

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 an campaign.

Of course it "means nothing". That's why you guys are so frantically starting threads and posting in defense of Internet polls.

 

[Lovebears65]

Most snap polls show Trump winning the debate by a landslide


Yet when you turn on the liberal news station they say Hillary won.. The people are sick of the establishment. Hillary was like a robot .. Im not a huge Trump fan either but I would rather him try to do something different then the same old shit that has not worked !!!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

I was referring to your claims of how Ron Paul "should" have won.

He didn't. That's my point.

 

[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.

yep she said it trying to catch him in the entire birther distraction question. yeppers. I was hoping trump was going to respond so she could say it clearer. Ms, Secretary are you saying I'm a racist? I was wanting him to ask her. he failed me. but yeah, it's what she said.

What I asked for was a quote. Because I saw that whole exchange, and I didn't hear that.

As usual, I'm asking a question not because I don't know the answer, but because I do.
So I ask for the proof, and I get --- nothing.
Which is --- ding ding ding --- the correct answer.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

You can't possibly have expected Doc to have anything substantial to add to... well, anything. We all know he just shows up to troll threads and act half my age.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

I was referring to your claims of how Ron Paul "should" have won.

He didn't. That's my point.

And his point is that the Establishment ensured that much.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

Or maybe you know, scientifically speaking, that Rumpoids think online polls make a point.

They do after all fuel their whole existence on self-delusion so.............. it adds up.

Typical globalist: let's not listen to the populous. Let's wait for our rubber stamped information.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

You can't possibly have expected Doc to have anything substantial to add to... well, anything. We all know he just shows up to troll threads and act half my age.

...he says as he trolls a thread with personal insults and nothing of substance.

Do you have anything on-topic to add, or is this discussion too far over your head?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

I don't assume that. But I do know that if one poll after another says Trump won, then America has clearly spoken. And frankly, we wouldn't be arguing such nonsense if the polls had shown HIllary won.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

I was referring to your claims of how Ron Paul "should" have won.

He didn't. That's my point.

And his point is that the Establishment ensured that much.

How?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

You can't possibly have expected Doc to have anything substantial to add to... well, anything. We all know he just shows up to troll threads and act half my age.

...he says as he trolls a thread with personal insults and nothing of substance.

Do you have anything on-topic to add, or is this discussion too far over your head?

I already added something on topic, read the thread<3

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

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.

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

I was referring to your claims of how Ron Paul "should" have won.

He didn't. That's my point.

And his point is that the Establishment ensured that much.

How?

Open polls, dead voters, no doubt methods we don't yet know of are also involved. Control of the media certainly helps, since they give more air time to the people they want to be the nominee. I was going to ask if you ever wondered why we got two Establishment shills running against each other in the last few elections, but I doubt you ever gave it any thought.

 

[Toro]

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.

I don't assume that. But I do know that if one poll after another says Trump won, then America has clearly spoken. And frankly, we wouldn't be arguing such nonsense if the polls had shown HIllary won.

Polls have shown Hillary won. All three scientific polls made that conclusion. Online polls don't matter.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

You can't possibly have expected Doc to have anything substantial to add to... well, anything. We all know he just shows up to troll threads and act half my age.

...he says as he trolls a thread with personal insults and nothing of substance.

Do you have anything on-topic to add, or is this discussion too far over your head?

I already added something on topic, read the thread<3

No, you didn't. You posted some blather about Ron Paul and "the establishment".

I'm interested in hearing your defense of self-selecting online polls, complete with references and examples. After all, you claim to be interested in "substance".

 

[Theowl32]

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.

Jillian likes you a lot.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

What?

That the MSM so called "scientific polls" are no more reliable that the goofy internet polls?

I was referring to your claims of how Ron Paul "should" have won.

He didn't. That's my point.

And his point is that the Establishment ensured that much.

How?

Open polls, dead voters, no doubt methods we don't yet know of are also involved. Control of the media certainly helps, since they give more air time to the people they want to be the nominee. I was going to ask if you ever wondered why we got two Establishment shills running against each other in the last few elections, but I doubt you ever gave it any thought.

"No doubt methods we don't know about"?

Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

You can't possibly have expected Doc to have anything substantial to add to... well, anything. We all know he just shows up to troll threads and act half my age.

...he says as he trolls a thread with personal insults and nothing of substance.

Do you have anything on-topic to add, or is this discussion too far over your head?

I already added something on topic, read the thread<3

No, you didn't. You posted some blather about Ron Paul and "the establishment".

I'm interested in hearing your defense of self-selecting online polls, complete with references and examples. After all, you claim to be interested in "substance".

Of course I did, it's part of one of the branch topics within the thread, which is on topic~

I'm always full of substance, I bring it with me every thread I go to. My substance just happens to be on a branch topic instead of the polls nobody cares about. Of course, that won't keep you from continuing to whine, so do what your best at~