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

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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~

Even if we were to use the most generous definition of "substance", half of your posts in this thread have been nothing but insults or spurious posts.

Is that what you meant by "always"?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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~

Even if we were to use the most generous definition of "substance", half of your posts in this thread have been nothing but insults or spurious posts.

Is that what you meant by "always"?

Hey just because the blind can't see it, that doesn't mean it isn't there~

Besides, even if you were right, you never bothered to deny my observation. At least you have that much self awareness, so good on you, buddy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

 

[the_human_being]

Hillary's stu[pid painted-on smirk reminded me of Al Gore's stupid gestures in that debate against George W.

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

I think that was answered in the post you first quoted. . . .

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

 

[turzovka]

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 !!!

I wonder if those polls count for anything amongst those "take a bullet for anything liberal" journalists and TV commentators who were gushing over Hilldebeest? Of course not. They have a mission and cannot be deterred.

But I have never witnessed anything so nazi-like like CNN. They are absolutely without shame or conscience, and this article you cited illustrates that clearly.

 

[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?

I think that was answered in the post you first quoted. . . .

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

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Find a mirror, bro.

And with a degree and ideology like that, I hope you found yourself a nice propaganda job.....

Nanny Goat Chewing on Coattails

Missy Rodham got a degree in Polly Sigh also. Her best course was Marrying a Politician 101.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

Double posting instead of engaging in debate. Jeeze, Doc, can't even meet minimal expectations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

Double posting instead of engaging in debate. Jeeze, Doc, can't even meet minimal expectations.

Another substance-free post.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Is that his shoe size? You know what they say about men with small feet. . . .

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I know, you exhibit it on a constant basis, and it never ceases to amaze me. I causes you to drop answers like that which don't continue the conversation in any way shape or form. Of course, that's exactly what I expected when I saw you here.

Of course, I mentioned Open Primaries and Dead Voters, both of which are things we've seen happen and influence election outcomes, gonna ignore those~?

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

Double posting instead of engaging in debate. Jeeze, Doc, can't even meet minimal expectations.

Another substance-free post.

Says the double-poster, unironically. Again, though, just because a blind man can't see something, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

I am sorry. I refuse to accept that anyone so patently ignorant has achieved that 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, you are obviously at least obfuscating but more likely outright lying.

Academentia

You overrate college education. It produces conceited but narrow-minded authoritarian conformists. Students aren't paid, so they are only amateurs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, you mentioned "open polls", which is a term without a meaning. But thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that open primaries and "dead voters" are why Ron Paul didn't win?

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

Double posting instead of engaging in debate. Jeeze, Doc, can't even meet minimal expectations.

Another substance-free post.

Says the double-poster, unironically. Again, though, just because a blind man can't see something, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

This is getting boring.

 

[yiostheoy]

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

As far as debate points go, it would be clear to anyone actually taking score that Hillary answered more questions directly and accurately and that Donald evaded more questions.

Since this was a Q/A format then Hillary would have scored more points on this factor.

As far as when they went head to head, Hillary's replies were more correct than Donald's were. So Hillary would have scored more points on this factor as well.

How you say "who won?" all depends on who liked each of them more.

Each of them is still pretty much un-liked.

So I would conclude that neither of them "won".

Hillary was more factual.

Donald was more pugnacious.

Hillary was calm, cool, and collected.

Donald was cool for about the first half hour, then he seemed to overheat for the next hour.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And media bias, of course. Assuming they even bothered with those methods, given they count the votes in the end, anyway.

"If the guy I want to win loses, it must have been because of cheating. Otherwise I'd have to face the reality that I was wrong, and believed a lie".

Double posting instead of engaging in debate. Jeeze, Doc, can't even meet minimal expectations.

Another substance-free post.

Says the double-poster, unironically. Again, though, just because a blind man can't see something, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

This is getting boring.

Getting there? You started that way. Maybe if you actually engaged in debate instead of actively trolling, you'd be less bored. I'm just kidding, I'm sure you have nothing to add, anyway. You already derailed our topic by posting the same quote twice. Poor MisterBeale thought he could have an intelligent conversation with you.