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

[OldLady]

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 !!!

It's all an ink blot test. Hillary was NOT like a robot and Trump was okay, although he lost his cool a bit.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Everybody who matters is online.

 

[MisterBeale]

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".

You aren't very good at this.

The New York Times Just Accidentally Proved US Elections are Illegitimate
The New York Times Just Accidentally Proved US Elections are Illegitimate

 

[jc456]

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.

not me.

 

[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.

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.

well I'll go look for it, if you tell me where the transcripts might be? I mean, she said it. you obviously weren't listening cause you couldn't believe she'd actually say that on live tv.

The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated

here you go from transcript:

"And clearly, as Donald just admitted, he knew he was going to stand on this debate stage, and Lester Holt was going to be asking us questions, so he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed.

But it can't be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it."

 

[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.

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.

not me.

Of course not. None of your posts in this thread actually exist, they're just figments of our collective imagination.

 

[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.

well I'll go look for it, if you tell me where the transcripts might be? I mean, she said it. you obviously weren't listening cause you couldn't believe she'd actually say that on live tv.

The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated

here you go from transcript:

"And clearly, as Donald just admitted, he knew he was going to stand on this debate stage, and Lester Holt was going to be asking us questions, so he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed.

But it can't be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it."

Thank you --- you just proved my point.

"Racist birther lie"....
"Racist lie"....

"Racist" is an adjective modifying "lie". What kind of lie? A racist lie.

Not "you're a racist", which is a different statement.

You lose. Once again demonstrating the folly of using what you think words feel like, instead of what they actually are.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

One thing you will notice come election time, is there will be problems with the voting machines in area sympathetic to Trump. The States will have a lack of election workers at times when voters have time to vote, but when they are at work or at their college classes, that is when the polls will be open.

Then when they are off of work, the will be too few workers, too few computers or voting booths, the lines will be too long, etc.


The election boards in states friendly to the candidate that the establishment WANTS to win, will place election resources in districts where they need to register those votes.

For instance, do you remember in the election of 2000, and 2004, those absurdly long lines of African Americans, waiting to cast their ballot? Some of them never did get to vote.


Then, when the establishment wanted Obama to be POTUS, and white middle class voters were getting out of work, the elites played the same trick, a lot of them didn't get a chance to vote, b/c election resources were redeployed to black communities, and white middle class suburbs were under-served. ON purpose?

Well, nobody can prove the bureaucracy is purposely inept and inefficient, all they can do is propose solutions that never quite get enacted. Why DON'T they move election day to a Saturday, or get more election equipment, or get more workers. . . .?

 

[Tom Horn]

Online polls are easy to slam (vote repeatedly by deleting the poll cookies that show you already voted) but it's always useless leftists with nothing better to do who do it. The vast majority of GOPers don't know or care to know how to do that. I know because I've seen leftists bragging about it on various sites. I'm most surprised by the Slate poll...I posted there for years (Ballot Box) back in the day before they shut down their reader rooms. That magazine is left of MSLSD in lunatic leftists. But these are different times after Iraq and the Wall St. looting of what was left of our economy. Hillary is lost in the 90's and even our socialist pinheads are tired of being broke without hope. Trump won the Slate poll. And CBS who hates him with a passion. And Time, a once highly-regarded magazine now a leftist rag without enough readers to matter. He lost CNN...and if he hadn't we'd know the earth was about to get hit by a gigantic meteor.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

If you were a republican, then by liberal standards. Yes.

 

[Pogo]

For instance, do you remember in the election of 2000, and 2004, those absurdly long lines of African Americans, waiting to cast their ballot? Some of them never did get to vote.


Then, when the establishment wanted Obama to be POTUS, and white middle class voters were getting out of work, the elites played the same trick, a lot of them didn't get a chance to vote, b/c election resources were redeployed to black communities, and white middle class suburbs were under-served. ON purpose?

Actually O'bama wasn't running in those years. That would be Shrubya versis Gore and Kerry.

But the greater point is well taken --- I seem to recall strange instances of Palm Beach County Florida votes supposedly going to Pat Buchanan.... among other things.

Why DON'T they move election day to a Saturday, or get more election equipment, or get more workers. . . .?

Yes --- why indeed. Obviously because farmers need two weekdays to saddle up the horse and get to the polling place, by gum.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Not my fault you wasn't paying attention.

 

[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.

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.

well I'll go look for it, if you tell me where the transcripts might be? I mean, she said it. you obviously weren't listening cause you couldn't believe she'd actually say that on live tv.

The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated

here you go from transcript:

"And clearly, as Donald just admitted, he knew he was going to stand on this debate stage, and Lester Holt was going to be asking us questions, so he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed.

But it can't be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it."

Thank you --- you just proved my point.

"Racist birther lie"....
"Racist lie"....

"Racist" is an adjective modifying "lie". What kind of lie? A racist lie.

Not "you're a racist", which is a different statement.

You lose. Once again demonstrating the folly of using what you think words feel like, instead of what they actually are.

well you should go back and reread what i originally posted, and you'll learn you just lied about what i said. again, the libturd can't read. please explain how you blatantly lie about something I didn't write at all. what the fk dude? have you no fking morals? or you comfortable being a hack.

 

[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.

Not my fault you wasn't paying attention.

As already demonstrated ---- I were paying attention. Apparently better than anybody else.
That's (again) why I posed the question ............... because I already knew the answer.

 

[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.

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.

Not my fault you wasn't paying attention.

As already demonstrated ---- I were paying attention. Apparently better than anybody else.
That's (again) why I posed the question ............... because I already knew the answer.

and again why I wrote what i wrote originally to your post. which you conveniently ignored. wow, a libturd ignored a fact. no surprise here. douche bag and a half twit together, must be something like a moron!

 

[MisterBeale]

For instance, do you remember in the election of 2000, and 2004, those absurdly long lines of African Americans, waiting to cast their ballot? Some of them never did get to vote.


Then, when the establishment wanted Obama to be POTUS, and white middle class voters were getting out of work, the elites played the same trick, a lot of them didn't get a chance to vote, b/c election resources were redeployed to black communities, and white middle class suburbs were under-served. ON purpose?

Actually O'bama wasn't running in those years. That would be Shrubya versis Gore and Kerry.

But the greater point is well taken --- I seem to recall strange instances of Palm Beach County Florida votes supposedly going to Pat Buchanan.... among other things.

Why DON'T they move election day to a Saturday, or get more election equipment, or get more workers. . . .?

Yes --- why indeed. Obviously because farmers need two weekdays to saddle up the horse and get to the polling place, by gum.

I was speaking of several different election periods. 2000, 2004 and then again, when conservatives cried foul in 2012. I'm not partisan. I watch what the Deep State does. Thus the "Then when" referring to the 2012 election cycle.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

Yea, I'll bet they were "scientific". How come the science doesn't factor in the globalist agenda of the people who pay for and administer these polls? That seems rather unscientific to me.

 

[MisterBeale]

I can't believe someone watched Frank Luntz.

Suckers. He's the Goering of American politics.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[bodecea]

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.

"Safe spaces"....ah....the dog whistle for the Alt-Right.

 

[Pogo]

Thread: "We have always been at war with Eastasia"....

Whelp -- hold that thought. Real polls coming out.

>> Hillary Clinton won Monday’s showdown with Donald Trump at Hofstra University, according the results of a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday.

Nearly half of the likely voters surveyed declared Clinton the victor in Monday’s presidential debate, the first of three in the run-up to November. Forty-nine percent said the former secretary of state bested her opponent, while 26 percent gave the edge to Trump. An additional 26 percent said they either didn’t know who won or had no opinion.

.... The survey of 1,253 likely voters was conducted online Sept. 26-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. << (here)​

Damn. "Likely voters", not "internet clicks". Or cliques.