You are arguing that all the polls are fake.
Am I arguing that polling can't be done well? No. You suck at debating, dude.
You are arguing that all the polls are fake.
I'm arguing that they're rigged, not merely that their methodology is faulty. At any rate, you're just boring me at this point, chump.
Yeah, your evidence that they are rigged is your own incredulity. That doesn't cut it. It's lazy and boring and wrong.
I don't need you to believe it. I'm telling you what I have deduced through years of observation. If you think the world is such an honorable place, then that's your world view.
Take a look at the last presidential debates, virtually every place of social interaction had Trump winning in a landslide. The "scientific" polls were telling a completely different story. The media complex has too many trillions of dollars flowing to be worried about sticking to the facts and not selling narratives. Frankly, I find your denial of reality, "lazy and boring and wrong."
Yes, you keep telling me your incredulity is your only evidence. "Because I say so" is simply not an effective argument.
Social media isn't remotely scientific and your reliance on it speaks volumes about how lazy your "analysis" is. You looked at a few websites -- probably ones that reflect your pro-Trump views -- and concluded that has to be true.
I can't say you're the only one who thinks that way, but that doesn't make it correct.
what are you talking about.
You know rigging when you see it and you are not familiar with social media trolls and bots? You are comfortable using twitter polls and your facebook as indicators of actual US opinion?
Trump was on for bad debate performances and went into the toilet. Two weeks before the election Comey stated he was reopening the email investigation and the 3rd quarter employment figures came in and they were bad. Hillary's poll numbers tanked to the point that the first week in November they were at a statistical dead heat.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...lls/president/
Trump lost the general by 2 points, well within the margin for error and spot on for the aggregate. Silver who champions the polls had been telling anyone who would listen that it was not a slam dunk for Clinton. I can remember talking to MannyIsGod about it that week telling him that the trend in the polls was obvious and a Trump win was well within probabilites.
I wouldn't say I'm intent on being "effective." I think you've been lazy in your own right to count the system as trustworthy; why would I make this a matter to be "effective?"
I didn't say that social media is scientific; however, when one side/pos ion/etc consistently gets support and the other doesn't and the media consistently sells the losing side, then one has to figure what their reasons are and how they're manipulating the narrative. Frankly, you don't have to look much further than CNN's tweets and the low level of retweets relative to other factions. Gaslighting is how gets done. Time to grow up, dude.
Hillary blew chunks in the three debates. She got her ass beat according to every non-corporate/establishment poll as well as many of the establishment polls. And the gaslighting media then gave her "the bump" after the fact IIRC.
Well, if your goal is to be ineffective, you've succeeded.
tweetsTime to grow up, dude.
I had no goal based upon "effectiveness" as far as you and I are concerned. Your argumentation tactics are weak and you're clearly obstinate in your own right. And if we want to speak of "effectiveness," you've accomplished nothing other than to seemingly prove that you blindly accept the system's findings. You beg for "evidence" and then laugh like a little school girl when it is presented. So, let's be real, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. That's what you do, chump. It's no secret. I don't get anything out of it other than making you look like a . Now, that's as "effective" as it gets, chump.
I laugh at your "evidence" because your "evidence" is laughable.
I saw some retweets, therefore all polls are rigged.
Where did you go to school that made you think this is the way to make a winning point? The reason I keep going is because I find this display of arrogant faith in your own ignorance fascinating. I do the same with truthers and birthers.
You don't recall correctly. Online nonscientific polls? Sure? Scientific polls? Nope.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-in-the-polls/
And you need to learn what gaslighting means.
Go ahead and tell me what gaslighting mean, and then I'll tell you you're an idiot.
And 538
Gaslighting means to try and convince someone that they are insane to take advantage of them. It's based on a movie by that name. Nobody is doing that, dim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslight_(1944_film)
Finding Silver's take from September is cute but here is his article from Nov 5:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...here-we-stand/Hillary Clinton is ahead in most national polls, as you can find every number from a 1-percentage-point Clinton lead to a 6-point lead in recent national surveys. There are also a couple of polls that still show a tied race or — in one case — Trump ahead. Overall, the range of national polls has narrowed a bit, although it remains wider than what we saw over the past few campaigns, with Clinton ahead by about 3 points on average.
One could argue about whether Clinton’s still ahead in the Electoral College, however. New Hampshire, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine are all extremely compe ive in recent polls. (Our forecast still has Clinton ahead in New Hampshire — by about 2 points — but there’s plenty of polling to support the notion of a small Trump lead there instead.) That means Clinton has 268 electoral votes in states where she’s clearly ahead in the polls — two short of the 270 she needs.
Thus, while Clinton’s a 76 percent favorite to win the popular vote according to our polls-only forecast, her odds are more tenuous — 64 percent — to win the Electoral College. (Her chances in the polls-plus forecast are identical.) It would not necessarily require a major polling error for Trump to be elected, though he would have to do so with an extremely narrow majority in the Electoral College.
.........................
6. Does one candidate appear to be doing better in the Electoral College than in the popular vote?
Yes, Trump. Our model has thought so all year, and it’s because Clinton’s gains relative to Obama are concentrated among demographic groups — Hispanics, college-educated whites, Mormons — that are under-represented in swing states relative to their overall share of the population. Now that has become more apparent in the polling, and roughly a third of Trump’s 35 percent chance of victory reflects cases where he just barely gets over the hump in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.
Could the reverse happen instead — Clinton winning the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote? Our model considers it to be a remote possibility — an 0.5 percent chance — but it doesn’t account for the prospect that Clinton’s ground game or her late advertising blitz could improve her margins in swing states relative to the country overall. So a split either way is plausible, but it’s a lot more likely to be in Trump’s favor.
You're an ignorant fool who depends on poorly edited and ambiguous youtubes. Clinton won the national by 2 points. Trump won the electoral college right in line with what Silver was saying on 11/5. Deal with it.
You clearly misread what I said about retweets. You're not even in the ballpark on that. Actually, you've done that a few times now.
And the reason you keep going is because this is you're drug. You couldn't walk away, chump.
You a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat?
I'll grant you that that was the origin of gaslighting and even a listed definition. When (non-clinical) people use the term gaslighting, they aren't referring to mental health visa vie sanity vs. insanity.
Nice article. Silver admits what everyone knows; there was a "major polling error." Sorry though; a "major polling error" is just too mightily convenient. The reality is that polls were being rigged; and went down on election night. This is nothing new. The pollsters once had Dukakis up by 17 points; that butt wipe was never ahead, though. He was amateur hour.
Gaslighting is not a term shrinks use. It's a term from popular culture. You are using it wrong.
You cannot read for . He says it wouldn't require a major polling error for Trump to win, dim. There is nowhere in that article where he says there is one.
Nope, it's accurate. You gave anecdotes about social media that made you think all polls are rigged.
As long as Republicans actively work to suppress the vote, they won't get mine.
I thought Dukakis bad so polls rigged!
Gaslighting as a modern colloquial term is not typically a matter of sanity vs. insanity.
And you're a moron:
"It would not necessarily require a major polling error for Trump to be elected, though he would have to do so with an extremely narrow majority in the Electoral College."
Trump did not win my a narrow electoral margin; thus "a major polling error," occurred according to Nate Silver.
It's always the ing idiots going around saying "you cannot read" right before gets flung back in their face. You're no exception, face.
So, you're very much a hardcore Democrat is what you're having a problem fully admitting to.
What part of "As long as Republicans actively work to suppress the vote, they won't get mine" do you not understand. If they abandon that I would consider voting for some of them -- but I've got principles that transcend party worship.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)