Kushner: Trump ‘knows Republicans are stupid’

Tony Stark said:
image.png




image.jpg






image.png
More...

Yeah, pick those numbers that you like, ignore all the others.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

There were plenty of months where Obama has a substantially negative rating. But ignore those because they don't tell your story, right?

And you should probably put an addendum on the "Lost By 3 Million" graph above to read: "Still won. Still President".
 
Tsing Tao said:
Yeah, pick those numbers that you like, ignore all the others.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

There were plenty of months where Obama has a substantially negative rating. But ignore those because they don't tell your story, right?

And you should probably put an addendum on the "Lost By 3 Million" graph above to read: "Still won. Still President".
More...


Always higher than Trump.Trump has already gone lower than Obamas lowest low.Both times Obama won not only did he get the most votes he got over 50% of the vote.
 
Tsing Tao said:
And you should probably put an addendum on the "Lost By 3 Million" graph above to read: "Still won. Still President".
More...


Yes he won due to a system that allows you to win even though millions more voters wanted a different President.In the context of this discussion AAA said voters rejected Hillary.Between Hillary and Trump Trump was the one voters rejected and Obama was never rejected winning twice by over 50%.
 
If they wanted their vote to count they should have stayed where they were instead of moving to California.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yes he won due to a system that allows you to win even though millions more voters wanted a different President.In the context of this discussion AAA said voters rejected Hillary.Between Hillary and Trump Trump was the one voters rejected and Obama was never rejected winning twice by over 50%.
More...

In the context of this discussion, you tried passing off approve/disapprove stats to selectively prove a difference, indicating that voters are "still rejecting Trump" even though his spread is about as negative as Obama's was several times in his 2 terms.

Additionally, if you don't like the electoral system, perhaps you should find yourself a good democracy to live in. We have a republic.
 
Tsing Tao said:
In the context of this discussion, you tried passing off approve/disapprove stats to selectively prove a difference, indicating that voters are "still rejecting Trump" even though his spread is about as negative as Obama's was several times in his 2 terms.

Additionally, if you don't like the electoral system, perhaps you should find yourself a good democracy to live in. We have a republic.
More...

Trump has gone lower than Obama's low of 8 years and he hasn't even been in office 6 months.Trump hasn't come close to Obamas highs.Trump had a lower popular and electoral vote count than Obama and on Obamas last day he was 17 points higher than Trump is now.
 
now you and tony seem to be one of the rare fools in the universe who claim the polls were good. as you usually do... you reshape history to make an establishment argument.

the polls were slanted towards clinton by massive amounts until they hearded right in front of the election. I predicted that would happen on the poll thread we had with Tony in both 2012 and 2016. I called it unskewing. Nate Silver called it herding.

The crooked polls which had hillary with a lead outside the margin of error were using samples that had democrats in the lead by plus 8 and plus 10 and sometimes more. I explained that when you unskewed the polls to a template which matched up with the Obama election the polls showed the race was in the margin for error. I pointed out that Nate Silbers worked therefore showed that Trump could win because hillary's excess democrats were crowded into just a few states.

I explained all that real time on the thread below. so please don't act like you have some sort of superior insight. I would bet you were making fun of the jem aglo


Here was a post on the thread where I showed how the polls unskewed right in front of the election. Go back and read the thread if you wish to see how I called out the crooked polls real time.


https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-winning-even-without-the-algo.301548/page-86




piezoe said:
I suppose it is time for me to point out something you are not aware of. It is time for you to realize the polls were accurate within the margin of error. And have an impeccable record of predicting the outcome of the popular vote since modern polling began. The pollsters estimated the the popular vote would go to Hillary. The polling organizations don't sample in a way that would permit them to predict electoral college outcome beyond assuming that the winner of the popular vote, if the win is by a statistically significant margin, will win in the electoral college also. Apparently they don't believe they need to change their sampling method, since there have only been five minority presidents in the nations history, and only two in modern times. And in one of the later cases the poll* results were too close to call and the popular vote ended in a statistical tie with the nominal edge going to the losing candidate.

What's interesting is that there are no examples of a president being re-elected who gained the White house with a substantial deficit in popular vote . This bodes ill for a Trump second term! If Trump runs and is re-elected he will be the first minority president in the nations history who lost the popular vote by a substantial margin and was then re-elected to a second term. He may need the Russians' help for real the second time around!

___________________
*Naturally that wouldn't stop the media from calling an election anyway. Most reporters never had a course in statistics.
More...
 
Nice... I responded and explained this to you directly on this thread as predicted a Hillary victory... with you typical hedge.


https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-without-the-algo.301548/page-73#post-4351129

look at todays real clear politics...
all of a sudden the race is tight.
herding anyone?


look at that abc garbage they were plus 12 on Tuesday.
they lost 5 or 6 points in 3 days?
abc and nbc and ppp are charter members of the Most Slanted Polls in America (tm) group.





General Election: Trump vs. ClintonLA Times/USC TrackingClinton 44, Trump 46 Trump +2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. SteinABC News TrackingClinton 48, Trump 44, Johnson 4, Stein 1 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. ClintonABC News TrackingClinton 50, Trump 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. SteinRasmussen ReportsClinton 45, Trump 45, Johnson 3, Stein 2 Tie
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. SteinIBD/TIPP TrackingClinton 44, Trump 41, Johnson 7, Stein 2 Clinton +3
General Election: Trump vs. ClintonIBD/TIPP TrackingClinton 45, Trump 42 Clinton +3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top