Your 'evidence' proves nothing. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever. You do a poor job at simple data analysis.
Whats all this the polls were rigged stuff?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Your 'evidence' proves nothing. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever. You do a poor job at simple data analysis.
Point me to a link, pal. I would love to hear how the polls were purposely rigged against Trump as the pompom boys claim.
Would you agree that polls that included more Democrats than Republicans -- and then don't adjust their polling results based on the party of the poll takers are biased. Because over 90% of the polls in the U.S. fit into this category... and this is why they get it wrong over and over again.
Note that my assertion has always been that polling firms have done a very poor job not only in the recent election... but in all elections over time back to the 1960s. The issue is due to deliberate sampling biases along with preconceived notions in the reporting of polls (i.e. only report polls that favor the candidate you support where most of the media leans left.) Plus candidates and media paying for polls which support their perspective (and of course not paying if the poll shows differently).
Some further interesting reading...
Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
"But I’d assert that most mainstream journalists would have given Trump much lower odds than the 30 percent chance that FiveThirtyEight gave him, and that most campaign coverage was premised on the idea that Clinton was all but certain to become the next president. Both reporters and pundits criticized FiveThirtyEight and other polling sites for not accounting for early voting data, for example, on the idea that it portended good news for Clinton that our model ignored. As we’ve discovered in the past, however, it’s hard to make inferences from early voting and attempts to do have a fairly bad track record — as they did this year.3
We also received a lot of criticism from Democratic partisans in the closing weeks of the campaign — more than we did from Trump supporters — because they thought we didn’t have Clinton as a heavy enough favorite. That’s unusual. We’ve forecasted enough races over the years to have taken criticism from almost every side. But in the past, it’s always been the trailing candidate’s supporters who gave us more grief."
Some further interesting reading...
Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
"But I’d assert that most mainstream journalists would have given Trump much lower odds than the 30 percent chance that FiveThirtyEight gave him, and that most campaign coverage was premised on the idea that Clinton was all but certain to become the next president. Both reporters and pundits criticized FiveThirtyEight and other polling sites for not accounting for early voting data, for example, on the idea that it portended good news for Clinton that our model ignored. As we’ve discovered in the past, however, it’s hard to make inferences from early voting and attempts to do have a fairly bad track record — as they did this year.3
We also received a lot of criticism from Democratic partisans in the closing weeks of the campaign — more than we did from Trump supporters — because they thought we didn’t have Clinton as a heavy enough favorite. That’s unusual. We’ve forecasted enough races over the years to have taken criticism from almost every side. But in the past, it’s always been the trailing candidate’s supporters who gave us more grief."
My friend, you need to get off that fat ass and dig up the methodologies of any and all polls conducted prior the national election. In that, you will find:
1) Democrats often vastly over sampled
2) Republicans often vastly under sampled
3) Minority groups that tend to vote democrat vastly oversampled - women, blacks, hispanics, younger people
4) Men/whites vastly undersampled (traditionally vote Republican).
5) Swing voters usually undersampled.....or use a 2012 voting weighting for independants. No shit.
It's that simple man. That's how they're FOOLING YOU
Explain how my analysis is wrong. Over sampled Dems, under sampled independents when the facts show independents are a larger voting group than democrats.
Polls are rigged in order to influence the sheeple to "vote for the one apparently going to win"... which of course is the one the pollster wants to win. In spite if virtually EVERY poll showing victory for Hellary, they didn't rig them severely enough this time (didn't rig enough states, either).
Just goes to show you can't pay attention to polls, as you'll never know which were fairly sampled.
Just goes to show you can't pay attention to polls, as you'll never know which were fairly sampled.
Last edited:
Final polls had Hillary +3,she won by + 2.The super majority of national polls in 2016 showed more people would vote for Hillary,and nearly 3 million more people did vote for Hillary.The polls were right.Hillary just got screwed by a system that lets a candidate win even though more people voted for another candidate.
I think you can pay attention to polls,you just never know when a candidate will be screwed by the electoral college.
