re: OT: These three states are making a Trump win basically impossible

quote:

---

That's not what I said. What I said was that in a primary situation (ie. more that 2-3 candidates), polls can help you decide who has a chance to win.

---

OK. SO, you've based your vote on a poll. And say that many others do too. Polls which you admit are fallible.

So, polls are fallible. Check. ANd people let them affect their votes. Check.

Good thing nobody would ever ever try to use them for manipulation........


How do polls help voters again? I'm being serious. This is insanity.

quote:

---

quote: Jefferson is falling for the fallacy of "more people at rallies must mean more voters" There's no reason for us to communicate because we speak different languages.

---

You spent a couple hundred words on the first page asking where all the Hillary people were at the rally's when trump is turning people away. You clearly think this is indicative and representative of the nation when it clearly is not.

quote:

---

Seeing 10-20k people means more to you than actual data because you assume the data is biased?

---

I listed a bunch of tangible honest real 3D examples besides the rallies, but yes. All of it means more to me than fraud polls paid for by frauds and read to me by frauds.

quote:

---

Yea, trump panders specifically to people like you.

---

America first patriots? Sweet!

quote:

---

Yes, polls are one thing I take into account when deciding who to vote for. One of many things, but a thing nonetheless. I use them to try to figure out who might actually be a viable candidate because I vote for the person who I agree with the most that I also think can actually win. I live in the real world, not some hypothetical place where it actually pays to pick your favorite candidate. Mass appeal has to be weighed.

---

That's gross. Beyond just the reliance on mind control polls.Wow.

quote:

---

So, you understand that the media is biased against Trump, but you don’t think that a poll can be biased against him? That’s precious.

---

Of course I know a poll can be biased, but I see no evidence that the Fox News channel is rigging their poll to favor Hillary yet she leads him substantially in that poll.

I know Fox has historically skewed neo-con and not toward Trump, but they absolutely are giving him favorable coverage now.

For your poll theory to be true here is what had to have happened:

-Fox shows accurate polls with Trump dominating GOP field

-Trump wins nomination and fox goes full on with pointing out Hillary's lies (which are plenty of course)

-Fox falsifies polls showing Trump losing to Hillary in the general election.

If this is what you think happened I have two questions:

1)Why did fox tell the truth during the primaries (Trump leading by a lot)?

2)Why would they falsely prop up Hillary in the general when their slant is undeniably away from her?

quote:

---

For your poll theory to be true here is what had to have happened:

-Fox shows accurate polls with Trump dominating GOP field

-Trump wins nomination and fox goes full on with pointing out Hillary's lies (which are plenty of course)

---

That's not what i've been saying at all.

First off, I don't know why you are focusing on a Fox News poll as if it is the "good guy" poll or something, but Fox News is also a business. Their job is to create drama and sideshows so that they can hook viewers. It's just like college football in that there's meaningless pre-season polls to get everyone ginned up and arguing about. So, I don't know if the Fox News poll is accurate or not, but I know damn well they got the answers they wanted which they think would get the results based on their research of the demographics/analytics/etc of who gives them the best ratings while affecting their agenda the best. Otherwise the results would have never seen the light of day. They'd have gone with a different poll that did.

Take that to the bank.

quote:

---

When's the last time you can remember when inside of 90 days before a presidential election that there weren't campaign stickers on every vehicle or signs all over the yards? .....And this is the most controversial, exciting, heated presidential elections in decades.

---

Definitely the least in my lifetime.

quote:

---

I think probably there's some pretty big factors going on right now that your "science" polls aren't able to properly measure here

---

They actually haven't missed the Trump thing though. Mainstream media was dismissive, but the polls haven't been.

In terms of the stickers, I think a lot of people don't feel good about supporting either candidate, especially publicly. There's a big stigma on both.

So 20 polls run by leftist organizations say X vs X, and you think Fox News is going to come out with a poll that show something different than the other 20?

Pretty sure that's a recipe for being called out as rightwing biased and getting your credibility shot all to hell.

Fox would rather lie and play the game than come out and openly destroy their claim of "fair and balanced" by telling the truth.

quote:

---

So 20 polls run by leftist organizations say X vs X, and you think Fox News is going to come out with a poll that show something different than the other 20?

Pretty sure that's a recipe for being called out as rightwing biased and getting your credibility shot all to hell.

Fox would rather lie and play the game than come out and openly destroy their claim of "fair and balanced" by telling the truth.

---

What planet am I on?

I think the voter turnout for the primaries is a much bigger indication of what's going on than the MSM or anyone on the left wants to acknowledge.

They keep coming out with these pieces that show how there's no correlation to winning the popular vote in the primaries to winning the presidential election. But they consistently exclude just how big of a difference in turnout numbers the Republicans had vs their norms and when compared to the voter registration percentage history.

So here's the numbers:

219 million eligible voters.
146.3 million registered voters.
--- 42% independent (61.5m)
--- 30% democrat (43.9m)
--- 27% republican (39.5m)
--- 1% other
126.9 million voted in 2012.
--- 51.1% dem (65.9m)
--- 47.2% rep (60.9m)
129.5 million voted in 2008. (most ever)
--- 52.9% dem (69.5m)
--- 45.7% rep (60.0m)

Now let's look at the primaries:
2016:
Democrat: 30.12m
--- Clinton: 16.91m
Republican: 31.17m (most ever)
--- Trump: 14.02m (most ever)

2012:
Rep: 19.21m
--- Romney: 10.03m

2008:
Dem: 38.11m (most ever)
--- Obama: 17.59m
--- Clinton: 17.86m (most ever)
Rep: 21.18m
--- McCain: 9.90m

2004:
Dem: 16.18m
--- Kerry: 9.87m

2000:
Dem: 14.44m
--- Gore: 10.89m
Rep: 19.39m
--- Bush: 12.04m


As can be seen, there is a +40% turnout for Trump over Romney, and a +42% for Trump over McCain. Not to mention, voter turnout overall for Reps was up 57%.

Meanwhile, for the popular vote difference in the last two elections, McCain received 16% less votes than Obama in 08, and Romney received only 8% less votes than Obama in 12.

I'm sorry, but the voter turnout for Trump alone is up 40-42% over the last two Republican candidates and those guys lost by only 16% and 8% respectively to Obama.

You have to be a total buffoon to not believe that is a huge deal.