Harvard Poll: Trump's Approval Rating at Almost Record High

you republicans need to NEVER ever mention a political poll again


You don't believe in individual voters


you believe in electoral outcomes


they are the only way you can win

8o,ooo manipulated shit for brains in certain areas that the Russians picked to manipulate gave yOu the last elections NOT AMERICAN VOTES

polls count individual "votes"


You keep insisting individual votes are meaningless remember



polls don't matter according to you

why fucking post any you idiots

ROFLMAO
 


No one I have ever met has ever been consulted for one of these polls or even known anyone who was ever consulted for them. That tells me something right there, but additionally, the polls leading up to the election consistently wildly over-sampled Democrats, and it seemed deliberate. I pointed it out over and over every time they breathlessly announced her increasing lead. Always look at the methodology, and 99% of the time, you'll find the entire poll is entirely made up of manipulative bullshit.

The wording also dictates everything...

thumbnail



A good national poll only uses 1,000-1,500 respondents. That explains why you have never been questioned, but based on election results, including 2016, they are pretty close. A scientific poll does not over-sample Democrats or any other group. An unscientific partisan poll might be designed to sway opinion, but not good polls like Gallup, etc. 2016 did not seem to over-sample Democrats since Hillary actually got 2% more than the poll average.

One of the reasons in variations for polls is trying to determine "likely voters" and how those are treated in the results.
 
Thanks to the Russian propaganda campaign that was put in place to suppress votes for Hillary and encourage votes for Trump.

Trump won more of the working class white/union voters than previous Republicans. Maybe Hillary lost because the Democrats ran off those working class voters. When Hillary called them "deploreable" and said she was going to put coal miners out of a job people heard that directly from her mouth.

And, when Democrats like you call them "low IQ fucktards" and then wonder why they didn't support the Democrats like they had in the past you can't blame that on Russia. When an important part of the Democratic coalition is denigrated because they don't have college degrees or because of their political views, it is not surprising they flee from the people looking down on them.

The 7-8 million voters who voted for Obama were not "low IQ fucktards" when they voted for Obama but "good working class Americans." When they switch parties then they become "ignorant uneducated hicks."

Democrats are responsible for running off those voters because of their elite snobbish attitude.

Anybody reading Facebook posts with lies about Hillary are usually are following those sites meaning they are already anti-Hillary and didn't switch from Hillary to Trump because of any propaganda.

Like you, most voters have been voting for the same party for years and are not going to be influenced by money or campaign ads.
 
The polls were correct.

Trump's win was an anomaly aided by Russian interference that the polls didn't take into account.

Congratulations on being made a chump out of and being manipulated by Russian propaganda.

If you don't feel stupid, you're even more brainless than I thought you are.

If Russian propaganda influenced voters that would have been shown in polls. How did the polls not take into account people who were going to vote for Trump whether influenced by Russians, Republican propaganda, or just dislike for Hillary and Democrats? A poll shows who a voter favors on that day even if that decision was influenced by Russia.
 
The previous two elections were called by Nate Silver with nearly perfect accuracy, so there's nothing wrong with Silver's math. There was no way to predict that 77,000 low IQ fucktards in three states would throw a temper tantrum and vote for Dump. It was so close in those three states, it could easily have gone the other way.

When those three states were too close to call that should have prevented Silver from making any 97% prediction. He had to know if those states went to Trump Hillary was in trouble. Because Silver called earlier states with such accuracy does not mean he is going to be accurate in every election. Probability should never have been that high with several states too close to call.

In short, it was just dumb luck that the Yale(?) guys prediction prevailed.

Not really. When one party has been in office 8 years it is fairly safe to lean toward the other party.

It is like mid-term elections. It is safe to predict the president's party will lose seats without even considering the president's approval rating, the state of the economy, or any other factors.

Nobody claimed the Russians changed votes after they'd been cast.

And neither did I. When I said we have no evidence Russia changed any votes I meant influenced how people voted. And the Mueller report did not claim they actually influenced anybody to change their votes.

What they did was mount an unprecedented propaganda onslaught using social media to puke lies. Similar to what Trump's Pecker buddy over at the National Enquirer did with his fake, bullshit anti-Hillary cover stories, while burying the sex payoff stories and running pro-Trump garbage.

I wouldn't know. I don't get my political news from the National Enquirer.

The Mueller Report as well as our top intelligence officials state that Russia did, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, interfere in and influence the 2016 election and they did so to help and favor their choice for our President, Donald J. Trump.

I missed that conclusion. Can you point me to the page/section that concluded Russia influenced the election beyond a shadow of a doubt?
 
Thanks to the Russian propaganda campaign that was put in place to suppress votes for Hillary and encourage votes for Trump. As I said to begin with. Thanks to the idiots who stayed home and the even bigger idiots who voted for Trump, we now have the first Kremlin chosen President in history.

You think Russia got black Democrats to stay home? Polls showed less than enthusiastic support for Hillary by blacks.

Funny how votes were suppressed in 2016 but voter turnout increased in 2018. Increased turnout proves the voter suppression claim is a sham. Was that also due to Russian interference?

U.S. brings first charge for meddling in 2018 midterm elections
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...-russian-interference-in-2018-midterms-916787
 
The polls were correct.

Trump's win was an anomaly aided by Russian interference that the polls didn't take into account.

Congratulations on being made a chump out of and being manipulated by Russian propaganda.

If you don't feel stupid, you're even more brainless than I thought you are.
Nomad is a communist who hates Russia. Does anybody really care what this conflicted asshole thinks?
 
And the Dem candidate will do that next year and flush Trump with his fucktards down the toilet.

All they have to do is turn out to vote--2018 proved that. Rather than whining about gerrymandering and voter suppression all Democrats had to do was turn out.

Strange how gerrymandering did not keep Democrats from winning a majority of House seats and voter suppression did not prevent a high turnout for a mid-term election.

Those claims were just pitiful excuses for losing elections just like Russia is the new excuse to whine about. Voters with the lowest income and educational attainment regularly vote Democratic, but they also turn out in lower numbers. Democrats just need to recognize this (as they did in 2018) and turn out their voters rather than using conspiracy theory excuses.
 
You think Russia got black Democrats to stay home? Polls showed less than enthusiastic support for Hillary by blacks.

Funny how votes were suppressed in 2016 but voter turnout increased in 2018. Increased turnout proves the voter suppression claim is a sham. Was that also due to Russian interference?

U.S. brings first charge for meddling in 2018 midterm elections
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...-russian-interference-in-2018-midterms-916787

Of course Russia bombing the internet with anti Hillary propaganda hurt her turnout. Russia even financed demonstrations. They targeted specific groups of people and blacks were one of them.
The fact is their messages did make blacks question whether Hillary was their friend. Now Trump, who is their enemy, is in office. Propaganda works. Just watch Fox and read the posts here and you will have more proof.
 
A good national poll only uses 1,000-1,500 respondents. That explains why you have never been questioned, but based on election results, including 2016, they are pretty close. A scientific poll does not over-sample Democrats or any other group. An unscientific partisan poll might be designed to sway opinion, but not good polls like Gallup, etc. 2016 did not seem to over-sample Democrats since Hillary actually got 2% more than the poll average.

One of the reasons in variations for polls is trying to determine "likely voters" and how those are treated in the results.

I saw every "mainstream" poll that made their methodology accessible sampling Democrats on average about 2-1 to get their results. I pointed it out for 6 months straight.
 
Of course Russia bombing the internet with anti Hillary propaganda hurt her turnout. Russia even financed demonstrations. They targeted specific groups of people and blacks were one of them.
The fact is their messages did make blacks question whether Hillary was their friend. Now Trump, who is their enemy, is in office. Propaganda works. Just watch Fox and read the posts here and you will have more proof.

People who watch Fox (or MSNBC or CNN) are already partisans who watch those networks to have their views reinforced and hear today's latest dirt about Democrats or Republicans. People don't watch MSNBC and say "Rachel Maddox convinced me, I'm switching my vote from Trump to Hillary."

It is always strange how people swear their vote was not influenced by money or campaign ads, but they are all willing to believe other "weak-minded" voters were duped into voting for a candidate. But those weak-minded voters always voted for the other party and those people who made up their own minds and were not influenced by propaganda always vote for their side.

Most posters have been voting for the same party almost every election and we could have predicted 20 years ago how they would vote in 2016 before any candidates were picked, money was spent, or Russian interfered.
 
Summary
The McCain-Palin campaign accuses ACORN, a community activist group that operates nationwide, of perpetrating "massive voter fraud." It says Obama has “long and deep” ties to the group. We find both claims to be exaggerated. But we also find Obama has understated the extent of his work with the group.
Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes. What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes.
Obama’s path has intersected with ACORN on several occasions – more often than he allowed in the final debate.

Hasn't anyone ever told you that posting obvious liberal "fact-checker" lies in all caps or in bigger, bolder fonts doesn't make them any less dishonest or accurate? :stup2:

And again...18 Former ACORN Workers Have Been Convicted or Admitted Guilt in Election Fraud


thumbnail
 
I saw every "mainstream" poll that made their methodology accessible sampling Democrats on average about 2-1 to get their results. I pointed it out for 6 months straight.

If they did that on purpose then it was not a decent poll. If their polling just happened to get twice as many Democrats they would have adjusted for that when they produced the results.

Since the 2016 polls and actual election results were all very close, they obviously did not show any results tilted toward the Democrats. They predicted Hillary would get 46% and she got 48%--they actually underestimated her vote.
 
If they did that on purpose then it was not a decent poll. If their polling just happened to get twice as many Democrats they would have adjusted for that when they produced the results.

Since the 2016 polls and actual election results were all very close, they obviously did not show any results tilted toward the Democrats. They predicted Hillary would get 46% and she got 48%--they actually underestimated her vote.

Counting Democrat voter fraud and illegal immigrant voting?
 
Trump won more of the working class white/union voters than previous Republicans. Maybe Hillary lost because the Democrats ran off those working class voters. When Hillary called them "deploreable" and said she was going to put coal miners out of a job people heard that directly from her mouth.

And, when Democrats like you call them "low IQ fucktards" and then wonder why they didn't support the Democrats like they had in the past you can't blame that on Russia. When an important part of the Democratic coalition is denigrated because they don't have college degrees or because of their political views, it is not surprising they flee from the people looking down on them.

The 7-8 million voters who voted for Obama were not "low IQ fucktards" when they voted for Obama but "good working class Americans." When they switch parties then they become "ignorant uneducated hicks."

Democrats are responsible for running off those voters because of their elite snobbish attitude.

Anybody reading Facebook posts with lies about Hillary are usually are following those sites meaning they are already anti-Hillary and didn't switch from Hillary to Trump because of any propaganda.

Like you, most voters have been voting for the same party for years and are not going to be influenced by money or campaign ads.

Hillary responded clumsily in the miner's talk. The fact is coal mining jobs have been eliminated, year after year for decades. Automation has taken thousands of jobs away. What Hillary was saying is alternative energy like solar and wind would be the jobs of the future. Miners would be trained for those jobs.
 
Counting Democrat voter fraud and illegal immigrant voting?

Provide one example of illegal immigrant voting. Surely somebody must have caught one if we are so sure it happened.

Texas sentenced an immigrant for six years for voting illegally in the Republican primary and general election, but she was a legal resident.
 
Hillary responded clumsily in the miner's talk. The fact is coal mining jobs have been eliminated, year after year for decades. Automation has taken thousands of jobs away. What Hillary was saying is alternative energy like solar and wind would be the jobs of the future. Miners would be trained for those jobs.

I understand that. My point is that if you tell somebody you are going to do away with their jobs it is not going to go over well. Following that with a long explanation is even worse. But that was not "Russian propaganda" but from Hillary's own mouth--and that is going to spread quickly in the coal mining states. It was not a Russian lie but may have influenced some votes or turnout.

You are trying to be rational. Elections have become more based on emotion, values.....
 
Back
Top