Posted on 08/07/2016 6:26:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
As much as I’d love to believe all of this....I’m skeptical.
Polling is a business, what business wants to shoot it’s own credibility to hell? Where are the so called ‘rogue’ polls? Fox news is supposedly one of those rogue polls and it is just as ugly for Trump as the other mainstream polls.
This reminds me of that story back in 2012 during the campaign....I can’t recall the website, but I learned of it from a freeper thread. Anyway, the guy claimed that the Obamas had purchased a house in Hawaii and all plans were together to move in since the campaign ‘knew’ Romney was going to win.
These supposed secret behind the scenes stories don’t really do any of us any good, except to falsely get our hopes up.
I’m afraid you are correct.
I hope she wastes millions on Fake Rallies
polling was wrong in 2014, 2015 KY Gub, and Brexit most recently. 2012 was an eternity ago.
Michael Depinto had better watch his back or he’s likely to end up #7 on the Clinton/DNC hit list......
Okay, the fake sounding dialog with the 238 guy comes from a site called “realtruenews” which is obviously satirical.
Looks to me like Patriot Outpost got suckered.
This ^^^
What concerns me are these reports in every poll that they are “polling,” say, 1000 “adults” of whom 800 are registered voters.
Ok, laying aside for a moment that we know “registered” voters are about 2 points more D than “likely” voters in November . . . .
The polls NEVER tell us WHO they are actually polling. So you have a sample of 1000 and a sub sample of 800-—but that doesn’t mean your poll is from the sub sample, it only means you HAVE a sub sample.
What I’m increasingly thinking-—and again, could be really off here-—is that they are using this clever wording to “salt” or “dilute” (whichever term you want) the sample of registered voters by including adults.
So a sample of 800 “registered voters” may, in fact only be a sample of 600 registered voters combined with 200 adults.
Do you see what I’m saying here or am I just nuts?
They were talking this morning on Fox and Friends about her fake press conference. One of the hostesses said he had never heard or seen reporters applauding a candidate in a press conference.
Hmmm, Nate has stated he 'aligns' with Gary Johnson.
and none of this is new. Us conservatives hear this kind of anecdotal stuff every election cycle.
the MSM is padding the polls for the dems etc. I was so suckered in the last election. Romney yard signs and bumper stickers everywhere. Remember the Romney rallies towards the end? They were massive, energetic, exciting, I was believing the Dick Morrish prediction of a landslide that would shock the media.
Election night was one of the worst, most disappointing nights of my life. Watching all the key states fall like dominos to Obama, watching Megyn Kelly smirking, watching Karl Rove in absolute denial flailing like a fish out of water with his whiteboard refusing to believe Ohio went down, (actually watching Rove flail was a bright spot).
I refuse to believe the hype, the secret back door stories, the anecdotal evidence.... I’m just going to vote Trump and get everyone else i know to do it too. That’s all any of us can do.
I don’t think she’s ever been pounded
“I call it riding the band wagon
The tendency is quite noticeable on Free Republic once it really starts to roll”
So are you still “pininng for sCruze?” No “band wagon riding” for me, just coming to grips with the facts like most of the good folks here!
Could be like those Cruz “insider” polls that had him “surging.”
But in fact, this does NOT sound like “BS” to me-—does it really you? I mean, if you just looked at physical turnout, Cankles can’t fill a closet with her supporters, Trump turns away thousands. There is no energy whatsoever on Cankles’s side. The social media is so massively overwhelming on Trump’s side (as it was in 2008 on Obama’s-—a fact that went completely overlooked except for Jason Mattera’s book, “Obama Zombies”) that it boggles the mind.
Everywhere we look, actual physical voter registrations are down massively for Ds, up quite a bit-—though not as much-—for Rs (say NC where there was a net 125,000 shift toward Rs). Now, they could all be going I and still plan to vote Cankles, but I’m not sure.
The point is, this DOES “seem” right. It seems if there was a leak from the pollsters, this is precisely what they’d be saying.
As much as I’d like to believe this 538 conversation occurred, I remain highly skeptical.
"I think if you look at what we at FiveThirtyEight have been saying is that the chances are very low that Donald Trump will win. Like 2%. One reason is once you get all those candidates on the debate stage then there are many different stories out there." --Nate Silver, Aug 5 2015
And I just noticed the bit about Trump winning all demographics except black women and men with advanced degrees also came from “realtruenews”.
So that’s bogus too, as you would expect. Or are we supposed to believe Trump’s winning hispanic women?
Here’s the site:
Obvious satire.
You would have to live in a state of suspended disbelief to think a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton who barely beat Bernie Sanders is leading Trump by 10-15 pts. Its ludicrous. If these pollsters were smart they would keep her at only 2-3 pts ahead.
I don't get this feeling with Trump, I feel he's placed his personal and family's well being on the line and has so much vested in this election he is absolutely in it to win. I honestly believe he will bury the witch if he doesn't drop a house on her first.
I wonder how many voting age adults use the internet and of those, how many are “politically interested?”
How do those stack up against the people the pollsters claim they talk to?
Which numbers are more reliable? The “registered voters” the pollsters claim to call, or the “politically minded” of us that take internet polls, join social media groups, etc?
Pollsters tell us that so far, Hillary is going to run away with this election, but social media says exactly the opposite. Below are numbers taken from an article
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/evidence-trump-landslide/
Numbers from that article I find hilarious because crooked hillary has more than twice as many subscribers in one category than the other.
Trump: 197,696 subscribers
Hillary: 24,429 subscribers
Hillary for Prison: 55,228 subscribers
“Hillary for Prison’s Reddit feed has more than double subscribers of Hillary’s Reddit page, equating to Trump having 700% more Reddit subscribers.”
“Hillary is proving that she is a terrible candidate. No one likes her and no one trusts her. Based on turnouts at campaign events and on social media, if the election were today… Trump would likely win in a Landslide!”
Bill Stills video take on the article in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXLGdVlxqk
I’d like to believe that Americans favor Trump as much as it appears they do based on his “internet” numbers, but given the history of vote fraud that just seems to get worse with each election, I fear that these polls we’re being fed are the lead in to be sure we accept the rigged election coming in November instead of what we can actually see occurring in social media and online polls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.