Trump floats delaying election in tweet

[lonegunman]

Right now the polling data shows Trump gets dunked on. People will say oh well Hilary, yes, but she wasn't beating Trump by 10 to 15% on the national data. Hilary had a 3%ish popular vote win over Trump so the data was correct. However, the polls were really wrong in states such as Wisconson, Michigan, and PA, however, Trump is universally losing in like all the swing states and is in spitting distance in Texas, he's got a lot of ground to make up.

Biden is honestly running the ideal campaign, he's not alive and as it turns out beating a dead horse is actually kind of tough, lmao.

The art of politics is making it hard to vote for your opponent and easy to vote for you. Trump is fairly good at number one but he is horrible at number two. So the dead man wins.

He would still find a way to attack someone or some process. Because he needs to make it about him at any cost.

Do you honestly believe the crap you spout? Even CNN agrees you are not the brightest bulb in the box.

New poll shows Clinton over Trump by double-digits

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html

Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by 14 Points Nationally in New Poll

https://time.com/4546942/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-lead-poll/

Independents and Women Bail on Trump, Giving Clinton a Double-Digit Lead

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/prri-atlantic-poll-trump-plummets/503561/

Sponsored

 

[watisthis]

Do you honestly believe the crap you spout? Even CNN agrees you are not the brightest bulb in the box.

New poll shows Clinton over Trump by double-digits

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html

Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by 14 Points Nationally in New Poll

https://time.com/4546942/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-lead-poll/

Independents and Women Bail on Trump, Giving Clinton a Double-Digit Lead

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/prri-atlantic-poll-trump-plummets/503561/

I take it you concede your earlier incorrect comments?

Also, I see you still haven't figured out how to use the forums.

Your first link shows how bias the MSM is when talking party lines. "The poll was conducted online and included more than 1,000 likely voters in all 50 states." You can't take a shit poll like this seriously. They aren't even telling you the demographics of the poll. It could have been 75% minority Democrats and of course, the polling would be skewed. I believe Huffington Post was closest to what polling firms had and they were calling a 5% advantage.

Let me start by saying there is a significant difference between mainstream media polls and projections/analysis and polling firms.

Polls are a tool used to show you the inclinations of voters at the time the poll is administered. Nothing more. They do not predict results like we have come to understand time and time again. They do not tell you who will win the election. They tell you 'if the election were run today' what the results would most likely be. Polls take a lot of time and effort to do, and most reputable polls are done by well-known polling outlets with a long track record, moreover, I do not trust MSM polls which will most likely have a bias.

Projections/analysis is an attempt to use the data provided by polls to foretell the future. People doing forecasts usually use the data provided by others, i.e. polling firms, and make their own guesses off this data. These reviews will usually come with a margin of probability. They don't say, 'Clinton will win.' They say 'there's a 60% chance that Clinton will win.'

In 2016 the polls were very accurate when compared to the results of the election. The analysis was kind of all over the place from the MSM, though, some like the 538 were pretty accurate. They predicted Clinton would win, but her probability was rather low, something like 60%, which means the prediction is wrong 2 out of 5 times. Many pundits on MSM, however, did very poor interpretation, basically just saying 'the winner of this poll will win the election' and ascribed arbitrary probabilities to it which were not the result of statistical analysis.

The error in 2016 was in reading the polls, not in the data itself. The polls were largely fine, it is also worth noting that the 538 poll I mentioned earlier gave a 29% chance for Trump winning, and while that seems like a small number, lots of things less likely happen all the time. Elections are very weak to small sample sizes because of that. This is why I use poll firm data and not MSM.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the margin of error. -- RealClearPolitics average was extremely accurate for the national polls in 2016. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Final RCP average: Clinton +3.2%,
General election: Clinton +2.1%,
Difference: 1.1%

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

 

[Jetnoise]

If you refuse to drop the dead, illegal immigrants and felons from voter rolls, how can it be possible to have an "objective study"?

So how’s that 2020 census shaping up?
We need an honest count of the honest and a dishonest count of the dishonest ey’?

Sponsored