According to someone's favourite pollster (Rasmussen), Trump's popularity has soared again... to 45%!!!
Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 2 (cont in pt. 3)
- Thread starter 100action
- Start date
-
- Tags
- donald trump us politics
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #8,429
Meme?
Sorry Maggie - a good article from CNN? CNN is all meme.
That's the war mongering propaganda news - you can't be serious. They're still doing the November recount. They're Pro Saudi and pro Isis.
At this point Alex Jones has more credibility.
CNN is as deluded as the NYT and WaPo.
Effectively anything they say about current affairs - the very opposite is true.
Speaking of pro-Saudi, it was a bigly deal he made with them, wasn't it?
Nice curtsey, Trump. Svetlana and Ekaterina must've taught him well in that Russian hotel room.
Grab the world by its pussy, they'll let you do anything.
Winning yet, Trumpians and Trumpslims?
Nice curtsey, Trump. Svetlana and Ekaterina must've taught him well in that Russian hotel room.
Grab the world by its pussy, they'll let you do anything.
Winning yet, Trumpians and Trumpslims?
Democrats, Stop With The Poll Rigging...It's Getting Embarrassing
LOL, read* the whole thing, He makes a good case.
* "WARNING - May cause triggering in some people"
Speaking of pro-Saudi, it was a bigly deal he made with them, wasn't it?
Nice curtsey, Trump. Svetlana and Ekaterina must've taught him well in that Russian hotel room.
Grab the world by its pussy, they'll let you do anything.
Winning yet, Trumpians and Trumpslims?
Is Melania doing something inappropriate to the Sheik
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #8,436
Not just the Democrats but the Dem-Media
Democrats, Stop With The Poll Rigging...It's Getting Embarrassing
by Tyler Durden
Jun 21, 2017 7:45 PM
Last fall, in the months/weeks leading up to the presidential election, we spent a fair amount time talking about how Democratic pollsters were setting themselves up for a massive embarrassment on election day with their obviously rigged polling data that consistently suggested Hillary had a commanding lead. In fact, just weeks before the election, the Washington Post published a poll showing that Hillary was well on her way to a 'blowout' 12-point victory (we wrote about it here: This Is How WaPo's Latest Poll Gave Hillary A 12 Point Advantage Over Trump). Needless to say, that never happened and those pollsters suffered the humiliating consequences of their biased 'math.'
Unfortunately, as last night's special election in Georgia makes all too clear, no one on the left seems to have learned any lessons from their presidential poll rigging debacle last November.
In fact, one prominent pollster even declared just 6 days before the election that if Ossoff failed to win it would mean that "MATH IS DEAD AND DATA IS BROKEN."
Of course, the problem isn't that "math is dead" or "data is broken"...the problem is that rather than using data to arrive at a solution pollsters have resorted to starting out with a solution and then solving for the data.
Which is exactly what appears to have happened in Georgia. As the following chart points out, with just 9 days left until election day, pollsters were predicting a fairly easy win for Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th district runoff...shocking, we know. But, just over a week later, the Republican candidate ended up easily walking away with the win, and served up another embarrassment for pollsters in the process as actual results swung 8.6 points from predictions peddled to the public just a week earlier.
So how does this keep happening? Well, it's not that surprising in light of the fact that Democrats literally wrote a playbook on how to rig polling data through "oversamples." As we noted last October in a post entitled "New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through 'Oversamples'", it all apparently has a lot to do with "oversampling" various minority groups.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Democrats, Stop With The Poll Rigging...It's Getting Embarrassing
by Tyler Durden
Jun 21, 2017 7:45 PM
Last fall, in the months/weeks leading up to the presidential election, we spent a fair amount time talking about how Democratic pollsters were setting themselves up for a massive embarrassment on election day with their obviously rigged polling data that consistently suggested Hillary had a commanding lead. In fact, just weeks before the election, the Washington Post published a poll showing that Hillary was well on her way to a 'blowout' 12-point victory (we wrote about it here: This Is How WaPo's Latest Poll Gave Hillary A 12 Point Advantage Over Trump). Needless to say, that never happened and those pollsters suffered the humiliating consequences of their biased 'math.'
Unfortunately, as last night's special election in Georgia makes all too clear, no one on the left seems to have learned any lessons from their presidential poll rigging debacle last November.
In fact, one prominent pollster even declared just 6 days before the election that if Ossoff failed to win it would mean that "MATH IS DEAD AND DATA IS BROKEN."
Of course, the problem isn't that "math is dead" or "data is broken"...the problem is that rather than using data to arrive at a solution pollsters have resorted to starting out with a solution and then solving for the data.
Which is exactly what appears to have happened in Georgia. As the following chart points out, with just 9 days left until election day, pollsters were predicting a fairly easy win for Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th district runoff...shocking, we know. But, just over a week later, the Republican candidate ended up easily walking away with the win, and served up another embarrassment for pollsters in the process as actual results swung 8.6 points from predictions peddled to the public just a week earlier.
So how does this keep happening? Well, it's not that surprising in light of the fact that Democrats literally wrote a playbook on how to rig polling data through "oversamples." As we noted last October in a post entitled "New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through 'Oversamples'", it all apparently has a lot to do with "oversampling" various minority groups.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #8,437
Speaking of pro-Saudi, it was a bigly deal he made with them, wasn't it?
Nice curtsey, Trump. Svetlana and Ekaterina must've taught him well in that Russian hotel room.
Grab the world by its pussy, they'll let you do anything.
Winning yet, Trumpians and Trumpslims?
CNN, NYT and WaPo loved that picture - they cheering for Donny to get on board the global agenda
Tried reading, very clear someone doesn't know how polls work.
Liked him trying to say that Nate Silver was saying if Ossoff lost that data and maths were broken, when he was clearly taking the piss.
"As WND reported in March, many election experts agree with the president that widespread vote fraud exists" hahaha well s**t I'm convinced, perhaps naming some of these experts would add a bit more weight to their case.
Ohhh hang on, looky here
Big surprise
And to answer your question, not the near 0% required to give Trump a clear popular vote win.
FireKrakouer
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest.
- Jul 5, 2011
- 15,320
- 23,147
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The article is based on a study by a different organisation. Who cares who WND are, it's the numbers in the study that matter. I can find you other sources that discuss the study if you like, but obviously left leaning agencies haven't mentioned it."As WND reported in March, many election experts agree with the president that widespread vote fraud exists" hahaha well s**t I'm convinced, perhaps naming some of these experts would add a bit more weight to their case.
Ohhh hang on, looky here
Big surprise
And to answer your question, not the near 0% required to give Trump a clear popular vote win.
If an illegal immigrant goes to the effort of voting illegally in an election, would they vote for the candidate that has vowed to kick them and their family out, or the candidate who wants to give them free s**t and keep them there as future voters? I'd be surprised if any illegals voted Trump, let alone enough of them to negate him winning the popular vote.
Please provide the studies that show high level of illegal voting. Not, "speculative" but hard data.
Yes, based on a study by another right-leaning organisation. I say again, colour me convinced
Why would any latinos vote for Trump after the campaign he ran? You would guess not many, but he got nearly 30% of the latino vote. You take any segment of voters and set of circumstances in a democratic western election, you're not gonna get a 100-0 result. Just does not happen.
Last edited:
Not sure what this is exactly referring to because there wasn't a link ... BUT ... I'm fairly confident that it's the same "handbook to poll rigging" that was posted on one of the SRP threads leading up to the election. When I read the articles that people linked, it was very obvious that the Democrats were guilty of poll rigging ... BUT ... when I read the source documents it was incredibly clear that those articles had completely taken quotes front the handbook out of context. Specifically, the context was that the handbook was for internal party polling to ensure that they were getting a good representation of the actual demographics of each state and targeting those internal polls on areas they had nominated as key areas to win. So, no, clearly not poll tampering in any way.
The writers of those articles (and 99% confident this applies to the writer of the article you've quoted) were either a) purposefully misrepresenting the information, or b) lacking in any critical analysis to see that the source material wasn't what their biases suggested it could be.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #8,444
I watched the interview.
Bloomberg did say the Democrats were in trouble and I tend to agree as it appears that the Democrats don't seem to have a Captain to lead them out of this. Further it is true that the encumber does have an advantage, I thought it was a good interview but not sure that I took the same out of it as you and Zerohedge seemed to.
Harsh but true
Xsess
Norm Smith Medallist
The Democrats are in trouble mainly because the smokescreen of abuse by them and their media backers is not hiding the increasingly obvious fact that Trump is a damn fine president. In stark contrast to that idiot whose seat he took or anyone else the democrats have.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #8,447
You seem confused, the idiot is currently President.
Have a listen to his speech in Iowa, hilarious. Not a direct quote but it went something like this:
"Health bill would have been done if only the Democrats just added a little bit to it".
Only a select few Republicans are working on it, not sure how the Dems can help.
FW of the biggest order!
Last edited:
He is certainly doing a fine job. I would be more worried if the Democrats weren't abusing Trump.
Xsess
Norm Smith Medallist
Precisely! Have you ever heard such fear and loathing?
- Status
