Terribad Polls for Trumpublicans Two Months Before Midterms

You actually don't appear to know the difference. You are criticizing "CNN polls" that aren't polls, ignoring their actual polls, and conflating polling and analysis/punditry just like the rest of the dipshits.

I can say with 98% confidence that the number of dicks you must have sucked to get through 400 level stats is on the interval (9 , 135)

I got a B.
 
I wouldn't say that. But it's ok to disagree. It's possible that cnn misused them, more than they were inaccurate, but I don't really think that either. I think the sample sizes were too small, and there were missing elements. I remember seeing the polls constantly and thinking they didn't match up to what I was seeingwith my eyes in the burbs. Because of them, however, I thought Hillary would win.
The polling was, factually, accurate. If you "wouldn't say that" it's because you're ignorant or stupid. Or both.
 
Dude, you and that other troll can stop. It's over. I linked a fucking poll.

Never ever go full libtard.
You... did... not... link...to... a.... poll...

You linked to people drawing conclusions based on a poll.

This thread actually explains a lot.

Like why Trumpbots can’t tell the difference between Hannity and “the news.”
 
Last edited:
You know you're gotten to when you cannot frame an argument without resorting to cheap namecalling.
Framing what argument?

There is no argument.

A poll is NOT the same thing as a prediction based on that poll.

Period.

End of essay.

Like an pumpkin is not the same thing as a pumpkin pie.

There literally is no argument to be made that a pumpkin pie is the same thing as a pumpkin.
 
@kpt018
Pretty weak attempt, bro.
Still thinking that shit will work on me, lol.
Go back and read my posts again, slowly if need be.
I have argued that the analysis, as it were, was done on, yep, polls. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
The polling was, factually, accurate. If you "wouldn't say that" it's because you're ignorant or stupid. Or both.
If I poll the 7 people in my neighbors house, Trump wins in a landslide in 2020.

Cherry picked "news" stories are "accurate," but they can be sought out poorly and used to create a narrative.

"This mother worries that obamacare will cause her 3 children to go uncovered."

"Refugee graduates Oxford with perfect 4.0; will work in private sector."

"Far right groups gather in Germany in scary reminder of past."

"3/4 Americans want Russian investigation." (400 person sample size taken from urban area)

It's easy to take information, and to create slanted pictures with it. It called "narrative propaganda."
 
Last edited:
If I poll the 7 people in my neighbors house, Trump wins in a landslide in 2020.

Cherry picked "news" stories ate "accurate," but they can be sought put poorly and used to create a narrative.

"This mother worries that obamacare will cause her 3 children to go uncovered."

"Refugee graduates Oxford with perfect 4.0; will work in private sector."

"Far right groups gather in Germany in scary reminder of past."

"3/4 Americans want Russian investigation." (400 person sample size taken from urban area)

It's easy to take information, and to create slanted pictures with it. It called "narrative propaganda."
Are you claiming that polling in the 2016 election (despite being accurate), was cherrypicked/fake/anti-Trump/etc.?

If so, then why were the polling results accurate? That makes zero sense. You're just talking out of your ass here.

Nobody should be disputing that people make errors or are guilty of wishful thinking at times when looking at polling data.
 
You actually don't appear to know the difference. You are criticizing "CNN polls" that aren't polls, ignoring their actual polls, and conflating polling and analysis/punditry just like the rest of the dipshits.

I can say with 98% confidence that the number of dicks you must have sucked to get through 400 level stats is on the interval (9 , 135)

Lmao! Sounds like someone has been gotten to.

If you’re too much of a pussy to handle the heat go to the heavies and go debate some dickhead on whether Woodley is boring. Leave politics to people who have triple digit IQs.
<{you!}>
 
If I poll the 7 people in my neighbors house, Trump wins in a landslide in 2020.

Cherry picked "news" stories ate "accurate," but they can be sought put poorly and used to create a narrative.

"This mother worries that obamacare will cause her 3 children to go uncovered."

"Refugee graduates Oxford with perfect 4.0; will work in private sector."

"Far right groups gather in Germany in scary reminder of past."

"3/4 Americans want Russian investigation." (400 person sample size taken from urban area)

It's easy to take information, and to create slanted pictures with it. It called "narrative propaganda."
You realize that polls are set up like scientific experiments, right? They have controls designed to target as good of a representation of the electorate as they possibly can. They aren’t perfect, but they are always TRYING to improve. After all, they are MOTIVATED to be right, so they can increase their prestige.

Take Quinnipiac University, for example. Small university; it’s polling is a big deal to the school. If they were to release a couple of consecutive high profile polls and be off by a big margin, say 10 points, that is the end of their reputation as a reputable pollster.

The second sentence of the article makes the point that I have made throughout this thread. Regrettably, the headline is misleading, and it’s a shitty article overall.

Read the second paragraph: “Polls underestimated Trump’s level of support... the final round of polling showed Clinton with a lead of between 1 to 7 percent in the national popular vote.”
Well. That’s a fucking non-sequitor because Clinton DID win the popular vote by about 3 points. So...
 
Last edited:
You realize that polls are set up like scientific experiments, right? They have controls designed to target as good of a representation of the electorate as they possibly can. They are MOTIVATED to be right, so they can increase their prestige. Take Quinnipiac University. Small university, it’s polling is a big deal to the school. If they were to release a couple of consecutive high profile polls and be off by a big margin, say 10 points, that is the end of their reputation as a reputable pollster.

Not so much anymore. Narrative reigns. In principle, you are correct, but times are getting weird.
 
You realize that polls are set up like scientific experiments, right? They have controls designed to target as good of a representation of the electorate as they possibly can. They are MOTIVATED to be right, so they can increase their prestige. Take Quinnipiac University, for example. Small university; it’s polling is a big deal to the school. If they were to release a couple of consecutive high profile polls and be off by a big margin, say 10 points, that is the end of their reputation as a reputable pollster.
Something something liberals, something something NY Times.
 
It's unfortunate that writers, aggregators, and even pollsters were so eager to throw blame at historically accurate polls.

Democrat_Republican_Vote_Spread_By_Year_update_1.png

The distance between the blue square and the red diamond is how far the polls "missed"


As you can see, 2016 was pretty solid.
 
I’m not American so I don’t know how the system works, but my understanding is 1/3rd of the senate is up for grabs every two years. All I know is the republicans currently have a majority in the senate but I don’t know by how much. Any chance that the senate can go to the democrats with this election?
 
I just conducted a poll, most all Americans are shocked by how stupid, the liberals have become
 
I’m not American so I don’t know how the system works, but my understanding is 1/3rd of the senate is up for grabs every two years. All I know is the republicans currently have a majority in the senate but I don’t know by how much. Any chance that the senate can go to the democrats with this election?
This time around, no. As it happens, a lot more Democrats are defending seats. Even if Democrats outperform expectations, they could still lose seats.

At the moment, Republicans have a 51-49 edge in the Senate.

2020 looks like the year when Democrats have a chance at a majority. 2022 will also be a good election for Democrats to pick up seats.
 
Not so much anymore. Narrative reigns. In principle, you are correct, but times are getting weird.
Polls are numbers.

They literally offer NO narrative.

Are there lots of narratives “based on polls”? Sure.

Does that make polls narratives? Nope.

That’s the point I have made 99 times in this thread.
I just conducted a poll, most all Americans are shocked by how stupid, the liberals have become
I don’t think you did, though.
 
@luckyshot

Did you cry to your boyfriend and have him cry to his cuck lords

You silly fucks and your crying
 
@luckyshot

Did you cry to your boyfriend and have him cry to his cuck lords

You silly fucks and your crying
So, I guess you are done talking about the difference between polls and predictions?

Ignorance is often a choice.
 
Back
Top