Wikileaks: The polls are rigged

[oldjones]

But hold on a second, your information is YOUR opinion doesn't make what you say Fact, just like BudPlug, but your incessant need to continue to reply to someone who has you on ignore and doesn't see what you are saying, is just plain stupid.

Actually, you seem to have forgotten you started this tit-for-tat by exception to a clear statement of fact, not opinion.

At no time has RCP had Trump in the lead. In this election he's been losing to Clinton at all times

If it's not a true statement, all you have to do is find a single instance where RealClearPolitics had Trump leading. You needn't bother, but if you don't then it would be you stubbornly thrusting your unsupported OPINION on the world.

Strictly speaking, by the rules of civilized debate, none of us should be addressing each other directly. All our remarks should be for the whole membership. But this is TERB, not Westminster. If you post in a public forum, you don't get to whine about who answers; it's up to each of us to deal with the response we get as best we're able.

Meantime, since Bud's doing what he can to ignore posters he doesn't like, why not help him out and stop making them even more prominent? If you'd followed his example he might never have known about that post you brought to his attention.

 

[SuperCharge]

Actually, you seem to have forgotten you started this tit-for-tat by exception to a clear statement of fact, not opinion.

No I asked Fuji a question that's what i did, because I wanted to know why he continues quoting Bud when he knows Bud can't/won't read what he is saying, and I don't understand why someone would continue to do that over and over. Is that clear enough now? Let me give you an example: if you had me on Ignore, and I knew you did, I wouldn't quote you, and reply to you, what's the point?

 

[Bud Plug]

Meantime, since Bud's doing what he can to ignore posters he doesn't like

Please don't misrepresent my position. I didn't put Fuji on ignore because "I don't like him". He's there because I've had nothing but unproductive exchanges with him. You and I don't agree on most things, but at least there is a semblance of a discussion between us.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[AK-47]

No I asked Fuji a question that's what i did, because I wanted to know why he continues quoting Bud when he knows Bud can't/won't read what he is saying, and I don't understand why someone would do that

Its called trolling.

Fuji pretends to be some intellectual, who's CEO of a major corporation, has a bunch of people working under him, has a hot wife and a wonderful life (all his words, not mine) :biggrin1:

But really.....he's just another troll

 

[eznutz]

Statistician Proves "Systemic Mainstream Misinformation" In Poll Data, his advice to Americans is to "ignore the capricious polls, and simply vote their conscience on Election Day. The numbers in the polls don't add up to the significance the polling conclusions convey."

Sea of faulty polls
http://statisticalideas.blogspot.ca/2016/10/sea-of-faulty-polls.html?m=1

In this article we cover the theoretical bases for two interconnected ideas that we've discussed recently: (a) that the empirical polling results are not as dire as current landslide mainstream media projections make it out to be, and (b) many polls are oscillating about impossibly low probabilities right now for Donald Trump. This year is genuinely unique in merging several fundamental aspects, with a largely disenfranchised voting base across the country (i.e., record undecideds), and pollsters unable or unwilling to properly assess the true probability for Mr. Trump (and their incoherent polls evidence this). This is not a matter of apologizing for the ground-level odds currently shown by mainstream media, or that the average Hillary Clinton lead is merely unsustainably high. This loses the forest through the trees, as we theoretically prove here. Start by studying a sample of the general election polls below, taken in just the past couple days. Do you see anything wrong there? If you don't, then you have no business being around polling data.

The average margin of error on these 7 spreads shown is only 3%. Most polls should therefore be within a few percent of the 6% average spread that is advertised by media. But instead most are not! For example, the difference between the highest Ms. Clinton spread and the lowest Ms. Clinton spread is >14 percentage points! And the standard deviation among these mainstream polls is 5%. So both have to be added together, and each is already higher than 3%! That's an unusual, impossible outcome through luck alone. Therefore something is misrepresented in the polls. Also right now 2 of the 7 polls favor Donald (you just' don't hear about them), so double the 10-15% odds he is being given. In the final analysis of this trinomial data, on November 9 we'll look back and see only one poll being correct and most were flat out wrong. This evidence below is a breach of the probability theory behind proper polling, where most polls should see the correct spread within the margin of error interval (that's what the interval's definition must be!) If the margins are therefore completely busted, then so too are the egregious spreads that are seen to be all over the place (and mostly untrustworthy). Likely the correct expected spread right now is 4-5%, and the larger spreads are coming from pollsters that ironically also have the highest margin of errors (casting further suspicion on how close the election really is for Americans). We stand by our long-running estimate that the current probability for a Donald Trump victory is about in the 20% range, or twice what mainstream media is projecting. Of course that is low, but to some it's still a compelling 1 in 4 chance (and much different than some might expect given all the twists and turns this campaign season has brought us). It's also a better reflection of the true odds, versus those dished out by the same inane talking heads who recently gave you the Brexit "remain" prediction, or the NeverTrump prediction!

 

[Frankfooter]

The CBC has a good article on the spread of polls.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-tracking-polls-1.3818965

Its worth a read, if you're really interested in the issue and want a source that is objective.
(and yes, the CBC is mandated to be objective)

 

[Promo]

Sidenote: It's incredible how much support there is for Trump in little Liberal Canada.

I don't believe that's correct. Even your friend Bud Plug feels Canada strongly supports Clinton. "it's very clear here in Canada that most people support Clinton".

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/10/donald-trump-canada-poll-white-house_n_11432840.html
" Almost four-in-five Canadians are troubled by the idea of Donald Trump becoming the next United States president, a new poll suggests."
"According to numbers from Insights West released on Tuesday, 79 per cent of Canadians say they are "very" or "moderately" concerned about the possibility the wildly-controversial Republican could win the White House"
"By comparison, 42 per cent said they are "very" or "moderately" worried about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton becoming president."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-canada-us-election-1.3699457
"But Canadians would be among the most reliable Democrats if, well, they were Americans instead. "
"Two polls conducted in recent months by Abacus Data and Mainstreet Research have shown that 73 to 80 per cent of Canadians would vote for Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, if they had the chance."
"Nowhere in the country would Trump be considered even a competitive candidate. His best score in the Abacus poll came in Alberta, where just 26 per cent of voters would support him."
"A strong majority also thinks a Trump presidency would be a nightmare for this country."

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/majo...ve-of-donald-trump-and-his-anti-muslim-policy
"Majority of Canadians Disapprove of Donald Trump and His Anti-Muslim Policy"
"one needn't look much further than the movements in Toronto and Vancouver to remove his name from Trump-owned buildings"

 

[oldjones]

I'm not sidestepping the issue, you just have the model backwards. If you want to rely on restricted and selective polls, you justify. If not, carry on.

Terrible things always have to happen before the courts revisit the balance of constitutional freedoms and rights. I think we're about to see some terrible things.

Laws are rarely passed to protect people with brains. They are to protect the people with brains from those without.

Sorry. You seem to have forgotten; I don't rely on polls at all. For anything. They're for professionals and punters, not voters.

Laws and brains have little or nothing to do with each other. Laws are passed to give us a way to punish bad people (we call them criminals). In dictatorships they punish people for being politically incorrect; such as publishing polls the powers that be disagree with. The dictators call those people criminals. In democracies we often attach terms like 'criminals' to those who try to dictate their version of political correctness. You, like many Trumpians, loudly deride your opponents, and most media, for exactly that sin. When in fact they haven't muzzled you or anyone, just refused to publish untruths and fantasies, leaving you perfectly free to publish elsewhere. As you have.

But now you propose to force your idea of political correctness on us all? By law? And criminalize those who don't keep to the prescribed truth? Where's democracy in that?

 

[fuji]

But hold on a second, your information is YOUR opinion doesn't make what you say Fact, just like BudPlug, but your incessant need to continue to reply to someone who has you on ignore and doesn't see what you are saying, is just plain stupid.

There's only one reality and when people misrepresent it I will correct them. Happy to back up everything with references.

 

[fuji]

NO,...ignore is used in an attempt to be insulated from idiots.

Just what the fuck don't you understand,... that if you know some one will NOT be replying to one of your posts that reply to, comment on or quote one of theirs.

Makes you something less than a man,...in a word,...a COWARD.

If you are comfortable with that title,...says a lot about you,...doesn't it fuji.

But you would be in the same category as the other admitted coward here,...good company you keep.

If you STILL don't understand,...please let me know,...I can help you out.

FAST

Sorry but ignore isn't censorship. It turns out that it doesn't stop people from exposing you when you pay bullshit in a public forum. You still get called in it.

It allows you to withdraw into you own little echo chamber where you never have to be confronted with how hypocritical and wrong you are--but everybody else still sees how hypocritical and wrong you are.

I will continue calling bullshit when I see bullshit.

 

[fuji]

No I asked Fuji a question that's what i did, because I wanted to know why he continues quoting Bud when he knows Bud can't/won't read what he is saying, and I don't understand why someone would continue to do that over and over. Is that clear enough now? Let me give you an example: if you had me on Ignore, and I knew you did, I wouldn't quote you, and reply to you, what's the point?

Why would I allow false statements to go unchallenged? Who cares if Bud reads my response. Other people may be misled by his misinformation.

 

[oldjones]

Please don't misrepresent my position. I didn't put Fuji on ignore because "I don't like him". He's there because I've had nothing but unproductive exchanges with him. You and I don't agree on most things, but at least there is a semblance of a discussion between us.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Thanks for clarifying, I'm sorry my sense things had gone adrift tempted me to I generalize. I actually imagined 'ignore' meant 'ignore' not 'talk endlessly around and about but never hear from or address' the person you're 'ignoring'. So fuji on y'all.

 

[oldjones]

No I asked Fuji a question that's what i did, because I wanted to know why he continues quoting Bud when he knows Bud can't/won't read what he is saying, and I don't understand why someone would continue to do that over and over. Is that clear enough now? Let me give you an example: if you had me on Ignore, and I knew you did, I wouldn't quote you, and reply to you, what's the point?

Read your post #99 again. Doesn't sound at all like you're now saying here. Did you miss that it was #99 I responded to?

Besides you already got your question answered in #92, right after you asked in in #91. But you hadda go on for another half-dozen did-didn'ts about something. Until you finally said something outright and foolishly wrong. Or did I miss the post where you justified your statement with some evidence?
-----------
PS: Thanks for the Primer on how TERBians are supposed to behave when they're on Ignore. Bye now

 

[Frankfooter]

Aside from sounding like whining, Trump's claims that the election is rigged has to be an incredibly stupid way to rally your troops.
After all, if you believe Trump, like bud pug and smallcock do, then why would you even go and vote at all?
If its rigged, it won't matter.

Clinton just said she thinks the election will be close, and that's how you get people to come out and vote.
Tell them that the election is rigged and they'll likely just give up and stay home, hoping for the coup after the election.

 

[SuperCharge]

If you are interested in how voter fraud happens, watch this Court room testimony
http://youtu.be/3YKpvTBmdCI

 

[AK-47]

I don't believe that's correct. Even your friend Bud Plug feels Canada strongly supports Clinton. "it's very clear here in Canada that most people support Clinton".

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/10/donald-trump-canada-poll-white-house_n_11432840.html
" Almost four-in-five Canadians are troubled by the idea of Donald Trump becoming the next United States president, a new poll suggests."
"According to numbers from Insights West released on Tuesday, 79 per cent of Canadians say they are "very" or "moderately" concerned about the possibility the wildly-controversial Republican could win the White House"
"By comparison, 42 per cent said they are "very" or "moderately" worried about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton becoming president."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-canada-us-election-1.3699457
"But Canadians would be among the most reliable Democrats if, well, they were Americans instead. "
"Two polls conducted in recent months by Abacus Data and Mainstreet Research have shown that 73 to 80 per cent of Canadians would vote for Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, if they had the chance."
"Nowhere in the country would Trump be considered even a competitive candidate. His best score in the Abacus poll came in Alberta, where just 26 per cent of voters would support him."
"A strong majority also thinks a Trump presidency would be a nightmare for this country."

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/majo...ve-of-donald-trump-and-his-anti-muslim-policy
"Majority of Canadians Disapprove of Donald Trump and His Anti-Muslim Policy"
"one needn't look much further than the movements in Toronto and Vancouver to remove his name from Trump-owned buildings"

So you pull out 3 left-wing media as your sources, and thats your evidence??

CBC is mandated to be objective

Ahahahahahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaa................... :biggrin1:

 

[fuji]

If you are interested in how voter fraud happens, watch this Court room testimony
http://youtu.be/3YKpvTBmdCI

Keep spinning. Voter fraud in the US is insignificant. Attacking American democracy because your preferred candidate is unpopular is really pretty vile.

 

[SuperCharge]

Keep spinning. Voter fraud in the US is insignificant. Attacking American democracy because your preferred candidate is unpopular is really pretty vile.

excuses excuses, you sound a lot like CNN

 

[Promo]

What are you talking about - GOP polls? What are they? The private polling done for the GOP? Do you have access to those? I don't. If you're referring to polls favourable to Trump, some of those show him in a tie or slight lead.
What Kellyanne Conway agreed to in her interview was that "they are behind". What did she mean by that? 1%? 2%? 5%? No one asked her.

The GOP commissioned polls that Conway and other spokespeople have referenced to in their formal interviews (not the CNN panel shows).

LOL, I think you spent too much time watching headlines and not watching the full interviews. Conway was interviewed on Meet the Press, MSNBC and CNN. She was indeed asked and when pressed she first said "somewhat behind" then "1-4 points in key states" and then stated "4-5 country-wide". On MSNBC she stated: "she doesn't believe there will be widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election".

Those numbers would be within the margin of error, and could be easily overcome by differences in turnout.

That would be true for both sides wouldn't it Bud Plug? HRC could therefore win with a larger advantage including possibly taking the house, senate or both. Since Hilary has a larger ground team, is better organized and has a larger budget this could certainly happen.

We already know that a number of networks are co-ordinated with the Clinton campaign ..........

We KNOW that do we? Co-ordinated? You've already stated in this thread it wasn't coordinated. LOL, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of, making up facts. MSM spends more time covering Trump rallies, speeches and activities than for any other candidate including the primaries. I've seen 3 separate documentaries on Trump in the last 30 days compared to 1 for HRC. I've seen 2 separate 15 minute segments on Trump's plane (it's nothing, why did it even rate?) as well as a special on several of his current building activities, one on his wife and daughter and one on the poshness of his Florida golf course. All were complimentary and didn't get into current politics.

Trump certainly wants media coverage, but he doesn't want all that coverage to be negative. That's what he's been getting pretty much uniformly from the entire MSM during this election. The media likes to say "but Trump creates all of these negative stories that dominate his coverage". However, that's not credible.

Bull. Trump is intentionally attacking the press in order to create an conspiratorial association with the establishment in the mind of his targeted followers. It's worked for the crowd that won him the primaries and he's simply trying it again. Under this strategy, negative press is good press.

When Trump gives a 45 minute speech about what he will do in his first 100 days, and talks for 4 minutes about suing his accusers, that should not result in coverage that is 100% about suing his accusers.

BULL. You obviously didn't watch Trumps last few speeches. He spent 60-75% of the time attacking his woman accusers, attacking the press, talking about the rigged election and he's back talking about putting Clinton in jail. When he does talk about his plans, the details are still too thin.

 

[Promo]

excuses excuses, you sound a lot like CNN

Kelly Conway, Trump's Campaign Manager stated in the last week: "that she doesn't "believe" there will be widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election". Trump's VP running mate also states he believes voter fraud won't be significant.

Only Trump and his surrogates are making these claims.

You sound alot like Trump.