It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2016 February Caucuses: Vote not as decided or polarized as Polls claim, tied results.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

I have the feeling that this night when we are going to be checking the actual results of the caucuses voting in Iowa everybody is going to realize that there will not be landslide victories, no overwhelming differences in favor of the winners. This would be in general the same situation that will occur in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina along the next four weeks.

A lot of polls are showing that in both the Republican side and the Democratic sides there are candidates able to get victories with margins of difference that are going to be in between 5% to even more than 15%, with winning scores clearly above 45% at least.

Please read:
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

My forecast is that the difference in between winner and first runner up in both sides is not going to surpass the 4% at most and that the overall voting is going to show better performance in the candidates that are in the tail of the polls than the one expected on them.

So I don't expect to see candidates with scores of more than 40% easily for the Republican side and no more than 47% in the Democratic side in any of these primaries.

It wouldn't surprise me if even one of the candidates that appears right now in second place jumps in the real result to the head.

Recent events like the terrible cold weather wave ( the Blizzards) , the new revelations of supposed top secret leakage from the Hillary Clinton Emails and also the decision of some Republican candidates to don't attend the last Fox debate ( a situation that can repeat also for the next one) may even change the decision already taken of many electors in how they are going to vote.


The polls are opening differences in between candidates in a way is not realistic, it could be due to the kind of surveys that are practicing on the people or a strategy of misinformation boosted by certain campaigns that are smartly moving supporters precisely on time in the areas the polls are performed or instructing people about how to respond to polls.

It is evident that there is a candidate in the republican side that is using its influence on the media to create an image of majority that is pretty artificial, the same can be said by a candidate in the Democratic side that has all the support of the economic establishment. Curiously these two candidates are bidding all to the fact that they are going to be confronted in November once nominated, but that could be just a mere dream.

Polls manipulated to misinform in 2012 projected a tied reelection for Obama, even forecasted a possible outcome favoring Romney, but the reality was completely different, so in the long run only who sponsor those polls became deceived.

If you have not yet decided your vote don't allow anybody in the media or the web to fool you with imaginary numbers, take a personal decision based on your own criteria of what kind of person has the necessary valid experience, professional credentials and moral authority to be the next President.


Of course the thread is open to the free debate, either if you are agree or not on this forecast, everything in the strict respect to the rules of communication and decorum in the replies and please remaining in the topic.

thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 2/1/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Let's see. It's still before noon in Iowa. The caucuses are just getting rolling. The large majority of votes will likely be in the afternoon. Do you think it might be reasonable to await the results before declaring reality here?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Dear schuyler,

Well, this is clearly a political election forecast thread so it does not make any sense to predict something with the real numbers already computed isn't it?

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

S&F just for the first lines of your post.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: schuyler

Well, this is clearly a political election forecast thread so it does not make any sense to predict something with the real numbers already computed isn't it?


Seems to me "predicting" the results as votes are being cast is kind of a moot point if you have any sort of patience. By all means carry on, but meh?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Well, Polls are doing so everywhere right now, and as My opening post said they are not always showing the real will of the people, they are instead trying to suggest for whom you must vote.

This is not an election of who Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton want to be the next President, in real life they don't have absolute control over more than a very limited amount of votes out of millions that can be freely emitted.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

Well Dear Trueman,

I appreciate your previous reply, and with the first actual results of Iowa caucus it is clear that my forecast was in general very accurate:

The results are extremely tied in both sides, with a difference of around 3% in between the apparent winner and the first runner up, and as I pointed in my opening post we see how a polls runner up is in fact the winner at this hour in the Republican side, Senator Ted Cruz might be beating Donald Trump if this trend continues.

Please read:

www.slate.com...

www.abqjournal.com...

Of course the polls companies have posted in a hurry exit polls that are showing an extremely different big picture of what they
predicting just Yesterday at night.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

It makes sense they are worried, since their credibility is going to be highly questioned from what we are seeing this night.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 2/1/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Dear Readers,

I feel more than satisfied with the accuracy of my prediction, Yesterday Iowa Caucus definitively buried a lot of polls predictions and showed the level of manipulation that is existing in their way to monitor the election pulse.

The clear victory of Ted Cruz in the Republican side corresponds to my prediction that at least one of the so called first runners ups, according with the polls, was going to jump surprisingly to the first place.

Now, the so tied result in the Democratic side is also showing that the difference in votes among the candidates in the head is as narrow as I predicted it was going to be.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

It is interesting to see how in just one night the myth of the unbeatable Donald Trump has disappeared, literally vanished as a mirage created by the media and the polls clearly paid by him or his supporters.

news.yahoo.com...

Of course it is more than fair to call the a strict recount of votes in the Democratic caucus, it is not only necessary since the difference is in less than 1% but also a good drill for a very tied Presidential election that I also have predicted we are going to have in November.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 2/2/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

You're predictions were pretty much spot on.

What I don't understand..............why is the pre-election voting polls so often wrong? And I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the data recently, but it seems to me that since.......2000 or so, the polls have become increasingly less reliable year over year! It's really weird.

So.......can you explain that? I didn't quite understand your OP on that point.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Well, I am at the same time psychic but also a professional Statistician, I can claim that here everything is just good intuition, I trust a lot my own extra sensorial perception of the things I am writing about, but it is also possible to identify mistakes committed in such polls, just by checking a little what they are trying to know, the aspects they are monitoring.

In my profession of Statistics is so important to understand sampling very well, to take a sample that is really representative of a population is a really an Art, and also is to be sure that a survey is extracting exactly the information that it is trying to poll, that there are no other variables hidden somewhere that are being tested together.

I think the polls are currently so much focus in to work from the perspective to confirm or deny the popularity of the campaigns, and not too much in to identify the real needs of the people, what the electors are really demanding, what is their real expectation of what the candidates must offer or propose.

When polls are just instruments to verify the efficiency of a campaign and not to determine real opinion trends it is easy to be misleaded, it is like when in Science you are more worried in to show that certain Theory works than in to find the objective and real truth in behind certain phenomenon.

Of course if the polls are paid or in anyway connected with the advertising companies they are going to 'show' that the money spent on those services is really paying off, the idea is not really to be honest about what the people is actually thinking.


If polls companies want really to survive in the market they must focus more in the demand that in the offering in the electoral market, since it is after all the common people who decide who is going to win.

The key word here is Marketing, to test the Market ( in this case the electors) not to test the image of the companies ( the campaigns) that are trying to enter into it.


The Great mistake of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is that they are so focused in their own image, in their ability to convince people of their projected programs, that they are not perceiving what actually the people is asking for.

People is demanding right now Honesty, transparency, seriousness, responsibility , reliability in the next President. I feel they are not finding those ingredients in Trump or Clinton. How can one put his future trusting in a person that is playing games with the media? that is dropping or insulting everybody in debates at will? or in a person that has had a lot of hidden errors or doubtful acts in his only really important job in public service ( excuse me, but the first lady is not really a government office, is a public relations task. ) and feels that its something even don't deserve to be fully and deeply discussed in a debate?
Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 2/2/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Thank you. I'll study on that; I think you're probably quite correct.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: The angel of light

You're predictions were pretty much spot on.

What I don't understand..............why is the pre-election voting polls so often wrong? And I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the data recently, but it seems to me that since.......2000 or so, the polls have become increasingly less reliable year over year! It's really weird.

So.......can you explain that? I didn't quite understand your OP on that point.


Social Media made a big boom around 2000, maybe that is the cause?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

That could be part of it. I just don't know. I think it has something to do with the selection of the sampling pool and I think it has something to do with an oft reported fact that many people the pollsters contact refuse to cooperate. But, increasingly, I think the Angel of Lightness is correct; it has to do with who commissions the polls and the warping of the questions in such a manner they will produce the result the commissioner of the poll wants.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: amicktd

That could be part of it. I just don't know. I think it has something to do with the selection of the sampling pool and I think it has something to do with an oft reported fact that many people the pollsters contact refuse to cooperate. But, increasingly, I think the Angel of Lightness is correct; it has to do with who commissions the polls and the warping of the questions in such a manner they will produce the result the commissioner of the poll wants.


Yea, I have no idea figured I'd throw that out there. Plus, I hate statistics.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

Well of course the American electors have reached levels of political maturity that are challenging a lot the candidates, they have learnt along a lot of promises never accomplished and marred elections to distinguish what is real from what is just a media mirage.

After all we are not living anymore in 1964 when the dead people voted strictly in alphabetical order in Texas for LBJ, He worked hard for a Great Society civil rights and social security reform but he also sent us to Vietnam with no reason. We are also neither in 1972 when Richard Nixon signed a peace agreement in Paris with North Vietnam, but at the same time paid some good millions to crooks, prostitutes and drug addicts of streets to attend McGovern meetings in front of the media, and well also for some illegal recordings of the Democratic convention.

This is not 1980 when a frustrated ex-actor that became Governor made us think that he was the messiah that was going to restore the American power in the world, using an incredibly well manufactured media campaign to wash brains that all the problems of a country under oil embargo were caused by President Carter, just only to send America seven months after he became elected to one of the strongest recessions ever remembered. He recovered from that crisis in a notable way, but almost became impeached for a secret deal with Iran.

Also back are the days that George Bush father became elected by the exit poll projections of computer programs designed to use the East coast results just to 'magically foretell' his victory by sending millions of electors in the west coast to bed instead to vote against him. He founded the global economy and ended the cold war but also sent us to the first Iraq war and that sunk the country in the first recession under abundant oil in the market .

Many have still fresh recall of the little favor that in 2000 Jeb Bush did for his sibling, to block access of voting in districts of black majority and altering at midnight the already cooked result of Florida exactly when the election depended precisely on a surprised reset in any key state. In a country with genuinely independent press such a trick never could have prospered or backed up by authorities. Nevertheless, no Presidency perhaps in the last 80 years was more bitter than the one of G.W. Bush.

This is not 2012 when Mit Romney oiled all the machinery of the media everywhere to 'predict' his victory over Barack Obama.

The people is not believing anymore all what the media is saying, they are well prepared to filter the information of the media and see what is beyond the appearances.

The electors of 2016 have a lot of criteria to decide for whom to vote, they are voting for propositions, for programs, for projects nor for party affiliation, nor for candidate make up nor fashion neither for previous media careers or dynastic myths.

The people of this election needs more than applauses very well rehearsed in a State of union report to be convinced that the Obama administration really passed the test of History, before to vote for a member of that same cabinet for the next term.

Moreover, the electors are not only interested in to know what the candidate is going to do if becomes elected but How he or she is planning to do that? as well as if there are side effects on such proposed solutions that are going to mess other aspects of the national life. The people want also to know what hidden compromises the candidate has already acquired with his or her sponsors, not just the public promises but also the ones offered below the table.


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 2/2/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS
Well Dear TonyS,

It seems that here there could be something more than just a sampling error, even worst than only misinformation spread through prearranged polls, if a news supported in a video recording that is right now running is confirmed this may be part of something even bigger.

I consider that we must be extremely cautious before to repeat accusations that are not already proven, but it seems That the campaign of Bernie Sanders is not completely convinced of the result in Iowa, there are rumors circulating of a possible fraud in some districts.

If what Sanders is suspecting result to be true, that delegates were not chosen from a serious voting result, this promises to be possibly the final scandal in the career of Hillary, that has already many carrying in her back.

Here the information that is right now circulating in the media, when Sanders is explaining why he is not yet conceding the election in that state.

Pls check:

www.msn.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.firstcoastnews.com...


Bernie Sanders Today in NH: “I don’t want to misspeak here,” he told reporters after a rally in Keene, N.H. “But it may be the case that some delegates were selected based on a flip of a coin. Not the best way to do democracy.”

Concern about voter fraud was raised late Monday night when C-SPAN posted a video that showed a Polk County caucus chair and a Clinton precinct captain did not conduct an actual count of the caucusgoers. Results were also slow to come in with about 5% of the precincts (roughly 90 sites) going unreported at the time Clinton and Sanders addressed their Iowa supporters.


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 2/2/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Interesting, but not at all surprising. I'd have fully expected dirty tricks in this election. Time will tell, but I'd suspect that along with the polls being manipulated, the primaries and indeed the general election will be manipulated as well. Sad state of affairs and to make matters worse, to the extent that the manipulation is ham handed and blatant, the more the results of the general election will be called into question. The last time this happened, according to my 88 year old father was the election of JFK.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Well Dear TonyS,

My Forecast for the New Hampshire primaries is essentially in the same line of what I have already predicted since the opening post in the thread. We are going to see again very tied results among the first and second places, even including third places, with anyway better performances in the candidates that are not favored by the establishment than what the media and the prearranged polls want to recognize as possible.

I have the impression that the Iowa Primary was in one side the first sound of the bell and in the other was the first fall on the ring, well New Hampshire could show is the first knockout and if the trend progress as fast as I am perceiving we may see in Nevada the first Throwing in a towel of a heavy weight in this campaign.

By the time we arrive to South Carolina we could be witnessing the end of a legend, one of the great myths inflated along this campaign through millions invested in advertising day and night through the media could be reaching its very final moments when it was never expected.


The Establishment is right now fighting at the defensive, for instance the decision of the media to Boycott the presence of some candidates in New Hampshire on the TV debates, like it is the case of Carly Fiorina, reveals how desperate is the situation of the two favorites to try to force the votes to support them.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 2/5/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

My last moment intuition is saying to me that this Tuesday we are going to have also surprises in the primary of New Hampshire as we had in the caucus of Iowa.

I feel first at all that Carly Fiorina is going to have a much better performance that what it is expected of a candidate that was not even allowed to take part of the debate.

Second, I feel that the numbers published in the last polls are also highly manipulated, don't trust on those polls saying that somebody is going to have a landslide victory in New Hampshire among the Republicans, that is not the case at all, there is going to be again a shorter distance in between the first and second in the Republican side than what they claim and even there will be a third one not so far from those two, the votes are going to be better shared than all what is right now said by the media.

Now, in the Democratic side I have the impression that New Hampshire is strongly divided in between Sanders and Clinton, and this could be the great opportunity to show that what happened in Iowa was not an isolated scenario, I have even the feeling that tomorrow Clinton is going to receive a cold shower on her head, she is going to realize how tied is this going to be and the real measure of the risk to even repeat the story of 2008.

Again my message for the electors is don't let the polls to guide your decision, don't let them to also discourage you, vote with your minds focused in what you really consider better for the country, to choose the best possible candidate, somebody with the real experience, the maturity, the kind of propositions that are reachable, don't fall in the game of the populism, we all know what is attainable, what is realistic, so look for the serious programs, the ones that can push the country forward in unity, without exacerbating social confrontations but always looking for the common welfare. Remember in the moment of voting you are alone with your conscious, the aggressive propaganda machine can't enter to vote with you.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness



edit on 2/8/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Dear Readers,

At this so early hour of the evening with only 12% of the official results but a lot of data from exit polls, It seems that Hillary Clinton Campaign is starting to feel panic, it is clear that this time She is not going to make it, as it happened in Iowa.

Pls read: conservativeintel.com...

Moreover Clinton will be behind Sanders not for less than 1% as she got with a lot of tossing coins in the air in Iowa the previous week, here in New Hampshire instead the difference will be really ample to the level of landslide, so indeed the really cold shower I predicted she was going to receive tonight.

Now, in the Republican side it seems we are going to have various candidates running tied although all of them behind Trump, who is likely to get 1/3 of the primary votes, but behind of Clinton's score. The 2nd place will be John Kasich and in the third one we are going to have a fight among Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio will be at least fifth place. Chris Christie a candidates that went to the 8th debate after spent a lot of money in NH will be close in votes to Fiorina, any of the two could be sixth.

Please check: www.wmur.com...

Carly Fiorina although banned by ABC will appear scored much better than what it was expected, running at least in seventh place, over Dr.Ben Carson, who also attended the 8th debate and will be 8th in this primary.

Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore and Lindsey Graham will be the candidates I predicted are likely to drop from the race soon after this night.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness



edit on 2/9/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join