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.

 

Lets Get Ready to Rumble!!!! (Trump Vs Clinton) Tonight 9pm ET, 6pm PT Debate #1

page: 81
63
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I believe the polls have trump as the winner.


Which polls? Media reports and political analysts across the board are showing Clinton as the winner.



So wait, all of the online polls are from biased people, but the main stream media that is unabashedly pro HIllary are who we should trust?



Call the psychic hotline. I hear they are good and it's only .99 cents for the first 5 minutes. LOL!


edit on 27-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Facts are only facts when you agree with them.

Quite remarkable.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Polls will never accurately show who won a debate, just who someones chosen candidate is. If I go into a debate already being a Clinton supporter, chances are I am going to view her more favorably than her opponent. Polls schmolls.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: kruphix



Do you really not understand why you shouldn't trust an online poll?


Of course I understand that. My point is what can we trust? The scientific polls have been way off in the primaries and Brexit, and now they are all over the place, so what can we trust.

Again keep in mind, I think Trump lost this debate, but I can see how other may disagree. So I am just trying to find out what the general consensus was. Is it that some people spammed the online polls, maybe, but it could also be that most people thought trump won, or more likely it is a combination of the two.

I just am asking questions as to why it seems that the supposedly older more uneducated Trump supporters seem to out pace Hillary ones in almost every online platform such as polls, facebook, twitter, etc. (not to mention at rallys and such). BUt I am with you Kruphix I am not taking these polls as gospel, but neither do I take the scientific polls seriously.


The polls were not off in the primaries...I just gave you a link to show that.

You can probably chalk the online polling up to enthusiasm. It happens every election year, it's what I've been telling you. Conservatives are way more enthusiastic about their candidate...and they seem to suffer from a need for others to agree with them (confirmation bias).

More enthusiasm doesn't make your vote count anymore on Nov. 8th.


The reason you shouldn't trust online polling is because they are easy to manipulate. Give me an online poll, 10 minutes or so, and I'll have an AutoHotKey script voting once every second for any option you want. Doesn't matter if they use browser history, cookies, or IP address to restrict it to one vote per person...all of those are easily bypassed. Websites that make you create an account are a little more accurate, but not much...just a larger more sophisticated script is needed.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: kruphix

Facts are only facts when you agree with them.

Quite remarkable.


Nope, facts are static.

I'm not the one trying to say that scientific polling isn't trustworthy.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   


The queen has spoken! Bring out the Kraken!
edit on 27-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Here is some actual polling for the debate.


www.cnn.com...


Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night's debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.



So there you have it, Hillary is polling better than Trump in regards to who won the debate.

Not a surprise for anyone who watched the debate and is rational.
edit on 27-9-2016 by kruphix because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
Here is some actual polling for the debate.


www.cnn.com...


Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night's debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.



So there you have it, Hillary is polling better than Trump in regards to who want the debate.

Not a surprise for anyone who watched the debate and is rational.


CNN, really? That elitist walled sanctuary for Hillary. No surprise they have her ahead. wink wink, nudge, nudge.

My poll says you're wrong.



Source
edit on 27-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix
Well for starters Gallup had Romney winning the election in 2012 by 2 points, and he lost by 5 million votes. That is abysmal. Plus they screwed up the 2014 midterms badly, and the primaries with Bernie.


In the months before the 2012 presidential election, an average of leading polls showed a virtual tie between Obama and Mitt Romney, and some — notably Gallup — predicted a narrow Romney victory (see below). Instead, the president easily won re-election, by 5 million votes and a 51.1 percent to 47.2 percent margin. Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it "among the greatest polling errors in primary history."


theweek.com...

Here is an article that explains why these scientific polls are horrible.


As much as Wagner and Shor were following the political horse race itself, they were also watching to see how the race’s oddsmakers were doing. The US polling industry has been suffering a crisis of insight over the past decade or so; its methods have become increasingly bad at telling which way America is leaning. Like nearly everyone who works in politics, Wagner and Shor knew the polling establishment was liable to embarrass itself this year. It wasn’t a question of if, but when—and how badly.

It didn’t take long to find out. About 10 days before the Iowa caucuses in February, two major polls came out: One put Hillary Clinton ahead by 29 points; the other, as if it were tracking an entirely different race, showed Bernie Sanders leading by eight. In the Republican contest, Donald Trump topped the state’s final 10 polls and averaged a seven-point advantage. On the night of the caucus itself, the Civis office in Chicago was crowded with staffers gathered around a big flatscreen TV for a viewing party. They all watched as Clinton—and Ted Cruz—won the state.


www.wired.com...-2

Here is a New York Times dealing with the crisis of these polls getting worse and worse.

www.nytimes.com...

Now with this election we see scientific polls in the same week having huge swings. It is common knowledge that this polling is getting worse and worse, hence the articles I posted.

Feel free to read the articles and prove the actual pollsters that are in them saying there is a crisis with polling as it is today, and they are desperately trying to fix it.

But you can ignore all of this evidence and use whichever confirmation bias you want.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Your poll reflects the passionate hatred that so many people have for Hillary. It's like Donald won by default. If he had punched moderator Lester Holt in the nose, Donald still would have won, because he'd still be more likeable than Hillary. At this point, that's pretty much what's driving Donald's climb in the overall polls. Hillary is haggard, condescending, fake and arrogant.



My personal opinion is that people felt sucker-punched by what Obama said before he got elected and what he actually did. Hillary just seemed more of the same. People are so fed up they are willing to roll the dice and try Donald. It certainly didn't help for her to play the sexist misogyny card so often while campaigning. In real life you see men and women tearing each other up over her words. I think that soured some people on her, maybe the swing votes.


To be honest, Obama DID accomplish many of the things he promised. But like Trump pointed out tonight, Obama and Hillary's accomplishments didn't make things any better. In many cases (i.e. ISIS, Food Stamps, Debt, etc.) they made things worse.

To complicate matters, Republican voters are pissed-off at the Republicans in power. Republican candidates promised to fight Obamacare, and other Obama initiatives that increased the national debt. Those candidates were put into office nationwide, by landslides, in 2010 and 2012. After the 2010 mid-term Republican sweep, President Obama famously said that Democrats got their arses kicked. (or something like that)

What did the Republicans do with their new House and Senate majorities? Absolutely NOTHING that they promised to do! If those spineless-wonders hadn't cowered before Obama and given him most everything he asked for, Donald Trump would have been one of the first Republican candidates to go bye-bye during the primaries. Ted Cruz (most likely) would be the nominee. He'd do MUCH BETTER against Hillary than Donald Trump. But, Ted was not an "outsider"... so here we are.

I hope Donald Trump now knows that he needs to find a smart, mean woman to practice against before the next debate. He'll do fine if he can control his ego's desire to snip back at Hillary and to cram 4 or 5 points into a 2 minute time span. He doesn't need to be boring like Hillary, but a bit more Presidential and authoritarian in his answers will go a long way.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
To be honest, there wasn't much substance in this debate. It was more about trading insults and accusations.

I hope they both step up their game in the next one.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

Good for them both to get the tension out early



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I believe the polls have trump as the winner.


Which polls? Media reports and political analysts across the board are showing Clinton as the winner.



NYCBS Polls. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.



Source


Online polls are completely unscientific (as this poll even admits) and don't prove anything, which is why they're not cited by political analysts.

Try again.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


I agree.

I want to see #2.

This was interesting to say the least.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
To be fair I think Hillary had a well-prepared zinger that she played while the clock was running out so Trump couldn't have a comeback. Timing was well played. My guess is that one was rehearsed quite a bit.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Gallup didn't have Romney winning.

It would seem I would have to teach you about margin of error, trending, statistical modeling, and the way Gallups final poll demographics lined up. But I can't do that, like I said before. But here is a little something for you to look at...gallups final poll of likely voters had 3% still undecided...factor in the margin of error and that...and how much did Obama actually win by?


The polling is fine if you actually know how to read them and understand the mathematics behind them.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I believe the polls have trump as the winner.


Which polls? Media reports and political analysts across the board are showing Clinton as the winner.



NYCBS Polls. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.



Source


Online polls are completely unscientific (as this poll even admits) and don't prove anything, which is why they're not cited by political analysts.

Try again.


Oh sure. You don't like my numbers because it doesn't fit into your viewpoint!?

Then call the Psychic hotline. It's probably better than your numbers too.




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I believe the polls have trump as the winner.


Which polls? Media reports and political analysts across the board are showing Clinton as the winner.



NYCBS Polls. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.



Source


Online polls are completely unscientific (as this poll even admits) and don't prove anything, which is why they're not cited by political analysts.

Try again.


Yeah and if we put 10,000 monkeys on 10,000 typewriters, one of them would write "War and Peace". So what.

Forget the anal cysts. The polls have spoken. Trump in a landslide. It'll be Yuge!!

Forgive me. I played the Hillary "Smarmy Comment" drinking game during the debates and I'm hammered.
edit on 27-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: I'm hammered



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Grambler

Gallup didn't have Romney winning.

It would seem I would have to teach you about margin of error, trending, statistical modeling, and the way Gallups final poll demographics lined up. But I can't do that, like I said before. But here is a little something for you to look at...gallups final poll of likely voters had 3% still undecided...factor in the margin of error and that...and how much did Obama actually win by?


The polling is fine if you actually know how to read them and understand the mathematics behind them.


I am sorry you are wrong. Please stop trying to educate me and look at the facts.

Here is a link from Gallup, that answers your claim.


President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are within one percentage point of each other in Gallup's final pre-election survey of likely voters, with Romney holding 49% of the vote, and Obama 48%. After removing the 3% of undecided voters from the results and allocating their support proportionally to the two major candidates, Gallup's final allocated estimate of the race is 50% for Romney and 49% for Obama.


You see, they took the 3% you are referncing in account, and added that 3% prportionally to the other candidates. There final results took them into account. The margin of error was 2.


For results based on the total sample of 2,854 registered voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error is ±2 percentage points.


www.gallup.com...

And herte is an article discussing how Gallup was apoligizing for their inaccurate prediction and trying to get better. Notice they don't say, "Technically we were within the margin of error". Instead they acknowledge that the messed up.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ok so I will just take your word that these scientific polls are all gravy and ignore the actual pollsters and others that look at this stuff in the links that I posted that show they have been routinely wrong lately and are getting worse.

Perhaps you will be so kind as to call those people in my links and teach them how to actually read polls.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Probably because you're taking up for a moron every single chance you get. Just stop already.




top topics



 
63
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join