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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Main stream media pushes misleading polls to show Hillary won second debate

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Anyone who watched the debate knows that he failed.


Geez, I watched, and I don't know that.


Ok.
*Anyone with moderate intelligence who watched the debate knows that he failed.
Maybe you don't know that.

Well, there's the truth. Those of "moderate" intelligence knows he failed.

Those with more than moderate intelligence, like myself, didn't know that.


I guess I should have clarified for types like you, that I was inferring that anyone with moderate intelligence (or more) who watched the debate knows that he failed.
(Rolls eyes)




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
Fox news gets it!!!



Don't you just know, he's not just about wrecking a political system that people are disenchanted with because of, [fill this space] it's about wrecking politics Et Al, and should he go the whole hog, it will be more like a Dictatorship...it will be a fecking Dictatorship! and Dictators, have a habit of spreading their wings.
His perceived naivety about Syria is dangerous, or perhaps even disingenuous when there is so much misinformation going on in MSM reporting there, that is so dodgy that most people can pick up on it, however when it comes to Russia, and Syria, like it or not one of the most important items on the agenda, he knows nothing hence,
Trump said that he had not discussed the matter with Pence and did not agree (Pence said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength) and elsewhere to Clinton on Hacking knows nothing about Russia.
So, regardless of what the right thing to do would be in those areas, Trump knows nothing, or has not discussed it, and doesn't agree anyway. That alone is worth the IgNobel prize.

edit on 10-10-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BiffWellington

originally posted by: underwerks
Not saying I trust polls, but I can understand why people would think Hillary won. Not everybody gets Trumps rambling word salad with no specific answers about anything.


What do you mean? He was asked a question about his purported fisting of unsuspecting women, and he gave a perfectly straightforward and unrelated answer about ISIS.

I don't see the problem.

Haha exactly.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Anyone who watched the debate knows that he failed.


Geez, I watched, and I don't know that.


Ok.
*Anyone with moderate intelligence who watched the debate knows that he failed.
Maybe you don't know that.

Well, there's the truth. Those of "moderate" intelligence knows he failed.

Those with more than moderate intelligence, like myself, didn't know that.


I guess I should have clarified for types like you, that I was inferring that anyone with moderate intelligence (or more) who watched the debate knows that he failed.
(Rolls eyes)


I think you dug a hole for yourself and got outfoxed there buddy. It's ok we don't judge here.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah it's a little disheartening that they don't just adjust for the skew even though they do always announce it when they announce the poll results (on CNN) and it's in the PDF with the results.

The sources that quote the results often leave that very important part out which makes the CNN/ORC poll look less credible. I haven't looked at the YouGov poll so I'm not sure what's going on there, I'll have to check it out.


This is how disgusting the mainstream media is. They are so desperate to make it seem as if Trump doesn't have a chance that they mislead people about the results of the very polls they say are legitimate.


Define "mainstream media"


Fox News - Fox News Channel ratings top all cable networks for first time (Mar 30, 2016)


The news channel, which has spent the past 14 years outstripping its cable news competition, this time bested all cable comers. In primetime, the network logged 2.37M viewers (up 26%), and 483K of them falling into the key news demo of viewers 25-54 years (up 50%). FNC’s total viewer take routed CNN’s 1.4M and MSNBC’s 888K.


That would be top of all cable networks, not just "cable news." CNN actually dethroned Fox in prime time viewers for the first time in 14 years the very next month (April). Here you can see the average total viewership, Dec. 28, 2015- March 27, 2016:

Variety - Fox News Tops All of Cable Viewership for Quarter; CNN Up Triple-Digits in Primetime


Total Viewers …… 2016 ……… 2015 ………… Difference
Fox News ……….. 2.400m …. 1.754m ………….. +37%
CNN ………………. 1.435m ….. 548k …………. +162%
MSNBC ………….. 902k ……. 547k …………… +65%


That's 50.9% of the market which is actually down from around I believe it was 64% in 2013-2014. There's no point in me even pulling the data for talk radio. Conservative radio is absolutely dominated by conservative hosts. Last I hunted down the numbers we were talking something like 85-86% market share I think? Now further consider that the number one show on Fox is what? Hannity? Is Hannity still #2 in talk radio behind Limbaugh? He's a) not a journalist by his own admission and b) campaigning for Trump.

At any rate, where liberals win out is in newspapers by large margin. Draw whatever inference you want from that (
). The broadcast network news trends liberal but they traditionally tend to be more neutral though this cross pollenation with MSNBC has probably pulled NBC to the left considerably more than it was years ago. The thing is, the big three broadcasters provide a limited amount of news programming compared to 24 hour "cable news." I don't know who is keeping track of news sites on the web — I'm sure somebody is — but it's nothing I've cared to read up on.

My point is the "liberal mainstream media" is largely a myth. Don't even get me going on "alternative media" which like talk radio is utterly dominated by the right (Breitbart, Infowars, WND, Daily Caller, etc) and thanks to Drudge, news blogs like The Gateway Pundit and The Conservative Treehouse (actually part of Breitbart IIRC) are hugely more influential than they have right being considering they are 100% garbage propaganda machines.

Granted the newspapers have really started going after Trump in the last 5-6 months, particularly Washington Post and New York Times but they're not the entirety of the "mainstream."



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WilburnRoach
Notice a shift since Ailes was fired?


Certainly a curious guy, certainly crafty. I watched an interview he did a while back, and it seemed that everything he said he wasn't he really was, De Facto because of those many people who appear long standing on Fox who are far more rabid than he himself declares he is. In some ways that means that you or I need to listen, simply because of the way things are presented...as long as the presentation is convincing enough that is.

You can make your own mind up about that.
The interview I think is totally relevant here.
edit on 10-10-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Gary Johnson likely won last nights debate, honestly.

It was terrible seeing 2 senior citizens debase themselves (and our country in the process) so badly on national TV. Even worse was the pandering "moderators" who obviously wanted to grind their axe with Donald. It got to where the 2 of them and Hillary seemed to be teaming up to ridicule him.

The whole thing was a disgusting circus.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Anyone who watched the debate knows that he failed.


Geez, I watched, and I don't know that.


Ok.
*Anyone with moderate intelligence who watched the debate knows that he failed.
Maybe you don't know that.

Well, there's the truth. Those of "moderate" intelligence knows he failed.

Those with more than moderate intelligence, like myself, didn't know that.


I guess I should have clarified for types like you, that I was inferring that anyone with moderate intelligence (or more) who watched the debate knows that he failed.
(Rolls eyes)


I think you dug a hole for yourself and got outfoxed there buddy. It's ok we don't judge here.


Hillary winning will be reward enough for me : )



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Instead of "reporting" the news, the top-echelon of the MSM attempt to SHAPE today's news, to influence the near future. In the case of polls, they create Pro-Clinton "scientific" polls, in an attempt to get more voters for Clinton. The polls are nothing more than an extension of what the MSM is doing every day to push for Hillary's election.

If Donald loses by a little bit, I'm hoping that he puts together a website of products that we shouldn't buy. Products that CNN advertises. CNN is the worse. (MSNBC is anti-Trump too, but they admit it.)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




I'm hoping that he puts together a website of products that we shouldn't buy. Products that CNN advertises.

Why do you need Donny to do that for you?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Instead of "reporting" the news, the top-echelon of the MSM attempt to SHAPE today's news, to influence the near future. In the case of polls, they create Pro-Clinton "scientific" polls, in an attempt to get more voters for Clinton. The polls are nothing more than an extension of what the MSM is doing every day to push for Hillary's election.

If Donald loses by a little bit, I'm hoping that he puts together a website of products that we shouldn't buy. Products that CNN advertises. CNN is the worse. (MSNBC is anti-Trump too, but they admit it.)


It's unimaginable to you that most people don't like Donald Trump, huh? And I had to lol at someone asking for snake oil Trump to tell them what products to buy in protest.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Instead of "reporting" the news, the top-echelon of the MSM attempt to SHAPE today's news, to influence the near future. In the case of polls, they create Pro-Clinton "scientific" polls, in an attempt to get more voters for Clinton. The polls are nothing more than an extension of what the MSM is doing every day to push for Hillary's election.

If Donald loses by a little bit, I'm hoping that he puts together a website of products that we shouldn't buy. Products that CNN advertises. CNN is the worse. (MSNBC is anti-Trump too, but they admit it.)


It's unimaginable to you that most people don't like Donald Trump, huh? And I had to lol at someone asking for snake oil Trump to tell them what products to buy in protest.


Funny, you and other say that. But apparently the main stream media had to post misleading polls to try and prove that.

You know the polls they said were the standard, that we should follow. That actually showed sure Dems like Hillary, Repubs like Trump, and Independents favored Trump.

So apparently its unimaginable to you that most people don't like Hillary Clinton, and the main stream media has to mislead people about the results of polls to cover up this fact.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Instead of "reporting" the news, the top-echelon of the MSM attempt to SHAPE today's news, to influence the near future. In the case of polls, they create Pro-Clinton "scientific" polls, in an attempt to get more voters for Clinton. The polls are nothing more than an extension of what the MSM is doing every day to push for Hillary's election.

If Donald loses by a little bit, I'm hoping that he puts together a website of products that we shouldn't buy. Products that CNN advertises. CNN is the worse. (MSNBC is anti-Trump too, but they admit it.)


It's unimaginable to you that most people don't like Donald Trump, huh? And I had to lol at someone asking for snake oil Trump to tell them what products to buy in protest.


Funny, you and other say that. But apparently the main stream media had to post misleading polls to try and prove that.

You know the polls they said were the standard, that we should follow. That actually showed sure Dems like Hillary, Repubs like Trump, and Independents favored Trump.

So apparently its unimaginable to you that most people don't like Hillary Clinton, and the main stream media has to mislead people about the results of polls to cover up this fact.

Not unimaginable, just not reality. I agree that the majority of people in the news media despise Trump and it's to be expected given the way he treats them.

Trump has cast himself as the perpetual victim so anytime he's called out for anything or disagrees with how something is going he pulls out the liberal media conspiracy card.

Not to say that polls aren't rigged, but in this case I don't think they have to worry about doing that.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Grambler



Both sides of the MSM distort polls heavily. What would be interesting to see is the average of an equal amount of left and right news organizations. That would probably give us the closest true numbers.

But Trump won, imo. For the sole reason that his campaign was hanging on a thread and he bounced back high from that debate.


Too bad polls don't matter.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

You see this electorate map that does?

Clinton needs 10 electorates to win. Trump needs 105.

Basic math-
Trump has only been 1 point ahead of Clinton the entire race in Florida. Pennsylvania he's behind by 8 points. 6 points in MN, 3 points in NC, and if he loses ANY of these states it's a Clinton sweep.

If Clinton won 8 more electorates there won't even be 270 for Donald to Collect.
They'd rather bicker about Popular vote



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks


Not to say that polls aren't rigged, but in this case I don't think they have to worry about doing that.


And yet they did, as the OP shows.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Ah Yes...the good ol' "THE POLLS ARE SKEWED" excuse.

Guess what...the polls aren't skewed, they mirror reality.

Question, do you really think the voting population is split 50% Democratic and 50% Republican?

If not, why do you think polls should have equal representation?


Here is a good article about the polls and that they aren't skewed...maybe your should read up on it before you post on the topic.

The Polls Aren’t Skewed


We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.

If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.
...
But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.



So, in short...this is an old trick tried by Republicans. They love polls when it shows they are winning...hey even Donald Trump admits that. But once it shows them losing...they have this insane need to make up an excuse. Saying the polls are "skewed" is one of these insane excuses.


So sorry, Trump lost the debate as all the official polls show.


I get it though...Trump won to YOU...he was talking to YOU, his supporters, because he had to appeal to them so he didn't lose their support too. So to you, Trump won...and to all his most devoted supporters, he won. But to everyone else, he lost...it wasn't even close.

Here's some advice, your opinion doesn't always match reality. And instead of trying to change reality, you should just accept that you are in the minority.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Grambler

Ah Yes...the good ol' "THE POLLS ARE SKEWED" excuse.

Guess what...the polls aren't skewed, they mirror reality.

Question, do you really think the voting population is split 50% Democratic and 50% Republican?

If not, why do you think polls should have equal representation?


Here is a good article about the polls and that they aren't skewed...maybe your should read up on it before you post on the topic.

The Polls Aren’t Skewed


We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.

If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.
...
But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.


This article says nothing. It merely says that more people idenitify as Democrat than republican usually.

The two polls mentioned on this thread didn't sample 4 or 5% more than Republicans like your article is mentioning.

The cnn poll had 58%, get that, 58% percent of people that before the debate said they were voting for Hillary. That means that even if every other person polled was backing Trump before the debate, that is a 16% differnece. This is skewed, period.

The end result had 57% of people that thought Hillary won. That means that she lost 1% when it cames to how people felt going into the debate.

The yougov poll is even worse. It shows repubs liked Trump, Dems liked Hillary, and indepenents liked Trump.

Yu can spin all you want, but the numbers are plane to see.

You think that there is no problem having way more democrats polled than Republicans. So how far can this be skewed until you think there is a problam. If they poll 1000 people, and 995 are dems, you are ok with that, right?

This is such a joke.



So, in short...this is an old trick tried by Republicans. They love polls when it shows they are winning...hey even Donald Trump admits that. But once it shows them losing...they have this insane need to make up an excuse. Saying the polls are "skewed" is one of these insane excuses.


I have pointed out exactly how these two polls were skewed, showing their own numbers. Do you honestly think a poll that has 58% democrats that showed 57% of people thought Hillary won is proof that Hillary won the debate?



So sorry, Trump lost the debate as all the official polls show.


I get it though...Trump won to YOU...he was talking to YOU, his supporters, because he had to appeal to them so he didn't lose their support too. So to you, Trump won...and to all his most devoted supporters, he won. But to everyone else, he lost...it wasn't even close.

Here's some advice, your opinion doesn't always match reality. And instead of trying to change reality, you should just accept that you are in the minority.


You can choose to be delusional if you want.

I showed the exact numbers for this poll. 53% of independents thought Trump won this debate, to only 29% for Hillary.

Do you deny this?

This is what your "official" poll shows. You can ignore these facts if you want, but don't call me delusional. Unlike you, I took the time to go through the demographics on these polls and post the actual data from them, rather than just parroting what the mainstream media says.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




This is skewed, period.


The polls aren't skewed, sorry.

This is a desperation move, just like it was for Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008.

Reality is "skewed" towards liberals/democrats...that is just the world we live in.


You can live in your fantasy reality, thinking Trump is winning, the media is skewing the polls, and everything you think is fact.

But come November 8th, you are going to have to come up with another excuse (don't worry...THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED and VOTER FRAUD will be waiting for you).



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg shared research with key members of the Clinton campaign, newly released emails show.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Yeah looks like all media is in the bag for "boss tweed" hillary clinton.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Most of your confusion is that Republicans 'swing' their votes. It's the opposite.

Republicans vote out of conditioning to institutions. It's only once you're part of several of these institutions that being Republican even is beneficial.

Take marriage, Women are mostly Democrat as a full base, however when you inspect Single vs Married Women vote, there is a huge discrepancy.

Essentially many women that become Married, swing their vote to their Republican husbands.

Most of this same 'conditioning' logic follows with the Military, Church and even some parts of Government itself.

Republican is a status. Democrat is a vote.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join