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

Real time Facebook presidential poll shows a completely different story than mainstream media polls

page: 20
119
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: liammc

originally posted by: Greggers

When Trump loses, will you come back and acknowledge that scientifically conducted polls use reliable methodology, while Facebook polls have no statistical relevance?
A scientific poll?

Do you mean a complicated poll? There is no science needed in a #ing vote haha.


Our educational system has failed spectacularly....


Yes it has... ever since the liberal agenda took over the curriculum.


I was not aware there was an agenda against basic statistics.




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elepheagle
This thread (and all the crap like it, whether written, spoken) is why I've thrown up my hands, said **** it, and am voting for Clinton, who I detest with a passion. I simply can no longer placate the greater stupidity & ignorance, which is heavily concentrated on the Drumpf side.

Dear god, one doesn't even need to take a probability and statistics course to gain a basic understanding of how random sampling works. Confirmation bias, might want to look into that too.

This all said, we've got some soul-searching to do.


The only part of your post I believe is that you detest Clinton. Admit it... you're a hardcore democrat who can't believe your friggin mind that your candidate is actually her. But, oh well, you have to vote party.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Well, I am not his friend, never heard of him, and live in one of the most liberal places in the country, the seattle area. I voted Trump on his wall. I have seen just a handful, if that, of Hillary signs here locally. I have seen about 10 times more Trump signs. This is in a very blue part of the country. I think this poll has a ton of credence and is accurate.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

The Trump supporters I know are super active on facebook posting anti Hillary stuff all day..

The Hillary people dont do anything. They think Trump is an idiot and has no chance so they see no sense in being very vocal or taking polls.




The real reason isn't because they think Trump has no chance. The real reason is because they have no enthusiasm. There is nothing about Hillary Clinton to be enthused about.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

In the beginning of this race, yes the mainstream media was biased. They employed a false equivalency. They were so obsessed with appearing non-bias that they over-covered Hillary scandals and under-covered Trump's daily insanity in an erroneous bid at objectivity.



Wait, wait, wait. let me stop you right there. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post. Let me get this right. Did you just say that the mainstream media over-covered Hillary scandals? You have now lost all credibility to say another word in this thread.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Prog world of course SJW champion and Hillary's lap dog...thinking she's right at all ...



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Check this out:

Google Analytics on Search Interest for Trump Vs. Clinton

Trump is the popular search in literally every state, some by as much as 2x.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Rezlooper
not to burst your bubble but all polls are totally unreliable and the popular vote is not what elects president it is the electoral college votes and they can vote what ever way they want.


If the electoral college went totally against the will of the people, you would see a huge revolt. This would include people voting out every incumbent in office.


LITERALLY...The electoral college went against the will of the people in 2004. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college.


Really? It was in 2000. And the electoral college went the way they were supposed to vote, by the popular vote per their state.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Rezlooper
not to burst your bubble but all polls are totally unreliable and the popular vote is not what elects president it is the electoral college votes and they can vote what ever way they want.


If the electoral college went totally against the will of the people, you would see a huge revolt. This would include people voting out every incumbent in office.


LITERALLY...The electoral college went against the will of the people in 2004. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college.


Really? It was in 2000. And the electoral college went the way they were supposed to vote, by the popular vote per their state.


Hey, you and I agree on something.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Greggers

The media Is not scientific either.


Define "Media"?
Fox Online Polls? FB? Twitter? Drudge?
Or Monmouth University? Marist College? Quinnipac University? Public Policy Institute? Ipsos?

"Media" is a catch-all these days for any reality people don't like and refuse to accept.




Universities are the breeding grounds of liberalism so you surely haven't gained any traction there. They all work together.
edit on 27-10-2016 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: MiloTheMarauder
I bet 100 million dollhairs that Hillary gets POTUS. Not like Facebook is any more a decent sampling size than wherever MSM gets their polls from. I don't have nor want a Facebook page.


Legitimate polling organizations poll RANDOMLY, with sample sizes that give reliable margin of error.

Facebook polls measure whoever voluntarily shows up to take the poll.

Big difference.


Yes, especially when dealing with facebook's predicting software. Naturally, trump supporters would be advertised a "survey" in favor of Trump.

Actual reliable surveys will attempt to control those erroneous variables



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: KyoZero
Ok I am voting Hillary. I currently have 159 people on my friends list. I know of 3-4 people who are relatively die hard for Trump. This is easy to know because of post history, and the fact that in many cases, the few others who tore me apart for posting something Democrat related were removed by me. But let's make the numbers easy. We'll say I have 100 friends on FB. 90 are Hillary and 10 are Trump. Now because I have sch a massive overload of H supporters in comparison to T, there are some factors to look at.



That's so strange. 80%+ of the people on my FB friend list have not expressed a political preference and seem to steer clear of talking politics on FB.

Also, FB does not alert me to my FB friends' political preferences.

Unless a friend posts an apparent preference, I have no idea what their preference is. There's no way to surround myself with like-minded political-thinkers on FB. There's no way for you to surround yourself with like-minded political thinkers on FB...unless you are actively reaching out and asking every single person who sends you a FB friend request (and vice versa).

I'm of the opinion that only sick-minded people try to find out, before becoming FB friends or for the purpose of 'cleansing' their friend list, if the person shares the same political views.

I've never been asked by anyone what my political views are for the purposes of rejection or 'cleansing.'

Your train of thought on this is absurd.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

yeah? And that could mean that people want to hear whatever BS that Trump is spouting that day. What's your point in this?

Did you scroll past the first plotter?

His top searches are Women (which makes sense since he has said some REAL vile things about women), Immigration at 3rd place (which makes sense because he has said then softened some nasty statements on immigration), and Guns at 5th (which makes sense as well because the trend would likely be that Trump supporters are falsely worried because of some BS belief that Hillary will take our guns)

Now don't get me wrong, I am not guaranteeing that each of these top 5 Trump related searches are all based on my statements above, but the point is, when someone is real forward and either universally loved OR hated, they will get searches.

For example...trending question 3 regarding Trump is how old his wife is. Wow...riveting political discourse there. His 4th related search was Saturday Night Live...millions of people loved watching Alec Baldwin goof on Trump.

Point is, he speaks his sometimes ugly statements, has a gorgeous wife, and is tore up by Baldwin on SNL...every one of those searches will have his name in it...hence, heavier searches for Trump.

Again this is not all 100% guaranteed but can easily explain the uprise in searches over Hillary.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

So you refuse to accept anything about this can be flawed?

Deny ignorance not embrace it.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: panaque

It is funny how many people on this site live in the most liberal part if the country and say they see all these signs for Trump.

I live in So Cal, more specifically east county San Diego and I don't see jack for either.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: KyoZero
Ok I am voting Hillary. I currently have 159 people on my friends list. I know of 3-4 people who are relatively die hard for Trump. This is easy to know because of post history, and the fact that in many cases, the few others who tore me apart for posting something Democrat related were removed by me. But let's make the numbers easy. We'll say I have 100 friends on FB. 90 are Hillary and 10 are Trump. Now because I have sch a massive overload of H supporters in comparison to T, there are some factors to look at.



That's so strange. 80%+ of the people on my FB friend list have not expressed a political preference and seem to steer clear of talking politics on FB.

Also, FB does not alert me to my FB friends' political preferences.

Unless a friend posts an apparent preference, I have no idea what their preference is. There's no way to surround myself with like-minded political-thinkers on FB. There's no way for you to surround yourself with like-minded political thinkers on FB...unless you are actively reaching out and asking every single person who sends you a FB friend request (and vice versa).

I'm of the opinion that only sick-minded people try to find out, before becoming FB friends or for the purpose of 'cleansing' their friend list, if the person shares the same political views.

I've never been asked by anyone what my political views are for the purposes of rejection or 'cleansing.'

Your train of thought on this is absurd.


Are you kidding me? All I said was I knew the absolute preference of 3-4 die hard Trump supporters

And knowing the preferences of my friends list is RIDICULOUSLY EASY. It's really close to polling day. I have many friends who are university students, which tends towards liberalism as well as outspokenness, and I happen to have a good deal of friends who are heavy into live protesting.

Now you can certainly disagree with my friends' actions and I support your freedom to think so, but spare me your pseudo-analysis of my Facebook situation. I didn't 'cleanse' my friend list because I went around and asked, but you'd know that if you actually read my post. I said of the few cases, I deleted them because they "tore me apart" for posting something.

I'll break it down to make it easier...

I POSTED SOMETHING....They saw it...tore me apart and got real personal...I deleted them...BECAUSE they made it personal and got ugly. Simple enough?

And I don't need an alert to know preferences...it's pretty simple to scroll the wall and see that this person posted this and this person posted that...etc.

There is ABSOLUTELY a way to surround yourself with like minded thinkers on FB. It's exceptionally easy. I'll break this down for you too

((And let me caution since I know you'll skip this...I am not agreeing that this is a way to live your social media life....just pointing out how absurdly easy it is to do it))

Step 1: Find like minded individuals in real life and make them friends.
Step 2: Delete all friends who post other opinions against yours
Step 3: If you find someone is changing or switched positions, also delete

Boom...you know have a FB wall of nothing but like-minded people.

Again...so I can make sure you see tis...I am not saying it's healthy...but quit pretending it isn't possible. I agree it is sick-minded to do it...but it is easy as pie.

so....I'll have to resort back to your half/half insult and say that YOUR mindset on this is absurd seeing as I never claimed I did the above steps...it just fell this way and I only deleted those few because they personally attacked me

Questions?
edit on 27-10-2016 by KyoZero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes but if I am being honest, my OPINION (lest anyone report me) is that member are panicking because actual polls (which are very admittedly flawed) are showing the opposite result which is a Hillary win



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You understand search 'interest' isn't interest? It's how often they are searched. Both of those statistics are literally paramount to people looking up dirt on them. No one types "Trump" into the searchbar looking for stories as a method of news. They have forums and YouTube for that. They're investigating him.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

OCCUPIED territories DO that in DNC Enclaves.
YOU have NO idea whom we are,outside of your cloistered state and it's raving lawmakers.
NO IDEA of how many numbers we have and less ideas on Tea Party politics.
The RNC,DNC and MEDIA were on our butts with what THEY insisted we are (LIKE YOU are thinking of doing) so WE throw TRUMP at them.
AND the desperate LIES flow from the SJW crowd as the witch melts down from Wikileaks from hackers who MAYBE agree.
ALL you got to deflect is Russia.

Nothing there either.

edit on 27-10-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Rezlooper
not to burst your bubble but all polls are totally unreliable and the popular vote is not what elects president it is the electoral college votes and they can vote what ever way they want.


If the electoral college went totally against the will of the people, you would see a huge revolt. This would include people voting out every incumbent in office.


LITERALLY...The electoral college went against the will of the people in 2004. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college.


Really? It was in 2000. And the electoral college went the way they were supposed to vote, by the popular vote per their state.


Do you realize some states allow the electoral votes to be given to any candidate the electoral vote rep wants, even if it doesn't reflect the votes from their state?




The Constitution and federal law do not require electors to abide by the results of the popular vote in their states, so occasionally “faithless electors” go rogue and cast ballots for candidates other than the one to whom they are pledged. A slight majority of states require electors to cast their votes as pledged, although no “faithless elector” has ever been prosecuted.


Source



new topics

top topics



 
119
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join