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: 6
119
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
It's cute how you guys say the polls are rigged to put Clinton ahead. I think the polls are boosting Donald to make him not look so far behind and give the illusion of a 'race'. Prove me wrong.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jburg6

Its not: A legitimate or scientific accurate poll.


It is: A damn good indication of what normal people think



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper



Your approach to believe anything this government or media tells you is laughable


How did you come to that conclusion from my post?



The media has been proven over and over again to be totally bias in this election. A random polling of what is passing 18,000 real people on Facebook is much more trustworthy than the media. The excuse used on Facebook to claim these are Chad Knellers friends is laughable. I doubt he has 18,000 Trump-loving friends.


Ok. You believe that because of confirmation bias. You cannot expect us to believe it as well, when it's nothing more than a popularity poll on a social media site.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Or they have it already rigged.... But because NOBODY wants Hillary...

They let it look like Donald has a chance...

To prevent riots when they inaugurate the one nobody wants.

Prove me wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
There are numerous reasons this doesn't mean anything. People even are defending how 'scientific' facebook is rofl.

Normally when something is polled, it's announced also.

You could easily see the same results if someone cared enough to make a 'clinton' poll and only send the link to their friends.

The people that would see it first, would be your friends, what are the odds he's 90/10 and not 50/50?

Ontop of this, most people that forward and share the link would have similar circumstances.

Then it would be subjugated to the communities it resides in. Is anyone going to argue ATS holds more liberal bias? If not, then this link is even more so furthering it's bias decent. How you cannot connect who shares the link with the results blows my mind.

The fact you have to be 'linked' by a person that's 'voted' should be the biggest clue it's ludicrous to compare to anything and a fraudulent representation. And that's literally just to start with the first thing wrong with it...


Once it's reached 20,000 people, as it has, it's impossible for this poll to remain within the posters circle of friends or type of people. It spiderwebs out beyond anyones control of who is taking this poll. And... at 20,000, it's still over 90 Trump votes to Hillary's single digits. Eventually, wouldn't you think it might start to balance out if America really was in support of Hillary. It should eventually reach her demographics, am I right?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Bookies were 1/10 for UK to stay in the EU. Did they get that one right too? Lol.

He's right bookies normally get it right (98%) of the time but when it comes to politics they are often misinformed....hence slashing odds from 5/1 to 4/10. ..hilary was 1/7 now 1/6.... ( I'm a manager for a bookies)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Informer1958


I am sure you are talking about mainstream media so call reliable methodology, which in my "opinion" is rigged.


If they are rigged, how did they (in aggregate) nail the last election so closely?

The problem is that these allegations of poll rigging go hand and hand with allegations of election rigging, although there is zero evidence of either, a combination which makes it impossible to be wrong.

If the scientific poll is correct, it's just because the ELECTION was rigged.

If the scientific poll is wrong, it's "SEE, I TOLD YOU!"

Statistics is a real branch of mathematics and so far I see no evidence that any major polling institution isn't making some attempt to follow the rules, and most expose their methodology online.


Simple. The last election was rigged too.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

You ever heard of trolling before? Jeez louise....1 born every minute they say right?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
Eventually, wouldn't you think it might start to balance out if America really was in support of Hillary. It should eventually reach her demographics, am I right?


No. This is a simple misinterpretation of scale. I addressed that in the next post.

There are something like 150 million Republicans. 200 millionish Americans use Facebook.

10,000 votes can easily find pockets in such large numbers. It would honestly mean little if the 'poll' got to 1 million people and retained 90%.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

That`s pretty much the same as polling organizations also only people who voluntarily participate in their polls are counted.They don`t tell us how many people,that were called,refused to participate in their poll,otherwise their polls might look something like this:

438 for trump
399 for Clinton
12,894 refused to participate



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


If she wins this election I will be totally convinced that America has been hijacked by the Clinton Cabal and we are all friggin' doomed!


Because of a non-scientific poll conducted on facebook?

That makes no sense.

Kinda like when Hillary was 99% guaranteed to take Bernie In Michigan?

edit on 26-10-2016 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Fine take out anyone not 18, anyone not registered to vote anyone not likely to vote and anyone not a United States citizen.
Get back to us after you adjust the data.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Thank you Donald J Trump for the damage you've done to our system.
Not even elected and already destroying our traditions and processes. Nice going.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Greggers

That`s pretty much the same as polling organizations also only people who voluntarily participate in their polls are counted.They don`t tell us how many people,that were called,refused to participate in their poll,otherwise their polls might look something like this:

438 for trump
399 for Clinton
12,894 refused to participate





The difference is that in scientific polls, the pollsters are the ones selecting from the population so as to ensure a random sample.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: introvert


If she wins this election I will be totally convinced that America has been hijacked by the Clinton Cabal and we are all friggin' doomed!


Because of a non-scientific poll conducted on facebook?

That makes no sense.


Scientific? This poll is much more accurate than these phony polls by the media who you have no idea who they are actually calling.


Perhaps you should attend your local community college to audit a course on basic statistics.


Statistics don't matter if the people doing the polling selectively choose which regions of the country to call, such as the south side of Chicago and Little Havana in Miami.


Any evidence that is happening?


My evidence is this Facebook poll, full of genuine votes from genuine people you can check on to verify their existence, their residence, or whatever else is necessary. They aren't hiding behind "scientific" polling controlled by the controlled mainstream media. Gotta love it... gotta love how scared the Clinton folks are when the obvious is presented before them. America is for Trump!



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Sorry but that poll is no where near accurate or scientific in any way but if it makes you feel better it's fine.
Just don't count on it too much.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Let's assume the progression was basic: 2^(n-1) and that a generation is 5 minutes. In an hour ... with just the "I'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends" progression ... the number of votes could be 4096

1
2
4
8
16
32
64
256
512
1024
2048
4096

Now, there's a whole host of reasons why this doesn't reflect what's going on with the "Facebook poll" ... but it does give an idea of what geometric progressions actually look like (this is the simplest btw).



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You seem frightened by the results none the less, better go take that blood pressure pill.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Informer1958


I am sure you are talking about mainstream media so call reliable methodology, which in my "opinion" is rigged.


If they are rigged, how did they (in aggregate) nail the last election so closely?

The problem is that these allegations of poll rigging go hand and hand with allegations of election rigging, although there is zero evidence of either, a combination which makes it impossible to be wrong.

If the scientific poll is correct, it's just because the ELECTION was rigged.

If the scientific poll is wrong, it's "SEE, I TOLD YOU!"

Statistics is a real branch of mathematics and so far I see no evidence that any major polling institution isn't making some attempt to follow the rules, and most expose their methodology online.


Simple. The last election was rigged too.


As luck would have it, my response to your asinine reply is already included in the text you quoted.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Greggers

You seem frightened by the results none the less, better go take that blood pressure pill.


What on earth are you talking about?




top topics



 
119
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join