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.

 

The Polls One Year Ago In The "FAKE NEWS"

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Tardacus
it absolutely was fake news , there is no way in hell that legit polls could be that wrong, those polls were created and geared to manufacture the desired results, showing Hillary as the sure winner.

the polls were fake and rigged and the reporting of the fake and rigged polls was designed to influence the voting.

forget about the fake "Russians trying to influence the election", when we have irrefutable proof that the American MSM tried to influence the election with fake polls and fake news reporting.


Except the polls -- the national polls most often cited -- were not wrong. They were more accurate than they've been since the 1930s.


well I never saw any of those polls on the news I only saw the polls that gave Hillary a guaranteed win,i guess the MSM didn`t report "national" polls they just reported their own rigged polls,and the rigged polls of the other MSM outlets.


I can't help what you did or didn't see. By the way, there were no "polls" that gave Hillary a guaranteed win -- those were various statistical models built on top of the polls, taking into consideration the various "paths" to victory. In other words, it was analysis, not polling.

The polls themselves -- the national ones most often cited -- were accurate.

The problem was a handful of state polls, and the overall analysis which assumed two things it shouldn't have:
1) That the winner of the popular vote would win the EC (it's almost always true, but wasn't this time)
2) That the quality of the state polling in the rust belt was not sufficient


edit on 25-10-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

Stop saying the popular vote doesn't exist. It most certainly DOES exist. It just isn't used to to determine the President. Learn your civics man...


It does NOT exist.

No such thing as a POPULAR VOTE.

Noone cares who is popular, nope no popular vote EVER.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dudemo5

People who keep arguing in this thread that Clinton won the popular vote.

She didnt because there is no such thing as a national popular vote.

If you arent going to follow the thread then why respond at all?


Seems you aren't the one following along.

The OP claimed that the polls were wrong. The polls cited most often predicted the national popular vote. Those polls were CORRECT.


Why would the polls be predicting a national popular vote, which is not held at the ballot boxes, and use those stats to proclaim a victor when it has never been the case?

You are saying they are even more stupid and pathetic than has ever been mentioned before?

You left types should be crucifying them for leading you down a path of LOSING.

Instead you make useless explanations that some POPULAR NATIONAL VOTE.....ever mattered.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33


With 20/20 hindsight and retrospect can we ever trust polls again?

Out by 20% even, but I think that documentary on Frank Luntz polling techniques show just how far out the polls can be manufactured to be out.
With only 2 weeks to go to be out this much is "FAKE NEWS"

A year later, it stands as one of the biggest media blunders in modern times. but maybe more an outright lie than a blunder, and it makes them lose credibility. People will always say, "but remember 2016 and Trump" when these crazy figures ever come out again.


This video details the Fake news Polls spin that spun out of control and Trump was elected. Sweet delight to see so many high profile news and celebs eat their words. The people spoke and the media is on a downward spiral. People realize that the media was not to be trusted. RIP mainstream news. Podcasters like Mark Dice and alt news like NewsBud and Sgt. Report are eating your lunch.


edit on 25-10-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher


This video details the spin that spun out of control and Trump was elected. Sweet delight to see so many high profile news and celebs eat their words.


I think that's called "poll dancing."



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Dirty Dancing.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, I was kinda going off on a tangent. I'm pretty sure I used the wrong word or worded it incorrectly. The point I was trying to make is that we should have more people in the House and we should also have more Electoral Votes as to better represent the populace.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

That's all the polls are, who's more popular? Polls track the popular vote, which is why a lot of places had Hillary having >90% chance of winning.

Well, she won the popular vote and she was within 2% of what the polls said she would be. There were also four states (3 of which Trump won) where the margin of victory was less than 1%, very much within the margin of error of just about any public poll.

Trump outperformed in a half dozen states and the models that the media used (if they used any at all) gave way too much weight to Clinton.
edit on 25-10-2017 by links234 because: Weird coding?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, I was kinda going off on a tangent. I'm pretty sure I used the wrong word or worded it incorrectly. The point I was trying to make is that we should have more people in the House and we should also have more Electoral Votes as to better represent the populace.


It doesn't work unfortunately. Humans are tough to manage if the group gets too large and we're already pushing those size constraints. So if we made the House larger, it would become more dysfunctional until we created an upper management level that would effectively be the true Congress. If that were to happen, then government becomes even more removed from the hands of the people, and we would only be voting for the people that vote for the people in power.

The truth is, a representative republic simply doesn't scale well to a large population.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
The truth is, a representative republic simply doesn't scale well to a large population.


It scales better than a national popular vote. There is a reason the founding fathers did not want a national popular vote and for good reason. We can see why in the last election where A few cities in 2 states would have determined the fate of the nation had a popular vote been used. Clinton carried only 450+ counties and she carried less states than Trump.

That outcome would be exactly what the founding fathers feared - tyranny by majority.

Candidates would only campaign in large populous states.
Candidates / party platforms would be catered to reflect only those people in the large populous states.
Legislation would be geared only to those states.

The rest of the country is left behind and ignored.

The electoral college, in addition to representation in Congress, was specifically designed to prevent what the left is pushing for. The states, as separate sovereigns, get 2 Senators regardless of state population. Meaning Rhode Island had just as much clout as California or New York. The House, or the peoples branch, represents the people by population. Hence the reason CA. NY, TX and FL have more representatives than states with a lesser population.

The electoral college AND Congress were specifically designed for equality, proportional representation and a guarantee that people wanting to be President would be forced to adopt a platform that tries to encompass as many voters as possible in order o win that states ECV.

By extension Congress is not meant to be a smooth streamlined operation that moves quickly. That intentional design is to guarantee the minority opinion is heard and considered.

All designed to prevent 1 or 2 populous states from steamrolling the remainder of the country.

I wont speak for anyone else but I have no desire to live in New York or California given their politics and agendas. If the left gets the national popular vote change they demand it would not matter if I didnt want to live in CA or NY since their political views would be forced upon me since they would control the agenda and laws.

The only reasons Democrats want a national popular vote is to exploit the voters. Fraud is difficult with an electoral college but very easy with a national popular vote. It would also be easier for non US citizens to vote and would be harder to detect and stop.

Democrats win polls.
Republicans win elections.

The first time a Democrat loses the National popular vote to a Republican (if we used that system) but would have won an electoral college victory they would scream and demand change back to that system.

That should be a red flag as to their intent.
edit on 25-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Arnie123
You guys are ruthless, we can, at the very least, let them have their participation ribbon? If it makes them feel better, then perhaps we should let them have it, calm them down a bit. They're a bit rattled, even after this long.

Leftist liberal delusions dictates the popular vote as important as the EC because we're all winners!!! lol, smh.

Yes, because making a thread to gloat about an election that you won a year ago is TOTALLY a rational thing to do and not just pure pettiness.


Except for the fact the thread was talking about polls and how incredibly wrong they were. At that point some people started the national popular vote bs and we went from there.

Because most of the polls oft-cited by the media were polls PREDICTING the national popular vote.

What about this don't you understand?


thats only if u prescribe to the notion that the polls were legitimate in the first place. as long as i can remember polls have been used as a propaganda tool and nothing more. its usually quite obvious if you take the time to look into the process they used to determine whatever statistic they are going for youll find they regularly inject a bias into it or word the questions in a way that leads to the outcome desired.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's a deeply flawed system that isn't representative of the will of the people so long as congress doesn't increase the number of representatives. The people want to elect the president, they don't want the electoral college to do it for them.

It may have been right for the time but the time has passed and it should be either abolished or updated.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's a deeply flawed system that isn't representative of the will of the people so long as congress doesn't increase the number of representatives. The people want to elect the president, they don't want the electoral college to do it for them.

It may have been right for the time but the time has passed and it should be either abolished or updated.


wow what a great rebuttal. so essentially its a deeply flawed system because you said so. btw im one of those people who in no way wants the popular vote to count. i care far too much about my fellow americans to go the route of dismissing them cause they live in a state with less of a population.
edit on 25-10-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

In a perfect world with a perfectly representative democracy we'd all have an equal number of representatives. Looking at the 2016 elections though;

Republicans got 49.1% of the vote and 55.4% of the seats in congress.

Democrats got 48% of the vote and 44.6% of the seats.

Libertarians got 1.3% of the vote and 0% representation.

What kind of representative republic is it where a party that gets less than half of all votes nationwide gets the majority of the seats in congress? It's broken and not what the founding fathers wanted.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: TheScale

In a perfect world with a perfectly representative democracy we'd all have an equal number of representatives. Looking at the 2016 elections though;

Republicans got 49.1% of the vote and 55.4% of the seats in congress.

Democrats got 48% of the vote and 44.6% of the seats.

Libertarians got 1.3% of the vote and 0% representation.

What kind of representative republic is it where a party that gets less than half of all votes nationwide gets the majority of the seats in congress? It's broken and not what the founding fathers wanted.


you do realize those people are all elected to those positions by their district voters? on top of that do u not think that maybe the repubs got such a good foothold because during the previous 8 years the people didnt agree with alot of the policies and legislation passed by the party holding the presidency thus they voted in the opposing party?
edit on 25-10-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

You and others dont seem to understand that it is not just the will of the people but that of the states as well. The Senate is designed to represent that states themselves and not the population of the state.

As I pointed out the electoral college votes have changed in 2010 (the last census). Some states gained and some states lost and the majority remained the same. If a states population increases from solely births in that state then you will have more ECV added to the total number. What we see though is populations shifting from one geographic area to another, creating a situation where the number of ECV shift from one state to another, following the population.

The will of the people in this last election was clear - they wanted Trump. He won more states and by extension more electoral college votes than Clinton.

The problem with democrats is they constantly see things that dont go there was as unfair and want to make changes to benefit their position. A perfect example of that mindset occurred when Trump won. All of a sudden Democrats were upset that Trump gained the very abilities / powers that were given to Obama. There is a push to try and restrict / remove those abilities to deny Trump their use.

Clinton and Democrats lambasted Trump for his comment about accepting the results of the election. Democrats threw that hissy fit because they were delusional in that they would beat Trump. When that did not occur Democrats all of a sudden dropped the position of accepting the outcome of the election.

As has been stated several times by various people. If we move to a National popular vote, as pushed by Democrats, they will love that system up to the point they lose a popular vote but realize they would have won via electoral college. At which point they would bitch about the system and demand changes, once again.

All I can say is thank God the EC is spelled out in the Constitution, making the changes Democrats want almost impossible to make.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Polls are psyops. There is no truth behind them. Like charts and graft, global warming. "Data" can be beaten into submission, when asked all the wrong, right questions. A poll regardless of who's running it, is designed to rally troops and discourage the "enemy" into surrender. Why so many people are burnt on the MSM is they allowed themselves to be a conduit for the lie. Now they're playing the "real American card".. it's all about "free press" and "we were just following reports/orders"... (It's "free" as long as you hold hands and sing, I agree). This is a discussion for "educated" people. Not intelligent people. I'll withdraw.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
The last "law" failed! We need another one! You are so right Xcathdra.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I am kinda sad from reading this thread. It was not really an analysis of why the polls were wrong. It was a fight over the difference between 51 independent state votes and a national vote. That does not really matter to why the polls were wrong. If the polls simple used the national vote number then the pollsters were incredibly stupid. I really don't think that the pollster truly relied on a national vote count. Like someone previously said; that is like predicting baseball wins based on the number of hits each team got.

Instead, I think there are much more mundane reasons the polls were wrong.

1) The polls are skewed to those who consistently vote. If you say you always vote, then your opinion automatically counts. If you say you sometimes vote, then how can a pollster predict that you will or won't vote. If you say you are planning on voting and don't; you screw up the polling. Likewise, if you say you probably won't vote and do, then you again skew the results.
2) Where the polling takes place skews the results. Pollster look at the last election to determine where to canvas for their polls. It is also easier to poll in urban areas than rural areas. Thus, depending on peoples convictions; urban areas were probably over represented in the polls last year. Note, the next election poll will probably over weigh rural areas due to the results of last years election.
3) Was there a reverse Brady effect? Since the media was very adamant against President Trump; did people not express their true intentions. Note, I think it is wrong to participate in polling. Voting to me is not bandwagon event.
4) Did the poll accidentally cause Clinton supporters to be lackadaisical in their voting habits. Why would you need to vote for Ms. Clinton? Ms. Clinton was going to win by a landslide anyway! Likewise, on the other side it may of encourage people to vote for President Trump, Ms Stein and Mr. Johnson as a form of protest. Did that scenario occur?

Just trying to put more thought into this thread.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: links234

You and others dont seem to understand that it is not just the will of the people but that of the states as well. The Senate is designed to represent that states themselves and not the population of the state.



That design failed when Senators started getting elected by popular vote.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join