The Polls One Year Ago In The "FAKE NEWS"

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...

The Constitution says you are wrong.

US Constitution Electoral College

Now point out for everyone to see where the non existent "national popular vote" is located in the reading so we all can see it.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Here is the voting block from just LA, there is no way LA should get to decide and control the whole country.

Los Angeles

2,464,364 Clinton
769,743 Trump

I'm in L.A. County and I know my vote is useless yet I go and do it anyway. There are a whole lot more conservatives who have given up and just don't bother. Not enough for a majority mind you, but enough to cancel out a big chunk of California's Dem vote for sure. I wonder how many more conservatives in California would get off the couch and vote if the EC was tossed and the "popular vote" was all that mattered? Liberals might want to think more than one step ahead.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wow... Is that how you convince yourself that a popular vote cannot exist? All that shows is that a popular vote isn't the official way to pick the President. It doesn't specifically say that a popular vote cannot be tallied though, and AGAIN the popular vote exists. We, the nation, has tracked it election to election for some time now. Again. Learn your civics.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The polls coming out keep showing Trump as not having any support, low job approval etc. The media outlets reporting that are the very ones that constantly said Clinton would win. In case you missed it several of those media outlet polls over-sampled Democrats intentionally to tweek the outcome of the poll.

No they didn't. That was a myth foisted by the alt-right onto ill informed readers.

we know this because those outlets got caught and when requests were made to disclose their data the outlets pulled the polls and refused to disclose the info (which they are required to do).

Complete horse crap.

Reuters is one of the outlets caught oversampling democrats to create a skewed result in favor of Clinton.

It's not possible to "over sample" democrats because political affiliation is not one of the static variables that polls are selected for. They select for AGE, GENDER, GEOGRAPHICAL REGION, etc. They do not select for political affiliation as that is considered flexible.

The will of the people was followed on election day.

And accurately reflected in most of the polls everyone claims were wrong.

a reply to: Dudemo5

The media manipulated those polls and got caught (research the Reuters poll in addition to how democrats were over sampled).

A national popular vote does not exist.

We have 51 individual popular votes (50 states and DC).

The people of New York and California dont get to invalidate the votes from other states.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

By using the Constitution which sets forth an electoral college with no mention of a national popular vote?

Yup.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again! That is how you pick the President, but you can still hold a popular vote which we do. Why is it so hard for you to admit that unofficial votes can exist in tandem with the official selection process? Does it just break your head to admit such things?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dudemo5

The media manipulated those polls and got caught (research the Reuters poll in addition to how democrats were over sampled).

No they were not.

A national popular vote does not exist.

Yes it does. It's just not used to determine the president. It is, however, *almost* always a good indicator of which candidate will win the EC.

The people of New York and California dont get to invalidate the votes from other states.

No sh*t. That's why the popular vote isn't used to select the president; it's why the EC exists.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dudemo5

The media manipulated those polls and got caught (research the Reuters poll in addition to how democrats were over sampled

How about posting your own research instead of telling others to do it for you?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By using the Constitution which sets forth an electoral college with no mention of a national popular vote?

Yup.

Who the hell ever said the national popular vote was mentioned in the constitution or that it was used in some official electoral capacity?

No one said that. You're knocking down strawmen.

Oh no
Don't take the participation ribbon from them
Everyone gets a trophy
This time it was the "popular vote"
They don't know how to act when everyone doesn't "win"

originally posted by: Dudemo5
No they didn't. That was a myth foisted by the alt-right onto ill informed readers.

* - The year of 'Neither': Why Reuters/Ipsos is tweaking its U.S. presidential poll
* - How Reuters "Tweaked" Its Latest Poll (Again) To Show A Clinton Lead
* - More Polling Tricks=> New Reuters Poll EXTREMELY SKEWED – Reality Shows Trump Tied Up with Hillary

Reuters interviews 1201 respondents.
626 Democrats (52% of total)
423 Republicans (35% of total)
122 independents
30 other party.

That’s nearly 33 percent more Democrats than Republicans.

In reality Gallup reported in March that 46 percent of Americans are Democrats, and 40 percent are Republicans. Reuters freighted their poll with 20 percent more Democrats than Republicans.

Since the Reuters poll sampled more Democrats than all the others combined, we can safely say that Trump appears to be in much better shape than the poll suggests and could likely be headed to a landslide victory in November.

* - Latest ABC News Presidential Poll Oversampled Democrats by 9%
* - MEDIA DIRTY TRICKS: CBS, NBC Manipulate Polling Data to Show Hillary with Lead Over Trump
* - New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"

originally posted by: Dudemo5
It's not possible to "over sample" democrats because political affiliation is not one of the static variables that polls are selected for. They select for AGE, GENDER, GEOGRAPHICAL REGION, etc. They do not select for political affiliation as that is considered flexible.

Yes it is possible and it depends on poll type IE likely voters verse registered voters. When you call more democrats it creates a skew in favor of the democratic candidate.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
And accurately reflected in most of the polls everyone claims were wrong.

Those polls showed Clinton winning and yet she didnt - explain.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again! That is how you pick the President, but you can still hold a popular vote which we do. Why is it so hard for you to admit that unofficial votes can exist in tandem with the official selection process? Does it just break your head to admit such things?

No we hold 51 individual popular votes. Clinton won the popular vote in all the states she carried and Trump won in all the states he carried.

There is no such thing as a national popular vote and Democrats keep repeating the lie about the popular vote because they cant accept reality.

3 million voters from California and New York dont invalidate the votes from other states.

I linked to the electoral college in an earlier post. Feel free to cite the section on a national popular vote.

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?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
One thing is for certain, their “forecasts” were wholly inaccurate, even embarrassingly so. This was admitted by the media themselves.

How Did the Media — How Did We — Get This Wrong?

Yeah. The actual forecasts were wrong. They will have to work harder the next election to take the EC into consideration. It's typically been reliable to predict using the polls, but it looks like those days are over, huh.
Not embarrassing though. A lesson hopefully learned.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Oh no
Don't take the participation ribbon from them
Everyone gets a trophy
This time it was the "popular vote"
They don't know how to act when everyone doesn't "win"

Democrats win polls.
Republicans win elections.

Democrats are once again trying to accomplish in court what they failed to accomplish at the ballot box.

It goes back to the lie about the Bush - Gore election results where every Democrat says Florida won the election for Bush when in reality it did not. Democrats counted on W. Virginia remaining a blue states. Bush managed to put that state in his win column, along with the 5 electoral votes that came with it.

Had Bush only won Florida it still would not have been enough electoral votes to win - Gore would have won. Those 5 electoral votes from W. Virginia are what put Bush in the White House - not Florida.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again! That is how you pick the President, but you can still hold a popular vote which we do. Why is it so hard for you to admit that unofficial votes can exist in tandem with the official selection process? Does it just break your head to admit such things?

No we hold 51 individual popular votes. Clinton won the popular vote in all the stat4es she carried and Trump won in all the states he carried.

There is no such thing as a national popular vote and Democrats keep repeating the lie about the popular vote because they cant accept reality.

Yes. When you total up all the state wide popular votes you get the national popular vote. It's really just that simple.

3 million voters from California and New York dont invalidate the votes from other states.

No one said they did, and you repeating it doesn't make this a valid argument to attack. It will still remain a strawman that you invented to attack us with.

I linked to the electoral college in an earlier post. Feel free to cite the section on a national popular vote.

Feel free to find the part where we disagreed with you that the electoral college picks the President.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yes. When you total up all the state wide popular votes you get the national popular vote. It's really just that simple.

Except it is not since a national popular vote doesnt exist. It really is that simple.

The founding fathers specifically avoided the use of a national popular vote for President because of how dangerous it is. Tyranny by the majority is how they viewed it. Several states being able to control the entire agenda for the nation. It would have created a situation where the only campaigning done would be in only a few states.

An argument that you and others are pushing with your arguments.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No one said they did, and you repeating it doesn't make this a valid argument to attack. It will still remain a strawman that you invented to attack us with.

Yes they have stated this and have done so in this thread along with others on this topic. The 3 million number they keep repeating is the overages Clinton received from New York and California.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Feel free to find the part where we disagreed with you that the electoral college picks the President.

you are the one who keeps repeating a national popular vote bs. I linked you to the Constitution and electoral college and told you to point out where a national popular vote is located.

If you are going to keep claiming national popular vote then support it using the Constitution. If you cant support it then stop making the false claim.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Except it is not since a national popular vote doesnt exist. It really is that simple.

"NUH HUH! I refuse to believe it so it doesn't exist! There is no possible way that people can tally up all the individual state wide popular votes to get a national vote. That kind of math is impossible!"

Yes they have stated this and have done so in this thread along with others on this topic. The 3 million number they keep repeating is the overages Clinton received from New York and California.

Who is "they"? Certainly not me. So telling me this is still a strawman, and yes Clinton DID beat Trump by 3 million votes. That's because she was more popular and won the national vote. Unfortunately for her (and the country for this election at least) that doesn't win you the Presidency. The Electoral College does; which she lost.

you are the one who keeps repeating a national popular vote bs. I linked you to the Constitution and electoral college and told you to point out where a national popular vote is located.

The popular vote doesn't have to be spelled out in the Constitution. AGAIN it is unofficial, but just because it is unofficial doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again. All you need is math to find out what it is.

If you are going to keep claiming national popular vote then support it using the Constitution. If you cant support it then stop making the false claim.

It's possible for things to exist without them being in the Constitution. How about you point out where the War of Drugs is spelled out in the Constitution? If you can't, surely it doesn't exist.

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.