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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: links234




there was still a chance that Trump would win. He won.






posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Weatherman gives a 60% chance of rain, it doesn't rain, I guess the weatherman can't be trusted.


What this comes down to is a lack of numeracy among the general population. Usually when people see 90% or higher odds, they simply round it up to 100%. Similarly, they tend to do the same thing with 10% or lower and round down to zero.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Weatherman gives a 60% chance of rain, it doesn't rain, I guess the weatherman can't be trusted.


If said weatherman had predicted a 98% chance of rain every day for a week or more and it didn't rain, my guess is he'd be looking for a new job in a different field.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The EC also creates an exploitable system where undue focus is placed on about a dozen states. I'm sure the FF didn't envision that either. How could they have?


The founding fathers believed in proportional representation. We no longer have that. In order to fix it, we would have to almost completely revamp how representation is calculated, and thus the EV's each state has.


The EV is already based on state population and those electoral numbers for each state can and do change when the population changes.

The number of electoral votes for each state are the number of US Senators and the number of Representatives added together. As a states population increases, so does their electoral college vote numbers. As a state loses population they will lose electoral votes.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The other part of that and percentages can and do affect voter turnout. If you constantly hear the msm report that Clinton has a 98% to win, it can lead to Republicans not voting since they get the false impression their candidate will lose anyways.

It is a method to disenfranchise voters and in this case the media is complicit.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The EV is already based on state population and those electoral numbers for each state can and do change when the population changes.

The number of electoral votes for each state are the number of US Senators and the number of Representatives added together. As a states population increases, so does their electoral college vote numbers. As a state loses population they will lose electoral votes.


My above numbers were only for members in the House. Due to the effect of senate seats, small states have a disproportionate population. They're much more valuable EV wise than their population suggests.

It's not an easy fix though. The system simply needs more than 535 votes in it. We need smaller districts for Congress, but then we're going to be faced with a management issue in congress. Our system simply doesn't work at the scale it's currently being used. It's something the founders likely never thought about.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

The other part of that and percentages can and do affect voter turnout. If you constantly hear the msm report that Clinton has a 98% to win, it can lead to Republicans not voting since they get the false impression their candidate will lose anyways.

It is a method to disenfranchise voters and in this case the media is complicit.


They didn't seem to affect this turnout, if anything it actually helped Trump. Hillary voters felt safe in writing in Sanders, or voting Stein, or just not voting. Trump supporters (who tend to be a highly motivated bunch in the first place) came out to vote regardless.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Weatherman gives a 60% chance of rain, it doesn't rain, I guess the weatherman can't be trusted.


If said weatherman had predicted a 98% chance of rain every day for a week or more and it didn't rain, my guess is he'd be looking for a new job in a different field.


That's a 1 in 312.5 million chance. Not common, but it happens. If it was the right prediction from the given data, then it was still the right call.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
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.

trump winning really burns the MSM`s ass because they spent so much time and money on their fake polls and news reports to try to influence the election in Hillary`s favor but in the end most americans didn`t fall for the MSM`s deception.

so much time,money and risk invested in a failed attempt to appoint Hillary as the next president has made the MSM very bitter against Trump and the majority of American voters who elected him.That`s why the MSM has been in full retard mode for almost a year now, they want revenge against all the American voters who foiled their plot to appoint Hillary as president.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

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.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

The other part of that and percentages can and do affect voter turnout. If you constantly hear the msm report that Clinton has a 98% to win, it can lead to Republicans not voting since they get the false impression their candidate will lose anyways.

It is a method to disenfranchise voters and in this case the media is complicit.


exactly, and that`s exactly what the MSM was trying to do.

but obviously it backfired, it caused many people to not come out and vote since Hillary was a guaranteed winner, and it caused a lot of people to come out and vote to stop her from winning.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Trump's odds of winning got longer every day leading up to the election. Even dummies like me could see what they were trying to do. Hell, I live in L.A. and have friends, colleagues, and acquaintances from all backgrounds, ethnicities, and income levels. I'd say at best Hillary had the support of maybe 6-7 out of every 10 people I know. Bernie had probably 7-8 before they sidelined him. In Los Angeles. California.
And I'm supposed to believe the rest of the country was even more behind Hillary, according to this unimpeachable data? Data that neither you nor I have ever seen? Data that I'm just supposed to trust as accurate and uncorrupted? Sorry, but I think I'll trust what I see and hear out in the real world, thanks.
edit on 10 24 2017 by underpass61 because: Sp



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Aazadan

Trump's odds of winning got longer every day leading up to the election. Even dummies like me could see what they were trying to do. Hell, I live in L.A. and have friends, colleagues, and acquaintances from all backgrounds, ethnicities, and income levels. I'd say at best Hillary had the support of maybe 6-7 out of every 10 people I know. Bernie had probably 7-8 before they sidelined him. In Los Angeles. California.
And I'm supposed to believe the rest of the country was even more behind Hillary, according to this unimpeachable data? Data that neither you nor I have ever seen? Data that I'm just supposed to trust as accurate and uncorrupted? Sorry, but I think I'll trust what I see and hear out in the real world, thanks.


and that was the important thing, even back then I knew the MSM was lying because at least 6 out of 10 of all the people I knew and met said they were voting for trump, so I knew the MSM polls were total lies.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Electoral votes weren't always distributed on a winner-take-all basis either. It wasn't until after the civil war when most states went with majority rules for their electoral votes.

As for representation; we're over 100 years since the last time congress was apportioned after the census. There were just over 200,000 constituents per representative during the last apportionment. We're now up to over 700,000 people per representative.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The census is done every 10 years and in 2010 several states gained and several lost electoral votes.

Source
here are just a few. The link above shows all states and their gain / loss.
Florida +2
Arizona +1
Illinois - 1

Additional -
NYT - Census 2010: Gains and Losses in Congress

10 states lost electoral votes while 8 states gained EC votes.

The remaining states stayed the same.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Xcathdra



There is no such thing as a national popular vote.



Right. Ha. You should write a book and educate those who think differently. Like, all the rest of us. About Gore too.




Speak for yourself, I stand by what Xcathdra said.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I considered what a previous poster said that each state should get 1 electoral vote, winner takes the presidency, this would make sure that large population centers can never control the culture of America. I actually think that would be a great solution. Large swing states would no longer matter, every state would be truly equal to each other. Winning NH would be just as important as Texas and Florida. And people might be more inclined to vote in small states knowing their vote really would count for something. Mob rule would be impossible and the fly over states would have to be listened to.

As I said previously LA voters should not be causing some farmer in Wyoming to do things he doesn't want to do or doesn't agree with.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
LMAO so many people arguing electoral vote or popular vote. Guys, these statements have ZERO relevance to that. It literally says "Hilary has a 93% chance to win". Plain and simple. It's fake news. Nowhere does it have a disclaimer stating, due to popular vote, or due to electoral vote speculation it flat out says 93% chance to win, nothing more nothing less. Bunch of fake nonsense. You guys are arguing over moot points.

They clearly tried to swing votes in Hilary's favor by making it look like Trump had no chance and voting for Trump would be useless, in turn they thought people would just give up and vote for Hilary instead and to make people feel like they weren't wasting their vote.

Before anyone says OMG Trump supporter, i'll stop you there. I didn't vote for neither of them. I wasn't going to choose between 2 evil's even if Trump is the lesser of both. Besides I believe the winner is already chosen and the elections are just a dog n pony show.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I considered what a previous poster said that each state should get 1 electoral vote, winner takes the presidency, this would make sure that large population centers can never control the culture of America. I actually think that would be a great solution. Large swing states would no longer matter, every state would be truly equal to each other. Winning NH would be just as important as Texas and Florida. And people might be more inclined to vote in small states knowing their vote really would count for something. Mob rule would be impossible and the fly over states would have to be listened to.

As I said previously LA voters should not be causing some farmer in Wyoming to do things he doesn't want to do or doesn't agree with.



Why ahould a few farmers get to dictate how NY and LA run? That's just as tyrannical.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join