Liz Peek: Trump gains ground, much to liberals’ horror

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In the context of what I am alleging, that the "system" is working against Trump, the validity of the polling in other areas is irrelevant.

My point was they were wrong on Brexit too but if you're going to use Rasmussen to "big up" the Resident and claim he's doing better than his predecessor at the same point then other polls should be considered for clarity.

The whole grand conspiracy against him argument is somewhat unbelievable to me , I think a conspiracy on that kind of grand scale would be akin to trying to herd cats , there are just to many variables.
I don't doubt there are some who are plotting against him as there were against his predecessor but Trump has done well to portray himself as the outsider and victim so any criticism of him is seen as an attack by the shadowy establishment , personally I think the tactic features in chapter one of the "How to be a successful Dictator" handbook.

a reply to: gortex

Its a trolling technique.

When you rub peoples noses in the poll results, you have to expect a bit of trolling in return. I'd recommend that if one doesn't appreciate the tactics of the OP, they work to not create the environment that bears it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A quick rundown of common propaganda tactics: it.toolbox.com...

That looks like exactly the tools Trump is using.

The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends. The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'. The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

No doubt. Its the common ploy used by all POTUS, I believe.

Its not a common ploy to be used by the entirety of the government and media AGAINST a POTUS, however.

"The entirety"
....That looks like this one.

The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.

and this...

The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A quick rundown of common propaganda tactics: it.toolbox.com...

That looks like exactly the tools Trump is using.

The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends. The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'. The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

No doubt. Its the common ploy used by all POTUS, I believe.

Its not a common ploy to be used by the entirety of the government and media AGAINST a POTUS, however.

"The entirety"
....That looks like this one.

The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.

and this...

The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.

Im sure it does.

If only i was crafting a presentation, rather that rendering opinion. Maybe i have a talent, though...if only CNN would hire me.

a reply to: Edumakated

Those other polls actually weren't that far off. They had Hillary taking the election by three points. Which is technically what happened. They just didn't account for electoral votes though.

Disregarding that, we can also look at how reliable all the polls were for other elections. Rasmussen tends to fall in the middle of the pack. FiveThirtyEight gives them a C+ rating. In comparison a poll like Reuters has an A- rating. They have Trump sitting at under 40%.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fake newz.

President Obama, at the same date, had 47 percent of the country behind him, down from 57 percent the year earlier.

Obama is beating Trump who is stuck at around 40%
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

Figures don't lie...but liars can figure.

I think the element missing here is that prior to Trump winning the election, the same pollsters showed him losing heavily.

This is fake news. The polls were in line with having Hillary winning by 2-3%. She got 3 million more votes than Trump which aligns with that prediction. Reminder: Polls don't measure the electoral votes. They measure the popular vote.

TO discuss this in any meaningful way, you need to provide some backup to the assertions. Otherwise, i just take your word for it, and have no points from which to argue.

Here is an article from Nov 7th 2016 talking about the polls on that day:
Poll roundup: Clinton has the edge one day before election

The race is extremely close but Hillary Clinton appeared to have a slight edge over Donald Trump in a series of final polls released just one day before Election Day.

A CBS News poll had Clinton ahead of Trump by 4 points nationally, 45%-41%. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson had 5% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein had 2%. In a two-way race Clinton led by the same margin, 47%-43%.

A Monmouth University poll had Clinton ahead of Trump by 6 points in a four-way race, 50%-44%. Johnson had 4% support and Stein had 1%.

The ABC News/Washington Post daily tracking poll had Clinton at 47%, Trump at 43% on the final day. Johnson had 4% and Stein had 2%. Clinton led by the same margin in a two-way race, 49%-45%.

A Bloomberg News poll found that Clinton led Trump by 3 points in both four and two-way races. When the two faced off one-on-one Clinton led 46%-43%. And when third-party candidates were tallied Clinton had a 44% share of support, Trump had 41%, Johnson had 4% and Stein had 2%.

But Trump did have the lead in two national polls, the Los Angeles Times/USC and the IBD/TIPP polls, both polls have favored Trump throughout the race — even when the majority of other polls showed Clinton ahead.

Trump led by 5 points in the Los Angeles Times/USC daily tracking poll 48%-43%.

And the IBD/TIPP tracking poll also had Trump ahead by 2 points, 43%-41%. Johnson had 6% and Stein had 2%.

Quinnipiac University released polls in Florida and North Carolina — two states where Clinton and Trump have been locked in tight races that could help decide the winner — show Clinton ahead by 1 point in Florida and 2 points in North Carolina.

Both polls fall well within the 3.3 point margin of error and put the two candidates at a virtual tie.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fake newz.

President Obama, at the same date, had 47 percent of the country behind him, down from 57 percent the year earlier.

Obama is beating Trump who is stuck at around 40%
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

Figures don't lie...but liars can figure.

I think the element missing here is that prior to Trump winning the election, the same pollsters showed him losing heavily.

This is fake news. The polls were in line with having Hillary winning by 2-3%. She got 3 million more votes than Trump which aligns with that prediction. Reminder: Polls don't measure the electoral votes. They measure the popular vote.

Like all the states that were polled so much in Clinton's favor she didn't even visit because she thought it was locked in Democrat. Yea we know the story. I've never been polled in my life during an election cycle. I really think they're useless and predict nothing with any sort of accuracy

This is 100% irrelevant to the point I made. Statistics can account for your opinion without directly asking you anything and if you've studied Statistics in any way shape or form in the past you should know this.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fake newz.

President Obama, at the same date, had 47 percent of the country behind him, down from 57 percent the year earlier.

Obama is beating Trump who is stuck at around 40%
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

Figures don't lie...but liars can figure.

I think the element missing here is that prior to Trump winning the election, the same pollsters showed him losing heavily.

This is fake news. The polls were in line with having Hillary winning by 2-3%. She got 3 million more votes than Trump which aligns with that prediction. Reminder: Polls don't measure the electoral votes. They measure the popular vote.

Polls are only as good as their sampling and methodology. A lot of the other polls were shown to have biased sampling which is why they were so wildly wrong on election night...

If 5 polls have poor sampling / methodology, it doesn't mean the one outlier isn't correct.

That's fair, but it is also a fair point that you can't just wildly assume that those five polls are flawed just because you want the one outlier to be true. You have to actually prove that by going into the methodology and proving that is the case. Though, it reasons that it is MOST likely that the outlier has the flawed methodology.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Try another source or maybe try pulling the other leg ....it's got bells on it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fake newz.

President Obama, at the same date, had 47 percent of the country behind him, down from 57 percent the year earlier.

Obama is beating Trump who is stuck at around 40%
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

Figures don't lie...but liars can figure.

I think the element missing here is that prior to Trump winning the election, the same pollsters showed him losing heavily.

This is fake news. The polls were in line with having Hillary winning by 2-3%. She got 3 million more votes than Trump which aligns with that prediction. Reminder: Polls don't measure the electoral votes. They measure the popular vote.

Like all the states that were polled so much in Clinton's favor she didn't even visit because she thought it was locked in Democrat. Yea we know the story. I've never been polled in my life during an election cycle. I really think they're useless and predict nothing with any sort of accuracy

This is 100% irrelevant to the point I made. Statistics can account for your opinion without directly asking you anything and if you've studied Statistics in any way shape or form in the past you should know this.

Geez man can you argue without attacking credibility?

CNN polls phish fans "should acid be legal? 99% said yes. Majority of Americans in support of legalizing acid"

hopefully I get a giggle out of you a least Mr Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Xcalibur254


So I fail to see what you and other Trump supporters are getting so excited about.

As a Trump supporter, I’m still excited Hillary isn’t president.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

When you rub peoples noses in the poll results, you have to expect a bit of trolling in return.

I didn't rub anyone's nose in anything just provided a counter for what was being claimed.

I'd recommend that if one doesn't appreciate the tactics of the OP, they work to not create the environment that bears it.

Recommendation duly noted and respectfully dismissed.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

When you rub peoples noses in the poll results, you have to expect a bit of trolling in return.

I didn't rub anyone's nose in anything just provided a counter for what was being claimed.

Not you, my friend. Just in general. We exist within the environment that the world has created.

I'd recommend that if one doesn't appreciate the tactics of the OP, they work to not create the environment that bears it.

Recommendation duly noted and respectfully dismissed.

Nah, you aren't dismissing it. You are enacting it. Like i said...my comment was in general, not at you specifically. I cannot recall you interacting in anything but a polite and civil manner.

His poll numbers are for him, they are against the left. Probably not only the left in America but the whole world. Going to jail because your pug does a ‘nazi’ salute. Want to make gun laws that wouldn’t even stop anything...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fake newz.

President Obama, at the same date, had 47 percent of the country behind him, down from 57 percent the year earlier.

Obama is beating Trump who is stuck at around 40%
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

Figures don't lie...but liars can figure.

I think the element missing here is that prior to Trump winning the election, the same pollsters showed him losing heavily.

This is fake news. The polls were in line with having Hillary winning by 2-3%. She got 3 million more votes than Trump which aligns with that prediction. Reminder: Polls don't measure the electoral votes. They measure the popular vote.

The important polls were the state polls, which were horribly wrong...and yes they were used to predict the electoral college vote prediction, which of course was horribly wrong.

The national poll is and was irrelevant, but even on that score, Rasmussen was one of the best.

All that said - best to ignore the polls.

originally posted by: Jefferton
Oh, so polls are only valid if they are positive?

That's not at all hypocritical!

Let me explain it for you.

Virtually every poll over samples Democrats. This is why Trump over performed during the election, and it is why they are underestimating his approval rating now.

Nothing has changed - the polls are almost all 2-10 percent lower for Republicans than reality. This is not hard to see if you have an open mind - just look at actual election results compared to polling.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fake newz.

President Obama, at the same date, had 47 percent of the country behind him, down from 57 percent the year earlier.

Obama is beating Trump who is stuck at around 40%
projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

Figures don't lie...but liars can figure.

I think the element missing here is that prior to Trump winning the election, the same pollsters showed him losing heavily.

This is fake news. The polls were in line with having Hillary winning by 2-3%. She got 3 million more votes than Trump which aligns with that prediction. Reminder: Polls don't measure the electoral votes. They measure the popular vote.

The important polls were the state polls, which were horribly wrong...and yes they were used to predict the electoral college vote prediction, which of course was horribly wrong.

The national poll is and was irrelevant, but even on that score, Rasmussen was one of the best.

All that said - best to ignore the polls.

Prove it. I posted data of my claims when asked. You just can't blankly say I'm wrong and expect to be correct.

While it is fun political trolling material, I just cant bring myself to care about a poll of any sort anymore. Since by now they know in general where to go to get the answer they wish to show (or the person paying wants to see) and that's what they do.

a reply to: Jefferton

They are right when conducted properly. I predicted Trump would probably win based on poll data that had him winning.

DP