Rachel Maddow: Poll Reveals Trump Voters Are in Alternate State of Reality

originally posted by: underwerks
Of course Trump supporters live in an alternate universe. I've watched them handed the bricks to build the narrative we're seeing right now for the last year.

You'd think there'd be a Trump supporter somewhere who's had a psychology of marketing class, who isn't blind to how they're being played and taken advantage of.

Finally!

A left who is honest!

If we don't agree with you, we're retarded!

Brava!

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DAVID64
You'll forgive me if I dismiss anything this rabid anti Conservative troll has to say. Seriously, she is so hard Left she makes the SJWs look sane.

If you don't like her nor plan to look at the article, which wasn't written by her, why even join a discussion of this issue?

I liked watching her cry on election night when it finally became clear to her that Hillary had lost.

Pretty sick if you like watching people cry. But it isn't illegal to have sick thoughts.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Terry McCauliff's dead chicken, Hillary, was a more accurate predictor than these MSM polls.

A dead chicken and Hillary accurately predicted this? You make no sense.

Or is it that Hillary is a dead chicken? Still makes no sense.

LINK added.
Terry McAuliffe's pet chicken...named Hillary...died just before the election.---Fun story.

originally posted by: StudColt

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: StudColt
But shall we meet in the real world I'll be sure to pick on you and make you jelly.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an internet warrior here.

A real life warrior giving fair warning to the dungeon and dragon crowd should they ever make it into the open air.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Spot on. Just to add the really sad thing: Rachel Maddow makes 7mio per year for spewing elitist 'democratic' viewpoints.

It is not spot on. You missed the Bureau of Labor Statistics link in the OP. They don't only count those receiving unemploynment benefits.

PPP, look at their articles then comeback here and honestly tell yourself you trust their data:

www.publicpolicypolling.com...

I read that VERY article while researching them. It had Clinton leading by 5 points in 5 states. Their margin of error is +/- 2.8% It talks about early voting as well and in early voting, Clinton did have a lead, as Democrats often do in any election year.

Why not use data from a poll that actually gets it right:


How One Pollster Correctly Predicted Both Trump's Victory and Brexit

Among the few that got it right was a new industry player using a different method, South African firm Brandseye, which analyzes social media posts.

fortune.com...

Who cares what Maddow thinks?
The reality is that Trump is taking office on the 20th January and Maddow can deal with it or keep crying every day on air. Someone should tell her she should probably do the former.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: reldra

I found that interesting enough to make a thread about it.

Mmm hmmm, what you did was bring main stream propaganda here. I don't watch CNN, its brainwashing...

...but thanks anyway

It is a poll they reported on. I find it fairly accurate. Is it worse than say, alt propaganda sites that spread the false things people in this poll believe?

I don't believe anything they 'report' on. They always misinform or misdirect. "Alternate" sites, like this one, have an alternative viewpoint, thanks be to the ordinary people on the Interwebz.

Do you really believe people that want real change from the past are 'living in an alternate of reality'?

lol, you already answered that.

It is good to be skeptical. This seemed accurate to me, even if you don't like the MSM. The article I linked isn't even MSM. It is so far away from MSM I don't even know what it is lol.

Now deflect from the Rachael Show. Besides it being aired in the main stream by one of their celebrity, anyone who believes the notion the celebrity presider is in charge is fooled anyway.

Do I hope for change from current trends and the status quo? Don't you?

It is being reported in a whole bunch of places. You deflect since you don't like Maddow.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Who cares what Maddow thinks?
The reality is that Trump is taking office on the 20th January and Maddow can deal with it or keep crying every day on air. Someone should tell her she should probably do the former.

This is not about what she thinks.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DAVID64
You'll forgive me if I dismiss anything this rabid anti Conservative troll has to say. Seriously, she is so hard Left she makes the SJWs look sane.

If you don't like her nor plan to look at the article, which wasn't written by her, why even join a discussion of this issue?

I liked watching her cry on election night when it finally became clear to her that Hillary had lost.

Pretty sick if you like watching people cry. But it isn't illegal to have sick thoughts.

I don't like watching some journalists cry.
I enjoyed watching Rachel Maddow cry.

originally posted by: reldra

If you don't agree the stock market went up under Obama, if you agree California should not be counted in the popular vote (previously or in future) and if you don't agree Clinton won the popular vote (though obviously not the election), then you have a reality problem.

In which reality does the popular vote determine who wins the presidency?

Why are you people still blabbering on about this?

Who's delusional again?

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Spot on. Just to add the really sad thing: Rachel Maddow makes 7mio per year for spewing elitist 'democratic' viewpoints.

It is not spot on. You missed the Bureau of Labor Statistics link in the OP. They don't only count those receiving unemploynment benefits.

PPP, look at their articles then comeback here and honestly tell yourself you trust their data:

www.publicpolicypolling.com...

I read that VERY article while researching them. It had Clinton leading by 5 points in 5 states. Their margin of error is +/- 2.8% It talks about early voting as well and in early voting, Clinton did have a lead, as Democrats often do in any election year.

Why not use data from a poll that actually gets it right:


How One Pollster Correctly Predicted Both Trump's Victory and Brexit

Among the few that got it right was a new industry player using a different method, South African firm Brandseye, which analyzes social media posts.

fortune.com...

Did they do a poll on the issue in this thread? If they did, link it. I would like to read it.

I also posted the method the PPP uses and it is different and attempts to remove bias. It is in their 'about' section.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is just desperate hope. Not to mention very sad. Destroying history or an important person's significance to it is the stuff of authoritarians... This opinion really shows you in a sad political state.

You mean like taking down Confederate flags, moving statues, renaming roads and parks, etc...? The Liberals thought it was a great idea for them to do away with any history they thought improper, but now it's "sad, desperate and authoritarian" ?
There's that Liberal double standard again.

a reply to: reldra

So, you are saying that NO person voted for Trump based on rightwing articles that made up facts. Not one?

LOL, Yes that is exactly what I said. How about NO0000.

Ofcourse some might , but its irrelevant of your point. Or are you saying that ONLY right wing articles were effective and misleading in this election?

Its a wash, both idiotic sides were dishonest and misrepresented the facts.

It was all 'suck factor'? That seems a little difficult to believe.

Have you not heard of the political slogan for the last several decades that has elected our POTUS. Is the term "lesser evil" something new with this election ?

She was the greater KNOWN evil and people had enough of the cookie cutter Politicians like Hillary. They wanted a change and enough so to risk a wild card like Trump.

This election like the previous ones came down to the least hated individual and a candidate that was not made out of the same cookie cutter mold that the MSM,GOP,DNC, and Lobbyist created.


This election was not about any illusions on how great Trump is or will be as POTUS , but rather an FU statement to the establishment,MSM,DNC and GOP.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is just desperate hope. Not to mention very sad. Destroying history or an important person's significance to it is the stuff of authoritarians... This opinion really shows you in a sad political state.

You mean like taking down Confederate flags, moving statues, renaming roads and parks, etc...? The Liberals thought it was a great idea for them to do away with any history they thought improper, but now it's "sad, desperate and authoritarian" ?
There's that Liberal double standard again.

Taking down a flag isn't destroying history, but somehow I doubt you care about the differences.

originally posted by: interupt42
She was the greater KNOWN evil and people had enough of the cookie cutter Politicians like Hillary. They wanted a change and enough so to risk a wild card like Trump.

You could etch this in marble and the left would still refuse to believe it.

I read the OP's source.

What a total crock of BS:

1. She expresses shock that republicans do not like Obama.... big surprise there.

2. Obama has 90% disapproval rating among Trump voters, despite his 50% overall rating...there fore they are nut jobs.

3. The unemployment rate dropped under Obama. BS. With the affordable care act..aka Obama care... many many employers (Walmart anybody?) cut the hours of employees to make sure they didn't have to provide mandated health coverage. These people, millions, either work two jobs to get by, or have one job that does not have the hours to get health care.

The real unemployment rate should only deal with:

1. Those who maintain a steady 40 hour week with health benefits.
2. Include those who are no longer on the unemployment rolls because their benefits expired and they have gave up on finding a job.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't say that at all. Not retarded. Just naive.