Fox News Poll: Storms erode Trump's ratings

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

Don't you people understand that polls are meaningless?

How dare you. Polls are right on. All the polls said Hillary would win.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

Don't you people understand that polls are meaningless?

Perhaps to you, but Trump himself is very concerned!

I'm sure he is losing sleep over it.

🙄

He's lost sleep over less.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

Don't you people understand that polls are meaningless?

Unless they are positive, right?

I think he would rise in the polls somewhat, he if could just bring himself to stop lying, but apparently he can't, meaning it's pathological.

He's bigly busted almost every day now. Hugely sad, believe me.

polls now meaningless....

fox has a poll showing Trump' approval ratings way up.. polls good again...

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

Don't you people understand that polls are meaningless?

5 out of 6 people agree with you. Also 5 out of 6 people say Russian roulette is completely safe.


Also -



up until its been shown Clinton / Democrats were "colluding" with Russia at which point -


and the left wonders why they are viewed the way they are and why polls are problematic.

a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.

Yeah, didn't the polls have CLinton in the lead, then Trump started to narrow it and narrow it, then the FBI intervened, the polls jumped to neck and neck, and the result was a narrow victory for Clinton with the Electoral College system giving it to Trump?

I seem to remember the polls were fairly accurate.

a reply to: olaru12

You always fall in the polls as you drain the swamp, and turmoil ensues. This process doesn't affect 90% of Americans, but That's human nature.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.

Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.

a reply to: carewemust

You always fall in the polls as you drain the swamp.

Does draining the swamp require insulting Gold Star widows on Twitter?

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.

Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.

Didn't Trump win the EC by 44,000 votes? That's a pretty slim margin.

If I remember right, the later polls showed Hillary winning by 7%, I think.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: olaru12

You always fall in the polls as you drain the swamp. That's human nature.

The same thing happens to CEOs when they have to trim back on corporate fat.

Not that it's germane to the topic, but CEOs NEVER trim back on corporate fat. They hack and slash at the little man's benefits, salary, and jobs while ensuring the corporate fat is nice and insulating for them.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: carewemust

You always fall in the polls as you drain the swamp.

Does draining the swamp require insulting Gold Star widows on Twitter?

Can you post a screenshot of that?

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.

Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.

True, however typically whoever wins the popular vote, takes the win. But of course that wasn't the case here, or in Al Gore's case, so obviously pollsters will have to be more mindful of that in future elections.

You can't help but wonder though, if Gore had taken the win, we would not have gone into Iraq and opened the can of worms we face today. I'll always wonder, should we have just listened to the people?

I dont understand.

You guys keep saying "The polls last year all had Hillary ahead" "You cant trust polls, they are nonsense"

When in all actuality Hillary Clinton finished ahead, just like the polls said she would, just not in the correct population distribution electorally.

So the polls were accurate, they were just measuring the wrong thing.

The left seems hellbent on repeating their mistake from the last election. Keep believing 2020 looks good for you. So far you have no message beyond anti-trump and resist. You have no leader, but the one who just lost and seems determined to remain relevant.

Yup. The polls look good for the left. Just like last time.

a reply to: olaru12

You Leftists have taken so many head shots the last few days, the referee is about to step in and stop the fight.
But you keep lifting your heads off the canvas to post meaningless sh!t like this, it's like swinging and missing and falling down in the process.
The glazed look in your eyes is getting worse.
MAGA

a reply to: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
I dont understand.

You guys keep saying "The polls last year all had Hillary ahead" "You cant trust polls, they are nonsense"

When in all actuality Hillary Clinton finished ahead, just like the polls said she would, just not in the correct population distribution electorally.

So the polls were accurate, they were just measuring the wrong thing.

As of last week, Clinton's White House chances 95 percent: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation

That was October 10, 2016, just under four weeks before the election.

It's accuracy was astonishing.

originally posted by: olaru12
Apparently all the attempted deflections to ..."But Obama" and "But Hillary" have lost their effectiveness.

I wouldn't go that far. Just look at some of the top topics on ATS at the moment.