CAN'T WAKE UP

We'll know for sure by Sunday or Monday what kind of effect the debate had.
>We update the data each day based on the weighted average of poll responses over the previous week. That means results have less volatility than some other polls, but also means the poll lags somewhat in responding to major events in the campaign.

ALL POLLS ARE RIGGED EXCEPT THIS ONE POLL WHICH SHOWS TRUMP WINNING
SHILLS WILL SLIDE THIS
DON'T LET THEM SLIDE THIS
CAPSLOCK WORDS TRUMP SHILL SLIDE

>LA TIMES

lol I wonder why this is the only poll Trumpcucks ever cite.

...

There was a spike in GOP donations and early ballot requests, if she "won" I can't imagine what a loss looks like.

It depends entirely on who you ask

Ive not seen any problems with LA times methodology, care to elaborate?

I have however noticed that all polling which shows clinton ahead oversample democrats when its reported. Some have stopped reporting demos all together (looking at you pppolls).

In my best estimation the contest is a dead heat with slight trump advantage based on turnout projections.

Pic related - ppp released today- they got cslled out for oversampling dems by 11% yesterday, now they arent reporting party affiliation.

>tfw Trump is gonna actually win this thing

Loving every laugh.

only Donald can fuck up debate and get points

>I have no idea what the drudge report actually is

>Polls that over sample Democrats have Shillary winning
>Polls that don't over sample Democrats as badly have Trump winning

Trump has the momentum.

You sound upset.

Do people not understand how the voting system works? It's not a popularity contest, you fucking mongoloids. If 51% or 99% of Texans vote Trump, it doesn't make him any closer to winning.

National polls are pretty much useless.

>inb4 shillary butthurt
Nothing I said its wrong

I've lost faith in Reuters since blue Georgia. No reason to believe them.

Did they release Democrat numbers for your pic? 933 people is usually not even enough for a poll like this.

>breitfart or smudge

MAXIMUM KEK MY SIDES DRUMPF SUPPORTERS BTFO AGAIN

>sample x% more Democrats than Republicans
>"oh look! Hillary is winning by x% over Drumpf!"

Do these polling companies think that ANY Democrat will vote for Trump or something? This methodology just seems dumb, imo. I mean, no fucking shit that Hillary will come out on top when you poll 8% more Dems than Repubs...

It's funny how easy it is to spot shills lol. Do your homework faggot or fuck off.

You trumpfags have been fixating so much on Ohio and muh Rust Belt that you completely forgot that there's an entire country out there with 300 million people and 50 states that's constantly evolving and changing.

HILLARY'S PARKINSON'S ON DISPLAY AT THE DEBATE

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

This.
Only polls that matters are swing state polls and Trump is doing better in them than in the national.

You normally can win the presidency w/o Ohio
>afuckingleaf

Listen, I don't trust Reuters about the rust belt either, but thankfully there are other polls out there that show Trump making gains in normally blue states while keeping red state strongholds.

Can't*

>There was a spike in GOP donations

This was astroturfing by Cred Forums and Reddit hackers. Confirmed by NY Times, Time, Wash Post, etc, etc.

How do we know this hacker known as Cred Forums isn't a Russian agent? They seem to be the puppet masters behind everything that goes wrong for the democrats. None of this could have anything to do with the democrats leadership or decisions.

No, thats my point. They stopped reporting demographics. If you compare favorability answers to previous polls it seems they are still dtamatically oversampling dems.

This clinton post debate bounce is fabricated.

In fairness, registered Democrats DO outnumber registered Republicans by 15-20 million.

The problem is that there are so many densely populated states that their distribution is out of whack. California has 18 million registered voters, for example. 7.9 million are Democrat, 5.2 million are Republican. The rest are independent (or conservative, or green party, or whatever).

You can reasonably adjust the sampling to include more democrats, but figuring the difference in turnout is notoriously difficult. a 10% difference in favoring Democrats nationally may actually be accurate, but it's a crapshoot. Are they basing the turnout difference on 2012, 2008, or 2004?

I don't think ANYONE can reasonably determine what the turnout is going to be in 2016. None of the old rules seem to matter anymore.

One thing that is encouraging is that even with Democrats at +8% in the sample, Clinton's only up by a maximum of 4. That means that independents have to be breaking for Trump in significantly greater numbers. And independents are now a huge portion of the electorate, more than Democrats or Republicans (I've seen estimates between 39-43%).

Honestly, I think it's all going to come down to the dindus. Will they show up? Because they usually don't. 2008-2012 had King Nignog running, and aren't indicative of typical turnout rates.

>In fairness, registered Democrats DO outnumber registered Republicans by 15-20 million.
Nice try.

WAKE ME UP

I GET KNOCKED DOWN
BUT I GET UP AGAIN
YOU'RE NEVER GONNA KEEP ME DOWN
I GET KNOCKED DOWN
BUT I GET UP AGAIN
YOU'RE NEVER GONNA KEEP ME DOWN
I GET KNOCKED DOWN
BUT I GET UP AGAIN
YOU'RE NEVER GONNA KEEP ME DOWN

He's not. He has been polling below Clinton through the entire election cycle.

Except for three days after the RNC.

But people have already made up their minds about voting. Clinton just has more voters than Trump. Whatever. I dislike her too. But Trump spooked too many people too early.

Romney actually won the college educated vote. Could you imagine how well Trump would be doing if he had Romney's voters along with his own?

College kids don't vote.

Fuck me, I don't know why I put that. I was looking at the wrong thing.

It's a 1-4 point edge. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

That would put the total difference between 5-6 million.

In terms of actual turnout, the numbers are much lower. Democrats are significantly less likely to vote (probably because of the higher numbers of blacks and minorities).

Der Trumpenfuhrer Kommt

Great analysis.

>Honestly, I think it's all going to come down to the dindus.

Not just that user, it's going to come down to the white working class blue collar workers too especially in key states like FL, PA, VA and CO.

They usually don't turnout at exceptional numbers, 2012 it was like 49% actually bothered. Trump needs to rile up the base.

>Trump has been doing bad league in polls conducted by the (((mainstream media))), who have been hysterically equating him to Hitler (in a bad way) and vowing to move to Canada if he's elected for almost a year and a half
>no potential for bias there

Yeah it's fucking retarded.

Let's say Clinton supporters aren't as motivated, so they say 60/40 for Clinton. Trump supporters are more brash, and they say 90/10 for Trump.

Honestly it's just stupid.

It's not really a poll, it's a focus group that lasts several months. Everyone needs to stop treating it like a regular poll.

It tracks the enthusiasm of the same group of voters. That's extremely valuable. Quit acting like it isn't, leaf.

I don't know a single person who actually works for a living--I mean electricians, contractors, construction workers, landscapers, machinists, that kind of shit--who wants to vote for Clinton, and I live in fucking New York.

I swear to God we need to just separate my state into three independent states. Long Island, Manhattan/outer boroughs, and upstate NY. Add four senators, siphon off a big chunk of electoral votes for NY, and wind up with one red and one purple extra state. Fucking mint.

Anyway, turnout is always important, but Trump's only turned off 10% of Republicans, and I think most of the rest will come around. More importantly, independents are breaking for him in every poll. Literally the only advantage Clinton has is that there are more democrats than republicans.

As an enthusiasm poll, it shows the debate had no real effect. It even shows the DNC bounce, so it is fairly accurate at gauging reaction to political events.

Television EVERYWHERE tells so...
There is no use of TV if you want to know something real.

I'm a lazy piece of shit and even I went to register to vote the other day
I'm doing my part.. why arnt you, anons?

RCP is the average of all the polls.

Op posted the one poll in which Trump is winning. The LA Times poll, I think.

Why is LA Times an outlier? What methodology are they using?

BUT ITS MY TURN

You guys are grasping at straws. Stick to the face scratching signal thing, it's the only one that has credence.

lazy piece of shit reporting in. I registered last week. Gonna do my part for TRUMP 2016

>the only one that has credence

Are you fucking retarded

The Gary Johnson Methodology

Ah-bloo-bloo

if two of 5changs laziest can manage to register, noone else has an excuse.

i dont get these graphs anymore

wasn't there a general normie consensus that trump lost the debate?

WISH SOMEBODY WOULD TELL ME I'M FINE

>wasn't there a general normie consensus that trump lost the debate?

no that was the media consensus.

TUMBLING DOWN

CTR SWEATING BULLLLETTTTTSSSS

The MSM was going to crucify Trump no matter what he said. The day HuffPo or Rolling Stone has a positive article on Trump is the day Hell freezes over.

I lost faith in Reuters the moment the announced they were "fixing" their methodology because Trump was winning. And they are not the only ones doing it either.

It's an old reference, sir, but it checks out.

That's pretty good.

That was just CNN.
I heard two old fucks at the gym yesterday talking about the election. One complains that Trump is talking about how "he won all the polls, but CNN shows Hillary up thirty points!".

IT ALL
RETURNS
TO NOTHING

BY FIRE MONKEY, KEK AND TRUMP
LIFE ON AIR SHE'LL TAKE A DUMP

>it's a Trumpfags cherry pick only those few tracking polls that shows their candidate doing well so to discredit the wealth of evidence that Trump is losing episode again

Don't use the now-cast. Use polls-only or polls-plus.

>it's a CTR shill uncritically accepting the MSM's narrative episode again

So you are saying that even in Clinton gets more votes she can still loose?

Why would they do this though? They'll get BTFO in the end no matter what they do.

All polls are rigged.
That said, TRUMP, MAGA, AWOOVMENT

All these graphs show is how fickle the public are with their opinions.

Anyone wanna know more about the advanced lore on clinton/trump?

I can explain it with this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=_rOb_z-yYrU

What you have in this race are basically different strategies, which do not directly compete with eachother actually. Trump panders to one crowd, and hillary to another.

Because both crowds have different neurological footprints. They basically respond differently to different words. Sometimes they dont respond at all, sometimes they respond negatively. But its all based in evolutionary development. This video further explains what is happening.

youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

You see, the thing is, here is how language works, how empathy and understanding works.

The way you feel stuff, is by having a neuron cluster inside of your head, that is equal to the neuron cluster in another persons head. Whatever information that person transmits, goes through the mirror neurons. Which then go through your own neuron cluster in your head.

Now if you do not have that neuron cluster. You will feel no empathy. In the same way that a dog wont be able to feel empathy to how a hawk feels flight. A liberal wont be able to feel empathy for the same values that a right wing person has. And vica versa.

Now, the only part who claims that the other party is bad, because it is not like the other party, are the liberals of course. They always want to scream the loudest to proclaim universalism values for the whole of humanity.

But of course we are not equal, not even among the races.

The presidential race however is of course an attempt to try to appeal to both different groups of neurological people. At some times in history, there are more of one group than at another time.

We are in the last stages of civilization, thus there are a lot of r selected people. That is why hillaries main strategy is not that of reasoning with the K selected, but going full, 100%, muh feels mode.

and to add to that:

People here watching hillary are probably mostly K selected types, since we shifted to that form recently. Meaning that we wont be able to understand why hillary may have some support.

But I hope that my long tl;dr may give some insight as to what is happening. Because I think its the truth.

We know that trump won because he played to our major k selected, typical neuro clusters. Hillary won because she played her best to her audiences typical neuro clusters.

The game is to try to trigger all the positive neuron clusters in your audience, and I think she was successful at it. That is why some of the liberals proclaim that she has won, as do we. But you guys also are blind to the in racial differences of mind.

since I bothered to write all of this down, il bump myself a bit so others can get into this lore.

It is the paper that endorsed Clinton before the debates.

>it's a Nimble America shill thinks everything that doesn't agree with him is biased/rigged episode again

They're being paid

To add to that though, I think that trump can win even some of the r selected degenerates over. Since its in their nature to be cowards, to be beta conformists. If those fucks catch wind that their weak leader endangers them. They will start to flee. And potentially be under strong protection.

odd

nc, fl, co will all be red