I WISH THAT I COULD TURN BACK TIME

are you retarded?

Nice going red line!

>graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS TO ME MATTERS IN THIS WORLD!

get out dumbass

IT DOESNT EVEN MATTER

Love how Cred Forums consistently takes whatever single poll that supports their narrative and acts like it's a turning of the tide. It's LongRoom all over again.

POL IS NOT ONE OERSON YOU MONG. AS EVIDENT BY YOURE RETARDED BABY ASS POSTING.

Don't be mistake lads. Trump is winning by a landslide.

The leftists are fucking with the polls. Why you ask? So that when Trump wins in a land slide there is a huge outcry of "voter fraud" having taken place.

So if Hillary wins will you be saying the same?

You people are giving yourself false hope

Any legitimate poll says that Trump is losing in the essential battleground states

He is not going to be president. He is not going to win. In your hearts you know this to be true. Accept president Hillary now.

I am ctr but I gotta admit, to myself and others, that trump won the debate. It sickens me.

>"HOLY SHIT GUYS CHECK OUT THIS POLL WHERE TRUMP IS WINNING OMG CTR BTFO MAGA"
>ignore the other 12 polls where Hillary is destroying him

No source

does it pay well

trump said something mean 20 + years ago though

Hillary never had a chance, Trump just toyed around with her.

if Hillary wins we know she cheated because her rallies are 1/10th the size

I get 11 cents every time, baby.

theres polls in there from 12-15 days ago??

wtf

This. The latest FOX News poll is brutal for Trump. There poll before the debate was +1 Trump. That's a 6 points swing towards Clinton after the debate.

We haven't even seen the fallout from the debate because most polls haven't fully covered the time period after. There have also been some pretty bad headlines, included two more scandals surrounding his foundation, and him falling for Clinton's shit tier bate with Alicia Machado again just like Ghazala Khan.

An user established last night that Reuters is massively skewing their polling, sampling nearly twice the number of women.

So did bernie and he lost

Stop being deluded trumpfag

are you retarded.........

thats head to head

with 4 people (stein johnson) hes 3 behind

Sup shills?

youtube.com/watch?v=bUFWXpYJKaI
TUMBLING DOWN DOWN DOWN

Informed people don't go to fucking rallies, you dumb retard.

What's the use? Getting hype shouting HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY for four hours? Only undecideds or inbreds would seriously attend a political rally.

>REEEE WE ARE ALL UNIQUE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES HERE

Lets be honest. I'm a Hillary supporter, but she did terrible in that debate.
All she had to do was show people that she was a likable woman, and had an honest plan to help out country, but instead she came off as catty and slick. Like a lawyer, or an ex-wife.
She's going to keep falling in the polls if she doesn't turn this around somehow.

HE'S WITH US!

LMAO

SO............all those huge crowds for Obama were just inbreds.........I AGREE

...

Obama hyped up the black young voters, you're correct.

>keep falling in the polls
is this bait? because she's doing the opposite

I gotta say, this fag is probably right. What kind of loser attends a political rally? Shit's retarded.

If only I had said what I still hide

Why are there no sources?

go prep your bull aquafresh

cuck or CTR shill, either way kys

What song is this?

Yeah, you sound like the average cuck at a Trump rally

>no sources
you can go to the real clear politics website and study each individual poll if you want to.
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!

>jelly faggot who does nothing for his toothpaste country
>uses the same insult I just used on him

Hillary also cheated to beat Bernie... Your The only one who is deluded about that.

Remember: whenever Trump is about to overtake Hillary in the polls, the pollsters just poll more Democrats. Sometimes even as much as 30% more!

forgot pic

Yeah, that's exactly why Romney won.

You guys should read up on this poll's methodology before you get excited. You'll figure out why it's the only poll where he's ahead. PPP polls are more accurate.

Today I will remind them

So, okay, yay! 8 more years of 1.5% GDP and hemorrhaging middle class jobs. Wow. Glad I'm a hillary supporter.

We're all so intelligent these days.

The graph shows Trump going up mate

NOW IVE LOST IT
I KNOW I CAN KILL

If I were an ant I'd still need a magnifying glass to read that.

HILLARY'S PARKINSON'S TREMORS CAUGHT ON CAMERA

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

Yay, another 8 years of GWB style massive deficits and tax cuts to billionaires and global coporations, and a huge economic crash at the very end as the cherry on top! So glad I'm a Trump supporter.

Why don't any of you faggots link?

Did he say Romney? No? he said Trump, learn to read

>TUMBLING DOWN

How can you exist for this long on Cred Forums and not know the basic websites?

Thinking bush caused the housing bubble:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

CTR needs to go

*shits self in visible rage*

My point was in 2012 Romney supports said the exact same thing. They constantly cherry picked the Rasmussen Reports poll which heavily skewed towards Romney and claimed all other polls were oversampling democrats.

If you're really supportive of your candidate you would at least attend 1 of their rallies. You dn't have to stay at the whole program but its a great venue to see other people passionate about your candidate.

Clinton will win, because all she needs to win is for enough people to believe its possible that she legitimately won when she rigs it.

Is LA Times a meme poll? I want to believe but why does it get such different results than other polls

>Rallies are a reliable indication of how many people are voting
kys tbqh

I believe this as well. They will move heaven and earth to make sure Trump loses. The only chance Trump has is to win by a huge landslide much like Duterte winning by 40%. Even with all the cheating going on they only managed to get it down by 30%. Trump has to win convincingly for him to have a chance

What the fuck??!?!?/! All the post debate polls showed Trump winning by a landslide.

wsj.com/articles/the-reasons-behind-the-obama-non-recovery-1474412963

Remember to vote more of the same, idiots.

Boy, we sure have evolved as a nation.

Romney was a Mormon faggot who nobody liked, was a neocon who attempted to drum up a war with Russia, and was awkward and unlike able.

Obama was a charismatic first google president, king of identity politics and inflicting white guilt.

Trump is no Romney and Hilldog is no Obama, in fact she lost to him worse than Romney did. You're fucking delusional if you think Hilldog is going to get 2012 levels of support especially after what she did to the Bernouts in the primary

Thanks for correcting my record though senpai

No, fake poll that over sample democrats by 15 points are... It's "scientific"...

lol no. The vast majority of people don't worship political figures. The just agree with their positions or believe they're qualified or experienced for the job. The vast majority of people won't worship them.

Trump has a cult following, a small number of people who completely worship him and want to see him with their own eyes and chant his him. He's a reality TV celebrity and personality poor, uneducated people love.

It has nothing to do with how popular he is among the general populous.

>Typically, polls ask people which candidate they favor or lean toward. Those who say they don’t know or are undecided don’t get factored into calculations of candidate support.

>The Daybreak poll, by contrast, asks voters, using a 0-to-100 scale, to rate their chances of voting for Clinton, for Trump or for some other candidate. As a result, everyone who responds to the survey has some impact on the results. Because that approach gathers information from everyone in the poll sample, it should give a better read on the many voters who remain ambivalent about their choices.

>Using the 0-to-100 scale, however, almost certainly makes the Daybreak poll differ somewhat from other surveys. As with the bounce, any difference that results should shrink as election day gets closer and voters become more certain of their choices.

>Finally, some analysts think the Daybreak poll is slightly tilted toward the Republican side because of how it accounts for the way people voted in the last election.

>All pollsters weight their results somewhat to make sure their samples match known demographics — the right proportions of men and women, for example, or blacks, whites and Latinos.

>The Daybreak poll goes a step further and weights the sample to account for how people say they voted in 2012: It’s set so that 25% of the sample are voters who say they cast a ballot for Mitt Romney and 27% for President Obama. The rest are either too young to have voted four years ago or say they didn’t vote.

daily poll that doesnt exaggerate dem turnout

There hasn't been a single source to any polls in this thread so far, so I don't know.

Here are your sources senpai. Whats next? Rigged polls too?

That's what happened here. Duterte rallies are literally flooded with people and no media would cover them. I went to one which was near us and there's literally thousands of people in the rally. Mind you this was not the paid crowd since you can see lines of cars in the streets, these were the middle class going out supporting Duterte.

i don't really go out in these political rallies but the sense of nationalism and right for change was high during the elections and it made me go in one of these rallies. I believe its the same there in the US, people are really flocking towards Trump.

>b-but Drumpf won the debate!

Read their website, it explains their methodology.

Basically they sample the same group of people each time. They started off which a group they believe is representative because the asked them who they voted for in 2012.

Problem is, a lot of other studies have found when you ask people this a lot more people support the winner. Presumably some people lie, or have convinced themselves, that they were on the winning side.

So it is likely that the sample group for the LA times polls is skewed right.

Still no link.

Didn't Brexit win by less than 5%?

you've been given links many times you trump shill. time to give up and find somewhere else to shitpost for pennies

RCP shows Clinton went up by 1.6 points on average. Literally nothing after Trump's worst debate performance yet.

For reference Romney's polls went up 4 points on average after he beat Obama in the first debate.

Show me the link then, bitch. There are none in this thread.

>Like a lawyer, or an ex-wife.
She coulda been both
Instead, she is neither - just bitter.

top kek

>Drumpf
CURRENT YEAR MAN(TM), GO AWAY

>realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
>these sub 90 iq trump shills

And once Pence defeats Kaine, Trump will go up again.

>>these sub 90 iq trump shills

Still no link, bitch. Cough it up.

So you basing that correlation on one sample? 99% of people hardly give a shit about politics, let alone can be arsed to go watch Hillary Clinton give the same speech she's been giving for months on TV.

But a shit ton of people go out, even pay, to see celeberties, or obsess over retarded reality TV stars like Duck Dynasty, Snooki or Trump. If Duck Dynasty gave a speech a shit ton of people would attend. Doesn't mean they would literally vote for him to become president.

...

Yes. Looking forward to that debate. Trump's policy beats Clinton's policy hand's down. In fact I wish Trump would start talking about it but I'll take Pence talking about it.

hahahahahaha

best troll ever

...

Don't cry, you fucken pussy. Post sources.

Its been less than a week. There has only been one poll fully after the debate, the Fox news polls, which shows a +6 bump for Clinton since their poll before the debate.

>Literally nothing after Trump's worst debate performance yet.
>she's +6 in the only poll with a close before and after
>only 3 polls since the debate
>winning outside the margin for error in 2 of them
>all 3 are right leaning

>asking for you to source your claim is dumb
Gr8b8m8

TOO THE GOOD OLD DAAAAAYS

WHEN OUR MOMMA SANG US TO SLEEP BUT NOW WE'RE STRESSED OUT

...

can you calculate how much she is up if you only use the 3 polls ending on the 29th??

(You)

it not 6

its 3 in a 4 way race (actual voting circumstances)

so thats nothing

>There has only been one poll fully after the debate

There has been three 4-way polls. I was referring to the 4-way polls.

>all 3 are right leaning

Not relevant. Polling companies have an internal skew right or left, but it's nothing to do with their own bias.

Public Policy Polling is a Democratic pollster but has a consistent Trump skew.

>Doesn't believe the same logic applies to him

PPP is also one of the "right leaning" polls you were referring to. Sad!

...

KEK MY LIFE INTO PIECES

Even Fox News is more realistic than them now, it's pathetic: foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-after-debate-fear-motivating-both-sides.html

I got those faggots to link, didn't I george.

nice poll m8

Trump voters are working 18 hours a day and not up for answering these polls.

Let me choose a poll at random.

realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.27_.16__.pdf

Result: Clinton+5

Democrat 752 49% Real National weights / 43% +6
Republican 570 37% / 39% -2
Independent 216 14% / 18% -4

76% of Independents believe the country is going down the wrong track, 9% right track.
51% of Independents disapprove of Obama administration. 33% Strongly 15% Somewhat 2% lean towards. 41% approve.

I predict Trump will gain 2/3rds of Independent voters.
Which makes this poll biased by 9%.

So whats Longroom's new name?

i'm so fucking confused. all the msm polls are shilling for hillary and showing trump declining yet the LA times poll actually shows a huge bump since the debate. i don't know who to believe. on one hand the bias is obvious but then again those biased polls have always been accurate in previous elections.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If the public willingly elects an autocratic warmonger as their head of state then they deserve everything that comes with it, simple as that.

>PPP is also one of the "right leaning" polls you were referring to. Sad!
That's cause their methodology is right leaning.

I know it's a democratic pollster. As you said, polling companies have an internal skew, right or left, but it's nothing to do with their own bias.

Fox, PPP (D), and LA Times/USC all consistently skew right but only Fox is right wing biased. You just explained to me why I'm right while telling me I'm wrong. I was talking about the skew. The results lean right.

This newfag needs a link to RealClearPolitics, is Trump hiring shills now? He doesnt have any money...

Nobody linked you 538, retard

>"HOLY SHIT GUYS CHECK OUT THIS POLL WHERE HILLARY IS WINNING OMG DRUMPF BTFO"
>ignore the other 12 polls where Trump is destroying her

You got something totally backwards.

The LA Times

Thanks for the truth bomb Karl

the best and truest fin

I mean, this and every other pro-Trump thread is a game of: "Lets post a pic of some unidentified trend line where Trump is winning and then everyone in reality counters it with RCP averages."

Fair enough

At this point, does it really matter?

Ok champ I'd love to see 12 recent scientific polls where Trump is beating the Shill? Pro-tip: they don't exist and you're delusional.

>Independent 216 14%
what a coincidence! The largest group of voters JUST S0 HAPPENS to be the smallest sample!

As the graph indicates, he did

If you were an ant, how would you operate your phone, you stupid phoneposter? The image is 1846x1311 and nothing in it comes close to being too small to read.

Lol maybe that's why Hillary pulled out of Ohio right.

Trump is winning if you unskew the polls

Yeah just like in 2012 when Romney was really winning but all the polls were skewed and he still won on election day

Wait...

Fucking paradox right?

Presumably, LA times figures high poll numbers for shrilly has a dulling effect on already dismal voter enthusiasm for her.

Polls showing LITERAL HITLER as winning might galvanize shrilly voters.

That's my theory, anyways.

>hillary is basically a magical negro guys!
>hillary is NOT the romney of this race with the whole media propping her up!

Nate Silver has been perfectly accurate with his predictions about Trump this election cycle.

>Tfw dear leader skips your state

What the fuck are you talking about? If you admire a candidate is it not okay to want to see them in person? Yeah you won't talk to them but it's just a cool experience.

Then why are the polls showing her winning when they showed Romney would lose

Not to mention Trump is the candidate who is literally only relevant because he gets endless media attention because he can't figure out how to keep his mouth shut

has a political party ever won 3 elections in a row in the last 80 years? i only know about it happening during the reagan revolution but he won in the biggest landslide ever, twice, so it's no surprise coming from such a level of popularity that republicans would get a third term through hw bush.

hillary is such an unlikeable stale cunt, shes already behind in early voting and has nowhere near the popularity of obama. i'm not saying she can't win, but it just seems so unreal especially considering historical evidence. even obama with all his charisma lost territory in the 2012 election despite demographics moving in his favor (not to mention romney being the most boring stereotypical empty suit CEO ever).

>i think they're biased
>they have always been accurate

Yes, I'm sure your feelings match up to actual science. Surely this is a paradox and you can't be wrong

Roosevelt -> Truman
JFK -> LBJ

Both cases of initially assuming office b/c the previous president died, but both times they won reelection and FD won 3 elections in a row to begin with.

Reguardless, it doesn't actually influence the election, even if the probability of 3 terms is low each election is an independent event. If you're getting your news from Cred Forums and other internet sources I'd advise you to not rely on your personal feelings about Hillary to dictate how you feel the election will go, the polls are telling you this is literally not how America feels.

>colors are backwards
What does it mean?

...

FDR won 4 elections in a row actually.

TRUMPOOZLE IS BAMBOOZLED I TELL YOU

TOAST
DONE
STICK A FORK IN HIM

After the great depression. Obama won after the great recession. He would easily win a 3rd term if he could run.

I think Obama would probably win a 3rd term if he could run again. Thank god for term limits.

FDR won because the jews completely destroyed the economy. he fought for the people. has obama fixed anything? last i heard he had the slowest recovery in american history, not one year with 3% or more growth.

romney was way higher in the polls until the very end you mongoloid

Electorate based """""""Democracy"""""""

All that shimmers in this world is sure to fade.

Without the electoral college, democrats would win every election in a landslide by simply going to every major city and getting disgusting urban americans to vote since they outnumber everyone else.

Alright well at least you exposed yourself as a complete fucking idiot before I got too invested in this thread

Much like the 3 terms in a row question, you could have found that there has only been one year of sub-3% growth since the recession by learning how to use google.

If you actually think jews engineered the great depression you might be beyond help

>democrats would win every election

But don't they already do? At least the important ones anyway.

>Nate "Trump has a 2% chance of winning the nomination" Silver
>Nate "Hillary Clinton has a >99% chance of winning the Michigan primary" Bronze
>Nate "Iowa and Illinois are equally for their respective candidate but I'll keep Illinois solid Blue and Iowa light pink" Copper
>Nate "I think Hillary Clinton is winning Ohio despite the fact that Trump has won every single poll there conducted since 9/11 and Hillary has literally stopped campaigning in the state" Methane

>polls
>science
Let me get my microscope out, my dude

Well they don't.

Seriously were you even following that election? It's ok to admit you're a retard, I don't judge.

Obama was winning in the polls the entire summer and leading into the elections, the numbers may have been close but the chances of Romney winning were not. There's a reason why we've been through this whole "skew the polls" meme before and its because Romney was getting fucked and republicans couldn't take it, 538 had Obama at 80-90% the whole time

538 didn't exist until 2013 you mong.

nice comeback dude, gifs surely stand up to 30+ years of advancements in stastics and poll based models successfully calling the vast majority of recent elections.

It's funny how posters like can't find an image that actually supports any of the shit that they're saying and ignore the parts where nate silver called 49/50 states in 08 and 48/50 in 2012

Nate still thinks it's 2012
The electorate has shifted dramatically
The candidates are not even remotely comparable

k so you are retarded. seriously just try google next time, the site was founded in march 08

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#Genesis_and_history

I have no good knowledge about US elections... ...So tell me, how does it look for Trump, and how does it look for Hillary?

It could go either way right now

>People still believing polls that use 2008 or 2012 demographics.
Any poll that does this is just wrong.

LA times poll seems to be one of the better ones. It showed immediate drop after Clinton's 9/11 episode. A smaller one that day then a huge one the second full day.

Conversely, the debates had no real effect on Trump or Hillary and his numbers are already going back up again.

Nothing is getting Hillary votes after this latest tape of her shitting all over Sandernistas and calling herself center-right. Nothing.

Again, you're posting images with no relevance to the conversation without any source or veryfying info.

If you're actually trying to make this argument, at least explain why and how the electorate has shifted, or what the difference is. I know you're just parroting some bullshit you read on here or breitbart or some shit cause it validates your opinions and you really want trump to win, but if you actually thought about this I think you would realize pretty quickly that your wrong.

Better for Hillary than her media shills would have people believe and worse for Trump than his underage shills here think. Really a toss up.

This is pretty fair map though some things could flip.
The big problem for Hillary is that she is just a shit candidate. Anyone with half a brain could have demolished Trump at the 1st debate and it's unacceptable that she didn't.
Add on that she doesn't have Obama's coalition (blacks and young people.)
She is setting up her supporters to stay home on election day

For Trump to win, all he needs to do is not act like a complete retard

*Worse for Hillary

Fuck I need to slow down on the booze

That's *after* all the election rigging.

The purpose of polls isn't to predict the election, it's to keep people from questioning the announced results.

faggot

>demographics have changed
>but I can't tell you why or how or why it matters
>polls that support my candidate are right because they agree with my preformed belief about what matters

This isn't how polls, or politics, or elections work. The vast majority of people who truly gave a shit about the 9/11 episode were already buying the "hillary is sick" meme and weren't voting for her to begin with. And yes, post-debate polls effected the polls, and Hillary did get a boost from them

>Iowa and Illinois are equally for their respective candidate

You can't literally make shit up, user. That's not how it works.

Are you dumb? Hillary lacks the enthusiasm from young and minority voters while Trump has a lot of enthusiasm from white voters. The people that will be likely voters this year are much different than they were in 2008 and 2012.

>demographics
lol. The fact of the matter is Hillary is not Obama and will not pull the numbers he got. It's why so many blue states are so close for Trump when Obama had comfortable margins previously.

>You can't literally make shit up
>Posts Nate Cardboard's literally made up shit percentages
In the polls (un (((adjusted))) ) Iowa has averaged +5 for Trump, Illinois is +6 for Clinton

Here's a link with a map which wasn't made up by some Cred Forums poster projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Short answer is relatively close, with hillary a bit in the lead for most of it, but by a varying margin

>>but I can't tell you why or how or why it matters
It's simple. Hillary doesn't have Obama's coalition of black and young people. Her voter enthusiasm polling is horrible setting up her supporters to just stay home on election day.

The results are already materializing too. This is the first time Republicans are ahead in early voting in Florida.

I've mostly been away from all the jewish propoganda slinging on both sides. Does Cred Forums have a running tally of what's what on the candidates? I know Shillary is a corrupt soros smegma guzzler but what's Trump's damage and other hillary damage?

Is this year another whoever wins, the jews win like the last couple decades?

The percentages are reflections of a weighted aggregate of several other polls. You can certainly question that methodology, but I place even less emphasis on your shit Longroom-style "readjustment" of the polls. Illinois has been solidly Democratic for a while now, and meme magic isn't going to change that.

>demographics
>lol

you're the one trying to convince people that they matter not me dude. I like how you're suddenly not interested in discussing them any more.

As far as popularity goes, you're not wrong, but half the people I know voting for hillary are just doing it because they hate trump, he's more responsible for their enthusiasm than she is. Either way this is reflected in the polls, 538 showed Obama at 80-90% through 2012 and Hillary's only at 65ish atm.

>repeats skewed polls meme again
worked so well in 2012 for Romney, huh?

Yeah sorry, you're blind if you don't realize how bad things are for Hillary, especially now that the early voting ballot requests are coming in for North Carolina and Florida.

They're up hugely for Republicans compared to 2012, following primary turnout trends.

This election is already over for Hillary. The most she can hope for is an October surprise or for Trump to do badly in a debate. Considering how little impact the previous debate had, that is unlikely.

trump won the debate in the sense he was the only person to actually come out on top at any point
if the debate ended half-way through it would have been a grandslam for him, but it didn't. Lester spent the second half working his ass off to protect Clinton.

Then why are polls still consistently coming back in favor of hillary?

The enthusiasm cuts both ways as well, Trump's so divisive he's convincing people to go vote for her just to stop him. The majority of dem voters I know aren't thrilled by her, they just really really hate him

what happened?? where did these hats came from?

>Then why are polls still consistently coming back in favor of hillary?
same reason they regularly oversample dems by 30-50% compared to 2012 and 2008 you retard

>I'm a Hillary supporter

Only so much damage one can do against the final jew in any one election.

But that Trump even said the words "Fed" and "bubble" during the first debate is incredible progress.

And to look at it the other way, the MSM has thrown to the wind any pretense of truth in order to stop Trump. If the ruling class are sacrificing a piece of the value of the MSM (since people are starting to see how they're just propaganda), that suggests the oligarchy fears they're going to lose something important.

This election is still a toss-up. It could go either way.

>Then why are polls still consistently coming back in favor of hillary?
Do you live in a bubble, or do you really think that several polls aren't deliberately designed to drive a narrative in the media?

Oversampling Democrats is the easiest way to do this.

Woo hoo who gives a shit who potus is
No more free speach...

see
If this is true then it should be reflected in the polls. but it's not. It's also not even true- NC is currently leaning blue, and florida is red by a lower margin than it was in 08, when Obama ended up winning the state.

cbsnews.com/news/early-voting-surge-benefits-hillary-clinton/

>This fucking circular logic shill
wew lad let's all just go celebrate the death of the free internet

>only state they mention ballots by party for is Iowa
>trying to imply that because dems won the majority of early voting in 2012 they also will in 2016
>refuse to tell you facts that are publicly available
think on that for a moment
or keep eating that MSM shit, it's up to you

>more "skewed polls" memes

Not how polls work dumb fucks. See: exact same crying over this shit in 08 and 2012. If something has changed since then give a source or at least some defense instead of trotting out the same "polls disagree with me so they must be wrong" shit that happens every cycle

wow really corrects my record

>See: exact same crying over this shit in 08 and 2012.
I like how you ignored where I said the polls are wildly oversampling dems compared to 2012 and 2008

IS SOMEONE GETTING THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST

Not skewed, over-sampled.

I'm more worried because rule #1 of false flagging is get yourself one nasty ass black eye. Shillary looks like a villain, Trump rallies people who previously didn't give a shit while obliterating the remnants of the republicans and then does the Obongo shuck n jive once he's in and everybody who got him there starts calling in, "Pay Denbts"

I see you lack basic reading comprehension skills, here, I'll quote some relevant parts

>In North Carolina, a must-win state for Trump, more than 69,150 ballots have been requested and 8,541 have been returned, according to AP data. That’s up from 8,326 ballots returned during a similar period in 2012.

>By party, Democrats made up 40 percent of the ballots returned compared to 35 percent for Republicans. At this point in 2012, Republicans had opened a wide lead over Democrats in returned ballots, 49 percent to 32 percent, leading to Mitt Romney’s narrow win that state. While Romney was boosted by older whites who voted early by mail, white voters so far have been down this year, to 82 percent from 86 percent of submitted ballots. Black voters, more likely to cast ballots in person, were higher at 12 percent.

>Florida doesn’t start absentee balloting until Tuesday, but already a record 2.5 million voters have requested ballots. Republicans are ahead in ballot requests, 43 percent to 38 percent.

>That’s a much narrower gap than in 2008, the most recent in which comparable data was available. At that time, the Republicans held a solid lead in requests, 51 percent to 32 percent, according to data analyzed for the AP by Catalist, a Democratic firm that helped run data operations for Obama’s 2008 race. Obama won the state by 2.8 percentage points.

You can complain about MSM not provindg publicly available stats all you want, but you aren't even linking them. If early voting in these states is swinging hard right then give me a source. I know you won't, because fi you look it up you'll see that you're wrong, but you could at least try to make an excuse

Yeah no. People aren't as enthusiastic to vote against Trump as they are to vote for him.

>If this is true then it should be reflected in the polls.
It is reflected in the polls. Hillary is still so close to Trump, sometimes ahead, sometimes behind, despite many pollsters oversampling Democrats by a significant margin. That is devastating for Hillary.

When Hillary is 4 points ahead in a poll that oversampled Democrats by 10%, that means she is losing back in the real world.

>cbsnews.com/news/early-voting-surge-benefits-hillary-clinton/
This is only counting returned ballots, which is irrelevant until election day.

What important number is how many were requested, which is significantly higher for Republicans than in previous years.

Democrats lost North Carolina in 2012 despite them having 14% more early voting ballot requests than Republicans. That's because Republicans turn out more on election day. Yet this year that difference is down to 1%.

That's a huge shift away from Democrats and why Hillary pulled out of the state.

In any case, I'm done with this. It's clear you can't really think for yourself and are just regurgitating whatever the media feeds you. You're their target audience.

I really don't get this oversampling Dems meme. Do you have some sort of national ID registration or phone book where besides a name of a person it also lists his party affiliation?

I see you love sticking your lips to MSM anuses and slurping the shit right out of their rectum, so let me help you

countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

Stats Type Republican Democrat Other No Party Affiliation Total Compiled
Vote-by-Mail Provided (Not Yet Returned) 1,017,172 873,998 56,561 389,907 2,337,638 09/30/2016 2:54PM

This post has been removed by the UN department of Internet Relations

Reason: Intolerant Views and Language

Since Soros is rigging the machines, it doesn't even matter unless they're wildly off by their estimates

[The content of this post has been removed for violations of UN hate speech regulations]

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE WE'VE GOT FUN N GAMES
WE GOT EVERYTHING YOU WANT

PS4 HAS NO GAEMS

I like how you ignored the part where I said if something has changed than give me a source or some defense of why. Pollsters entire credibility is founded on their ability to accurately call elections, if they decide to oversample one direction then they'll be wrong and fuck up their cred.

538 called 49/50 in 08 and 48/50 in 2012, give me a reason or some kind of proof why they've suddenly dropped their accurate model in favor of fucking their reputation or accept that you're looking for anything which supports the candidate you like the most instead of, you know, actual evidence or logical reasoning

Yeah, over-sampling is a skew, and this is the exact same argument as the last time around. Go look up the web archives of unskewthepolls.com or whatever it was called, you will see the exact same shit

>give me a reason or some kind of proof why they've suddenly dropped their accurate model in favor of fucking their reputation

the guy who gave trump a 2% chance to win the primary is surely right about the general election

back to the skewed polls memes, good stuff

>For Trump to win, all he needs to do is not act like a complete retard
So everyday since and including Monday night?

>over-sampling is a skew

Thank u user

so if I did a poll sampling 99% republican and 1% democrat that are all bernie supporters you'd be supportive of it, right?
don't unskew my poll

I think cynicism is always warranted in politics, but if the oligrachy could get both sides of their teams to play together this well all the time they'd have given up the pretense of elections long ago.

I do believe all the bullshit they're doing to keep the economy from collapsing before the election will stop as soon as Trump takes office. Then they'll scream and shout and say "See! See! We told you to vote for us!"

But since that collapse is going to happen one way or the other anyway, better to stay focused on the task - and that's give Trump such a large margin that even with all the vote-rigging they still won't be able to steal it from him.

This fag has never been to the nonstop party that is a Trump rally. You will never know what it's like to watch SJW protesters get literally triggered and cry because of what you shouted at them.

I was at the very greatest Trump rally held thus far, the Jeep plowing Fountain Hills AZ rally. It was open air outside so no one was turned away.

LOL You fucking braindead leftist. You're pathetic, typing these huge incoherent walls of text to impress your queen

Leftists are utterly braindead cattle and are wrong about everything. You dumbass motherfuckers would accept that 1+1=3 if your warmonger queen told you it was true.

I'm glad that at least the Trump rallies get media coverage, the Duterte rallies virtually got zero coverage or just some kind of snippets like "Duterte rally at x was held today".

I really don't know if you ever learned how to read my man. Did you miss hte part where le evil MSM article im quoting literally says republicans are ahead in florida with 43% of the ballot?.

And if you divide republican ballots by total collected in those numbers you quoted me, guess what you get? 43%, ie those mainstream media shill lies right? Again, a closer margin than in 08, when guess what, Obama took the state.

You sure showed me

are you a member of the rightwing deathsquads yet?

I crie evrytiem

hell fuck if I know where to apply I'd literally be doing it. although most of the shits nowadays are dead though kek

It is the song of the end of boundaries, the end of lies, the end of ego, the end of the world.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/

>but but, surely they've got an incentive to lie and show themselves as legit

Then why did they call 08 and 2012, and what is different this time, I'm still not seeing an answer from any one of you dumb fucks

>*drools on keyboard*
>*seal clap*
>duhhhh me smart me no math... duhhhh me wite u wong....... duhhhhh queen hilawy will win

Let me guess... you were the one in the wheelchair sitting behind Hillary a couple rallies back?

2%

538 is a model for calling elections, not choosing candidates from the get go. 2% is the number nate silver put on it in some conversation, not a stat that came out of their model.

The model called 51/57 primaries, and the last 2 elections

(pi * 0.63661977)%

>*ignore other election models that have predicted 10+ elections*
>538 has 100% accuracy
>they predicted something correctly TWO TIMES
>duhhhh it's only valid if it says queen hillary will win

This is your fucking argument!! HAHAHAHAHA

You fucking imbecile!! This is pathetic....

the problem here is independents aren't included. that's 30-40% of voters not accounted for in this poll.

looks like clinton is already celebrating her victory

what's wrong beta cuck...can't stand the truth that Trump is gonna get his ass handed to him?

Protip : populists get bigger crowds, but less votes. As seen with Bernie.

Red is trump, retard.

TO THE GOOD OL DAYSSS

>hurr but if my candidate loses it must be because of shills and fraud, people couldn't possibly disagree with me and everyone on Cred Forums said they hated hillary

But she only beat Bernie because she cheated.

CANT LIVE WITHOUT THE TRUST FROM THOSE YOU LOVE

What is this?

>imblying sanders didn't win
>imblying it hasn't already been proven that the primaries were rigged

bernie never lost though

>there is literally nothing wrong with oversampling democrats

Song thread.
youtube.com/watch?v=Cf4YU-sRRBQ

Where's your proof? The DNC leak didn't show any evidence of voter fraud.

What abnormalities? What is the source of this image?

WHEN YOU WALK AWAY

i fucking love this song

why is it so beautiful in all languages?

i wish you would step back from that ledge my friend.

youtube.com/watch?v=_i1vMK4XaPk

docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo/edit

it's Cred Forums's birthday, newfriend

idk, I know it in spanish and its awesome, and everyone in this country that listened to it thinks likewise

...

Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again.

>tfw I still had the partyhats blocked from last year and didn't even notice

So the early Florda voting looks good for Clinton

Some bernout NEET writing a google doc does not constitute a proper source.

>written by two stanford political science PhDs

you should be able to EASILY debunk it then, no?

Appeal to authority. It doesn't change the fact that it's written as a shoddy google doc with no direct evidence of actual voter fraud. Just a ton of circumstantial evidence and speculation. Which is why no serious news source reported on it.

>Florda
Hahaha you forgot the i in it hahahaha

prove it wrong then

>losing by 100k
>good

wnd.com/2016/09/republicans-lead-early-voting-in-florida-by-120000/

FINARU RESISTANCE AGAINST THE DEGEN GLOBALISTS
~~
discord.gg/zM3GtcB

>No serious propaganda factory shot themselves in the foot by going at crookary
Gee, no wonder

We're a republic, not a democracy.

I'm not going to waste my time debunking a 56 page google doc written by bernout NEETs.

>all news is propaganda
>unless it fits my narrative

Hahaha I love laughing at anyone who don't live here and thinks Hillary had a chance.

And Trump is leading hard with independents for the same reason.

>it's wrong because I said it's wrong

MUH SILENT MAJORITY

Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. There is no proof of voter fraud, therefore there is no proof that the primaries were rigged.

>here's the proof
>>nah I don't like this
>prove it wrong then
>>BURDEN OF PROOF ON U BRO!

...

But there is no proof. It's basically conspiracy site tier. In the same bucket as alex jones and his water filters.

I know, we can't forget the past...

not an argument, nigger.