How do we help our normie outreach department spread the word that the polls are bullshit?

How do we help our normie outreach department spread the word that the polls are bullshit?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/how-eu-referendum-pollsters-wrong-opinion-predict-close
cnbc.com/2016/07/04/why-the-majority-of-brexit-polls-were-wrong.html
businessinsider.com/pollsters-know-why-they-were-wrong-about-brexit-2016-7
washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/24/heres-why-pollsters-and-pundits-got-brexit-wrong/
elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results
publicpolicypolling.com/final_2012_polls/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

/r/the_donald, Facebook, etc. etc.

>poll was wrong again

Hogan won because he won the debates late in the campaign.

Trump didn't win the last debate. Hell, he got DESTROYED.

Your logic is bullshit and you should feel sad.

Depends on the poll. Methodology etc. There's no easy way you'll have to read up on them.
Some are easier. Monmouth for example is known to have colluded with the DNC.

those polls don't look wrong though, they show a clear swing over time to Hogan, with the latest poll being dead on

>drumpf supporters

>Trump didn't win the last debate
Are you from the future, Doc?

No, I meant the Last debate aka the first one. I'm a fucking retard when it comes to typing things.

>drumpf
i bet you believe le current year man is the funniest """"comedian"""" on earth

A compilation of Brexit (((polls))) would be helpful, if someone had the time and effort to spare to put that together

Your typing is far from the only thing retarded about your posts.

Go back to your country svenne

>Hell, he got DESTROYED.
Kek
He curbstomped Hillary. How are you hildoes still in denial?

How does the left side of your keyboard smell.\?

Always wondered about that.

I am in my country, yank.

2 weeks of media lying has spawned the myth that she crushed ´him in the debate even though she did shit and had to be rescued by the debate moderator.

I'm johnson supporter, so no.

i've never heard one irl person that thought trump won the debate in central pennsylvania. literally everyone the next day/ that night was making fun of him, all over facebook and in real life conversations.

>I'm johnson supporter,

Is that the new CTR script?

Yes.

You're probably a faggot with faggot college friends though.

He was embarrassing. If he had managed to just not suck and give a 5/10 performance he probably would have locked up the election

I think posting all those Trump is winning polls on reddit is a mistake. It will make more people turn out to vote against him.

t. BLTT shill

AHAHAHAHAHAHA LOL this is what Drumflings believe.

OH I'M SOWWY, DID I RUIN YOUR HUGBOX?

Your candidate is a B-list con artist. Go ahead and continue to bury your head in the sand, ignore all the news, polling, and data and rely on your gut feeling punditry. Rely on random post number, or kek as if it means anything other than it just a digit. Go ahead and cry about muh biased polls, how did the "unskew the polls" movement work out for Romney? OH YEAH HE GOT BTFO. Mittmentum my ass.

Trump's gonna get BTFO hard by Hillary, and I'm not even a Hillary supporter. You can join reality or continue to shitost in your cambodian basket weaving hellhole as if you're gonna change anything.

How much is Maryland politics like the Wire?

Considering the dates on that, it doesn't seem that bullshit, he gained traction towards the election date.

Just keep pointing out how wrong all the Brexit polls were. How wrong all of Nate Silvers predictions during the republican primary were.

How the MSM lies all the time in order to advance their narrative. Just casually do this anytime someone brings up muh polls

>how wrong all the brexit polls were

Why is this meme still around?

I do it for free.

Nate underestimated Trump but the projection doesn't lie. Trump was up and his methodology had Trump winning in most States. He just doesn't believe in his own numbers.

Compare this to now where Drumf is BTFO in every poll average there is. Don't bother to bring muh Brexit because Britbongs can't into poll at all

theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/how-eu-referendum-pollsters-wrong-opinion-predict-close

cnbc.com/2016/07/04/why-the-majority-of-brexit-polls-were-wrong.html

businessinsider.com/pollsters-know-why-they-were-wrong-about-brexit-2016-7

washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/24/heres-why-pollsters-and-pundits-got-brexit-wrong/

...

Nate didnt like Trump so went out of his way to push """"polls"""" that showed he would lose which only indicates how bullshit the idea of polls are

Really guys, a Brexit poll compilation would be perfect.

Nate Bronze literally gives the LA Times a -5 Trump bias. As in, Trump is +5 and Nate makes it a tie.

if i included just my college friends the ratio would be even worse. i've seen a few half-hearted defenses of him from older folks on facebook, but even almost all of the older people on facebook were just completely bashing him.

i've been shilling for trump since the primaries, but vote bombing online polls is not going to help him win. it just gives him false confidence that he did well when objectively by almost every metric he did not, and the post-debate polls reflect that. if he fucks up this next debate, there is absolutely almost no way he is going to climb out of that hole.

Britbongs can't into poll. Also polling a referendum is harder than polling a candidate.

In California where I live for example every polls for props are unreliable, because the majority relies on confusing double, triple negatives and there's like 10% error on the people who misread the props and vote the other way on both sides.

Voting and polling for candidates are way way more reliable

Polls only work in primaries...

It's way too hard to predict the monster vote... and the monster vote isn't even polled. I would say the best way to predict a monster vote for a presidential candidate, is to look at independants. If you see independants strongly favoring a candidate, and a high amount of new voter registration in the general election... you have a winner, regardless of the polls... like Reagan, Obama, and my prediction of Trump.

P.S. I live in Baltimore City, and Larry Hogan is great compared to what O'malley and his rain tax were.

I think it's better to go with the B list con artist instead of the AAA-Class con artist who is backed by all the other top-class con artists.

There is plenty of polls showing trump ahead and the ones showing hillary ahead she aint leading by much. You are the one being a big baby and ignoring facts that don't suite you.

Because that's the house effect. Rassmussen for example has a conservative bias compared to other polls. During the eve of '12 election Rassmussen had Romney for Florida and they got BTFO. They were consistently biased towards conservative.

Each of the polls are graded based on how accurate they were compared to reality. The """liberal""" leaning PPP polls got all 50 states right where Rassmussen got 3 states wrong.

Same deal with LA times/USC. When you're consistently offset compared to majority of other pollsters, some of which have proven themselves days in and days out during the '12 election and throughout the primaries then a house effect is justifiable

Obama got the monster vote, just like Reagan, and Trump. The polls were/are irrelevant.

That's like your vote man. You're free to vote whoever, not that it's gonna matter anyway. Like for the majority of Americans (including me), our individual vote doesn't matter

I'm just laughing at delusional Trumplets who bury their head in the sand and think that their candidate is currently winning and all the major polls are biased

>he thinks shills have to be paid

Nice try BLTT

What does monster vote even mean. How come the polls, any polls were irrelevant. How come Obama is even remotely comparable to Trump. Your entire post makes no sense other than sheer gut based fact free punditry, totally befitting a Drumf supporter

Hillary has no organic enthusiasm or support.

This is known

He did give a 5/10 performance though. The right-leaning and moderate people I know all thought he did better than Clinton.

>delusional

How much do you know about polls?

How much do you know about election history?

How much do you know about the biggest voting block? Which is bigger than Democrats, bigger than Republicans, and bigger than independants? Just a fraction of that voting block got Obama elected.

Again that's just the title of article he wrote. His model all show Trump winning the majority of the states. Nate himself didn't believe his own model which was his downfall during the Republican primary. If he stayed strictly as number guy, most of his predictions, barring the first Republican Iowa caucus and Bernie's win in Michigan were correct.

Wait until Nov 9th. The most effective redpill is the one you take yourself.

>t. nathaniel silverstein

>only work in primaries

BLTT is working overtime

Pretty much this.

Can't wait until reality come crashing down on bullshit mountain that is Cred Forums and laugh at all the Drumfkins

Nice rewriting history shill. Notice how no polls were taken between the election and end of October. The only debate they had was DURING the first part of the month. So if your logic is to be applied here, the debates "helped him" as reflected in the polls, which, all turned out to be bullshit seeing how they were 15 points off the actual margin.

Fuck you

Sure thing BLTT

>That's like your vote man.
Why yes it is, thank you for noticing!

>not that it's gonna matter anyway.
And people like you said the same thing about Brexit. It probably won't matter, but if Trump somehow does manage to win (and I'm honestly not even expecting him to), then I get to be as smug and obnoxious as Hillary supporters plan to be if their war-mongering, big-business-and-bank funded candidate gets in.

Also, if my vote doesn't matter, then why do you care what I do with it?

Sure thing BLTT

Not an argument

>I have no retort and had to resort to the t. meme

Nate's opinion is independent of his forecast model. His forecast model is fairly accurate, his opinion just like you and i are not.

>moving the goalpost

>that piss poor excuse

>gut based

Stop projecting about yourself.

I deal with facts. Gut-based individuals like yourself can't understand how Trump and Obama are comparable, because you deal with gut based party-politics... instead of facts.

The monster vote are people who never voted before, or usually never vote... they are not polled at all. How could the polls predict Obama winning in a landslide when they couldn't poll millions of new Black voters.

Reagan called them "the silent majority"... because unlike Obama's monster vote, Reagan's weren't loud about it. They just went to the voting booth and voted... and the polls had Reagan losing all the way until near election day, and then tied, yet he won in a landslide, same as Obama. I literally don't care who wins in November, I'm good either way.... yet I'm 99.99% sure Trump will win... and I'm looking at it unbiasedly, because I don't care either way.

>Also, if my vote doesn't matter, then why do you care what I do with it?

My vote doesn't matter also. Who you vote for doesn't matter, all I'm saying is that the current state of Cred Forums being an utterly reality denying fact free hugbox is saddening. This amount of denial is /r/berniesanders tier of denial.

>I have no number nor facts to back this up, not even a single article from a non biased source I can cite other than right leaning breitbart or daily caller about this so called monster vote for trump

But I believe in muh gut that Drumf gonna win. "I deal with facts" my ass

Polls in primaries are easy, you just poll registered voters from the party and they give you feedback. That's why party polls are always dead on.... but general election polls are always wrong.

>are always wrong

And you genuinely believe that BLTT?

Just to add, look at the electorate demographics. 2012 was pretty similar to 2008. You utterly made up the millions of new black voters thing

I don't read breitbart... but apparently you do.

Also, I was a pollster for 3 years, during the 1992 election. And as I said, all you have to do is look at the newly registered voters, and the Independant vote. I don't need a source, just go look up all the elections and do your own homework.

The only polls that were wrong last time in '12 were the right leaning Rasmussen poll and the """"unskew'""" the polltards.

Nate Silver, Public Policy Polling, and even Huffingtonpost polling average, which according to Cred Forums is the most biased site there is called 50 out of 50 states right.

elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results

Go look at all the polls in every general election... none of them are close. The best they can do is predict the winner of a state, but the percentage isnway off, and they still get the state wrong sometimes.

Now go look at primary polls, they are spot on. If a candidate is polled to get 41% in Michigan... he get's 41% or damn well close enough.

>I was a pollster in 1992

Time has moved on grandpa. Polls are way better now with numerical models and monte carlo analysis. Maybe nobody around you who are over 65+ are voting for Hillary, but the country has shifted beneath your feet, get along with facts or just rot and die in your retirement home.

See How come PPP, Nate Silver, and the biased Huffpo got 50 out of 50 states right? Yeah because they use accurate polling and models. What you do is promote anti-science and gut based punditry despite evidence of the contrary. Go ahead and cry some more about unreliable poll.

Polls are better... yet not one poll in a general election has been accurate. Makes perfect sense.

My polls were spot on in 2008 and 2012. I had Obama's and Romney's exact percentage in every state.

You're objectively wrong because there were several predictive agencies that got the 2012 100% correct

Both elections featured the same black candidate. Are you retarded? There were millions more blacks voters in 2008 than in elections before

Blacks won't turn out near as much to vote for an old white woman

>yet not one poll has been accurate

But, in your own words, they were damn well close enough.

Based on what?

>yet not one poll in a general election has been accurate.

publicpolicypolling.com/final_2012_polls/
>We called the winner of every state. In the 9 swing states, we underestimated Obama's margin by an average of only 0.89 points.

And this comes from the liberal leaning PPP

First of all... I don't care what Cred Forums says.

But Nate Silver was not accurate in any state... all he did was predict the state winner, but that's easy... my 8 year old son can do that. And if Obama is up by 1% in a state... AND he gets the unpolled monster vote, them of course he wins that state... but he wins it by way more than 1%.

Nate Silver would have got crushed in the 1980 and 1984 general election.

No they weren't close enough... if Nate Silver says Obama will win a sate by 1%, and he wins by 7%... that's not even remotely close.

Hahaha I love how you're grasping on to what you perceive as relevancy

So they were off by 8% in only 9 states and you think that's close?

Okay, all I know is, Trump is the winner in november.

I had every election since 1980 perfectly predicted, other than the 2000 election, which I had right, but my % was off by over 1% in the total votes.

I'm the only person in the USA (that I know of) that has an algorythm to poll the monster vote.

>maryland finally elects a republican mayor after shitshow that was o'malley
>hogan magically gets cancer

Name one... all the polls were off by a lot. Even Nate Sliver admitted he was off by .9 % on average in the 9 swing states.

Off by 0.9% doesn't matter when Hillary's lead in most swing states except Florida and Ohio were bigger than that

jesus fucking christ

Pretty much. Drumfkin can bury their head in the sand all they want, and abloo abloo say that not a single poll has ever been accurate despite massive evidence of the contrary.

1-2 % error in most polls doesn't matter when she leads by 5 point. It could swing both ways and Hillary would still win the state either way.

Then you take into account average error of each poll, and run monte carlo randomized simulator 1000 or 10,000 times like Nate did with his model and that's how he come up with the 70% chance number

>I'm the only person in the USA (that I know of) that has an algorythm to poll the monster vote.

I have no evidence and were actually just an 11 year old shitposting. If you called every single election since 1980 why aren't you famous and why are you shitposting in canadian cartoon board instead of making millions of dollars consulting?

This ladies and gentlemen, is the average delusion of a Drumfling. Sometime they're so delusional that they're beyond tulpaing and invented a Donut steel alternate personality to shitpost in Burmese cartoon imageboard

Kek you're a literal bully

>I had every election since 1980 perfectly predicted, other than the 2000 election, which I had right, but my % was off by over 1% in the total votes.

No seriously though, Mr. 11 year old tripfag. It would be great if you let us know your site, or upload pdf of your polling agency to mega to prove it. I'm waiting to be proven wrong

Bump and waiting for the Drumfkin to provide proof that he called every election since 1980 except the 2000 election

Cred Forums BTFO

Independents favored Romney, but Obama still won

Why are you waiting for a guy who says on one hand that he's a pollster and doesn't go by his gut but then on the other asserts that he doesn't need data or sources and his gut tells him all new voters participating in this cycle have registered to vote Trump? It's just an elaborate shitpost persona to keep Trumpfags in the haze of ignorance that they so enjoy.