TRUMP'S NUMBERS WENT UP AGAIN

NO BRAKES

Other urls found in this thread:

discordapp.com/invite/7ybYskS
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1475531812961.webm
graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/#about
upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/10/03/UPICVoter-poll-Donald-Trump-leads-Hillary-Clinton-by-25-points/9051475504225/
peoplespunditdaily.com/latest-polls/election-2016/us-presidential-election-daily-tracking-poll/
politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228
polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_26/dates/20160701-20160826/type/smallest
youtu.be/4SaPcp4PGdU
youtube.com/watch?v=FGfSuU8Pxpg
youtube.com/watch?v=ezxxmuWVKsE
judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/100316_Goodlatte-Letter-to-AG-Lynch.pdf
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3819617/How-President-Obama-worried-Hillary-Clinton-s-health-set-secret-medical-check-Walter-Reed-refused-fearing-LEAKING-HEART-VALVE-arrhythmia-exposed.html
infowars.com/exclusive-hillary-killed-libya-peace-deal-over-personal-vendetta-claims-whistleblower/
infowars.com/pentagon-paid-pr-firm-540mn-to-make-fake-terrorist-videos/
wnd.com/2012/11/gop-legally-barred-from-fighting-vote-fraud/
americafans.com/index.php/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-to-isis/
pjmedia.com/election/2016/10/03/fbi-colluded-with-democrats-team-clinton-on-email-prosecution/
pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/10/03/yes-virginia-aliens-are-registered-and-voting-and-in-pennsylvania-by-the-thousands/?singlepage=true
bients.com/ex-cia-saudis-reveal-names-behind-911-attacks-including-mossad-cia-bush-family/
openmedianews.com/bill-clinton-american-india-foundation/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why is this poll always so different from the others

Bump for a real poll, and not someone's green text or Twitter.

this

Hilary support discord
discordapp.com/invite/7ybYskS

Because it didnt change the people its polling
and the methodology
All other polls changed their methodology to include learners.
They also changed methodology oversampling Dems/ ethnicities/genders/ counties

on purpose

>trusting Cred Forumss

Red pill me on the LA times poll. Is it accurate?

...

because its the same sample over and over again

they cant mess with it

pic related

So much for that poll

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

*

Our time has come Cred Forums

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1475531812961.webm

Because they have a dumbass methodology

Shy Torrie syndrome.

In the LA times poll the person being polled doesn't have to worry about reprisal because the poll is conducted by robots instead of volunteers.

I think it's the same for the Breitbart poll

Red pill me on gorillions.

>poll numbers are real when my candidate is winning!!!111!1!11

Cant wait for November 8. The Trumpkiddy tears will be more delicious than ever.

I hope you have a framed Trump portrait for when the Trumpstaffel come knocking.

This. Some pollster called me up and said, "Is this Theodore Davis" and after I nervously said yes they started asking me who I was going to vote for.
She was clearly a black woman and got mad that I said I liked some of Trump's idea but was unsure.

"Ted, I'm going to put you down for Hillary. You can always change your mind later."

This exact same shit happened to me. I said I was leaning more towards trump even though I was a Bernie supporter and the young lady on the phone got attitude with me and said she would mark me down as undecided even though I told her I'd vote trump if the election were that day.

Was a really weird ass interaction.

No, it's because they do their polls differently by picking one sample group and staying with that group the entire time to see how this one group changes. What this update shows is that Trump is staying the same, which is what every other poll is showing. This one just shows him stable while also leading by 5 points.

It's a pretty good idea honestly but then it has the risk of being skewed if their sample was off from the majority.

Their pool is around 3000. They poll a different 10-15% of the pool daily. The method is sound and is run by a political science department at an academic institution. I'd trust it over Reuters any day.

nice webm
was funny

They don't change the methodology the whole election cycle

CORPSE CLINTON BTFO

Remember when Reuters fucked up and accidentally made it public that their methodology was changed specifically to boost Clinton?

That's what most polls do, but LA Times isn't one of them.

You mean Nate "Trump is done any day now" (((Silver))) is calling it for Hillary? Wow, you don't say!

Do you even read criticism of other polls, fucktard? Nobody's disputing that the losing polls are accurate for what they say (that dems don't want Trump), what is questioned is when they oversample dems.

It also follows the same 3,000 people. It's a daily poll of a single consistent sample.

i had a dream last night where i was visiting the 'trump mall and casino' in las vegas or somewhere (not sure if this really exists).
one of the shit head bullies from my school appeared and started fucking with me, so i kicked his fucking head in.
usually he kicks my ass or i run away. or my arms go like jelly and i cant fight, this time i basically caved his skull in and probably killed him (in the dream world).
i see this as a sign of victory to come.

>went up again
>numbers
>plural
Canuck, this is one poll, his number, went up again. And they didn't go up again. Last LA Times poll that they release like every day had +5 last time

All polls suffer the risk of having a sample that is non indicative of the actual electorate. But the LA Times is the only one that gets shit for it.

graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/#about

>It's a daily poll of a single consistent sample.
A different subset of the 3000 people are polled daily. Otherwise, the variation would be a lot less and "unnatural".

LA Times poll doesn't even change the people its polling. That's a big no-no in statistics.

> Trump's numbers up in one poll

> Still down 5 points in that one poll

Nice. Trump is truly the winner of this news.

#CantStumpTheTrump #NumericallyLiterate

This poll is an outlier. It shouldn't even be counter. Nate Silver said don't worry about the LA Times poll. This is Trumpkins' last line of defense, and it's weak. Good luck, Trumpkins. Enjoy our last month with Drumpf.

It's going to feel pretty shitty for you when you have to delete that shill image a month from now.

This is so stupid

What good is a poll if it doesnt tell you what state the respondonts are from or what race they are

As of now its like picking 2000 random people out of a pool of over 120 million voters. You really don't get a good indication either way.

>A different subset of the 3000 people are polled daily.
I take that back. Their method description is unclear. I guess it's the same set of 3000 daily.

Why the anger my man? You mad the old hag has no chance?

They were spot on holy shit

DRUMPF IS DONE.

Not necessarily. Shill-san.

To do proper polling (not the shit the vast majority of the MSM does) what matters is not that you regularly change your sample but that your sample is genuinely representative of a population.

The vast majority of mainstream media polls do not do this. To be honest, I'm not even sure what the fuck they are doing but it doesn't look like real polling to me.

If the LA Times and USC really have a good demographics/age/location representation of the US population (very plausible with 3,000 people) then this is a far superior methodology than just making sure you ask a few hundred different """"randomly selected"""" people each time.

HE'S SO FUCKING DONE

UP

IN

EVERY

SINGLE

FUCKING

TRACKING

POLL

(You)
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You)

There's been a spike in Republican early ballot requests too.
It's real, the other ones are fake. Pic related. The 2014 Maryland election actually mirrors this one pretty closely
>Hogan has massive rallies for a gubernatorial candidate, tons of volunteers and enthusiasm
>Brown has low rally attendance, little enthusiasm
>Brown has constant media shilling, Obama and Hillary campaign with him
>has tons of polls claiming he's up by 20 points
>Hogan campaign commissions a poll of their own after getting suspicious of months after months of this bullshit
>media mocks Hogan campaign for thinking they're up after all of the polls showing Brown up
>Hogan's poll was the only one even close

>(((far superior methodology)))
Learn statistics, then try again.

Because the "other polls" are all media shill jobs. LA Times is not the only one showing Trump's true lead, UPI/C Voter and PPD are also good:

upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/10/03/UPICVoter-poll-Donald-Trump-leads-Hillary-Clinton-by-25-points/9051475504225/

peoplespunditdaily.com/latest-polls/election-2016/us-presidential-election-daily-tracking-poll/

Is he "our" guy?

>LAtimes poll

just in case you guys are looking to put a bet on, Trump's odds are the lowest they've ever been for at least a couple of months now.

they're 5/2 on the website i'm looking at right now. might be a good time to put on some cashish my niggers

>mfw I put on 100 quiddlies when he was 4/1

r/politics told me LAtimes are in bed with Putin

actiually people here are wondering why this particular poll graphic is so different.

Oh look, a shitty LA Times tracking poll. The last refuge for desperate Drumpfucks while he crashes in every other poll.

He is down in EVERY. OTHER. FUCKING. POLL.

Down in CNN. Down in Morning Consult. Down in every swing state since the debates. Down, down, down in the 538 model.

I'm going to keep forcing you assholes to admit #SHEWON, but if you want to know the truth, it doesn't fucking matter.

You'll admit he's done in a matter of weeks, when Drumpf becomes a historical footnote, and HIllary becomes our next President.

Eat my gay feminist asshole, alt right pantshitters. It'll be a good warm up to having Hillary's feet on your face for the next eight years. And MAN, let me tell you babydicks, she is going to rub them in HARD.

We aren't going to forget Drumpf. We are going to turn out for the midterms, win back Congress for her, and then we are going to cut racist white assholes off at the balls FOREVER by making you choke on the most draconian hate speech laws known to man.

If you FUCKING BABYDICKS try saying half the shit you do about black people on here in 2019, you can say goodbye to your jobs, your welfare, and any social reputation you ever had. You will be outed, and you will face prison time and fines that will make you fucking scream.

USC = most accurate 2012 polling org.

LAtimes also endorsed Clinton.

This if I got a call I'd say undecided or johnson to avoid getting on a kill list.

Voting Trump.

Trump has already won the election

>buh buh buh only the polls I agree with matter! Muh HuffPo! Muh CNN!!

Hilarious salty butt hurt!

What happened to Romney on 09/03

Those polls are shit

someone leaked a photo of him getting his dick sucked at a college frat party from back in the day

Wait are we using "Trumpkins" now? or "Drumpfkins"?

I know last month the memo said to use "Trumpletts".

Nice

Hey there, CTR.

i'm so scared.
go get raped by a nigger, dyke

consider my record corrected

>YouGov: +13 to the leftist candidate

I'm a faggot who knows a lot about polling.

YouGov is an objectively terrible pollster. They are a joke. In this case, they were wrong by 17.4 points, but make no mistake - this ALWAYS happens with them. They are always wildly overestimating support for the left (by 10 points or more), every single fucking time.
It's probably not an intentional thing and more to do with their shitty outdated polling methods, but it's still a huge problem.

In a fair world, YouGov would have zero credibility. They are ALWAYS completely wrong by a huge margin. But of course, the reason that the media never complains and they are considered a fair and objective pollster is because they make the left look good. Just look at Rasmussen - they get discarded for having a slight (a point or so) bias towards the right. YouGov is objectively much worse, but nobody says a thing.

Now think about this: conducting a serious and relatively respectable poll costs a lot of money. I'd guess it would cost at least a few hundred thousand dollars per poll. It's a very labour-intensive process.
But the media companies that commission these polls (Fox, CNN, etc) get no return on their investment. They can't sell these results to other news groups, they can't act on these result in any way. At the same time, they wouldn't commission these polls if there wasn't anything in it for them.
So why do they do it? It's BECAUSE of the bias. When CNN comes out with a YouGov poll that shows Clinton 750,000,000 percentage points in the lead in Texas, it makes a lot of libshits very happy and motivated to vote. It makes the Clinton camp and Clinton donors very happy. It makes a brown envelope mysteriously appear on the CEO's desk.

Polls are mercenaries of propaganda. Taking them as objective fact is silly. The only thing that they are good for is showing trends in one direction or another - and according to the LA Times poll, voters are trending towards Trump.

Which websites?

Tl;dr we're winning lol
Make America Great Again!

...

Every other poll has been oversampling democrats, and altering their methodology every time Trump starts to pull ahead.

>Yo f.am, what kinda poll you want
>Just rate how much you want to vote for your candidate on a 0-100 scale, and keep polling the exact same people every few days
>But f.am, that isn't a poll
>JUST

DELETE THIS
Drumpf has no chance.

>being THIS delusional

We aren't wondering anything. We know the reason already.

The methodology is completely different. Probably more accurate too.

Trump/Valentine ticket when?

>weakly attempts to use Cred Forums memes

No, YOU learn statistics you infinite faglord

What you're saying makes no sense at all, from neither a theoretical statistics point of view nor a practical considerations one

The MSM poll samples are often only in the hundreds - representing a country of hundreds of millions. A little bit of randomness (or deliberate massaging) could end up drastically over-estimating certain segments of the population and their opinions and entirely missing others, creating a bias - unintentional or otherwise.
One possible example of how this could go wrong: people who work longer hours may not be around to answer cold calls to their house phone (or busy when the call comes in and not interested in calling back) but people on welfare sitting around the house don't have anything better to do.

Also, in practice, this is a very charged election. Not to mention that a cold call asking people if they support Trump is almost intimidating for some people given all the abuse he gets every day in the press. "Are you supporting a racist sexist xenophobe who is RACIST?"
It's like when those naive pollsters ask Chinese people in China "do you support the Communist Party?" they know that saying "yes" is the safer answer, whatever their true feelings are, and this will skew the results.

A genuine demographic representation of the country calculated without bias IS better than a totally random sample.

AND if the people taking the poll are an established group with a trusted relationship with the people they are asking, people are going to be more willing to admit to unpopular opinions.

Sources:

1) I'm a professional STEM guy who knows about these things
2) One of my colleagues did exactly this kind of modeling as part of a PhD thesis several years ago and succesfully called the election of a country.

this. Drumpf will be BTFO, Obama's legacy will be protected and continue, and we'll get our first female president (FINALLY!). Epic Win.

CHERRY PICKIN'.

>this webm

The tears here would be sweet if he lost.

But not as sweet as the liberal meltdown that's going to happen when he wins.

You don't know how elections for president work, do you?

Ayy hol up let me see them p-values and standard error bars for each polling snapshot by date. And let me see some proof that these supposed voters actually exist.

>Results in shaded areas fall within the poll's margin of error meaning the difference between the candidates could be the result of change
W E W

If you think Clinton is winning then you are delusional; a Pyrrhic victory, nothing more.

>Nate (((Silver)))
He's been wrong at, literally, every single step of this election.

>mfw sandstorm kicks in

Nate Silver is a wonderfully talented, honest and intelligent analyst. His predictions are so eerily accurate that he's probably psychic.

He's been 100% right up to now.

Britain voted to remain in the EU, Trump dropped out of the race after an uneventful 2 weeks, Jeb became the Republican nominee, and Clinton is on course to take Texas and Georgia in a historic landslide victory.

Kek

how do you know these things?

>that /o/ cameo
/o/rangutan reporting in

>Trump is almost as high as during his convention bump

that's not good for Hillary

I was just talking about shitty Google services the whole time, I really do hate the Skype

Because I'm a faggot - can't you read?

Beautiful

>serbia
>cars

How's your Dacia?

LOCK HER UP

The only thing I can think of that got Romney in trouble was the 47% remark and at the time, I didn't think it was a big deal. I guess unlike Trump, first sign of trouble he folded. Trump knows the only way to win against the media and the leftist to hit them back.

so what happened to polls getting it right up until 10 years ago?

Was it the landline polls that used to get it right most of the time? I understand they can't legally call your cellphone anymore.

Not that I doubt you, just curious on your thoughts.

BLTT shills out in full force

I saw it on a YLYL thread on /gif/, saved it afterwards.

I have a boxer actually

Because they have retarded polling modifiers(level of support for candidate=more of a vote!) and they have, as said, continually sampled the exact same people. Which is why this poll isn't worth shit.

LA times decided to be the unskewed polls of this election

it's called common sense, user.

>level of support for candidate=more of a vote!
>the implied irony
So you think that more support = less vote. U wot?

>level of support for candidate=more of a vote!

What kind of retard are you?

This will pay off for them because when Trump wins they will be the only (((poll))) to correctly predict it.

Essentially, the mainstream media and pollsters are committing suicide in an effort to get Clinton elected. They're sacrificing trustworthiness and integrity in attempt to push the hag into office. Meanwhile USC is based and will be rewarded after the election.

No. I think that people likely to vote for a candidate count equally as much as someone who has 100/100 support, absolute zeal for a candidate. This retarded polling method rewards rabid supporters that have lots of faith in a candidate rather than individual voters. Weighting votes to matter more for the truly zealous is fucking idiotic. The whole point is that yes, Trump has more ardent supporters, but they can't duplicate themselves or somehow make their vote matter more. These polls assume they can.

I had one of these before. I said I was voting Trump and the bitch hung up on me.

Sauce?

Not retarded at all. What is it you don't understand about their polling methodology and why it shares nothing in common with any others? There's a reason their poll is so far off.

That's the million dollar question.

A real polling system used to be at least somewhat accurate and could come very close to predicting exact results; but now look at Brexit, the Colombia deal, the 2015 British general election, the Scottish referendum, etc...

Personally, I think it's the result of a number of problems.
Polls just can't reach people who aren't involved in politics (to shamelessly steal a line from Farage). People who aren't affiliated with parties and don't really follow the news aren't rare like the media would have you believe, they're the majority. But when these people see their communities flooded with Muslims who hate them and their culture, they notice and vote accordingly. We've reached a cultural tipping point in the last few years, and these previously disinterested floating voters are now swaying hard to the nationalist right. Old models would have classed them as ambivalent or supporting the dominant party, but that's just not true anymore.
There's also far too much faith placed in internet polls. Old people turn up to vote at phenomenal rates, but internet polls pretty much completely ignore them (while wildly oversampling the millennials who probably aren't even registered, let alone bother to vote).
Finally, I think the bias of the polling companies is no longer something that they're ashamed of. It's a selling point. Instead of being neutral independent bodies who sought to reflect the real result, they've picked a camp to cheerlead for. So while they may not actually fuck with the result, they now deliberately oversample groups that they know will vote in certain ways in order to get a "real" result that shows what they (and their paymasters) want to show. For instance, I believe a very recent Reuters poll sampled something like 58% women to 42% men (to show a Clinton lead).

...

CTR pls

>∝

>YouGov is a terrible polling firm they're wrong all the time loool
>trust me I'm a fag that knows what he's talking about
>YouGov Races called correctly: 93%

Well at least you typed big paragraphs and a few people are too dumb to question you.

Next stop : VICTORY!

>the irony of this post
lel

If you really want to try and blend in don't. talk. like. this

I mean fucking hell

I agree on internet polls.

However, does it make you think that British polls are in general, just shitty? Not to toot America's horn but I've always been fond of the Brits' ability to gauge public perception and give unbiased findings (ie the BBC) in the past.

I'll take things delusional BLTT shills say for 500 Alex.

Thank you for Correcting the Record
$.00 has been deposited into your account
:^)

>I believe a very recent Reuters poll sampled something like 58% women to 42% men (to show a Clinton lead).

Lol @ that CNN poll.

If LA Times is to be believed, he's winning. And they dont even like him.

With the obvious (((media))) polls taken out they're tied/within the margin of error.

I suggest that you take a look at the quality and importance of the races they predicted accurately, as well as the margin of victory and how blatantly obvious that result was to anyone who was paying attention (they're great at predicting the outcome of safe seats...), and also the dates of those accurate predictions. YouGov is a joke, and I picked them as an example because they're so comically inept when it actually matters - when the mood of the people is impossible to gauge and you need professional help on the matter.

The simple actual factual reality is that psephology is in trouble these days. And that's not just me saying it - it's the actual fucking British Polling Council (the central authority on the matter in this country).

The polls almost unanimously failed to predict the outcome of the 2015 UK general election. I don't think that was the tipping point, but it was so conspicuous and serious that everyone had to just stop and say "there's clearly something wrong here".
Since then, they've had failure after failure. Something is wrong, and anyone who pays attention to these things should be able to see this.

To be perfectly honest, it's not even Trump that I care about here in this election, it's the actual field and science of polling. Yes, I'm that much of a queer faggot. But I'm also right.

You are Tyrone in this picture and you need to get it together

>CNN

why wouldnt they just be fucking honest about Trump winning? It feels like once democrats fall behind, they just dont vote. They dont understand that republican voters are the polar opposite. If they're losing, it means they're going to vote the fuck out of the election.

Not bad lol

We use mostly the same polling companies though, and certainly the same fundamental polling methods. There's nothing radically different between the polling in our countries.

Give me a minute to find it. This could take a little while, I'll have to go through all the recent ones...
Side note: Reuters is a donor to the Clinton Foundation, and conspicuously changed its polling method to give her a bump in the polls.

It's because CNN wants to create the narrative when they rig the election that the accusations of ballot manipulation are absurd.
They did the same with Brexit, and were trying to act like thousands of changed ballots never happened.
This election is far too important for them.

How is that different from what every other polling agency does, i.e. they ask a slew of questions to determine if someone is a "likely voter".

They all do this.

I love how much of a shitposter he is

All the people saying Shy Tories phenomenon are right, except they're much shyer now because according to a large swath of the media, if you support Trump/Brexit you are all of the meme words that basically mean you only have yourself to blame and deserve no sympathy if a pack of errant blacks/Muslims decide to assault you.

Its UPI right?

>polling agencies aren't literal soothersayers that can correctly predict tight races within 1-2% of each other 100% of the time
>Being right 19/20 times isn't enough
>therefore, they're garbage and worthless

It would be quite literally impossible to meet your standards short of reading the minds of each individual voter.

>Yes, I'm that much of a queer faggot. But I'm also right.

No, you aren't right. You're a verbose faggot that thinks too much of himself for his simplistic opinions. You're a dumb shit that thinks that outliers and exceptions are an indication that the entire system doesn't work. That things like Bernie's unexpected victory in Michigan means polling is in disarray or some horse shit when they accurately predicted the rest of it.

Just fuck off with this mental masturbation bullshit. Nobody gives a flying fuck if you think polling is failing. They'll continue to predict races and make a living off of it while you continue gloating to others how much of a smart faggot you are by doubting it.

>Reuters is a donor to the Clinton Foundation
I would like a citation on that, too, now that you're at it.

top kek.

trump getting shat on

>Trump taking DC

no. not even if he rigged it.

I put 500 squids on at 5/1, I can afford it but I might still an hero if he loses.

Polls can be faked easily

The MSM polls have a lot more Democrats and a fewer sample size. They don't represent the median voter in the USA

Nathaniel Silverstein has never been wrong about Trump

You seriously need proof that Reuters is actively shilling for Hillary? Either you're a complete dunce or you're being purposely obtuse.

>Nobody gives a flying fuck if you think polling is failing
He was responding to a question

m8 no media source wants trump

The first page of google gave no results.
I stopped reading Reuters after the photoshop scandal, so I'm not aware of their political alignments.

No shit. Which is why I'm wondering why he's asking for citations.

You will hang yourself when Trump gets 60%

wikileaks doesnt show in google results

One would also point out Nielson throws out the first three months of new viewer data because they know they're being watched and fill their time with PBS. The tracking polls are past the give-a-fuck threshold.

>HUU HUU huuuuuu pantshitters HUU
We're knocking your cuck criminal candidate's teeth the fuck out, niggerlover. Your desperate scratching only makes it more sweet.

reee stop answering, give me a second to find the poll.

politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

Polling a guaranteed safe seat correctly is not hard. Polling an obvious widespread landslide victory is not hard. Adjusting your polls at the last second to reflect reality is not hard. I could get 100% accuracy with this "standard".

The BPC came out and said that polling was broken, and launched an inquiry to save it. It's literally not my opinion, it's fact. I'd give you a source, but it's openly available public knowledge you can go fuck your smug self tbqh.
And then right after they declared the issue "solved", they then shat the bed on Brexit (getting the result wrong by 15 points in some cases - ouch).

I hope you have an exit plan ready for when Trump wins - will you jump, hang, slit or shoot? Pick the most painful one please.

It's right, but it's also not the complete picture. To be a Shy Tory, you need to be a Tory in the first place. In the case of Brexit, a lot of the Leave votes came from traditional Labour areas, and places where voter apathy is abnormally high. A lot of the shy Trump supporters will not be registered Republicans or traditional Republican voters.
There's a true groundswell here.

A vote is a vote, regardless of how much you support a candidate.

What this poll actually shows is that Trump supporters are more enthusiastic than Hillary supporters. While that may translate into a Trump win, enthusiasm isn't a perfect gauge of electability (just ask Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders).

My worry? That Trump supporters have fallen in love with a candidate that can win, and will have their hearts broken when Clinton wins on a wave of unenthusiastic lesser-evil voters. It would basically kill an entire generation of voters.

That's what happened in Florida 2000. It was called for Gore on a slim margin with the panhandle polling stations still open. All those rednecks realized they still had time to flip it and swarmed the polls in their monster trucks.

Take your time.
I'm going to bed now. I'll add the thread to my watch list and read it tomorrow.

D-DELETE THIS

polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_26/dates/20160701-20160826/type/smallest

If you're curious, this was the date of the dodgy poll, but I can't find the methodology. It's just gone. If you can find it, it should be very apparent that I'm right.

good one bro

47% something something something

>Remember when Reuters fucked up and accidentally made it public that their methodology was changed specifically to boost Clinton?

No but I clearly remember when Cred Forums gamed all the online polls to make Trump believe he won the debate with Clinton. Trump's been making a fool out of himself since then

this is going to be one of those times when the popular vote won't line up with the electoral vote

I'm sick of winning. Hope Trump will say something dumb to make things exciting again.

>checked
Keep triggering those cucks based user.

wich website is recommended to place a bet on trump ???

...

Fuck

For god's sake!
somebody screencap the polling autist!!

top kek got kicked instantly

Why does nate's silver models keeps showing Clinton Surge? But like SUPER surge? Even shilling news companies say trump is starting to have better polling numbers.

...

insta kicked

Because every single other poll has big increase for Hillary.

This poll is different because it follows a group of the population and asks that same group again and again who they are going to vote for and then the poll tracks those changes.

This is unlike other polls which just random sample each time.

Except that accurately reflects party affiliation in the US, so it would make sense for the numbers to look that way. Why have an even number of Republicans and Democrats when there are more registered Democrats than Republicans? If they were even, Republicans would be over-represented.

Anyone one looking forward to the Nate Silvers Karl Rove style meltdown from this election?

youtu.be/4SaPcp4PGdU

But thats wrong. Independents are a much bigger category than both republicans and democrats.

>Except that accurately reflects party affiliation in the US

Not even close.

Because the sampling is not based on registration numbers it's based on primary estimations from 2012

Trump has high favor-ability among independents

Like the Huffpo poll that shows Hillary 84% to Trumps 16%?

They're in for a sorry surprise/

It measures voter enthusiasm

Man, its gonna be just like '12 all over again. Prepare your anus.

we get 50 threads per day saying hillary will win shut the fuck up

that was before kek

The second crusade is coming whether Trump wins or not, you degenerate swine.

>oversampling democrats,

LOLOLOLOL DRUMPFLETS ARE NEXT LEVEL RETARDED. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS OVERSAMPLING A POLITICAL PARTY. THAT'S CALLED REALITY.

youtube.com/watch?v=FGfSuU8Pxpg

youtube.com/watch?v=ezxxmuWVKsE

IT'S ALL OVER BUT THE CRYING

judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/100316_Goodlatte-Letter-to-AG-Lynch.pdf

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3819617/How-President-Obama-worried-Hillary-Clinton-s-health-set-secret-medical-check-Walter-Reed-refused-fearing-LEAKING-HEART-VALVE-arrhythmia-exposed.html

infowars.com/exclusive-hillary-killed-libya-peace-deal-over-personal-vendetta-claims-whistleblower/

infowars.com/pentagon-paid-pr-firm-540mn-to-make-fake-terrorist-videos/

wnd.com/2012/11/gop-legally-barred-from-fighting-vote-fraud/

americafans.com/index.php/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-to-isis/

pjmedia.com/election/2016/10/03/fbi-colluded-with-democrats-team-clinton-on-email-prosecution/

pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/10/03/yes-virginia-aliens-are-registered-and-voting-and-in-pennsylvania-by-the-thousands/?singlepage=true

bients.com/ex-cia-saudis-reveal-names-behind-911-attacks-including-mossad-cia-bush-family/

openmedianews.com/bill-clinton-american-india-foundation/

CUT MY COUNTRY INTO PIECES
THIS IS MY LAST PREZ RACE

You are quite retarded. This isn't nate silver's election guessing game. This an aggregate of polls.

that's literally how the Cred Forumsl works you inbred surfer piece of shit.

>70 to 30
How can you possibly believe a poll that predicts this

>buh buh buh only the poll I agree with are real

lol salty butt hurt

what happened now?

These faggots didn't have an issue when this exact same poll had Obama winning in 2012.

This is what a poll that does not reflexively change its' methodology looks like.

Whenever this is brought up it is immediately attacked as not being valid as though publications owned by Clinton Donors that over sample democrats by 10-15% are the only 'respectable' sources. Classic delusion.

what referendum is that?

Columbia FARC peace deal.

>Polls only matter when my candidate is winning

you Drumpfkins are pathetic