LOL

LOL

Other urls found in this thread:

zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/why-reuters-tweaking-its-presidential-poll
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

wow what are the odds of a tie with all these polls?

Nice fake.

It's a Reuters poll. They're full of shit, no surprise.

wtf i hate trump now

The funny thing is Clinton didn't get a bump, she actually went down

REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

Polls are rigged again.

>trumpkin confronted with facts
>i-it's fake!! make america great again TRUMP WILL WIN!!
>sheds tear

Reuters polls are always skewed +5 for shillary

I hope he stays slightly under her in the polls but still wins if its possible. I want them to stay confident. We have Hillary right where we need her, she thinks she doesn't need Bernie supporters and that she has this in the bag. Lets not worry her.

In other words, you shouldn't panic the sheep before the slaughter

Rigged when he's losing, accurate when he's winning.

Strainge to see a German Trumpkin... doesn't he remind you of someone?

But my liberal colleagues told me trump had no chance against hillary :(

the bump must've gone to Stein, then
#Shill4Jill

Thank you for Correcting the Record™!

no just rigged, you can rig an election like Brexit but still lose due to overwhelming support against you
Trump is at least 5 points more on the average at all times

at least

A week of national televised Trump bashing, and they got one skewed poll out of it.

Wow, it's nothing.

>Trumpkin
See you've gotten the memo on the new term shill

It's almost as if they changed their polling methodology.

#IMWITHHER

D-does this mean the polls are """biased""" again?

I am now a #Jillmissile

>Reuters aka "Change the methodology whenever it hurts Trump most"

what happened to those trump voters? they got convinced by hillary to not vote for him and also not vote for her?

also reminder that clinton's favorability advantage declined

zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/why-reuters-tweaking-its-presidential-poll

They're changing the parameters BECAUSE of Trump's popularity spike.

"As Reuters explains, in our view, the inclusion of the word “Neither” is capturing Soft Trump supporters who, if given such an option, prefer not to make a choice. Here it is important to note that the soft supporter phenomenon also affects Clinton, but to a much lesser degree.

Reuters/Ipsos poll currently has Trump 40.2%, Clinton 38.5%, but, Reuters reports, eliminating "Neither" from the "Neither/Other" answer produced a different result. In that case, Clinton was ahead, 40% to 36%.

The amended Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll will be published later Friday."

Before her speech she has 4.95 million

and less than 24 hours later 130k people have 'liked her'

Is this legitimate surge or botnet?

Very worrying.

>Trump still millions ahead
>kek

What methodology? It's a poll, not a prediction.

x / (x + y) vs. y / (x + y).

>including a reuters poll for the first time in months just to bring trumps numbers down

zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/why-reuters-tweaking-its-presidential-poll

i know it's zeroh*dge but look at this

>thinking the popular vote matters
You kids are ADORABLE.

People follow Trump to see the lunacy not because they like him

>Reuters Trump/Clinton
>Reuters Trump/Clinton/Stein/Johnson
Hillary is either losing more to independent voters than Trump or Reuters is lumping independent voters with Clinton to generate that +5.

Either way this proves Clinton got almost no DNC bump.

:^)

...

Reminder that reuters altered their methodology because it unfavorably affected Clinton.

Reminder that there was no DNC bump, so they've resorted to manufacturing one

Reminder to stay strong against the shills that will be out in full force this weekend.

...

I see, but it doesn't say they changed methods, just that they use two different methods that provide different results. We do this in my field too, it's called A/B testing.

They used white noise machines on the Bernie delegates.

No they'll go to Jill or Gary at worst.

May not swing a state to trumps side or take away a shill state but it won't hurt the popular vote.

>They didn't change methods
>they just choose two different methods
>...and decided to switch methods at an opportune time

Think about what you write before you post something that stupid

...

Nice arbitrary lines. Here's the one based on actual math. The red dot is election day.

The final poll result is the combination of both methods.

But he's still closing in on her, and she just had the DNC. He was 6 points down before the RNC and DNC, but now after both, he's tied with her. He still gained and advantage.

You just put the line in the middle of the curves you fucking retard, it's obvious. If so, tell me your math buddy.

inb4 200 threads of people limiting the y-axis to make it appear YUGE just like they did when she was leading

>unironically using the corporate meme-word "trumpkin"

jesus christ you shills are so transparent now it's pathetic.

Welp, it's all over. I'm #Artillery4Hillary now

Since when does Facebook look like this?

>Trumpkin

see:

Check this out OP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares

Or perhaps this one OP

Even if you did math, treating a political trend like math is not exactly how it works

that's not based an any math at all you fucking retard.

also, nice job with understanding anything about politics or elections.

>before Aug 2015
before Aug 2015 is the problem with your "graphs." before Aug 2015, hillary was a shoe-in, she was pretty much running unopposed. before Aug 2015, trump was running against 15 other candidates. jeb bush was the presumptive nominee. of course trump's numbers were tiny. of course hillary's were huge.

start the graph at a relevant point in time and you'll have a more accurate picture.

sept/oct, ie when the "race" began in earnest, or april, when both candidates effectively locked up the nomination (fraudulently, in hrc's case, of course).

then show me your "math."

Seems like a completely valid linear regression (seems like the min square sum method).
If anything it's more valid that what the two previous guys.
>inb4 it's all a joke you moron
no shit sherlock.

>g-g-get out of m-my safe space!!!!

enjoying summer kiddo? are you even old enough to vote?

Fake and gay

Why are you lecturing me and not and ?

sure, include them too. doesn't change anything about my post.

your "graph" right here () still reeks for all the reasons listed.

nice attempt at deflection though, faggot.

Because I didn't have a conversation with them, they didn't claim to use math for politics, they just pointed out a basic trend.

>Reuters/Ipsos
>Excluding "neither" option

confirmed shill

the only ones with safe spaces are sjw's and srs troll like you.

Sup Forums isn't a safe space at all. you must be very, very new here.

working all summer, just as i have the last 10 years. how's your summer internship working out at CTR?

>posting a tumblrina attempt at LE EPIC MAYMAYS XXXXDDDDD so funny you gais!!!

pretty cringey, pal

...

This is what people been saying about him this entire time and look at where we are.

>Trump

wow! what a new and interesting way to spell "DNC"

I think it's pretty telling that Trump can never retain his lead on RCP.

Trump is doomed unless the election falls on a day where he gets lucky and is ahead.

That's like a 1 in 30 chance

Same math, beginning with Sept 1, 2015.

Thinking that the polls are simply going to continue on the line of best fit is pretty closed-minded.

If I had to guess, this election will be decided in the debates just like how the Republican primary largely was.

We saw in the DNC that they can blatantly lie, and that there's nobody there to call them out on the lies. But when trump is standing 20 feet away at the debates it's going to be a completely different story.

The only sketchy part is that who "wins" the debates, the MSM can just say 'clinton wins xDD'. From debate in high school I remember a lot of judges would just judge on whoever looked more confident and alpha, and Trump's got that shit down, which might persuade people who are undecided.

On the other hand, Trump can say some retarded shit that'll limit his voting base, so who knows. I know for sure i'll watch the first debates live since it's a 30 minute drive from me.

Oct. 1, 2015.

>83370819
(You)
Oct. 1, 2015.

thanks for proving my point.

now, start with apr 1st, or june 15th. you won't do that, of course, because that will show trump with sharp incline and hrc with sharp decline. your "math" and "graphs" are worthless because they can be manipulated to show whatever the hell you want them to show.

I will if you want, give me a minute.

>I know for sure i'll watch the first debates live since it's a 30 minute drive from me

how do you know they'll let you in the door? the majority of gop debates were filled with jeb! donors who booed trump every time he opened his mouth and cheered jeb every time he opened his.

You are doing these so stupidly. Here never gotten this far ahead of Hillary until recently, and yet you are projecting him to go down and widen the gap, when the trend has been the opposite

polls are always biased. that means when we are ahead, we must be winning by a landslide because the biased polls have to acknowledge our victories.

He never* autocorrect is being a nigger

>polls proven to be full of bullshit all the time
>"it's a fact because it suits me."
Nice shitposting here's your (you)

IT BEGINS

>facts
How about these facts? Pic related, it's from a poll that doesn't under poll independents. If you care so much for the facts you shouldn't be clinging to polls that have to underpoll independents to give Clinton an artificial boost.

Ahahahaha

Proof polls can never be trusted any time the (((organization))) behind them has a bias, or basically anytime there are stakes

Expect to see Trump "losing" in the polls for the next three months followed by a landslide victory in November

Hillary is only 5% behind on that poll, it uses a distorted X axis to make it look like the lead is bigger than it really is. Because of these tactics it isnt unfair to assume it comes from a biased source that overpolls independence and republicans.

Apr. 1, 2016

>>Brexitor confronted with facts
>>i-it's fake!! make britain great again LEAVE WILL WIN!
>>sheds tear

that's it, i am now officially going to #HillMyself

>Ipsos
>Yougov

LMAO @ YOUR LIFE

June 15, 2016

Boy, that extra 5 mil sure has CTR out in force today.

I think you're joking, but it's actually true

See, that's a bit more accurate to use the recent trend. Although going off of trends at all is not very accurate unless it's within a week or so.

Even if that's true it doesn't matter. His social media is so powerful that he can post an anti-Hillary ad and it has 5mil + views in a few hours.

They had no problem using their old methodology (flawed, according to them) when it showed Hillary winning.

Proof liberals are using 1-3 year outdated meme technology. You fags stick out like sore thumbs.

It's from University of Southern California, if anything they'd be biased against Trump. Regardless of the x axis (RCP's is misleading as well), she's still far behind after the DNC.

Holy shit the ABSOLUTE MADMAN

You are correct. Hillary is the best choice for President.

>non sequitur
>brain damage
>liberal

>a bit more accurate
To you maybe. It's called confirmation bias. To me, it looks overfitted. Not enough data points to make a determination. The RNC bump at the end rockets Trump all the way up to 60%. There's no way the race is going to end with the candidates that far apart. If this graph were anywhere near accurate, Trump would be the most popular candidate of all time, which he certainly isn't.