ENTIRE BREITBART NEWS TEAM ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!!!!1111111

AND DADDY MILO IS LOSING HIS STATUS AS A TRUMP-SEXUAL!!!!!1111 IT'S 92 PERCENT!!!!!!11111

Or not. But I just wanted to post this as a (extremely) delayed response to a post I saw a little over a week ago published by a Trump supporter blowing his load on the "Now Cast" model from FiveThirtyEight.

Let's be clear: That model is a projection of the results of the election if it were held TODAY, making it an incredibly stupid way of determining the status of the election right after the Republican National Convention.

In the same vein, using it to gauge the status of the race right after the Democratic National Convention is a pretty stupid course of action too, though, because both conventions have now taken place, it might be slightly less idiotic.

The focus should always have been, and still should be, on the "Polls-Plus" model (53eig.ht/2934XS8) presented by the site, which adjusts for the convention bounces, among many other factors, such as demographic regression and economic fundamentals.

That'll keep you Sup Forumstards from getting your panties is a twist.

(By the way, since I'm a normie unacquainted with many of the features of this site [and its, I hear, cancerous subculture], I'd like to ask: does Sup Forums only allow you to post one picture in your post? I had to provide a link instead of a photo to the second bit of data my post, which is bullshit.)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s
opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019).
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes right after the Democratic Convention it is expected there will be a jump, but it is also quite a large jump. So naturally the 'liberal' media outlets will say this means Trump is over, but he is not yet.

However when the post-convention polls are cleared up, the resulting polls will almost definitely determine the election unless they are really close. And I can pretty much assure that Hillary will get a big lead, especially seeing how Trump is continuing to divide the Republicans even right after the fucking convention.

I always knew Shillary was going to win but I kept shilling for Trump on here because I wanted to bet when on Hillary while she had lower odds. But I ran out of money to bet and Trump's number are plummeting so there is no point now.

I am waiting for the actual debates between them.

Poll just came out showing trump trailing by 15.

Obama never had such a massive lead on romney at this point.

We all know that polling doesn't matter much outside swing states

Didn't Trump score well in a recent poll in NC?

Nice CTR shill work going on here. This faggot posts his low effort wall of text and no one bites. It drifts on down to page 8, at which point

comes in with the "I used to be a Trump supporter but now he will surely lose" post full of misrepresentations.

Your con game will never work.

sage

How will CTR ever recover?

North Carolina is going Trump. I only see Bernie signs in Wilmington but everywhere else I only see Trump signs. Plus the repubilcans have brought a lot of business to the state even after HB2. HB2 is a joke. I work around a lot of niggers because of my job and some are alright with Clinton but most don't give a shit about the election so they'll stay home.

Yeah—I'd like to see how those go. As the content of my post and my username clearly indicate, I'm not the least bit impartial, but if I were to predict how the presidential debates would go...
Basically, I think that Clinton is an intelligent, well-read, and even-keeled politician (at least in public), while Trump is, uh, Trump.

I even see Trump stickers on early 20s age white female's cars.

So you're a circumcision sucking kike. Got it

...

could go either way, all the colleges towns and big cities hate em, people out in the boonies love em

Well, this is Sup Forums, so Jews invented Communism, Feminism, the Holocaust, and Al Pacino selectively bred Hillary in a lab shaped like the Star of David.

Or you could choose to make claims based on evidence, and also read again the comment of the second person you cited. Nowhere did he indicate he was ever a Trump supporter.

9000 isn't over 9000, the only way something can be over 9000 is if it were 9001 or greater
what kinda scam are you running here?

Hey, Jews LOVE sucking circumcised penises!

Trump could have easily won this election, if he didn't go full retard-mode every month.

Trump is winning

The fact you guys all lie in the polls shows the truth

SHILLS BTFO

TRUMP WINNING IN ONE OF FEW UNBIASED POLLS OUT THERE

CNN BIAS GIVING SHILLARY 7.1% FAKE BOOST

>(((nate silver)))
>((fivethirtyeight)))
>im a (((normie)))
sage and hide
you suck at shilling

>yfw you get johnsoned

repeating numbers confirms no 270 and congress votes in trump

>Longroom.com
>claims to have predicted the last election accurately despite not existing before 2016

In New Hampshire retard, and the poll isn't even reputable. The only poll putting it's reputation over politics is Rasmussen and they are tied

>posting a poll with a trump slant
Ha

if only desperation could vote you'd win for sure, sadly it doesn't and trump has already lost

haha the jews didn't invent any of that shit dummy, jews don't invent things. They used subversion to take over those counter-cultures, commodify them, and use them to advocate for their agenda. Get wrecked idiot.

>pretending you don't come here often
pretty transparent, hopefully this was a rough draft.

>NC blue
Into the trash.

>Implying congress wouldn't vote in Jeb

youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s

I didn't say anything about the Jews you fucking nigger low effort shillposting cunt.

nice picture faggot

I'll just leave this here. WHY DID PRESIDENT ROMNEY SUPPORT THE IRAN DEAL?!
(In all seriousness, do you really think an outlet with no established record implying a grand media conspiracy is more reliable than fucking FiveThirtyEight? There are numerous points that could be made here, but I'll leave you with an easy one: its founder correctly predicted the outcome of 49 of the states in 2008, and all 50 in 2012. Good luck with your polling aggregate.)

>posting a picture not related to Longroom and saying it's Longroom
You shills are desperate.

It's sad that Shillary is barely winning in the MSM polls even with a fake boost averaging up to 7%. She's fucked. Enjoy wasting your time on the candidate that had to rig her own party to get a nomination and that's already lost the general election. I'm off to do my part to help make America great again by impregnating my wife with our third 100% white offspring.

...

Eh, no.

I was making a point about precedent of polling aggregates claiming to correct for polling bias.

>yfw Sup Forums BTFO

...

Also here's 5¢ more and a picture of (you).

Those numbers show the chances if the vote were to be TODAY

...

thats why there is a greater than sign you retard ">"

Yeah, that was literally the point of my post. Read it. It would take about ninety seconds.

...

Don't believe the polls. It's still early.

Corporate media is on overdrive. It's the world vs Trump at this point.

Globalists and corporations have a lot riding on this election. Media relies on them for ad revenue.

Media is on overdrive trying to use social peer pressure to convince people that Trump is "unpopular" and has "unsheeple" opinions.

Globalists are counting on American sheep to follow the herd.

They're trying to build a nice cushion before any potential terrorist attack makes Americans pissed off again.

Media isn't even covering the terrorist stabbing in Britain.

Brexit scared the shit out of them.

Democrats don't want the plebs revolting.

...

But it didn't. It just says the bias model works for the last election.

I'm all for trump but stop cherry picking and just ignore polls until after the debates.

Fuck off back to r/enoughtrumpspam, shill.

>Johnson
>7.4%
Will this guy even get 1% of the vote?

The fact that NC is a swing state at all now is a dire warning for the GOP

With three months left, the time's running out for the polls to change. The only real argument against the general reliability of the polls is the fact the conventions just happened. Otherwise, the polls, in addition to adjustments made for demographic regression and economic fundamentals, give you at least a fair idea of how this election is going to turn out.

And where's the evidence for this claim of corporate media. It was repeated ad infinitum during the Democratic primary by Sanders backers, but the best they had was that Jeff Bezos was the owner of the Washington Post and that Time Warner donated several hundred thousand dollars to the Clinton FOUNDATION (Probably not the campiagn: opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019).

And you say that Clinton has the backing of corporations. What about the fact that she wants to raise income taxes on those making more than $5,000,000 a year, among other progressive tax proposals? What about the fact that Trump is a Republican, and wants to lower the top marginal corporate tax rates from 35% to 15%, and the top marginal income tax rate from 39.6% to 25%. What about the fact that Trump is literally one of THEM?

The rest of your response concerns globalists and terrorism. Where's the evidence that globalists control the media, and more so than the nativists?

And the media, contrary to many thought, accurately reported that the polls indicated that the Brexit outcome was unclear, and that polling showed both camps with the margin of error of each other.

And the terrorist attack, which killed one person (today, thirty people in the United States will be killed by another person with a gun, and it's nearly certain at least one of these shootings will involve the deaths of two or more), is currently the top story on Google News for the 'World' section.

> 92%
BREAKING: Hillary leading by 98% in Texas

Heh. I know you're being sarcastic, in an attempt to discredit the data.

No, the "Polls-Plus" model (in three words: the correct one), which I referenced above to contrast with the bullshit "Now-Cast" model, shows Trump with a 5.5 percent adjusted polling average lead in Texas. Once demographics and fundamentals are adjusted for, Trump is projected to win by nine points (and has a 90% chance of winning), in line with what you'd normally expect in a race moderately favoring the Democratic candidate. So there's no evidence that the model is skewed.

Rasmussen is biased toward the right similar to fox and how cnn msnbc an quite a few others are biased left.