Is this the end of our glorious leader and the start of the age of Shillary?
> over %80 chance of Hillary winning by Nate Silver
> Less than 20 for the dahnald
THE TRUMP IS STUMPED AT %13 CHANCE OF WINNING
Brandon Russell
Other urls found in this thread:
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
latimes.com
express.co.uk
projects.fivethirtyeight.com
abcnewsgo.co
spectator.co.uk
beta.fec.gov
docquery.fec.gov
theguardian.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Justin Williams
I remember when he had a 1% chance of winning the nomination.
Aaron Price
>Hillary can't even get united support at her party
>Hillary's rallies are mostly attended by staffers
>Is winning
Thank you for Correcting The Record.
Angel Russell
OVER 300 FOR HILLARY
Ethan Jenkins
Remember when Nate Silver gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the nomination?
Remember when polls across Britain wrongly forecast Brexit and threw the financial markets into turmoil as nobody was hedged properly?
Ryder Rivera
>polls are only wrong when we lose
Jeremiah Harris
>nate silver
his cult of personality is ending, and will be dead on nov 10th
Kevin Cook
Polls are wrong because every single relevant one is rigged. Have you not paid attention to any of them before this election?
Gavin Reed
After the performance he's had in the last two general elections, I doubt it'll be much different this time.
His primary predictions have always fucked up some way or another and Trump did blindeside pretty mcuh everyone who matters in the polling world
But he's not an enigma anymore, he's a target of the media and he can't stop giving them material that is draining any political capital he could've had in the republican party
I mean shit just today a letter with over 70 Republican officials was sent to the RNC demandig all funding to Trump cease, and the number of signators keeps growing
Blake Reyes
>europoor
Have a (you) ahmed
Jonathan Diaz
>polls are always wrong regardless of who is winning due to liberal bias and money talking
Jaxon Price
good i hope they fucking sign it,
He is ousting everyone who is bought out and corrupt.
Samuel Nelson
...
Blake Bailey
Praise KEK
Chase Johnson
Based kek bless this leaf of purity and wisdom, forgive him his syrupy sins
Easton Cook
Dylan Bennett
kek confirms the obvious: those who signed that letter are simply fearful of the government gibsmedat gravy train leaving
Chase Rodriguez
They're not rigged, polling is just fucked. NOBODY knows what the fuck is going on anymore or how to conduct the accurate polling that used to be the gold standard in the 80s.
Caleb Davis
>rallies
>ever being a good indicator of voter support
Good thing Romney crushed Obama with his huge rallies.
Luis Butler
>NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO POLL ANYMORE
>Several websites exist that have 90%+ accuracy in their predictions, some with literal 100%
>IT'S ALL JUST RANDOM NONSENSE! POLLS DON'T COUNT!
You guys are adorable in how hard you try to discredit this kind of stuff without an actual good reason to.
Connor Nelson
I literally posted three sources a few minutes you dumby. All three of them report on the problems that the polling community inherently faces in the modern age due to the changing environment of polling itself. It is no longer the case where a survey can be conducted and 80% of the people called will respond and give their answers. It's now 6-8%. Not only that, but there are inherent flaws with the methodology and sampling of modern GE polls that do not necessarily accurately reflect reality. And no, this has nothing to do with the memes of 2012 "unskewed" polls that had no factual basis.
Please see
And also most importantly refer to primary turnout, which at this point is probably the best indicator we have at this point at guessing who will be carrying certain states barring actually solid polling methods.
Eli Moore
EVERY ANTI-TRUMP POLL IS SHILLING
ANY PRO-TRUMP POLL IS 100% LEGIT
Benjamin Smith
DEMOCRACY ONLY WORKS IF THE VOTE GOES TO MY DRUMPF
Connor Myers
>Remember when polls across Britain wrongly forecast Brexit
No? All the polls were pretty much split, Until about 2 weeks before the vote where leave got a 19 point lead.
Matthew Reyes
This, I also remember when they said Jeb Bush would be the nominee
Connor Reed
>Is this the end of our glorious leader
>le ebin john oliver meme
CTR shills can't even maintain the illusion of consistency.
Xavier Perry
None of this nitpicking is relevant. Of course polls aren't 100% perfect. No polling center is going to get the EXACT percentages every single time. They're not meant to. They're meant to predict winners.
You're complaining that there is some capability for polls to skew a few percentage points, and you'd be right, but it doesn't ultimately matter that much. What matters is polling accuracy and people who take due diligence in creating accurate predictions and numbers, and there are boatloads of websites that do this.
Believe it or not, Nate Silver isn't just some random shill that wants to boost Hillary. Yes, he does want her to win, but his analysis holds up regardless of his status as a democrat and he actually explains his work.
For example, what issue do you take with their accuracy percentages in this list?:
Brayden Harris
You just cannot compare Obama support to Hillary's current support base
Kayden Sanders
ABC News poll says otherwise.
Nicholas Kelly
Of course it's relevant when we're talking about whether or not the polls accurately reflect the position of the race and how a candidate's lead in the polls bodes for the rest of the race. Polling isn't punditry, but polling is exceedingly valuable for punditry, and it's important in this case that we understand that the polls are in fact skewed however slightly, because methodology in the field is in fact becoming outdated as polling methods become more expensive and less reliable. You can't discount this, and your weak ass argument about polling not being 100% accurate really doesn't address that does it?
Gavin Robinson
>methodology in the field is in fact becoming outdated as polling methods become more expensive and less reliable.
I just linked you to an entire list of poll sources and most all of regular pollsters have AT LEAST 78% accuracy in predicting winners. Most have 90%. And guess what? The polls that favor Republicans are the ones that have the lowest accuracy rates with actual results.
>You can't discount this, and your weak ass argument about polling not being 100% accurate really doesn't address that does it?
You're the one with a weak ass argument. These polls have given results after results of accurate predictions, and your best defense is complaining about their methodology might not be perfect as an attempt to undermine all of their data and say it's all garbage because you don't like what that data has to say. That's blatantly unscientific horse shit.
Well I'm sorry but when every poll puts Clinton anywhere between +4 to +14 ahead in the country and not a single polling website/group have numbers that favor Trump(not even ones that statistically favor Republicans like Rasmussen), you can't just say "none of it matters!". The probably that every single polling group is wrong about Clinton being ahead is astronomically low, and denying that just makes you a willfully ignorant faggot.
Cameron Lee
Not to mention our Hillary memery is starting to grow powerful to the level of Drumpf's
Liam Gray
And I linked you three sources that are telling you that the current polls are not indicative of past successes for a variety of reasons, including inability to accurately assess likely voters, oversampling due to misconceptions about voter demographics, and actually being able to conduct fucking surveys
god damn you are fucking retarded
Henry Wilson
Mmm, propaganda.
Odd it's presented as anything but, since the DNC had flat out stated during the convention that it's primary focus would be trying to push Clinton's experience and Trumps lack of experience with instability.
>he's a target of the media and he can't stop giving them material
As always.
spectator.co.uk
>Last week, the New York Times ran the page one headline ‘Pence Supports Ryan, Showing GOP Turmoil.’ There was turmoil in the Republican party because Mike Pence, its vice-presidential nominee, had endorsed the candidacy of Paul Ryan, its most powerful congressman.
>One wonders what the Times would have called it had the two men actually disagreed about something. The Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had waited days before endorsing Ryan, a signal that he had not forgotten Ryan’s slowness to back him in the spring. And the whole press is now in a frenzy of negative reporting about the Trump campaign.
Jaxon Sullivan
>And I linked you three sources that are telling you that the current polls are not indicative of past successes for a variety of reasons
lol
>Even if your polls are 90-100% accurate, they still don't count cuz reasons
Just because you cite a source doesn't mean that it makes your argument you stupid fuck. Not all sources are equal, either.
>including inability to accurately assess likely voters, oversampling due to misconceptions about voter demographics, and actually being able to conduct fucking surveys
And yet none of these apparent issues have prevented these polling groups from literally performing hundreds of polls that can predict a winner within a 4% margin of error, and correctly predict winners 90%+ of the time.
You'll just keep trying to dodge this fact and insist that because there are some issues with polling procedures and because polling isn't 100% perfect that it should all be discarded. This is idealistic nonsense that only a retard who has never actually worked with numbers would suggest.
It's especially telling that you refuse to address any of my points and just continually insist that since there are imperfections, that all polling is useless.
>god damn you are fucking retarded
Unfortunately, you're the retard and you're just too stupid to know it.
Lucas Flores
>The Trump meltdown reports were far from reality. But they may yet become reality in voters’ minds. Part of the reason his campaign is alleged to be ‘melting down’ is that it has wound up in confrontations with elite institutions. But these have lost authority in recent years. This week four-dozen Republican foreign policy aides warned that Trump ‘would put at risk our country’s national security and wellbeing’. Trump correctly noted that the signatories included the people who brought the world the Iraq war.
>It was similar to the episode in June when Moody’s Analytics, a subsidiary of the agency that misrated the world’s derivatives on the eve of the financial collapse of 2007–08, warned that Trump’s economic policy would cause a recession and Clinton’s would create jobs. The report was written by Mark Zandi, a Hillary Clinton donor.
You want to know why he will win?
Consider the real world events that plague us. Consider that every time another happens it only helps him in voters.
Consider what that means.
Logan Edwards
Eli Gonzalez
>Consider the real world events that plague us. Consider that every time another happens it only helps him in voters.
Then why is he losing right now? Why did his support level go down recently if this is true?
Elijah Davis
...
Jace Allen
>still insisting that a measure of past success is a reliable indicator in an environment that has changed drastically in a way not only limits the reliability of polls in the modern age but also inherently biases them in a particular case due to flawed methodology at large
Never once did I dodge anything, in fact I clearly addressed everything in my post but since you are too stupid to understand words, you clearly didn't quite catch any of it. In fact, it seems to be you that is dodging every point I've made, insisting on an appeal to authority without providing any substantial arguments yourself. This might not be a problem, except you're a retard and the authority you're appealing to, and the reliability of said authority, is exactly what I was addressing in my posts.
If only you weren't too much of a retard to have a proper argument. Bet you aren't even top percentile 2bh.
John Baker
If you take anything Nate silver predicts seriously you are a shill or are being used by one. Not two weeks ago he had Trump up by a huge percentage.
Gavin Martin
>Never once did I dodge anything
Yes, you did. You continually ignore polling accuracy and just claim it's all garbage and try to nitpick about methodology and claiming that it ISN'T accurate when I just literally showed you a full table of polling accuracy rates when compared to actual results.
>This might not be a problem, except you're a retard and the authority you're appealing to, and the reliability of said authority, is exactly what I was addressing in my posts.
So in other words, my arguments don't count because you criticized my sources and SAID they don't count. Awesome argument, faggot.
You're a waste of time. Go right on insisting that polls don't count since they're against your precious dear leader. You can cry your bowl full of salty tears in November.
Matthew Rodriguez
...
Adrian Brown
take a debate class or something holy shit you full on plebeian
Alexander Rodriguez
Hillary stumped at 90% indictment.
Christopher Wilson
>POLLS DIRECTLY AFTER DNC CONVENTION SHOW HILLARY WINNING! MORE AT 11!
She's fallen from a double digit lead to 2-3 points in less than 2 days.
Wyatt James
He's paying $4 in Aus. Not bad. I might put down a couple hundred.
>tfw u make 800 on the us election.
Thomas Taylor
>All the polls were pretty much split
okej
James Wilson
>I mean shit just today a letter with over 70 Republican officials was sent to the RNC demandig all funding to Trump cease, and the number of signators keeps growing
where have these fuckers been in the last few years? These assholes aren't smart enough to realize they are THE reason Trump got the nomination.
Isaac Morales
(((NATE SILVER)))
(((HARRY ENTEN)))
(((MICAH COHEN)))
Matthew Harris
>I mean shit just today a letter with over 70 Republican officials was sent to the RNC demandig all funding to Trump cease, and the number of signators keeps growing
>70 war criminals don't want the person who may prosecute them to be president
Eli Jenkins
you ever bother reading the polling info..
How many polls do you think ever try to get close to 50% registered republicans? They will call 800 Democrasts, 500 Indepenants, and 322 Repubs then claim Hillary is leading.. Orly?
Let's have the NRA conduct a poll on the 2nd Amendment right?
Liam Green
>Then why is he losing right now? Why did his support level go down recently if this is true?
who knows.. but that explains why his crowds are getting larger at rallies though.
Adam Evans
Reminder that Nate Bronze predicted Trump had a 2% chance of winning the primaries.
So why does anyone still give a shit about what all the pundits have to say?
The thing is there's never been an election like this before. Trying to predict it with classic methods is foolish. Hillary may well win in a landslide and Trump may also win in a landslide or it could be extremely close.
Polls are meaningless when considering a candidate as divisive as Trump. No one really knows the size of the population that indents to vote for Trump but doesn't declare it publicly.
Liberals have become so intolerant that even mentioning you support Trump is grounds for getting your life ruined in their eyes. There might very well be a huge silent voter basin for Trump, or maybe not. No one can tell for sure.
We do know that Trump significantly outperformed his polls in the primaries though.
Oliver Cook
Almost none of them even release the data they use to normalize it, either.
The 2012 data is tainted so if they project it based off of that then it's wrong already.
Juan Wilson
>>The thing is there's never been an election like this before. Trying to predict it with classic methods is foolish
This.
Nate pyrite has one of the largest egos I've ever seen. Every time he's wrong he just doubles down and says it must be an error elsewhere but definitely not in his methods.
He's nothing more than a pundit at this point.
Camden Fisher
Nate Tin didn't predict the rise of the "Angry Electorate", either.
Ryder Williams
Trump supporters aren't the ones desperately trying to change poll numbers. We wait for the number that counts.
Jackson Gomez
>Texas
>Ever going red again
Chase Anderson
>tfw im starting to believe Trump was a Democrat plant from the start
>Republican party is dissaray
>Notable Republicans largely ignoring Trump
>Republicans have some 25 seats at stake, most with no chance to win
Fucking shills
Jacob Foster
>>Notable Republicans largely ignoring Trump
who?
Lucas Hill
That's the thing though. The polls are fucking retarded and don't take into account the fact that people that say they will vote for Hillary won't go and vote while people won't say they are voting for Trump but will actually go and vote for him.
I honestly think that Trump will win by a surprising amount because people like him a lot more than they like Shillary.
Samuel Flores
Jonathan Nelson
none of them are notable.
Cameron Baker
so says you
Dylan Ross
>these neocon war criminals are notable!
Jayden Edwards
>Trumptards worried that Hillary is going to take away all their rights because she wants to make it harder for terrorists and the mentally ill to buy assault rifles
>meanwhile Trumptards ignore the fact that the carrot-colored man literally just called for civilians to be tried in military courts if they're accused of being terrorists
Do you fuckers even know what the rest of the amendments say? Or do you only know #2?
Alexander Howard
>because she wants to make it harder for terrorists and the mentally ill to buy assault rifles
youtu.be
Matthew Miller
Fuck you pol for not witnessing my quads or my cool I'd.
Trumps going to win and you are all shills. In going to cripplechan.
Robert Carter
>Trumps going to win and you are all shills. In going to cripplechan.
I think everyone is going there now, this board has been fucking ruined.
Ryder Lewis
>its literally a better chance than he gave him for winning the nom