Hillary's health issues will ruin her, says increasingly nervous man for the 7th time

>hillary's health issues will ruin her, says increasingly nervous man for the 7th time

Other urls found in this thread:

langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf
twitter.com/BrettForrest89/status/775185132965679105
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>642 voters
>+/-4.5%

>Be Hillary Clinton

>Wake up with perfect health
>Give speech
>Take brief 20 minute coughing break
>Develop severe allergies
>Weather changes to room-temperature
>Get heat stroke
>Don't drink water, don't sit down
>Walk to car, have seizure
>Develop polio, get leg brace
>Leg brace collapses, pin falls out
>Shart pants
>Catheter explodes
>Pass out
>Get thrown in car
>Piss and shit everywhere

>Regain consciousness
>Go to daughters house
>Develop with pneumonia
>Hug little girl
>Everything is fine

ABC doesn't reveal the amount of democrats, republicans, and independents polled.

The U.S. is 43% independents but most polls are doing 10 to 20% independents and oversampling democrats.

Trump has 50% of independents, Hillary has 30%.
Romney had 50%, Obama had 45%.

>Among 642 likely voters, Sept. 5-8
So basically, a poll before Hillary's health issues were validated by her episode on Sept 11th...

Try harder, shill.

That's the poll with the Dems sample of +10. Fuck off

Nice outlier poll

Isn't ABC the channel with the black Lancelot?

Did you miss the Sept 5-8 or are you literally this retarded.

SERIOUSLY HOW IS POLLING ONLY 642 VOTERS CONSIDERED A NATIONAL POLL???????

Its CTR so literally retarded

Lets be honest here. Do you believe any polls at this point? Because I sure as fuck don't.

>642 voters
Why are they so bad at doing their job?

>ABC doesn't reveal the amount of democrats, republicans, and independents polled.

they do


>METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and
cellular telephone Sept. 5-8, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of
1,002 adults, including 642 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points,
including the design effect, for the full sample, and 4.5 points for likely voters. Partisan divisions
are 34-24-33 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents, in the full sample, and 36-28-31
among likely voters.

the oversample dems like mad.

langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf

I don't even believe the polls anymore.
Hillary lied last week on that forum and yesterday this happened.

>642
error margins must be fucking huge

Even a couple thousand is the bare fringe of statistical accuracy

Same.

There are so many shit journos nowadays... it's unbelievable.

They take shortcuts to make the most clickbaitable articles.

...but Hillary is dead.

twitter.com/BrettForrest89/status/775185132965679105

>he doesn't know polls are a week behind in where they track
>he doesn't know about adjusted algorithms

Screencap'd

I think this is a great poll for Trump.

Everyone knows it's B.S. It completely contradicts all the other national polls, and the recent trends.

So if all Clinton can muster is a 2-point lead in Florida with the "YouGov" poll (and we all remember how accurate their Brexit polls ended up being), then she must be behind in that state.

share you nigger

You can legally """RIG""" a poll these days. You just have to not disclosure how it was made.

We all know most of them do this.

It's only off by half a million times and everyone knows that 100 is a good number to get a range of opinions goy.

>Since August 4
Try harder, faggot.

>n=642
into the trash

>taking any MSNBC poll seriously

Taking away all rigged polls, Trump probably is in lead by 10-15% at least.

>believing these rigged, bullshit polls that are made to demoralize trump supporters

Nah

this thread has more replies than it should

Wasn't MSNBC the one that adjusted the pools with 2012 numbers?

Where the fuck did they get get 300 people to say they were gonna vote for Hillary?

They must have a warehouse somewhere with a bunch of people watching eachother vote, making sure they say the right shit.

...

>642 voters
>leftist poll barely has hillary in lead

I live in DC and her name is unspeakable.

>Rigged polls are rigged.

Think about it.. .Soon you might have a president that wears diapers and can't even stand on her own. And she lies most of the time.
And she is a woman.
WHAT THE FUCK MURICA?!

...

thanks for correcting the record OP

>Among 642 likely voters, Sept FUCKING 5-8
>Poll literally taken before Hillary was undeniably caught stroking out and obviously lied about it.
>OP is literally a braindead husk that should be thrown in the trash.

don't forget that such low sample size means one of two things

1) they're lazy and bad at their jobs
2) they stopped polling after an arbitrary number of non-randomly-selected samples in order to artificially give hilldog a lead

i choose both

>That's the poll with the Dems sample of +10. Fuck off

There are far worse examples, where they asked 500 republicans who theyd vote for.

Then they asked 750+ Democrats who theyd vote far, then you get headlines in Mainstream-BS-News like "MORE PEOPLE WILL VOTE HILLARY".

...

Ahh yes all those polling companies who do overnight polling

>WP/ABC
Washington Post/ ABC news polls have been giving free points to Hillary for months now.

look at the dates and sample sizes

perhaps it's because I'm not an american, but if someone collapses in the street, the obvious thing to do would be to call for an ambulance
not crowd around and hope nobody noticed

But then they would reveal how the rumors were actually true. It's incredible how her campaign and the MSM are trying to cover it up.

so if there wasn't any speculation about her health then they might have called for an ambulance

the fact that they tried to hide it doesn't look good for her

if someone collapsed on the street near me i'd pretend i didn't see it and keep walking but i'm a schizoid autismo and also i don't want to get sued for touching someone

fpbp

I also would like to take "what is sampling bias" for 100 please

beans out of us servers

>Washington Post
>642 "likely voters"
>+-4.5% error on a spread of 8

Its like they are purposely testing how statistically ignorant people are

Thanks, nice work semi flag bro

>Le over sample meme
Jesus Christ Sup Forums is literally repeating 2012 all over again. There are most self reported Democrats than their are Republicans, of course the sample is going to reflect that.

They were supposed to drop Trump in the polls after the debates, but now they're forced to start fixing things early. Nobody will buy this.

>Its like they are purposely testing how statistically ignorant people are
they already know that people are dumbfuck retards when it comes to probability and stats. reminder that the msm also fools idiots by fucking with the y-axis's start point, scaling, etc, to make data look better for them at-a-glance

> I don't know what a sample size of 642 means for a country of 200 million voters
nigger detected

quiet goyim just listen to the talky man with the suit and desk

Someone didn't take Stats in high school or college....

>So brave, so tough, so courageous.
That's what they'll say. I wouldn't be surprised if she faked this. She's just that evil.

>questionaires were filled in over the past 2 weeks

just wait for the polls in 2 weeks

Washington Post/ABC polls are literally always an extreme outlier when compared to all the other polls. Just scroll back in time on real clear politics. When 9/10 polls were showing Trump down by 5, Wash/ABC had him down by 15.

>not knowing about the colonial beauty of Cusco
Get an education

> mfw trump is now up in florida and iowa
> obama won both those states twice

Pretending you don't see shit really is the best policy.

>forgetting the +4 / -4 variable > not retarded

>someone took high school stats 10 years ago and thinks they know anything about it
sample size of 642 for a national election poll is complete garbage and there is no arguing against it you dumb nigger

No it isn't. You can take a representative sample of only 500 and keep your error margin at 3%. 642 would be plenty IF they actually took a representative sample (which they did not).

To reiterate, the problem with the polling is not sample size, it's sample selection.

Why does this need to be explained in every thread?

From MSNBC's twitter? They're probably taking their polls in New York.

Comcast (that owns MSNBC through NBC) has a vested financial interest in seeing Clinton get elected.

Why are you so bad at understanding how statistical sampling works?

Yeah I fell asleep during most of my statistics classes but even I caught that.

...

they also target specific voters most legit polls randomly select abbot 100 random people from every state and get their feedback that is how to make a national poll

No it isn't. Random sampling won't tell you shit.

Trump is down, polls don't matter right now Op, try again in a week or find one that doesn't hurt our feelings.

People seem to want to know if she is still running for president.

Wonder why?

i did not send classified emails , my health is fine , i mean

This. It's like you guys weren't here in 2012. You keep saying everything is oversampling democrats or undersampling independents, but the same arguments were used for Romney and it turned out that they weren't skewed at all.

>WaPo

what a joke

>I don't know what a sample size of 642 means for a country of 200 millions voters

I guess according to you, all science is worthless and means nothing since they never sample an entire populace. You fucking idiot. You don't even know what a statistically significant sample is. You don't know jack shit.

He didn't contradict himself, if that's what you're implying. There was no real evidence that she was actually ill beyond a persistent cough before yesterday. For fags that actually care about proof, yesterday is when her health actually became relevant. He even addresses it in the article that he had previously stated her health was a non-issue recently and why it became relevant now. But whatever, continue your idiocy.

kill yourself chris

>g g guys its just allergies
>i im not a bought and paid for media shill
>y y you are all idiots

I didn't stutter, and you can't read because nothing you said actually refutes anything I said.

>s s shes fine!
>y y you are all being idiots!
>campaign admits shes sick

seriously, kill yourself

even a child knows coughing for 5mins straight isnt healthy

>a persistent cough is the same thing as fainting
>both are equally indicative of serious health issues

Thank you, Dr. Sup Forums.

kill yourself

first off, hillary is the clear romney of this cycle.

second, no one cares that there are more democrats than republicans, because independents outnumber them both

yet the sample JUST SO happens to not have the independents as the majority

lol

>I'm retarded please rape my face

It is oversampling because turnout changes each election you dumb fucks

2012 used 2008 samples and was accurate- what a fucking surprise

If you use 2012 samples and apply them to the 2004 election then Kerry wins

Don't fucking talk about "muh skewed polls" when you're clearly too fucking stupid to understand how polling works

And

>muh science

Kill yourself, science isn't magic and polling isn't hard to understand

It's completely irrelevant at this point whether she actually has serious medical issues

People have been meming this for over a month, hillary went on kimmel to specifically go "ohoho those right wingers and their conspiracies are so crazy" and then this happened

People will assume she has medical issues regardless of whether she does or not, even a release of a clean bill of medical health at this point won't 100% solve the issue

No, her health is just that bad.

LOL Washington post....In the trash it goes

Sad and funny at the same time.

>we're gonna ask 11 Californians who they wanna vote for

TRUMP B T F O

How did Morning Jew try to damage control Hillary's faint?
Did Mika not want to show it?

There's been tons of reason to believe she's been ill for weeks if not months.

The constant falling episodes, endless coughing sometimes preventing her to even speak normally, her incredible lack of strength even for a lady her age, the strange moments of what seems to be dementia.

There has been TONS of very good reasons to wonder what is wrong with her physically. He just didn't want anyone doing so.

Yes, but it's a 2% difference, not 8%.

4%, not fucking 10%

The reporter's work was extremely poor.

Sup Forums knew about hillary's illness for months, there is no excuse for him not to know about it.

trying this hard i still get the voter card and it had dem on it yet i voted republican since reagan sounds legit

Trump will win by a 1.8% margin screenshot this. Now check these sick dubs bitches.

The Democrats could be running Lucifer himself for Presidency, and it wouldn't matter.

The demographics have changed permanently.

No implicitly pro-White candidate will ever have a shot in this country again, period.

I came here to bark at you