• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Opens up 10-Point Lead

Deuce said:
The idea that you're supposed to balance out the number of Democrats and Republicans in a presidential election poll is hilarious.

"I sampled 100 Democrats and 100 Republicans... turns out 100 people plan to vote Democrat and 100 people plan to vote Republican!!"
Click to expand...

If that's all they did, it wouldn't be as bad as it is. But it's not. They sample 150 Democrats and 50 Republicans...give some bull**** reason why they did it...and end up with a bogus, skewed poll that shows Hillary with a 7-15 point lead.
 
Mycroft said:
What? You can't read?

I said...

"The leftist news media...the ones doing these polls...are in the tank for Hillary."
Click to expand...
But you haven't answered my question: Why?

Why would they fix polls skewing HRC?
 
Mycroft said:
If that's all they did, it wouldn't be as bad as it is. But it's not. They sample 150 Democrats and 50 Republicans...give some bull**** reason why they did it...and end up with a bogus, skewed poll that shows Hillary with a 7-15 point lead.
Click to expand...

"Skewed poll!" First sighting of the season!

I suppose you'll be directing us to unskewedpolls.com pretty soon. Worked out so well last time.

Instead of whining about the polls being wrong, you should focus on the fact that polls this far out from the election are worthless.
 
Chomsky said:
But you haven't answered my question: Why?

Why would they fix polls skewing HRC?
Click to expand...

They are left-wing. They want Hillary to win. They do not want Trump to win.

Have I said that clearly enough for you?
 
Deuce said:
"Skewed poll!" First sighting of the season!

I suppose you'll be directing us to unskewedpolls.com pretty soon. Worked out so well last time.

Instead of whining about the polls being wrong, you should focus on the fact that polls this far out from the election are worthless.
Click to expand...

If you think this is the first time the polls have been skewed toward Hillary this election cycle, you haven't had your eyes open. It's been done at least 4 times in just the last 2-3 months.

Ever since it's been clear that Trump is giving Hillary a run for her money.
 
Mycroft said:
If you think this is the first time the polls have been skewed toward Hillary this election cycle, you haven't had your eyes open. It's been done at least 4 times in just the last 2-3 months.

Ever since it's been clear that Trump is giving Hillary a run for her money.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what they said about Romney.
 
Mycroft said:
If that's all they did, it wouldn't be as bad as it is. But it's not. They sample 150 Democrats and 50 Republicans...give some bull**** reason why they did it...and end up with a bogus, skewed poll that shows Hillary with a 7-15 point lead.
Click to expand...
I'm going to call B.S. on this!

I've never seen a recent national Rueter's poll under at least 1200 minimum! They're usually 1800-2K+.

There's no way Reuter's sampled 200 in a national election!
 
Mycroft said:
They are left-wing. They want Hillary to win. They do not want Trump to win.

Have I said that clearly enough for you?
Click to expand...
No you haven't made that clear. Not at all.

You haven't explained how over estimating a candidate in the polls can help them win!

Can you?
 
Deuce said:
Yeah that's what they said about Romney.
Click to expand...

And it was true, too.

I mean, when Reid got up in front of the Senate and lied about some friend of a friend who had seen all kinds of nasty stuff in Romney's tax returns what did the media do? Did they pressure Reid to prove it? No. They ran with it, splashed it over and over in their articles...much like they are doing with every spun, hyperbolized and lied about faux outrage that arises about Trump.

Do you REALLY think the media is "fair and balanced"? :roll:
 
Chomsky said:
No you haven't made that clear. Not at all.

You haven't explained how over estimating a candidate in the polls can help them win!

Can you?
Click to expand...

Oh...so THAT'S what you want to know.

It's simple. The more they lie and make people believe Trump can't win/isn't winning, the more likely the useful idiots and the low-info suckers will believe it...and vote accordingly. The more they lie, the more people think Hillary actually has a chance.

If they were telling the truth, they would have to say that the two are neck and neck with Trump slightly edging out ahead of Hillary...because that's what's actually happening.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm going to call B.S. on this!

I've never seen a recent national Rueter's poll under at least 1200 minimum! They're usually 1800-2K+.

There's no way Reuter's sampled 200 in a national election!
Click to expand...

sigh...

Deuce used a hypothetical example. I used the same hypothetical example.

Of course, they won't just sample 200 people. (though there ARE some lousy pollsters who go with a ridiculously low sample and try to say it means something)
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...so THAT'S what you want to know.

It's simple. The more they lie and make people believe Trump can't win/isn't winning, the more likely the useful idiots and the low-info suckers will believe it...and vote accordingly. The more they lie, the more people think Hillary actually has a chance.

If they were telling the truth, they would have to say that the two are neck and neck with Trump slightly edging out ahead of Hillary...because that's what's actually happening.
Click to expand...
This is wrong.

Fudging numbers in a candidates favor will decrease turnout.

The exact best scenario to increase turnout is precisely the one I bolded (which you claim is accurate).

The bolded is exactly what the pollsters would fudge to help HRC. Placing her well ahead will decrease turnout.

You're wrong, here.

You not only have no evidence, which alone is a losing argument, but your theory is wrong as well.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

Deuce used a hypothetical example. I used the same hypothetical example.

Of course, they won't just sample 200 people. (though there ARE some lousy pollsters who go with a ridiculously low sample and try to say it means something)
Click to expand...
Ah, I assumed you were referring to your link. My mistake.
 
Chomsky said:
This is wrong.

Fudging numbers in a candidates favor will decrease turnout.

The exact best scenario to increase turnout is precisely the one I bolded (which you claim is accurate).

The bolded is exactly what the pollsters would fudge to help HRC. Placing her well ahead will decrease turnout.

You're wrong, here.

You not only have no evidence, which alone is a losing argument, but your theory is wrong as well.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree.. from everything i have ever heard it will gain votes, because people like to vote for the winner.
 
Hypothetical said:
I have to disagree.. from everything i have ever heard it will gain votes, because people like to vote for the winner.
Click to expand...
Well, I respectfully disagree.

And I think you'll notice that candidates (Trump being the exception), will always downplay their having a substantial lead. They'll claim they're going to win, but they'll never refer to their being far ahead.

I assume they know what their doing.
 
Chomsky said:
This is wrong.

Fudging numbers in a candidates favor will decrease turnout.

The exact best scenario to increase turnout is precisely the one I bolded (which you claim is accurate).

The bolded is exactly what the pollsters would fudge to help HRC. Placing her well ahead will decrease turnout.

You're wrong, here.

You not only have no evidence, which alone is a losing argument, but your theory is wrong as well.
Click to expand...

shrug...

And you provide no evidence that YOUR theory is correct.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

And you provide no evidence that YOUR theory is correct.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Fair enough to disagree, but you made the claims of polling fraud - not I.

And you haven't provided evidence of your claims (irrespective of us debating theories).
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I respectfully disagree.

And I think you'll notice that candidates (Trump being the exception), will always downplay their having a substantial lead. They'll claim they're going to win, but they'll never refer to their being far ahead.

I assume they know what their doing.
Click to expand...

fair enough. i will agree that the candidate, at least, would never claim to be winning by a lot
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough to disagree, but you made the claims of polling fraud - not I.

And you haven't provided evidence of your claims (irrespective of us debating theories).
Click to expand...

Actually, I did provide evidence. Perhaps you missed it. Check way back in post #11.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I respectfully disagree.

And I think you'll notice that candidates (Trump being the exception), will always downplay their having a substantial lead. They'll claim they're going to win, but they'll never refer to their being far ahead.

I assume they know what their doing.
Click to expand...

The problem with your assertion here is that no candidates are making claims. It's the polls that are bogus.
 
Mycroft said:
The problem with your assertion here is that no candidates are making claims. It's the polls that are bogus.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. They weren't "bogus" when the Unskew whiners were pissing and moaning in 2012, and they're not bogus now. It's debatable how meaningful they are at this juncture, but they're not "bogus." You're pissing into the wind.
 
Crovax said:
All the major networks polls are showing the same

CBS has Clinton +6
CNN has Clinton +9
NBC has Clinton +8

When a poll is bad for Trump the Trumpettes declare it illegitimate when a poll is good for Trump it's the word of god.
Click to expand...

That is because the Trumpanzies are inherently stupid people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom