• 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!

Trump slams pollsters as survey buries sustained popularity over Clinton

reinoe said:
If the polls were really close then Hillary wouldn't have lost the electoral vote in a landslide to a candidate who spent 1/10 the money. The polls were repeatedly pointing out that there was a slim to none path to victory for Trump. That doesn't happen if the polls were accurate.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, 307 EV's is not a "landslide". Pulling that while losing by 3,000,000 votes? Now, that's impressive.
 
Anagram said:
Factually Inaccurate:

National Polls off by 1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Perfect/Near Perfect states:

Virginia: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Georgia: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Georgia: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson

Colorado: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Colorado: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Arizona: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Arizona: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Nevada: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-6004.html

New Hampahire: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6022.html

North Carolina: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5951.html

Only 3 misses:

Wisconsin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

Michigan: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html

Pennsylvania: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html

And in none of those three states did the polling average overestimate Clinton's actual percentage. They all underestimated Trump's percentage while reporting extremely high numbers of undecideds. And these are the places where you would expect to have high numbers of undecideds since the people who switched to Trump had been voting Democratic their whole lives up to this point.

The polls were extraordinarily accurate.
Click to expand...
All this "the polls were nearly perfect" is revisionist history...


Nate Silver: Hillary Clinton has a near 80 percent chance of winning the election
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...has-a-near-80-percent-chance-of-win/21421192/

92.jpg


huffington-post-follow-huffingtonpost-our-pollster-polls-model-gives-hillary-16987904.png


chance-of-winning-8-92-hillary-clinton-donald-j-trump-12226776.png


10_12_polls_plus_1.jpg
 
Porkuloss said:
Uhmm, 307 EV's is not a "landslide". Pulling that while losing by 3,000,000 votes? Now, that's impressive.
Click to expand...

It is a landslide all things considered. It was a win by historic records when you realize that she had every imaginable advantage and was also cheating to win and still lost.
 
reinoe said:
All this "the polls were nearly perfect" is revisionist history...


Nate Silver: Hillary Clinton has a near 80 percent chance of winning the election
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...has-a-near-80-percent-chance-of-win/21421192/

92.jpg


huffington-post-follow-huffingtonpost-our-pollster-polls-model-gives-hillary-16987904.png


chance-of-winning-8-92-hillary-clinton-donald-j-trump-12226776.png


10_12_polls_plus_1.jpg
Click to expand...

First, those are people interpreting the polls, not the polls themselves. And HuffPo made the baffling decision to ignore about 50% of the polls.

Second, the fivethirtyeight ones you listed are from significantly before the election. On Election Day Nate Silver gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. Hardly an unlikely event.

Third, while it's true that people did not interpret the polls correctly, the signs were there in the polls themselves. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the states that made the entirety of the difference had more undecideds than any other states. But a lot of people only looked at the margins.

It's not revisionist. It's what the polls actually said. I provided the polls in my previous proof, and the evidence is pretty damning that they were extraordinarily accurate.
 
Holy CRAP does this buffoon have an INCREDIBLY thin skin or what?

THe guy is POTUS and he seems SO wounded that he lost the popular vote....Jeez.

You would think he would be too busy wrecking the nation to care about last year's election...NOPE.

What a baby.


Once again, I have ZERO loyalty to any political party or movement.
 
Surrealistik said:
I'll note that Clinton is an _extremely_ low bar to clear and outperforming her is comfort of the coldest kind.
Click to expand...


The bar was so low in that election a snake could have cleared it.
Wait a minute...
 
reinoe said:
If the polls were really close then Hillary wouldn't have lost the electoral vote in a landslide to a candidate who spent 1/10 the money. The polls were repeatedly pointing out that there was a slim to none path to victory for Trump. That doesn't happen if the polls were accurate.
Click to expand...

Landslide? #46 in a list of 56?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...dential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin

I guess that's how his inauguration drew the biggest crowd ever, too.
Alternative facts. Ain't they fun?
 
Grand Mal said:
Landslide? #46 in a list of 56?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...dential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin

I guess that's how his inauguration drew the biggest crowd ever, too.
Alternative facts. Ain't they fun?
Click to expand...

Yeah, when a candidate's opponent is caught cheating while he himself had multiple significant disadvantages then yes it's a historic and epic win. Try to tamp down your jealousy. If you libs nominated Sanders then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.
 
Porkuloss said:
It only takes changing about 70K votes in 3 states to make Trump come out the EV loser. He won by a hair. He won, though, and that's what matters.

The Election Came Down to 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Updated) | The Weekly Standard
Click to expand...

trump appears to have moved to consolidate his base, rather than expanding it. Thus, he's only lost 2 to 4 % of his base. This may help his renomination but it remains to be seen how it affects all down ballot elections through 11.6.18.

Besides what happens this week with domestic issues, the wild card I feel is what trump will do overseas, as we're seeing with all 100 Senators being invited to the WH tonight. I'm afraid trump believes making war will bump him in the polls .
 
reinoe said:
Yeah, when a candidate's opponent is caught cheating while he himself had multiple significant disadvantages then yes it's a historic and epic win. Try to tamp down your jealousy. If you libs nominated Sanders then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Click to expand...

What multiple significant disadvantages did poor djt face ?
 
reinoe said:
It is a landslide all things considered. It was a win by historic records when you realize that she had every imaginable advantage and was also cheating to win and still lost.
Click to expand...

Do tell us how Clinton was cheating during the general election, reinoe, when house and senate committees are investigating just the opposite .
 
American said:
They want to minimize the win of course. They are still butthurt over the loss, just look at the protesting going on.
Click to expand...

Ya those scientist and there damn butthurt. Ya know what sadder than a liberal crying on Nov 9, a Conservative bragging about it five months later. I can understand, 100 days in and he has not a pot to piss in for bragging rights. Unless of course 3 seperate investigation is worth touting, now there is a record.
 
yankintx said:
Ya those scientist and there damn butthurt. Ya know what sadder than a liberal crying on Nov 9, a Conservative bragging about it five months later. I can understand, 100 days in and he has not a pot to piss in for bragging rights. Unless of course 3 seperate investigation is worth touting, now there is a record.
Click to expand...

And what exactly do libs have to crow about? Being relegated to a regional, bi coastal party, that has dumped over a thousand legislative seats, and is getting booed in their rallies, unless they bring along a guy that doesn't even claim the democrat party as his own?

Oh yeah....Now THERE'S stuff to be proud of....:roll:
 
j-mac said:
And what exactly do libs have to crow about? Being relegated to a regional, bi coastal party, that has dumped over a thousand legislative seats, and is getting booed in their rallies, unless they bring along a guy that doesn't even claim the democrat party as his own?

Oh yeah....Now THERE'S stuff to be proud of....:roll:
Click to expand...

Liberals were to blame when they had the trifecta, when they lost the house in 2010, when they lost the senate in 2014, and now they're to blame when GOPs have the trifecta.

My GOP congressman had dishonest ads run against him the last two weeks over trumpcare by trump's PAC 45.

Please let the Nation know when GOPs can AGREE WITH EACH OTHER on legislation.

How are the 5/2 primaries sizing up in your SC ?
 
yankintx said:
Ya those scientist and there damn butthurt. Ya know what sadder than a liberal crying on Nov 9, a Conservative bragging about it five months later. I can understand, 100 days in and he has not a pot to piss in for bragging rights. Unless of course 3 seperate investigation is worth touting, now there is a record.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
 
American said:
Sounds like a lot of talk.
Click to expand...

6 words--you haven't made it to Tillerson's level yet.

Try Duffy in Wisconsin NOT running for the Senate in 2018 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom