Not so fast on Hillary's bump

None of the polls are accurate as long as they keep over-sampling dimretards.

Rasmussen and Quinnipiac are the only ones I even come close to trusting and that's with a huge grain of salt.

None of the polls are accurate as long as they keep over-sampling dimretards.

Rasmussen and Quinnipiac are the only ones I even come close to trusting and that's with a huge grain of salt. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Has anyone asked your opinion on the phone .. or in person?

Not me either!

I'm getting tired of the "it is rigged" argument.. the economic numbers are "cooked", the "election is rigged", the poll is not accurate.

stop the God Damn foot-in-your-mouth daily shit, and act like a real Candidate.. the candor and colorful comments were refreshing a few months ago, but God Damn it, do you want to lose by the greatest fucking margin in US history?

that's where you're headed..

Stop the God Damn foot-in-your-mouth daily shit, and act like a real Candidate.. the candor and colorful comments were refreshing a few months ago, ...... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Did you happen to hear Duncan Hunter (Calif. U.S. rep) talking yesterday?

Then back off and look at this forum .....

Chung, the only true test is how many people get turned away from Trump's rallies because of fire codes. I'm sure it numbers in the thousands. He plays packed, SRO venues everywhere he goes. You can't say that about Shrillery. During last week's victory tour after the convention she couldn't draw flies. Just like her book tour. There's just no excitement there.

Has anyone asked your opinion on the phone .. or in person? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nope.

Nope. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

They didn't ask it last year either, did they?

Last year HillaryNoMore was ahead a Trump in a head-to-head 16 pts.

The same naysayers were laughing at him last year all the way to the convention and talking shit about a "take over" of the convention and Cruze et al was going to waltz in and take it!

If she's not tied, she's within the margin of error with him.

When they stick Gary Johnson in the race Trump's ahead ... that's why they revamped the questions/data to get her to even.

Trumped nailed it last night: I know how to win, and she doesn't!

Most polls are based on about 1,000 respondents. So the odds of ever being part of such a poll is very low. I, too, have never been asked to participate in a Presidential poll.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-donald-trump

"Don’t cherry-pick your favorite poll. Confirmation bias is never stronger than when we look at polls. We can always find a poll that looks good for the candidate we support. And we all know that certain polls skew Republican, while others skew Democratic (usually by 2 or 3 points). There will undoubtedly be outliers leading to excited headlines about a “shock poll.” And, yes, the pollsters have certainly gotten it wrong more than once in recent years. Still, if you look at the aggregate, such as the RealClearPolitics average, you can get a pretty good idea of where the race is headed."

And what does RealClearPolitics say?

Polling Data

PollDateSampleMoEClinton (D)
Trump (R)
SpreadRCP Average7/25 - 8/2----46.841.7 Clinton +5.1

FOX News7/31 - 8/21022 RV3.04939 Clinton +10
Economist/YouGov7/30 - 8/1933 RV4.14643 Clinton +3
3LA Times/USC7/27 - 8/22188 LV--4445 Trump +1
CBS News7/29 - 7/311131 RV3.04741 Clinton +6
CNN/ORC7/29 - 7/31894 RV3.55243 Clinton +9
PPP (D)7/29 - 7/301276 LV2.75045 Clinton +5
NBC News/SM7/25 - 7/3112742 RV1.25042 Clinton +8
Reuters/Ipsos7/25 - 7/291050 LV3.54035 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports7/26 - 7/271000 LV3.04342 Clinton +1

It's nice to talk about national polls but we all know a handful of states are going to determine the election. Not Texas. Not N.Y. Not California. Ohio, Pa., and Fla. are
of the highest importance for both candidates. Win all 3 of those states and you will win the election.


Clinton is enjoying the post-convention surge, just as Trump did. I have said all along that the debates will be key in deciding the next POTUS.

Chung, the only true test is how many people get turned away from Trump's rallies because of fire codes. I'm sure it numbers in the thousands. He plays packed, SRO venues everywhere he goes. You can't say that about Shrillery. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

that's a fair test, but rally attendees make up a small sample of voters.. I realize Clinton's support is not from excited voters, but she's winning the media fight. even Clint Eastwood called Trump a racist.. Hell, how many times can shit just bounce off? I don't think it is anymore.

that's a fair test, but rally attendees make up a small sample of voters.. I realize Clinton's support is not from excited voters, but she's winning the media fight. even Clint Eastwood called Trump a racist.. Hell, how many times can shit just bounce off? I don't think it is anymore. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

No. Eastwood didn't call Trump a racist. He said today in America is a "pussy generation" and the shit PC people are calling "rascist" isn't rascist.

Legendary actor and film director Clint Eastwood fell short of endorsing Donald Trump for president, but acknowledged the Republican presidential nominee is “onto something” for not being afraid to speak his mind.

“He’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” Mr. Eastwood, 86, told Esquire magazine in an interview published Wednesday. “That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”

“We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist,” he continued. “And then when I did ‘Gran Torino,’ even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.’ And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight.’ The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately.’” ....

Mr. Eastwood hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate in the presidential race but said he would cast a vote for Mr. Trump over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. (Washington Times)

Stay Strong WOLVERINES!

Don't believe the Regimes Propaganda!

Trump2016

you left out the line about the Mexican Judge.. hard to say if Eastwood was facetious though.. may have been taken out of context.

but a lot of people DO think Trump's a racist.. these attack dogs have the campaign back on its heels, Trump and his people seem to be blindsided. it's not enough to say people are showing up at his fucking rallies.. Hell, I brought people to his Dallas rallies, who are definitely voting for Clinton.. they came to the rally, because they thought the God Damn Circus was in town.

and I'm not 100% convinced they weren't right..

Most polls are based on about 1,000 respondents. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just made my point throughout these poll threads ...

To determine "trending" one must keep surveying the same data base. If you randomly change the 1,000 polled one will not get a trend only a snapshot .... of that group at that moment.

The "issue" is the initial selection process and who they are selected, culled, and qualified as being representative of the VOTERS eligible to vote in the upcoming election and "most likely to vote" based on past performances!!!!

That last qualification is the wild card ... the other is in the selection of a sample to reflect a "cross-section" reprsentative of the voters in the U.S. If you bias the sample you bias results.

You just made my point throughout these poll threads ...

To determine "trending" one must keep surveying the same data base. If you randomly change the 1,000 polled one will not get a trend only a snapshot .... of that group at that moment.

The "issue" is the initial selection process and who they are selected, culled, and qualified as being representative of the VOTERS eligible to vote in the upcoming election and "most likely to vote" based on past performances!!!!

That last qualification is the wild card ... the other is in the selection of a sample to reflect a "cross-section" reprsentative of the voters in the U.S. If you bias the sample you bias results. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Everything you say is 100% true in my opinion. Sampling theory is not a new art. Back when Dewey was picked over Truman polling was far from an exact science. It still isn't but it's a lot better than it was.

Chung, the only true test is how many people get turned away from Trump's rallies because of fire codes. I'm sure it numbers in the thousands. He plays packed, SRO venues everywhere he goes. You can't say that about Shrillery. During last week's victory tour after the convention she couldn't draw flies. Just like her book tour. There's just no excitement there. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

What he is so dumb his rally is held in a building with a capacity of 1500, so he can bitch about people being turned away when it is full?