Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory

Former loser Presidential candidates have a less than 5% chance of winning. I did this math a year ago. That's not a poll number either.
That is fact. Historical odds are stacked against her. If someone wants to be obtuse about this fact that is their choice but it won't change her historical odds of winning.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

I can't even watch mainstream news outlets anymore. It's basically 95% Trump bashing. This is unprecedented propaganda in the USA on par with the Soviet Union.

originally posted by: savemebarry

originally posted by: roadgravel
Not everyone that votes does "likes" on the internet. I don't think it is an accurate indicator.

Do you think that clinton supporters dont use the internet, and it's all trump supporters?

Or perhaps a reasonable slice of reality, that indicates the leaning of the populace?

I dunno, seems like you're saying trump supporters sit around all day hitting like, while clinton supporters (where are they again?) are too busy attending her rallies.

Oh wait..

The real reason is because Hillary is focusing on issues, and issues are boring. Trump has tried to use his rallies, and most of his appearances for that matter to entertain. Being entertaining is how you stay relevant, and how you convince people to vote. It's brilliant actually. That's why his rallies get so many more people, he's making them fun. Hillaries are just dry governmental policy BS.

originally posted by: LifeMode
Former loser Presidential candidates have a less than 5% chance of winning. I did this math a year ago. That's not a poll number either.
That is fact. Historical odds are stacked against her. If someone wants to be obtuse about this fact that is their choice but it won't change her historical odds of winning.

Wouldn't a 5% chance of winning suggest that 1 in 20 times the 95% candidate loses?

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

I can't even watch mainstream news outlets anymore. It's basically 95% Trump bashing. This is unprecedented propaganda in the USA on par with the Soviet Union.

That's how 95% of the Ron Paul coverage was in '08 (with him getting LESS than 5% coverage at all). I couldn't even endure it again in '12.

a reply to: Konduit

I only watch it to riff the narrative. Usually in the company of family and friends.

Expose it for what it is. Do it in real life. It's amazing how many eyes I've opened in the last six months alone with this method. People of all stripes are pretty open to the truth at the moment, even if it stings a little.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I fail to see how social media is more manipulated than MSM. Granted, it is possible to have one's opinion buried under a mountain of opposition, but that opinion still gets out there. MSM on the other hand has an agenda, and voices are silenced, censored, edited and plainly derided by a panel of "experts" to the point of obfuscation.

On social media, I continually see both sides, shills or not. I'll never know who is a shill and who isn't, but the Trump support has a genuine righteous anger about them. It makes it seem more authentic. I don't get that from the opposition. Just the usual level of daft complacency as they type away stroking their pet unicorns.

There's bots that post things on any article having to do with the candidate, usually it's something non topical slamming the opposition. In addition to that, there's networks that inflate view counts, likes, thumbs up, etc. Those are the things I mentioned in regards to the OP. These measurements were made by doing things like comparing the number of likes on their Facebook pages, yet the last estimate I saw pegged Trump at having atleast 90% fake accounts following him and Hillary at 85% (these were both during the primaries).

There's just no way to find the truth from the numbers presented because the entire process is designed to obfuscate. With the MSM that's just not true, because you know what direction each reporter and news organization is biased for. But in the world of social media where everyone is a no name, if a name is attached at all, everything is basically anonymous which means you may not even be reacting to data from real people.

a reply to: LifeMode

The only candidate I can think of that managed to pull it off was Nixon, and he ended up being impeached because of the scandals he was involved in. Makes you wonder if time really is cyclical...

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't know what it suggest. Just stating a fact. I never said she would lose but the odds are less than 5% for this one specific category that they will win after losing already. Former losers lose a lot.

a reply to: Konduit

Or this could all just mean that Trump supporters never shut up.

Though this isn't a scientific poll, and I would argue a scientific poll that has a minimum sample of 500 people isn't a good sample, but there is no question the media uses polling data to swing the election. This was made explicit by two researchers in the early 90/s in a book called Follow The Leader, or something along those lines.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well, I get that.

On the flip side, and I will use FB as an example here, I visit The Trump page and find that 30 or so of my personal contacts have liked it. I visit the Hillary page, one like.

These are flesh and blood people, not bots. So, I get that what you are saying may indeed be true to an extent. However, I think the models are being broken this time around.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
From the looks of her, she will likely have a severe stroke pretty soon. She will be left incompasitated in a wheel chair, and will be replaced if she even makes it to the whitehouse. She has serious health issues. Blood clot in the brain is bad news. And what in the world is that disgusting dark moon crater of a lesion on her tongue? What disease does that?

I believe it's the symptom of an affliction that is known by the technical name of "dark side corruption"

Later stages include yellowing of the eyes and general deterioration of physical appearance

a reply to: Ohanka

With each passing moment that we tolerate fraud and corruption, the more we become her servant...

a reply to: Konduit

That's excellent. You win the internet today Konduit!

Ok, this is the second time I've seen this recently.

I load the thread once, casually note the number of stars on people's posts.

I refresh the page about 2 minutes later, certain posts have gained around 20 stars in the span of 2 minutes, while others have gained none.

Literally, within the span of 2 minutes. Something weird is up with that.

The stars or whatever don't seem to mean anything, it's just an exceedingly strange observation I've made.

a reply to: Talorc

I'll find the same issue with posts. I'll refresh (f5) a page get one or two replies at the bottom. Leave page and there's at least 5 more. Yes, odd.

a reply to: redhorse

As long as we are knowingly combating a manufactured majority opposition, we absolutely refuse to shut up. Why would we sit by the wayside while being fed bullsh!t that the media swears is baby food?

How is silence furthering our cause? It takes an active and vocal approach to take down the machine. I'm having a fantastic time doing so.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
Well, I get that.

On the flip side, and I will use FB as an example here, I visit The Trump page and find that 30 or so of my personal contacts have liked it. I visit the Hillary page, one like.

These are flesh and blood people, not bots. So, I get that what you are saying may indeed be true to an extent. However, I think the models are being broken this time around.

Given the partisan divide in the US, most people tend to hang out with other people that agree with them politically. It's not the people you know that you should be looking at, because if you're a Trump supporter you can easily know mostly Trump supporters. It's the people you don't know that are much more interesting. Additionally, you need to take into account where you live. Perhaps you live in an area that's heavily Republican, that will lead to there being more people you know voting Republican.

This website here tracks all the different polls and has Clinton in a consistent lead against Trump. I would need to see evidence of the "liberals" tampering with polls before I took that into consideration.

Even though Hillary is leading the polls now, there is a lot that could happen between now and the election.