Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory

This exact same thing happened in the 2008 and 2012 election.

The Republican candidate was losing badly in the polls...so Republican supporters say the scientifically conducted polls were wrong/skewed/manipulated. They turned to measures like online polls, yard signs they see, what their friends think, or how many internet comments/threads/likes/stars/flags/upvotes they see about the Republican candidate.

Then, on election night when the results come in and the polls turn out to be extremely accurate like they have been in the past elections...they will claim the election was stolen or there was voter fraud.

a reply to: Konduit


This thread should be at the top and stickied so that if Clinton wins, we can all look back and know who the real winner is and how jacked up and fraudulent the election really is.

This confirms what everyone already knew as far as how rare a real life Clinton supporter really is.

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
Hillary supporters don't spend all day posting on the internet about Hillary because they have a life. Unlike Trump supporters.

Holy crap!!! This made me want to shove a cactus up my nose hole!! The shilling is real. Just by going over the star counts for pro Hillary posts on page one, compared to the Trump posts counts, it's amazing we don't have MORE pro Hillary people voicing their opinions. Let's see, I think I counted something like 30 or more stars on one single Hillary post, but I only count MAYBE 4 or 5 pro Hilary members on here. You guys know who you are, we know who you are, but the math doesn't make sense.
So back to my quoted comment, you say Hillary supporters have better things to do, well then why are pro Hillary comments getting equal if not more "thumbs up" on this here thread?

Eta: konduit's OP generated 41 stars
Swills post generated 37 stars.
Somehow I think the quoted comment is pure BS, since both camps seem to have this life you speak of.

a reply to: kruphix

Did the Media have the same bulk of their entire machine set to attack & smear mode against the GOP dude, the last 2 times?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: kruphix

Did the Media have the same bulk of their entire machine set to attack & smear mode against the GOP dude, the last 2 times?

Yep, they're pretty relentless, and also biased. There's actual substance behind the claims of there being a liberal media bias. Pretty much all the major networks outwardly support Democrats, which involves attacking any Republican challengers.

Not that social media means anything but, the updated data there is not good for Trump either. Donal d Trump's Facebook page is losing its edge over Hillary Clinton's

However, a new report from SocialFlow, a social media optimization company, indicates that Trump is either tied with or losing ground on Hillary Clinton on certain social media metrics.

Again that means nothing. If Social Media was any indication of voting habits Ron Paul would be President. The same is true of yard signs and bumper stickers, Ron Paul should have crushed everybody. However, that is not how it works. And every election we hear the same thing from the losing side.

The GOP and Trump trust the polls because they do their own polls.. When Trump admits he is having trouble in the polls he is not just talking about public ones. They do their own.

And also lest clear up the nonsense with big and small campaign rallies. We saw this same claim with Ron Paul. Paul and Trump make the same mistake. The hold big rallies for people who already support them. They gain nothing from them other than a good feeling. Clinton is stealing away Republican voters because she is going to them.

Small venues with people who would not normally support her and dealing only with local press in battle ground states. It takes time and dedication but, it works. Trumps headlines scream nationally about what fued or crazy thing he claimed this week, while in the local papers under that that big Trump headline is Clinton in town plan for new jobs for area. Now this is not just a Clinton thing Johnson and Stein do it as well. Because at this point your base is rallied, that is what the convention was for. Now it is about getting people of the fence or barely on the other side. And that is where Trump is not even trying.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: Konduit


This thread should be at the top and stickied so that if Clinton wins, we can all look back and know who the real winner is and how jacked up and fraudulent the election really is.

This confirms what everyone already knew as far as how rare a real life Clinton supporter really is.

It's more a reflection of your social circles.

95% of my friends on Facebook are supporting Clinton (I have about 700 or so Liberal Uppity Feminist Democrat friends there). I'm certain that more than 5% of the population supports Trump... but I don't see them on my feeds (thankfully). But if you went with my experience, I could say as you did... "this confirms what everyone already knew as far as how rare a real life TRUMP supporter is."

originally posted by: MrSpad
Not that social media means anything but, the updated data there is not good for Trump either. Donal d Trump's Facebook page is losing its edge over Hillary Clinton's

However, a new report from SocialFlow, a social media optimization company, indicates that Trump is either tied with or losing ground on Hillary Clinton on certain social media metrics.

Quite interesting.

Again that means nothing. If Social Media was any indication of voting habits Ron Paul would be President.

I disagree there. In the area where I live there was no support for him, and no real support on any of the social media I encountered. Again, it's a reflection of the spheres of information we use - but I didn't see any real interest in Ron Paul or the Libertarian platform.

And also lest clear up the nonsense with big and small campaign rallies. We saw this same claim with Ron Paul. Paul and Trump make the same mistake. The hold big rallies for people who already support them. They gain nothing from them other than a good feeling. Clinton is stealing away Republican voters because she is going to them.

That's quite an interesting thought, and one I think I agree with.

originally posted by: kruphix
This exact same thing happened in the 2008 and 2012 election.

The Republican candidate was losing badly in the polls...so Republican supporters say the scientifically conducted polls were wrong/skewed/manipulated. They turned to measures like online polls, yard signs they see, what their friends think, or how many internet comments/threads/likes/stars/flags/upvotes they see about the Republican candidate.

Then, on election night when the results come in and the polls turn out to be extremely accurate like they have been in the past elections...they will claim the election was stolen or there was voter fraud.

You may need to rethink your position actually polls were very inacurate. Polls do somethin called herding polling firms out of fear of being wrong, are looking at the results of other published surveys and weighting or adjusting their own results to match. This means the closer you get to election day the more the polls line up together. Even if wrong like in 2010 wih Romney. The polls overestimated his performance by 4 percent, realize that can easily turn an election. During 2012 Obama was underestimated by over 4 percent when you look at the last 30 days of polling. See thr polling companies play a game everyone only remembers your last poll. So day before the election you catch some early polling numbers extropolate from there take your fellow pollsters into account and you should get close.

Or in other words there final poll will always be close acuracy goes out the window the further from election day you get. Though interestingly they did learn in 2012 that online polls tended to be more acurate for example looking at the last 30 days they averaged 2.3 percent in favor of obama. His actual vote count was 2.6 so they were extremely close.

One more thing until the last 30 days polls are always off more than there margin of error.

a reply to: Byrd

I agree you can never base support on your friends since they would tend to be similar demographics. Size of rallys means nothing either your just fueling up the home team. Very few cadidates turn this into a win however Obama was very good at motivating his constituents in battle ground states and it could be argued that they helped sway thr vote. If you see everyone around you is supporting one candidate it can sway the last minute voters. But you wouldn't be talking more than 2 percent so only in a close race would it even make a difrence.

Gee, I sure wish I had gotten in on the first page of this thread. I could have said anything, anything at all and garnered boo koo stars. Missed my chance again.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Gee, I sure wish I had gotten in on the first page of this thread. I could have said anything, anything at all and garnered boo koo stars. Missed my chance again.

Joke if you want, but this IS a thread about social media and approval. Page one just really showed, and to the point of my quoted post, Hillary supporters have the same level of free time as Trump supporters. Stars schmars, if you want them, I starred yours just to validate your post and approval.

a reply to: Konduit

Most of the Twitter follows and Facebook likes HRC has are fake. You can easily manipulate the system. There are multiple sites that sell Twitter follows, likes, and Youtube views. 24 hour turnaround. Every single Hillary sponsored video on youtube has comments and likes turned off. All of the other videos that are livestreams etc. have MASSIVE amounts of dislikes. She does the same crap Anita Sarkeesian does. They give the appearance people like them, when in reality they do not.

originally posted by: muse7
If social media is an accurate interpretation of where the US electorate is...shouldn't Ron Paul have been president in 2012?

Don't even need to read the rest of the thread. This says it all.

a reply to: introvert

I would say that Facebook represents a pretty general sample of the population though.

Facebook has 1,7 billion monthly users, that's a huge chunk of the population and saying it doesn't accurately represent the mainstream population simply isn't true.

If I was a Clinton supporter I'd probably stay away from political discussions too, it's hard to defend a hag like Hillary.

And this analogy of yours isn't really applicable in all of these cases, we're talking about views and likes here not people commenting or flaunting their viewpoints. So unless you think Clinton supporters are all hermits that stay away from the internet I don't see how this analogy applies at all.

Social Media attracts certain types of people. For instance, I'm not on Facebook, Twitter, etc.., because my teenage sons are ALWAYS on them. So I see those platforms as kiddie play things.

But if that broad based multi-platform support for Donald Trump is coming from people of voting age, it is a good thing!

I really like the analogy of how Clinton can't even fill an old bomb shelter with people to hear her plans for the future.

A big reason for Trump supporters being somewhat quiet, is that you'll be ridiculed horribly if a Clinton supporter finds out. Clinton supporters can't name anything she has done, or will do, but they know that Trump hates all non-whites, and slaps snot out of crying babies.

Trump supporters are scared, already posting excuses for why they've lost.

Social media accounts suddenly mean something, unless they show Hillary supporters, where its suddenly paid users and bots


Because of course, only HIllary could pay for twitter users... Trump would never do that.

a reply to: kruphix

He is already planting the idea that the election is rigged to cover his losing should that happen. A loss is going to hurt his ego.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: kruphix

He is already planting the idea that the election is rigged to cover his losing should that happen. A loss is going to hurt his ego.

So let me see you don't think it's possible even though we had members of the DNC resign for exactly that. You seem a bit niave to me you were just shown how elections are rigged and than you say ah it doesn't happen.I figure you have a case of severe short term memory loss or you are just so in bed with coruption and fraud you think its normal.

What Trump is doing here is simple hrs place ting a seed doesn't even matter if it's true. But there are people out there that now realize that yes politics is rigged thanks to the DNC. By Trump making that statement he's securing there vote nothing more. He wants to remain the outsider that will clean up Washington and restore law and order. I don't believe that's possible but there are people that believe it can be done. Reality is politics will continue as long as there is money to be made on it. You do realize the Clinton's made there money in politics. In fact Hillary claimed they were broke when Bill left office. Seen her latest financial report??

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: kruphix

He is already planting the idea that the election is rigged to cover his losing should that happen. A loss is going to hurt his ego.

So let me see you don't think it's possible even though we had members of the DNC resign for exactly that. You seem a bit niave to me you were just shown how elections are rigged and than you say ah it doesn't happen.I figure you have a case of severe short term memory loss or you are just so in bed with coruption and fraud you think its normal.

What Trump is doing here is simple hrs place ting a seed doesn't even matter if it's true. But there are people out there that now realize that yes politics is rigged thanks to the DNC. By Trump making that statement he's securing there vote nothing more. He wants to remain the outsider that will clean up Washington and restore law and order. I don't believe that's possible but there are people that believe it can be done. Reality is politics will continue as long as there is money to be made on it. You do realize the Clinton's made there money in politics. In fact Hillary claimed they were broke when Bill left office. Seen her latest financial report??