Real time Facebook presidential poll shows a completely different story than mainstream media polls

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Greggers

It's not scientific when they poll 25% more Democrats, a lot more women, and hispanics. The polls have already been debunked and a fraud and coordination by Podesta and the media.

Actually, the only reason you even know the sampling is disproportionate is because that's recorded and it's scientific. What exactly do you think would make it scientific more than recording sampling?

Your opinion about Hispanics defaulting Democrat is just proof of your bigotry. The whole point is to allow everyone to vote and you claim someone being Hispanic is cheating? Hilarious.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Byrd

I tried to explain this about 8 pages ago.

I hope you have better luck than I did.

Perhaps if we both try.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

I don't really use Facebook, but as I understand it, the platform uses algorithms which result in social media bubbles where people typically hear opinions they agree with, so chances are this guy is connected to a lot of right leaning people and that will skew the results. The exact same thing happens on ATS and on the internet in general. I remember during the last elections, if you were to guess who was going to win based purely on ATS comments and even comments all around the internet, you would have guessed that Ron Paul was the favourite, but he didn't even make it into the debates. That taught me never to trust one single sample group, even if that group is the entire internet, because actually there's a lot of people who don't use the internet or just don't go sharing their opinion online. At this point I'd say it's fairly clear Hillary will win the election, no one really cares about her email scandals compared to the recent Trump shenanigans.

Exactly so.

a reply to: imjack

They have been conditioned to deny anything that conflicts with their given belief.

Even the most straightforward, basic, mathematics/science that we've all taught, and educated in.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but, NLP is working on a rapid, nationwide scale.

This is clear evidence of that. This stuff is basic, observable, knowable, fact ... and they see it as a "Democratic plot."

a reply to: Gryphon66

IF NLP is being used it's ONLY on the CEll phones.
OH LOOK Hillary got caught screwing around with MONEY again in her bogus foundation......www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: olaru12

I got a join up deal with paddy power. I could have gotten Clinton at 4 to 1.

Readem and weep....Trumps done!

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I have a few bucks on Trump....I'm a sucker for long shots!!

What I wonder is what do they do if Trump wins? Does that mean the winnings they paid out for Clinton winning need to be paid back? Or.does.it mean the bookies take a hit because they had to pay our for both candidates winning?

I think its funny how most of you think the popular vote wins the Presidential election.

The popular vote doesn't matter. So no poll matters.

Get it right.

Well, a big problem with most internet polls is that somebody can vote a hundred times if they want. Second, its popularity relies entirely upon word of mouth, therefore it is likely to spread in a demographic with similar views.

That said, the mainstream media cannot be trusted. Look at Brexit. Look at the vote to reject peace in Colombia. The media hasn't got a clue.

In conclusion:
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Greggers

You are partly correct. It's a random pull from their sample, however their sample is not completely random...they know the demographic and voting preference of who is included in the poll.

The majority of main stream polls stopped including the demographic when publishing their methodology. Those that do have Clinton and Trump in a statistical tie.

originally posted by: Greggers

When Trump loses, will you come back and acknowledge that scientifically conducted polls use reliable methodology, while Facebook polls have no statistical relevance?

Like what happened in Tarrant County? Reliable methodology?

a reply to: Greggers lol, yes we will go back to sleep 💤 and believe everything that the MSM tells us...

a reply to: Byrd nothing is clear.... Look at Brexit. Can I ask you who you support?

originally posted by: Davg80
Can I ask you who you support?

What a trap question.

Only delusional Republicans actually support their candidate. Mostly out of patriotism and faith too, not logic or thinking.

People that "support Hillary" do so in the sense that they "support the mailman" doing their job. It's not even close to comparable to the star-spangled-fanboyism of Trump. [redacted] think he could cure cancer, the most cliche delusion of all-time.

Are we seriously discussing the credibility of a g-d dmn facebook poll?

a reply to: imjackI dont support no one. But would rather have sgt Bilko in charge of world destroying nukes than HC. I go on feelings and I feel that HC is evil personified, whereas trump is just a rich idiot with the money to be in a two horse race for the WH.

a reply to: Davg80

Imagine a laserbeam that can cut through a nuke mid-air. We have better than that.

Not only will neither of them ACTUALLY have any say in Military affairs, none of that matters and is also completely out of either their control.

They operate the Military to the degree a Cashier at a Grocery Store runs it.

The odds of us being Nuked are less than 1%. The odds of us using a Nuke is essentially 0%. This doesn't change no matter who is elected.

originally posted by: muse7
Are we seriously discussing the credibility of a g-d dmn facebook poll?

Yes and the irony is it has been brought to you by the same person who has repeatedly towed the AGW line claiming to be scientific about it in his threads. Absolutely hypocritical and senseless.

originally posted by: imjack
People that "support Hillary" do so in the sense that they "support the mailman" doing their job. It's not even close to comparable to the star-spangled-fanboyism of Trump. [redacted] think he could cure cancer, the most cliche delusion of all-time.

As an outsider to this election let me point out how wrong you are. There are as many people voting for Hillary out of devotion, loyalty and sheer stubborness as there are people voting Trump due to the same motivations. There are many people voting Clinton, not out of support for her or her policies but because the don't want Trump in power (if you think supporting Hillary is like supporting your mailman I would suggest you hate your mailman with a firey passion). It's a two way revolving door and it will be spinning until Nov 9th...

a reply to: imjack

I know i was just sensationalising a bit, they're war is psychological.....but people are starting to get wise to it!

a reply to: djz3ro

1. There are NOT as many 'devotes' of Hillary as Trump, this should be the easiest argument in the world regardless of position. Have you not seen the 'rally' photos? Who do you think goes to a rally? The devotes.
2. Yes, obviously there are people voting for Clinton instead of Trump, this is what is implied in the 'mailman' analogy as she's at least 'qualified' in image, despite whatever dirt she may be sitting on.