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

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?

Well, the Op is ahead of you with the stars poll here, so maybe they are on to something.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

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?

Well, the Op is ahead of you with the stars poll here, so maybe they are on to something.

Yep. He's discovered they key to appealing to candidate loyalists in large numbers: bias affirmation.

Hopefully this will help clear up all the confusion about why Democrats show up in these polls more often than Republicans.

From: www.cnn.com...


Another element of the poll critique Trump and his supporters are pushing is that national surveys are including too many Democrats and too few Republicans.
An ABC News poll released Sunday, for example, found Clinton ahead by 12 percentage points -- its sample featured 36% Democrats, 27% Republicans and 31% independents.
A CNN/ORC poll out Monday that found Clinton leading Trump by 5 points among likely voters included 37% Democrats, 30% Republicans and 33% independents.
Even the Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll, which has been much more favorable to Trump than others throughout the 2016 cycle, is weighted to use 35% Democrats and 29% Republicans.
Trump blasted the ABC News poll Monday in Florida, calling it "a totally phony poll."



AND.....


But criticizing these samples ignores two important realities about party identification.
One is that, unlike age, gender and ethnicity data, which the US Census collects to map out the makeup of each state, there are no solid national figures on party ID. Identification with a political party is more of an attitude, so pollsters typically ask respondents which party they identify with but don't weight their results to match a specific party breakdown.
The other is that in presidential elections -- unlike some midterms -- there simply are more self-identified Democratic voters than Republicans.
"In a presidential electorate nationwide, there have been mid-single digits more Democrats than Republicans going back as many elections as there's been polling," said Judy, the Republican pollster.
The oddest part of all this: It's happened before.
In 2012, Mitt Romney's supporters argued polls were "skewed" against him. Dean Chambers launched the now-defunct site UnskewedPolls.com, based on the claim that the electorate's demographics would look more like the 2010 Republican wave than that of the 2008 presidential race. It turned out to be wrong.
Dana Perino, a former George W. Bush White House press secretary, wrote on Medium: "By believing that the polls were wrong, I had let both myself and our viewers down. I had done them a disservice. ... We shouldn't have to learn this lesson again."
Yet other influential conservative voices insist on pushing the conspiracy theory.
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh rehashed those 2012 missteps on his show Monday, noting that he thought polls were skewed against Romney, expected a clear Romney victory, and was wrong.
Still, Limbaugh concluded of the 2016 race: "There's clear evidence here that the Democrats have seen to it that the polls in this presidential cycle are oversampling Democrats, and there's clear evidence the pollsters have done that as well."
It's been a frustrating episode for Republicans who work in politics.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

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?

Well, the Op is ahead of you with the stars poll here, so maybe they are on to something.

Are you kidding with this?

I mean ... really.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Rezlooper
not to burst your bubble but all polls are totally unreliable and the popular vote is not what elects president it is the electoral college votes and they can vote what ever way they want.

If the electoral college went totally against the will of the people, you would see a huge revolt. This would include people voting out every incumbent in office.

As indigo mentioned, it has already happened. Granted the popular vote was within a margin of error and so not as big a stink was made.

The issue comes if there is an absolutely overwhelming majority win for the Donald.

I wonder what would happen in that case.

I would not be at all surprised to see Hillary given the electoral vote even in the face of an 85 - 15 popular vote split in favor of Trump.

At this point, Hillary could have a press conference and admit that she did indeed steal the election and rig everything in her favor claiming she did it "for the greater good." She could even look directly into the camera and ask, "what are you going to do about it?" and she'd still have cheerleaders.

Given the above hypothetical situation, one might ask why that would not even be enough. Here is my answer:

Why don't the people stand up and fight?

Mortgages, cell phones, football, celebrity gossip, credit card bills, Xbox, PlayStation, Facebook, debt, a job (or 2, or 3), more debt, car notes, electricity bills, grocery bills, ad naseum...

Come the evening of November 8th, the national media will announce that the queen has been chosen and everyone who did not vote for her will heave a huge sigh of frustration because they still have to go to work and pay for the mortgage, cell phones...

As bad as things are, as along as people have bills to pay and there's still food in the grocery stores and distractions to keep us occupied, nothing will ever change.

With everything that's been found out with all of the information leaked and published in regards to how blatantly rigged everything is in Hillary's favor, I almost expect this to be the end game.

Hillary's supporters are full on "everybody does it," so I could see them cheering her on if she came right out and said, "Yup, I rigged it and there's nuthin you can do about it..."

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The popular vote difference in 2000 was over 500,000 votes nationwide. That is not a "margin of error."

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

No, but look at various networks/channels/blogs etc. Google and watch views from all different networks and sources. Let's be open minded. Fox and RT, all for Trump. CNN, BBC, Sky and many others, we know, obviously.

Then dig deeper. YouTube, unreliable, some facts though on certain channels. Dig deeper.

It is what it is. Research. Don't trust anyone. Just don't be ignorant.

I, as a South African have no say. But, man, some people are blind.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The Electoral College goes with popular vote BY STATE not overall. That's why we talk about winning states.

That's why Clinton is so ridiculously out in front of Trump in this point ... likely Electoral College wins by STATE.

If you truly think that Trump will win 85% of the popular vote ... I think you've gone completely off the edge into delusion. That's just ... ridiculous by any real standards. I mean as little disrespect as possible in that.

a reply to: KaelemJames

Sure, be "open minded" if it benefits the delusions of Trump supporters?

Nah.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: KaelemJames

Sure, be "open minded" if it benefits the delusions of Trump supporters?

Nah.

Says a Hillary supporter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was one of those 500,000 who felt screwed and was upset when Gore gave up contesting Florida.

In hind site I am glad he lost, because we all found out Gore is a blithering idiot.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

There are a lot of threads in the Hoax Bin that had a lot of stars and flags...

Those don't really have anything to do with accuracy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you truly think that Trump will win 85% of the popular vote ...

Did you miss this part of my post?

...the above hypothetical situation

I picked that as a random split to illustrate a point.

And that point is that no matter what the popular vote is (and yes, I do think that there are a lot more Trump supporters (please also take into account that I am still not sure that Trump isn't just trolling, but I think the character he is portraying if he is trolling has a LOT of support) than Hillary supporters) the electoral vote will go to Hillary.

And that she could own up to rigging everything and still get away with it while being cheered on the whole time.

tl;dr Hillary supporters don't care if Hillary is rigging the system and Trump supporters would just grumble and take it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The popular vote difference in 2000 was over 500,000 votes nationwide. That is not a "margin of error."

Looking at the vote totals for 2000, just for the top two candidates (Gore & Bush), there were a total of 101,455,899 votes cast.

The difference you mentioned is .49% of the total vote. And that's the nationwide total. REgarding Florida alone:

Since the margin of error in Florida was within 0.5 percent of the votes cast, a machine recount there would be conducted.

source

What do you know? That state had the same margin as the nationwide difference.

Any difference between reported totals and exit polls greater than 2% would indicate voter fraud.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So are the posters who waste our time with pathetic"No it doesn't" arguments who have the gall to think they know better...
www.scientificamerican.com...

THAT is an ARTICLE about MIND CONTROL.
MAYBE a GOOGLE before the knee jerk ace?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

With everything that's been found out with all of the information leaked and published in regards to how blatantly rigged everything is in Hillary's favor, I almost expect this to be the end game...

Define "everything" in the sentence above.

The topic of this thread is polls. There is zero evidence that polls are skewed in Hillary's favor.

And there is zero evidence that the votes are rigged in Hillary's favor.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

With everything that's been found out with all of the information leaked and published in regards to how blatantly rigged everything is in Hillary's favor, I almost expect this to be the end game...

Define "everything" in the sentence above.

The topic of this thread is polls. There is zero evidence that polls are skewed in Hillary's favor.

And there is zero evidence that the votes are rigged in Hillary's favor.

Brother/sister.. research. I have been doing it for months now.

We don't love Trump. In fact I scratch my nose when I see him. Hillary is beyond that.

Sad thing is, I am not even American. It's gonna be a bad thing if Clinton takes it.

Well, I'm outta here. Your country. Don't let your vote infect (polute) the US, and please, not our world.

a reply to: Greggers

Define "everything" in the sentence above.

Polls, votes, media.

If Hillary came right out and admitted to everything she is being accused of, it would not make one scintilla of difference to her supporters.

If the ones who would be digging up the evidence of the rigging are in on the rigging, where TF do you suppose it would be reported?

originally posted by: KaelemJames

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

With everything that's been found out with all of the information leaked and published in regards to how blatantly rigged everything is in Hillary's favor, I almost expect this to be the end game...

Define "everything" in the sentence above.

The topic of this thread is polls. There is zero evidence that polls are skewed in Hillary's favor.

And there is zero evidence that the votes are rigged in Hillary's favor.

Brother/sister.. research. I have been doing it for months now.

We don't love Trump. In fact I scratch my nose when I see him. Hillary is beyond that.

Sad thing is, I am not even American. It's gonna be a bad thing if Clinton takes it.

I have researched. That's how I know the allegations against poll-fixing and election-fixing are BS.

Hillary has done some heinous things. Just to show I'm an equal opportunity hater of both candidates, I'll list them below.

1) Deleted emails under subpoena
2) Broken federal regulations related to her private email server
3) Bill accepted a 1 million dollar gift from QATAR after emails prove conclusively that she knew QATAR had funded ISIS
4) She has a relationship with her Super Pac that is borderline (if not outright) illegal
5) AS SOT, she gave preferential treatment to contractors who had donated to the Clinton Foundation


And there's more, but that's the meat of it.

However, there is ZERO evidence that the polls or votes are rigged for her. That stuff was, quite plainly, fabricated.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Greggers

Define "everything" in the sentence above.

Polls, votes, media.

If Hillary came right out and admitted to everything she is being accused of, it would not make one scintilla of difference to her supporters.

If the ones who would be digging up the evidence of the rigging are in on the rigging, where TF do you suppose it would be reported?

Polls and votes are not rigged. Those were fabricated stories, and I can prove it.

Secondly, you're wrong if you don't think the vast majority of Americans would rise up if we knew the elections were fixed. Since they are NOT fixed, this remains a delusion of the Breitbart crowd, who are being played for pageviews and advertising dollars.

a reply to: Greggers

Thanks for that. I will check into it.