wilkes

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN ! PRESIDENT TRUMP 2016

Uh try 538 election site who's numbers are based on several polls nationwide and get back to us on that ??

Hey you soft-brained imbecile... he's still up 2.2% in today's poll

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Idiot. wanna make that statement today ??

WOW, that debate that Hillary won sure is helping Trump.

Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by four points following the presidential debate on Monday.
Undecideds swung to Trump over Hillary 34% to 5%.
Breitbart-Gravis Marketing reported:

Sparklin (view profile)

Posted 10:17 am, 09/28/2016

Reckon Batterd is bout ready to post daily how Herr Trump is going to win like he did before the last election ?? Everybody just can't wait..(bet he just as soon not talk bout that though?)

I agree, it is an appropriate discription of fox's online polls. Thanks for noticing.

I noticed that your citation included the word bull****. That seems appropriate.

It got to the point where even FOX News had to send out an internal memo informing their anchors to not cite the polls as they "do not meet our editorial standards."

"As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can't be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate," Dana Blanton, Fox's vice president of public-opinion research, wrote. "Another problem � we know some campaigns/groups of supporters encourage people to vote in online polls and flood the results� These quickie click items do not meet our editorial standards."

While the most shocking thing about this news is the existence of editorial standards at the race-baiting, sl*t-shaming, fear-mongering fascist propaganda factory whose content literally makes you stupider for consuming, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Hannity and at least three other FOX hosts ignored the memo and brought them up anyway.

It just goes to show how determined the right-wing is to remain entrenched in the the little fantasy world they've constructed for themselves.

http://occupydemocrats.com/...n-bullsht/

One other note about the LA Times poll, since we'll probably hear it cited a lot in the weeks to come as a hopeful outlier from the other national surveys. Its methodology is unusual in that, instead of polling a bunch of different Americans each time, it uses a fixed group of the same 3,000 people and re-polls a subset of them every day. The idea is to capture shifts in opinion among a set population to detect which way the general public might be shifting. It worked well in predicting the 2012 outcome, but the problem with using a fixed group is that if there's a "lean" towards either candidate among that group, it's going to show up every time you poll them. If instead you're using a sample of different Americans each time you conduct a survey, then you might get a "lean" towards one candidate in one poll but it won't necessarily show up in the next one you do. That might help explain why the LA Times data is durably pro-Trump.
http://hotair.com/archives/...ight-race/

The USC "Daybreak" poll is the new Rasmussen, and something very fishy is going on which doesn't seem to jibe with the rest of the polling world.

If you're not aware of Trump's new favorite poll, their approach is this. USC selects a nearly fixed panel of 3000 (they actually slowly build over time), not unlike the RAND panel from the last election, and they repoll ~1/7 of their group each day. Consequently, the numbers represent something like a 1 week rolling average of respondent sentiment.

In principle, this should be great for looking at trends. While the panel may be biased one way or another (and boy it sure is!), changes in the numbers from day to day or week to week represent actual individuals changing their minds, rather than statistical sampling fluctuations.

But there are some very weird features. For one, the poll starts with an extremely R-leaning bias. On July 10, the first day of their data, they have C-3, when the Huffpo pollster had it at C+4 � that's a 7 point Republican bias. As you'll see in the snapshot above, according to USC this morning, it's C-7.3, which points to a nationally tied race once we "unskew the polls."

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...cking-poll

All, Never, and Always - 3 words that will eventually bite you in the butt.

Keep in mind that all the votes which were changed by the debate were changed in the direction of Mr. Trump.

So now losing the debate is a good thing. I'll keep that in mind.

Truthy, you ignoramus, please remember that winning debates rarely equates to winning elections. Please also remember that you democrap devils have the ability to rig those so called mob polls. In fact, you would have if Hillary had been smart enough to include that directive in your weekly orders.

No one expected Trump to "win" by memorizing responses.
No one tuned in to see Hillary.
No one doubts that Trump reminded Hillary that she is a lying hypocritical hack who is the problem and light years away from the solution.

Except for you kool aid swilling bottom feeders who go through life thinking that your victim status is a badge of entitlement.

Poor, delusional #worseracist.

Read it and weep tards.

Troll armies rig polls to deceive you into believing Trump won first debate

The bogus polls were cited by Trump, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump flashes a thumbs up after the presidential debate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. CREDIT: AP Photo/David Goldman
A scientific CNN/ORC poll conducted after Monday night's presidential debate found that Hillary Clinton won by a 62 percent�27 percent margin. That result was corroborated by Republican pollster Frank Luntz's focus group.

So you might've been surprised to see Donald Trump gloating today about dominating last night's proceedings, citing unscientific online polls as proof.

The polls Trump cites were unscientific � they allowed anybody anywhere to participate, regardless of whether they're likely to vote in November or are even an American citizen. Not only that, but according to numerous reports, the results of many of them were rigged by Trump-supporting internet troll armies.

The Daily Beast reports that posts on 4chan and 8chan attempted "to game online polls soliciting opinions on who won the debate, imploring users to �abuse airplane mode toggling' to allow for more votes for Trump on websites like CNBC, Time, ABC News, and CNN."

The Daily Beast report refers to this tweet:

The 4chan page linked in the tweet contains many posts from Trump supporters urging others to skew online polls by repeatedly voting for Trump:

Their efforts were somewhat successful. The unscientific CNBC poll listed at the top of both 4chan screenshots above was later touted by Trump because it showed him winning.

Bogus polls shaping public perception

Trump, who has made unfounded concerns about election rigging a centerpiece of his campaign, wasn't the only one citing the bogus online polls as evidence he actually won the debate. As Business Insider reports, shortly after the debate, Sean Hannity was gloating about them to his millions of viewers on Fox News.

"I have it in front of me. Time magazine, Drudge Report, CNBC, The Hill, CBS � the only one that has Hillary winning is CNN, and they are the �Clinton News Network,'" Hannity said.

Hannity also suggested the unscientific polls were actually more accurate than CNN's scientific survey.

"[T]hese other ones have hundreds of thousands if not millions," Hannity said, contrasting the online polls with CNN's sample size of 521.

Hannity continued to brag about the online polls during his radio show on Tuesday. Rush Limbaugh also cited them on Tuesday as evidence Trump won the debate.

Correction:

An earlier version of this story discussed a viral image connecting Russian VPNs with activity on the #TrumpOne hashtag. The site the image purportedly came from, TrendsMap, has since confirmed it's a fake.

Read it and weep tards.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/