RedTiger
Half mast
I thought it might have got a bit racial there for a second!Whoops.
I thought it might have got a bit racial there for a second!Whoops.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Marked man nowSo because you perceive him as a cnut you wish obscene death on him? Hope none of you ever realise how much of a cnut I am I may need witeness protection
I find it so very sad how high those approval ratings areTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Don't worry. These same pollsters had Trump at anything between 1 - 8% chance at winning the Election last year. These latest numbers are likely to be as equally rock solid.I find it so very sad how high those approval ratings are
The national polls were correct last year - Hillary up 2-3 points and she won the popular points by roughly the same.Don't worry. These same pollsters had Trump at anything between 1 - 8% chance at winning the Election last year. These latest numbers are likely to be as equally rock solid.
Trump voters, similar to the 'shy Tory phenomenon' in the U.K., don't particularly care for polls. They often don't respond nor partake in them, hence why his support is always underestimated.The national polls were correct last year - Hillary up 2-3 points and she won the popular points by roughly the same.
They don't much care for facts either. The important reality in all of this is that the national polls were correct.Trump voters, similar to the 'shy Tory phenomenon' in the U.K., don't particularly care for polls. They often don't respond nor partake in them, hence why his support is always underestimated.
But it wasn't underestimated last year, except in particular state-wise polls. The national polls had it right.Trump voters, similar to the 'shy Tory phenomenon' in the U.K., don't particularly care for polls. They often don't respond nor partake in them, hence why his support is always underestimated.
I also love this perception that "Trump voters", who are basically the vast majority of the GOP base and a few hundred thousand Obama voters in the Midwest, are some mythical new creature that suddenly can't be polled.Trump voters, similar to the 'shy Tory phenomenon' in the U.K., don't particularly care for polls. They often don't respond nor partake in them, hence why his support is always underestimated.
And finally, UK polls underestimated Tories in 2015, Leave-rs in 2016, and Labour in 2017.Trump voters, similar to the 'shy Tory phenomenon' in the U.K., don't particularly care for polls. They often don't respond nor partake in them, hence why his support is always underestimated.
I was just about to say this. He was literally quoted the facts and still ignored itThey don't much care for facts either. The important reality in all of this is that the national polls were correct.
Sebuchan GorkaI was just about to say this. He was literally quoted the facts and still ignored it
I was just about to say this. He was literally quoted the facts and still ignored it
For every poll you claim was correct, I can provide ten which were wildly inaccurate (state polls or otherwise). Trump was given a 1 - 8% chance of winning on practically every forecast in the country. How are those facts for you?They don't much care for facts either. The important reality in all of this is that the national polls were correct.
Thank you.And finally, UK polls underestimated Tories in 2015, Leave-rs in 2016, and Labour in 2017.
You're citing odds not polls. The polls were spot on, with the exception of a few swing state polls in places like Wisconsin, Michigan etc.For every poll you claim was correct, I can provide ten which were wildly inaccurate (state polls or otherwise). Trump was given a 1 - 8% chance of winning on practically every forecast in the country. How are those facts for you?
Charming.In fairness how updated were the polls?
Once Wikileaks dropped the Hillary email bomb her approval ratings went south quicker than Harvey Weinstein on an aspiring actress.
There wasn't that long between then and when people actually voted was there? Plenty of people on the fence or not wanting to vote would probably have voted Trump after that.
They based those forecasts on the poll numbers - they weren't just plucked from thin air. Additionally, wasn't the Clinton campaign based almost exclusively on 'the data'? Placing absolute faith in difficult-to-accurately-quantify numbers is foolish, hence my point about approval ratings/polls being effectively worthless.You're citing odds not polls. The polls were spot on, with the exception of a few swing state polls in places like Wisconsin, Michigan etc.
They were fairly up to date, although by the time Comey's 2nd announcement dropped that Hillary was not being investigated 10 days prior to voting day, too many people had already early voted by mail for that to make much of a difference.In fairness how updated were the polls?
Once Wikileaks dropped the Hillary email bomb her approval ratings went south quicker than Harvey Weinstein on an aspiring actress.
There wasn't that long between then and when people actually voted was there? Plenty of people on the fence or not wanting to vote would probably have voted Trump after that.
There's no reason to feel agitated here, you are after all a liberal just playing the devil's advocate.Thank you.
Polls are certifiably useless but let's jerk each other off over Trump's (dis)approval ratings.
Yeah, the forecasts for how he'd actually do insofar as translating votes into winning stages were way off, but the actual voting predictions percentage wise weren't particularly far off.You're citing odds not polls. The polls were spot on, with the exception of a few swing state polls in places like Wisconsin, Michigan etc.
We are talking about the national polls, not state level ones. Most national polls had Hillary winning the popular vote and she did. Most polls also had it spot on in the states, with the exception of about 4-5 states where Trump won - and even in those, places like NC and FL were considered toss ups. Therefore its pretty myopic to say the polls got it wrong as a part of some extravagant hypothesis that we should ignore all polls in the present.They based those forecasts on the poll numbers, not just plucked from thin air. After all, wasn't the Clinton campaign based almost exclusively on 'the data'? Placing absolute faith in difficult-to-accurately-quantify numbers is foolish, hence my point about approval ratings/polls being effectively worthless.
Wait so all polls are useless now? Or only ones pertaining to Trump because his supporters don't do polls?Thank you.
Polls are certifiably useless but let's jerk each other off over Trump's (dis)approval ratings.
You're ignoring his key point, unsurprisingly. How the votes would translate into electoral college wins was way off but the actual percentages for each candidate were relatively on-point. Obviously these approval rating polls should be taken with a pinch of salt and won't be exact, but his general popularity continues to stagnate which shouldn't be seen as unsurprising when he dedicates most of his time to making an arse of himself and playing golf.They based those forecasts on the poll numbers - they weren't just plucked from thin air. Additionally, wasn't the Clinton campaign based almost exclusively on 'the data'? Placing absolute faith in difficult-to-accurately-quantify numbers is foolish, hence my point about approval ratings/polls being effectively worthless.
This is a bit like saying bookies' odds were 'wrong' when a long shot wins.For every poll you claim was correct, I can provide ten which were wildly inaccurate (state polls or otherwise). Trump was given a 1 - 8% chance of winning on practically every forecast in the country. How are those facts for you?
I'm not agitated at all. I just find it peculiar some here place so much emphasis on data when it's been an inaccurate indicator with quite a while now.There's no reason to feel agitated here, you are after all a liberal just playing the devil's advocate.
You're distorting facts here. The polls aren't bang on but always tend to be reasonably close. Even in 2015 in the UK and with Brexit, the polls were only a little bit off. Polling companies aren't perfect but they tend to be fairly close, relatively speaking.I'm not agitated at all. I just find it peculiar some here place so much emphasis on data when it's been an inaccurate indicator with quite a while now.
You think its odd that people are measuring things with data ? Interesting.I'm not agitated at all. I just find it peculiar some here place so much emphasis on data when it's been an inaccurate indicator with quite a while now.
So, ignore 2 posts about the accuracy of polls involving Trump and previous polls involving his party, ignore the difference between the US and UK, and ignore that polls, even the wrong ones, tend to get the outline right (for example even the worst polls in the UK predicted party support to within 5% of the real number). Well done.Thank you.
Polls are certifiably useless but let's jerk each other off over Trump's (dis)approval ratings.
Sounds like Kremlin logic to me.Wait so all polls are useless now? Or only ones pertaining to Trump because his supporters don't do polls?
You extrapolated that from my post? Great.You think its odd that people are measuring things with data ? Interesting.
Let's wait and see how the investigation of Fusion GPS and Russian Trolls pans out in sussing out the discrepancies in the northern swings states.You extrapolated that from my post? Great.
I said 'so much emphasis'. Of course it can have value, but to base your entire campaign strategy (e.g. ignore visiting Wisconsin because the data suggested to) and place total faith in pre-election polls and post-election approval ratings is foolhardy.