Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

Or outside interference.....

were you influenced?

[Unregistered]

again, the polls have a margin of error of usually 4% - they werent even close to that
these are not stupid people that set up these polls, they just didnt have the formula right
either thru their own biases in what questions they asked ,who they sampled, or they just didnt believe the sample

Pollsters have to use a base line electorate (how many Rs and Ds are expected to vote) to project how their samples reflect the population. What happened in the aforementioned states is the base line electorate was off. They didn't expect that many people who haven't voted before to come out and vote and they didn't expect blue dog democrats to switch to Trump. There were many democrats who voted for Obama and previous democratic presidents that voted for Trump in these states. These are your union types, moderate democrats.

[Unregistered]

What's really amazing is the amount of money Hilary spent versus Trump. Trump was around $300m and Hilary was around $650M. More than double and it didn't have much of an impact, except to win with large margins in blue states.

[Unregistered]

Pollsters have to use a base line electorate (how many Rs and Ds are expected to vote) to project how their samples reflect the population. What happened in the aforementioned states is the base line electorate was off. They didn't expect that many people who haven't voted before to come out and vote and they didn't expect blue dog democrats to switch to Trump. There were many democrats who voted for Obama and previous democratic presidents that voted for Trump in these states. These are your union types, moderate democrats.

you used the word EXPECT a lot in that post- they arent supposed to EXPECT anything
they are supposed to make a prediction based on data, it is a snapshot of the current actual climate of what you are polling

[Unregistered]

you used the word EXPECT a lot in that post- they arent supposed to EXPECT anything
they are supposed to make a prediction based on data, it is a snapshot of the current actual climate of what you are polling

this may be a first for TS- an actual academic discussion of a topic

nice for a change

[Unregistered]

Beachbum,

Can you please post a poll on this thread to see who is winning this Trump based argument?
thanks.

Beachbum has no time for this nonsense he’s waiting for all your fingers to cramp up with Arthritis.

[Unregistered]

you used the word EXPECT a lot in that post- they arent supposed to EXPECT anything
they are supposed to make a prediction based on data, it is a snapshot of the current actual climate of what you are polling

I would agree if you can randomly access all people in the US easily. That's just not possible anymore. In the past land lines where used primarily but you had to factor some people that would may vote who didn't have a phone (the poor). Today more and more people are only using cell phones and public cell phone directories are not available. There are other options like door to door but very costly and not feasible.

[Unregistered]

I would agree if you can randomly access all people in the US easily. That's just not possible anymore. In the past land lines where used primarily but you had to factor some people that would may vote who didn't have a phone (the poor). Today more and more people are only using cell phones and public cell phone directories are not available. There are other options like door to door but very costly and not feasible.

a data base is a data base- the only thing that changed is that it became digital
they probably have more access now than any other time in history (email,cell,internet polling)
they simply used an outdated model with preconceived data in the last election.
they misread the circumstances, and got blasted

[Unregistered]

Beachbum has no time for this nonsense he’s waiting for all your fingers to cramp up with Arthritis.

Hahahahahahaha

Joke is on you.

You guys are so low IQ.

[Unregistered]

What's really amazing is the amount of money Hilary spent versus Trump. Trump was around $300m and Hilary was around $650M. More than double and it didn't have much of an impact, except to win with large margins in blue states.

Nothing amazing about it. It happens all the time since we are ( I believe a soccer site) one example would be Leicester City FC , They won the BPL 2015/16 with a players Budget of £52million theirs was 3rd from bottom , compared to top spender Man City £411 million , Man United £398 and Chelsea £298 the following 15 teams spent anything from £98 -250 million.

There’s plenty of situations like that. While money is important to your campaign the candidate still has to get the message out there , going against a bad opponent like Hillary also helps big.
Even if Hillary spent 3 Billion I just don’t think it would’ve helped.

[Unregistered]

Nothing amazing about it. It happens all the time since we are ( I believe a soccer site) one example would be Leicester City FC , They won the BPL 2015/16 with a players Budget of £52million theirs was 3rd from bottom , compared to top spender Man City £411 million , Man United £398 and Chelsea £298 the following 15 teams spent anything from £98 -250 million.

There’s plenty of situations like that. While money is important to your campaign the candidate still has to get the message out there , going against a bad opponent like Hillary also helps big.
Even if Hillary spent 3 Billion I just don’t think it would’ve helped.

its not how much its how well
she sucked, her campaign and message sucked, it stands to reason her spending habits would also suck- she thought it was locked up,she went thru the motions

[Unregistered]

exactly- the rancher in Wyoming is just as powerful as the stock broker in NY or Cali when it comes to electing a president

No, not at al exactly.

The Wyoming ranchers vote is actually MORE powerful than he Cali or NY voter.

Wyoming Represents .5% of the Electoral college votes (3 out of 538)

It's population Is .2% of the entire US.

Cali has has a little more than 10% of the Electoral college votes (55 out of 538).

It's population is a little more than 12% of the entire US.

that's just math, not politics.

I'm sure you will argue that too.

Do your own research. I know you love Sean Hannity, but he will not teach you anything, except deception, which you're not doing too well with anyway

[Unregistered]

its not how much its how well
she sucked, her campaign and message sucked, it stands to reason her spending habits would also suck- she thought it was locked up,she went thru the motions

Except if there was outside interference.....

[Unregistered]

Hahahahahahaha

Joke is on you.

You guys are so low IQ.

It’s almost like Jerking off, at some point you have to change to the other hand and then it becomes awkward, but you’ll quit eventually because it’s just not fun anymore —/ you know ...alone , in the basement, posting on TS ... it’s almost like Porn .... you know ...clicking outta the site every time the Wife or kids come close. Kinda strange addiction, but don’t mind me i was just Trolling — you guys couldn’t possible be doing that.

[Unregistered]

No, not at al exactly.

The Wyoming ranchers vote is actually MORE powerful than he Cali or NY voter.

Wyoming Represents .5% of the Electoral college votes (3 out of 538)

It's population Is .2% of the entire US.

Cali has has a little more than 10% of the Electoral college votes (55 out of 538).

It's population is a little more than 12% of the entire US.

that's just math, not politics.

I'm sure you will argue that too.

Do your own research. I know you love Sean Hannity, but he will not teach you anything, except deception, which you're not doing too well with anyway

not going to argue- just facts- the count is based on the 2010 census , the electoral vote counts dont change until the new census is taken (2020)- populations fluctuate
see just facts- learn it all from Hannity but did my own research- he was right, you are deceptive