The value of polls....Hillary Clinton has a 98 percent chance of winning

Bassman007

Platinum Member
Sep 10, 2015
6,995
1,206
1,095
So what was the value of those 10,000 polls that all said that? Well the truth is that a pile of bullshit has more value than those polls, since bullshit when turned into the soil will grow some really nice tomatoes. And since the CNN and MSNBC polls were worthless, bullshit has more value as does a bushel of tomatoes.

So the polls that say Trump is at 38 percent, have no value except in your delusional mind.

Yawning
 
Last edited:
Well with no opponents now and the probable candidates in 2020 38% is probably enough for a 2020 landslide of epic proportions
 
Polls are not information. They are weapons. They are used to demoralize the opposition and to give legitimacy to the elites trying to undo elections..
And no they dont give a damn that the polls were inaccurate last year...or that the polls said Al Gore was winning...or that the polls said John Kerry was winning. They served their purpose as weapons in the fake news arsenal.
The media and Democrat elites dont believe them. No Republican believes them. The only ones who hang on every poll (excepting actual ballots of course...those they deride) are the rank and file Democrats parroting them.
 
Of course there are other ways to demoralize and distract as well...

russia.jpg

 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Of course there are other ways to demoralize and distract as well...

View attachment 139904
Let me just add

RussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussia


RussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussia


RussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussiaRussia
 
The Fake Media's poll numbers are less than 1/2 of Trump's, so who's got the problem?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
So what was the value of those 10,000 polls that all said that?

The polls never said that. You're retarded.
Dude the polls said that Hillary Clinton had a 98 to 99 PERCENT CHANCE OF WINNING. I am never wrong, and you are never right and retarded.

Wanna play more retard?

HuffPost on Twitter

HuffPost Forecasts Hillary Clinton Will Win With 323 Electoral Votes | HuffPost

Nate Silver: Forecasts Showing Clinton With 99% Chance of Winning "Don't Pass Commonsense Test"

You lose, just like your witch hero

Next moron
 
So what was the value of those 10,000 polls that all said that? Well the truth is that a pile of bullshit has more value than those polls, since bullshit when turned into the soil will grow some really nice tomatoes. And since the CNN and MSNBC polls were worthless, bullshit has more value as does a bushel of tomatoes.

So the polls that say Trump is at 38 percent, have no value except in your delusional mind.

Yawning
And, she won.
 
We know that Reuters selectively polled San Francisco, Chicago and NYC and pretended it was an accurate representation of American values. You almost gotta laugh that Reuters and most of the alphabet news bureaus polled the same audience before the election and pretended that Hillary was 20 points up. Fool me once or fool me twice, how many times is the desperate left wing willing to bet their political future on dishonest polling data because it feels good?
 
Last edited:
We know that Reuters selectively polled San Francisco, Chicago and NYC and pretended it was a representation of American values. You almost gotta lugh that Reuters and most of the alphabet news bureaus polled the same audience and pretended that Hillary was 20 points up on the election. Fool me once or fool me twice, how many times can the left wing depend on dishonest polling data?
Clinton was up, AKA, she won the popular vote. That is something the Orange Menace will never live down - Americans didn't want him.
 
We know that Reuters selectively polled San Francisco, Chicago and NYC and pretended it was a representation of American values. You almost gotta lugh that Reuters and most of the alphabet news bureaus polled the same audience and pretended that Hillary was 20 points up on the election. Fool me once or fool me twice, how many times can the left wing depend on dishonest polling data?
Clinton was up, AKA, she won the popular vote. That is something the Orange Menace will never live down - Americans didn't want him.
Yeah but Hillary didn't win more than 50% of the American popular vote and neither did Hussein or her husband or Reagan or Harry Truman. The point is that we have to accept the electoral vote results or NY and Ca. would be electing the president.
 
These polls are only done to keep left wingers happy and motivated. It doesn't work but gets some clicks.
 
We know that Reuters selectively polled San Francisco, Chicago and NYC and pretended it was a representation of American values. You almost gotta lugh that Reuters and most of the alphabet news bureaus polled the same audience and pretended that Hillary was 20 points up on the election. Fool me once or fool me twice, how many times can the left wing depend on dishonest polling data?
Clinton was up, AKA, she won the popular vote. That is something the Orange Menace will never live down - Americans didn't want him.
He won 30 states. And you need to retake a civics class on how a republic works.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: FJO
He is wondering why anyone would bother with a civics class when you have Miley Cyrus and Madonna.
 
We know that Reuters selectively polled San Francisco, Chicago and NYC and pretended it was a representation of American values. You almost gotta lugh that Reuters and most of the alphabet news bureaus polled the same audience and pretended that Hillary was 20 points up on the election. Fool me once or fool me twice, how many times can the left wing depend on dishonest polling data?
Clinton was up, AKA, she won the popular vote. That is something the Orange Menace will never live down - Americans didn't want him.
He won 30 states. And you need to retake a civics class on how a republic works.
The Electoral College is undemocratic. Now you know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top