Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,211
- 16,849
- 2,250
Your argument isn't about the candidates...its about those who are conducting the polls. Which hasn't changed since 2012.
You've got jack shit to back up your conspiracy. And overwhelming evidence contradicting you. With your theory sporting a perfect record of failure. Its never panned out.
Why then would you put your faith in a provably false conspiracy based on absolutey nothing, contradicted by overwhelming evidence?
Its irrational. As demonstrated by the fact that whenever I bring up poll analysts like Nate Silver to demonstrate the utility of polling......you refuse to discuss him and try and change the topic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.
Again, you are simply lying your ass off. I have NEVER claimed that the polls are being deliberately rigged, jackass
Here is a small collection of my posts on the polls and how they are off right now.
I claimed that no two elections are identical and you cannot project for one by basing your analysis exclusively on another election and made 5 other points none of which were the people who did the poll are rigging them against Trump, in fact I made a rebuttal to that claim.
Hilary is both a criminal and she is incompetent, 6 Billion dollars in contracts from State is gone.
I claimed the break down on the independents and conservatives dont add up
one Solid Reason Trump Will Win; Hillary is Low Energy
The Oversampling argument. Yeah, it was the basis of 'Unskewedpolls.com' in 2012. Where the pollster 'fixed' the polls to match what he though the conservative and independant vote were 'supposed' to be.
It failed laughably. With the creator the site admitting he was wrong and Nate Silver was right after the actual election results.
For the record, the republicans made the same argument in 2008. It failed. The Democrats made the same argument in 2004. It failed.
You're sporting dogshit that has been rewarmed 3 times. And its still dogshit....with a perfect record of failure.
I argue against the reliability of these polls when there is such a wild swing from one poll to thenext, a 14% change in two days.
one Solid Reason Trump Will Win; Hillary is Low Energy
This was right after Trump's polling went off a cliff. Its not just one poll that shows that Trump's numbers tanked. But a dozen.
So you ignore a dozen. That's just plain old confirmation bias.
And it didn't work in 2012 either.
I argued that the polls are inaccurate because of the wild swings, the removal of the Neither category and use of registered voters when much of Trumps support is heavily new voters.
one Solid Reason Trump Will Win; Hillary is Low Energy
Trump loses badly when citing citing registered voters. He loses badly when citing likely voters.
So you ignore both results. Just like you ignore the dozen polls indicating Trump is behind. Just like you ignore the perfect history of failure on your argument.
Do you notice a pattern here?