nutildah .. want it for 0.01 or something?
I don't have the confidence that suchmoon does
10k sat? 
Topic: [BET] Trump or not Trump 2020, eddie13 vs suchmoon - page 50. (Read 11316 times)
nutildah or twitchy want it for 0.01 or something? Sounds like you want some..
I don't want to put a whole lot into this but I may be open to some more small fun and organization..
Who all wants pieces of this? Maybe we can make it heppening up in here.. TS wanna take some of these or bankroll?
New local thread rule.. If you ain't got 5 on it, then get off it...
I don't want to put a whole lot into this but I may be open to some more small fun and organization..
Who all wants pieces of this? Maybe we can make it heppening up in here.. TS wanna take some of these or bankroll?
New local thread rule.. If you ain't got 5 on it, then get off it...
I don't have the confidence that suchmoon does, but I wish I did.
I also don't think local rules work like that. You probably should have just read the Detroit News article before using it as fodder for your conspiracy.
You also should never take a TS talking point at face value. Trump's election chances are not looking good
the fact that Democrats shoot themselves in the foot which 9 times out of 10 they will because they're clinically insane
So how much do you want to put up for or against MAGA 2020?
So me and suchmoon can start matching these orders.. But everyone from here on out takes a 1.3% spread just because 13..
twitchy an nutildah are grandfathered @ 1:1 .01, no spread..
Place your bets..
(in jest, I can't speak for SM)
I'm not about to go look up the "margin of error" to see exactly how much wrong each poll was against what they claim is close enough in horseshoes and hand grenades..
Okay, that's fine. Then just say that from the start instead of insinuating the polls were wrong because they weren't.
I look at charts.. One of my only skills in crypto is looking at charts, lol..
If you look at any of the charts very carefully you will see that Trump is on the bottom, look closely now..
If you look at any of the charts very carefully you will see that Trump is on the bottom, look closely now..
But it wasn't magic. It was through 50k votes across 3 states.
538 projected Trump had a roughly a 30 percent chance of winning - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ So it's not magic by any means that Trump came out of that election on top.
I assure you I'm not dying on a 0.1BTC hill, lol..
I'm just having fun here talking shit..
If Trump looses, boo hoo, I was wrong.. It's not a big deal..
And I'll admit I was wrong, unlike 90% of people on the internet..
I'm just having fun here talking shit..
If Trump looses, boo hoo, I was wrong.. It's not a big deal..
And I'll admit I was wrong, unlike 90% of people on the internet..
That's not what I meant by dying on a hill. I mean you are willing to look over basic math to look over the reality that Trump's election chances are not looking good and that any other Republican would be up by 10 points with this economy. This is from someone that wants him to win. Trump is banking on the fact that Democrats shoot themselves in the foot which 9 times out of 10 they will because they're clinically insane with their far left policies.
Polls are by default and inherently a model attempting to project real human sentiment. Neither polls nor models are by any means "factual" data but merely estimations. There is no such thing as a 100% factual poll, which is why scientifically speaking polls are near the bottom of the hierarchy of standards of evidence as an inherently flawed data collection methodology.
Factual data meaning the average of the polling data for the 2016 Presidential data was able to accurately predict the final election result for a confidence interval within the margin of error. I'm not saying that polls is a fact or represent the exact sentiment of a population. Of course polls are estimates.
Eddie13 just has two eyes to see and enough functional neurons to realize the dems are far too busy burying themselves to win the election in 2020. The media will do its best to try to muddy the waters to cover up for this and keep people unsure as this is always the strategy based on the reality people will often vote for the candidate they think will win as no one wants to be on the "losing" side. As a result this kabuki act will continue until concession is made even if the Democrat front runner takes a giant steaming dump in their pants on the final debate stage.
Functional neurons you say?
On topic though, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying here. The media was bias in the 2016 election and this won't change. Flashback to when Hillary Clinton asserted that Trump wouldn't accept the results of the 2016 election as then the democratic party proceeded to blame Russia for the last 3 years for the cause of Trump's win indicating that Trump is an illegitimate President. The media was complicit in this false narrative from the start and did not drop it even after the Mueller report cleared any accusations of collusion.The actual silent majority is just waiting for voting day longingly so they can tell the lunatic postmodernist Marxists who disenfranchised them to go fuck themselves. That is the real deciding factor here that dems are blinded to in their frothing spasms directed at Trump. They are too busy pointing at him to wipe the foam from the corners of their mouths.
I have said this before, Trump is waiting for democrats to shoot themselves in the foot like they did in 2016 as Hillary Clinton ran one of the most disastrous campaigns in modern political history. This doesn't mean he isn't down right now.
nutildah or twitchy want it for 0.01 or something? Sounds like you want some..
I don't want to put a whole lot into this but I may be open to some more small fun and organization..
Who all wants pieces of this? Maybe we can make it heppening up in here.. TS wanna take some of these or bankroll?
New local thread rule.. If you ain't got 5 on it, then get off it...
I don't want to put a whole lot into this but I may be open to some more small fun and organization..
Who all wants pieces of this? Maybe we can make it heppening up in here.. TS wanna take some of these or bankroll?
New local thread rule.. If you ain't got 5 on it, then get off it...
Oh right, dem deep state voter conspiracy, totally forgot about that one. Too bad they didn't have enough foresight to affect the states where the vote actually mattered and instead plowed extra votes into states that Hillary was already going to win.
Too bad they didn't have enough foresight to affect the states where the vote actually mattered and instead plowed extra votes into states that Hillary was already going to win. So your point is they are incompetent and the popular vote margin consisted largely of states most likely to have the most fraud in raw numbers rendering it largely a meaningless metric when accounting for fraud? I agree.
No, that's your point. Don't know how you could blow what I actually meant so out of proportion but then again I'm not surprised.
the states where the vote actually mattered
"Trump unexpectedly won Michigan by a narrow margin of 0.23%This is the narrowest margin of victory in Michigan's presidential election history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan
All that article is talking about is the total number of votes, not votes for one candidate or the other. The "extra votes" weren't counted in favor of Hillary (or Trump), they were just tabulated as part of the total number of votes. Neither of you actually read the article.
You didn't read the whole thing did you.
Quote
Who’s responsible for errors?
...
...
Beat me to it, I had stepped away from the computer for a moment.
the states where the vote actually mattered
"Trump unexpectedly won Michigan by a narrow margin of 0.23%This is the narrowest margin of victory in Michigan's presidential election history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan
"Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.
The Detroit precincts are among those that couldn’t be counted during a statewide presidential recount that began last week and ended Friday following a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Democrat Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Detroit and Wayne County. But Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes or 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
Overall, state records show 10.6 percent of the precincts in the 22 counties that began the retabulation process couldn’t be recounted because of state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals.
The problems were the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn’t recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent. And two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes."
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
You didn't read the whole thing did you.
Quote
Who’s responsible for errors?
Last week, Baxter told The News 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. He said many jammed when voters tried repeatedly to stuff single ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if poll workers don’t adjust counters.
“The city is responsible. Janice Winfrey is responsible,” Barrow said. “This didn’t happen because of crazy, dyslexic senior citizens who are working as poll workers, like they want to portray this. That’s people who are trying to deny responsibility.”
He has asserted on social media that Winfrey cost Clinton the election in Michigan.
Others said there could be benign explanations.
Detroit’s ballot was two pages because it included dozens of candidates for the local Board of Education. The number of pages can cause machines to jam and lead them to count too many ballots, said Genesee County Clerk John Gleason.
Last week, Baxter told The News 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. He said many jammed when voters tried repeatedly to stuff single ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if poll workers don’t adjust counters.
“The city is responsible. Janice Winfrey is responsible,” Barrow said. “This didn’t happen because of crazy, dyslexic senior citizens who are working as poll workers, like they want to portray this. That’s people who are trying to deny responsibility.”
He has asserted on social media that Winfrey cost Clinton the election in Michigan.
Others said there could be benign explanations.
Detroit’s ballot was two pages because it included dozens of candidates for the local Board of Education. The number of pages can cause machines to jam and lead them to count too many ballots, said Genesee County Clerk John Gleason.
I've spent a lot of time in the D, but it was almost always well paid hours, lol..
the states where the vote actually mattered
"Trump unexpectedly won Michigan by a narrow margin of 0.23%This is the narrowest margin of victory in Michigan's presidential election history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan
"Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.
The Detroit precincts are among those that couldn’t be counted during a statewide presidential recount that began last week and ended Friday following a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Democrat Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Detroit and Wayne County. But Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes or 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
Overall, state records show 10.6 percent of the precincts in the 22 counties that began the retabulation process couldn’t be recounted because of state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals.
The problems were the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn’t recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent. And two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes."
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
Ok you are right.. That isn't "polls"..
Is this polls?
"This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines using a poll-tracking model and is updated whenever a new poll is released."
About the same as right now when Trump won.. And as stated, poll votes from California and similar hopeless states don't matter..
Trump underpolls because Trump voters are 69% less likely to waste their time taking polls..
Can't blame a guy for being skeptical of information sources these days, can you?
Is this polls?
"This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines using a poll-tracking model and is updated whenever a new poll is released."
About the same as right now when Trump won.. And as stated, poll votes from California and similar hopeless states don't matter..
Trump underpolls because Trump voters are 69% less likely to waste their time taking polls..
There's a weird 'fuck the polls' mentality among some Trump supporters
Can't blame a guy for being skeptical of information sources these days, can you?
That's a model, just like it says.... They have to figure out a way to decide how much to weight each poll and calculate the tons of different possible electoral vote final outcomes. Even if somehow it was an accurate representation an the true odds of Trump winning were 42%....would you think think to yourself " self, those polls were wrong! Trump won and it said Hillary had a better chance! Bad polls!"
the states where the vote actually mattered
"Trump unexpectedly won Michigan by a narrow margin of 0.23%This is the narrowest margin of victory in Michigan's presidential election history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan
Oh right, dem deep state voter conspiracy, totally forgot about that one. Too bad they didn't have enough foresight to affect the states where the vote actually mattered and instead plowed extra votes into states that Hillary was already going to win.
Too bad they didn't have enough foresight to affect the states where the vote actually mattered and instead plowed extra votes into states that Hillary was already going to win. So your point is they are incompetent and the popular vote margin consisted largely of states most likely to have the most fraud in raw numbers rendering it largely a meaningless metric when accounting for fraud? I agree.
to die on this hill
The polls were in the margin of error
The polls were in the margin of error
I'm not about to go look up the "margin of error" to see exactly how much wrong each poll was against what they claim is close enough in horseshoes and hand grenades..
I'm not going to look it up either, but the point remains, the polls were actually correct as they were measuring the popular vote and not the electoral vote. Hillary won by 2.87 million votes, or roughly 2.2% of the total vote, which is likely within the margin of error of the polls. Its arguable that the polls didn't include enough voters from states won by Trump, except for the one pollster I mentioned earlier.
You forgot one minor detail...
Oh right, dem deep state voter conspiracy, totally forgot about that one.
Too bad they didn't have enough foresight to affect the states where the vote actually mattered and instead plowed extra votes into states that Hillary was already going to win. to die on this hill
The polls were in the margin of error
The polls were in the margin of error
I'm not about to go look up the "margin of error" to see exactly how much wrong each poll was against what they claim is close enough in horseshoes and hand grenades..
I'm not going to look it up either, but the point remains, the polls were actually correct as they were measuring the popular vote and not the electoral vote. Hillary won by 2.87 million votes, or roughly 2.2% of the total vote, which is likely within the margin of error of the polls. Its arguable that the polls didn't include enough voters from states won by Trump, except for the one pollster I mentioned earlier.
You forgot one minor detail...
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-report-exposes-thousands-illegal-votes-2016-election
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
https://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
https://themarketswork.com/2018/10/31/is-voter-fraud-real-a-look-at-californias-illegal-voter-registration-problem/
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire-5000-illegal-votes-in-2016/
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/more-cases-voter-fraud-pile-liberals-look-the-other-way
There is a good reason why the Democrat party is so virulently opposed to voter ID laws, and it has nothing to do with protecting minorities, it is all about protecting their thumbs on the scales.
to die on this hill
The polls were in the margin of error
The polls were in the margin of error
I'm not about to go look up the "margin of error" to see exactly how much wrong each poll was against what they claim is close enough in horseshoes and hand grenades..
I'm not going to look it up either, but the point remains, the polls were actually correct as they were measuring the popular vote and not the electoral vote. Hillary won by 2.87 million votes, or roughly 2.2% of the total vote, which is likely within the margin of error of the polls. Its arguable that the polls didn't include enough voters from states won by Trump, except for the one pollster I mentioned earlier.
Is this polls?
---
About the same as right now when Trump won.. And as stated, poll votes from California and similar hopeless states don't matter..
Can't blame a guy for being skeptical of information sources these days, can you?
I don't understand why you are choosing to die on this hill for by blatantly rejecting data that's already been verified to be true. The polls were in the margin of error and swapping out the pictures aren't going to change that. The picture you posted was not a model, but various polls plotted on a single chart.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Final polling averages had Clinton up by 3.3 points and the election results was Clinton +2.1 meaning the polls were within the margin of error.
Being skeptical is a healthy thing but ignoring factual data isn't.
Polls are by default and inherently a model attempting to project real human sentiment. Neither polls nor models are by any means "factual" data but merely estimations. There is no such thing as a 100% factual poll, which is why scientifically speaking polls are near the bottom of the hierarchy of standards of evidence as an inherently flawed data collection methodology.
Eddie13 just has two eyes to see and enough functional neurons to realize the dems are far too busy burying themselves to win the election in 2020. The media will do its best to try to muddy the waters to cover up for this and keep people unsure as this is always the strategy based on the reality people will often vote for the candidate they think will win as no one wants to be on the "losing" side. As a result this kabuki act will continue until concession is made even if the Democrat front runner takes a giant steaming dump in their pants on the final debate stage.
The actual silent majority is just waiting for voting day longingly so they can tell the lunatic postmodernist Marxists who disenfranchised them to go fuck themselves. That is the real deciding factor here that dems are blinded to in their frothing spasms directed at Trump. They are too busy pointing at him to wipe the foam from the corners of their mouths.
to die on this hill
The polls were in the margin of error
The polls were in the margin of error
I'm not about to go look up the "margin of error" to see exactly how much wrong each poll was against what they claim is close enough in horseshoes and hand grenades..
I look at charts.. One of my only skills in crypto is looking at charts, lol..
If you look at any of the charts very carefully you will see that Trump is on the bottom, look closely now..
And then... Like magic... Trump won..
Somehow.. Trump didn't need the charts to win..
KISS
"If every poll was wrong by the exact tolerable amount then they weren't wrong"
OK sure..
They were all as wrong as possible without being wrong..
I assure you I'm not dying on a 0.1BTC hill, lol..
I'm just having fun here talking shit..
If Trump looses, boo hoo, I was wrong.. It's not a big deal..
And I'll admit I was wrong, unlike 90% of people on the internet..
Is this polls?
---
About the same as right now when Trump won.. And as stated, poll votes from California and similar hopeless states don't matter..
Can't blame a guy for being skeptical of information sources these days, can you?
I don't understand why you are choosing to die on this hill for by blatantly rejecting data that's already been verified to be true. The polls were in the margin of error and swapping out the pictures aren't going to change that. The picture you posted was not a model, but various polls plotted on a single chart.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Final polling averages had Clinton up by 3.3 points and the election results was Clinton +2.1 meaning the polls were within the margin of error.
Being skeptical is a healthy thing but ignoring factual data isn't.
Ok you are right.. That isn't "polls"..
Is this polls?
"This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines using a poll-tracking model and is updated whenever a new poll is released."
About the same as right now when Trump won.. And as stated, poll votes from California and similar hopeless states don't matter..
Trump underpolls because Trump voters are 69% less likely to waste their time taking polls..
Can't blame a guy for being skeptical of information sources these days, can you?
Is this polls?
"This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines using a poll-tracking model and is updated whenever a new poll is released."
About the same as right now when Trump won.. And as stated, poll votes from California and similar hopeless states don't matter..
Trump underpolls because Trump voters are 69% less likely to waste their time taking polls..
There's a weird 'fuck the polls' mentality among some Trump supporters
Can't blame a guy for being skeptical of information sources these days, can you?
Most of the polls conducted for the 2016 election were within the statistical margin of error, so it's not like the polls were necessarily wrong.
...
...
...
These polling companies conduct thousands of polls a year. You can look up their records, if they have consistent outliers they lose funding.
In terms of the popular vote, the polls were mostly correct.
The only poll that consistently put Trump ahead of Clinton was run by the LA Times / USC -- I will be paying particularly close attention to their results this time around.
Jump to: