https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/11/media-polling-fully-exposed-about-that-nbcwsj-clinton-11-point-poll/

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-rigs-its-own-poll-again-to-claim-clinton-won-the-debate/


Could they at least be a little subtle?

EDIT: If you are too lazy, the first link is about a polling company getting paid by Priorities USA (Clinton Organization) and oversampling Dems.

The second is 58% Dems and has Clinton winning the debate. Shocker. (Although 58% were Dems, only 57% thought she won.)

Edited 10/11/2016 12:38:39

im still voting for deez nuts

Polling more Democrats than Republicans isn't rigging a poll.

That's like saying if I poll more people from California than Wyoming I rigged the poll.

Hint: There's 66 times as many people in California as in Wyoming.

If anything making sure you had exactly 50% democrats polled vs. 50% republicans would be rigging the poll, since there's not an inherent 50/50 split among the general population.

What isn't subtle is the ludicrous complaints of rigging coming from the conservative sites you're linking.

Trump is only expected to get 43.9% of the popular vote and 41% of the countries electoral votes as of right now. He's almost certainly out of the running.

Right wing media playing the sore loser card and whining about everything being rigged against them is silly.

Want to talk about rigged, go look at the 2000 election.

Edited 10/11/2016 14:20:31

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

isn't polling specific small demographics. It's based on massive numbers of polls nationwide. They got 99 out of 100 states right between the last two elections. They're calling for 88.1% chance of a Clinton presidency. One month ago that was 74.7%, two weeks ago it was 53.8%. The % has obviously went up and down, but the last time they showed Trump ahead was in July. You can keep seeking theoretical wins if you like, but with the election less than a month away Trumps run is over.

Lol it's biased when dems/repubs isn't proportionate to the nationwide numbers.

Lol it's biased when dems/repubs isn't proportionate to the nationwide numbers.

EDIT: If you are too lazy, the first link is about a polling company getting paid by Priorities USA (Clinton Organization) and oversampling Dems.

Firstly, it's a simple fact that there are more democrats than republicans, and by a pretty substantial margin as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

To be exact there are 41,341,965 registered democrats, compared to just 30,447,217 republicans, or a margin of 11 million voters. The last time an election was settled by more than this was 1984, when reagan won by 16 million votes. Since then, no candidate has won by more than 9 million, which makes this 11 million voter discrepancy a pretty big deal.

Also, The sections you see in polls about partisan makeup are literally just the polling company asking someone "Are you a democrat or republican?". While some people definitely do feel a strong attachment to their party, a lot of people don't and just say whatever they feel like. SO for example if there is, say a controversial video about donald trump going around, some people will identify as democrats rather than republicans. Conversely, if wikileaks drops some leaks on hillary clinton, some people will probably say they're republicans rather than democrats.

Want to talk about rigged, go look at the 2000 election.

Not sure what you're talking about, please clarify.

"Not sure what you're talking about, please clarify."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-how-bush-took-florida-mining-the-overseas-absentee-vote.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-how-bush-took-florida-mining-the-overseas-absentee-vote.html

From that article:

"In an analysis of the 2,490 ballots from Americans living abroad that were counted as legal votes after Election Day, The Times found 680 questionable votes. Although it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were cast"

Edited 10/11/2016 15:33:39

Want to talk about rigged, go look at the 2000 election.

"It's only rigging if my side gets screwed"

Stop being a partisan hack.

I mean, its not just the actual 2000 election, also take a look at 2004. Both of them we're pretty iffy imo.

Theres no way Bush should've won either. Just sayin.

Well, it's true that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. However, it's not the only time the Electoral College has caused that result. That isn't a case of rigging so much as a flawed system (A flawed system which usually favors Democrats btw).

Secondly, the final results of 2000 was upheld by the Supreme Court. As a total side note, it always fascinates me how some people take SCOTUS decisions as word of God when it comes to Roe v Wade, or Obergefell v. Hodges, yet when SCOTUS causes the election of a President they don't agree with there's suddenly a problem.

As for 2004, Bush won the popular vote by a good margin on top of the Electoral College. Do you have any evidence for how this was rigged?

Feel free to keep thinking that. It just makes my vote worth more.

This was supposed to be an easy win for republicans, if they had half a decent candidate I'd probably be for him before Hillary just in grounds of not electing a corrupt terrible person. Too bad you managed to get an even worse candidate, that was really a hard thing to do, gj!

Republicans went from an easy win to what seems like will be a blue wave. I'm shocked it took muricans so long to figure who the least worst was.

What did the Brexit polls say again?

They were off by around four percent...

(trump is currently behind by around 5-6)

Everyone should see a conflit of interest when it's quite clear. It doesn't lead to anything good. You don't have to look hard to see that CNN is owned by Time Warner, and see that Time Warner upholds Clinton and the Democratic Party (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000094&cycle=2016).

I'm far from a Trump upholder, but know what biases point where.

Edited 10/11/2016 21:12:59