(06-19-2017 01:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

The Russians hacked the CNN poll!

It's always someone else's fault.

I've seen the exact same thing happen with online polls on fox. The info gets tweeted and facebook shared among left-wing accounts and people are encouraged to go vote in it when they normally wouldn't. That's why these are meaningless and proof of nothing.

I can't believe this needs explained in 2017.

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

That isn't the point.

okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

So is CNN fake news or is that just when you don't like what they say?

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

That isn't the point.

okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

You seem to like polls...well not this one so much but others when they show something different.

Hell you even started a few...below are just a few with many others I didn't want to go overboard.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-820140.html
http://csnbbs.com/thread-819525.html

(06-06-2017 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:29 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Those polls really were accurate in the 2016 election. No reason to doubt them now.

How many of the polls were actually wrong outside the margin of error?

I think there's little doubt now that many people polled were reluctant to admit that they were voting for trump. In fact many conservatives here were claiming that all along when these polls showed trump behind.

In addition, most national polls had Hillary up pretty close to where she actually finished, up a few percentage points.

(06-06-2017 12:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So says an analysis of Gallup polling data. Interesting.

Quote:An analysis of Gallup polling data comparing the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency to the month of May shows that Trump’s job approval in military counties dropped sharply in the last month — from an average 51 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval in the first 100 days to 43 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval for May.

Trump’s Support Drops in Military Communities

Short time frame to read too much into this, but something worth watching.

(03-24-2017 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  AHCA Vote Snap Poll
It's more than clear that the votes aren't there and this bill won't pass.

Normally, there would not be a vote. However, Trump wants one. If a vote goes through, it could signal the end of Paul Ryan as a credible SOTH.

So, Who wins?

(05-05-2016 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 01:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Any map that has Trump not winning NJ is a load of crap.

The latest poll per this site (from 4/18) has Clinton up 14 points.

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That isn't the point.

okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

(06-19-2017 01:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That isn't the point.

okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

You seem to like polls...well not this one so much but others when they show something different.

Hell you even started a few...below are just a few with many others I didn't want to go overboard.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-820140.html
http://csnbbs.com/thread-819525.html

(06-06-2017 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:29 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Those polls really were accurate in the 2016 election. No reason to doubt them now.

How many of the polls were actually wrong outside the margin of error?

I think there's little doubt now that many people polled were reluctant to admit that they were voting for trump. In fact many conservatives here were claiming that all along when these polls showed trump behind.

In addition, most national polls had Hillary up pretty close to where she actually finished, up a few percentage points.

(06-06-2017 12:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So says an analysis of Gallup polling data. Interesting.

Quote:An analysis of Gallup polling data comparing the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency to the month of May shows that Trump’s job approval in military counties dropped sharply in the last month — from an average 51 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval in the first 100 days to 43 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval for May.

Trump’s Support Drops in Military Communities

Short time frame to read too much into this, but something worth watching.

(03-24-2017 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  AHCA Vote Snap Poll
It's more than clear that the votes aren't there and this bill won't pass.

Normally, there would not be a vote. However, Trump wants one. If a vote goes through, it could signal the end of Paul Ryan as a credible SOTH.

So, Who wins?

(05-05-2016 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 01:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Any map that has Trump not winning NJ is a load of crap.

The latest poll per this site (from 4/18) has Clinton up 14 points.

Congratulations?

(06-19-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

You seem to like polls...well not this one so much but others when they show something different.

Hell you even started a few...below are just a few with many others I didn't want to go overboard.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-820140.html
http://csnbbs.com/thread-819525.html

(06-06-2017 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:29 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Those polls really were accurate in the 2016 election. No reason to doubt them now.

How many of the polls were actually wrong outside the margin of error?

I think there's little doubt now that many people polled were reluctant to admit that they were voting for trump. In fact many conservatives here were claiming that all along when these polls showed trump behind.

In addition, most national polls had Hillary up pretty close to where she actually finished, up a few percentage points.

(06-06-2017 12:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So says an analysis of Gallup polling data. Interesting.

Quote:An analysis of Gallup polling data comparing the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency to the month of May shows that Trump’s job approval in military counties dropped sharply in the last month — from an average 51 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval in the first 100 days to 43 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval for May.

Trump’s Support Drops in Military Communities

Short time frame to read too much into this, but something worth watching.

(03-24-2017 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  AHCA Vote Snap Poll
It's more than clear that the votes aren't there and this bill won't pass.

Normally, there would not be a vote. However, Trump wants one. If a vote goes through, it could signal the end of Paul Ryan as a credible SOTH.

So, Who wins?

(05-05-2016 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 01:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Any map that has Trump not winning NJ is a load of crap.

The latest poll per this site (from 4/18) has Clinton up 14 points.

Congratulations?

Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

(06-19-2017 01:36 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  So is CNN fake news or is that just when you don't like what they say?

No. They're fake news. No doubt about it. They don't even hide it anymore.

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

You have to love this....

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

lol, I had forgotten about being called SATAN INCARNATE!

(06-19-2017 03:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

lol, I had forgotten about being called SATAN INCARNATE!

For being right I might add.



Wait a minute........Это вы товарищ?

(06-19-2017 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

All scientific polls provide a margin of error and we all know they are only as good as the respondents.

That being said, even the trump camps own polling pretty much mirrored the pre-election national polling.

Not to mention, the national polls (yes I know they don't decide the president) had Hillary with a lead that nearly matched here national vote margin exactly.

(06-19-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

All scientific polls provide a margin of error and we all know they are only as good as the respondents.

That being said, even the trump camps own polling pretty much mirrored the pre-election national polling.

Not to mention, the national polls (yes I know they don't decide the president) had Hillary with a lead that nearly matched here national vote margin exactly.

So the media was just too stupid to understand the election process?

I'll buy that.

(06-19-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

All scientific polls provide a margin of error and we all know they are only as good as the respondents.

That being said, even the trump camps own polling pretty much mirrored the pre-election national polling.

Not to mention, the national polls (yes I know they don't decide the president) had Hillary with a lead that nearly matched here national vote margin exactly.

These people disagree about the accuracy of MUH POLLS!

(06-19-2017 03:39 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

You have to love this....

Of course, that one was scientific.

(06-19-2017 04:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:39 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

You have to love this....

Of course, that one was scientific.

Without a doubt, even us mathematically challenged folk(as Mach called us) can see that it was obviously very scientifically based.

(06-19-2017 03:39 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Confused? I had to have simply typed the wrong state in that thread, because my own map had NJ going blue.

Which can be found here: http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182.html

You see how many states I got wrong? Yea. ZERO.

That thread is some really good reading too. A bunch of libturds getting all butthurt over that map, telling us how it was a LIE. ITS A LIE!

How good was my map, Tommy?

There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

You have to love this....

Muh Nate!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk