Okay, so first of all, you've just made a reply to me that is in two unrelated parts. The first is unrelated to anything I said. As long as you comport yourself in this manner, you will only be met with derision. It is a nonsense method of communication.

Snapshots:

1. Fox News? More like Fake News! Dadd... - archive.org, archive.today, removeddit.com

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

energy_overwhelming 492 points 17 hours ago I definitely trust his internal polls more. They got Michigan and Wisconsin exactly right in 2016.

We saw his internal polling and he was down like 11 points, lol.

Not to say polling this far out is relevant, but my god did these guys just forget that we fucking saw his internal polling and they lined up with every other poll?

A lot of them over there are already preempting a loss in 2020 by claiming electoral fraud:

twoscoops4america 25 points 14 hours ago They won’t make the same mistakes this time. Ballot harvesting will be in full swing in every “swing” state on all local levels this go around. The 2020 election will likely go to the courts with multiple lawsuits and all sorts of shenanigans. Clown World is just getting started.

That post as a whole is like a case study on "politically illiterate adults that don't understand statistics talk about election data."

That's because Kellyanne Conway is the empress of polling

???????

Actually they did better than their internals in WI, GA, NC, and FL.

All had numerous fuckery going on.

There wasn't "fuckery" going on. How polling works is you weight based off predicted turnouts for example.

In elections where one demographic turns out at higher rates than expected, it can throw polling off in specific areas.

It's why national polling, and polling overall in 2016 was within margin of error and as accurate as polling as ever been historically, but certain states were pretty off.

In the case of the rust belt, you'll often see people pop up and say stuff like "Clinton didn't campaign in those states, that's why she lost!" which, of course, is a convenient enough narrative when you're looking for a way you can blame the loss on Clinton, but ignores the fact ground game had pretty much nothing to do with it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-didnt-cost-her-the-election/

But most importantly, the changes in the vote from 2012 to 2016 are much better explained by demographics than by where the campaigns spent their time and money. Let me start with a couple of simple comparisons that I think pretty convincingly demonstrate this, and then we’ll attempt a more rigorous approach.

Comparison No. 1: Clinton spent literally no time in Wisconsin, whereas Trump repeatedly campaigned in the state. Wisconsin turned red. But so did Pennsylvania, where both candidates campaigned extensively. Trump’s margin of victory in each state was almost identical, in fact — 0.8 percentage points in Wisconsin and 0.7 percentage points in Pennsylvania. That strongly implies that the demographic commonalities between Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — both of them have lots of white voters without college degrees — mattered a lot more than the difference in campaign tactics.

Comparison No. 2: As I mentioned, Trump campaigned a lot more than Clinton in Wisconsin, and it turned red. But Trump also campaigned a lot more than Clinton in Colorado — it actually had the largest gap of any state in where the candidates spent their time. Colorado remained blue, however, with Clinton winning it by about the same margin that Obama won it by in 2012. The difference is that Colorado has relatively few white voters without college degrees, while Wisconsin has lots of them. Again, that strongly implies that demographics rather than campaign tactics drove the shift in the results.

This idea is also evident if you look at state-by-state or county-by-county maps of where the vote shifted from 2012 to 2016. Within the Midwest, for example, it wasn’t just Michigan and Wisconsin that became much redder. So did Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota, even though there was almost2 no campaigning by either candidate in any of them.3

Another, more rigorous way to address the question is by regression analysis. Accounting for where the candidates spent their resources makes almost no difference, it turns out, once you’ve controlled for one or two major demographic categories and the 2012 vote. For instance, we can run a regression analysis to project the 2016 result in each state4 where the input variables are the 2012 results, the share of voters in each state who are whites without college degrees, and — it doesn’t matter much in the swing states but in order to avoid a big outlier in Utah and Idaho5 — the Mormon population of each state. If Clinton had an inferior ground game to Obama, we’d expect the model to overestimate her performance in swing states and underestimate it in noncompetitive states. But that’s not what it shows — instead, it replicates the actual results quite well in swing states, red states and blue states alike.

Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

Lol I'm agreeing with you. But there were loads of voting irregularities in all the states I mentioned in 2016.

But it's not uncommon for campaigns to arrange for unflattering push polling to figure out possible weaknesses. Those never leak unless the campaign didn't pay, or the campaign is tirun by idiot monkeys. Either has a strong chance.

Tldr Hilarly and Biden wins 😤😤😤

Don't worry Mr. President. There isn't a pede alive who trusts the polls.

Wew

Numbers are too confusing and are just tools of the libs.

numbers are jewish trickery invented to undermine white societies

Worse than Jewish, they're arabic.

arabs are just cryptojews. the whole islam thing is an elaborate coverup