I remember when

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Trump said the polls were wrong and the media was rigged and the MDL posted pictures of tin foil hats.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Trump said the polls were wrong and the media was rigged and the MDL posted pictures of tin foil hats.

Did any of the right wing polls have Trump winning within the last week? I don't remember seeing any.

[smilesammich 10,727]

i remember posting those pictures to cries that the ELECTION was rigged, not the media. but i guess the election isn't rigged anymore.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Did any of the right wing polls have Trump winning within the last week? I don't remember seeing any.

IBD and Latime/USC both have showed him winning consistently. Now I would not say they are right leaning like Rasmussen, but IBD has been the most accurate the last two Presidential cycles. La/Times/USC is a new poll that everyone wrote off

i remember posting those pictures to cries that the ELECTION was rigged, not the media. but i guess the election isn't rigged anymore.

We over came the obvious bias. CNN was in the bag. We shall over come.

Almost everything Trump predicted happened. A lot of it was highly ridiculed and his supporters made fun of as Buffoons

[smilesammich 10,727]

Almost everything Trump predicted happened. A lot of it was highly ridiculed and his supporters made fun of as Buffoons

stupid is as stupid does.

[Teddy B 17,252]

IBD and Latime/USC both have showed him winning consistently. Now I would not say they are right leaning like Rasmussen, but IBD has been the most accurate the last two Presidential cycles. La/Times/USC is a new poll that everyone wrote off

We over came the obvious bias. CNN was in the bag. We shall over come.

Almost everything Trump predicted happened. A lot of it was highly ridiculed and his supporters made fun of as Buffoons

I think it's time to make some changes to the way polls are conducted, it's very obvious that the current polling system isn't working, bias or not. Even Fox had Hillary winning.

Sure Trump called out the media bias, but he also said the election itself was rigged, where is the evidence of that? I personally referred to Trump as a buffoon (not his supporters) on a few occasions and will hold that position until proven otherwise. I also wonder just what a lot of his supporters were voting for when they say they voted for change. What type of changes do they think they'll see with Trump as President? As you and I discussed the other day, the majority of all campaign promises are falsely made and have no chance of coming to fruition.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

People voted for Obama for the same reason. Twice. "Change" Not much changed for the good. But every election, folks want "change". Only time will tell if Trump is able to overcome the real power in the US and make some positive changes. Truth is, presidents can't really do all that much. I suspect they want to, but then find out that their hands are tied more often than not.

I think it's time to make some changes to the way polls are conducted, it's very obvious that the current polling system isn't working, bias or not. Even Fox had Hillary winning.

Sure Trump called out the media bias, but he also said the election itself was rigged, where is the evidence of that? I personally referred to Trump as a buffoon (not his supporters) on a few occasions and will hold that position until proven otherwise. I also wonder just what a lot of his supporters were voting for when they say they voted for change. What type of changes do they think they'll see with Trump as President? As you and I discussed the other day, the majority of all campaign promises are falsely made and have no chance of coming to fruition.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I think it's time to make some changes to the way polls are conducted, it's very obvious that the current polling system isn't working, bias or not. Even Fox had Hillary winning.

Sure Trump called out the media bias, but he also said the election itself was rigged, where is the evidence of that? I personally referred to Trump as a buffoon (not his supporters) on a few occasions and will hold that position until proven otherwise. I also wonder just what a lot of his supporters were voting for when they say they voted for change. What type of changes do they think they'll see with Trump as President? As you and I discussed the other day, the majority of all campaign promises are falsely made and have no chance of coming to fruition.

sadly you may be correct. The only glimmer is that the establishment on both sides did not want him to win. That is a positive thing. I think that is why Bernie ran so strong also.

[Dakine10 5,452]

People voted for Obama for the same reason. Twice. "Change" Not much changed for the good. But every election, folks want "change". Only time will tell if Trump is able to overcome the real power in the US and make some positive changes. Truth is, presidents can't really do all that much. I suspect they want to, but then find out that their hands are tied more often than not.

The people most disappointed by Obama's presidency were the ones that actually thought that ideas of hope and change could be translated into policy in the face of an immovable wall of congress. Trump starts out the same way. Full of promises and both houses. In the end, when there's no way to bring those manufacturing jobs back, and when Mexico won't pay for the wall, and when we can't ban immigrants on the basis of religion? Well, then we start over. Same old.

[TBoneTX 46,452]

it's very obvious that the current polling system isn't working, bias or not. Even Fox had Hillary winning.

Maybe we all remember this one, posted here some weeks ago:

http://www.primarymodel.com

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I hear Nate Silver may be looking for a job. I probably checked that site 10 times a day.

Boy did he bomb it.

[yuna628 9,758]

I hear Nate Silver may be looking for a job. I probably checked that site 10 times a day.

Boy did he bomb it.

His main rival and competition via Princeton Election Consortium bombed even worse.

[khwaidee1 196]

The Los Angeles Times polls consistently had Trump ahead. But, that was on page 14, it was their own poll done with USC. On page 1 or 3 they had some other poll from a polling company with Hillary killing it.

[bcking 3,157]

Maybe we all remember this one, posted here some weeks ago:

http://www.primarymodel.com

Correct me if I'm wrong but from just glancing at that website, that is not a poll. That is a model to predict the outcome, but it isn't based on polling data. It's based on actual voting data from the primaries. So it's a little different the argument can still stand that the "polls", even when scientific, failed to predict the outcome very well.

Also I was a little confused by the website because at the beginning it talks about predicting Trump will be President, but a little ways down it mentions how it has predicted the winner of the POPULAR VOTE in the last 5 elections. Which one does it predict? Since as we all remember you can become President and not win the popular vote. Last I checked Trump and Clinton were neck and neck so he may very well lose the popular vote.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The Los Angeles Times polls consistently had Trump ahead. But, that was on page 14, it was their own poll done with USC. On page 1 or 3 they had some other poll from a polling company with Hillary killing it.

None of the polls I saw gave staying home as an option. And unfortunately for the Democrats, that seemed to end up being a viable choice. Voter turnout definitely hurt Clinton. In Wisconsin, Trump got less votes than Romney did in 2012 but still won the state.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Dakine10