WAIT ! The media proclaimed Hillary led in the polls !

[Yssup Rider]

Republican pollsters fucked the polls up too and just as badly.

I guess they're biased as well.

Listen to yourselves

[Prolongus]

Polling people about who they're going to vote for is one thing. Them actually showing up to vote is another.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Tony Gambino

Trump will surprise the black and Hispanic voter......his ginourmous ego wont let him become a less than Reganesque president!......hey TexasTushHog......how do you like us now? wish I would have taken your bet........ENJOY THE NEXT 8 YEARS!!.......Maybe you can keep Huma and her pedophile husband out of prison!!.....or not

First, as to the polls, they were wrong. They weren't biased. There will be lots of post mortems on why they were wrong and those will be interesting to read. But polling firms want to make accurate projections. It's how they make money. Most of their business in internal polls for candidates and opinion research for corporations. Sticking a political poll when your opponents miss it is worth tens of millions of dollars or more to these firms over a two or four year period.

My guess it was a combination of a couple of things. First, a relatively high number of undecides who obviously broke late for Trump. I saw one estimate that said 3 of 5 people who made up their mind in the last week went to Trump. That's not as high number as 1980, but it was significant. Second, I think we're going to find some kind of systemic problem with the likely voter screen that most pollsters use. My top suspect is voting in past elections. Generally pollsters discount by various factors people who say that they will vote, but who have never voted in past elections. Often it's a rough 50% off. I've seen others use 40%. Finally, as there often is in polls done for media organizations, there are few high quality polls done late. They're expensive and that's when the horse race narrative begins being replaced by the voting narrative. The risk is you miss late movement, if there is any. That's what happened in 1980 when all the polls showed a margin of error race between Reagan and Carter.

As for the bet, I wish you had taken it up, too. Check your PM's for an explanation..

[Charlie Brown]

It's not so much that the polls were wrong. It was the way they were twisted to reach a conclusion of the medias choice.

There was at least one poll that said Trump showed the winning position - who saw that report?

It's our media that's biased and that's a problem many voters recognized. You couldn't help but smile watching the reporters back track and try to cover their over zealous reporting actions that the voting public smashed. This was indeed a wake up call that the media still refuses to hear.

Most media lean way too far to the left and they express their opinions as fact when in true fact, they are mostly opinions.

Ever hear a TV reporter say something like - " not sure if this is true, it's just what we heard from so and so " ! Now that'd be a WTF moment ! But being unjustly fair, once in a while one of those critters does make a balanced comment but only once in a while!

Media does a shit load of good things too. It's just when they're full of crap, it tarnishes reality.

I'm old enough to remember when media in the US reported facts and kept their hollier than thou to themselves. It appears those days are only a good memory these days.

In the end, like many, I wasn't happy about the two choices we ended up with for the Oval office. Who had a big part of shaping those choices?

Trump got at least one thing right - this " politics thing ", it's a nasty business !

[rexdutchman]

Anyone else notice that the protesters are young liberals that think the federal government should be "caring for them" One protester was damming morals , she wasn't born when Clinton ( billary) was in the white house, WOW public ed !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Charlie Brown]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Anyone else notice that the protesters are young liberals that think the federal government should be "caring for them" One protester was damming morals , she wasn't born when Clinton ( billary) was in the white house, WOW public ed !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I too was going to comment around that rex.

When you see the liberal protesters, why is it hardly any of them appear as though they have pot to piss in or they're often a celeb seeking attention?

And conversely, the conservative strong hold is mostly full of crusty fucks with money !

I remember the day when I didn't have a pot to piss in and I admit, I had visions of someone or something owing me something.

Well, I never got anything for those thoughts.

So, I got busy becoming one of those crusty fucks and now I've got something I use to play with the lovely ladies that frequent this place.

Matter of fact, I've made plans today to express and celebrate my hard fought conservatism in the most erotic way I know how - happy hobbying !

The irony of it all is I found my playmate on one of the most liberal places anywhere - eccie!

[rexdutchman]

Yup rock on , happy hobbying in the free market

[darkwader]

Originally Posted by Charlie Brown

I too was going to comment around that rex.

When you see the liberal protesters, why is it hardly any of them appear as though they have pot to piss in or they're often a celeb seeking attention?

And conversely, the conservative strong hold is mostly full of crusty fucks with money !

I don't think that's true anymore. silicon valley, which has the highest concentration of wealth in the country is overwhelmingly liberal atleast as far as voting patterns in 21st century are concerned. conservative money was made in the so-called blue collar, "old" economy that's on it's way out for most part.

[TexTushHog]

As you can see in one of the charts accompanying this article, income isn't as a reliable predictor as it used to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...olls.html?_r=0

Note that education is very quickly becoming the number one predictor. Hillary carried all college graduates and overwhelmingly carried those with some graduate education.

See also: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

[FunInDFW]

Of course most of the media is biased. Why is this some shocker?

[00 gauge]

In any local, state, or national election the media ( print and television ) will ALWAYS have a poll or multiple polls showing the liberal Democrat candidate is ahead ..... when of course many times they're just grabbing numbers out of thin air to support their bias ..... it's sad really but that's the way it is ..... and probably the way it always will be .....

[Charlie Brown]

Originally Posted by FunInDFW

Of course most of the media is biased. Why is this some shocker?

Fun, it's not that media bias is shocking. But you know there is a " shock " to it all !

What's shocking is by most all accounts Trump wasn't supposed to win and when he did, the media across the board was going WTF !

Now the mass media has repeatedly scorned him in awkward fashions for winning. Shit, it won't be " shocking " if some television anchor interviews Trump and assassinates him on live TV and pleads self defense !.

" WTF, how dare our viewers reject our expressed opinions and form their on, just WTF happened " !

I grin every time I see/recognize that WTF Trump body language from reporters now - written or televised.

Many of them are so full of crap !

[00 gauge]

And after reading Aubie 79's and Chung Tran's comments earlier on this topic, I did some fact-checking ..... in the 2008 election Obama got approximately 69,498,000 votes to McCain's approximately 59,948,000 for a total of roughly 129 million voters ..... in the 2012 election Obama got approximately 65,915,000 votes to Romney's approximately 60,933,000 for a total of roughly 136 million voters ..... and in the 2016 election Clinton got approximately 61,000,000 to Trump's approximately 60,000,000 votes for a total of 121 million voters ..... so yes the lower turnout definitely hurt Clinton but more importantly ..... it meant that possibly as many as 10 to 20 million possible pissed-off voters who didn't like either candidate stayed home .....and who knows ..... maybe enough of those votes would have meant she carried more states and possibly challenged him in the electoral college totals .....

[Roy Wally]

I totally agree with Charlie. I even remember glancing at CNN's website a couple of weeks before the election. The headline said "Clinton looks past election" ..... as if to say she knew she was going to win and was already planning her presidency. And CNN was right there along with her. I thought it was quite arrogant for both Clinton and CNN to presume the election was already decided. Why should they feel so entitled?

Nonetheless I had gone to bed early on election night, feeling disparaged and guessing that the Clinton machine would win. When I awoke the next morning to see the headline "President Trump", I was surprised and elated!
I truly felt that the people of our great country weren't going to let polls decide the election for them. Not this time. Not the polls, not CNN, not Saturday Night Live, not Hollywood.
Just to savor the event, I actually tuned in to 90.1 (NPR) that morning and listened to them throw their tantrums and have their fits of anger. I was laughing at it!!
This election has renewed my faith.

[ManSlut]

The Pollsters also had me winning DQKitty's Poll on me, lookn4boobies, TheEccie214 and Tony Gambino and Tony kicked our asses - go figure...

Fuck the pollsters, two-faced bastards!