Disco Boy wrote:
Since you (and the idiots here who agree with you) continue to try and gaslight me (which doesn't work on me because I'm not a moron), as well as failing to realize information that is common sense-based (ie., knowing that there are THOUSANDS of polls in existence, which can't technically be proven, because that's like trying to prove how many motor vehicles, shoelaces, rubber bands, etc., there are - which is IMPOSSIBLE)
This has to be about the most amusing argument I have ever heard on this forum. Because there are
so many polls you are incapable of naming, say, five national polling companies who conduct approval ratings polls in addition to those cited by Five Thirty Eight and Real Clear Politics in the past month? Shouldn't that make it easier, rather than harder for you?
Disco Boy wrote:
Whereas, you made it seem like pedro1 and I are the only ones here that are conservatives. Which, of course, is NOT true.
This contradicts almost exactly what I've stated above...
Caputh wrote:
I point out that the possible conservatives here have not expressed agreement with his views.
Caputh wrote:
No, the point is that neither conservatives nor liberals, with the possible exception of pedro1, posts things that are in agreement with your views on this thread.
Disco Boy wrote:
Again, you're TOTALLY missing the point. Which is, that it's not even possible to compile the total amount of active polls, like your link does, nor rely on them, especially since, a) there are THOUSANDS of polls,
There
are thousands of polls on many very different topics. Not all polling companies conduct regular
national presidential approval ratings. Three examples who do not are: Maristpoll (whose last presidential approval poll was on March 31st 2017), Insights West and Bloomberg.
Disco Boy wrote:
b) they sometimes change HOURLY
They do, which is why Five Thirty Eight and Real Clear Politics are updated, sometimes more than once a day.
Disco Boy wrote:
c) the sample rates aren't necessarily large or accurate
Which is why Five Thirty weights the polls "accounting for each poll's quality, recency, sample size and partisan lean."
RCP doesn't, merely providing an average of all polls.
Disco Boy wrote:
over 90% of all media are liberal and bias. If all poll #s were accurate, Hillary would be President right now...
a) Is 90% your guess?
b) If you mean here that pollsters are biased against Trump, then Five Thirty Eight accounts for this by rating their partisan lean: "Polls are adjusted for house effects, which are persistent differences between the poll and the trend line. Rasmussen Reports, for example, has consistently shown much better approval ratings for Trump than other pollsters have, while Gallup’s have been slightly worse. The house effects adjustment counteracts these tendencies."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... l-ratings/c) If we look at the result of the presidential elections of 2016, (Trump 46.1% of the vote, Clinton 48.2%, i.e. Clinton with 2.1% more of the vote), we see that directly before the elections, the pollsters did not do so badly, nearly all of them putting Clinton 4 points ahead in the national vote with a margin of error ranging between 2 and 3% (c.f. Four Way Race here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election). The most inaccuarate polls of the national vote were actually in Trump's favour, e.g. IBDP (Clinton 41%, Trump 43%). Rasmussen Reports and Ipsos Reuters predicted Clinton's lead fairly accurately (2%/3%). Insights West, Fox, Gravis marketing (who do not do presidential approval polls), Monmouth University, ABC News/Washington Post, NBC News and Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald predicted Clinton's share of the vote to within 1%-2%. Insights West, Gravis Marketing, Fox News and IBDP Tipp predicted Trump's share of the vote within 1%-2%.
Real Clear Politics Average poll put Clinton's lead at 3.3% (that's 1.2% off) and Five Thirty Eight at 3.9% (that's 1.8% off).
Trump did not win the popular vote - he won in the electoral college.
d) I don't think that even Trump accuses the pollsters of being overly biased. In a recent tweet he put the blame for his low approval ratings squarely on the shoulders of so-called Fake News...
"If the totally Corrupt Media was less corrupt, I would be up by 15 points in the polls based on our tremendous success with the economy, maybe Best Ever! If the Corrupt Media was actually fair, I would be up by 25 points. Nevertheless, despite the Fake News, we’re doing great!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump?lang=deHe also quoted a new poll today from the Trump-friendly Rasmussen Reports which puts him at 50% (making him exactly 1% more believable than Obama at the same point of time in his presidency, according to your logic), for once accurately. Though Rasmussen reports is practically the only poll he is predisposed to quote- usually he confuses his disapproval with his approval rating, e.g. on April 12th 2019 and August 27th 2018
https://theweek.com/speedreads/792498/t ... ight-tweet Disco Boy wrote:
EVERY liberal media source has lost $$$ (some more than others) since the Mueller report was released in April. Look at their ratings. Just because the NYT's subscriptions have recently increased doesn't mean they haven't lost $$$ overall because they actually have over the past few decades (and so has the newspaper industry).
The NYT doesn't have ratings. It measures its success today by the amount of subscriptions it has. It has increased its subscriptions since Trump came to power. The reason why they have lost revenue in the print media sector should be blindingly obvious, even to you; people aren't buying newspapers anymore, they're reading them online. As the NYT's figures for the second quarter have yet to be published, as the second quarter is not yet over, your claim that they lost readers had absolutely no evidential basis when you made it.
Disco Boy wrote:
And there is PLENTY of concrete evidence supporting and PROVING an anti-Trump bias prevalent throughout liberal media (aka, FAKE NEWS), including the NYT, especially since there are even more links than that. Several pages worth, in fact. And of course, the Trump/Russian collusion HOAX, is the most egregious of all UNPROVEN stories.
Then point to that concrete evidence specifically. Your search engine list is a search engine list, i.e. it contains many links that don't support your statement above. It also probably contains many that do. Both of wildly varying quality (I'm sorry - I wouldn't trust a website that lists the Queen and the Pope as "traitors", even if their video did play). As evidence for your argument it is entirely worthless.
However, as I said above, there may well be liberal media bias against Trump, even though your search engine list fails to establish this. However, it is not logical to argue that falling ratings = proof of Fake News, which was your original premise.
Disco Boy wrote:
You are (as well as the morons here who agree with you) the embodiment of FAKE NEWS. In fact, you should start up a newspaper and/or channel, because you're so exquisitely good at LYING to and MISLEADING people, that you'd fit right into the FAKE NEWS media's narrative!!!
So, I'm either very, very clever, manipulative and mendacious, or I'm a moron? Make up your mind, man!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
