Gallup poll.
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I can't remember exactly who it was, but in the last 24 hours, he posted at least twice that Romney was actually actually ahead by about 7 points. Of course, he was mocked and marginalized by the leftys on here, but he stood up to them like the brave warrior he appears to be.
Who was that? Hmmm.
Who was that? Hmmm.
canndo
Well-Known Member
If the poll says Romney is perceived as the winner, then Romney is the winner. I don't question polls or other evidence just because I don't like the outcome. I can't say that for the other side though, in short, if the polls show for Obama they must be wrong, if the very same poll takers find for Romney, they must be unerringly accurate.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
I still think the polls are wrong. The way I see democrats over sampled it should be more like 53 Romney - 43 Obama
Little butt hurt? LOL
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Polls are not science. However, when the pollsters base the outcome of the election on poll numbers from 2008 when clearly the enthusiasm has changed can clearly be demonstrated as having Democratic bias in their polls.
yea yea...
the entire narrative has been modified, and I am calling out the BULLSHIT.
it hasn't even been a month when 'polls over-sampled democrats', it doesn't matter that not one of the 'experts' on here claiming that there was over sampling of democrats cared to provide any methodology to prove that sampling was skewed (yes there are methods to figure that out).... they just said it, and if you repeat it enough, it becomes the truth??...
if you bashed the gallup poll always, regardless of what it said, then you'd have some credibility.
but since conservatives ONLY bash it when they don't like what it says, they're full of shit...
the entire narrative has been modified, and I am calling out the BULLSHIT.
it hasn't even been a month when 'polls over-sampled democrats', it doesn't matter that not one of the 'experts' on here claiming that there was over sampling of democrats cared to provide any methodology to prove that sampling was skewed (yes there are methods to figure that out).... they just said it, and if you repeat it enough, it becomes the truth??...
if you bashed the gallup poll always, regardless of what it said, then you'd have some credibility.
but since conservatives ONLY bash it when they don't like what it says, they're full of shit...
Ringsixty
Well-Known Member
I agree, Debates should be held before early voting. At least a week after the debates.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Look... The left leaning idiots on this site were crowing when Obama was supposedly leading by 8+ points and some of us pointed out the polls were skewed...
Within the next 2 weeks and after the debate those same polls swung up to 12 points to cause the race to be tight. Just like we predicted.
Now, you swore up and down the polls were scientific when your guy was winning and now somehow are trying to pin your fallacies upon the people who told you that you were batshit crazy... it has come to pass, the polls tightened up much closer to reality.
It is all just a guess right now and I have said multiple times the only poll that counts is the one on election day.
it's hilarious how the narrative changes....
the polls were never skewed. and nobody on here proved other wise. the only reason cited was "over sampling of democrats" yet any and every source fails to prove it. just because you say something doesn't make it true. the only network pushing this idea was ... take a guess? take a fucking guess, please.... as long as the poll doesn't agree with your opinion, attack the poll, it's SKEWED.
as soon as it matches your narrative, 'see, we predicted it would represent REALITY'... give me a fucking break... haha
so full of shit it's not even funny haha!!
Don't blame other people for your lack of the facts my friend. There have been posts on this forum proving the over sampling of democrats from the very polling websites practicing it.
Get a clue!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Is it your contention that the 10% of independents changed the vote 12 points from Obama plus 8 to Romney +4 because Romney did such an AWESOME job in the first debate? It is not mathematically possible.
So, could you please explain how those numbers changed that fast?
what's the proof? that some partisan hack who's in bed with this or that party while being the CEO of some obscure super-PAC has a friend who says so? ha!
Nah, he's still bashing it dude, wise up.
Similar threads
