Scientific Polls All Show Hillary as Clear Winner of First Presidential Debate. - Polidicks

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-debate-polls-1.3782098[/url] [quote]The hashtag #TrumpWon was trending on Twitter Tuesday. Partially boosted by sarcasm, it was fuelled primarily by Donald Trump, who was quick to claim he won Monday's debate by citing a slew of online polls that pegged him as the winner. But there's a problem. None of the polls Trump has pointed to are actually legitimate polls. Instead, all of the scientific polls published so far have shown him to be the loser of the debate by significant margins. ... A CNN/ORC poll of 521 debate-watchers taken the night of the debate found that 62 per cent thought Clinton had done the best job, compared to 27 per cent for Trump. A PublicPolicyPolling survey of 1,002 debate-watchers also taken the night of the debate showed 51 per cent of viewers thought Clinton had won, while 40 per cent gave the nod to Trump. A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll of 1,253 likely voters on Sept. 26 and 27 found that 49 per cent thought Clinton had won, while 26 per cent thought Trump did. A YouGov poll of 1,145 Americans conducted on Sept. 26 and 27 found that 57 per cent of those who viewed the debate thought Clinton won, against 30 per cent for Trump. [/quote] No doubt the most hardcore Trump supporters will claim that this is yet more evidence that mainstream media is conspiring against their candidate.

This is very good

idk i think trump's law n orda shit was top wack

'SCIENTIFIC POLLS' not just any regular polls scientific polls see if you add the word science it makes you sound smarter I think Clinton won shouting contest 2016 imo

I'm just saddened that out of all the people we could have, we boiled it down to these two fucking people. I'm saddened that instead of talking about solutions to real problems we turn our politics into a Jerry springer event. The future of this country is basically just entertainment for people.

[QUOTE=Maadz;51122739]'SCIENTIFIC POLLS' not just any regular polls scientific polls see if you add the word science it makes you sound smarter I think Clinton won shouting contest 2016 imo[/QUOTE] They're being called 'scientific polls' to differentiate them from the bullshit online polls [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/781111479974199296]that Trump is using[/url]

[QUOTE=Maadz;51122739]'SCIENTIFIC POLLS' not just any regular polls scientific polls see if you add the word science it makes you sound smarter I think Clinton won shouting contest 2016 imo[/QUOTE] It more just means they use actual, more reliable methodologies than the "ONLINE POLL CLICK HERE." edit:man what the fuck smurfy

[QUOTE=smurfy;51122756]They're being called 'scientific polls' to differentiate them from the bullshit online polls [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/781111479974199296]that Trump is using[/url][/QUOTE] ah that makes more sense, thought it was just a buzzword used to make your group sound smarter. Also, why is it even allowed in the debate to yell over people. whats the purpose of the moderator besides proposing questions and factchecking then

[QUOTE=MR-X;51122742]I'm just saddened that out of all the people we could have, we boiled it down to these two fucking people. I'm saddened that instead of talking about solutions to real problems we turn our politics into a Jerry springer event. The future of this country is basically just entertainment for people.[/QUOTE] I know. I still remain utterly unconvinced that either candidate actually cares [i]that[/i] much about making a difference. They both just want to have the title.

[QUOTE=Maadz;51122844]ah that makes more sense, thought it was just a buzzword used to make your group sound smarter. Also, why is it even allowed in the debate to yell over people. whats the purpose of the moderator besides proposing questions and factchecking then[/QUOTE] Well, the moderator didn't do a great job in keeping them under control and on task. When my residents' organization hosted a debate for members of parliament, if they refused to listen to the moderator we remotely cut their microphones. It took that happening just twice before they fell in line.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51122881]Wasn't the CNN poll for example conducted in a crowd that was admittedly overwhelmingly Democrat (And the data even states that)?[/QUOTE] "Overwhelmingly"? no, but they admitted it had a slight Democrat skew

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51122881]Wasn't the CNN poll for example conducted in a crowd that was admittedly overwhelmingly Democrat (And the data even states that)?[/QUOTE] Yep, the article mentions that as well. The sample wasn't 'overwhelmingly' democrat, apparently, just the majority were.

[QUOTE=Maadz;51122739]'SCIENTIFIC POLLS' not just any regular polls scientific polls see if you add the word science it makes you sound smarter I think Clinton won shouting contest 2016 imo[/QUOTE] It means they were conducted using scientific methods, unlike the random internet polls where you can just reset your ip and vote again. Oh, should have refreshed the page, a bit late.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51122625]This is very good[/QUOTE] This is very good as in a Turd Sandwich beaten a douche

[QUOTE=MR-X;51122742]I'm saddened that instead of talking about solutions to real problems we turn our politics into a Jerry springer event.[/QUOTE] Funny you mention that. :v: [video]https://twitter.com/jerryspringer/status/780601736327208960[/video]

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51122881]Wasn't the CNN poll for example conducted in a crowd that was admittedly overwhelmingly Democrat (And the data even states that)?[/QUOTE] I listen to the 538 podcast, and Nate Silver has talked about this sort of "skew" before, and the fact is bluntly that there are more democrats than republicans in the United States. If you don't have at least a slight bias towards democrats in your data then it's probably unrepresentative of the public at large. If you're taking a random sample, and it's truly random, there should generally be more democrats in it.

you are all ignoring that science has a liberal bias

Don't celebrate too soon folks, these numbers very well may have little to no impact on his actual polling numbers. This year's debates aren't about swaying voters, all its done is further entrench folks in their own side

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51123161]Don't celebrate too soon folks, these numbers very well may have little to no impact on his actual polling numbers. This year's debates aren't about swaying voters, all its done is further entrench folks in their own side[/QUOTE] This. Clintons performance was as expected but nothing inspiring or swaying, she really didn't touch on the issues that concern a lot of people like trade (therefore jobs and immigration) and foreign policy. She wasted an opportunity to attract the bernie crowd, whose candidate polled better than trump. She did nothing to dispel her image as a careerist politician with a lot of baggage and bringing nothing new to the table. Her supporters will remain half hearted and knowing this is nothing more than a lesser evil pick She's a professional politician with a lot of money and advisors behind her, her victory was frankly inevitable. She's doing nothing to change her status as a ridiculously unpopular democratic candidate

[QUOTE=Shadaez;51123139]you are all ignoring that science has a liberal bias[/QUOTE] Peer-reviewed data, analyzed and adjusted by non-partisan, nonpolitical organizations, with agreeable margins of error, and landslide wins by Clinton, is liberal propaganda because Trump didn't win. #MAGA /s

[QUOTE=Sonic Fan;51123102]Funny you mention that. :v: [video]https://twitter.com/jerryspringer/status/780601736327208960?lang=en[/video][/QUOTE] Oh god why. WHY DO I HAVE TO BE RIGHT :c

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51123161]Don't celebrate too soon folks, these numbers very well may have little to no impact on his actual polling numbers. This year's debates aren't about swaying voters, all its done is further entrench folks in their own side[/QUOTE] I doubt that neither Clinton nor Trump attempted to sway undecided voters or 3rd-party voters (notably absent from the debates), they are a significant part of the electorate: [quote]One-in-five voters under age 35 in the Fox News poll wouldn’t choose between the two candidates, compared to just 12 percent of voters aged 35-54, and only 9 percent of voters 55 and older. And in a subsequent, three-way matchup, 19 percent of voters under 35 said they would vote for Johnson, the former New Mexico governor running on the Libertarian Party line — far more than the 13 percent of voters aged 35-54 and the 6 percent of voters 55 and older. [/quote] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/undecided-voters-clinton-trump-sanders-227456[/url] In the first post-debate poll (which might be an outlier admittedly, we don't know yet), Clinton gained [url=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/clinton-gains-4-points-on-trump-in-first-post-debate-poll.html]4%[/url]. These are significant gains.

It doesn't make sense for former Sanders supporters to vote Jonhson, either. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Sanders' policies, and really no better than the Republican platform economically.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51123208]She wasted an opportunity to attract the bernie crowd, whose candidate polled better than trump.[/QUOTE] So does she.

I'd like to see a poll of the proportion of Trump supporters who thought he won the debate, to see just how many of them are [I]that[/I] deluded.

[QUOTE=phaedon;51123295]So does she.[/QUOTE] Sorry I meant against trump

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51123308]I'd like to see a poll of the proportion of Trump supporters who thought he won the debate, to see just how many of them are [I]that[/I] deluded.[/QUOTE] In the Morning Consult poll, 86% of Clinton supporters thought she won the debate, while 58% of Trump supporters thought he won. On the flipside, 2% of Clinton supporters thought Trump won, while 12% of Trump supporters thought Clinton won. Source: Page 18 of the [url=https://morningconsultintelligence.com/public/mc/160915_crosstabs_Topicals_LIKELY_VOTERS_v3_AP.pdf]crosstabs PDF[/url]

So who's going to be the first to quibble about sample sizes?

[QUOTE=MR-X;51122742]I'm just saddened that out of all the people we could have, we boiled it down to these two fucking people.[/QUOTE] Shit floats.

[QUOTE=MR-X;51122742]I'm just saddened that out of all the people we could have, we boiled it down to these two fucking people.[/QUOTE] The Morning Consult poll also showed that over half of voters believe that Clinton and Trump weren't the best nominees for their party. Although a majority of Democrats and a plurality of Republicans do support their nominee.