I'll just leave this here.
There haven't been any polls since the FBI debacle. If the numbers don't change now, Trump can't win.
>>80315943
I'll just leave this here....
>>80316383
Positive he can't win regardless. Liberals are pure
>Muh racism
Your country is cucked. I don't see you guys ever winning again. You'll have to be smart and keep holding the house and the senate. But even if you do that you're still fucked because Rino's & open borders.
Trump is really, really needed just for the illegal immigration problem alone. Once your country becomes 40% white in the future, you will forever be Brazil.
>>80315943
>40% of people openly admit to supporting trump
lol can you imagine the number of stealth supporters? If Trump has fucking 25% overt support he still has a good chance, this is going to be a landslide.
>>80316817
This. White males in particular will be afraid to admit they support him in public but they will vote Trump in the booth.
The graph shows that Trump is clearly gaining momentum
>>80316817
I'd like to think after the tweet Hillary made about the Dallas shooting compared to the video trump made and then all the FBI bullshit going down a lot of people will swing to Trump.
>80316651
I'm pro trump but that graph is retarded
>>80316817
>muh silent majority
why would people lie on a poll where names aren't published?
>>80317234
See >>80316651
It's clearly trending positively for Trump
>>80317008
Females too. My gf and I are Trump supporters but can't say so openly.
>>80316651
that's not how you do a linear regression bub
and certainly not for something like politics where moving averages are probably more important
>>80316651
That projection doesn't look right.
>>80315943
Yeah, You poll Dems at a 15% higher rate over party ID polling and you'll get that result.
>>80316651
that couldn't be more incorrect...
>>80317482
>Trumptard damage control
I swear you people are total amateurs.
Don't thank me. After a hour or so of calculations, I've come to the conclusion both Trump and Hillary will be elected and will be forced to share their presidency.
>>80317674
How hard will you cry when Trump wins, Trudeau?
>>80317778
Now that's what I call a trend line.
>>80317282
just takes one hardline SJW to leak the data
and we have certainly seen data breaches can happen to anyone.
>>80317818
I'm pretty apolitical actually but all the statistics show that Trump is going to lose, so.
I'll just leave this here.
>>80318203
closer but trumps should be leveled off
>>80317674
Indies swing Trump by 20%. Mitt had 5%. Plus, turnout determines everything. Hillary has no enthusiasm.
>>80318203
What's the RSS of those trendlines?
What did college educated whites mean by this?
>>80317778
>that drift
>>80318338
>closer but trumps should be leveled off
Given that Trumps numbers have risen since that image was made, no.
>>80316651
>being this delusional
Jesus Christ.
>>80318410
>muh indies
Trump doesn't have nearly the support that Romney did among whites
>>80315943
You post this several times a day, you faggot.
I hope your parents are dead and are thus spared the reality of their failed child who's already overstayed what little welcome he ever had in this world.
>>80318837
>getting so butthurt and triggered by numbers that you have to take a shot-in-the-dark personal insult
kek
>>80318203
>basic linear regression for the presidential election of the united states
>>80318778
Lol, Romney had low turnout, he basically sat out October. There are people actually interested in voting for Trump. Everyone knows Hillary is a criminal and it will depress turnout heavily.
it looks like he's on the path to recovery, what caused that sudden dip anyway
>>80318775
not past his previous points, hence why it would be leveled
he's never gained a large margin except at the beginning instead just averaging out after lows/highs
>>80319150
I could make the argument that everyone knows that Trump is a fucking buffoon, and thus his turnout will be low as well.
>polls before debate
Stop this meme please.
>>80319399
True, they used that in the primaries. 16 candidates later...where are we?
>>80319787
>where are we
On the verge of a blowout, barring the revelation that Clinton kicks puppies
>>80317282
Why would people have land lines? Why would people answer the phone from an unknown number? Why would they not just hang up when they hear it's a poll?
>never taken a poll, get nervous
>hurt, what if Jimmy across the street finds out (no fucking way he will)
People aren't professional poll takers. They instinctively think the worse & get scared. They know it doesn't count so they tell the machine or person what they think they want to hear.
>>80317425
I honestly think most cunts will vote for Hillary, but hopefully I'm wrong.
>>80320085
Sure, Five Thirty Eight was right on the money with Trump's primary run - well, other then the fact they completely fucked up and got it wrong.
>>80320392
>muh unskewed polls
>>80320194
>>80320194
A lot of polls are conducted with cellphones included
You're kind of arguing against yourself anyways, since young people are more likely to not have a landline and young people skew democrat anyways
>>80316651
th-thanks leaf
>>80316651
Statistician here
This is why the fucking leaves elected Trudeau
Hillary and Trump are both flat
Not to mention polling data is completely worthless until the first debate.
Good effort, though
>>80320737
Jill Stein offered the Green Party run to Bernie. Could get very interesting for Hillary.
>>80320545
The vast majority still use land lines. And u can't dispute my other points
>>80321034
Because your other points are bullshit armchair psychological conjecture with no factual basis
You're already making my point for me, the polls that are landline-only would probably go to Clinton even more if cells were included
>>80319399
That would require ignoring that more Republicans voted for Trump during the primaries than for any Republican before him. And that happened in a field of more than a dozen candidates.
Republican turnout is at record levels while it is sharply down for democrats.
>>80321403
Okay libturd child go to bed.
>afl
>>80321626
Primary turnout has nothing to do with the general election, I hope you know. See: 1988 and 1992 democratic turnout
Hillary is going to win in a landslide.
>>80321841
Why should I respond to your other points when they're non-falsifiable? You didn't present any data, you just went into a bunch of conjecture about what you think the psychology of pollees is.
Every Trump supporter I know IRL is a certified idiot. Lives a sad existence due to their stupidity and blames it on everyone else. Trump is the loser's savior. The real cucks.
>>80322095
>>80321841
A fucking leaf is right for once.
>>80316817
Scott Adams AKA le Dilbert hypnosis man wrote something on this:
>http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146361457021/the-humiliation-of-the-american-male-in-2016
>Perhaps the biggest unreported story of this presidential election is the humiliation of the American male. Unless I’m blinded by confirmation bias – which is entirely possible – it seems to me that the humiliation of American men is now institutionalized in the media.
>Check out this commercial for dishwasher detergent. And take careful note of the American man’s v-neck sweater. That’s the uniform of a man who is owned by a woman.
>You’re laughing because you know it’s true. How many of the married men reading this blog have received those same sweaters as “gifts” from women? Personally, I’ve received about 25 over the years. None from men. I received three of those sweaters so far this year. I throw them away. Nice try.
>Will that happen?
>The dishwasher soap commercial should give you a hint of how big that turnout might be. You might not notice the size of the coming tsunami because American men generally don’t voice their humiliation in public. That would just make it worse.
