Posted on 08/09/2016 7:36:48 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slander that Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!
It's evident Hillary has a hard time filling a Union Hall while Trump regularly turns people away from his stadium and arena venues.
Now this - Analysis from social media provides additional support that Trump is likely to win in a landslide.
So how bad is it?
Evidence from 'The Truth Division' shows that if you look at social media, Trump is killing Hillary!
Trump: 10,174,358 Likes Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes
Trump has nearly double the amount of 'Likes' that Clinton has!
When comparing recent 'live streams' on Facebook:
Trump Live Stream Post -- 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views Clinton Live Stream Post --11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views
Trump is crushing Clinton.
Trump: 10.6 million followers Hillary: 8.1 million followers
Trump has 30% more Twitter followers -- and they translate into real votes. A recent study confirmed that 70% of his followers are real supporters, and 90% of those real followers have a voting history.
Who knows if Hillary followers are even real?
(Excerpt) Read more at overpassesforamerica.com ...
I guess my point is that the suggestion that you can infer anything from the number of Trump “followers”, “re-tweeters”, “likers”, etc. as compared with those supporting Hillary, seems a bit of a stretch. To begin with, how many voters use Twitter/Facebook? Then, you would need to do all kinds of break-down of that data/run analytics before you could begin to effectively conclude anything about those numbers. And even, if you did, you’d still need to compare all that with things like voter enthusiasm of those who do not use these forums.
Just wondering about the whole polling process in general, and specifically these new formats, in particular.
Well OK then Mr. Rogers. It is Mr. Rogers, correct?
I think we can do better than “Brexit”. And British people are more takers than makers (i.e., more dependent on their gubmint) than us.
Not saying that takers and outright fraud are not a big concern. But. The good stock is still there in the backbones of Americans.
I’ve got to have faith with my fellow citizens.
Over the years democrats have had great success in getting people to vote on non-sensical “touchy-feely” issues instead of the issues that affect their daily lives, well being and freedom.
Just look at the insanity and idiocy of falling for Obama’s undefined Hope N’ Change!!!
And in 2012 it was the accusation of a republican “War On Women”!!!
Now we have people upset over what they see as Trumps disparaging remarks to a muslim.
So in a fit of pique they are ready to turn to Hillary while ignoring the disaster a Hillary presidency will be for the nation.
And others are turning to Hillary because Trump is a little too blunt and outspoken for their likes. Yet at the same time they disregard Hillary’s demonstrated incompetence and criminality!!!
We are looking at the possibility of losing the republic because too many people are not capable of making an informed judgement call in their own best interest.
If the democrats win this election they will own the nation for at least the next two or three generations, and probably much longer than that.
“The rest is noise from the MSM.”
Yup. Someone here said it isn’t facts, but rather emotions that win elections. In the first debate, mean old white man Trump will make Hillary cry and sympathy will flow. Hillary will become the oppressed underdog with Trump a big old mean meanie.
Be careful of the questions you ask.
Unless this happens:
“Obama has proven that polls ARE often correct.”
Yeah, heard the “polls are wrong” mantra in 2004 and 2008. It’s denial and not helpful.
Yes, the polls are weighted to help Hillary, but only by a bit.
The only solution is to try harder and beat the Dhim at the grassroots voter turn out.
Caution about being too exuberant.
In 2012, curtains were pulled to hide empty areas of gymnasiums were Obama was to speak, due to small turnouts. In larger gymnasiums with upper sections, those sections were darkened to keep cameras from seeing the empty seats.
In 2016, Clinton is having similar problems getting people to show up to her venues, so more camera tricks and curtains are used to hide empty areas.
Empty gymnasiums and venues do not necessarily mean that the candidate will lose. Obama who sought reelection in 2012 with one of the worst records in presidential reelection history won by a significant margin.
==
The real question is: how will social media numbers translate?
Are they silent votes for a certain candidate? or are they just the ramblings of the disaffected?
This is probably the first election in over a century where a political outsider even made past the convention and into the general, without being a 3rd party contender. How will that impact the anti-politician crowd and will it translate into votes?
It is still too early to tell. Many of the polls are just commissioned junk polls designed to produce an intended result. The general public are still not paying much attention, what with the Olympics and getting the kids ready and fixing dinner and getting the car fix, etc.
About voter enthusiasm that is tangible. Hillary who has crowds with regularity that are tiny even as small a 50, and never very large that Trump gets everyday of the week. I’ve never seen the utter disparity of crowd sizes between the two main party competing presidential candidates so stark.
“Many of the polls are just commissioned junk polls designed to produce an intended result.”
I agree they are at least somewhat slanted for sure. What is the intended result?
Freegards
106 million eligible voters, 70 million of them white, didn’t bother to vote in 2012. People just cant keep throwing up their hands, saying “ screw it” and then just move to the suburbs...its at a tipping point, and people better wake up. Sad.
Hemmer interviewed Stirwalt around 8:30 CT. Stirwalt said that Trump had never led and the polls showing him in the lead were garbage.
==
FoxNews has a definite anti-Trump slant, regardless of Mark Levin’s frequent contention that FoxNews is in the tank for Trump.
Stirwalt, the everyday Megyn Kelly stooge.
It's the demographics. We just don't have the numbers. All these people who believe the polls are wrong and Trump is going to win in a landslide think this is still the same country that elected Reagan twice. It ain't.
I’m not giving up, and I’m still voting in November, as is everyone I know - I just want to be realistic. I see polls saying Trump is ahead too - and they spell out their reasoning.
Yes, it is certainly possible that a large base of Trump voters will emerge “out of the woodwork.” People that are NOT on any one’s radar at the present time.
SO should we run around the house with our hair on fire and our Little Timmys flapping?
I "want to believe" too, I'm just not there yet...
And if you actually believe Trump is trailing right now, then the blame isn't with their effective propaganda, it's with your typical GOP "We have to lose!" attitude.
The GOP will re-form behind Donald Trump, and it won't be your Granny's GOP. This time we don't want or need losers. Winners only invited. The rest can stay home and let the grown-ups get the work done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.