Skip to comments.
(Data Mining Expert:) Trump Wins By Landslide-Polls 100% Manufactured
USAwatchdog.com ^
| October 28, 2016
| Greg Hunter
Posted on 11/03/2016 7:11:32 AM PDT by ResisTyr
Internet data mining expert Clif High says the naked data on the Internet shows Trump winning the 2016 Presidential election by a landslide. High explains, You can do a search on YouTube that brings back a list of primary speeches by both candidates. I am not talking about Fred Smiths copy of a video he made of Trump. I am talking about a speech took officially of Trump, and they released it officially. If you take just those, you can see youve got Hillary Clinton on one side with 2,165 views, and Trump on the other side with 775,653 views. So, that is not anecdotal. This is a very crude level of statistical analysis, but it is nonetheless statistical analysis, and it is very pointed because it is extremely self-selecting. There is nobody watching you when you choose to watch something on YouTube. So, there is no peer pressure or external person polling you. . . . Its what I call a very naked data set because there is no pressure on an emotional level on people.
(Excerpt) Read more at usawatchdog.com ...
TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: landslide; manufactured; polls; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
How big is Trump winning by? High says, Basically, when you go through all the analysis and all the other video archives, you come up with a 25 to 1 ratio (in favor of Trump). High says the Trumps winning vote total will be orders of magnitude greater than Clintons. High uses a program he invented that he says uses theart of predictive linguistics to forecast future events.
1
posted on
11/03/2016 7:11:32 AM PDT
by
ResisTyr
To: ResisTyr
Anything puked out by the MSM is manufactured bunk.
2
posted on
11/03/2016 7:14:12 AM PDT
by
fwdude
(Stronger, To Get Her)
To: ResisTyr
Seems like this algorithm must be similar to Amazon’s predictive stocking of inventory at their regional distribution centers or the sidebar advertisements on the internet. I wonder what the data shows for political bling purchases?
3
posted on
11/03/2016 7:19:11 AM PDT
by
ptsal
To: ResisTyr
the Trumps winning vote total will be orders of magnitude greater than ClintonsA data mining expert who doesn't understand what "orders of magnitude means"? I wouldn't trust this guy to do my laundry.
4
posted on
11/03/2016 7:21:08 AM PDT
by
LambSlave
To: ResisTyr
5
posted on
11/03/2016 7:22:36 AM PDT
by
Salamander
(I am filled with rage instead of height.)
To: ResisTyr
A magnitude of order is 10 times. so Trump is going to win 90% to 9%?
Hmmmmm........
6
posted on
11/03/2016 7:23:02 AM PDT
by
dangerdoc
((this space for rent))
To: ResisTyr
Which “blue states” is Trump going to win?
7
posted on
11/03/2016 7:23:18 AM PDT
by
smokingfrog
( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
To: fwdude
HRC and the dems had hundreds of millions to spend on advertising in major markets. Need to keep that race tight ya know? It’s all about the money.
8
posted on
11/03/2016 7:25:47 AM PDT
by
blackdog
To: All
"Me? President?"
9
posted on
11/03/2016 7:25:50 AM PDT
by
Liz
(Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other. Benjamin Franklin)
To: LambSlave
I think he does. Look at the data. Orders of magnitude. One in the general, two in EV.
10
posted on
11/03/2016 7:26:50 AM PDT
by
wastoute
(Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
To: ResisTyr
It would be interesting to compare any videos of Obama vs Romney. If you could count the viewership up until the election day of 2012 - I don’t know if data that specific is available. But that would compare the viewership numbers against the actual voting results.
11
posted on
11/03/2016 7:33:21 AM PDT
by
Wilhelm Tell
(True or False? This is not a tag line.)
To: smokingfrog
Holy Grail.. MN?
That would rock!!
12
posted on
11/03/2016 7:34:06 AM PDT
by
CygnusXI
To: wastoute
He said the winning vote total would be orders of magnitude greater. That means if Clinton has a mere 20 million votes Trump would have at least 100 times that, or 2 billion votes.
To: fwdude
14
posted on
11/03/2016 7:36:22 AM PDT
by
KSCITYBOY
(The media is corrupt)
To: dangerdoc
Worse than that, he said “orders of magnitude”, so more than one, or at least 100 times.
To: dangerdoc
In fact he uses the plural, "orders of magnitude." So he is saying 101, 102, 103, 104... (10:1, 100:1, 1,000:1....). He can't know what he's saying>
16
posted on
11/03/2016 7:38:01 AM PDT
by
drpix
To: Salamander
That would have to be an awfully “broad participation” conspiracy, making it look like BS.
I guess we can compare those numbers to Tuesday’s results, though. :)
17
posted on
11/03/2016 7:38:50 AM PDT
by
Mr. Douglas
(Today is your life. What are you going to do with it?)
To: ResisTyr
Even though I believe Trump will win I trust Cliff High and his wed bot bunk as much as I trust Nostradamus.
18
posted on
11/03/2016 7:39:52 AM PDT
by
pgkdan
(The Silent Majority Stands With TRUMP!)
To: LambSlave
Cut him some slack. In US electoral terms 350 EV IS orders of magnitude.
19
posted on
11/03/2016 7:42:35 AM PDT
by
wastoute
(Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
To: Mr. Douglas
I saved a copy, just in case.
20
posted on
11/03/2016 7:43:58 AM PDT
by
Salamander
(I am filled with rage instead of height.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson