Trump: Impeachment Articles filed by Six Congressional Democrats

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
As you've asked for evidence, the polling average had Clinton up by 2 %
https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Onto your argument.

You can't use a selection of some polls...

To argue for how we should treat a national average of polls:

Whether or not you trust induvidual polls, there's no reason to distrust the average of the polls holistically.

I've already destroyed all arguments you've brought up:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please visit the following link, review it, and see why you're waste of time "national" argument clearly indicates you're not reading the post:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16423600#post16423600

Then revisit this previous post and I made to Surtur:

After reviewing both of those, when you see that you're wrong, because you have data and I have directly cited the national data, please admit you're wrong.

Also, I already cited a source that says 3.3, not 2 like you claim. And it also stated a range of 2-6.

Lie more. Back peddle more. See where it gets you. 👆

I did the math from that site, Real Clear Politics.

Average is 5.04 in favor of Hillary.

I'm sorry, man. You're even wronger than originally thought.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've already ignored all arguments you've brought up:

You can't use a selection of some polls...
[quote]
some were off over 7.5%. My range of 2%-5% was to capture a majority that were off. If I wanted to mention an average, which would not make my point, I would have mentioned a national average number, like you did (which I could not verify: I could not prove what you posted).

My original point was we would need to show results that would very comfortably beat this polling error average in order for the distrusting American people to trust the results.

Also, I already cited a source that says 3.3, not 2 like you claim. And it also stated a range of 2-6.

But let's go with your math over real clear politics' given your self-declared expertise.

National polling averages, unlike your links, are reliable.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Let's try this again:

All three of the sources you cited said 404 error when I clicked them. I, off course, posted a working link with the most recent real clear politics polling which had Clinton up 2.1 % points nationally. She coincidentally won the popular vote by almost 2 percentage points.

But let's go with your math over real clear politics' given your self-declared expertise.

National polling averages, unlike your links, are reliable.

You're such a sore loser and a terrible troll.

Look, I found the same article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305133-pollsters-suffer-huge-embarrassment

If the link doesn't work, google it.

And I did the math for you to clearly see: it's 5.04%, not 2.1%

🙂

Are you a true idiot or do you not understand why people were upset and shocked why Trump started winning in places he should not have been? Be honest...do you truly not know that places like CNN showing Hillary ahead by 24 points, makes no sense at all?

Average: 5.04%

Not 2.1%

🙂

I did the math my self.

It's not very hard to do, either.

Rocks, you're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrooooooonnnnnng! 😄

No matter how many times you try to pretend the polls got it right, they got it wrong. Horribly wrong, in some cases.

Can someone step in and help Rocky understand? Someone else besides me needs to explain this to him.

He is very confused about the numbers. He doesn't understand how Hillary lost the election and the pollsters got their polling figures wrong.

Actually I was wrong, the polls weren't off by 2%, they were barely off by 1%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I trust that you're capable of reading Double D?

realclearpolitics most recent poll averaging explicitly says that

A. Clinton was polled at 3.2%

B. The final election results had clinton getting 2.1% of the vote:

3.2-2.1 = 1.1%

The polling average not off by 5%, it was off by barely 1 %

He doesn't understand how Hillary lost the election and the pollsters got their polling figures wrong.

I have no idea why you're trying to do your own stats when I've repeatedly linked you to realclearpolitics polling data, data you yourself have linked as a source.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The polling average not off by 5%, it was off by barely 1 %

You're wrong. Polling average was off by 3% with a variance of 2-5%, like I stated.

And the polls reflected an average of 5.04% Hillary victory. When the credible scientific polling houses were reviewed, the "big 11", they were off by 3.3%, as linked. Why is this important? Because CNN's poll is not scientific so them being off by 21% is correctly not part of the standard 11 national polls.

Try some more. Try to find other ways to be right. You're still wrong.

Account for places like CNN that had Hillary at +24 points. 😉

I've done the math. The data has been aggregated. No matter how you try to shift the conversation, the average showed Hillary at +5.04%. I've done the average. I've done the variance. My numbers are right. Anything you come up with that contradicts me will be wrong. This is not me being arrogant. If you find a source that says anything that contradicts me, they will be wrong. Why? Because I've done the math myself and I showed my work.

The original statement I made, which had your jimmies super rustled was that I said the polls were off 2-5%. Deal with it.

Any polls that were off by greater than their margin of error majorly f*cked up. Very few got it right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can someone step in and help Rocky understand? Someone else besides me needs to explain this to him.

He is very confused about the numbers. He doesn't understand how Hillary lost the election and the pollsters got their polling figures wrong.

Please? Can someone please step into this conversation? I've hit an iron plate with an actual idiot.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong. Polling average was off by 3% with a variance of 2-5%, like I stated.

"Deal with it" isn't a sufficient response here.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Then why does the source I linked, whose polls you are using, say the average was 3%?(which is 1% higher than 2%)?

"Deal with it" isn't a sufficient response here.

You're asking the wrong question.

You should be asking, "What does their incorrect number represent when I can clearly see the math you did is sound and correct?"

Because my math is visible for you to see. It is not hidden. I did not fudge numbers. It is quite clear that the average shows Hillary at 5.04%, not what you're linking.

The numbers don't lie. You've been wrong this entire time. You always have been. I've now done the math for you to demonstrate this. If I was trying to hide something, I most certainly would not explain it and show my work like I've done.

You should be asking them why their numbers clearly do not reflect a correct analysis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're asking the wrong question.

You should be asking, "What does their incorrect number represent when I can clearly see the math you did is sound and correct?"

Because my math is visible for you to see. It is not hidden. I did not fudge numbers. It is quite clear that the average shows Hillary at 5.04%, not what you're linking.

The numbers don't lie. You've been wrong this entire time. You always have been. I've now done the math for you to demonstrate this. If I was trying to hide something, I most certainly would not explain it and show my work like I've done.

You should be asking them why their numbers clearly do not reflect a correct analysis.

Sounds like you've left him between...

( •_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_&#9632😉

a rock and a hard place.