Why The Polls Always Showed Trump In The Lead

This is the third installment of a multi-part series. You can read the second part here.

We cannot give the manosphere too much credit. Although we were significant during the primaries for influencing Conservatives nationwide, especially in the Northeast, once we got to the general we found ourselves battling the well-established and entrenched TV media. Older voters, women, and liberals who did not read within our circles and whom we had no influence over, were now part of the pool of voters we needed to compete for and could not rely on the internet to sway. It was a much harder game.

Thus, during the general, it was mainly up to Donald Trump and his team to beat the machine, which was one of his big selling points I had for him during the primaries. We understood that his independent wealth, mastery of the media, and tight game was only way to shine the sunlight down into the cave and get voters to deprogram themselves away from old media and into new media, the internet.


My gut instinct Trump had what it took to be successful in the general was proved as soon as the LA Times/Dornsife poll came out, and we saw him beating Clinton by 7 points after the RNC. Most were scared by the other push-polls showing Trump behind Clinton, but those polls had weak methods. Anyone who took a high school stats class could have told you why. The LA Times/Dornsife university poll started with a statistically representative sample of America’s demographics, and then polled that sample. The LA Times only replaced the people polled if they dropped out of the survey due to personal reasons.

Conversely, just about every other poll took the opposite approach – calling up random people, polling them, and then applying “filters” and “weights” to make the sample demographically representative. In other words, the LA Times poll worked forwards, while the others worked backwards. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out why working backwards in statistics is a horrible idea. The potential for bias that can be introduced with such backwards methods is enormous.

The other polls that called the election correctly are People’s Pundit Daily and the Investor’s Business Daily. The PPP poll used a mixture of LA Times methods with a bit more random sampling, while the IBD used the traditional method of pure random sampling. I am not sure why the IBD poll was accurate while all the other random-sampling polls were wrong. The IBD does not share its methods so I cannot comment.

Also, the LA Times poll said it would predict the popular vote, and not the electoral vote, but it turned out to be predicting the electoral vote more than the popular vote. The reason for this, I surmise, is that they most likely picked their initial sample demographically across the states in a way that mirrors the electoral college distribution of the USA, since the races are mainly located in key states, therefore they had Trump +3 at the end. Had they gone with a heavier popular vote model they would have ended up like the PPP poll of +.8. That said, they should stick with the electoral college model because that is how presidents are actually selected.

If you follow mainstream advice you will suffer. Notice they never tell you what makes a poll reliable? Always find polls that show they eliminate bias.

A lot of guys kept getting fooled by the shitty polls, leading them to bad conclusions, and all I have to say is: be more careful reading how stats work.

Eventually I made the decision to get involved with the ground campaign in NH. I understood that, according to the best polls, we had earned the loyalty of about 40% of the USA’s voters, and Trump himself could get around an extra 8-9% with his media savvy, but to get the last yard to the touchdown, to move the needle that extra 1-2% and cross the 50% threshold would require good old fashioned brute-force door to door sales skills. All the game I had learned here over the years was put to use in NH. And in NH, believe it or not, is where we won the election, which will be the subject of the next installment.

Read Next: Trump Presidency Creates Mountains Of Salt From Butthurt Liberals

99 thoughts on “Why The Polls Always Showed Trump In The Lead”

  1. I don’t think that it was that the polling was ***abnormally*** bad, many of the polls predicting a popular vote Clinton win were correct, and others were within polling errors that had precedent.
    Of course, there was a lot of bad polling, and polling is inherently difficult. While I wouldn’t blame any honest errors made by pollsters, I would advocate official sanctions for pollsters that deliberately manipulated results (such as p-value manipulation in scientific studies).
    The biggest thing to take from the Trump win polling-wise is this: look at individual state polls more than national polls. If a candidate is leading in enough states to win the electoral college but losing the national polls, they will still (likely) win. When there are bad polls/not enough polls in several states (as there were in 2016), uncertainty increases significantly, more so than one might believe.

    1. Not only state polls. But more effort on the few states that matter. Why poll California or D.C.. such a waste.

  2. Polls should only be taken in swing states. All else is a waste. In addition this race was only about 3 states. PA. NC and Fl.
    Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan were going red since that evil bitch couldn’t help but spew contempt for blue collar industry.

    1. It was right to be suspicious when CNN polled NY and Cali. and just extrapolated out the rest of the country from there.

  3. I never listen to poles. They are stupid and irresponsible people.

    1. A good number of polling firms are arms of the dominant media anyway, and just as likely to be as suspect as a typical political news story.

      1. that may well be but when I see the poles I say one thing. In the words of Archie Bunker: Sticks and stones may break my bones. but you are one dumb Polack!

    2. Melania helped many polls rise. Never considered her hot, but compared to Cankles, she was a respectable 8.7, skirting in 9 territory.

    3. poles are great only when a sexy woman is spinning around it.
      polls, on the other hand, seem to be more and more bullshit.

    4. Real intelligent response for your stupid, irresponsible comment. You’re just as bad as a feminist who uses shaming tactics and name calling to degrade men, but instead you decide to degrade the Polish. Growing up, friends of Polish decent would sometimes call each other a dumb Pollack but you had better be a member of the group or else you’d have a major problem on your hand if you spewed out your BS dumb Pollack comment.

        1. Awwww you are cute. That’s exactly what women tell me when I am finished with them.

      1. Being a high-IQ man of Polish descent, I remember well that by far the most common “ethnic joke” from my youthful peers was the “dumb Polack joke” and it never sat right with me. I never heard it from my grandparents and I’m happy to say that I never heard any Russophobia from them that I can remember. I can go on and on about Polish elites being criminally stupid by trusting distant strangers in 1939 and 2017, but I never think for a second that it applies to Poles generally. There are far too many of us in the professions in the US for that stereotype to apply accurately these days.

  4. I have no doubt that the press’s constant promotion of Clinton skewed the polls toward her and away from Trump. In addition to creating a phony sense of Clinton’s inevitable victory (inspiring people to want to get onboard her train), it also made support for Trump socially stigmatized– suppressing the ability to accurately assess his level of support.

    1. If people keep insulting me when I tell them I’m gonna vote for Trump, then I’ll stop telling them my intentions.
      That’s why the polls were all wrong.

    2. Are you sure that telling people their candidate will win encourages them and others to vote for that winner even more? Isn’t there the possibility that telling people their candidate is going to win will make them feel complacent and more likely to forget to vote? Isn’t there a chance that telling someone their candidate is going to lose will rouse them to hit the street and push harder to get in a buzzer beater?

      1. People want to get behind a winner. Nobody feels comfortable or excited to support a perceived loser. By going out and supporting (voting) for the candidate you think will win, it allows you to be part of the victory. To share in it. To promote a candidate as a sure-fire bet encourages voter turnout. That is why the press expended their credibility promoting HRC so brazenly– they were aware that their biases were nakedly outside the curtain (at last), but willing to accept the credibility hit to push Clinton to the win.
        On the other hand, negative news stories tend to suppress undecided voters, and those with more casual affiliations. This is why the Dems are going wild over Comey’s press conference where he announced that the HRC email investigation was back on. That very well could have kept casual Hillary voters at home.
        What shocks me is how openly hostile the press is to Trump. I figured they would return to trying to build up their standing again, but I was wrong. CNN in particular seems amateurish and foolish. That benefits nobody.

        1. Its a very good theory. Have you ever seen any social studies or market research showing this out? In other words, do you have any evidence?

        2. You should also provide the market research for your theory since you are asking it from him. That said, there is probably a little truth to both your claims.

        3. I did not pose a theory. I merely asked questions and threw out some alternatives. I am not being confrontational.

        4. All the said social studies and market research you seem to be asking for would be inevitably biased. Today almost nothing escapes the dogma of political correctness in the western academic circles. If any study large enough to be meaningful wants to ensure sufficient funding, it needs to make sure that the results will be concurrent with what the power brokers want it to be.
          To illustrate with an example, there is no pure intellectual community that exists in America right now which has enough clout to be able to say to the mainstream media: “oh by the way, your fascistic propaganda tactics to bring puppet Hillary to the white house did not work because such blatant sychopancy is nauseating to even the most naive of consitutents…” because anyone or any corporation publishing a finding like this will be instantly attacked and their reputation destroyed by the jewish media and their feminist pawns… Trump could overcome all this because he is an independently wealthy world class magnate billionaire who also had tremendous star status because of his many high profile projects and the award winning Celebrity show… Now he needs to make sure every free citizen in the modern world also can enjoy similar levels of liberty and meritocracy.
          The press and other stake holders of public opinion must be liberated first before intellectualism and meritocracy can be fully restored in America.

  5. Usually the results stay the same, but almost all Republican candidates since Nixon have polled at the very edge of the margin of error.

  6. I never looked at the Polls I always looked at the number of people who attended rallies to see who would win.

    1. Exactly. Trump was filling entire arenas with people queuing for hours beforehand and people having to be turned away when the venue was at capacity. Clinton by contrast was unable to even fill high school gymnasiums and that’s not including when they had to bus supporters in to boost the numbers.

      1. Which is about the margin of error/accuracy of these polls. If you look at the small print they have =/- 4% at the bottom.

  7. There are a whole host of reasons that led to a Trump presidency. It is my personal belief that among these is the over confidence in the Democratic Party. Also at the same time we can’t overlook the nature by which most candidates took Trump. He was considered a joke, an outsider, someone no one would logically vote for. Hey the more this message came across the more people clung to the shadows and underground and when it came time to vote without the fear of persecution- well you know how the rest of that story goes.
    The polls were skewed for the simple fact that to speak in support of Trump you were labeled a bigot or racist. Now there can be arguments for that point, however the fact remains the Democratic Party, myself included underestimated Donald J Trump and his supporters. The key now is to move forward together as a country and hold our leadership accountable.
    Thank you for the well written article

    1. Hey loser let me tell you why trump won rather than you telling me. The Democratic Party has been shoveling globalist shit at certain groups for too long even as the democrats give lip service to equality and empathy. These groups were harmed by democratic policy.
      They finally got tired of it and the blue wall crumbled.

        1. Saying thanks doesn’t make you any less of an asshole. Internalize my words of wisdom ok?
          “We simply underestimated Trump” is just more fucking arrogance. You need fixing whether you realize it or not!

        2. I hadn’t realized my ‘style’ played a role in president-elect trump winning the election. In that case I do hope to get personally invited to the inauguration or at the very least he could thank me in his speech.
          In all seriousness, although your previous comment essentially echoed my point, albeit without the use of such colorful language. I concede your point and thank you again for your thought provoking responses. They have really opened my eyes and given me allot to think about.

        3. Iam interested in hearing a legitimate argument that people supported Trump were racists, or that he made any specific appeal to racism whatsoever. I have never heard one.

        4. Thank you for your response and question. I’ll try and answer this to the best of my ability. The argument can be or rather has been made that by supporting a particular candidate you are enabling or showing confidence in said candidate. For example I believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and political leanings. To that effect I will support a candidate that shares those values with me. Taking this logic to my other point – Trump has said on record some very damaging things about communities of color. His Mexico sending over their murderers and rapists has its own implications rooted in bigoted racism for obvious reasons. His completely disregard for citizen rights by imploring the idea of a Muslim registry? These are American citizens who pay taxes work and support their families we are talking about. Members of our military and police force etc – he wants to put these people on a watch list simply because they share a faith that is linked to extremism. He has attacked disabled individuals as well showing little regard for those who can’t even defend against such attacks.
          I could continue on. Now whether you disagree with these points that is your right. We can only go off what the president elect has said himself. There can be counter arguments to these points obviously. The easiest among these is the argument that Trump isint beholden to ‘political correctness’ etc etc. bottom line is regardless of your political views we all need to come together and have these important conversations for healing and understanding.

        5. What you wrote was deplorable and superpredatory. Please take that mansplaining back to the reservation.

        6. There are plenty of ways to engage in civil conversation without resorting to such low tier insults. I won’t be responding to you any longer or entertaining such a redundant task. Have a great life stranger on the internet 🤗

        7. I was just paraphrasing Hillary and it made you tap out. Wow. That worked better than I thought.
          Dear democrat please reflect more and pontificate less as difficult as that is for your party

        8. I will definitely be watching this when I get off work later tonight. I appreciate the information and look forward to responding once I’ve watched this lengthy video.
          Thank you

        9. Well Mohamed, as you believe women are property, could you explain how you intend to allow your property equal rights?

        10. I’m not exactly sure how you would have come to that conclusion? I’m even more perplexed as to the levels of misinformation you had to have gathered in order to reach such an offensive conclusion. In short like another individual on this site I won’t be responding to this sort of repulsive xenophobic hateful speech. I can’t stop you from using such language nor would I ever want to. It is your right, I just don’t have to support it by talking to you.
          In that respects have a wonderful life stranger on the internet. I appreciate your input and I thank you for your time🤗

        11. I can easily come to a conclusion that you are a female or a white knight or a m*****a.
          Women are property of MEN, whether they accept it or not. Western MEN are majorly responsible for “unnecessarily pampering and pedestalizing” women and entertaining their bitchy, arrogant and slutty behavior.
          The State and Politicians, for their own vested interests, gave undeserved privileges to women, resulting in; Free “Pussy” Pass (no consequences to face, no accountability, one-sided gender biased laws, societal double standards favoring women etc. etc.)
          I really wonder why majority of western MEN entertain women and bear their tantrums for something women:
          “need” as much as MEN need
          “want” as much as MEN want
          “desire” as much as MEN desire
          “crave” as much as MEN crave
          “fantasize” as much as MEN fantasize
          and women always get that “something” for FREE, absolutely FREE !!
          I also don’t understand (like majority of MEN !) why this society gives undue credit to women and over-exaggerates for something that’s quite natural, common, obvious and mundane: pregnancy & child birth !!
          Females in every species does the same thing ! what’s so great about it ! and it’s NOT possible until and unless a MALE fertilizes females egg(s) !
          The same society and women never acknowledge the stress, anxiety, emotional pain, financial burden, sacrifices that MEN go through.
          Wonder how come the population rose to BILLIONS if indeed the “child birth pain” is as much painful as the females claim ! Even before the medical advances (courtesy: MEN), females used to pop out a minimum of 4 to 5 children ! Who wants that “excruciating” experience that many times !!!
          The way you have questioned shows your level of maturity. Women are property of MEN, for sure. That essentially means a MAN has to provide Food, Shelter, Clothing, Amenities, Health care + FREE SEX to a woman and that the woman remains loyal, faithful, caring and respectful/obedient to her MAN.
          What do you mean by “equal rights” !? and in what “context” you are referring to “equal rights” !? Do you mean:
          Walking “bare chested” in the name of “equality” with MEN ?
          Doing Slut-walks ?
          Pink saturdays ?
          Wearing T-shirts with “you go girl” slogans ?
          Being whorish and a hooker ?
          Deliberately & desperately wearing skimpy/revealing clothes and blaming MEN for objectifying ?
          Getting freebies and handouts at the expense of Tax Payers Money ?
          Reduced standards and mandatory quotas for Corporate & Government Jobs ?
          One-sided laws to leech out more than half of MEN’s hard earned money, property & assets ?
          Playing victim card and at the same time demanding chivalry ?
          Oh, I am sorry, I might have got it wrong ! by saying “equal rights” you probably mean:
          Working in coal mines !
          Driving heavy duty trucks !
          Constructing roads, bridges and buildings !
          Working in the Sewage (ground work) department !
          Drilling concrete under RED HOT SUN !
          Plumbing and Pipe Fitting !
          Establishing (independently or with major contribution) a Corporate Company that employs hundreds and thousands !
          “equal rights” ! only rights !! all rights !!!

        12. It is a FACT that by voting for a candidate that you are supporting them, with your votes. Yes, by collecting the necessary votes said candidate will be this enabled to enact his mandate. This isn’t a theory.
          Exain this equality to me, what do you mean equal ? Who isn’t being treated equally ? You ok with bill raping people and Hillary having her hand out the way that she does ? The integrity balance issue is a tell…. Just like during the election, no democrat EVER said hat she was innocent, they simply said at first “it doesn’t matter, there’s nothing to it”, then later, in desperation “look at Trump, he’s worse”. Iam not buying your act, nobody is this nieve.

        13. Too wordy, sorry couldn’t be bothered to read past the first line. You need more hobbies!

        14. “I can easily come to a conclusion that you are a female or a white knight or a m*****a.”
          I am starting to come to this conclusion as well. I don’t, however, know what a “m****a” is.

        15. DJT didn’t have to appeal to racists. As I posted above, “The Lena Dunham wing of the Democratic Party openly despises the white male population, and she and her father recently recorded an extinction-wishing video directed at white men. There was no organized campaign from the DNC denouncing this hate speech. So now we can stop wondering why so many white men voted against the Democratic Party this year, after so many of them voted for Obama in the past.”

        16. I never wondered for a second, and I still think that they’ll find a way to pull it off somehow.

        17. Ha Ha Ha !
          By the way, did you notice the reply of the original comment poster ? The same tactics of shaming, diverting the attention, deviating from the topic and the inability to answer/respond to the point: “long worded reply”, “I don’t have enough time to read”, “you need to do this or that” !!!
          I actually don’t give a shit about these kind of females or m******s and what they bluff about here. At the same time, I couldn’t take it easy their ways of taking things granted, being ungrateful and dis-respectful to the MEN and MASCULINITY.

        18. I agree and have noticed this pattern for several days. I can’t say with certainty because I just don’t know it I am inclined to to agree with you.

        19. No problem bro. Honestly, even I don’t have anything against @Pjclark1 or anybody else. It’s just “war of words” now and then !

        20. Bla bla bla healing and understanding bla bla bla bloviating fifty cent words see how smart I am bla bla bla xenophobia bla bla bla hateful.
          Sounds awfully familiar.

        21. Molyneux is a treasure, and he seems to understand that his individualist/libertarian ideals are all well and good, but that these ideals are a suicide pact when every demographic besides his own absolutely rejects these ideals in favor of virulent in-group preference and identity politics.

    2. Come on. In 2011 I laughed and didn’t vote for any Republicans because they had nothing but retards on the stage. Not one single strong conservative candidate could be found within the entire population of the United States of America? Really? The entire Republican party is taken over by idiots.
      In 2015 I watched Democrat primary debates and thought, well, now the Democrats know how I felt in 2011.

    3. No, there was only one reason Trump won, and that reason was Hillary Clinton is a complete cunt (and possibly a criminal to boot).

      1. In my opinion, Donald Trump won the elections because he is a MALE. If the other party candidate happened to be a MALE, then things would have been different.
        It seems you don’t want to read “long” comments/replies ! So I don’t want to get into the details !
        PS: Can you list a few or at least one female from the democratic party who is not a “complete cunt”, well, according to you !

        1. You may be right. But I’d vote for a woman if I disliked the opposition as much as I dislike Clinton.

        2. Wonder why didn’t the Party choose the person you mentioned ! Oh, that person might have told “I am not in the race for President post” !
          The person you mentioned might not be “complete cunt” in your sense or opinion ! And that doesn’t make the person “all clean” !

    4. The Lena Dunham wing of the Democratic Party openly despises the white male population, and she and her father recently recorded an extinction-wishing video directed at white men. There was no organized campaign from the DNC denouncing this hate speech. So now we can stop wondering why so many white men voted against the Democratic Party this year, after so many of them voted for Obama in the past. The political left has changed into an anti-white anti-male (and anti-white-male) monster that has nothing to offer us lowborn white men who are excluded from jobs, scholarships, and college admissions based on factors outside of our control.

      1. Thank you for expressing your opinion on the matter. Most of what you have said is tied heavily to your own personal feelings. Since we can’t debate or have a healthy conversation based on emotion rather than logic I can only thank you for the comment. Have a great day

        1. Or maybe it’s based on his own experiences or from what he sees around him ? You know something CAN be learned through experience, it doesnt have to be lectured on universities for years to become the truth.

        2. Yeah, wtf, based on emotion rather than logic…wtf? Haven’t RP sites been arguing about this for years now? We’ve got plenty of solid ammo, Mohamed, so bring it the fuck on, and let’s get both logical and emotional about it!
          You think we can’t bring out the ol’ fax, or somefing?
          I double dog emotionally dare you!

  8. lbis despise whites and even the most beta white cuck male had a hard time allowing themselves to be demonized daily.

  9. Personally, the perception of him as someone capable of working outside of the mainstream (let’s face it racket, even Poole who don’t or can’t really face or articulate that “get it”) and above the constraints that the system requires. The public was like a little kid nodding yes, yes, yes I understand, racism bad etc etc etc but thinking “these people are fucked ! And I don’t want to live under THEM!” The entire time…

  10. It’s worth noting that the major polls changed their polling procedures after the RNC to eliminate the Trump lead from the public view.
    Any other indicators were always heavy in Trumps favor anyway, he was getting 3x the press time, 3x the turn out to his rallies, wasn’t batting justified treason charges during his campaign…
    Lots of us knew he was going to win long before the 8th, I’m surprised his victory was a surprise to so many people.

  11. It’s hilarious how these polls are rigged nowadays. Same over here in europe. Le Pen will win the french election, though the polls show a close call.

    1. Polls remind me of old radio show contests where, say, CBS 101.1 would take the 101st caller. There was no way in fucking hell that some intern was sitting there counting callers, looking at lights, marking off, 88,89,90,91….They just said they would take the 101st caller, waited an appropriate amount of time, answered a random call and said “YOU ARE OUR 101st CALLER!” I don’t know if anyone ever listened to the radio or called in trying to time out who was or how to be the 101st caller, but if they did they were morons and really, polling never seemed any different to me.

  12. People are waking up to the national question, especially in the Islamic context. Like Obama’s bullshit line during his farewell speech:
    “For native-born Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, Italians, and Poles. America wasn’t weakened by the presence of these newcomers; they embraced this nation’s creed, and it was strengthened.”
    The platitude of A better life’ is not justification enough; rather, we must ask if these immigrants possess the capability to make American life better. It is for this reason that the Irish, Italians and Poles are incomparable to the Syrians, Somalis and Afghanis. Their cultural values have always been divergent from Christian-influenced, western, European societies.
    While discrimination against Catholics was violent and frequent — as Obama speciously observes — immigrants from Ireland and Italy were expected to kowtow to America’s nationally acknowledged identity, which was Protestantism. Eventually, we were able to put religion aside and work together — something Muslims can’t seem to do. No such expectations to adhere, to earn their citizenship, are placed on immigrants today; in fact, it is us, the native-born, European Americans who are told to ‘check our privilege’ and diversify, and grovel for a job.
    Technology makes it worse. For modern immigrants, the urgency of assimilation is mitigated by the immediacy of social networking applications. Entities like Whatsapp and Facebook can virtually anchor an immigrant to their previous country, decreasing their motivation to network or learn English. Integration begins to seem optional, even undesirable. Understood by no one, understanding only those like herself, the immigrant develops resentment towards American culture whilst reactively fortifying her favoritism towards her home culture. If the immigrant is Muslim, so much the worse: Islam was created by a governor for the purpose of governing, and Islamic immigrants are likely to point to its absence as an excuse to avoid assimilation; moreover, a secular government — being completely foreign to them — inspires Islamic animus, provoking violent retribution, economic exploitation, and sexual assault from opportunistic ‘refugees’. The latter case is especially true in men with poor marital prospects, who have a hard enough time not raping their own women, let alone Europeans or Americans.
    Our fanatical insistence on diversity actually encourages radicalization. We take in refugees and ignore their intellectual progression; we don’t bother interviewing Muslims to ascertain whether or not they’re disgusted by miniskirts or homosexuality; when people fail to assimilate, we offer emotional support groups instead of tickets back home. Even if a potential citizen has made significant intellectual and emotional progress, we should pay them to return to their home countries; if they accept the money, clearly, we know why they came in the first place. Living in America is a privilege, like going to an Ivy League college: they mostly accept students from the best schools, so let’s mostly accept immigrants from the best countries. Succeed or go home. In the past, that’s what happened.
    Islam doesn’t play well with the west — especially the type of Islam received through refugee programs and student visas. Generally, these are wayward young men with mediocre IQs and little or nothing to contribute. For every refugee who graduates or becomes well-assimilated, there are three who overstay their visas or ‘double-down’ on their identity as a fundamentalist Muslim. American minority politics is suicide by altruism.

      1. You know … the first places the Apostles went were Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, right.

        1. Sure. And then the mohammedans came and killed them, and converted by the sword the ones they did not kill.
          The few remaining Middle Eastern Christians, like Lebanese Maronites and Antiochan Orthodox, are some of the most devout you will find.

      2. They (we) are also European.
        That matters immensely.
        Only those of European or NE Asian ancestry have been able to build 1st world societies and be productive within them.

    1. Well said and a very good insight.
      It’s not just Islamic MEN, there are hell lot of Islamic women who received refugee status and student visas and there are wayward with mediocre IQs, who contribute nothing !
      Did you notice a “fat refugee cow” who questioned (Missouri/Kansas) Trump about his feelings and negativity towards Islam ? Of course, Trump gave a matured “clarification” that he is against of “Radical Islam”, not Islam.

  13. Polls are only to influence the herd of goyim ?? Sometime it’s working ?? Sometime it does not , if the goyim realise that they are actually gentiles & not goyim ??

  14. What I find most amusing is that the bullying, no platforming and social justice mobbing ensured that the polls could not get accurate results from conservatives about trump.

  15. Trump outed megyn kelley as a closet feminist and got her fired from fox news. He said he’d never appear on fox again if she worked there. So she was forced to take lower paying job at NBC.

  16. I live in Boston, one of the most liberal cities in the union and I felt like I was living in a conservative echo chamber. I had many talks with friends in which we posited that the polls were fraudulent, that we were witnessing a concerted effort by the msm to subvert democracy. If the media establishment was not a full on propaganda arm of DNC, this would have been a popular vote route as well.

  17. Most polls simply chose a sample and did adjustments to the data that would result in an HRC lead. Digging under the hood exposed this and people did point it out at the time. But that’s conspiracy theory.

  18. “and cross the 50% threshold”. Good story but Trump lost the popular vote 48-46% and by over 3 million voters. The polls for Clinton were skewed when you threw in high population states like Californian and New York. But this is electoral voting and his strategy was to get angry white men (and their Stepford wives) in states where the population lags behind the rest of the country in technology and social progress. Also throw in lazy-non-voting millenniums, clueless libertarians and white people scared of losing their dominance in society and you got a winning strategy. This time.

Comments are closed.