The libs should have known better than to put so much faith in the "scientific" polls that gave them the results they wanted to hear. Ironic that their own complacency contributed to their defeat!

Ain't that the truth!

LOL!

Clever, freedomforall. ;)

We live in hope.

OINO's?

Political polls can NEVER be statistically valid. The premises are that they have a large sample that is also a random sampling of voters. What self-respecting Objectivist is ever going to respond to a political poll?

Hmmm...and it wasn't rigged? No, I am sure someone swore it was honest, and we know people don't lie. Your example is exactly why I do not trust any voting system at the current time, they are all suspect.

Yep. And they looked for specific parties as well, focusing on the 2 biggies. They fail to grasp a lot of us do not subscribe to either party anymore.

Yet they may be the best at the job, as they know how to look at facts, not fantasies.

Hopefully, he's shrewd enough to be only playing along with the phony kissy-kissy stuff until he gets into office.

Keep in mind that it is not over. All the kissy-kissy we're cooperating stuff is a sham. The left has no intention of working with Trump and hopefully, he'll recognize the deception.

"Rigged" may be too strong a word here. There are many ways a poll can fail to produce an accurate measure of what it purports to be measuring. Most of those ways can happen by accident. Designing a good poll is hard.

What else is an allosaurus but "assuming intense?"

Haha. I see it. #DictatedButNotRead
There is a difference between using definitions incorrectly and overlooking typographical errors, though.

Watch that typo precision your spellchecker won't help you out with.
Guess you've read Sneezy my own typo for Snezy by now.

I mostly questioning your use of language. You have proof of error, but you do not have proof of intent. You are assuming intense, and that is what I'm pointing out. I'm not saying that you are wrong to assume that it was intentional, I am just saying that you do not have proof of it. Precision in communication is essential.

Evidently you think higher of lib integrity than I ever could.

Proof of a wrong poll doesn't show proof of intentionally misrepresenting the results that they found. I do think these were genuine mistakes. The difference between getting an answer wrong and lying.

Read Sneezy's reply presently down near the bottom.

I know who my stepson the coal miner voted for and I haven't even talked politics during visits.

It proves they were wrong, not that they were rigged. You would have to find evidence of intent to prove that they were rigged.

They may have been rigged. But I think that many pollsters disregarded the most important group that needed polling, the folks of the heartland who have been putting up with crappy ideology which affects their lives Polling is more complicated than many think it is. The demographics, the way the question is framed, the nature of the question itself, and don't forget, the integrity of the pollster.

Even that Herman Cain repeat for a dirty trick did not derail Trump's election.
Recall during a debate Trump telling Hillary something akin to "Seven in one day this late? Come On!"
All the evil hag did was to say nothing about it. Do believe she did not directly respond to Trump's accusations about her email scandal either, which included the wanton destruction of subpoenaed evidence.

At the time it was just an educated guess ;^)