Next election, will you trust major media and polls?

[Chaotic42]

No more or less than I already do. Silver gave Trump a decent chance at a win, so it's not that shocking. Now, the people who were already saying "President Clinton"? In general I never put any stock in their message anyway. I do find it interesting that the total vote and Electoral College vote came out so differently. I just hope we can put this "My team / Your team" mentality behind us and try to be good to each other.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Conservatives sound very oppressed. I hope they will be okay.

We'll be fine, thanks. Our majority in the House, Senate and the Presidency along with new additions to the Supreme Court and all the other courts will help.

 

[agent00f]

Conservatives sound very oppressed. I hope they will be okay.

Never met a cross they didn't want to climb on; the system always keeping the white man down.

 

[fskimospy]

We'll be fine, thanks. Our majority in the House, Senate and the Presidency along with new additions to the Supreme Court and all the other courts will help.

Oh good! It's pretty funny that even after such a resounding win conservatives such as yourself are still trying to complain about how picked on they are though. I've never been able to figure out why people who claim to be so into self reliance constantly complain about how victimized they are.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Never met a cross they didn't want to climb on; the system always keeping the white man down.

Don't forget white women! Don't be a sexist.

 

[agent00f]

We'll be fine, thanks. Our majority in the House, Senate and the Presidency along with new additions to the Supreme Court and all the other courts will help.

Republicans are the real victims. Control the government and still whining like a little bitch.

Don't forget white women! Don't be a sexist.

Race before gender.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Another good article about media bias. "Media Malpractice"
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/media-malpractice-media-bias-and-2016-election/

"...................
Evidence Of Media Bias
Even before Election Day, many asserted that Trump faced an unfair amount of negative press, as the media published story after story painting him as a racist, xenophobe and just about every other horrible name in the book. Case in point........................"

 

[PokerGuy]

All the emails, huh? I guess it should be easy for you to produce a few of these emails then.

Are you familiar with wikileaks? There are thousands of them posted, feel free to read them.

Really? Lying shills? Can you be a little more dramatic?

Oh, you mean dramatic like "Trump is Hitler!" dramatic?

If you want to go that direction lets tall about the shitposting and outright fabricated articles solicited to Trump Supporters if you want get pedantic.

Articles solicited to Trump supporters? What does that even mean??

There was such an emphasis on "non-college educated" voters when the real issue was uneducated voters. AKA - no clue on the impact of their vote or what a candidate really stood for or could do.

haha, yes, the ol' blame the ignorant voters, couldn't have anything to do with our horrible candidate shtick.

That was the real story this election. I live in Kentucky and I've got waves of people in the poorer parts of the state now worried that they won't have health care.

If they are worried that all of a sudden they won't have health care, then it's because they are buying into more stupid media hyperbole.

Those are things the media should be addressing. Impacts of your vote and what they really mean to you.

The media is in no position to be addressing anything -- they have no credibility at this point. They are heavily biased and were caught with their hands in the cookie jar multiple times. Nobody believes much of what they have to say at this point.

Oh but here's some article showing in my Facebook feed that Hillary crucified a baby at the alter of clean energy. MUST BE TRUE!!!

Is that next to the story about Trump being Hitler?

Last time he was asked about this he provided his 'proof' that, if you accepted it at face value, was the media conspiring AGAINST the most liberal candidate. He somehow thought this proved the liberal bias of the media, which is pretty amusing.

Yeah, because the media choosing one lib over another in the primaries while savaging the conservative candidates is obviously proof of them supporting conservatives.

Conservatives sound very oppressed. I hope they will be okay.

We'll be fine, all the teeth gnashing hand wringing moaning hysteria with the usual mix of looting and rioting is coming from the left. Poor little babies needing safe spaces

 

[fskimospy]

Another good article about media bias. "Media Malpractice"
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/media-malpractice-media-bias-and-2016-election/

"...................
Evidence Of Media Bias
Even before Election Day, many asserted that Trump faced an unfair amount of negative press, as the media published story after story painting him as a racist, xenophobe and just about every other horrible name in the book. Case in point........................"

You would think that for an article titled 'evidence of media bias' they would provide literally any evidence of media bias outside of people's opinion.

 

[agent00f]

Another good article about media bias. "Media Malpractice"
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/media-malpractice-media-bias-and-2016-election/

"...................
Evidence Of Media Bias
Even before Election Day, many asserted that Trump faced an unfair amount of negative press, as the media published story after story painting him as a racist, xenophobe and just about every other horrible name in the book. Case in point........................"

LAWL

This is a pretty good illustration of the situation at hand. The site is literally reporting the facts from a betting market tracker, and the dummies think that's biased because they don't like the facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, because the media choosing one lib over another in the primaries while savaging the conservative candidates is obviously proof of them supporting conservatives.

We'll be fine, all the teeth gnashing hand wringing moaning hysteria with the usual mix of looting and rioting is coming from the left. Poor little babies needing safe spaces

Ah yes, so made up bullshit on your part. So now your contention is that the media was favoring Clinton over Sanders while 'savaging' conservatives during the primary. Let's look at that!

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/the-making-of-the-campaign-2016/

• The Democratic race got less than half the coverage that the Republican race received.

• Trump got the most coverage of any candidate running on either side, the vast majority of which was favorable in tone, despite claims that his rise was mostly driven by cable TV and social media.

• Sanders supporters were right: He didn’t receive much attention in the first half of 2015. Clinton got three times more coverage, and even Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson each got more than Sanders. But once he did get coverage, the attention was far more positive than it was for Clinton. In fact, Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any Democrat or Republican running, collecting three positive pieces for every negative one.

• Meanwhile, the study said that the press distrust of Clinton is demonstrable. She received the least favorable coverage of any Democratic or Republican candidate. In the first half of 2015, there were three negative reports about her for every positive one. In the second half, the ratio was 3:2 negative to positive. Fox led the way, broadcasting 291 negative reports about Clinton and just 39 positive ones. In contrast, Fox gave Sanders 79 positive mentions and 31 negative ones.

I have no doubt that despite actual empirical research into this that shows what you said is completely bullshit you will in no way change your mind because you don't care about evidence. (as we already covered!) Someday I hope you prove me wrong and man up enough to admit you were wrong.

 

[Sunburn74]

Media was dead on about trump being a disaster and still are to this point.
Polls were off. If polls were more accurate, then media probably would have gotten that right to.
To be clear, the polls were right for every other single election that year to that point (all the primaries on both sides)

 

[agent00f]

Ah yes, so made up bullshit on your part. So now your contention is that the media was favoring Clinton over Sanders while 'savaging' conservatives during the primary. Let's look at that!

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/the-making-of-the-campaign-2016/


I have no doubt that despite actual empirical research into this that shows what you said is completely bullshit you will in no way change your mind because you don't care about evidence. (as we already covered!) Someday I hope you prove me wrong and man up enough to admit you were wrong.

He doesn't care that he's wrong. You're basically accusing a fish of being wet.

 

[agent00f]

The situation at hand is that the media lied their asses off and tried to skew the election and failed.
Their credibility is shot beyond belief.There will need to be some kind of anti-trust thing like when the big oil companies got broken up.

Mouthing off doesn't help your case any more than it did in school.

 

[fskimospy]

He doesn't care that he's wrong. You're basically accusing a fish of being wet.

I guess I should have learned my lesson when he refused to admit error after claiming Trump's Muslim ban wasn't a ban because it might be temporary... as if the phrase 'temporary ban' didn't exist.

lol.

 

[dank69]

Are you familiar with wikileaks? There are thousands of them posted, feel free to read them.

...

Yes I am familiar with them and I'm also familiar with how the conservative media told you that there were emails in there that proved the media was lying for Hillary, except nobody has ever shown which emails had this "proof." That didn't stop you from believing though, and you clearly can't show me any emails that prove your claim. Also, by conservative media, I don't just mean TV, I also mean radio and conservative websites. So go ahead champ, link to some of these wikileaks emails that show the media lying for Hillary.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

http://imgur.com/a/6F6nA LAWL


Can you say "Shellacced"? LMAO\


Also, CNN Lies.

oh goody, another drumpf troll.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Should we dredge up Sheik's election predictions? Hmm?

feel free to. I already admitted I was wrong on them, several times. As well as admitting that those who thought drumpf would win were correct. By all means, dredge them up. 0 fvcks will be given by me, especially for a drumpf-fluffer.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

LMAO! The SJW mentality around here is exactly why Trump won.

So cry and pitch hissy fits all you want.Next year I'll be buying some kind of gun and ammo for cheap that was previously unavailable.

wonder who's alt this is, splitting time between jerking off to drumpf and thinking they're getting digs in.
congrats on the gun purchase, that's just so awesome and alpha.

 

[vi edit]

Yes I am familiar with them and I'm also familiar with how the conservative media told you that there were emails in there that proved the media was lying for Hillary, except nobody has ever shown which emails had this "proof." That didn't stop you from believing though, and you clearly can't show me any emails that prove your claim. Also, by conservative media, I don't just mean TV, I also mean radio and conservative websites. So go ahead champ, link to some of these wikileaks emails that show the media lying for Hillary.

Yeah I read a lot of them too. The "speeches" in particular actually made me like her more. They almost humanized her in a way that she wasn't able to otherwise.

Emails...meh. Most of just seemed like an incredibly cautious and calculating campaign. Lest we not forget that this *IS* politics and an election cycle that cost over 1 billion to run/promote. Of all those emails for so little information to come out with the stakes as high as they were. Meh.

Which is a whole 'nuther issue I had with this cycle. Ugly/Gray area influences. I'm sorry but Wikilinks weren't neutral. It was hyped up game with timed releases. Nothing neutral about it. Nary a negative thing on the Republican side. And the whole FBI timing with Comey and that twitter account that suddenly started working? Come on. We want to talk fair? Then lets get a hack and data dump of the GOP side and let us make our own opinions.

Rubio was the only one really bringing that up. Careful what you wish it. That could be our emails some day.

 

[Muse]

Major media along with so called unbiased polling services showed shillary trouncing donald.

CNN said hillary had an 80% chance of winning.

huffpost predicted shillary would win 303 electoral votes.

Poll, after poll, after poll,,,, showed hillary winning. The electrical college was not even close.

Next election will yall who spout off "the polls show this and that", will you put your full faith in polls?

Have your eyes been opened that the media was against donald trump? Are you accepting the fact that the people were lied to?

Dude, the Trump campaign were lying like a rug the whole time, you are blaming the media for lying? They should have called out the lies more intensely than they did instead of giving he GOP "equal time." Giving "equal time" to the bigger liar is bad journalism

And look... 80% chance of winning still gives the other side a 20% chance of winning. That's no guarantee, not a bit.

 

[dank69]

Yeah I read a lot of them too. The "speeches" in particular actually made me like her more. They almost humanized her in a way that she wasn't able to otherwise.

Emails...meh. Most of just seemed like an incredibly cautious and calculating campaign. Lest we not forget that this *IS* politics and an election cycle that cost over 1 billion to run/promote. Of all those emails for so little information to come out with the stakes as high as they were. Meh.

Which is a whole 'nuther issue I had with this cycle. Ugly/Gray area influences. I'm sorry but Wikilinks weren't neutral. It was hyped up game with timed releases. Nothing neutral about it. Nary a negative thing on the Republican side. And the whole FBI timing with Comey and that twitter account that suddenly started working? Come on. We want to talk fair? Then lets get a hack and data dump of the GOP side and let us make our own opinions.

Rubio was the only one really bringing that up. Careful what you wish it. That could be our emails some day.

I was completely surprised there was no actual dirt that came from the DNC hack and Hillary's emails. I expect all politicians to be corrupt to some degree. Nothing. This should have elevated her to fucking saint status. Nope. People are still convinced that something corrupt was exposed.

 

[vi edit]

The way the media did this election cycle was deplorable.It also seems they aren't fooling a majority of the population for even a second.


Did Whoopie leave yet?

Well if we are counting votes, almost 2 million more people did vote for her. In the case of overall votes, yeah a majority of the voting population wasn't fooled.

 

[vi edit]

What's that phrase kids these days are saying?

Twittered? Riggered? Triggered. That's right.

Right on key.

 

[VX - Nerve Agent]

There were 3 million votes cast by illegal unregistered voters , so actually Trump won both parts.