GALLUP: OBAMA & HILLARY MOST ADMIRED

OPERATION CURB STOMP: BEND THE TREND

ITT we discuss long-term strategies & tactics requisite to completely tarnish & defame their narrative & legacy… for eternity.

From Gallup:
Enough.

This bitch needs to be in PRISON.

Obama intruding on Trump's territory as incumbent. Must be reversed.

This is where we're looking for a quantifiable swing.

Hillary Clinton has been named most admired more than any woman – or man – in Gallup's polling history. But the likelihood that she will continue to hold that honor in future years seems less certain, with her popularity at a nadir and the percentage naming her as most admired the lowest in 15 years. She managed to win this year because she remains arguably more prominent than other contenders. However, retaining that stature may be more challenging in coming years with her political career likely over.

Trump's unpopularity is holding him back from winning the most admired distinction. The incumbent president is the usual winner, since he is arguably the most prominent figure in the country – but when the president is unpopular, other well-known and well-liked men have been able to finish first.

Other urls found in this thread:

news.gallup.com/poll/224672/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-retain-admired-titles.aspx
archive.is/3nRYI
hooktube.com/watch?v=PTe70CmYWv4
8ch.net/polmeta/res/28806.html
archive.is/cdyCI
archive.is/H6Q6e
archive.is/SeJ8O
archive.is/GTWOO
archive.is/FfPFp
archive.is/rPIj1
archive.is/LEhxc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Gallup:
>news.gallup.com/poll/224672/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-retain-admired-titles.aspx
archive.is/3nRYI

More like guzzle.

So the most admired man is pretty much always the current president and the most admired woman is always Hillary? Why even bother with such a predictable poll?

sounds like outright lies to me, I've never even met a supporter of either of those two in real life, even the leftists hate their asses.

makes complete sense when you understand Gallup is full of shit.

Did they have Brian Williams making cold-calls?

This.
OP, if you want to accomplish something, then, instead of fighting against a propaganda front (which would be on their own terms, btw) simply use this as a teachable moment for normies by exposing Gallup for the blatant bs they are.
Plant the seed of doubt and let them come to your conclusion on their own.

...

Checked and heiled full house op
HILLARY FUCKED TIM OSMAN AS A REVENGE FUCK
Oh yeah Hillary fucked Tim osman , haven't you heard? She slept with mr muh cade uhhhhhh

Brian Williams making cold-calls? Har har…

Great critiques, you low-IQ parroting shill fucks…

Take note:
Gallup was first polling firm to conduct accurate opinion polling for US elections, and from 1936 to 2008, correctly predicted the winner w 88% accuracy (16 of 18). Personally, I find their data quite accurate and most often bucking the typical (((narratives))). For example, do any of the trends in pics related buttress approved (((narratives))), or erode them? Do you faggots have examples of Gallup being (((owned))), shilling, or non-credible as a matter or fact? Or just a matter of your faggot parroting opinion?

Kys

Update those graphs, lad. The lefties have singlehandedly revived trust in television media now that they're criticizing evil Glompf 24/7.

Trump shouldnt even give a shit

rigged.png

How can kang nigger be most admired for a decade when he wasn't a blip on the radar until the 08 election, fucking lugenpresse

The turbokikes he was fellating at the time were very pleased with his technique and appetite for cocaine.

Because lefty whites will take any possible opportunity, no matter how irrelevant, to fellate halfway intelligent negroes and these pollsters tend to oversample lefty whites (and negroes).

Survey Methods


>For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

This shit should be illegal.

lel. An opinion poll from a week ago said that Hillcunt's approval among the general public was the lowest it's ever been. It's great to shit on her and King Nigger but if you believe this (((Gallup poll))), then you need to work on being less gullible.

Haha! I saw this and found it interesting myself.

See pic 1 & 2. Specifically what I find motivating has been the long-term healthy divergence of Independents from Democrats on their trust of (((media))). For the past 20 years, D's are consistently happy at 65% trust while being bluepilled by (((media))) and isolating themselves from the other 2/3's of the country.

Pic 3. The aforementioned needs to be taken within the context that Independent party affiliation has been surging since Obama was elected. The Independent party is the silent MAJORITY party. Thus any divergence by this large groups from self-identified D's in trust of (((media))) here is a godsend for culture wars.

Pic 4. While it looks 'unfortunate' that I's are reverting back to greater trust in 2017, I believe this to be a temp aberration warranted by the unprecedented push by (((media))) to "trust us we won't mess up again", which is quickly eroding due to the RussiaGate fiasco. The takeaway here is that even tho Independent trust has made slight gains, the Democratic divergence from mainstream (I's) is at the highest levels ever recorded.

Correct: Here was Gallup's summation of your 'point'.

what the fug

Thing is, where are these numbers coming from?
It seems like all of this shit is manufactured via statistical manipulation, so I've no doubt the 'media trust' numbers are the same story.

At this point the numbers are meaningless. Since the polls were so heavily weighted in 2016, tptb seem intent on trying to regain some credibility. This is all fluff to try and reignite the lib mentality to keep people from seeing any of the positives that have happened and stay in the fvck drvmpf mindset.

Yep. Pic 1, for example:
>Results are based on telephone interviews conducted September 6-10, 2017 with a random sample of –1,022— adults, ages 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.

>Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, non-response, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames.
>They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cell phoneonly/landline only/both and cell phone mostly).

This shit is all total bunk, but most people don't bother to look at the survey methodology.


They're doing a piss-poor job of it.
It just blows my mind that people are this fucking gullible, even now, even the libshits. For fucks sake, as much as they bleat about how much better educated/more intelligent libshits are, you'd think they'd at least have a grasp on some very basic statistical concepts and the manipulative capacity thereof.

I got one of these once. Believe me people who would vote trump or moore tell them to fuck off and don't answer questions. Always remember this when you see polls. People don't want to fucking answer unless they trust authority and academia.

Why would (((media))) be cooking numbers to show trust in (((media))) at all time lows?


I do numbers for a living, so yes I look at the methodology. Look, I'm not here to dick-ride Gallup. Ok? Shit, close the thread if you want. But if you're concerned about methodologies, you should compare them to other (((media))) polls consistently over-weighting D's by +11 and more on every poll. THAT'S an obvious problem (that was criticized during election) when I's are the largest party by self-affiliation. Gallup didn't even participate in 2016 horse-race predicting. A first for them.

Additionally, consider (((HuffPost))) having issues with Gallup methodologies "racial composition" and the fact their results are "too negative on Obama". Any enemy of HuffPost is a friend of mine.

As stated before (without response): all my questions still stand:
–do any of the trends in pics related (by Gallup) buttress approved (((narratives))), or erode them?
– do you have examples of Gallup being (((owned))), shilling, or non-credible as a matter or fact?

None of this is the point of the thread. The point is to BEND THE TREND.

Quite true in all likelihood.

You seem bizarrely defensive.
>Why would (((media))) be cooking numbers to show trust in (((media))) at all time lows?
That's the question, eh? I can certainly think of scenarios in which that might be to their interest.

That is the single most retarded thing I've ever seen posted on a chan. Wew lad. Just fucking wew.


>–do any of the trends in pics related (by Gallup) buttress approved (((narratives))), or erode them?
Depends, namely on what the (((narrative))) is and who is approving it.
It can easily be argued that those images act to buttress (((narratives))) approved by, say, Fox Jews, that faith in media has degraded on behalf of non-liberals and increased on behalf of liberals.
You're being rather disingenuous in suggestion that the media would never act in this context, if I'm honest.

>– do you have examples of Gallup being (((owned))), shilling, or non-credible as a matter or fact?
Yeah, the polling here is pretty demonstrable of shilling, which itself makes them non-credible, as a matter of fact.
As for being (((owned)))? Ever heard of Jim Clifton? He's the head of Gallup.
Well, how about this:
And how about
Jim and his wife Susan are also major partners of Operation Hope… Go ahead and Jewgle that, tell me if it's aesthetic resembles anything familiar.
And while we're on the subject of aesthetic, take a look at ol Suzy Clifton - you won't be able to find many photos, but those that you can show what I would suggest bears the resemblance of a surgically altered trophy Jewess. Could be wrong, but my Jewdar is pretty good…
I could dig further, but is it really necessary? Gallup is (((owned))).

Lad, I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to decide what a thread becomes, nor its 'point'.
Besides, in all likelihood, the trend doesn't exist - its all manufactured based on an incredibly small sample size, heavily manipulated to bring a desired result.

Now, your question above does hold some merit, in that it brings up another question: Why WOULD the media cook numbers to make it seem their approval/trust is falling amongst non-liberals/rising amongst liberals?
There are certainly narratives one could conceive of that would motivate a polling outlet like Gallup to do so.

Woops, forgot the image.

Do you have examples of Gallup being (((owned))), shilling, or non-credible as a matter or fact?
Their polling often (as shown above) goes directly counter-narrative. In law this is known as "Statements Against Interest" and auto-confers a higher level of credibility to the extent that it qualifies as legal exception to normally barred hearsay statements.
>It can easily be argued that those images act to buttress (((narratives))) approved by, say, Fox Jews..
Oh. So Gallup has been shilling for some imagined faction of so-called "Fox Jews" w 88% accuracy since 1936? Your objection is overruled.
>As for being (((owned)))? Ever heard of Jim Clifton? He's the head of Gallup.
Gallup is employee-owned.
As in majority-employee-owned.
As in George Gallup set up the company that way from inception to avoid being (((owned))) as you like to argue, kike-shill.

Funny you missed those details in your deep-dive Gallup dossier.
lol kys

What they want is a good job?
What I WANT IS A GOOD JOB!
The workforce is seized up and it's hard to get anywhere but women get all positions that are good despite them being married to a guy making 40k+ because of this system of oppression that does not exist by any measure. I'm so sick of being 1 rung up from the bottom because women always get bumped up or brought in no matter who I work for.

It never ceases to amaze me how (((they))) can still push such blatant propaganda in this day and age.

If their MO is to go directly counter-narrative, then (((they))) are trying to get out ahead of the good things that are going to be said about Trvmp. This way there is some sort of foothold for (((them))) so the narrative doesn't get completely out of (((their))) control. As for being "employee-owned" all the employees can be replaced whenever necessary. It doesn't matter either way because the end game is always subversion.

They would lend credibility to their accuracy if they actually bothered to still do polling on elections, but they don't, wonder why, hmm…

1. You are arguing with a d&c shill. You should know better. He has no interest in changing the narrative.
2. As to why they are doing it; shekels. The msn does not, and very likely will never again, have credibility with the right or independents. The only chance at funding their shitshow is to keep the liberals baited.

...

...

hooktube.com/watch?v=PTe70CmYWv4

Even both they're both disgusting monsters the image of a white woman hugging on a nigger still makes me sick.

Does anyone take these agitprop outlets seriously?

There's no swinging Obama's popularity, but I think Clinton is an easy one. I would wager that conservative women still admire her simply because she's a woman who is presented as a celebrity. Even voting conservative women don't understand much of anything about politics, and get caught up easily in the in group preferences and Hollywood style fanfare of Hillary Clinton.

Why do White Nationalists want to kill White people who wish to meet up without them?
8ch.net/polmeta/res/28806.html

Why would Holla Forums ban a White meet up?

Why are Whites the only ethnic group that do not meet up and network?

Jewish networking
archive.is/cdyCI

Black networking
archive.is/H6Q6e

Hispanic Networking
archive.is/SeJ8O

Asian Networking
archive.is/GTWOO

Indian Networking
archive.is/FfPFp

Muslim Networking
archive.is/rPIj1

vs.

White Networking
archive.is/LEhxc


STOP-POL-CENSORSHIP
Remove the Holla Forums mod
Censorship on/pol/ is worse than any of the social media sites.
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL

White Nationalism is the cause of "White Genocide"
123

Clinton isn't popular. Vote rigging boosted the popular vote for her yet her rallies were barren compared to Trump. It was obvious she is simply pumped up by the media and the scale of her actual popularity is pathetic. Think back to when Bernie Sanders lost the nomination and the place emptied out. Practically no one liked Hillary then and she's even less favored now.

It stands that the democrats would rather stay home than to vote for Clinton even it meant Trump would be the president.

.

I admire them both for avoiding the consequences of their actions for so long. I admire their ability to stay out of jail.

Could they really think of no other women in the whole world worthy of the title?