I'm having trouble finding problems with the rationale in this article. Yeah, I know (((538))), but arguments are arguments, yeah? They stand up on their own. So, assuming that this is not only possible, but an apt reflection of reality, what is there to do? I ask this because if Clinton wins the presidency, this can be bad for us in many ways. If cuckservatives have their way (and many have said they will support Clinton), then it stands to reason that Trump supporters will be blamed for the loss and marginalized, so in that way we face a massive defeat. On the other hand, and this has been put out mostly from leftists, there is reason to believe that Trump is not the end, that we will see another candidate just like Trump that is not only far more competent, but whose election will be inevitable by the hardship caused by continued policies of liberals. The question still remains, though, what are we to do? We cannot just go on meme-ing on the internet. At some point, we must think of something other than shitposting for political organization.
This is not to say that I completely believe the article, but let us accept this possibility first.
Adrian Young
Organize locally but non-violently. Expel anyone pushing for violence. They'll all be Fed shills. When the time for violence comes the movement will be much further along.
Bentley Hall
This, good post
U suk
Jonathan Bailey
I've been talking to some people, but younger people seem resistant. A lot of lefitsts. Luckily they don't believe in being prepared, at least in the US.
Ian Martin
-The author invokes 'conspiracy theories' to dismiss -Author asserts that there is no evidence that the polls will be rigged -Author attacks sites that seek to 'unbias' the polls –(The polls cannot be unfucked, if the data are bad, then the data are bad. You can't take a turd and make a ham sandwich.) -Author strawmans that we're saying democrats are overweighted–we're saying they're oversampled -Entire article is based on typical liberal dismissive-exasperated tone
-We know that polling is down 50-75% from 2012. -We know that the polling companies are owned by people with ties to Clinton -We know that the Clinton campaign shows them talking about "poll-driven messaging" (wikileaks) -We know that all polls are oversampling democrats, some by absurd margins -We know that if it were truly random, polls would have a roughly even spread of oversampling republicans by a bit, oversampling democrats by a bit. But that's not the case, we only see D+ polls. -We know that Clinton et all are actively trying to rig the campaign -We know that voter fraud is a real thing
Thomas Rogers
This is the main thing the article takes issue with. From what he says, there is no oversampling because it's random and then they are asked to self-identify.
The article is not really the issue, though. The issue is about what to do after the election, assuming a loss.
Josiah Young
e.g. If you show up at a liberal college campus, you will oversample democrats from the random people you sample.
C'mon man, pollsters know how to rig their own fucking polls.
Samuel Wright
How many polls were posted with republican oversampling? You're either a concern troll or an idiot.
Thomas Parker
I can accept being an idiot, but I don't think that every single poll is skewed. I hope it is, but I don't know enough to call it one way or another. I'm not a statistician, so I'm having a hard trouble with the numbers. Even then, though, I'm just trying to come up with plan b. You can either help me or continue telling me that I'm a fucking idiot for even suggesting the possibility that the polls aren't rigged.
