I'm having trouble finding problems with the rationale in this article. Yeah, I know (((538)))...

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.

The article in question:
archive.is/HZm6z

This is not to say that I completely believe the article, but let us accept this possibility first.

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.

This, good post


U suk

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.

-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

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.

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.

How many polls were posted with republican oversampling?
You're either a concern troll or an idiot.

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.

reported you lose

Gtfo of here ctr. We know what's coming and it isn't the shit you are atempting to peddle

Whatever, dude. Apparently you're only interested in reinforcing your ideas instead of coming up with new ones. I'm not saying the polls are right, but that maybe we should accept that possibility.

...

...

I didn't say that. I said the possibility is real and that we need to be prepared for something in the interim.

His polls-only forecast was actually spot on for Trump the entire time. He just didn't believe it because he thought that the fundamentals applied more. Now, say what you want, but I think that even a Jew cares about being able to make money after the election. I don't think he would sacrifice his credibility if he knows he's wrong. For what purpose?

Here's the hole in the article's premise:

"The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible."

They incorrectly assume the pollsters make their money off of being accurate, when the pollsters actually make their money catering to wealthy political interests.
They are being kept in a job by "finding" the results they are instructed to find.

...

Hey faggot cunt, why are you assuming a Trump loss at this point when Clinton's campaign is crumbling down around her and an alarming rate? Could it be because you're a piece of shit concern troll? Eat a bag of moist baby shit and then jump off a cliff.

Yeah, I think that's something that isn't often explored. Pollsters don't poll people to give people information, they do it so that the ones running campaigns can "engineer consent". It's a tool for the ruling class, however, my thinking, was that they were tools to develop strategies. If the tool is broken, then how is Shillary developing her strategies?
I think, therefore, that the ideal way to see if the polls are right or wrong is to look at what she is actually doing as far as her campaign goes, instead of the polls. If she's campaigning ins states that are considered "safe", then it stands to reason that maybe she knows something we don't and the polling does not actually reflect what her actions are.
I haven't yet looked into that possibility, but I think this could be a project.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying we should explore the possibility. The election could even be rigged, after all.

You're right. I guess there's no hope, let's all be demoralized and kill ourselves, you start?

When there is nothing about a source which suggests legitimacy, and everything about a (((source))) that suggests bias, their arguments stand on their own?
No, they do not.

Being prepared isn't being demoralized. I don't carry a gun because I think I'm totally going to shoot someone. I carry one because the possibility exists.

Actually, now that I realize this is in fact (((Nate Silver)))'s site, and its an article by (((Harry Enten))), I'm reporting your shit thread for demoralization and disinfo.

Fuck you OP.

polling is down massively compared to past elections, yes.
it's quite possible this means that they're just throwing out the polls that don't provide the oversampling they're looking for.

Okay, dude, whatever. Clearly I'm the only one who thinks like this.

The feds infiltrated rightwing organizations hard in the 80-90s. The best option is to redpill your friends and family. You need a community who is resourceful, trained, and with at least similar political leanings. There are plenty of organizations that are cucked you can join. Militias, oathkeepers, etc. The orgs themselves maybe cucked, but they have a lot of like minded individuals. Oldfags, veterans, White resistance members remember they are targets of the alphabets. I'm an infantry vetfag and knew guys who enlisted to get combat deployments specifically because they hated the government and wanted to learn how to fight it. Waco and Ruby Ridge happened when I was relatively young and DRILLED into me paranoia regarding joining any formal group that oppose the government.

That's why I've spent my young adult life finding friends who are farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, hunters, 2A advocates, lolbergs. I've known and trusted these people for years before I started dropping redpills. They already distrusted the government and the media. They felt strongly about self-preservation and self-protection before I ever met them.

If you haven't already been forming your RWDS, you need to get the fuck on it.

Clearly you're a fucking concern trolling shitbaby who should fellate a shotgun.

Jeb vs Hillary that would be true.

However much of Trump's support (~50%) is unlikely voters. People who havn't voted in the last 20+ years. They don't show up even in honest polls of likely voters.

We saw this in the primaries (pic related) there was a massive upswing in R turnout across the board and a drop in D turnout across the board (even with all the bernouts)

Most polls are using 2012 turnout as their basis. That's why they skew +5 D or more. The real turnout will be R +10 or more.

You can safely add 10 points to Trump's numbers in every state vs what the polls say.

It's one thing to be prepared but it's another thing to regurgitate literal kike propaganda like you're doing here to demoralize. Other anons have made threads pondering a loss and contingency plans but you just scream concern troll. Get fucked

Yeah, you basically are.

You're likely a CtR shill doing a very subtle attempt at a demoralization thread.
The notion that you're actually a Holla Forumsack, sweating it over media Jews kvetching at you - media Jews which have been ubiquitously wrong on every occasion - is ludicrous.

Kill yourself fam… And direct your shitposting shekels to my account.

Hey man, in this age of jobtheft, its hard finding a job. Even shilling for Hillary online can in someways be considered an honorable job. He gotta make his $0.05 per post you know.

Lay down in traffic.