A(nother) dangerous opinion.

[TheContrarian]

So.  Once again another democratic vote has basically swung against both the Left's designated choice AND all the polls. 

I mean people not wanting to be shackled to the left's demented schemes is perfectly understandable, but the fact that it isn't represented in public polling seems very odd to me.

What you're basically looking at would seem to be one of two things IMO:

1. Pollsters are deliberately biasing their selection criteria AND/OR their methodology when crafting polls, in order to paint a veneer of respectable leftism onto their poll.

or

2. People responding to polls are outright lying when they respond.  Hence the false result.

(1) I don't think would work, as poll aggregators would spot such blatantly skewed results against the overall trend and give it a lower weighting in their overall score (as an example fivethirtyeight.com deliberately downplay polls from sources they think are skewed in their results for exactly this reason).

(2) Is an odd one.  What possible reason could people have for hiding their political opinions when questioned on them?

Could it be, and one is going out on a limb here, that in the current year any digression from designated leftist ideals is met with accusations of being a "Sexist racist transphobic misogynist who associates with white nationalists"?  The volume of shrieking, especially on social media, has possibly got to the extent now where people are afraid of the mob of 30 brave progressive college students waiting round the corner from the guy with the clipboard so they lie just to sate some snowflake's precious feelings and escape unmolested?

Definitely hyperbolic, possibly false, rather amusing to consider though

[SCarpelan]

I'm going to wait for the professional statisticians' analysis about the voter behaviour before forming a strong opinion. One speculative proposal is that there were a lot of people voting who don't generally vote and perhaps a lot of people who usually vote stayed home. This can skew statistical models that are based on data from previous elections.

I guess you are also referring to the Brexit vote as usual but in that case the late polls did show a tight vote that could go to either way. The arrogance of the pro-EU side made them keep their heads up their asses and not realize that the tide was turning against them. This was not the case in the US election where the statistical models really did fail.

[Art Vandelay]

Nah. While getting noticed by the wrong loonies on Twitter or Tumblr will result in no end of hysterical screaming and yelling, offline it's the right who're big on violence and intimidation. Not only that, but unlike the left's keyboard warriors, they're actually politically relevant. For example, Trump's "punch them in the face" remark regarding anti-Trump people at or even near his rallies.

[TheContrarian]

Nah. While getting noticed by the wrong loonies on Twitter or Tumblr will result in no end of hysterical screaming and yelling, offline it's the right who're big on violence and intimidation. Not only that, but unlike the left's keyboard warriors, they're actually politically relevant. For example, Trump's "punch them in the face" remark regarding anti-Trump people at or even near his rallies.

Not seeing it, personally.

Basically every single event Trump held even during the primaries had either Sanders or Clinton supporters turn up to "counter-protest".  And that got violent on plenty of occasions.

Just like whenever Brexit supporters gathered (or whenever Ukip have a public gathering of any kind) you get a band of "anti-capitalist activists" and other leftist spastics turning up to start shit.

The reverse hardly ever happens.

I mean, if gun toting Tea Party nutjobs were turning up outside EVERY Hillary rally in large numbers it would be front page news worldwide for fuck's sake.

[niam2023]

Go fuck yourself, you old, maligant Nazi.

[TheContrarian]

Go fuck yourself, you old, maligant Nazi.

Thank you for a neat demonstration of my point

[Id82]

I don't know why you guys feed into this trolls posts.
He's gonna sit on his high horse and mock us.
Just don't let it get to you.

[TheContrarian]

Just don't let it get to you.

It's clearly too late for that in your case.  Why did you even bother typing out a post that amounts to "He's just looking for angry responses, no one respond but here's my angry response"?

Do you have shards of glass in your forehead from a failed attempt at licking a window?

[Id82]

Thank you for proving my point.

[TheContrarian]

Thank you for proving my point.

You made no point.  You just typed three sentences, two of which contradicted each other.

2/10 must try harder.

[Id82]

Keep up the trolling I like it.

[TheContrarian]

Keep up the trolling I like it.

At this point, I have no need to. 

I'll just sit back and watch future elections as the polls keep flattering your desired outcomes while the final results show a clear trend of people throwing off the shackles of enforced leftist opinions the moment they enter the polling booth.

Maybe you should start a change.org petition to get security cameras installed in all polling booths? That way we could make sure that no one ever votes against your chosen candidate without violent retribution.  It'd be the first step in making the polling booth a safe and diverse space for everyone ^_^

[Art Vandelay]

Not seeing it, personally.

Basically every single event Trump held even during the primaries had either Sanders or Clinton supporters turn up to "counter-protest".  And that got violent on plenty of occasions.

Just like whenever Brexit supporters gathered (or whenever Ukip have a public gathering of any kind) you get a band of "anti-capitalist activists" and other leftist spastics turning up to start shit.

The reverse hardly ever happens.

I mean, if gun toting Tea Party nutjobs were turning up outside EVERY Hillary rally in large numbers it would be front page news worldwide for fuck's sake.

The difference of course being that the leaders themselves are the ones encouraging violence and intimidation. You never saw Sanders or Clinton (not that Clinton is actually left, but you know what I mean) even imply, much less outright tell their supporters to physically attack their opponents. Trump, not so much. Call me crazy, but I think the now president of the US encouraging violence is a little more concerning than some drooling dullard with pink hair, old lady glasses and a Tumblr account.

[Id82]

Then I guess your work here is done then?

[TheContrarian]

Not seeing it, personally.

Basically every single event Trump held even during the primaries had either Sanders or Clinton supporters turn up to "counter-protest".  And that got violent on plenty of occasions.

Just like whenever Brexit supporters gathered (or whenever Ukip have a public gathering of any kind) you get a band of "anti-capitalist activists" and other leftist spastics turning up to start shit.

The reverse hardly ever happens.

I mean, if gun toting Tea Party nutjobs were turning up outside EVERY Hillary rally in large numbers it would be front page news worldwide for fuck's sake.

The difference of course being that the leaders themselves are the ones encouraging violence and intimidation. You never saw Sanders or Clinton (not that Clinton is actually left, but you know what I mean) even imply, much less outright tell their supporters to physically attack their opponents. Trump, not so much. Call me crazy, but I think the now president of the US encouraging violence is a little more concerning than some drooling dullard with pink hair, old lady glasses and a Tumblr account.

Absolutely.  He should not have said that, the man's a complete idiot and has no place being president.

However, no one ever acted on it...thankfully.  Whereas there were at least two attempts to attack Trump that got as far as the stage before the secret service put a stop to them.  And we're not just talking about individual tumblrinas holding aspergic-as-fuck protests here, we're talking large gangs of violent remtards.

And while we're on the subject of political leaders supporting violence; groups like the UAF in my country are supported by the three major parties.  This is the group that actively goes round breaking up or disrupting UKIP gatherings (using violence when they need to).

If you don't find the concept of a state-funded group of violent anti-democracy "activists" worrying, you may just as well move back to Germany in 1933.