People lying for different reasons and in different ways will still screw with the accuracy, no conspiracy is needed.

Part of Hillary's failure was she didn't know which states to focus on. Trump's internal polls seem to have been better than hers or the media's. I don't know why that is, maybe Trump voters could tell if they were being polled by a liberal college kid who they felt they should lie to, but it had an impact.

Hillary knew exactly which states she needed to be in. She was just arrogant enough to think she could win by ignoring internal polling.

Plenty of people from the campaign have come out saying they knew they were weak in some of those states she lost, but the decision was to do nothing because if they went to those states, trump might know she knew she was vulnerable.

Pollsters are using old likely voter models that don't take into account widespread voter suppression. GOP investment in Voter ID is paying huge dividends.

Nice goal post shift.

This is the claim:
"People still dislike Hilary even though it has been shown almost all the reasons for their dislike have pretty much been created by fake news stories implanted by Russian hackers and alt right news sources."

It is false.

She has been involved in scandals going back twenty-five years -- including with her work with her law firm and documents that went missing, her proficiency with cattle futures trading, travel-gate, etc., etc. Many covered by MSM -- but feel free to try to "show" that almost all of these (i) are "fake news" stories and (ii) were "implanted" by Russian hackers and alt-right media sources (lol).

There are also people who dislike her because of her views as well as her propensity to lie.

It's kind of funny (sad?) actually, though, that in a forum that has literally tens of thousands of posts speaking to Trump and his administration being full of lies and liars, many of these same posters actually turn around and with a straight face are able to do one or more of the following: (i) defend this c***, (ii) fail to understand why some people might dislike her and (iii) make ridiculous claims like that above, even though about 5 seconds thought would make a normal person realize that the claim is absurd.

It's okay to say you like Hillary; also okay to say that you don't but Trump worse; okay to acknowledge that you don't like her (or think she's not really likeable generally), but her policy positions are much better than other politicians; even okay to say you think she's bad but the better of poor option. But nope, not strong enough for some posters -- it has to be the case that NOBODY should dislike her, obv victim of russian hackers/right wing media conspiracy -- anybody that dislikes her is just misinformed -- etc. That's when you get dopey posts like the one above.

Weird that all we really heard about during the election was BENGHAZI!!!!, buttery males, and the bombshell that Bill Clinton is a cheating SOB, I guess everyone just already had perfect memories of scandals from 20 years ago.

That's not how proof works. You don't get to make claims and demand others prove you wrong.

Except I didn't make the claim. Try again.

Nah, just examples. Lots of reasons people might not like her.

jesus christ, that's so incompetent and downright unforgiveable. like, he was already campaigning in those areas a ****ton so what's the difference? elected dems are just complete ****ing spineless idiotic losers, they all need to be primaried

takes a lot of nerve for right wingers to bring up the same one unconfirmed allegation of insider trading in cattle futures (for what like $100k?) while completely ignoring the dozens of confirmed instances where donald trump has cheated or scammed people out of millions in his business endeavors. and then you also want to talk about honesty/lying? gtfo here!! the cognitive dissonance among republicans is just unbelievable, y'all are ****ing stupid garbage human beings for real

PEOPLE ARE SAYING

Is there any data showing this happening on a large scale, or are you just saying it's theoretically possible? Because the first is reality based and the other is what you want to be true to fit a certain worldview.

This is similar logic:

1. We know a small handful of few people voted illegally.
2. Trump lost the majority of American votes by 3 million.
3 Therefore, 3 to 5 million people voted illegally, AND ALL AGAINST TRUMP LOL.

What Trump is missing is well, ANY evidence for 3. What you're missing is even if we had cold, hard data for 2 million illegal anti-Trump voters, he STILL would claim 3 to 5 million. Why? Because 2 million wouldn't be enough to make him right.

And so he lies.

Mostly just in this derposphere.

You didn't? Then who said:

Because I could swear you're the same person as you.

Context helps. This was the claim made that started this:

It was contained in the first post you responded to on the matter, as well as the post you are questioning (copied below). In it I repeated the claim that was being made. The claim was essentially that it has been "shown" that it isn't possible to dislike Hillary absent reliance on "fake news" "implanted" by Russian hacking/alt-right media. Don't think this is true, let alone "shown" to be true -- but keep trying to shift the goalposts.

.

Yep, got me there -- "almost all" makes the post true.

If you seriously believe the claim, though, guess there really isn't much to say.

well I don't even know wtf you're talking about wrt documents missing from her lawyer years, or travel-gate, but like I said, it's kind of up to you to present those arguments as factual, rather than just assume everyone knows everything about them and accepts them as bible truth (which is a rather appropriate phrase in this case)

Maybe adios realized he didn't need a citation, but here's one anyway:

https://www.nationofchange.org/2017/...-georgias-6th/

I didn't call the tactic shaming, though that would be applicable. I said the Republicans have no shame in resorting to blatant lies in absurd attack ads. Nor in ignoring the tactic afterward, I guess...

You can argue that, but Ossoff got 48.1% in the primary, so it was pretty clear it was going to be a close race. That means there's plenty of reason to think it would be in line with Trump v. Clinton than Price's election. There were also numerous polls from different companies that had Ossoff in the lead, all with similar margins if I recall (~3%), so logic would dictate he was likely in the lead. The only outlier that I know of had him up 7. It'd be different if they were all over the map, but they pretty consistently showed Ossoff with the lead.

I will put it more simply, there is an excellent chance the polls were wrong I.E. the polling was faulty.

1. thousands of poconoders tell pollsters they want a ridiculous fake political agenda as a joke and to discredit polls

2. real politicians see those polls and run real political campaigns on aforementioned terrible political agenda

3. thousands of poconoders go out and vote for aforementioned politicians

There might be a handful of people who lie to pollsters for this reason. But I doubt there are enough to affect the poll numbers.

Oh snap, it works the other way too? Man that's really gonna mess with poco's already failed attempt at reasoning.

A lot of so called polling is about the choices pollsters make. If they decide the party mix should be 36% Dem 26% Rep instead of 34% Dem 28% Rep it completely changes the result, and that is totally unrelated to what poll respondants are actually saying.