More Proof that Polling "Data" is Just As Dishonest As The CBC & CNN

[WestCanMan]

Imagine citing this BS as actual polling data:

• Polling from CBC News (conducted by Janet Brown Opinion Research) indicates that, at certain points in his term, Prime Minister Mark Carney has registered higher personal impression and approval scores in Alberta than both Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Premier Danielle Smith. [1, 2]
  Key Takeaways from the Polling:
  • Favorable Impressions: A CBC-commissioned poll showed Carney outperforming Smith and Poilievre in "impressed" scores, defying traditional right-leaning political trends in the province. [1]
  • Conservative Voters: While Poilievre maintains strong support from his base, Carney also managed to pull significant moderate support from conservative voters, with a notable portion of them rating the Prime Minister positively. [1]
  • Nuance vs. Reality: Analysts note that having a high personal impression does not automatically translate to votes. Despite Carney's relatively strong personal numbers in the region, the Conservatives have continued to maintain a strong grip on Alberta's federal seat counts

Here's a link to CBC lending credibility to total BS polling "data": https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mark-carney-albertans-impression-janet-brown-poll-1.7551574

They even have all the facts lol:

1. this is a province where many people are newly interested in separating from Canada because the Liberals won — again —
2. nearly all ridings went Conservative — again — Albertans appear as likely to express admiration for Mark Carney as for Pierre Poilievre.

 

If CBC got polling results that showed Carney was less popular than anal warts, we never would have heard about it. But if some clown puts out dishonest polling that shows "Carney is more well-liked by Canadian men than hockey, beer, pizza and BJ's" then CBC has a spot on page 1 for it.

I think that most people are coming around to the fact that news is fake, but realizing that polls are fake is lagging a step behind.   

[Michael Hardner]

It's fake because you think that it's fake.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I think that most people are coming around to the fact that news is fake, but realizing that polls are fake is lagging a step behind.   

How many people do you think it takes to pull off all this fakery here and around the world? It is all coordinated right?

Is it the same handful of psy-op dudes that orchestrated the global COVID/Vaccine/authoritarianism scam?

How few people are you actually talking about here?

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Imagine citing this BS as actual polling data:

• Polling from CBC News (conducted by Janet Brown Opinion Research) indicates that, at certain points in his term, Prime Minister Mark Carney has registered higher personal impression and approval scores in Alberta than both Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Premier Danielle Smith. [1, 2]
  Key Takeaways from the Polling:
  • Favorable Impressions: A CBC-commissioned poll showed Carney outperforming Smith and Poilievre in "impressed" scores, defying traditional right-leaning political trends in the province. [1]
  • Conservative Voters: While Poilievre maintains strong support from his base, Carney also managed to pull significant moderate support from conservative voters, with a notable portion of them rating the Prime Minister positively. [1]
  • Nuance vs. Reality: Analysts note that having a high personal impression does not automatically translate to votes. Despite Carney's relatively strong personal numbers in the region, the Conservatives have continued to maintain a strong grip on Alberta's federal seat counts

Here's a link to CBC lending credibility to total BS polling "data": https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mark-carney-albertans-impression-janet-brown-poll-1.7551574

They even have all the facts lol:

1. this is a province where many people are newly interested in separating from Canada because the Liberals won — again —
2. nearly all ridings went Conservative — again — Albertans appear as likely to express admiration for Mark Carney as for Pierre Poilievre.

 

If CBC got polling results that showed Carney was less popular than anal warts, we never would have heard about it. But if some clown puts out dishonest polling that shows "Carney is more well-liked by Canadian men than hockey, beer, pizza and BJ's" then CBC has a spot on page 1 for it.

I think that most people are coming around to the fact that news is fake, but realizing that polls are fake is lagging a step behind.   

Who's takeaway??? Seems it is yours without any facts

Who are "most people"?

How do you determine and actually prove the polls are fake?

Methinks your anti Carney syndrome has overtaken your desire for the facts LOL

 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's fake because you think that it's fake.

What have you ever seen that would give you the impression that Carney is more popular than Poilievre in Alberta?

Was it the election results? 

Was it the sudden separatist movement?

Are you honestly stupid enough to just believe anything that you see, as long as it says "polling data" beside it? 

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Are you honestly stupid enough to just believe anything that you see, as long as it says "polling data" beside it? 

Are you honestly stupid enough to decide that anything that doesn’t fit your deluded world views is fake?  

You bet you are!

 

 

[John Johnston]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Who's takeaway??? Seems it is yours without any facts

Who are "most people"?

How do you determine and actually prove the polls are fake?

Methinks your anti Carney syndrome has overtaken your desire for the facts LOL

 

This, coming from people who watch Fox and think it's actually a News feed. Funny as hell.

[Legato]

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

This, coming from people who watch Fox and think it's actually a News feed. Funny as hell.

You seem to be an expert on Fox news content, give us a rundown on how many hours a day you watch Fox.

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

CBC has a spot on page 1 for it.

You guys that hate CBC spend an awful lot of time watching it.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You guys that hate CBC spend an awful lot of time watching it.

I don't watch it at all, as in "averaging zero seconds per week for the past 5 years", but their segments are frequently the butt of jokes on FB.

For example, just this morning there was one where Rosemary Barton was trying to defend Carney's disdain for Question Period, and she s'posed that maybe [paraphrasing from memory] "he doesn't view it as being serious enough, and he's seen as a serious person in a serious time" or some such, to which a guy there replied "Is it as serious as a soccer game?"

The hosts on CBC will just always consider it their job to shine the LPoC's shoes and denigrate conservatives. 

There's no slight against a conservative that's too unsubstantiated to be touted as gospel truth on CBC, and there's no criticism of a Liberal that doesn't need to be quickly put to rest. That's their MO, and it's clearly never going to change. It has been that way for decades now, and Liberal bias and stench is ingrained into every fibre of every CBC employee's body.  

I'd love to sit in a journalism class at a university and listen to the obligatory bloviating about verification, integrity and the importance of a free, unbiased press to a democracy, just for shits and giggles.

Truth: if you wanna get hired at CBC or CTV, you need to shitcan everything that they teach about "journalistic integrity and a lack of bias" right away (if they even bother anymore), and get on Team LPoC, or your career is over before you even graduate. One unbiased article is enough to ruin your career in the Canadian MSM forever. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You guys that hate CBC spend an awful lot of time watching it.

 

23 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

How do you determine and actually prove the polls are fake?

You are supposed to believe assertions based on people's self-claim that they know things. 

As far as I can tell, this is the proof that's being claimed. 

The opening post said it.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

You are supposed to believe assertions based on people's self-claim that they know things. 

As far as I can tell, this is the proof that's being claimed. 

The opening post said it.

I noticed you didn't put any four ideas forward as to how one could determine or reasonably determine that they were true. Nor did I see you put forward anything other than your own opinion which you claim is insufficient when it's anyone else's opinion

Interesting. Once again you only come here to trash others and contribute nothing to the conversation

However there are answers. You can compare the Poland question to other polling data or other indicators depending on the question and determine if it seems likely. You can look at the methodology and the weighting and see if there's issues there.  And you can look at the pollster, their track record and who paid them . 

But instead of making any of those suggestions you basically just claimed that he's wrong in a bad person because you say so loud offering anything

I'll say this much Mike, at least you're consistent

[Barquentine]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't watch it at all, as in "averaging zero seconds per week for the past 5 years", but their segments are frequently the butt of jokes on FB.

You never watch it but you're an expert on it? You're either a liar or stupid, or both.

You get your news from Facebook? Ok, you're stupid.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You never watch it but you're an expert on it? You're either a liar or stupid, or both.

You get your news from Facebook? Ok, you're stupid.

I don't watch "CBC News", to find out if it's suddenly news, just like I don't eat rocks to figure out if they're suddenly food. 

Do you frequently eat rocks to find out if maybe they're food, Barqy?

And the fact that I know why CBC 'News' doesn't qualify as actual "news" is what makes me an expert on the subject.

I get A LOT of my news from FB. And a lot from Fox News. And then I verify it all before I walk around citing it as if it's carved in stone. 

You, on the other hand, get all your news from CBC, verify nothing, cite it like gospel, insult anyone who questions your narrative, ignore all facts that go against your programming, and when you finally get to the point where you have to act like an adult and admit that you're wrong, you run off to push CBC's next false narrative. 

• Was Fox wrong about collusion, or were they close to 100% correct while CNN was 100% wrong?
• Was Fox right about M Brown, the violent criminal, or was CNN right about "M Brown the Gentle Giant"? 
• Was it wrong to force kids to take the jab? Was there ever a single moment in time where that made sense?
• Was the BSL4 lab leak theory really just a huge conservative joke? 
• Were fiery riots ever "mostly peaceful"?
• Was Biden really mentally fit that whole time?
• Did 60% of Florida's population have to move because of flooding? Did I miss it?
• Was Greta the Dropout really an expert on US race relations and climate change?
• Is Carney really some kind of awesome, trustworthy, 'elbows up' guy, who's winning trade deals with the US, and who's more popular in Alberta than Poilievre or Smith? And if you wanna try being honest for a sec, doesn't that sound a lot like "Dear leader got 99.3% of the votes in the last election"?

OF COURSE I DON'T WATCH THAT FARCICALSHIT, BARQY!

I know that it's all lies and BS, so I don't watch it. How does that not make sense to you? 

Answer this if you're so knowledgeable: do you watch CBC News, and if so, do you think that it is a legitimate "news" show?

If your news sources are so valuable, and mine so shitty, then why are you always the one who's stuck looking back on your crushed beliefs, while I'm laughing at you? 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If your news sources are so valuable, and mine so shitty, then why are you always the one who's stuck looking back on your crushed beliefs, while I'm laughing at you? 

Do you ever go back to review your funny 9/11 beliefs and news sources? Do you think they contributed positively or negatively to your credibility and how would you know?

[WestCanMan]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Do you ever go back to review your funny 9/11 beliefs and news sources? Do you think they contributed positively or negatively to your credibility and how would you know?

I don't have "funny 9/11 beliefs". Just the unanswered questions about inexplicable events surrounding WTC 7.

What did I say happened that so concerns you, eyeball?

Unlike a left4rd, I didn't make declarative statements about "WHAT ABSOLUTELY HAPPENED BECAUSE SO AND SO SAID IT HAPPENED!!!! EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAID ON CBC IS A RET4RDED RACIST!!!!", I just pointed out things that contradict the official narrative. 

You, on the other hand, made dozens of declarative statements about covid jabs and the origin of covid that were all wildly stupid, and now thoroughly debunked.

You're still on the record as being stuck at "Safe, you won't get sick, and you don't have to worry about giving it to granny."

You're so far out in left field that even Fauci feels sorry for you. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you frequently eat rocks to find out if maybe they're food, Barqy?

 

I couldn't speak to that but I do know he gets told the pound sand for the regular so.....

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

don't have "funny 9/11 beliefs". Just the unanswered questions about inexplicable events surrounding WTC 7.

What did I say happened that so concerns you, eyeball?

Amuses me you mean - you said the government did it.

The same thing you say about COVID.