Thread: Trump poll numbers vs. actual election results = Good test for one aspect red pill theory

One aspect of red pill theory is that women give socially acceptable answers, then act according to the tingles in their vagina. As Trump's poll numbers are going down these days, I heard that Trump is winning among white men, but losing among white women.

I suspect, based on the red pill theory, that if the election was held today, Trump would do better, in a statistically significant way, among white women than his poll numbers indicate. I suspect that, the more socially unaccepted things Trump says, the more women responding to surveys give the more socially acceptable answers of Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Gill Stein, Somebody else or Undecided even when their vagina tingles will lead them to vote for Trump, who displays both strong alpha male characteristics, combined with an excellent provisioning ability.

I guess, if Trump continues saying socially unaccepted things until November, we will find out whether that aspect of red pill theory is true, by comparing women's polls in early November to actual election results. On the other hand, if Trump tones it down and women no longer feel uncomfortable admitting they will vote him, we will lose the opportunity to test that.

If you live outside the US, you could make money off the red pill theory by betting on Trump winning, despite his poll numbers going down. The betting has him with less than 20% chance of winning right now (https://electionbettingodds.com/), and that number will probably go lower once more Europeans hear about Evan McMillin. But I believe many betters, relying on the polls, will underestimate Trump's odds of winning. Trump will certainly be a Buy if and when his predicted odds reach 10%.

And if you turn out to be right, once again we learn why it was a terrible idea to give women the vote.

This may also be the moment that certain red pillers who assume a certain male personifies 'alpha male' traits, traits that they're convinced drive female attraction, may discover how errant their assumptions are.

Originally Posted by Abdenour

....
I suspect, based on the red pill theory, that if the election was held today, Trump would do better, in a statistically significant way, among white women than his poll numbers indicate. I suspect that, the more socially unaccepted things Trump says, the more women responding to surveys give the more socially acceptable answers of Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Gill Stein, Somebody else or Undecided even when their vagina tingles will lead them to vote for Trump, who displays both strong alpha male characteristics, combined with an excellent provisioning ability.
....

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, refers to these as the "Shy Trump Supporter"s: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1489497...he-bs-detector

His article is gender neutral. Here is a quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Adams

Anecdotally, many Trump supporters know other Trump supporters who won’t admit their Trump support, even to loved ones, much less to pollsters calling their homes. It just isn’t safe to support Trump in many parts of America.

The under reporting may still end up hurting Trump in two ways:

1) Trump saying controversial things looked smart as long as he was high in the polls. It was seen as a smart move to get free media coverage. Him saying the same things may look dumb when he is down in the polls.

2) The segment of would be Trump voters, who are really just anti-Hillary voters, may start looking to Gary Johnson as the guy to beat Hillary, if Trump's numbers keep going down while Johnson's are rising.

I saw a poll recently that showed an eight point increase for Trump among white women. And that was just last week. Tingles is clearly the preeminent factor here. One countervailing force however, is the Hivemind, which is clearly favoring Hillary. And women are such painfully conforming creatures, that it's a question of whether in the privacy of the voting booth, they will follow the dictates of the Hivemind, or the dictates of Tingles. I honestly don't know which, though perhaps Tingles will prevail by a small margin. These are two powerful forces at work, though. Kind of like Buridan's Ass looking at the bails of hay on either side of him. Which way will he turn?

After lamenting every single president since the day I read and understood the Constitution of the USa,
I predict this election will produce exactly the same toxic results to the constituents, with engineering precision.

It is like being forced to pay for watching this insane chess game where pieces can only
move every two to four years and one pays to either watch the game played or pays more to play it.
All the time, asking for donations. Tax exempt donations.

No matter who "wins", all voters will lose something very valuable and difficult to replace:


Their Own Freedom.

My theory is that a woman will never register a man as an alpha unless she is physically attracted to his looks. If I am incorrect than answer me this... why don't 'alphas' get 100% of the women they approach? Some people might say 'oh she's not in the right mindset or has a boyfriend' ..but if women by evolution are attracted to alphas, than why isn't she still not attracted?

Quite simply, not all women are attracted to his looks. The ones who are attracted to his looks will see him as an alpha when he passes the tests.

One thing you'll see is a lot of good looking beta's with hot girlfriends. These guys pay for everything. I once saw a dating show where the girl said ' I want a man who'll do everything for me' the good looking beta said 'I will honey'' and she picked him.. she sees him as easy to manipulate.

I think women are attracted to superior genes.

Looks are the prime factor there, but in my own experience, I have found that quite a few women are attracted to intelligence (particularly of the rhetorical sort).

This is probably a combination of the genes and what they see as a potential for better resource-gathering.

Just an observation. Not about this thread of conversation, but about the topic.

The media is losing its mind because Trump has gone from down twelve to up one in the last eight days of so in a major poll.

Of course the media and the left are claiming to be skeptical. I mean, why shouldn't they be? They're arguing that such a major reversal is unrealistic. And I agree with them.

Speaking for myself, I made up my mind to vote for Trump in the primaries. I think most people are the same way. If a candidate supports some of your positions of particular concern, and the other candidate doesn't, it's not like you're going to go back and forth between the two in terms of support. You either support one or the other, and that doesn't change short of them murdering someone, and even then, it would probably have to be either a friend or family member of yours that was murdered for it to really make a difference.

Anyway, my point is, and someone in the media should actually be saying this because it's a common sense question: Could it be that the relative support for the candidates hasn't actually changed, but rather it's the way the polling data is being tabulated that has?

I mean, the MSM being in the tank for the left is a given. Hell, they openly admit that they over-sample left-wingers in their "scientific" polls. However, late in the election cycle, like say, a week before the election, I can imagine they'd want to be as accurate in real-world terms as they can be so they can maintain a veneer of credibility after the election.

Originally Posted by William Noy

I mean, the MSM being in the tank for the left is a given. Hell, they openly admit that they over-sample left-wingers in their "scientific" polls. However, late in the election cycle, like say, a week before the election, I can imagine they'd want to be as accurate in real-world terms as they can be so they can maintain a veneer of credibility after the election.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with that last bit. The system will crash once the total compromise of the fourth estate becomes common knowledge.
He's been insinuating as much which is useful leverage.

Old Georgie Soros has been interviewed and "predicted" that Trump will win the popular vote in a landslide but hitlery will win the electoral college and
be crowned (croned) as the almighty vagina in chief.

There are other items in play which I dare not speak of even under my breath.

In any case, if the Soros "prediction" becomes true I have a prediction to match:

Expect truckloads of new member intros.