[dragonwriter]

> The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition

No, its not.

> at least, in the states where it matters.

Even there it likely isn't now -- even if it was in the most trivial sense on election day -- given the degree to which his support has fallen since then.

[Mao_Zedang]

Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%. I think a dose of skepticism is warranted after such a monumental failure to measure the temperature of the nation.

[dragonwriter]

> Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%

Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.)

This error though reflects exactly a frequent propaganda line from the Trump camp, and when it gets echoed here and in other forums its often corrected the, so at this point I have begun to doubt whether is ever an honest error rather than deliberate injection of "alternative facts" into the discussion as a distraction.

[Mao_Zedang]

Sorry I dont really understand what you are saying, are you saying Trump calling the pre-election polls incredibly biased , which turned out to be true, propaganda?