It's like if the Democratic Party fell to pieces and Ariana Huffington became the cherub face of the campaign
It's like if the Democratic Party fell to pieces and Ariana Huffington became the cherub face of the campaign
This is pretty interesting - Eight real US electoral college maps that now look like science fiction.
Never been the world's biggest Bernie fan but stories like this are why I've never really found the Glenn Greenwald style of journalism all that compelling. It just seems gotcha for no apparent reason. Who cares that he bought a house? Or if he personally lost money on the campaign?
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016...ded-disclosure
Because Clinton paid for it.Originally Posted by mikem
#clintoncrimefamily
It matters when you're citing other people's finances as a campaign strategy and when you describe yourself as a 'socialist'. Holding considerable wealth and / or 'exploiting capitalism' to maximise your own financial position could be considered quite hypocritical. A perennial problem for the socialists, unfortunately.
I'm going to see if "What have you got to lose?" washes with any other minorities.
http://cesrusc.org/election/
Trump now leading in the LA Times poll, African American support has increased 600% in the last week. I've said it since last August, he is going to win, anyone who feels otherwise is simply out of touch with the average American.
So will you be out of touch if he loses?
So are all the other polls wrong? Genuine question - every poll I've seen (even Fox polls) have him well behind.
Yes. It will be my perception of America is skewed...but still perhaps closer to the Truth than the coastal urbanites who never saw it coming. If it wasn't for the complicity and desperate propaganda efforts of the Establishment, it wouldn't even be close.
They are traditional telephone polls, this one is based on anonymous internet responses. It comes closer to capturing the 'hidden' Trump vote.
So, all the polls are wrong, except the one that backs up your prediction/hope. Interesting.
@ John_Arne
The LA Times poll is interesting in that it is pretty much the only one doing what it does, as per their site:
The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll represents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans' opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000 respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is updated just after midnight every day of the week.
Decide on your own if giving your contact information so that you can be regularly polled is in fact "anonymous".
I think Sander's critique is largely overblown and misses the forest for the trees, but this is pantomime villain stuff. His critique is using your wealth to 'exploit government' to maximise your own financial position. Owning a third home (particularly if your job demands you have two residences) is a sign of nothing, nor is whether you have lost money during a campaign. We know where his campaign money came from and that clears him from charges of hypocrisy against taking money from special interests in exchange for policy. And I voted against him because I think his approach to creating policy is hopelessly naďve and his focus is myopic.
This is not actually a pitch at minorities. This is a pitch at the non-racist suburban white Republican that says everything they want to hear about race.
One speech increased his support among African Americans by 600%. Maybe it is the pitch they want to hear, you're just too racist and prejudiced to see that.
All of them are wrong. He is probably up 5-10 points right now.
All of them, you say?
So what is his support running at now? Ignore the 'increased by 600%' what is his support at among African-Americans and Hispanics?
They're up to six black guys.
About 15% and 30%, compared to about 5% and 30% for Romney.
But it's still early and there's a large hidden vote component for Trump magnified particularly within those communities.
I'm honestly curious as to what sort of numbers it would take to convince you that Trump was behind? Because if the answer is "nothing", you're not really providing much information content in your posts. Not even a dig - I just would like to know.
I mean it's pretty well known that there is a 4-10 'hidden' Trump vote captured when the polling is done anonymously combined with a bump that will follow as the polls shift from Registered voters to Likely voters.
To pretend otherwise is sheer irrationality, which would be about par for the course for you...
And that's assuming the polls aren't otherwise manipulated, such as through targeting known Democrat households or asking to speak to the youngest member of the household (with circumstantial evidence suggesting that this has been occurring).
So you're saying if polls reliably had Trump down by more than 10 points, you'd accept that he wasn't secretly winning? If not 10, then how many points would it take?
If he's down 10 he's losing, if he's down 5 probably a toss up, below he's probably ahead.
Cool. Just wanted to know where you think the line is.
That said, you saw the stats on previous polls that I posted, right? There's no shy Tory effect in the US. In fact, polling averages have overestimated Republican vote in the last four Presidential elections to the tune of between one and two points. I realise that this election is a touch different, but claiming a systematic polling bias against Republicans does rather fly in the face of recent historical polling results.
Yeah but it's different this time and has been empirically proven as much, you haven't shown anything except your own ignorance:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/11...-admit-it.html
How does it feel to just be completely wrong? Embarrassing? Must hurt to have your 'credibility' constantly undermined, your laughably misplaced condescending tone of academic authority exposed as the farce it is.
Stick to math.
'What have you got to lose?' is such a good pitch. Or it would be with somebody else.
How is 4.8 to 14.1 a 600% increase? How does that math work?
Literally all I did in the last few posts was to ask what your numerical baseline is (to establish where you're working from), and to point out that there's no history of polling bias in President elections favouring the Democratic candidate (while explicitly allowing that this election might be different).
I think you should probably just chill a little bit.
Mert's raging
Harold, Chinny, Mert...they're all the same really.
Reuters are using a biased sample.
I had a Jewish bloke apologise to me about Trump in a bar in NY last night. It was like talking to John Stewart for a night.
No, we didn't exchange numbers.
But what did he say about the polls? That is all that matters.
lol at citing Reuters:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...viduals-207228
In all seriousness, Mert - I just want to thank you for making me aware that all these polls are incorrect - and alerting me to that one somewhat obscure phone poll that was the best measure. On the back of this great tip, I've placed $300 on Trump. Thanks again, mate.
Slightly off-topic but the other day I saw a big story about Carlos Slim in the New York Times which painted him as somewhat of a supervillain. Thought it was interesting.
Reuters commissioned the study through Ipsos, a polling company. Ipsos gets an A- rating with a historical bias of 0.1 points toward Democrats, which is comfortably within the statistical error margin:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
They don't do phone polls either, which is the big "skewed polls" objection. The fact that it's commissioned by Reuters isn't really important, as they went with a respectable polling outlet that has a strong track record. It's unlikely that they'd sabotage the main selling point of their organisation (polling accuracy) in the service of a short-term scheme three months out from an election.
Yeah, but they donated money to save the lives of kids with HIV in Africa mate, they're obviously in the can for Hillary.
To balance that slightly, there were a couple of polls last week that showed small national movements back to Trump, so it's not all Clinton at the moment. The only available recent swing state polling has strongly favoured Clinton, although it's not frequent enough to draw any firm conclusions from at this point.
You are all aware that it is not a national race. If you want to obsess over polls, obsess over state ones.
And by all means, let's denigrate people who donate to the Clinton Foundation, like maybe this guy (check out the last entry on page 18). Proof of a Clinton plant? Some people say it is.
The worst part of Trump really isn't him; it is that all the assholes like David Duke have started coming out of the woodwork again. Sadly, both the national and the Louisiana Republican party were the two biggest forces trying to kill him off the last time which makes this video horribly depressing. For the uniformed to properly understand his last statement look up the Southern agricultural policy toward the boll weevil since the 1970s. It is not simply Democrats who think that Trump is pushing a racist agenda, the KKK do as well.
There has never been a skewed poll in history. Nobody understands political polling. Political polling makes no money for the companies, in fact it makes a big loss, but it's important for them to be as accurate as possible because it's a good shop window for them to get their name out there and attract business to the more profitable sectors (notably corporate and brand research).
No polling company has ever skewed a poll in the history of polling to favour any party or candidate, and nor will it ever happen.
You mean the same Reuters who changed its methodology the day after their poll showed Trump winning? Wake up.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...inton-winning/
The polls will definitely narrow as the election gets nearer. That's basically a given.
There's still so much narrative to happen between now and the election.
Will the narrative include polls? I hope it does.
The narrative is skewed by the liberal media. Everyone knows there is a shy Trump narrative of about 4-5pts.
Only the unbiased ones showing the true state of play; i.e. God Emperor Trump in the lead.
The swing state polls are key, but a heavy national lead for Clinton will certainly shape the media narrative, and thus how the campaigns react, over the next couple of months.
You want to be in a position where the Democrats can take out the Republicans further down the ticket as well, which you would hope is more likely to happen if Clinton can start thumping Trump across the country.
The media narrative has been shaped for quite awhile now. Trump is Satan and Clinton "isn't that bad guys, we promise!!"
Reply With Quote
