Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 8:29 am

ummm, this is pretty much exactly as we said would happen. Who are you arguing with?
What we were complaining about was how polls were all that mattered, polls, polls, polls. Then the national poll was all that mattered and so on.

We simply pointed out that when you said that, Trump was in the lead. Your "predictions" and all that mattered pointed to exactly opposite of what you were touting. No kidding Trump would start to falter, we said it would happen and I wouldn't doubt if he gets trounced in the election, doesn't change what you said, when you said it now does it?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 8:37 am

rickyp wrote:
So we look to the national poll and find Trump is in the lead only to be told it doesn't matter?


rickyp
I said that the plurality winner of popular vote will almost always win the election. The national poll reflects that, and the trend in the poll is vital.

But, we'll see how long Mr. Trumps little flutter keeps him close.

not all that long..
the trend ... in Clintons direction...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

And she's having a good week..


Yeah, that jobs report was a real boost for her, eh?

She's having a "good week" because the press can't throw enough slow pitches at her. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/06/8 ... questions/

You're so funny:

"National polls tell the tale (when Hillary's ahead)"

"National polls are meaningless (when Trump's ahead)"

"National polls tell the tale again (when Hillary retakes the lead)"

And Trump is dealing with the the fall out from his "University".
As is Pam Bondi and the AG of Texas...,.
Whats really amazing is that none of this came out in the primaries... Which is suppossed to be such a great system to vet candidates.. Or maybe its just that the republican field was full of incompetents.?

http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/trump-uni ... e-charges/


Actually, it did come up in the primary. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Of course, as a Canadian and a socialist, you wouldn't know that.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 9:02 am

fate
Actually, it did come up in the primary

But Ted and Marco couldn't get any traction with it... Why not?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Jun 2016, 9:33 am

How does RickyP reconcile the difference in his belief in the national polls with the only variance is the political party?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 9:49 am

bbauska
How does RickyP reconcile the difference in his belief in the national polls with the only variance is the political party?

I'm not sure what you mean by this...
In case you missed the original premise and the source...

But the general election is off to a predictable start. Three Quinnipiac polls released on Tuesday, showing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton neck and neck in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, got far more attention than they deserved. That’s not because Trump can’t win those states, or the election. Rather, we’re still six months from Election Day and no single poll should receive much attention. Moreover, I would caution against getting bogged down in state polls — even of swing states. The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency; the Electoral College matters only in very close elections, and most of the time not even then.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/don ... lege-math/

Its based on historical performance. And with one modern exception, its been right.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Jun 2016, 9:53 am

"National polls tell the tale (when Hillary's ahead)"

"National polls are meaningless (when Trump's ahead)"

"National polls tell the tale again (when Hillary retakes the lead)"


You place a great deal of faith in polls that Mrs. Clinton is leading, but little when Mr. Trump is close or leading. My question was why YOU do that. Not what Nate Silver thinks.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 10:30 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Actually, it did come up in the primary

But Ted and Marco couldn't get any traction with it... Why not?


Because Ted and Marco don't own the press--unlike Hillary.

Oh, and you said they were incompetent. No, they just could not interest the press. Hillary whistles and they come running.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 10:31 am

bbauska
You place a great deal of faith in polls that Mrs. Clinton is leading, but little when Mr. Trump is close or leading. My question was why YOU do that. Not what Nate Silver thinks

I place a great deal of faith in the polls. In large part becuse of what I learn from Mr. Silvers organizations, my own work experience and others.
What Silvers research shows is that, except for one modern exception the winner of the national vote wins the election.
Meaning that the national poll is highly predictive.

If you read carefully you'll also note that i refered to trends in polling. As polls accumulate they measure trends. Past elections cycls have demonstrated ebbs and flows that have patterns in them . For instance, after a nominee becomes "the presumptive" they get a bump. It happened with McCain. With Romney. And now with Trump.
But it doesn't last.
And it hasn't lasted with Trump.
Now Hillary will get a bump later this week, as she becomes "presumptive nominee" and Obama (who is now tracking very positively in approval ratings) comes out and endorses her...
When Sanders finally submits and climbs on board with Elizabeth Warren in tow, she'll get another bump.

Meanwhile Trump is mired in his University fraud and RICO lawsuits in a way that his Republican opponents should have been able to generate . But couldn't. And he's digging his grave deeper every day.
Plus the Libertarian is making ground .... Mostly at Trumps expense. (Typically republican voters)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 10:36 am

fate
Oh, and you said they were incompetent. No, they just could not interest the press. Hillary whistles and they come running.

Cruz and Rubio's inability to interest the press you paint as if they are victims of a biased press.Always the victims.

I think that being able to manage media is a core competency of a candidate for President.

Up till now, I would have given Trump the highest marks for that. Not Hillary. But she is the most professional at managing a big competent national campaign staff...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2016, 2:32 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Oh, and you said they were incompetent. No, they just could not interest the press. Hillary whistles and they come running.

Cruz and Rubio's inability to interest the press you paint as if they are victims of a biased press.Always the victims.

I think that being able to manage media is a core competency of a candidate for President.

Up till now, I would have given Trump the highest marks for that. Not Hillary. But she is the most professional at managing a big competent national campaign staff...


Give me a break. Here are some "hard-hitting" questions Hillary was peppered with yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CpQkcjslE

Who could withstand such scrutiny? Here are the questions (feel free to check for accuracy):

“You’re on the cusp of being the first female nominee of a major party. What does that mean to you and how are you reflecting on that?”

“No matter what happens tomorrow, Bernie Sanders says the convention in Philadelphia will be contested. Do you think there is anything you can do to change that at this point?”

“Is it setting in that you might be making serious history tomorrow?”

“Some prominent Democrats have come out saying ‘we maybe need to reevaluate the super delegate system more broadly. irrespective of what happens in this primary, do you support looking into that and, perhaps, getting rid of that?”

“Do you think Sen. Sanders will concede as you did in 2008?”

“What role would you like the president to play in your campaign?”

“Last night when you took stage in Sacramento, there was a woman standing next to me who was absolutely sobbing. And she said, you know, ‘it’s time, it’s past time.’ And you see the women, you see people here. People just come up to you and, {gasp} they get tears in their eyes. Do you feel… do you feel the weight of what this means to people?”

“Do you expect the president’s endorsement some time this week?”


Wow! How does she do it?

It's not "core competency." This is the same woman who masterminded the chaos of the Middle East. This is the same woman who was in charge of the State Department and never saw scores of requests for additional security at Benghazi. This is the same woman who brought a "reset button" to a meeting with her Russian counterpart that had the wrong words on it--and whose "reset" was a fiasco.

She's not competent. She simply has her fawns.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 08 Jun 2016, 6:09 am

first we hear:
The central thesis is, however, that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections.

with the notable exception of Gore Bush ... the plurality of vote goes to the winner of the election.
Since its happened in 47 elections, and only once, not ... its almost certain- statistically ... to happen again.

That statement was proven wrong, this has happened not only the one recent time but rather FOUR times. So he shifts his wording but sticks to the same belief

What Silvers research shows is that, except for one modern exception the winner of the national vote wins the election.
Meaning that the national poll is highly predictive.


So now it's "one modern exception" and is no longer certainly statistically improbable but rather "highly predictive".
But the method of determining the winner has not changed, why do we want to ignore the past when the process has not changed? Then he wants to ignore the recent example of it happening again PROVING he can't ignore the past. Why? Because it suits his position of course!

And why oh why does this same person link us to data involving "battleground states"? Per his own example, these simply do not matter, it's all about the national poll not individual States so why show us how Ohio and North Carolina and Florida, etc will play out?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 08 Jun 2016, 6:19 am

like shooting fish in a barrel...

Whats really amazing is that none of this came out in the primaries... Which is supposed to be such a great system to vet candidates


so let me get this straight,if we had a quick election then these things would have come up? The longer the process the LESS surfaces? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me, can you please explain how a quicker process would have made this issue matter? Instead you see it did come up and is/was not that important to most people. Maybe Hillary does make some ground on it, maybe she does make a big issue of it and it could later matter? But how is the primary process to blame for this not being an issue? Trying to blame the primary process is frankly purposely misleading! Blame the other candidates, blame the media, blame those who don't seem to care, but the process is designed so these issues will be MORE likely to come to play not less as you suggest!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Jun 2016, 8:51 am

Fate
Who could withstand such scrutiny?

Politicians get softballs often. But you think there's been an uneven scrutiny that favors Clinton? Really? Have you seen Fox and Friends and Trump? Hannity?

Through her career... Hillary has endured more scrutiny, than most. Example? Her testimony during the many hours of grilling she recieved from Gowdy's committee on Ben Ghazi demonstrated her grace, intelligence and patience.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/h ... nts-215066


Tom
so let me get this straight,if we had a quick election then these things would have come up? The longer the process the LESS surfaces?

As usual you miss the point.
The primaries are long in part because they are suppossed to provide ample time for scrutiny and vetting. By the time the general election comes around the parties nominee is suppossed to have faced significant criticism, and dealt with it. Sanders was tough on Clinton.
The republican candidates somehow couldn't manage to vett or effectively challenge Trump even though Trump University was known for years...
The question isn't whether a shorter process would have given rise to a proper exposure of the fraud, but why given the luxury of a 9 month process his opponents could not muster an effective use of Trump University? Or his other failings... Wha does it say about the 16 opponents or the Party in general?

I'll give you one reason tha some might have not managed a principled stnad. Many of his opponents played along with Trump when he led the Birther conspiracy theorists.... When you've curried favor with the bigot on something like that in order to pander to a specific segment of the base .... you're locked in. Its hard to take a principled stand long after you've long abandoned any principles.
Thats why Bill Kristol can now say.
"Official position of the leadership of the Republican Party: Trump is an inexcusable bigot, and Trump must be our next president."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Jun 2016, 9:55 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Who could withstand such scrutiny?

Politicians get softballs often. But you think there's been an uneven scrutiny that favors Clinton? Really? Have you seen Fox and Friends and Trump? Hannity?

Through her career... Hillary has endured more scrutiny, than most. Example? Her testimony during the many hours of grilling she recieved from Gowdy's committee on Ben Ghazi demonstrated her grace, intelligence and patience.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/h ... nts-215066


Bull. If she was "grilled," what did she do during the attack? She took responsibility. What does that mean? If she was "responsible," then it was her fault, right?

Has she answered questions about the Clinton Foundation?

Now that we know she was not authorized to have an email server, why didn't the press ask about that?

As for Trump, I really could not care less. Nothing he says or does will impress me.

However, Hillary is uniquely unqualified to be President No one with her sorry list of "credentials" has ever been elected President.

Neither one should be President. I'm hoping for a bolt of lightening (or two).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Jun 2016, 10:00 am

One more note: it is sick and almost beyond comprehension that you would compare Hannity and Fox and Friends to print journalists. Fox has become (except for the Special Report) the cheerleading squad for Trump. Then again, most other media outlets, especially MSNBC, are in the tank for Hillary. I watched Chris Matthews on Sunday (I was flying). He was taking turns crucifying Bernie and then excoriating Trump. It was extraordinary.

Print journalists like to pretend they are neutral. They should just don the "Hillary for President" gear and be done with it.