Old? Didn't this story break like 2-3 days ago? What is your definition of old?
Printable View
Old? Didn't this story break like 2-3 days ago? What is your definition of old?
How about not today?
This race would be very different if debates were held based on any candidate registered in all 50 states. Johnson is on the ballot in 50 states (like Jill Stein), has legitimate executive government experience (certainly more than Trump). Yet the mainstream media only starts covering him when he goofs on the name of a Syrian city. Now my librul friends seem to weekly post random Salon, Slate and other similar stories attacking Johnson. Not sure what exactly to make of that, because I don't think Johnson is any more of a "threat" to Clinton than he was last month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Full disclosure, I am likely voting Johnson.
I'm surprised to see that Johnson is polling so well in younger demos, but Stein isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
15% for Stein is 5 times her national average. And she's certifiably insane.
Jill Stein is not on the ballot in Georgia.
She can be written in, but that requires people who are crazy enough to vote for her to be able to spell her name.
http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
I heard on the radio that Clinton's main goal for tonight is to make the American people think she's likeable.
"likeable"
Leaving aside how absurd it is to judge a presidential candidate on that criteria, just look at who her opponent is - an obnoxious, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, bigoted bully with the manners and morals of an especially unruly toddler.
Yet Clinton is the one who people think is 'unlikeable'?
America, get your shit together immediately.
Similar point here: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...e-expectations
I must say I find that unintelligible; you have the choice between a megalomaniac fantast and a woman who's not 'likeable enough' and likeable is all that counts for people to seriously risk having the megalomaniac fantast in the White House.
And let's not fool ourselves, there is a big chance that he will be there in a couple of months. Not because he's not an incredible liability to the USA, but because they can't imagine themselves voting for 'that woman'.
Not in the least surprised by the way that Randblade has joined the 'hate Hillary' crowd. His destructive streak knows no bounds.
That and come across as healthy. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Actually the likability factor is pretty big. The majority of voters are going to strike down the party line, either R or D. The swing voters are the fickle people who don't pay that much attention to politics. They will often vote with their 'gut' and how someone comes across at the debates will matter.
*cough* Corbyn *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I don't hate Hillary :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Like you don't hate Europe, it's just that you can't think of anything positive about either.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I said the campaign is making a mistake by not being positive enough. Said the same thing in 2005 about the party I voted for which lost that election. Negativity can work but a positive message should be there too.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-am-tweetstorm
Thats how you tweet at 3am :haha:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...sanders-leaked
Another theory: they duuumb
Do 18-30's bother to turnout in the USA?
http://www.electproject.org/_/rsrc/1.../CPS%20age.png
It's not great. The point was that the idea that 40% of young people are voting third party is bogus and based on polls with samples of 10-20 (of young people).
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN1280Z9
"Clinton, who needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street, both positions she later backed away from in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.
The excerpts of remarks by the former secretary of state, made in 2013 and 2014 in closed-door meetings where audiences paid to attend, were published online on Friday by WikiLeaks, which sourced them to the email account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman."
Sander's supporters are mad... they'll give her a stern talking to as they vote for her anyway. I actually don't condemn Clinton for her positions or for what she said there, in fact I agree with some of it (free trade is great) however I do condemn the blatant pandering and lying she gets away with. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that she would say ANYTHING to get elected?
Are you just engaging in faux outrage here? What Clinton said is what virtually every politician says. There's absolutely nothing surprising there. Before 2016, this is what was considered typical political lying.
Must be great relying on info obtained by Russia and Assange by the way.
The information is credible and the Clinton has not called it false so the Russia/Assange charge is silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
One would expect Clinton to actually state what her honest positions are. Is she for free trade or not? Is she for the TPP or not? If you say one thing behind closed doors and another to the voters that's not political lying, that's just lying. Politicians promise things that don't happen due to reality and a need to work with others via compromise, that's one thing, this is quite clearly another.
So you're happy to allow traitors and enemies to influence the American election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And this is different from what McCain and particularly Romney did in the previous election cycles? Wasn't surprising (or extraordinary) then and it's not now.
Information is information. As long as it is accurate why should you care about the source when it comes to reacting to the information? I do think people who sell state secrets should be prosecuted but once those secrets are out... they are absolutely fair political game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Clinton: running the most honest presidential campaign since 2004.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...st-elections-/
This is just absolutely fucking hilarious in light of your comments in the other thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You're deluded if you think Trump is any different. Too many people give him a pass because he hasn't spent his adult life as an elected official, but he's definitely been a "political animal" for decades, exploiting things like lobbyists and tax laws for his own benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
He criticizes the political and structural deficiencies that made him a billionaire....and somehow makes people believe he'll change the status quo? He's even got Republican Party officials buying his snake oil. :picard:
I put the qualifier as "as long as it is accurate." Politfact has absolutely rated comments made (for example) by Trump and Bernie differently even though they were both off on the % of unemployed blacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Nah I don't actually believe him. Which is why in the other thread I said something along the lines of "Clinton will absolutely be bad, Trump might be bad." Basically there is a chance Trump will hold onto the positions he's previously espoused. With Clinton I know its more big government looming.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
EDIT: And of course it will make people like you and Loki go bananas if Trump actually wins. ;)
Good to know that only libruls care about this country.
You're deluded if you think Clinton will be the big, bad government wolf conservatives have been railing about. She's more like a moderate Republican than a left-of-center Democrat. (That's why Bernie Sanders was her biggest competitor during the Democrat primaries.) She's a military hawk, which appeals to the establishment GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You assume a Hillary Clinton Presidential Administration will automatically mean a whole host of things.....but you refuse to assume certain things under a Donald Trump Presidential Administration. How does that work? I mean, how do you compartmentalize this way?
It's clear you haven't read the assessments you're referring to and are just parroting republican talking points. The differences in their ratings stem from the fact that the Sanders campaign was honest about the definitions and the data they used whereas the Trump campaign was not. The article about Trump's claim was indeed written in a less favorable way than the one about Sanders's claim, but the ratings themselves are accurate. And this is why we show our work Lewk Jr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Politicians are good at massaging "poll" results to their own benefit. Polls are often cited as "scientific" even when they're not (because the sampling size is too small). Aggregate polls aren't much better, when they include small sample distortions.
But we're a culture that believes popular *oponion* can be measured, and turned into scientific data, which can then anticipate outcomes. Even though outcomes like Brexit prove otherwise. The only poll that really matters happens in the election booth.
Dewey Wins!
Sampling size is not a major issue in polling. :bored: There are lots of statistical issues, but this is not one.
And yes, opinion can be measured. Can it be measured perfectly? No. Is it far more accurate than any alternative? Definitely. Trust GGT to take a luddite position. :bored:
It can, with some caveats and some uncertainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Sample size does not tend to be as great a problem as other problems with sampling (such as systematically sampling the wrong portion or a non-representative portion of the population) and modeling.
Many polls are conducted via phone, but there are rules/regulations preventing robo-dialing cell phones. Even land lines with answering machines aren't adequately "capturing data". Bloomberg has charts showing that survey polls aren't necessarily comprehensive nor reliably predictive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not me being a luddite. :bored:
And none of that has anything to do with sample size.
So what makes you trust "the polls" are accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Having actually learned statistics (things like the central limit theorem and the law of large numbers) and how polling works. Sample size is not a problem. The way questions are asked is a problem. The way the sample is chosen is a problem. The way samples are weighed to reflect the population is a problem. High non-response rates are a problem. Herding in the polling industry is a problem. Sample size is not. In fact, having samples that are too large can be problematic in itself (non-independence of observations). And when I say those things are a problem, I don't mean that they're necessarily being done incorrectly; it's that there's many legitimate ways of doing it, but differences in those methods produce somewhat different results. There's no full-proof solution to this, though a poll of polls goes a long way towards minimizing bias of various kinds.
Dewey Wins! :rolleyes: Trump will never be the Republican nominee! :rolleyes: Brexit will never happen! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Non-random sample. :bored: