Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Truth AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH: 2016 Election

Page 68 of 114 [ 1815 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 114  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Mootoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,942
Location: over the rainbow

19 Aug 2016, 12:16 pm

By the way, I love how absolutely 0% of (presumably climate-change denying) Republicans think energy is an issue... and I'd love to see their reply if in the future electricity is difficult to come with the average temperature up by several degrees. But then, of course, they'll simply continue being aggressive...

VegetableMan, indeed, I've complained about thread titles elsewhere but apparently propaganda is fine as long no one is personally attacked...



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

19 Aug 2016, 12:19 pm

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/d ... rse-223436

Hey Trump acknowledged climate change. But it's only to protect his golf course.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

19 Aug 2016, 12:26 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Actually Pew has it pegged at 32% percent Democrat to 23% Republican. And when political leanings are accounted for it's 48% Democrat to 39% Republican. So again Jacoby, you are not right.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ing-badly/

And just to emphasize:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/d ... ias-224903

"Overall, Clinton leads Trump by nearly 7 points, according to averages calculated by HuffPost Pollster and RealClearPolitics. That represents Clinton’s largest lead since before Trump knocked out the last contenders for the GOP nomination and surged into a tie with Clinton."


Bit misleading when you forget to mention the 39% who identify as independents when the Reuters poll I posted pegged them at 12%, also that Pew poll is over a year older. If Trump leads independents as he does in most polls then this will be extremely close election that Trump has every opportunity to win. You have to read the sampling, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Aug 2016, 12:27 pm

Mootoo wrote:
. But then, of course, they'll simply continue being aggressive...


Well, yes, that is the shtick. It's not that people believe what Trump says, but they gravitate towards the "strong man" image he pushes out. That right there is the problem too: people focus so much on the image they don't think about the effects of the policy. They hear what they want to hear and that's what they'll vote for, regardless of if it's actually feasible and beneficial. Populism in a nutshell.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Aug 2016, 12:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Bit misleading when you forget to mention the 39% who identify as independents when the Reuters poll I posted pegged them at 12%, also that Pew poll is over a year older. If Trump leads independents as he does in most polls then this will be extremely close election that Trump has every opportunity to win. You have to read the sampling, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled.


Trump's polling: if it were good he'd brag about it, and the last time I heard "my polling is excellent-- through the roof!" was six months ago. That's all you need to know about Trump's polling: that fact he's not talking about means it's not good and he knows it.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

19 Aug 2016, 12:38 pm

Jacoby,

I'm not going to post te full text of the article. That's why I included a link. It is not misleading in any way.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/virginia ... d=41421385

Face the facts, as of now Trump is losing the election. You're sound like Trump's "says who" lawyer who embarrassed himself when the anchor informed him that Trump was behind in "all" of the polls.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... s-who.html



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

19 Aug 2016, 12:40 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bit misleading when you forget to mention the 39% who identify as independents when the Reuters poll I posted pegged them at 12%, also that Pew poll is over a year older. If Trump leads independents as he does in most polls then this will be extremely close election that Trump has every opportunity to win. You have to read the sampling, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled.


Trump's polling: if it were good he'd brag about it, and the last time I heard "my polling is excellent-- through the roof!" was six months ago. That's all you need to know about Trump's polling: that fact he's not talking about means it's not good and he knows it.


This is why he is saying the election will be rigged. Because he knows he's going to lose and his ego can't handle that.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

19 Aug 2016, 12:40 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bit misleading when you forget to mention the 39% who identify as independents when the Reuters poll I posted pegged them at 12%, also that Pew poll is over a year older. If Trump leads independents as he does in most polls then this will be extremely close election that Trump has every opportunity to win. You have to read the sampling, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled.


Trump's polling: if it were good he'd brag about it, and the last time I heard "my polling is excellent-- through the roof!" was six months ago. That's all you need to know about Trump's polling: that fact he's not talking about means it's not good and he knows it.


It's not bad really, the most recent polls have Trump almost within the margin of error even with the skewed methodology and the media declaring WWIII on him. If Trump is really winning independents by 17-18% as shown in the skewed Reuters poll then he will would win the election fairly easily. A more accurate sampling paints a much different picture, I don't think anybody would argue that 12% is right for independents.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

19 Aug 2016, 12:51 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bit misleading when you forget to mention the 39% who identify as independents when the Reuters poll I posted pegged them at 12%, also that Pew poll is over a year older. If Trump leads independents as he does in most polls then this will be extremely close election that Trump has every opportunity to win. You have to read the sampling, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled.


Trump's polling: if it were good he'd brag about it, and the last time I heard "my polling is excellent-- through the roof!" was six months ago. That's all you need to know about Trump's polling: that fact he's not talking about means it's not good and he knows it.


It's not bad really, the most recent polls have Trump almost within the margin of error even with the skewed methodology and the media declaring WWIII on him. If Trump is really winning independents by 17-18% as shown in the skewed Reuters poll then he will would win the election fairly easily. A more accurate sampling paints a much different picture, I don't think anybody would argue that 12% is right for independents.


No, it really is bad. And you know when it comes to yours or the polling companies methodology, I'm going to go with the polling companies because they have a lot more credibility than a Trump cheerleader.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Aug 2016, 12:52 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bit misleading when you forget to mention the 39% who identify as independents when the Reuters poll I posted pegged them at 12%, also that Pew poll is over a year older. If Trump leads independents as he does in most polls then this will be extremely close election that Trump has every opportunity to win. You have to read the sampling, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled.


Trump's polling: if it were good he'd brag about it, and the last time I heard "my polling is excellent-- through the roof!" was six months ago. That's all you need to know about Trump's polling: that fact he's not talking about means it's not good and he knows it.


It's not bad really, the most recent polls have Trump almost within the margin of error even with the skewed methodology and the media declaring WWIII on him. If Trump is really winning independents by 17-18% as shown in the skewed Reuters poll then he will would win the election fairly easily. A more accurate sampling paints a much different picture, I don't think anybody would argue that 12% is right for independents.


Sure, it's all a vast conspiracy-- so vast it has support of almost 60% of the population. :D



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

19 Aug 2016, 3:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016

Mid to late March 'Remain' was most definitely in the lead in the polls

the globalists need to craft a narrative for their own pocketbooks, Brexit cost a lot of billionaires A LOT of money and these same people who are really without country are afraid of the same happening in America.

Being able to read a poll accurately is a skill, most people don't have any inclination to read beyond the headline but the tabs often tell a different story.

You have no idea the math and science that goes into making accurate polls. I studied some of it in upper level statistics and you probably have no idea what you are talking about...



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

19 Aug 2016, 4:19 pm

I understand it fine, I've been following polls for a long time. What I said in my post is not incorrect, can you defend a 12% independent sampling as somehow representative of the voting public? The methodology matters, it's not a conspiracy when you can do the fact checking yourself so there is no need to appeal to 'authority' of poll taker. I can promise you I understand this better than you as I follow it much closer and I've been correct in this primary all along while all you howled about it being an impossibility which you now so snidely wish us to forget. The wizard Nate Silver wasn't able to craft a narrative with bogus polls as his formula only works if the polls work, they didn't work in Brexit and they didn't work in the presidential primaries so we are to believe they will work now? I have a functioning brain, I do not need to take the false media narratives at face value so appealing to their legitimacy is really laughable to me. Why would the media ever lie to us? :roll:

Be afraid, be very afraid! :P



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

19 Aug 2016, 4:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I understand it fine, I've been following polls for a long time. What I said in my post is not incorrect, can you defend a 12% independent sampling as somehow representative of the voting public? The methodology matters, it's not a conspiracy when you can do the fact checking yourself so there is no need to appeal to 'authority' of poll taker. I can promise you I understand this better than you as I follow it much closer and I've been correct in this primary all along while all you howled about it being an impossibility which you now so snidely wish us to forget. The wizard Nate Silver wasn't able to craft a narrative with bogus polls as his formula only works if the polls work, they didn't work in Brexit and they didn't work in the presidential primaries so we are to believe they will work now? I have a functioning brain, I do not need to take the false media narratives at face value so appealing to their legitimacy is really laughable to me. Why would the media ever lie to us? :roll:

Be afraid, be very afraid! :P


Wow that is a very conceded post. 8O

It doesn't seem to matter how often people prove you wrong you just keep posting the same things. Sorry, but the facts are not on your side. Many links have been provided that directly contradict your statements and you hardly ever provide anything close to evidence to back your claims up but it doesn't seem to matter at all. :?



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

19 Aug 2016, 4:55 pm

He's whistling as he passes the graveyard...



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

19 Aug 2016, 5:09 pm

Yet I'm the one actually talking about the specifics of the polling methodologies while you guys stick your fingers in your ears and whine about me, a 12% independent sample is not just wrong but intentionally wrong. Can you explain that because it certainly seems like an accurate sampling would make Trump's poll numbers look a lot better as he beats Hillary with independents handily in that same poll. I would say that self identified independents make up at least a third of the US electorate, a lot of the polls have it even more. You can dig into more of these polls, once you start checking the tabs you'll start seeing the pattern and realize how bogus pretty much all political polling is. It isn't a science, it's politics and it's all about creating narratives. Hillary got a post convention bump, it was overblown by the media who was simultaneously waging war against Trump but now things are returning to the norm that was before.

Nothing "conceded" about me, quite the opposite! :P :wink:



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

19 Aug 2016, 5:19 pm

Image
this statue was "erected" in union square, this week. Sam Biederman, New York City’s Parks Department spokesperson, issued the following official statement:
"NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small."
:mrgreen: