weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 15, 2016 14:22:03 GMT -5
Oh, you made a joke about dead people. Classy. As usual.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 15, 2016 14:55:15 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP: Supposing--hypothetically--that Ms. Clinton actually wins the 2016 election, in light of your present certainty that this won't be the case, what steps would you take to ensure your predictions are more accurate in future?<br><br>Even you have to admit the arguments you're making here are a carbon copy of "Mittmentum" in 2012: The polling is flawed and/or irrelevant. Conservatives are ready for change. The political winds have shifted. Democrats' lousy performance will sink them.<br><br>I won't ask you how you can possibly be so confident this time around, but should the unthinkable come to pass and Ms. Clinton victor, how would you go about determining why? I'm probably the most sympathetic reader you've got on P/CE and even I'm wondering if you really care.<br><br>Your zeal is commendable, but we also have to be... you know... rational. <img src="http://images.proboards.com/new/undecided.png" alt=" " text=" "><br>
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 15, 2016 15:00:02 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP : Supposing--hypothetically--that Ms. Clinton actually wins the 2016 election, in light of your present certainty that this won't be the case, what steps would you take to ensure your predictions are more accurate in future? Even you have to admit the arguments you're making here are a carbon copy of "Mittmentum" in 2012: The polling is flawed and/or irrelevant. Conservatives are ready for change. The political winds have shifted. Democrats' lousy performance will sink them. I won't ask you how you can possibly be so confident this time around, but should the unthinkable come to pass and Ms. Clinton victor, how would you go about determining why? I'm probably the most sympathetic reader you've got on P/CE and even I'm wondering if you really care. Your zeal is commendable, but we also have to be... you know... rational. "> The difference is that I made assumptions regarding turnout for which there was no actual evidence. I made my predictions based upon the idea that the Monster Vote-- which is engaged now-- would engage, with no evidence that they actually would.The difference, in a nutshell, is the evidence. We now have Trump's massive, record-shattering 13.3 million primary votes. We also have Hillary's in excess of 2,000,000 vote deficit compared to 2008. Statistically speaking, and there's nothing to indicate that the numbers will not hold in this election as they have every preceding election, Trump is at roughly 75,000,000 votes. Polling using modeling that makes turnout assumptions based upon turnout in past primaries and ignores Trump's stunning 13,000,000 all-time GOP primary vote record, and Hillary's (2,000,000) deficit compared to her losing 2008 campaign total are not giving the public the full picture.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 15, 2016 15:12:45 GMT -5
Mind you, I'm not saying the polling is flawed. It isn't. However, few people understand how it actually works. You don't find out how tens of millions of people are going to vote by calling 800 people. So, pollsters have models. And the models work- until they don't. The models all assume a "likely voter" is a voter that voted in the last election. That's usually right on. What I think they're missing in modeling turnout is the numbers of Democrats supporting Trump- liberal media orthodoxy is that Trump Democrats are a myth, but Pennsylvania state numbers have confirmed 65,000 voters switched from Democrat to Republican. But the real problem for Hillary is that if you take ACTUAL turnout numbers, and model from that you get a stunning result: Statistically speaking, and there's nothing to indicate that the numbers will not hold in this election as they have every preceding election, Trump is at roughly 75,000,000 votes. Polling using modeling that makes turnout assumptions based upon turnout in past primaries and ignores Trump's stunning 13,000,000 all-time GOP primary vote record, and Hillary's (2,000,000) deficit compared to her losing 2008 campaign total are not giving the public the full picture.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 15, 2016 15:16:28 GMT -5
Also, we don't have polling yet following President Obama's weak, ineffectual response to Orlando; his knee-jerk gun grabbing language; and his ridiculous temper tantrum attacking Trump. The more Obama clings to this silly notion that this is random gun violence- the worse it's going to get for Democrats, and I don't see how that helps Hillary.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,230
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jun 15, 2016 15:22:08 GMT -5
Paul you are making no sense. Have you listened to Trump and the GOP leadership distancing themselves from him? Temper tantrums are what Trump does instead of telling us his policies. Oh other then building a wall.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 15, 2016 15:34:32 GMT -5
Paul you are making no sense. Have you listened to Trump and the GOP leadership distancing themselves from him? Temper tantrums are what Trump does instead of telling us his policies. Oh other then building a wall. I'm outside the steady drone of distraction. That's another way I messed up on the Romney prediction. The GOP establishment cozying up to Obama and his disastrous policies which threaten our country doesn't hurt Trump. It helps.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,517
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 15, 2016 16:07:54 GMT -5
Meanwhile, poll out today says that 63% of American women will never vote for Trump, and Hillary is now leading him in double digits.
I'm sure this is just some elaborate feint that Trump has engineered right before he wows everyone at the convention and gallops to November to win in a landslide, though.
I don't doubt that, ever. Hillary Clinton will not defeat Donald Trump. I don't care what the polls do. I've given you the numbers, and explained why polling that is making past election assumptions to extrapolate a conclusion are wrong. Reagan was down double digits at this point. In fact, Reagan was down 5% with 30 days to go. He beat Carter by 10% in a landslide. Now, you can believe there was a 10% swing in 30 days, but we both know the real answer is that Carter never was winning, and never had a chance. Hillary has less of a shot than Jimmy Carter. I hope you did not just compare Reagan to Trump.
I also hope you are not hanging your hat on what happened during a different election many decades ago.
As they say, apples and oranges.
I'm not saying Trump won't win. I'm saying November is too distant to predict a sure outcome, and right now, Trump is on a losing slide. You may not care what polls do, but polls are an indication of what voters will do, and if the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be toast.
He lost a lot of presidential credibility when he wouldn't stop being a whiny prick about how the judge in the civil case was being mean to him because he's a Mexican, and he lost even more of it when he made treasonous statements about a sitting president. Even the congressional GOP guys couldn't stomach that last bit. If he can't learn some self control and reassure people he won't go off half cocked in a crisis situation, he'll still be toast in November.
He has a window of opportunity to turn this around, but he's losing it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,517
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 15, 2016 16:16:52 GMT -5
Paul you are making no sense. Have you listened to Trump and the GOP leadership distancing themselves from him? Temper tantrums are what Trump does instead of telling us his policies. Oh other then building a wall. I'm outside the steady drone of distraction. That's another way I messed up on the Romney prediction. The GOP establishment cozying up to Obama and his disastrous policies which threaten our country doesn't hurt Trump. It helps. Ok that explains it.
Sometimes I put my fingers in my ears and go 'la la la la' when I don't want to know what's happening around me. Very effective in helping me remain ignorant.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,517
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 15, 2016 16:22:11 GMT -5
Some steady drone of distraction:
"[V]oter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race. Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries."
www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628/yes-clintons-gotten-the-most-votes-but-gop-has-more-overall
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,430
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 15, 2016 16:50:05 GMT -5
[/b] The horror of Sunday's terrorist attack in Orlando at a gay nightclub has sent shockwaves throughout the LGBT community and forced many to change their support from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
On Reddit, a gay man who lost a friend in the terror attack at Pulse said that he was never more ready to see Trump take office and wanted to volunteer for the billionaire's campaign.
"I'm shaken, I'm a mess, I'm broken, but I've never been more determined for a leader to actually take charge and make a change, how do i get started. How do I help this man lead us into a safer country?" 4yyyy wrote.
Another gay man posted that he was gay and liberal, but had enough of political correctness and is voting for Trump for his honesty.[/quote] [/quote] All of four people cited in the article. Only 4 gay people in the United States.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,614
|
Post by swamp on Jun 15, 2016 17:04:18 GMT -5
Meanwhile, poll out today says that 63% of American women will never vote for Trump, and Hillary is now leading him in double digits.
I'm sure this is just some elaborate feint that Trump has engineered right before he wows everyone at the convention and gallops to November to win in a landslide, though.
I don't doubt that, ever. Women love him.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 15, 2016 20:01:00 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP : Supposing--hypothetically--that Ms. Clinton actually wins the 2016 election, in light of your present certainty that this won't be the case, what steps would you take to ensure your predictions are more accurate in future? Even you have to admit the arguments you're making here are a carbon copy of "Mittmentum" in 2012: The polling is flawed and/or irrelevant. Conservatives are ready for change. The political winds have shifted. Democrats' lousy performance will sink them. I won't ask you how you can possibly be so confident this time around, but should the unthinkable come to pass and Ms. Clinton victor, how would you go about determining why? I'm probably the most sympathetic reader you've got on P/CE and even I'm wondering if you really care. Your zeal is commendable, but we also have to be... you know... rational. [img src="http://images.proboards.com/new/undecided.png" alt=" "> The difference is that I made assumptions regarding turnout for which there was no actual evidence. I made my predictions based upon the idea that the Monster Vote-- which is engaged now-- would engage, with no evidence that they actually would.The difference, in a nutshell, is the evidence. We now have Trump's massive, record-shattering 13.3 million primary votes. We also have Hillary's in excess of 2,000,000 vote deficit compared to 2008. Statistically speaking, and there's nothing to indicate that the numbers will not hold in this election as they have every preceding election, Trump is at roughly 75,000,000 votes. Polling using modeling that makes turnout assumptions based upon turnout in past primaries and ignores Trump's stunning 13,000,000 all-time GOP primary vote record, and Hillary's (2,000,000) deficit compared to her losing 2008 campaign total are not giving the public the full picture. As others are suggesting, are you sure it's wise to treat primary voter turnout as a strong leading indicator of general election turnout? There could conceivably be no correlation at all. What does data from past elections say? Or are you saying those kinds of correlations aren't meaningful because this is such an historic and unprecedented election? I can accept that the US is in unprecedented territory (so to speak) given the failure of nearly every mainstream pollster in predicting major events in the election thus far. But unprecedented territory to me suggests I'd best have a rock solid theory if I plan on stating any conclusion with conviction. Maybe you should hedge your bets a little. There's no shame it if you're right, and it will save you a considerable bit of embarrassment if for whatever reason the new math doesn't work out.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,559
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 15, 2016 21:12:47 GMT -5
You can safely put me in the "little correlation if any" camp. Primary turnout is a function of the competitiveness of the primary. Do people think they have a reason to go out and vote? If yes, then they will. If not, they won't. If a normal turnout for a primary is 30% of voters, and you suddenly have a few million more votes cast than previously, it makes zero sense to assume that it is the same 30% of a much larger electorate. It is much more likely to be 40% of the same electorate. There is zero reason to think that a third more votes in the primaries will lead to a third more votes in the general. Can we have a "Loser leaves the board" bet? I'll take the "Trump does not win with 75,000,000 votes" side.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 16, 2016 2:08:17 GMT -5
Disaffected Republicans have fallen into three groups so far. Some vowed never to vote for Trump, some said they will abandon the Republican Party entirely and some said they will actively support Clinton instead. For those who are casting their ballots for Clinton in the fall, she appears merely as the lesser of two evils. “At least it’s not going to disgrace the nation on the first day,” a former senior official in the George W. Bush administration said of voting for Clinton. “I don’t support her at all, but Trump is beyond the pale.” time.com/4317643/republican-party-donald-trump-ted-cruz-hillary-clinton-indiana/
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 16, 2016 4:52:30 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 16, 2016 5:38:36 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. I think her message of "stay with your husband in order to get to the top no matter what he does" grates on a lot of strong women. The woman vote is by no means tied up. If she wasn't involved in so many scandals (and so many of his scandals) she would be a shoe-in. "shoo-in" The term derives from horse racing. When a horse is so fast that the jockey can shoo him in to win rather than riding him hard. This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the YMAM Foundation for Picky Grammar.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 11:25:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 6:21:58 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. I'll vote for her if she is the nominee. She wasn't my primary choice, But certainly I'll vote for her. Id never vote for Trump. (Wouldn't have voted for any of the Republicans this year though...)
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,240
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Jun 16, 2016 7:24:29 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. I might vote for her. I am still hoping that the FBI investigation will come out before the election because I won't vote for her if she is facing criminal charges.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 16, 2016 7:37:05 GMT -5
I think her message of "stay with your husband in order to get to the top no matter what he does" grates on a lot of strong women. The woman vote is by no means tied up. If she wasn't involved in so many scandals (and so many of his scandals) she would be a shoe-in. "shoo-in" The term derives from horse racing. When a horse is so fast that the jockey can shoo him in to win rather than riding him hard. This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the YMAM Foundation for Picky Grammar. LOL! I didn't know we had a YMAM Foundation for Picky Grammar! Why didn't somebody tell me?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,517
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 16, 2016 7:51:30 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. I think her message of "stay with your husband in order to get to the top no matter what he does" grates on a lot of strong women. The woman vote is by no means tied up. If she wasn't involved in so many scandals (and so many of his scandals) she would be a shoe-in. I'm a woman and I'll most likely vote for her not because I think she'd do a great job. I think she would be four more years of the same, but that's a better option than Trump, who would only create more discord in the country and stands a good chance of getting us into yet another stupid, expensive and long term war.
I don't really knock her for staying with Bill when he got caught with his pants down. Plenty of politicians have shitty relationships with their spouses but stay together for appearances. Together, they're a power couple. Maybe they're both sleeping around behind the scenes - who knows and who cares.
Something might still come up that would make me not vote for her, but at that point, I'd go third party. I would literally vote for a donkey before I cast a vote for Trump.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,614
|
Post by swamp on Jun 16, 2016 8:32:51 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. ((check)) Yup, I'm still a woman.
I'm voting for her. I think. Because it's the lesser of 2 evils.
I don't find her particularly trustworthy, but I don't expect that in my political representatives. I think she's knowledgeable about the issues. She understands that problems can't be solved with sound bites and by building walls.
I also think she is far too polarizing and we need a President that half the population doesn't hate.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 16, 2016 9:28:25 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. I will be voting for Clinton. I would absolutely vote for Biden over Clinton though. I would love for Biden to run but that isn't going to happen. I honestly think that most of the people who would make a good president don't want the job.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,026
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 16, 2016 9:36:23 GMT -5
I'll vote for Clinton and last I checked I am a woman. It's better than Trump, IMO. I don't care what Clinton does or does not do with her marriage, it is her business. Clearly it benefits them both to stay married as opposed to divorcing. History is littered with political couples who have stayed together no matter what the other parties indiscretions. Jackie was well aware of Kennedy's appetites but chose to look the other way. We should probably rip her to shreds too because if she was a "real" woman she would have left him. Who knows maybe the Clintons have an open marriage. It's none of our business. Why aren't we ripping apart Trump in regards to his personal life? He's not exactly a paragon of marital virtue either.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 16, 2016 10:00:00 GMT -5
Of all the things to fault Ms. Clinton for, sticking by her husband, honouring her marriage vows in spite of his betrayal and indiscretions, shouldn't be one of them. I don't even fault her for trying to conceal the mess and save her family the public embarrassment. Mr. Trump? ... ... He's not as bad as some of the European politicians. That's technically something in his favour.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Jun 16, 2016 10:55:05 GMT -5
I can accept that the US is in unprecedented territory (so to speak) given the failure of nearly every mainstream pollster in predicting major events in the election thus far. And now that the forecasting is saying Trump is going to win, they won't believe it...
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 16, 2016 11:17:25 GMT -5
I don't know any woman that'd admit to voting for clinton. I'm still hoping another candidate emerges like Biden. I think her message of "stay with your husband in order to get to the top no matter what he does" grates on a lot of strong women. The woman vote is by no means tied up. If she wasn't involved in so many scandals (and so many of his scandals) she would be a shoe-in. Voting for a woman who stayed with an adulterous husband beats voting for an adulterer.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,517
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 16, 2016 15:00:35 GMT -5
So, the Donald now has a 70% unfavorability rating in the newest polls.
He used to brag about his ratings in the polls. Lately, not so much.
I guess even he can't spin that crap into something fabulous.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 16, 2016 16:31:31 GMT -5
There are several reasons I wish Hillary had a better opponent but mainly I believe she should have to work harder to get votes. At this point she can sit around twiddling her thumbs while The Donald just keeps making an ass of himself.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 17, 2016 4:41:25 GMT -5
Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under former President George W. Bush, said he plans to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, Politico reported Thursday. The former Bush administration official is not the first GOPer to say he'd vote for Clinton over Trump. Top Republican donor Meg Whitman hinted at support for Clinton during a meeting last week, as did GOP advisor Max Boot, who called Clinton "vastly preferable to Trump.” www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-elder-says-hell-vote-for-clinton-trump-isnt-willing-to-learn/ar-AAh83QD
|
|