• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

hgc said:
It is often noted that Perot caused Clinton's win over Bush in 1992. Exit polling indicates otherwise. Perot voters, asked whom they would have voted for in a two-way race between Bush and Clinton, split between then 38% each, with 24% saying they would not have voted. If anyone has any other actual data to bring to bear on this, I'd love to see it. But, until then, I reject the popular notion that Perot threw the '92 election to Clinton.

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
Click to expand...

I see you place a lot of faith in exit polling. I do not. Perot was against many Democrat talking point through the election. "A giant sucking sound" anyone? He was right by the way! Didn't Clinton win with something like 38%? While I'm sure this means nothing...
:D
 
Dog Town said:
I see you place a lot of faith in exit polling. I do not. Perot was against many Democrat talking point through the election. "A giant sucking sound" anyone? He was right by the way! Didn't Clinton win with something like 38%? While I'm sure this means nothing...
:D
Click to expand...


I don't "place faith" in exit polling. I rely on data to try to determine the type of thing at question here -- whether or not Perot caused Bush to lose to Clinton on '92. The best data I know of for this is exit polling.

What are you relying on? "Perot was against many Democrat talking point..." Gee, that's reasoned analysis. Got anything else?
 
hgc said:
I don't "place faith" in exit polling. I rely on data to try to determine the type of thing at question here -- whether or not Perot caused Bush to lose to Clinton on '92. The best data I know of for this is exit polling.

What are you relying on? "Perot was against many Democrat talking point..." Gee, that's reasoned analysis. Got anything else?
Click to expand...

Yes it is reasonable to extrapolate from that. I think exit polling is BS. "Data" that has shown to be askew. And no, I will not waste time proving that to you.
We disagree, big deal!:)
 
Dog Town said:
Yes it is reasonable to extrapolate from that. I think exit polling is BS. "Data" that has shown to be askew. And no, I will not waste time proving that to you.
We disagree, big deal!:)
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that line of reasoning. Dumb old "data" fails again. Oh, well.
 
Dog Town said:
Like I already said! Not concerned with arguing this topic! But feel free to continue a rant of some sort!:D
Click to expand...

Thanks. Feel free to continue to make nonsense assertions that you then suddenly don't want to discuss. I'll assume the topic is closed, unless, of course, you reply.
 
hgc said:
Thanks. Feel free to continue to make nonsense assertions that you then suddenly don't want to discuss. I'll assume the topic is closed, unless, of course, you reply.
Click to expand...

Never wanted to, just made a comment. But have the last word! Pfftt...
 
Quick word on our possible next strikethrough...

I hear that the selection criteria for the next GOP debate, which is being put on by CNBC, will be a) qualification for the main event: average 2.5% or greater across the selected polls used for judging [over the course of the determined polling period] and b) qualification for the undercard: at least 1% in any of the selected polls.

Under this formulation, guess who doesn't even make it to the undercard -- L. Graham (along with also ran J. Gilmore). Methinks L. Graham is the next to ride off into the sunset.
 
GOP: they can't address any world unrest without campaigning against Obama. It's disgustingly self-serving.
 
grunion's viewpoint of the day

I read somewhere that J. Bush was down to 4%. And it seems that B. Carson can soon be the front-runner, and M. Rubio seems to be gaining traction. C. Fiorina seems to have boosted her name recognition but not much else. I know Jeb has plenty of cash to hang in for the long haul, but it is fun seeing him have to work so hard on a campaign he thought was in the bag.
 
grunion said:
grunion's viewpoint of the day

I read somewhere that J. Bush was down to 4%. And it seems that B. Carson can soon be the front-runner, and M. Rubio seems to be gaining traction. C. Fiorina seems to have boosted her name recognition but not much else. I know Jeb has plenty of cash to hang in for the long haul, but it is fun seeing him have to work so hard on a campaign he thought was in the bag.
Click to expand...

I predict that Bush and Rubio will be the last two standing.
 
Now that Trump's erection has lasted over four hours, he needs to seek medical help like the commercial says.
 
Trump cancelled an appreance before a Hispanic Business organization. That's gonna help his "I am not a bigot" routine.
 
Showing that he has the compassion and wisdom to be President, Jeb Bush responds to the Oregon mass shooting with "Stuff happens".


“It’s been a difficult time in our country, and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this,” Bush said. “I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It’s just, it’s very sad to see, but I resist this notion and I did — I had this challenge as governor — we had, look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom