Who Won the Debate?

[Tony Stark]

Carry on believing what you want. It's only a few weeks ago that Hillary supporters were gleefully reporting that Trump had a 10% or 15% chance of winning - now that's close to 50% (and yesterday was over 50% on the "nowcast").

There seems to be a large number of people out there desperately looking for a reason to voter for Trump (or against Hillary). Every time Trump fails to say something outrageously racist, illegal or doesn't throw a hissy-fit at the smallest thing then those people's resolve is strengthened. This debate was a perfect example of what Hillary is up against. By any rational and objective measure she wiped the floor with Trump but even polls where there is a Democratic Party bias in the poll group had her "only" winning well.

OTOH an online poll where any and all could vote has Trump in the lead. Again echoes of Brexit where we were told to disregard these things because the real opinion polls were far more accurate.....

How do I know more about what opinion polls said about the Brexit than you do. It was a toss up.

 

[The Don]

You don't know what you're talking about. Polling companies don't skew results by party, they report what the people who answered said their party was. Probably what happened is that lots of Republicans were embarrassed by Donald and told the pollster that they were independents. A comman phenomenal. Especially among Republicans.

Read the full results of the PPP poll, 41% identified as Democratic Party and 32% as Republican Party supporters. Now if what you're saying is true that the vast majority of independents are natural Republican Party voters then Hillary has a pretty big job ahead of her because, as that quote from the fivethirtyeight pundit indicates, Trump's performance lowered the barrier to them voting for him.

Look, I get that it's worrying and uncomfortable but the truth appears to be that enough people think Trump won the debate for it to be an issue.

Fact remains that the real polls (the total garbage online polls are meaningless) say that Hillary wan thus far. You're talking out your ass.

So polls which have a significant skew on their polling population can be happily accepted as long as they show for Hillary whereas polls where the polling population is unknown can safely be discounted because you know they have a Trump bias

Unbelievable .

I'm sure that the Hillary campaign have done their own polls and are aware of the situation, whatever it may be.

 

[Tony Stark]

Read the full results of the PPP poll, 41% identified as Democratic Party and 32% as Republican Party supporters. Now if what you're saying is true that the vast majority of independents are natural Republican Party voters then Hillary has a pretty big job ahead of her because, as that quote from the fivethirtyeight pundit indicates, Trump's performance lowered the barrier to them voting for him.

Look, I get that it's worrying and uncomfortable but the truth appears to be that enough people think Trump won the debate for it to be an issue.



So polls which have a significant skew on their polling population can be happily accepted as long as they show for Hillary whereas polls where the polling population is unknown can safely be discounted because you know they have a Trump bias

Unbelievable .

I'm sure that the Hillary campaign have done their own polls and are aware of the situation, whatever it may be.

What's unbelievable is that you're happily accepting total garbage online polls where anyone can vote as many times as they want while calling real polls skewed and unreliable.

 

[The Don]

How do I know more about what opinion polls said about the Brexit than you do. It was a toss up.

The "official" opinion polls showed a small but consistent majority for Remain (rather like Hillary edging the "official" opinion polls both w.r.t. the debate and the broader election) whereas the online polls repeatedly showed a large majority in favour of Leave.

We were told that we could happily ignore them because they were inaccurate and were being skewed by people repeatedly voting Leave.

Turns out that there was a majority in favour of Leave after all. Nothing like as large as the online polls but the online polls pointed to a groundswell of opinion which wasn't being reflected in the "official" opinion polls.

IMO a lot of the sentiment behind Trump, and Trump's core demographic are the same as the Leave voters (white, old, stupid, poor) I say ignore the online polls at your risk not least because that demographic (white, old, stupid, poor) are not usuall as active online as the population at large.

 

[Tony Stark]

The "official" opinion polls showed a small but consistent majority for Remain (rather like Hillary edging the "official" opinion polls both w.r.t. the debate and the broader election) whereas the online polls repeatedly showed a large majority in favour of Leave.

We were told that we could happily ignore them because they were inaccurate and were being skewed by people repeatedly voting Leave.

Turns out that there was a majority in favour of Leave after all. Nothing like as large as the online polls but the online polls pointed to a groundswell of opinion which wasn't being reflected in the "official" opinion polls.

IMO a lot of the sentiment behind Trump, and Trump's core demographic are the same as the Leave voters (white, old, stupid, poor) I say ignore the online polls at your risk not least because that demographic (white, old, stupid, poor) are not usuall as active online as the population at large.

The polls showed a toss up. And it turned out to be close. You're talking out of your ass.

Online polls are totally worthless and that's just a fact. I would say that even if Hillary was winning them.

 

[The Don]

What's unbelievable is that you're happily accepting total garbage online polls where anyone can vote as many times as they want while calling real polls skewed and unreliable.

Of course they're skewed (or at least the polling base is), but being reputable polling companies they're open and clear about it.

It's like me going to Manchester and asking which team is better, Manchester City or Manchester United. I shouldn't be surprised if City come out ahead if 41% of those polled are City supporters and only 32% United supporters.

 

[Tony Stark]

Of course they're skewed (or at least the polling base is), but being reputable polling companies they're open and clear about it.

It's like me going to Manchester and asking which team is better, Manchester City or Manchester United. I shouldn't be surprised if City come out ahead if 41% of those polled are City supporters and only 32% United supporters.

Your argument completely falls apart given that they randomly called people. They didn't try to make it so that 41% of the people they called were Democrats.

Also, there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. And guess who won independents in 2012. Hint: it wasn't Barack Obama.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Of course they're skewed (or at least the polling base is), but being reputable polling companies they're open and clear about it.

It's like me going to Manchester and asking which team is better, Manchester City or Manchester United. I shouldn't be surprised if City come out ahead if 41% of those polled are City supporters and only 32% United supporters.

Sorry, but you just WANT to believe, don't you? These are NOT polls taken by polling companies. The are taken by Fox News San Diego, Breitbart, Drudge, Fortune, Time Magazine, etc... It's an app. They didn't set it up and work out a sampling or a wording of the question. It's an app. Some of the news sites use the same one. It's about as reputable a polling organization as the OP of this thread, fer crissake.

I looked at some of them during the debates and Trump was already ahead 70/30. (Just like this thread.... people voted before the debates!)


We have some computer geeks here? Can anyone get The Wayback Machine to show some of those polls thirty minutes into the debate?

ETA: The PPP poll was a poll.

 

[acbytesla]

One thing was abundantly apparent during this debate: Hillary is an old white lady. She lost the visuals.

Do we really want a country run by grandma? Grandma is nice and all, and she certainly cares about us, but didn't we just take her car keys away for her own protection? Yes, yes we did.

Not my grandmother. Mine was running circles around her husband. While I would agree that people aren't use to it, the fact is people have been getting use to it. We have female Governors, Congressmen, Senators, Supreme Court Justices. Most are Grandmothers.

There's a lot to be said about "optics". That is an advantage that Trump has. But that advantage is somewhat nullified by the fact that Grandma just kicked Grandpa's butt.

 

[The Don]

Your argument completely falls apart given that they randomly called people. They didn't try to make it so that 41% of the people they called were Democrats.

I know, they phoned people at random and got a greater proportion of Democratic Party supporters than they did Republican supporters and so we shouldn't be too surprised that the poll broke towards Hillary.

As recent elections show, the US population splits pretty evenly so we shouldn't be shocked if, had the random selection been a more even split, that the result would not have been more even.

Also, there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. And guess who won independents in 2012. Hint: it wasn't Barack Obama.

Then the Hillary campaign needs to be very careful indeed. If Trump already has a lock on Republicans and a clear lead in the Independents then they've got an uphill battle ahead of them.

 

[Tony Stark]

I know, they phoned people at random and got a greater proportion of Democratic Party supporters than they did Republican supporters and so we shouldn't be too surprised that the poll broke towards Hillary.

As recent elections show, the US population splits pretty evenly so we shouldn't be shocked if, had the random selection been a more even split, that the result would not have been more even.

All it shows is that more people were willing to tell pollsters that they are Democrats. Which fits with Hillary winning it. And, of course, there are more Democrats than Republicans.

Then the Hillary campaign needs to be very careful indeed. If Trump already has a lock on Republicans and a clear lead in the Independents then they've got an uphill battle ahead of them.

Romney won the vast majority of Republicans and won most independents AND still lost by four points.

 

[The Don]

Sorry, but you just WANT to believe, don't you? These are NOT polls taken by polling companies. The are taken by Fox News San Diego, Breitbart, Drudge, Fortune, Time Magazine, etc... It's an app. They didn't set it up and work out a sampling or a wording of the question. It's an app. Some of the news sites use the same one. It's about as reputable a polling organization as the OP of this thread, fer crissake.

Is there some kind of problem with your reading comprehension ?

I was specifically referring to the results of the PPP poll.

I looked at some of them during the debates and Trump was already ahead 70/30. (Just like this thread.... people voted before the debates!)

That's only a factor if a significant number of votes were cast. If they were a single digit proportion of the total cast then it's just noise in the eventual result.

 

[The Don]

All it shows is that more people were willing to tell pollsters that they are Democrats. Which fits with Hillary winning it.

If you're happy that Hillary has an unassailable lead then that's fine. If you really think that the 85% chance of winning is the real reflection and that the current "too close to call" picture being presented by fivethirtyeight and the polling organisations is a short term aberration.

I'm a lot less sanguine about it - it has a distinct Brexit feel to me

 

[Tony Stark]

If you're happy that Hillary has an unassailable lead then that's fine. If you really think that the 85% chance of winning is the real reflection and that the current "too close to call" picture being presented by fivethirtyeight and the polling organisations is a short term aberration.

I'm a lot less sanguine about it - it has a distinct Brexit feel to me

There are more white people in the UK than in the US.

 

[marplots]

Not my grandmother. Mine was running circles around her husband. While I would agree that people aren't use to it, the fact is people have been getting use to it. We have female Governors, Congressmen, Senators, Supreme Court Justices. Most are Grandmothers.

There's a lot to be said about "optics". That is an advantage that Trump has. But that advantage is somewhat nullified by the fact that Grandma just kicked Grandpa's butt.

Even that's a hurdle. Trump can be bombastic and still be fine. Hillary has to be very careful of "shrill", "mean spirited", and the ever popular "bitchy." There's a hurdle there. Passion serves Trump well, not her.

I don't see how Hillary being the first woman who might get elected president squares with this idea of it not really mattering much, what with all that the description brings to the table. Surely we can recognize the historical significance is at least in part due to our reluctance to elect a woman president? That shouldn't even be controversial.

She's made history already by being the first woman nominee from a major party, a party that makes great hay out of promoting women's rights generally and being sensitive to women's issues. Now the idea has to sell to the rest of the country, those outside the fold. I can't see how this could possibly be without serious gender-based challenges, despite the politically correct "how things ought to be."

 

[Tony Stark]

Even that's a hurdle. Trump can be bombastic and still be fine. Hillary has to be very careful of "shrill", "mean spirited", and the ever popular "bitchy." There's a hurdle there. Passion serves Trump well, not her.

I don't see how Hillary being the first woman who might get elected president squares with this idea of not really being a woman, with all that the description brings to the table. Surely we can recognize the historical significance is at least in part due to our reluctance to elect a woman president? That shouldn't even be controversial.

She's made history already by being the first woman nominee from a major party, a party that makes great hay out of promoting women's rights generally and being sensitive to women's issues. Now the idea has to sell to the rest of the country, those outside the fold. I can't see how this could possibly be without serious gender-based challenges, despite the politically correct "how things ought to be."

Good thing her opponent is a stupid piece of crap.

 

[Crossbow]

Trump did a great job of exposing his own hypocrisy, such as:

Proudly stating how he got Obama to show his birth certificate and at the same time refusing to show his tax records.

Or by Trump bitching about how Clinton is running negative ads about him while Trump has been spending the last several months talking about "Little Marco", "Low Energy Jeb", and "Lying Ted".

Or by Trump proudly stating how great his own temperament is when for months he has been inciting violence, advocating torture, and calling for the USA to steal oil from other nations.

 

[marplots]

Good thing her opponent is a stupid piece of crap.

Well, when you put it that way, it's hard to believe anyone would vote for him. Maybe they are just faking the numbers to get us riled up. Like they do with global warming temperatures.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well, when you put it that way, it's hard to believe anyone would vote for him. Maybe they are just faking the numbers to get us riled up. Like they do with global warming temperatures.

There are a lot of trash people in the US. But not enough, I think.

 

[The Don]

The polls showed a toss up. And it turned out to be close. You're talking out of your ass.

Not that close (by U.S. election standards) at 52/48. In only 1 election out of the past 6 has the winning candidate secured a greater proportion of the popular vote

...and the polls had it 48/52 so they were wrong by 4%

The degree of error (which was put down to "shy" leave voters) would have Trump home and dry based on the current state of the polls.

Online polls are totally worthless and that's just a fact. I would say that even if Hillary was winning them.

The online Brexit polls regularly and repeatedly showed support for the Leave position which was not reflected in the "official" opinion polls. Come election day they "shy" leavers, the ones who in the "official" opinion polls said that they were undecided or even Remain (but who on anonymous online polls were voting remain in drives), decided to vote Leave. I see a similar pattern developing here. The same kind of people who wouldn't say that they would vote Leave (some combination of old, white, poor, stupid) won't currently say they'll vote Trump.