Polls are always 'wrong', even if 100% of the population is 'sampled'. People change their minds constantly, so even if you polled every single voter and they all gave truthful answers, the poll would still be 'wrong' by the time it was published.

Good point.

I'm still not sure how "wrong" the polls were. Were actual results within the margin of error ? Was an indicated small majority in favour of Hillary that far removed from the actual small majority for Trump.

Anyway the poll that kicked all this off had strong negatives for Trump. It could still be "wrong" by a wide margin and still be negative for Trump.
 
Good point.

I'm still not sure how "wrong" the polls were. Were actual results within the margin of error ? Was an indicated small majority in favour of Hillary that far removed from the actual small majority for Trump.

Anyway the poll that kicked all this off had strong negatives for Trump. It could still be "wrong" by a wide margin and still be negative for Trump.

National popular vote polls were closer than the last two elections.

The following is from fivethirtyeight on October 31st.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...al-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/

We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. Thus, as of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words.


and the prediction the morning of

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

Our forecast has Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, which is similar to her lead in recent national polls. Her chances of winning the popular vote are 81 percent, according to our forecast.

So what’s the source of all the uncertainty? And why does the same model1 that gave Mitt Romney only a 9 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on the eve of the 2012 election put Trump’s chances about three times higher — 28 percent — this year? It basically comes down to three things:

First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it.
Second, the number of undecided and third-party voters is much higher than in recent elections, which contributes to uncertainty.

Third, Clinton’s coalition — which relies increasingly on college-educated whites and Hispanics — is somewhat inefficiently configured for the Electoral College, because these voters are less likely to live in swing states. If the popular vote turns out to be a few percentage points closer than polls project it, Clinton will be an Electoral College underdog.


And the purpose of a probabilistic model

Despite what you might think, we haven’t been trying to scare anyone with these updates. The goal of a probabilistic model is not to provide deterministic predictions (“Clinton will win Wisconsin”) but instead to provide an assessment of probabilities and risks. In 2012, the risks to to Obama were lower than was commonly acknowledged, because of the low number of undecided voters and his unusually robust polling in swing states. In 2016, just the opposite is true: There are lots of undecideds, and Clinton’s polling leads are somewhat thin in swing states. Nonetheless, Clinton is probably going to win, and she could win by a big margin.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting...thanks

In which case the headline would be:


"OBAMA-APPOINTED FORMER FBI DIRECTORY LEAKS COVERTLY RECORDED MATERIAL. TRUMP WAS RIGHT, OBAMA WAS TAPPING HIS PHONES !!!!!11!!!1!!"

Yeah, that would be the crawl on Fox News, but Trump will still tweet that it was illegal.
 
Good point.

I'm still not sure how "wrong" the polls were. Were actual results within the margin of error ? Was an indicated small majority in favour of Hillary that far removed from the actual small majority for Trump.

Anyway the poll that kicked all this off had strong negatives for Trump. It could still be "wrong" by a wide margin and still be negative for Trump.

IIRC, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin polling all had Hillary leading but within the margin of error. She lost them by 1.2%, 0.3% and 1.0%.
 
IIRC, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin polling all had Hillary leading but within the margin of error. She lost them by 1.2%, 0.3% and 1.0%.

Which was a total of about 80,000 votes.

Polls predict Hillary win. She cruises to the popular vote lead by 3 million, drops the electoral college because of 80,000.

Unless your name is Al Gore (Who lost by 1 vote....SCOTUS vote), no president has ever lost by so little.
 
(source)

So, just to clarify, The President of the United States is blackmailing Comey to keep his mouth shut about what he knows.

In writing.

In public.

The President of the United States.


these two posts back to back made me chuckle.
 
Good article about Session's role in the firing. This ************...

Earlier I said that he hadn't abused his pledge to recuse himself. That's looking like a poor conclusion:

Those expectations were based on a bully’s logic: if you beat up on the unpopular kid, no one will call you on it, no matter the right or wrong of the matter. And this is a bully’s Administration. With Trump, and with the Cabinet members like Sessions who help him along, one can focus on the absurd and miss the vicious. But the calls for a special prosecutor won’t stop, and Sessions will have to decide where he stands, and how publicly shameless he is willing to be. As Senator Lee reminded him, an Attorney General has a lot of options.
Link

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited breach of rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh since you asked so nicely:

figure it out yourself, it is really *********** obvious.

The point is obvious and tedious and wrong. It's the funny that I can't see.

Also, since we're all about making people laugh around here, I would get a kick of watching you explain that doofy point.
 
Last edited:
The point is obvious and tedious and wrong. It's the funny that I can't see.

Also, since we're all about making people laugh around here, I would get a kick of watching you explain that doofy point.

Oh golly gee, Mr. Tranewreck, let me get right on that!

It means th
 
At this point Trump could **** a rhubarb pie live on Fox News and some people will still talk about what a brilliant move it was.
 
At this point Trump could **** a rhubarb pie live on Fox News and some people will still talk about what a brilliant move it was.

It will anger the right people and that's all that matters.

Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters don’t have to defend his specific actions as long as they make liberal heads explode, or as Sarah Palin put it so memorably, “It’s really funny to me to see the splodey heads keep sploding.” If liberals hate something, the argument goes, then it must be wonderful and worthy of aggressive defense. Each controversy reinforces the divisions and the distrust, and Mr. Trump counts on that.

For many in the conservative movement, this sort of anti-anti-Trumpism is the solution to the painful conundrum posed by the Trump presidency. With a vast majority of conservative voters and listeners solidly behind Mr. Trump, conservative critics of the president find themselves isolated and under siege. But, as Damon Linker noted, anti-anti-Trumpism “allows the right to indulge its hatred of liberals and liberalism while sidestepping the need for a reckoning with the disaster of the Trump administration itself.”

This is also a much sounder business model than airing doubts about the president. Conservative media is, of course, a business that relies on ratings, and few things generate ratings more quickly than bashing liberals. In this case, it is more profitable for talk show hosts to play down Mr. Trump’s failures while piling on his enemies.

The ad hominem argument is rightly regarded as a logical fallacy because it substitutes personal attacks for a discussion of the argument someone is making. But on many talk shows, including Mr. Limbaugh’s, nearly every argument is ad hominem. Instead of offering statistics and building a case, it is easier to simply make fun of a Trump critic like Representative Maxine Waters, or shrug off a negative report because it came from the “lamestream media.”
 
This is an apt description of every Trump supporter on this Forum: nothing matters other than jabbing liberals and convincing oneself that they're very upset.

Not just Trumpers. The whole piece is an excellent indictment of the emptiness that has encompassed the Republican Party by abandoning conservatism is favor of trolling. The lulz are not a sufficient end goal to maintain the movement.
 

Back
Top Bottom