You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:misterID wrote:"83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014."These are issues for Republicans. What you're quoting here is what the Republicans are responsible for. With the house and senate, where has been a real bill to address this? They certainly have not raised minimum wage. They have not stopped corporate welfare. They have not implemented an outsourcing tax...because they are against all of these things. Trump wants to LOWER the minimum wage. We're paying republican salaries to literally obstruct, do nothing, and in Ted Cruz's case, read Doctor Seuss on the senate floor. We almost had the grand bargain, but republicans fucked it up... A bill that would have given them a victory... But they decided to become the party of no instead and make Obama a one term president.
How does raising the minimum wage help unemployment? How does raising the minimum wage help the unemployed computer programmer that was making 65,000 per year? How does paying someone $15 per hour to ring up a .99 burrito at Taco Bell help that Tbell owner? I think minimum wage should be $10. $15 is black hole stupid. There will be less hires if that is forced.
The current republicans have sucked. No argument here!!
who cares what the minn. wage is....ain't no one but the bottom of the barrel gonna work for that....and then they're gonna go do crack on their time off and miss work the next day.
Lol...
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:bigbri wrote:Pollster is Republican-leaning by more than 1 point, co-sponsored by Breitbart, and Hillary is ahead by 14 to 17 points. I doubt the Clinton camp is shaking in their boots.
Surprisingly, though, this poll indicates her lead has grown since her 12 point lead a month ago. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -5792.html
On a related note, Gravitas earned a "worst poll of the year" distinction in 2014.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/ … erica.html
Still, I guess not being down by 20 in New York is OK for a candidate who has lived his whole life in New York and has his multi-billion-dollar business based there.
This particular poll though surveyed 47% Democrats. And NY is as blue as you get. He's doing very well.
I guess I don't get how that's "doing very well". The poll of 47% democrats gave her 53% of the response, so she's pulling in independents and/or Republicans. Regardless, NYC is not going to Trump. His supporters should be more worried why she's taking a lead in Georgia, nearing a lead in Arizona and isn't getting her ass handed to her in Texas.
Sounds like a lot of "whistling past the graveyard."
Also, unfortunately, Gary Johnson seems to have fallen back below 10% nationally. I'd like to see him on stage in the debates. He'd make both these candidates look pretty bad, I'm guessing.
Romney did 31%, so he's doing better. 40% of Latinos with his platform is very impressive. Obama won 89% of them 4 years ago. That's a huge boost.
Trump is also drawing in independents. Winning them in fact. By latest numbers 42% of the population identified as such. That will be another boost for him. These polls are notoriously under sampling that group.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:Some people choose to look at real life instead of manufactured numbers ID. You should try looking around you instead of believing everything you're told. Granted I have more insight into the job market than most, but still...anyone with 2 eyes can see how many are unemployed or underemployed. Anyone with 2 eyes can see that many of the jobs created are shitty jobs, but hey, you keep pushing your numbers that say everything is great.
I"m sure you'd be saying the same thing if Romney was POTUS and UE was @ 5%. Right?
If they cooked the books like Obama did, absolutely. I am not a republican. I just don't have to bash the few republicans here because they aren't pretending everything is great and their candidate is wonderful.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:Some people choose to look at real life instead of manufactured numbers ID. You should try looking around you instead of believing everything you're told. Granted I have more insight into the job market than most, but still...anyone with 2 eyes can see how many are unemployed or underemployed. Anyone with 2 eyes can see that many of the jobs created are shitty jobs, but hey, you keep pushing your numbers that say everything is great.
That's great advice coming from someone who doesn't believe in facts or reality.
I love reality son. Try it some time. You believe shit spewed by people with agendas and call it fact. I choose not to be gullible.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
"83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014."These are issues for Republicans. What you're quoting here is what the Republicans are responsible for. With the house and senate, where has been a real bill to address this? They certainly have not raised minimum wage. They have not stopped corporate welfare. They have not implemented an outsourcing tax...because they are against all of these things. Trump wants to LOWER the minimum wage. We're paying republican salaries to literally obstruct, do nothing, and in Ted Cruz's case, read Doctor Seuss on the senate floor. We almost had the grand bargain, but republicans fucked it up... A bill that would have given them a victory... But they decided to become the party of no instead and make Obama a one term president.
Omg no. Dude, Clinton was president when this shit started. Holy crap are you fucking ignorant. All you go is blame republicans for everything. Everything.
Educate yourself. Learn something. Maybe you can vote for someone that will try to help you instead of trying to hold you down if you do.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
misterID wrote:"83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014."These are issues for Republicans. What you're quoting here is what the Republicans are responsible for. With the house and senate, where has been a real bill to address this? They certainly have not raised minimum wage. They have not stopped corporate welfare. They have not implemented an outsourcing tax...because they are against all of these things. Trump wants to LOWER the minimum wage. We're paying republican salaries to literally obstruct, do nothing, and in Ted Cruz's case, read Doctor Seuss on the senate floor. We almost had the grand bargain, but republicans fucked it up... A bill that would have given them a victory... But they decided to become the party of no instead and make Obama a one term president.
I could not agree with you more. I'm all for compromise....something that helps everyone in some way. It's time to face it....the GOP wants to have their cake and eat it too. It's funny how the GOP hates welfare except for when it is for corporations...who are....let's face it....GOP=corporations.....corporations=GOP.
Clinton is owned by corporations and foreigners. You guys are fucking clueless.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
WHY YOU SHOULDN’T SWEAT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL
A new national Fox News poll places Hillary Clinton 10 points ahead of Donald Trump. While people may either be cheering or pulling their hair out, there is good reason for neither side to read too much into this particular poll, or polls taken immediately after the conventions.
1. Convention “Bounces” Rarely Decide Elections
In 1988, Michael Dukakis opened up a 17-point lead over George H.W. Bush after the Democratic National Convention (DNC). Bush would go on to win the 1988 election by 7 points.
Anne Kim explained in the Washington Monthly that post-convention “bounces” do not determine elections, and that history is wrought with examples of those with the biggest bounce going on to lose the general election:
In truth, post-convention bounces seem to bear little relation to what happens at the polls in November. The following chart, put together by the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara, shows the post-convention impact for candidates from 1964 to 2012.
Among other things, it shows a number of presidential candidates who enjoyed a big post-convention bounce (or at least one bigger than their opponents) who went on to lose the election. Those candidates include Barry Goldwater, who saw a bigger post-convention bump in 1964 than Lyndon Johnson; both Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan in 1980 and in 1984; Michael Dukakis versus George Bush; and John McCain over Barack Obama.
2. The Poll’s Methodology Inherently Favors Democrats
The poll only sampled registered voters, not likely voters. The method of only sampling registered voters is one that historically carries a Democratic bias. According to FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, since 1996, there has been a median Democratic bias of 2 points in polls of registered voters.
Once the election gets closer, many pollsters will conduct polls of likely voters to gauge whether an enthusiasm/turnout gap exists. These polls, according to Silver, have “virtually no bias.” But there may still be a few reasons to expect Trump to outperform the polls.
3. Oversampling of Democrats?
According to the internals of the Fox News poll, 42% of respondents self-identified as Democrats, 36% as Republicans, 18% as Independents, and 3% either did not know or refused.
But according to Gallup’s historical party affiliation trends, the numbers of self-identifying Democrats and Republicans have remained relatively the same during this election cycle. The number of self-identified Independents, however, has remained a consistently larger voting block than either of the two major parties. Trump happens to be trouncing Clinton among Independents in both the head-to-head matchups and the four-way races. In the Fox News poll, for example, head-to-head Trump outperforms Clinton by 8 points among Independents, 41-33. In the four-way race, Trump still bests Clinton by 6 points, 35-29.
I do want to make a note of caution here. Stories that proclaim to prove “rigged” polls by merely pointing out that X% more Democrats were polled than Republicans miss a crucial point — the numbers of Democrats and Republicans in this country are not even. Therefore, to assume that a solid 33-33-33 split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, or even a 50-50 split between only Republicans and Democrats, exists is a mistake.
With respect to this Fox News poll, it appears that a form of undersampling bias has occurred among Independent voters. Since the poll was conducted exclusively among registered voters, the responses to the party identification question could have been influenced by how the respondent was currently registered. If that is the case, the lack of more Independent voters would make some sense, given the number of states that still hold “closed” primaries (nominating contests in which only registered members of a particular party can vote).
4. White Males
While men, and in particular white men, love Trump, some of them are afraid to admit it. According to the Washington Examiner, Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, says there appears to be “secret” support for Trump of somewhere between 3 to 9 points among white Democratic male voters. If that is the case, then the gender gap is much larger for Clinton among men than the polls indicate.
5. Trump Has Consistently Outperformed Polls
I went back and looked at primary polls to see if Trump outperformed pre-election polls, and if so, to what extent. My data consisted exclusively of primary contests (since they mirror how voting takes place on election day) in which there were enough polls for RealClearPolitics to generate a polling average. Then I compared Trump’s average share of the poll to his actual share of the final vote.
Here is my final table:
CONTEST POLL AVERAGE ACTUAL RESULT DIFFERENCE
NEW HAMPSHIRE 31.2 35.3 4.1
SOUTH CAROLINA 31.8 32.5 0.7
ALABAMA 38 43.4 5.4
GEORGIA 36.2 38.8 2.6
MASSACHUSETTS 45.3 49.3 4
OKLAHOMA 32.7 28.3 -4.4
TEXAS 28.2 26.7 -1.5
VIRGINIA 36.8 34.7 -2.1
LOUISIANA 43.3 41.4 -1.9
MICHIGAN 37.3 36.5 -0.8
FLORIDA 43 45.8 2.8
ILLINOIS 36 38.8 2.8
NORTH CAROLINA 41.3 40.2 -1.1
OHIO 35.4 35.7 0.3
ARIZONA 38 47.1 9.1
WISCONSIN 34.5 35.1 0.6
NEW YORK 53.1 60.4 7.3
CONNECTICUT 53.7 59 5.3
MARYLAND 47.7 56.5 8.8
PENNSYLVANIA 48.3 58.1 9.8
RHODE ISLAND 52.3 64.7 12.4
INDIANA 42.8 54.6 11.8
AVERAGE 40.31363636 43.76818182 3.454545455
As you can see, Trump has, on average, outperformed his polling numbers by about 3.5 points (rounding up).
In sum, while the latest Fox News poll might be entirely correct, the political demographics of the country suggest an error in sampling — namely, the undersampling of Independent voters. Regardless, polls conducted immediately post-convention are generally not indicative of the general election, and some polls may effectively be outliers. However, one cannot and should not take comfort in perceived discrepancies in poll results, because in the end it only serves as an excuse for not working to expand voter outreach. Accordingly, this poll provides the Trump campaign an opportunity to make up lost ground, whether it lost or not. The worst that could happen is the base gets more energized and voter turnout increases, hardly something to balk at.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Virtually all the important polls coming out now have Trump at a substantial disadvantage in all the places where he can't afford them. Not all of the polls are wrong, inaccurate. Some may be, but not all. You've got to quit attacking the polls.
BTW, today a pollster with a much better reputation than what was posted here yesterday about New York puts him 25 points down. Siena gets an "A" rating from Nate Silver, the same guy quoted in the story above.
https://www.siena.edu/assets/files/news … 081516.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -6014.html
As far as the story above, the site is described as "REGATED is creating Conservative and Tech News, Analysis, and Opinions." Not at all biased.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Normally I'd agree, but the last few years have seen traditional polling being way off.
This article talks about why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opini … lling.html
Of course, I'm biased as hell, we all know that. Not the only one saying this though. Support for Trump is treading new ground, we've never seen anything like this before. Even me the political cynicist is aboard. I think we could see a lot of first time voters turning out for this.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Normally I'd agree, but the last few years have seen traditional polling being way off.
This article talks about why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opini … lling.html
Of course, I'm biased as hell, we all know that. Not the only one saying this though. Support for Trump is treading new ground, we've never seen anything like this before. Even me the political cynicist is aboard. I think we could see a lot of first time voters turning out for this.
I guess we'll see if the polls are off again. But considering the sheer number that are all going in the same direction, I'm betting they are not.
And speaking of betting, Las Vegas has its money on Hillary. We all know Vegas doesn't like to lose, so take a look at these betting odds. They are basically saying without a doubt Hillary will win. And they will pay out big if she doesn't.
