|
Looking at Five Thirty Eight this morning, seems like the latest round of polls came in hard against Clinton. 
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
I think people should have to define "globalization" every time they use it. Maybe with a footnote. It's hard to keep track if people are talking about economic globalization which has existed for centuries; a shorthand for NAFTA, American deindustrialization, etc.; a new world order conspiracy; or just a catch-all for 'the economy is bad!'
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Whoa! Filled in the mentally disabled, mistaken identity, excessive force, example of militarization, and black person spots on my police violence bingo card for August. Oh come on. "Black person" is the free square.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Looking at Five Thirty Eight this morning, seems like the latest round of polls came in hard against Clinton. Polls-only is "only" 84.7% Clinton!  
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Oh come on. "Black person" is the free square.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Looking at Five Thirty Eight this morning, seems like the latest round of polls came in hard against Clinton. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Looking at Five Thirty Eight this morning, seems like the latest round of polls came in hard against Clinton. I think it might be less 'came out hard' and more 'came out slightly less overwhelmingly powerful.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
This is why the thread title stays. Also lol. November will be such a blowout, if this is all we have to Arzy over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
It's a Bloomberg poll that has her *only* up six.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
538 has "Clinton wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at 3.5%, and "Trump wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at only 0.8%. How does that make sense? I thought the democrats had a structural advantage in the electoral college, but these numbers would suggest the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:538 has "Clinton wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at 3.5%, and "Trump wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at only 0.8%. How does that make sense? I thought the democrats had a structural advantage in the electoral college, but these numbers would suggest the opposite. Because if you win or lose one, you'll probably win or lose the other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's a Bloomberg poll that has her *only* up six. Lol. Didn't a bunch of actual state polls come out basically saying PA is out of the tiny-handed reach of the yam?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
There's even more in the Baltimore DOJ thing! https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/763377837034315776 https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/763380063765233669
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:There's even more in the Baltimore DOJ thing! ... So, I am at the point where I genuinely seriously want you to reveal this is someone's parody. This is someone's parody, right? Please?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Polls-only is "only" 84.7% Clinton! What this means in scientific terms is that for every hundred parallel universes, there are 15 where Trump becomes president. Hope we don't live in one of the dark timelines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Doomtalker posted:This is why the thread title stays. I was talking with a few friends way before Trump was locked in, etc. about how it's the dream that the GOP being dysfunctional leads to down ticket races flipping D and Democrats somehow take the House. Like I said, it's the pipe dream "wouldn't it be cool if" scenario where I have better odds of winning the lottery. A short few months later it's gone from crazy rear end pipe dream to "unlikely, but possible".
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Is there a non-Twitter source for this stuff in the BPD report?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:There's even more in the Baltimore DOJ thing! This isn't surprising. Our entire justice system is weighed against sex crime victims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Baltimore PD sex-crimes investigator: "In homicide, there are real victims; all our cases are bullshit." Imagine this was the voice over for Law & Order: SVU
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Publicly fingered in the butt for a broken headlight: https://twitter.com/justin_fenton/status/763187401288060930
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Is there a non-Twitter source for this stuff in the BPD report? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3009376/BPD-Findings-Report-FINAL.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Imagine this was the voice over for Law & Order: SVU "In the criminal justice system, conniving whores are ruining men's lives. These bitches are handled by the Case Squad of the Special Victims Units. These are their stories" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
It should come as no surprise that things are even worse for sex workers: https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/763380650833502208 https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/763385602691723264
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:What this means in scientific terms is that for every hundred parallel universes, there are 15 where Trump becomes president. Hope we don't live in one of the dark timelines. As long as we make sure Melania doesn't get Gray's Sports Almanac we should be okay. [edit] I haven't posted here in a pretty long time, what's the deal with the Arzy stuff? I vaguely remember him, but I don't get the references.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Which would only get worse with lower copyrights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/763385288295055360 Yesss, Trump, let the news cycle flow through you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Speaking of Police officers being poorly trained as gently caress, here's a Floridan officer who just accidentally got shot dead during a training exercise. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37036848
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because if you win or lose one, you'll probably win or lose the other? But Hillary's probability of getting EC-screwed is higher than Trump's, which indicates a structural advantage for Trump. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Publicly fingered in the butt for a broken headlight:
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:538 has "Clinton wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at 3.5%, and "Trump wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at only 0.8%. How does that make sense? I thought the democrats had a structural advantage in the electoral college, but these numbers would suggest the opposite. With those numbers Trump is more likely to lose the electoral college if he wins the popular vote, Clinton's number is only higher because she is more likely to win. For a while before the conventions Trump was doing (relatively) worse in safe red states than in swing states, so you could imagine a scenario where Clinton ran up the score in safe blue states while Trump narrowly won enough of the electoral college. Jimbozig posted:But Hillary's probability of getting EC-screwed is higher than Trump's, which indicates a structural advantage for Trump. What am I missing here? Hillary's probability of getting EC-screwed is higher because Trump will probably lose the popular vote, and you can't get EC-screwed if you lose the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:As long as we make sure Melania doesn't get Gray's Sports Almanac we should be okay. Back in '08(?) he would freak out every time Obama dropped a tenth of a point in the polls, and would be dead silent when the reverse happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:But Hillary's probability of getting EC-screwed is higher than Trump's, which indicates a structural advantage for Trump. What am I missing here? I think you have that backwards- this is the statistical version of "the election is Hillary's to lose". Hillary is overwhelmingly more likely to receive more votes than Trump, so there are more scenarios in which those votes are distributed strangely and produce an unexpected result. Trump has a lower probability of EC fuckery because he also has a lower probability of getting enough votes that it becomes possible at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Knight of Arboria posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/763385288295055360 Wait he has a spokesman named Bongino?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Also, Trump could get to 270 vs 268 with narrow wins in a lot of states, leaving Clinton with a higher total pop vote by concentrating votes in California, New York, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
So no unendorsements from Ryan, McCain, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:I see someone doesn't understand the actual meaning and context of Donald Trump's words. I'm afraid there's no such thing as "meaning and context" with respect to Tronald Dump words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:538 has "Clinton wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at 3.5%, and "Trump wins pop vote but loses electoral college" at only 0.8%. How does that make sense? I thought the democrats had a structural advantage in the electoral college, but these numbers would suggest the opposite. A big part of that is millions of Clinton's votes are going to come from New York and California, where a great number of those votes are immaterial to her victory in the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
prom candy posted:So no unendorsements from Ryan, McCain, etc.? Nope! Closest we got was McCain wagging his finger at Trump for how he's been handling Khan. Trump's also gotten glowing praise from Todd Akin since. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Ryan said at a press conference that he hadn't heard what Trump said and then a reporter was like "here I'll read it" and he was all NO!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Trump is a good thing for Bitcoin Oh yes, please. Please let Trump get into a panic he might lose his
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:13
|
|