|
SSNeoman posted:I'm gonna wait till the 10th of September. If Clinton doesn't make a move then, something is wrong. I wonder how his behavior in previous debates will come through one-on-one. With a quiet audience, I'm hoping his complete madness comes through. Or at the very least, his extreme ignorance of pretty much every aspect of what it takes to be President.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
LOL NO. Dude there is no way Trump gets through the first debate without stirring some poo poo. It's all he knows how to do.
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
zonohedron posted:Okay, here's 2012 "very close" - any state decided by less than 5% set to undecided - and then all the 'undecided' states to Trump, plus WI because the headlines at the bottom of the page say it's close, minus VA for Clinton. Clinton still wins. I too find this a bit confusing, how exactly does Trump barely having any path to victory translate to a 70% chance of Clinton winning? TheBigAristotle posted:I wonder how his behavior in previous debates will come through one-on-one. With a quiet audience, I'm hoping his complete madness comes through. Or at the very least, his extreme ignorance of pretty much every aspect of what it takes to be President. The first debate is gonna be at Hofstra University in New York. Somehow I doubt that the audience there will be on his side. I can't even imagine Trump speaking publicly without people cheering at every word he says. Could he even function like that? Augus fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Is it wrong to suggest Hillary should unleash the hounds? Is that arazying? Because we need to take the senate. The GOP has to be crushed for her first term to be anything more then a replay of the past two years. If you're aggressive you get the voters out. Also how is this going to happen Celestial, does it turn out that HRC didn't prepare for debates and did no opposition research at all? Hillary can't be disturbed right now. She's doing debate prep to crush Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
This feels a lot like the week of the RNC. Trump was leading some polls, Cleveland didn't burn as expected, and Clinton was kind of missing in action. Then the DNC happened. Hillary may not be the the most natural politician, but she runs a professional organization. I expect we'll get our red meat soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Seems like Iowa shouldn't be blue in this map, going by the criteria you've laid out here.  "2012 very close" is different from "2016 competitive", because what I wanted wasn't "what if Clinton loses all the states she's not currently utterly dominating" but rather "what if Trump won all the states Romney won, plus all the ones that Romney was within 5% of winning (except Virginia), plus Wisconsin." (I felt like I should pick a state to arbitrarily fool_of_sound posted:I really like the NYT paths to victory graphic at the bottom here. It's a really good demonstration of exactly why it is so insanely difficult for Donald Trump to take the white house. That's a great demonstration. How's Florida looking in the polls these days? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
And believe me, at the debates it's allll coming out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
This whole FBI dump is going to inspire the biggest clusterfuck Ben Garrison cartoon ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/771686352438042624
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
This might be the closest we'll ever come to someone being accused of being "Dumb And So Goddamn Crazy" in real life
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Trump wakes up every weekday and says, "Quick, get me the latest on what happened on that show I don't watch that's hosted by those people I dislike!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Thank God, the best way to get the Media to stop trying to make up poo poo about the emails is for Trump to start attacking them right out of the blue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Between Nate's "the electoral college may not save Clinton" and Reuters we have the full on war on reality is begun. A few pages ago, but I'd just like to point out that the war on reality started on October 7, 1996.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:What if there are no oppo bombs It's Trump my man. There's bound to be more skeletons in his closet than in Dick Cheney's army of darkness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It's especially possible that Clintons numbers continue dropping. It's not difficult to imagine that: Do you have any vacation time or PTO you could use to take a break from this stuff? Cause I feel like you really need a little break here bud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Augus posted:I too find this a bit confusing, how exactly does Trump barely having any path to victory translate to a 70% chance of Clinton winning? It doesn't http://election.princeton.edu/history-of-meta-analysis/ quote:Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift 90%, Bayesian 94% Sam Wang is the guy who's always right and his model literally only includes polls so there's no extra pundit nonsense or hidden factors baked in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It's Trump my man. There's bound to be more skeletons in his closet than in Dick Cheney's army of darkness. It's probably enough that they just keep cutting ads featuring whatever Trump said the week before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:This whole FBI dump is going to inspire the biggest clusterfuck Ben Garrison cartoon ever. I imagine that it'll involve mighty lord Trump-sama slaying the Hildabeast while accosted by the dreaded S J W trolls who fail to dent his powerful resolve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
William F Cuckley posted:It's probably enough that they just keep cutting ads featuring whatever Trump said the week before. Yeah the hardest part is deciding what Trump dumbassery to use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
The 45th anniversary of the Attica Prison Riot is coming up. A group called the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated to the Wobblies, is trying to effect a nationwide strike among prison laborers. I haven't heard much about it from even lefty outlets but I'm interested to see whether they have pockets of success. Outside Twitter I've only seen things about it on Rawstory in an article written by a Wobbly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
How much did hillary raise vs trump in August?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/771858220864434181 Christ, they are chilling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Fortunately we have poll aggregators to sift through the noise. I'm not talking about the noise from individual outlier polls, in talking about the fact that the poll results even in aggregate have been very erratic over short timescales, and treating that week to week movement as meaningful is dumb because none of it has been indicative of a sustained trend. Clinton goes up and down, Trump goes up and down, but the long term trend is that she's held a steady lead of around 3-4 % for most of the race outside of the post convention period. Things now are basically back where they were in June, when she was also winning. Getting hung up on the % chance to win is silly. For one thing it's entirely model dependent and we don't know which model is correct. Sam Wang has Clinton at or above 90%. The other issue is that 538 has Clinton at 72% in the Nowcast as well. Do you honestly believe that if the election were held today Donald Trump would win? Nate's model is pretty conservative and doesn't begin to close to 100 until very close to the election. Obama was at roughly the same chance in 2012 at this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:CelestialScribe, November 9th: "I don't see why you guys won't accept that Trump could have won. Why won't you face reality?" Just because he's too much of a chickshit to toxx for Trump's victory doesn't mean the mods shouldn't ban him all the same. Eiba posted:It feels like CelestialScribe's persistent hyperbole has gotten this thread to entrench against recognizing any sort of shift in the polls. Trump isn't actively insulting the parents of a fallen soldier so "he's not doing as badly in the polls as he was a couple week ago" is a given. For Clinton to keep that 8-10 point national lead he'd have to have engaged in that level of behavior and the media would need to actually care enough to cover it instead of ignore it to focus on Hilary and a horse race narrative or their Clinton hateboners. When Trump's polling at 45-46 or better then I'd maybe worry, but she he's still slamming face-first in to a 43-44% ceiling? Nope. Especially not before the debates. The odds of him not losing his poo poo at the debates is just too low. He's easily set off and if he doesn't either say something horrible to Clinton, like blame her for Bill's cheating, or get set off by her not taking his poo poo, I'd be amazed. Kaisch's drink needs to include that it'll have dead bugs in it because "seems perfectly reasonable" is an absurd thing to say about him unless it's followed with "until you look closely." speng31b posted:Hillary's not super charismatic but the Clintons are a machine, I think you might be wrong about this. Especially since the Obamas are with her and if the need is there then Barack and Michelle are going to hit the campaign trail for her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Yeah the hardest part is deciding what Trump dumbassery to use. It's probably for the best anyway. This is the same brain trust whose greatest, most well-crafted burn was "Dangerous Donald".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/771858220864434181 Like 40 accounts on Twitter have noted that this looks like a terrible remake of Gattaca.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/771858220864434181 I've seen enough GoT to know how this turns out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Democrats troll Donald Drumpf with a taco truck in Colorado http://ti.me/2bLe11w Holy crap, this is awesome!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
The dude in the back needs to stay out of PR photos. He has an extremely punchable face.Rick_Hunter posted:I've seen enough GoT to know how this turns out. threesome??
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/771858220864434181 loving lol if they think any of these people represent students or millenials.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:The dude in the back needs to stay out of PR photos. He has an extremely punchable face. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:The dude in the back needs to stay out of PR photos. He has an extremely punchable face. Crowned, maimed, missing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/771858220864434181 He's got the Pat Bateman vote in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
but do they have the quaaaark vote?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/771858220864434181 yeah, I'm not sure which one had to turn down the Huey Lewis and take off the raincoat for that photoshoot
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:but do they have the quaaaark vote? gently caress, I'd vote Quark over Trump, Ferengi at least honor their contracts (even if they negotiate shadily)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Augus posted:I too find this a bit confusing, how exactly does Trump barely having any path to victory translate to a 70% chance of Clinton winning? Most of the sites that aggregate build in a decent fudge factor of uncertainty to their models. Nate's in fact has a sliding scale of uncertainty where the further out from election day the more his model leans towards the Any Given Sunday theory. Further most of the aggregators use national polling either exclusively or as the main base of their models, so they're including the chances of a 2000 type event where a candidate wins the EC but loses the popular vote. Additionally they usually have their own secret sauce blend of assumptions about various outside events and trends that they use to goose their numbers. Nate is overly cautious in his predictions so he has one of the highest degrees of uncertainty baked into his models and actually has 3 different models running for most of the election. On the other end of the group is Sam Wang and PEC, who use primarily state polls to determine the victor and are almost always have the least uncertainty baked into their model. At the end of the day Nate's predictions will cover a wider range of possibilities, allowing him a greater chance of being right but PEC's will be more precise allowing a greater chance of being super right. There are various reasons that have validity for their different choices, but at the end of the day if they are both right Sam Wang gets to wear the crown of Nerd King while Nate has to polish Sam's collection of Texas Instruments Graphing Calculators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Are those guys supposed to be the insiders or the Millennials?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Have ya'll read the text of the 538 "Don't Assume The Electoral College Will Save Clinton" thing? It's just pointing out that Hillary's performance in swing states mirrors her national performance, and that as her lead decreases, so does her performance in those states. Her lead in those states isn't structural and just reflects her general national performance and if that goes down, those states become contested.quote:But what if the race continues to tighten? I’ve often heard Democrats express a belief that Clinton’s position in the swing states will protect her in the Electoral College even if the race draws to a dead heat overall. But this is potentially mistaken. Although it’s plausible that Clinton’s superior field operation will eventually pay dividends, so far her swing state results have ebbed and flowed with her national numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Ferengi at least honor their contracts Only among Ferengi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:gently caress, I'd vote Quark over Trump, Ferengi at least honor their contracts (even if they negotiate shadily) rom for president
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 02:55
|
|