|
TyrantWD is a somewhat more competent CelestialScribe.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
porfiria posted:Right but I guess it seems like the 538 model has some kind of "momentum" built into it--Trump is still clearly down, so if A. The polls don't move much in 6 days B. The polls are as accurate as they usually are, he will lose. If Trump winning at this point is just the "the polls are wrong" number, why should it have shifted significantly in the past week? The polls DID tighten towards the end of last week. Nate also does a thing where new poll data isn't immediately The Truth - more polls that agree with recent data or surpass it further reinforce them - ie, it takes a few polls in a row to move things. As the likely outlier in NC today reinforced the "he's surging" from Friday, it is working to decide the new truth is that she's 3-4 points ahead, rather than 7.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Because he's pretending he isn't a Trump supporter and is spewing bullshit Oh I'm pretty sure he's said something similar before but I'm playing it straight. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I feel like a full term of GOP obstructionism and constantly investigating Hillary, it would backfire and make them look like assholes to everyone but the fringe. Most American want the goverment to work, and if its clear that straight up one party is doing everything to prevent that from happening, it won't gain them any sympathy. It's been clear that straight up one party is doing everything to prevent the government from working for the past 6 years and it hasn't made much of a difference Americans are very, very, very stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Demographics were supposed to make 2016 unwinnable for a Republican, and despite offending Hispanic voters as much as they probably could, this election is looking like it's going to be won because of college educated white voters that Trump alienated. 2016 was unwinnable. Trump never had a lead, he never once had any kind of lead ever. The idea this was a horse race was a myth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I feel like a full term of GOP obstructionism and constantly investigating Hillary, it would backfire and make them look like assholes to everyone but the fringe. Most American want the goverment to work, and if its clear that straight up one party is doing everything to prevent that from happening, it won't gain them any sympathy. Most of the electorate already forgot about the government shutdown
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:So gently caress women and minorities basically You still have roughly 45% of women backing backing Trump and he is doing no worse with minorities than Romney. Women and minorities clearly don't consider Trump to be the threat that you do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
As a break from TyrantWD's idiocy... does this count as tankie's for Hillary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The polls DID tighten towards the end of last week. The RCP polling average, by the way, puts the race much closer to 2 points than 4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:You still have roughly 45% of women backing backing Trump and he is doing no worse with minorities than Romney. Women and minorities clearly don't consider Trump to be the threat that you do. Why don't you go ahead and  then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Sure I get that, but again it comes back to the question of why 538's model seems so inclined towards 50/50 in a way that the others aren't--yes, the polls might be inaccurate, even over a large number of samples (leaving aside the issue of actual shifts in preference), but why does Nate's seem so much more skeptical of polling (maybe that's too harsh a way of putting it--maybe he just assumes that preferences are that fungible) than the others? That's just an assumption that he bakes into the model. I'm sure he has justifications for it, but it ultimately boils down to him holding a stronger belief than others that the polls may not be accurate
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You actually think Trump will win? Not just that, but that it's a moral imperative for him to win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Joke/stupid question. Is it possible to recall congress reps and senators, asking for the timeline where the Repubs try the impeachy for Grandma's 1st year and somehow the good part of the country recall them and make everything solid blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:100 people Trump will find and arrest to end BLM riots!" and so on. *Puts a small, yellow dog onto his head. Clears throat. Squares shoulders. Tiny hands are poised to gesticulate.* "You know folks. It's sad. Sad really. Back in my day we knew how to deal with protesters. They don't get it. They don't. So sad. Sad that they don't get it. Within the first hundred days I propose the DAF act in order to quell urban unrest. What's the DAF act? It's terrifiic folks, you won't believe it. See we have to go back into our history to find solutions to everyday problems. And with urban unrest? It'll be a total sneak attack, because brown people don't show up here! *laughter* I kid, I kid. Some of my favorite friends happen to be the blacks. Yes folks, the DAF act. Short for dogs and fire hoses. That's right. The good ones won't have to worry about it. It'll be safe. And every single drop of water will be sourced from our very own Trump brand bottled water. It'll be terrific folks. Just terrific you wouldn't believe it. We need law and order. Law and order. *Rambles on for a bit before finally remembering his catchphrase, but with a twist*.Dogs and fire hoses will make America great again!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You actually think Trump will win? Not at all. It's just the famed demographic uprising that would crush the Republicans is not why he is losing. Trump is losing because he is too stupid to avoid offending college educated white voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
I would caution anyone from making any 2020 is going to be like this or even 2018 predictions because 2004-2008-2012-2016 were very much wildly different though you could probably predict 2016 from 2012 if your starting premise was "what's the stupidest most insane incredulous utter bullshit you could think of happening in an election, however unlikely"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Joke/stupid question. Congress is the only one who can expel Congressmen. Even if they weren't, people historically like their own Congressman, so it's not like you could get Rep Shitbird of Texas's 5th recalled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Joke/stupid question. No. Members of Congress can't be recalled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Demographics dipshit. "Demographics" is the 'A Wizard Did It" of politics. You'd think all the talk about how 2016 was a guaranteed win for Democrats because of "demographics" would put people off making the exact same mistake about 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's unlikely that McConnell is going to be able to keep his party 100% in sufficient lockstep to not vote on a SCOTUS nominee for four whole years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I would caution anyone from making any 2020 is going to be like this or even 2018 predictions because 2004-2008-2012-2016 were very much wildly different though you could probably predict 2016 from 2012 if your starting premise was "what's the stupidest most insane incredulous utter bullshit you could think of happening in an election, however unlikely" Back in 2004, if you had told somebody that the next president would be a black man named Barack Hussein Obama people would have laughed in your face (before his convention speech, anyway)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
So, assuming Clinton wins, the GOP keeps the Senate and House, and they spend 100% of their time on obstruction of the "repeal obamacare", "investigate Clinton", or "impeach Clinton variety", and absolutely refuse to even talk to SCOTUS nominees, are US voters so blindly loyal to party, apathetic, and/or ill-informed as to not punish them for it in 2018 or 2020? I wish I believed the answer to that could be "no."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:*Puts a small, yellow dog onto his head. Clears throat. Squares shoulders. Tiny hands are poised to gesticulate.* You've phrased this wrong, he would tailor the speech to the idea this was a really good thing for black folks to fix their communities, and that every black person he meets supports it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
the early polling results in Florida are suggesting that a third of Republican early vote is going to Clinton
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
So preview of poll tomorrow on MSNBC, 28% of Republican early voters are voting for Clinton. This is great news, for Trump!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Quinton posted:So, assuming Clinton wins, the GOP keeps the Senate and House, and they spend 100% of their time on obstruction of the "repeal obamacare", "investigate Clinton", or "impeach Clinton variety", and absolutely refuse to even talk to SCOTUS nominees, are US voters so blindly loyal to party, apathetic, and/or ill-informed as to not punish them for it in 2018 or 2020? Why are you even asking lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:the early polling results in Florida are suggesting that a third of Republican early vote is going to Clinton Or that rear end
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I would caution anyone from making any 2020 is going to be like this or even 2018 predictions because 2004-2008-2012-2016 were very much wildly different though you could probably predict 2016 from 2012 if your starting premise was "what's the stupidest most insane incredulous utter bullshit you could think of happening in an election, however unlikely" Yeah this election is a great example of just how random poo poo is. A far right wing politician getting the nomination based on a populist ideology that panders to xenophobic whites? Predictable, a logical outcome of the gop's politics the last. That politician being donald loving trump with russian backing and a fbi director who seems determined to commit career suicide? Out of loving nowhere, i see no reason not to expect similar next election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I really don't understand this thread's obsession with PJ's magical, pseudo-psychological explanations of how the world works. She's wrong as often as she's right. I don't get it either but if I didn't give the people what they wanted before the election, they would have impeached me like they did poor Fried Chicken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:"Demographics" is the 'A Wizard Did It" of politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You better back that source up Targetsmart/William and Mary, full release tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:the early polling results in Florida are suggesting that a third of Republican early vote is going to Clinton Oh you had best have a source for this one friend. (Oh god please be true).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Quinton posted:So, assuming Clinton wins, the GOP keeps the Senate and House, and they spend 100% of their time on obstruction of the "repeal obamacare", "investigate Clinton", or "impeach Clinton variety", and absolutely refuse to even talk to SCOTUS nominees, are US voters so blindly loyal to party, apathetic, and/or ill-informed as to not punish them for it in 2018 or 2020? Even if the Dems take the Senate, there's basically 0 chance they keep it in 2018
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:yeah but u have to live in janesville, so you get to choose between fuddruckers or olive garden for your fine-dining options. Hey, slow your roll, bucko. We just got a HuHot AND a Five Guys! (Sigh... maybe that "Chainsville" mock-iker isn't all that far off. )
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh you had best have a source for this one friend. (Oh god please be true). Turn on MSNBC. Targetsmart. Trump is in deep, deep, deep trouble if that poll is right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Even if the Dems take the Senate, there's basically 0 chance they keep it in 2018
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Again, I don't support Trump, and was backing Hillary from the start. Most of you guys are overlooking the fact that Trump isn't the problem. Trump voters are the problem. What is the solution when someone who is not so overly offensive comes along and gives those voters what they want?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Again, I don't support Trump, and was backing Hillary from the start. Most of you guys are overlooking the fact that Trump isn't the problem. Trump voters are the problem. What is the solution when someone who is not so overly offensive comes along and gives those voters what they want? We deal with one problem at a time. Today the problem is the fascist on the ballot. There'll be time for the fascist in the drawing room tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh you had best have a source for this one friend. (Oh god please be true). https://twitter.com/_TargetSmart/status/793635698553200642
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Quinton posted:So, assuming Clinton wins, the GOP keeps the Senate and House, and they spend 100% of their time on obstruction of the "repeal obamacare", "investigate Clinton", or "impeach Clinton variety", and absolutely refuse to even talk to SCOTUS nominees, are US voters so blindly loyal to party, apathetic, and/or ill-informed as to not punish them for it in 2018 or 2020? The narrative regarding the SCOTUS they're pushing is that having a 9-member court has led to a proliferation of "activist judges" who disregard the Constitution to push a liberal agenda, and that what they're doing is intentionally shrinking the court back to a lower number because having a smaller SCOTUS leads to less abuse of the system by activist judges... for some reason. This makes no sense to me but expect that to be the line you'll hear from conservatives for the next four years if they hold on to the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:14
|
|