This is somehow worse than your other post.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
This is somehow worse than your other post.
JesseEwiak
Member
Trump - Every day, I'm a little more convinced about the "Bill convinced Trump to run" idea and like I've said, if he did do it, he gets all the blowjobs he wants.
Carson - Yup, this was a grift from day one.
Carly - I'm convinced an aide or some random GOP flack told Carly, "look, there's no other women in the race and none of them can attack you without look liking an ass," not counting on The Donald.
Huckabee/Santorum - I think both of them didn't realize their bases had left them for the new hotness.
Rand - Rand had an opening post-Iraq War/pre-ISIL. After ISIL rose, he was toast. Add in Trump being populist, and he was really done.
Rubio - I still believe Rubio was planning to do a test run this time to gain connections w/ the money men, run for Governor in '18 to get "Executive Experience", then run for POTUS in 2024, either after two terms of Jeb or two terms of Hillary.
Carson - Yup, this was a grift from day one.
Carly - I'm convinced an aide or some random GOP flack told Carly, "look, there's no other women in the race and none of them can attack you without look liking an ass," not counting on The Donald.
Huckabee/Santorum - I think both of them didn't realize their bases had left them for the new hotness.
Rand - Rand had an opening post-Iraq War/pre-ISIL. After ISIL rose, he was toast. Add in Trump being populist, and he was really done.
Rubio - I still believe Rubio was planning to do a test run this time to gain connections w/ the money men, run for Governor in '18 to get "Executive Experience", then run for POTUS in 2024, either after two terms of Jeb or two terms of Hillary.
Just stop.
I think Carly was smart to run, feel like she did just enough to get that Fox News gig.
shinra-bansho
Member
Trump loves the Hispanics. Even thought they're rapists and murders. He loves the blacks too. And the Jews; they're smart, that's why he hires them to manage his money. And he loves women. They all love him too.
Think I'm more or less in agreement with you 100% on this. I'm more and more convinced Clinton convinced Trump to run as a favor to himself and Hilary. (Having Trump on the right makes HRC look very progressive in comparison)
And_Gignac
Member
The ARG poll. The IBP poll. MY GOD. POOR HILLARY.
Wasnt one of the most repeated arguments in here that polls are consistenly more accurate the closer we are to the primaries? So I guess it is not a surprise that the Bernie enthusiasm is finally showing up in the polls.
And before someone claims IBD is wrong or something, their 538 score is higher than Fox´s.
Buuut, they polled Dems and dem leaning, not likely caucusers. That could play into the poor Clinton showing.
Wasnt one of the most repeated arguments in here that polls are consistenly more accurate the closer we are to the primaries? So I guess it is not a surprise that the Bernie enthusiasm is finally showing up in the polls.
And before someone claims IBD is wrong or something, their 538 score is higher than Fox´s.
Buuut, they polled Dems and dem leaning, not likely caucusers. That could play into the poor Clinton showing.
Black Mamba
Member
I agree on Rubio. I think he was thinking VP or test run or both just to get his name out there nationally.
Carly is far too rich to need that gig. She's not Huckabee or Carson.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The ARG poll. The IBP poll. MY GOD. POOR HILLARY.
Wasnt one of the most repeated arguments in here that polls are consistenly more accurate the closer we are to the primaries? So I guess it is not a surprise that the Bernie enthusiasm is finally showing up in the polls.
And before someone claims IBD is wrong or something, their 538 score is higher than Fox´s.
Buuut, they polled Dems and dem leaning, not likely caucusers. That could play into the poor Clinton showing.
IBD/TIPP was the poll that had Carson +7 when everyone else showed Trump leading. IBD/TIPP had McCain winning until the last day before the election in 2008 before it magically became Obama +2 or something. IBD/TIPP somehow managed to have the same number in 2012 that was the polling aggregate at the time (nothing wrong with this by itself but their shenanigans in 2008 make you wonder if they just copy pasted).
I know their history and you should too. Here's an article detailing how they fucked up in 2008.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/anatomy-of-polling-disaster/
Also just could be an ego thing to be on TV and being an "analyst".
I still think he was just in to get his rep up so he could make a run at Governor in a few years. Either way, we've been on the same train as far as he goes for a while now: that he never got in it to win it and now that he's the establishment hope he has no idea what to do. His infrastructure has never been that of a guy looking to win.
Black Mamba
Member
This seems odd to me. Carson for years has appeared on TV as much as humanly possible. Fiorina comes out of the shadows every now and then.
I don't think she's angling for an analyst role. Once this is done she'll mostly disappear again. Maybe not until 2017 and the election is over with in general, but it will happen.
Mos def. He's basically the 2015 LA Clippers. Wait, we're about to make the conference finals!?!?!? ::shits bed::
VendettaRed07
Member
His points on ISIL and his attacks on Jeb and his family connections with the wars in the Middle East absolutely contradict each other but I think he's attack the Iraq war as being a mistake enough to get certain people over. I don't believe him at all and he's clearly a racist bafoon who has no grasp at the practicality of any of his policies but I think he's done more to get white males who lean liberal over to his side if he makes it to the general than I think people anticipate. I expect if he does make it to the general he's going to push single payer and attack Hillary for voting for the Iraq war even harder than he has already.
Conservatives on his side won't care about his pushing for single payer either. If they did care about what he had to say his comments and liberal siding on certain issues would have already been disqualifying in the republican field for any other establishment candidate
Sure, but I found the part that says that the states are in charge of setting up and implementing their own healthcare programs, which means the governors and state legislatures are in charge of it.
The onus is on you to explain from the bill how Bernie's plan isn't handing over power to Republican governors to implement single payer. Reading the bill helps, for you.
That's a perfect fucking comparison :lol
disastermouse
Banned
A lot of Midwestern white union members are like this, although quite a few have already fled to the Republican Party over the gun control issue.
And_Gignac
Member
From your link:
Seems they learned from their mistakes! Now they must be over sampling young voters or something.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
*Any* national healthcare initiative will involve at least some state-level supervision. That's just true given the morass of constitutional law restricting the ability of the federal government to intervene in state markets. That's why Obamacare needs state support, a.k.a. why all of us in this thread are so happy for the people of Louisiana that JBE was elected. Whatever healthcare plan Hillary has will also be at least partially subject to the whims of Republican governors. This is unavoidable.
Nevertheless, Bernie's bill sets out a federally administered fund with conditions on use which states can opt into. The condition involves the state establishing a delivery mechanism by which that funding then goes towards healthcare costs. So, the Republicans wouldn't be able to choose who gets or does not get access to singleplayer and e.g. discriminate against minorities, otherwise they are not meeting the conditions to access the fund. Rather, the worst they can do is non-participate (exactly the same as how some states currently refuse to participate in Obamacare), in which case they have access to the same stuff they always did. You can't really do any better than that - and Clinton's plan certainly does not. It's utter weak tea in comparison.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Completely disagree with this. Rubio's the guy who pushed Charlie Crist out of the way to get his Senate seat. He hasn't spent months courting billionaires to get ready for a run at the governorship. Rubio's team thought they could win by building a national campaign and letting Trump flame out. In October it looked like it was going to work. They didn't properly account for the importance of the early states or expect Trump to last. It was a flawed strategy but not one that was intentionally going to fail.
disastermouse
Banned
Racism is not at the core of our problems. It's a huge issue, but the crisis is unacknowledged class warfare and race is just one of many tools used to divide the working class and keep it from attaining the consciousness necessary for true systemic change.
Conservative vs. Liberal comes down to a basic schism between two different values - Dignity and Excellence. Liberals value dignity because something in their lives sensitized them the value of dignity. Either their own dignity has been at risk or they have at some time been called upon to empathize with someone whose dignity has been jeopardized and they identify with the struggle for dignity.
Conservatives value Excellence and define their entire lives based on their pride of achievement or their pride in some quality that they think imparts excellence/achievement, like race (racial superiority) or religion (religious righteousness).
Liberals struggle to achieve dignity for everyone, often regardless of achievement or excellence, believing that excellence cannot be attained without dignity being secured. Conservatives struggle for personal Excellence/achievement without regard for dignity, believing that dignity is only achieved through the struggle for personal excellence.
RustyNails
Member
Lets see how many youngins really do come out and caucus in Iowa for Da Bern. It will be interesting.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Another issue is that these shock polls coming out are the first in field for the pollsters so there's no previous data to look back at or reference trends/shifts/inherent biases. Very frustrating.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Selzer is Thursday. Then we'll know.
Honestly, it looks more like he was trying to build a network than anything else. Once that's done, he makes a run at governor, does that for a bit then tries for real with more executive experience and an army of donors at his back. It wouldn't be the first time someone used a run to build up another run in the future.
Come on Hilldawg. Get that endorsement.
He has to get through an R primary with 4 statewide candidates first.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
God the some of the posts in euro threads now. Worse than lots of Donald Trump's ideas.
Black Mamba
Member
We won't know that much. You still have to look at aggregate.
And honestly, early primary/caucus polling is sketchier. Sure, if either person has multiple polls coming with big leads, I'd say pretty confidently it's theirs.
But without that, not sure the polls mean enough. General Election polling is quite reliable. Primaries, ehhhh.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think you mean private? Because We really should push back on how extreme that ideology has gotten. I'm mostly talking about how's OTA evolved in to stand your ground, the anti tax movement, opposition to public works, use for bigotry.
Yea, but that's a lot easier with a network of billionaires at his back donating money to his campaign and superPACs.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Selzer are really good, though. A+ from 538. Only pollster to call Obama's margin of victory in '08 Iowa primary perfectly; got within one point in Iowa right in '12. I worked with YouGOV and Selzer are basically accepted as being the bees knees. If they say the result is X, you know it's X (plus or minus the margin of error).
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Maybe they are, but the aggregate is always supreme.
Hi, I think his rhetoric on Muslims is disgusting and so are his words on us undocumented immigrants, and yes, I am one.
Don't tell me he isn't racist, because he sure as hell is. I'm not even Mexican but it's used as a catch all term on the rest of us. I've felt that rhetoric, and it hurts. It's wrong and divisive. I'm no criminal either, just another person trying to survive here.
*sorry, just wanted to respond considering I'm a target of that loser.
I promise I'll put a hold on it!!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, it's really not. The aggregate of polls which sample correctly is better than an individual poll which samples correctly because you're essentially just increasing the sample size and ergo reducing the margin of error. The aggregate of polls, some of which sample incorrectly, can be less accurate than a single poll sampling correctly, because the single poll is almost guaranteed to be within the margin of error or the real results, but the polls sampling inaccurately can be anywhere.
For example, Clinton's Iowa numbers from the last few polls are -3, +4, +5, +18, +8.
Do you think that +18 adds to the accuracy of the average or detracts from it?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Check out @BernieSanders's Tweet: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/686643033337675776?s=09
How stupid was podesta to tweet that out? How could he not see that coming when his candidate doesn't support it but her opponent does?
How stupid was podesta to tweet that out? How could he not see that coming when his candidate doesn't support it but her opponent does?
Black Mamba
Member
That defies all statistics, though. Even the best pollster will have an outlier 1 out of 20 times.
So even if Seltzer is the best and their methodology is rock solid and they do everything right, 1 out of 20 times their poll will be massively wrong because math. And unfortunately, we won't know if it is one.
What an idiot, lol.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If that was the case 538 wouldn't be in business. You can assign weights to pollsters that have a proven track record to account for something like that but the aggregate is still supreme.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is true. However, we can be 95% confident that it's good. Meanwhile, I have literally 0% confidence Gravis or PPP will produce anything near the right numbers. So, comparatively, the most confident we can be is from Selzer, or rather an average of polls with similar sampling techniques to Selzer.
Well, that's awkward.
I tried weed once, but, like cigarettes, it did nothing for me (thankfully, on cigarettes). If you took away my coffee, though, I would probably be climbing the walls
. I drink three cups of regular, and two cups of decaf, a day (no sugar / milk), plus three teas, with 2%.Frugal Tip: buy boxes of Melitta #4 filters (100 count) for as little as $2.5 (Kroger deal), and double the usage, by cutting the top off! You then pull apart the two pieces, and interleave them, in small metal strainer (placing over one-cup (I use a Melitta) filter), sealing them together, with some almost boiled water. Then, add a good teaspoon (1.5 tsp) of ground coffee (I typically use Melitta Decaf, for this bonus cuppa), and initially, just wet the grounds, Then, fill up to just below filter height (from overlap filter side, so not to undo seal), and repeat umpteen times, for a very respectable coffee. With Melitta Decaf on sale at $3.5 (10.5 oz), and get ~60 cups / can, that works out at 7.25c / cup (including filter @ 1.25c)
.P.S. For longer posts, such as this one, I use PS3 controller, as can type significantly faster, and with more accuracy, than media remote. In both cases, use phone style layout (multh-tap), for on-srcreen keyboard, which works very well (Qwerty layout would be a real slog).
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Is your problem with PPP based on incorrect polls they've done or your perception that they are biased against Sanders?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
538 isn't just an aggregate. Part of what Nate does is look for the bias of any given pollster and correct it. For example, say CBS/NYT came out with Dem 55, Rep 45. Nate would say, "well, in the last few sets of elections, CBS/NYT usually overrated the Dem candidate by 2 points relative to the Rep candidate. So, I'll add CBS/NYT to my aggregate, but correct it to 53-47 internally". In other words, 538 attempts to account for poor sampling. A simple average or even lagged average like RCP and HuffPost respectively doesn't do this, and as such is likely to be less accurate than just a single pollster we know has a track record of being very good - not always, but likely.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They don't show their methodology and they aren't a private company [this means a fair bit in polling circles], plus they've displayed severe signs of crowding in the past. I don't know anyone in the industry who respects them. This was always true.
Black Mamba
Member
Most likely adds to it but it could also detract. Statistically, you'd side on adding to it. You'd also have to balance out that +18 with an outlier the other way being thrown out, as well. And maybe that +18 is accurate and the rest aren't. We just don't know.
The aggregate can be less accurate but because we can't know if the individual poll is accurate or not, it's always smarter to lay your bet on the aggregate unless you're very certain you know why the methodology of most the polls is wrong.
If you can convince me the +18 is not an outlier but the result of incorrect methodology, I'm fine with throwing it out. Otherwise, it's more likely than not to increase the reliability of the polls.
Is past performance reliable enough for the future performance? There's lots of things that can change over time. What if they fell behind the times in the last 8 years and didn't know it?
Too many variables to just rely on one. I'm more in favor of throwing certain polls out than just glorifying one.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I like Clinton as a candidate, but she just packs her campaign with the stupidest people. It really affects poorly on her potential ability as president when she shows that she either can't control staff or don't know they're the sort of people that would do this in the first place. I mean really, the incompetence is baffling.
I just can't resist calling out the classic "You can't be racist against Muslims since they aren't a race" line. Not only is this meaningless exclusively semantic garbage and an attempt at conflating vernacular and precise definitions of racism to confuse people (my favorite motte-and-bailey fallacy), but it seems to me as though you think that playing categorization games to miscategorize something somehow intrinsically changes that which was miscategorized as opposed to you having just slapping a misleading label on it (basically, using semantics to say something "technically isn't racist" doesn't actually make it less bigoted). The very essence of attempting to appear smart but failing to have any substance at all.
But since we're being pedantic, how about we say "Trump's plan to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US is discriminatory and bigoted". And since Shibboleth don't actually work and this ban will end up just being a ban on people who are "suspected" Muslims (i.e. brown) we can also say "Trump's plan to ban Muslims is racist against Arabic people who will be suspected of being Muslim". Check and mate.
Also, it's not a defense to say "well it could be worse, he could ban all current Muslims (brown people) instead of just future Muslim (brown people) immigrants" - you are right in that it would be even shittier, but the possibility that his proposals could be even more shitty does not somehow diminish the current shittiness.
At least own up to reality, don't try and say "well technically this doesn't fit the definition of racism because of word games, so therefore it's okay" because that doesn't change reality and isn't fooling anyone.
But since we're being pedantic, how about we say "Trump's plan to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US is discriminatory and bigoted". And since Shibboleth don't actually work and this ban will end up just being a ban on people who are "suspected" Muslims (i.e. brown) we can also say "Trump's plan to ban Muslims is racist against Arabic people who will be suspected of being Muslim". Check and mate.
Also, it's not a defense to say "well it could be worse, he could ban all current Muslims (brown people) instead of just future Muslim (brown people) immigrants" - you are right in that it would be even shittier, but the possibility that his proposals could be even more shitty does not somehow diminish the current shittiness.
At least own up to reality, don't try and say "well technically this doesn't fit the definition of racism because of word games, so therefore it's okay" because that doesn't change reality and isn't fooling anyone.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I am certain Gravis' methodology is wrong because the filter they use to establish likeliness to vote is whether someone has voted in that caucus before. If you haven't voted in a caucus before, you are not considered likely to vote. This flies in the face of ~30% of Iowan caucus-goers in '08 being first timers. The +18 is an outlier. For the record, if you include +18 in that average, you get Clinton +6.4. Now, the chances of an accurate poll getting +18 from a population value of +6.4 with a sample size of say 500 is less than 0.01%. Gravis is immensely unlikely to be an outlier. Either it is wrong, or the others are wrong, and I think we have sufficient reason to suppose Gravis is wrong.
We have a system that doesn't simply blanket people with care, but they must assimilate to a system by its very nature is exploitative in terms of costs. We don't even have a hybrid: it's a have/have not system. It's garbage.
Comparing what we have to France is like comparing warfare and disease to a still ocean under a clear sky.
All you get from the left is that the ACA must stay, not that we move forward with single payer. This is notable, because those with that view actively stand against what their Democratic president currently in office has said must be done, moving forward.
The ACA did not end the have/have not social game, and by its very design it won't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked