• 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 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Syncytia

Member
I'm guessing I'm late to this but Huma is separating from Weiner?


The Trump statement on her leaving is amazing for how fast it goes to "what classified information did she spill to Anthony Weiner? Hillary bad judgement!"
 
N

nature boy

Member
CrDFLktXgAEYxbT.jpg:large


In good company.
 
H

Hydrophobic

Member
Teggy said:
Smart people are pickle truthers.

Jimmy Kimmel had Hillary open a jar of pickles to show her strength. Guess how the alt-right reacted?




I just learned about rare Pepes the other day. Blew my mind. What do you do with a rare Pepe? You can't post it because then it won't be rare anymore.
Click to expand...

You horde it, I think. I don't really know.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
RustyNails said:
I'd only allow pigeon and black mamba to unskew polls. They did an amazing job in 2012.
Click to expand...

Thank you, but I didn't consider it unskewing.

The unskewing guy actually changed the poll numbers. I would never do that. I would look at a poll's internals and say "there's a good chance these understate or overstate X's chances because of Y."

For instance, I would say that Obama at +1 in Nevada probably understates his lead because the poll was landline only and their under 40 share was too small after weights.

The unskewing guy unskewed by party weights, fwiw. And technically, Nate Silver is a poll unskewer (his model literally adjusts the poll numbers).

That said, there actually is nothing wrong with unskewing a poll. There's 2 things that matter

1. Your reason/method of unskewing is legit. Party weight is not one but racial demographics can be.

2. You don't throw out any poll unless it's obviously pure shit. For example, if a poll came out in Florida and was weighted to be a 95% white electorate (using extreme example of course) then you can ignore this poll because it is obviously not a serious poll. But other than these super obvious instances, you aggregate all polls (and don't put in your own numbers).


I mean, it's really no different than us saying Nevada will probably outperform the polling because of non-English speaking hispanic people. When someone does this, it is essentially an unskewing.
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Iolo said:
They would be better off at this point running the corpse of Harambe than Mcmullin.
Click to expand...

Not constitutionally qualified unfortunately. There's no actual constitutional bar for being a gorilla, or even for being dead - but Harambe was only 17.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
adam387 said:
You know the one thing I don't like about Monmouth? They don't do breakdowns based on race other than "White non-Hispanic" and "non-white" That's silly. One thing I do like, is when they break the numbers down by if it's a swing state/red state/blue state.

In states that were won by less than 7% in 2012, it's 52/29(!)
Click to expand...

That's bananas.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
The superdelegates haven't voted yet, this is going to be a BROKERED ELECTION. Harambe will still win, and Hillary will go to jail.
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
I just saw one of the worst "bu bu both sides" examples on CNN. The lead and the text on screen was something like "Trump and Clinton attack each other on medical records." Everything they said was about Trump: The irregularities in his quack doctor's note that the media (not Hillary) uncovered; and then his Twitter challenge to Hillary. Then they just pivoted to his immigration flip flop. It's ridiculous.
 
S

Syncytia

Member
Nazgul_Hunter said:
I just saw one of the worst "bu bu both sides" examples on CNN. The lead and the text on screen was something like "Trump and Clinton attack each other on medical records." Everything they said was about Trump: The irregularities in his quack doctor's note that the media (not Hillary) uncovered; and then his Twitter challenge to Hillary. Then they just pivoted to his immigration flip flop. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The Trump focus groups are interesting in this respect; there's this perception that both sides are engaged in 'gutter politics' and that Hillary is being dirty just as much as Trump... hmm I wonder where that idea comes from?
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Senate Races

Pennsylvania:
Toomey (R) 46 (+7)
McGinty (D) 39

Ohio:
Portman (R) 40 (+15)
Strickland (D) 25
Undecided 25

According to Emerson.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
adam387 said:
Senate Races

Pennsylvania:
Toomey (R) 46 (+7)
McGinty (D) 39

Ohio:
Portman (R) 40 (+15)
Strickland (D) 25
Undecided 25

According to Emerson.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the Presidential race in Ohio could be close (whether it's near tied or just one side +3 or so) and yet Portman + 15.

Those things don't seem to be able to be along side one another in a real world.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Black Mamba said:
I don't see how the Presidential race in Ohio could be close (whether it's near tied or just one side +3 or so) and yet Portman + 15.

Those things don't seem to be able to be along side one another in a real world.
Click to expand...

Judging by the huge number of undecideds they didn't exactly push very hard to get a good sample.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
whyamihere said:
PPP's national poll tomorrow has a D excitement level of 5, so expect like an HRC +4.
Click to expand...

They're saying there's a chance we'll see the results on TV before. I'm thinking Rachel?

I say Hillary 5, which would be steady from their last national poll right after the convention.

Can I just say...I don't get Rachel Maddow's partner's artwork. Like. At all. Blurry photography? Really?
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Just found how out that Obama's overtime rules affect me today. Not in a huge way, though. I make under the required amount and don't get overtime, anyway.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Ecotic said:
Remind me again as to the meaning of their scale. A 5 is decent or bad?
Click to expand...

It's situational.

A 1 point lead in NC they said was a 6.
A 3 point lead in PA they called a 5 or 6.
The Hillary national by 5 was a 6 or 7.

But all of those showed Hillary gaining from her previous position.
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Jim Acosta ✔ @Acosta
Senior Trump adv on immigration speech: Secure border first. Then have conversation on what to do with undocumented "years from now."

lol
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Donald Trump has a massive Catholic problem


Much has been made of Donald Trump’s problems with a few voting groups — female voters, blacks and Hispanics, and young voters, in particular. And, to be sure, they are all problems.

But relatively speaking, his biggest problem actually appears to be with a different group: Catholics.

Yes, the man who once feuded with the pope (how soon we forget that actually happened) is cratering among Catholics.

Back in 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney lost the Catholic vote by just 2 points, 50 percent to 48 percent. And the GOP has actually won the Catholic vote as recently as 2004 and in 5 of the last 10 11 presidential elections.

But Trump trails among Catholics by a huge margin. A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute released this week shows him down 23 points, 55-32.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released earlier this month painted an even worse picture for Trump’s Catholic support. He was down by 27 points, 61-34.

If you compare the difference between Romney’s margin among Catholics in 2012 and Trump’s margin among Catholics this year, the 25-point difference is tied for the biggest shift of any demographic group in the Post-ABC poll.

(The only group that matches that 25-point shift is white, college-educated women. Romney won them by 6 points; Trump trails by 19.)

Trump’s deficits among non-whites and young voters, by contrast, are similar to where Romney and Republicans have been in recent years. The Post-ABC poll, in fact, showed Hillary Clinton failing to match Obama’s margin among non-whites — though not in a statistically meaningful way — while her margin among young voters ages 18-to-29 was three points better.

These are groups, in other words, that Republicans don’t expect to do well with. And they still don’t.

But Catholics have long been a swing vote in presidential elections, and right now they’re swinging hard for Clinton.

It’s also hard to overstate just how significant Trump’s poor performance among Catholics is. That’s because they comprise about one-quarter of voters in the United States (25 percent in 2012 exit polls) and are about as big a voting bloc as non-whites (28 percent) and independents (29 percent).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom