Some Russia probe news as well:
Literally lol'd
Some Russia probe news as well:
More VA polling...
LOL DEMS
Seriously, if Northam loses thats a fucking catastrophe.
Also - why is he a bad candidate? Asking wholly unironically, I looked him up on the issues and he seemed okay?
Northam is actually gaining a lead in Virginia in the past few weeks. You want to know why? Because he's polling much better among independents now than he was a few weeks ago.
Why is there a difference? Look at the crosstabs. This sample had 28% democrat - 30% republican - 43% independent. 2016 was 40% democrat - 33% republican - 26% independent. There are far more democrats than republicans in Virginia, and there are not many independents. This sample is so strange.
It's just like that junk quinnipec poll that showed Northam up by +12 or whatever -- it's easy to show someone up when you poll way more democrats than republicans (that sample was like 40% dem 28% repub or something ridiculous). I could poll only republicans in California and show that Donald Trump is up in California.
The difference between polls 3 months ago is that independents have gone from Gillepsie to Northam.
Moral of the story: look at the crosstabs folks, not just the numbers. The difference between a lot of these polls is how many democrats vs republicans are polled. Look at the crosstabs.
In this it's different- it's saying the way we lose this is if people don't turn out.I get nervous when people start going into crosstabs to spin poll numbers because it usually means we're on the losing side :lol
Maybe they're undersampling Dems because Dems are less likely to vote in midterms?
One of the earliest polls had Northam winning while losing independents because of the R/D/I model they were using. If he's winning them that is very good.Also jesus the overreaction is insane lol. A million polls showing Northam up and you panic over 1%. This isn't like 2016 where a bunch of people said they were undecided. (In fact, in the monmouth poll, more democrats are undecided than republicans! And that's ignoring the fact that there were far less dems polled than repubs in this poll!).
Northam is up by 4% among independents! Hillary lost independents by 5 in 2016! She won the state by like 5%.
Also jesus the overreaction is insane lol. A million polls showing Northam up and you panic over 1%. This isn't like 2016 where a bunch of people said they were undecided. (In fact, in the monmouth poll, more democrats are undecided than republicans! And that's ignoring the fact that there were far less dems polled than repubs in this poll!).
Northam is up by 4% among independents! Hillary lost independents by 5 in 2016!
Moral of the story: look at the crosstabs folks, not just the numbers. The difference between a lot of these polls is how many democrats vs republicans are polled. Look at the crosstabs.
So please don't tell me not to fucking panic after 2016.
In this it's different- it's saying the way we lose this is if people don't turn out.
Also jesus the overreaction is insane lol. A million polls showing Northam up and you panic over 1%. This isn't like 2016 where a bunch of people said they were undecided. (In fact, in the monmouth poll, more democrats are undecided than republicans! And that's ignoring the fact that there were far less dems polled than repubs in this poll!).
Northam is up by 4% among independents! Hillary lost independents by 5 in 2016! She won the state by like 5%.
Dave Weigel (@daveweigel)
That Monmouth poll of #VAGov assumes a markedly whiter and more Republican electorate than even the 2014 midterms. Huh.
I mean, we understand the numbers. But its close, close enough to be in the MOE even.
So please don't tell me not to fucking panic after 2016.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/920341592074084354
This sounds that Quinn poll from FL that suggested there were less minorities in FL in 2016 vs 2014 last year. Shit's ridic, don't fly off the chain over a single poll guys.
What does "getting their act together" mean?
Why is that so implausible? 2016 was a whiter election than 2012 because non-white voter turnout fell.
Also it's not like we don't have literally an entire half year of polling to look back on.
Reminder that Monmouth considered it a TIE in July too.
O lawdMore VA polling...
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/920341592074084354
This sounds that Quinn poll from FL that suggested there were less minorities in FL in 2016 vs 2014 last year. Shit's ridic, don't fly off the chain over a single poll guys.
Here's my issue with that, though (and keep in mind I don't believe any freaking out is necessary at this point):
When Trump started narrowing the numbers in 2016, nearly everyone on here was like "Just outliers!", "The crosstabs won't be that way in November!", "Stop bedwetting!", "Just statistical noise!", "Look at the last 3 months of polling!", etc.
The polling was showing things were narrowing. I look at that thing you posted, and polls appear to be narrowing just a bit. Nothing huge, but it appears things are getting a hair closer.
I addressed this earlier. 2016 was a problem because there was always a significant amount of undecideds. The news media just stupidly assumed that Hillary would win most of these undecideds.
You need to look into the polls and not just take the numbers at face values. Everyone just looks at the poll numbers and doesn't take the time to look at the crosstabs, which are far, far more valuable than the poll numbers and give you a hint whether to take the poll seriously (e.g quinnipec poll showing northam up by +12 and this poll showing gillepsie up by 1 are total shit because they had awful samples). Representative samples are very impt in statistics!
Lets revisit the original exchange. mlclmtckr to "why is Russia not a million times worse?" responds.You suggested at length that I was arguing that Russia was responsible for American racism! It's comical to me that you would do that and then claim you've been acting in good faith. I preferred doubling down to this kind of po-facedness.
"Chesterton's NATO coalition" was a joke about applying Chesterton's fence to the problems with leftist foreign policy, not an effort to suggest you were arguing we should dissolve NATO. The point is that leftist foreign policy, as evidenced by posters in this thread and by DSA/Young Labor, suffers from the apparent lack of a clear perspective as to why the status quo was erected in the first place. Hint: there was still colonialism before the United Nations and it was actually worse.
The first problem being there's many reasons that Trump was elected unrelated to evil schemes perpetrated by Russia. So Russia probably doesn't attain a "million times worse supervillian status" simply for helping to elect a guy that had a ton of support within the country anyway. So the original counterpoint of yours is nonsense to begin with.Because you are killing tens of thousands of people all over the world, and you have a Nazi as your head of state?Isn't that weird? I wonder how he got elected OH RIGHT IT WAS AN EVIL SCHEME PERPETRATED BY RUSSIA
Russia is a relatively poor and weak country, with an evil government and imperialist ambitions. The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world, and also has an evil imperialist government.
This conversation is really causing a lot of theoretically reasonable socialist posters to jump the shark
I get that the same aesthetic reasons people say Trump is already the worst President ever lead them to think that Russia is somehow more harmful than America on the world stage but honestly it's just straight up not a possibility.
If you dive into the crosstabs you're looking at a lot of small subsamples. Not only will each of them have a large MoE, looking at a bunch of numbers at the same time also requires wider confidence intervals to achieve a desired family confidence. In non-technical terms, the chance of finding something that looks off in the crosstabs of a perfectly sound poll is actually pretty high.
VA exit poll 2013
White - 72%
African-American - 20%
Hispanic - 4%
Asian - 1%
18-29 - 13%
30-44 - 23%
45-64 - 46%
65+ - 18%
D - 37%
R - 32%
I - 31%
M - 49%
F - 51%
Given the ads, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the electorate would be whiter.
Lets see how far this bird flies.Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC)
Deal reached between alexander and Murray reached on CSR payments.
crab where you beenWhy is that so implausible? 2016 was a whiter election than 2012 because non-white voter turnout fell.
Ours?George Soros just transferred $18 Billion to his foundation. Our checks are finally coming!
Ali Rogin‏Verified account @AliABCNews 1m1 minute ago
Senate leaders have agreed "in principal" to a bill to stabilize health markets in short term. One source says 2 year CSR deal
AP Politics‏Verified account @AP_Politics 1m1 minute ago
BREAKING: Key Republican senator says he and Democratic lawmaker have reached deal on health care subsidies.
Philip Rucker‏Verified account @PhilipRucker 4m4 minutes ago
Trump claims he has the votes lined up to pass a GOP healthcare bill and will call the vote after tax cuts pass.
Healthcare news...
Healthcare news...
Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp)
Alexander says there's no guarantee from leadership on a vote yet, says they're going to round up cosponsors & present to Schumer/McConnell
IT'S NICE TO WANT THINGS GUYSErica Werner (@ericawerner)
Marc Short exits GOP lunch, asked what WH wants for CSRs:
"A starting point is eliminating the individual mandate and employer mandate."
What was the average polling for GA-6 before it started to head south for Ossoff? I remember the average lead for him dropping as it got closer to election day but that he also underperformed his poll numbers by several points. Of course, it's harder to poll house districts than states but it seems comparable.
also obligatory "smh it's too be centrist ideologues would rather remain ideologically pure than nominate more electable candidates"
crab where you been
So--does Trump take credit for this?
Or does he continue to bash the system?
He backed himself into a corner with that comment yesterday.
I vaguely remember the polling going from him having a 4-5 point average lead to more modest 1-2 point leads but you're probably right about why.Don't think the polling ever went south for Ossoff. Just that most of the undecideds went Handel.
Caveat: we still lost FL!
They hit a ceiling in the district. Ossoff got 48% in both the jungle primary and in the runoff.I vaguely remember the polling going from him having a 4-5 point average lead to more modest 1-2 point leads but you're probably right about why.
I thought he said tax cuts have to pass first.Sounds like he's going to sign the Murray Alexander thing, also he sounds like shit.
It was not a large margin outside of two of the earlier polls post-Jungle - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...off_election_handel_vs_ossoff-6202.html#pollsI think Ossoff was almost always leading against Handel before the runoff, but it was always a lead of a couple points, maybe 1 point. I think Northam's leads have generally been higher than Ossoff's were.