ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
They need to loop this as a win even though it literally does nothing to change the ACA (supposedly)
This is what I was thinking. It could also mean they want to sneak something in too.
They need to loop this as a win even though it literally does nothing to change the ACA (supposedly)
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Any increase in ObamaCare premiums is the fault of the Democrats for giving us a "product" that never had a chance of working.
I've gotten old enough to realize the Exiled guys are super questionable, but I'll never forget this bit from Mark Ames about the right smearing Kerry's war record in 2004:
A Fox News Poll also finds that among just the 53 percent of Alabama registered voters who are extremely or very interested in the race, Jones has a one-point edge over Moore (46-45 percent).
Anyone who voted for him and anyone who watches Fox News will believe that wholeheartedly.https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/920408108194783232
Good luck with trying to push that narrative my dude.
Yup, we already saw the same thing before with Trump.Those mofos ain't unsure. They just don't want to admit they are voting for a open bigot outloud.
Me too. And if this reflects the national mood, Donnelly can hold his seat in Indiana.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/17/fox-news-poll-alabama-senate-race-all-tied-up.html
lol. i'd die if we won a seat in Alabama.
Yup. Jones' job is to try and convince GOPers to stay home. There's a chance, but it's a tiny one.Those mofos ain't unsure. They just don't want to admit they are voting for a open bigot outloud.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/17/fox-news-poll-alabama-senate-race-all-tied-up.html
lol. i'd die if we won a seat in Alabama.
Pants full of poo over VA, but fireworks in hand for AL polling.
Today's been fun.
Aren't these polls anonymous? Why would people be "scared" of putting down their actual choice? The general election, I thought, showed clear tightening towards the end and especially after the FBI letter. They ended up being within the margin or error I thought? It's not like final polls had Clinton up 10 points then she lost in reality.
The weirdest timeline is if Gillespie and Jones both won.
Today basically.
Why would people be "scared" of putting down their actual choice?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/17/fox-news-poll-alabama-senate-race-all-tied-up.html
lol. i'd die if we won a seat in Alabama.
I see, fair enough.If it's an actual person asking the question they can't bring themselves to admit they're voting the way they are.
That's FOX sounding an alarm to nationalize the race. I suspect Moore will take this as his cue to start banging the abortion and scary black people drum. Actually, those are the only two drums necessary in Alabama (and many other red states)
That's FOX sounding an alarm to nationalize the race. I suspect Moore will take this as his cue to start banging the abortion and scary black people drum. Actually, those are the only two drums necessary in Alabama (and many other red states)
Edit - I don't know about the polls right at the end there but if it had been within the margin of error why were the aggregators all putting Clinton at like 99%?
Because Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin and the polls accurately predicted that she would do so. Usually that means you'll win the election! The real problem here was on the individual state level, where the polls were not as good, and Clinton's vote gains were in states where she was either guaranteed to win (CA) or nearly guaranteed to lose (AZ, TX) while her vote losses were in swing states.
Hmm in that case I'd say the problem is also with the models themselves, for assuming that a popular vote victory translated to an EC victory.
Its not even rally her fault. I mean shes awful. But Christie left such a stink behind him that it could be Jesus Christ on the ticket and hed have no shot.NJ Gov:
Murphy (D): 47%
Guadango (R): 33%
Also Fox News
lol poor Kim
Hmm in that case I'd say the problem is also with the models themselves, for assuming that a popular vote victory translated to an EC victory.
Sam Wang (Princeton) gave Clinton a 99% chance, Nate Cohn (NYT) gave her 85%, and Nate Silver (538) gave her 70%. All told, I think Silver did quite well. Any sensible model should have had Clinton ahead, but his model got two key things correct: one was the uncertainty indicated by having a high number of undecideds, and another was the correlation of state level results.
On a national level the polling error wasnt that bad (late polls were mostly showing Clinton+3 and Clinton+4, actual result was Clinton+2). Obviously the polls were way off in MI/PA/WI.
In the past, green card holders were allowed to enlist and ship off to basic training so long as a background check had already been started. Reports said the new policy would delay green card holders who enlisted in the military from shipping out to basic training for at least a year, thanks to a backlog of background checks.
However, the email from Williamson states green card holders cannot even get to the background check process, as they are now barred from enlisting until further notice.
Barring green card holders from enlisting in the military is against federal law, which states that an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence may be enlisted in any armed force.
Well, at some level, it does, right? Like, you can't lose the popular vote by that much and still win the election. Trump was pretty much on the knife's edge.
The models that did state-by-state modeling also failed in general, mostly because they handled undecided voters poorly.
I personally think that 538 was once again the best performing model, 70/30 was about the correct odds for that election, and Trump was lucky to win. We live in a shitty timeline.
The way Grexeno feels right how about me making that joke faster than him is how we all felt that day
Well, at some level, it does, right? Like, you can't lose the popular vote by that much and still win the election. Trump was pretty much on the knife's edge.