Hillary zings the Squirrel

[Derideo_Te]

Assuming that Gallup is correct (and that is a huge assumption given their admitted partisan bias) .

Either provide a source from Gallup admitting partisan bias, or don't claim there is partisan bias.

It is called "Credability."

Gallup Admits Mistakes, Plans Changes After Dismal 2012

Rasmussen And Gallup vs The Rest « The Dish

Gallup's Republican bias

Gallup identifies flaws in 2012 election polls

 

[BobPlumb]

I would be willing to pay 10 to 15 bucks for a RNC squirrel T-shirt.

 

[Zander]

Hillary is like an old acquaintance who you occasionally have fond memories of....then she shows up in person and starts to talk......

Then you remember why you can't stand that bitch......

 

[BobPlumb]

Hillary is like an old acquaintance who you occasionally have fond memories of....then she shows up in person and starts to talk......

Then you remember why you can't stand that bitch......

Bill once got in trouble at a baseball game because he threw out the first............



(Very old but still funny joke)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The partisan right is indeed afraid of HRC.

 

[Samson]

Hillary is like an old acquaintance who you occasionally have fond memories of....then she shows up in person and starts to talk......

Then you remember why you can't stand that bitch......

June 20, 2015: Headline News

Thousands of Americans Commit Mass Suicide to Escape the Vote for Hillary MSM publicity campaign.

She'll be more popular by June 20, 2016.......

 

[Zander]

The partisan right is indeed afraid of HRC.

Yes, we are very afraid. She is terrifying us.

Just keep her in front of the public. Let her coronation continue!! The softer the venue the better!! She's a lock!! She's the next President!! Make sure she is allowed to talk without a script.

She'll self destruct like a "mission impossible" message

 

[BobPlumb]

The partisan right is indeed afraid of HRC.

[ame=http://youtu.be/--hMJPUBwMc]Be afraid, be very afraid! - YouTube[/ame]

P.S. Geena Davis is hot!

 

[jillian]

Delicious:


Hillary Clinton signs book for RNC squirrel - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com


This is worth gold.

Video at the Politico link.

Hillary Clinton squirreled away one of her copies of her book “Hard Choices” to give to a new furry friend from the Republican National Committee.

Throughout recent stops on her book tour, the RNC has been sending a giant orange squirrel — or at least what appears to be a person dressed in a orange squirrel costume — to follow Clinton from stop to stop, wearing a t-shirt that reads “Another Clinton in the White House is Nuts.”

So, what does Hillary do?

In response, Clinton dug up one of her copies of “Hard Choices” and gave it to the squirrel. The copy was even signed with a note that read “Squirrel- Please make a hard choice and read my book!” according to a tweet sent out by the account behind the mascot.

Go, I guess the GOP's Pinky and the Brain moment is not working out quite as it thought...


ZING!!!


Oh, and remember, Politico is not a Democratic-friendly website.


Here is another video of the exchange:





Also being reported here:

Hillary Clinton Response Republican Squirrel Stalking Her - Business Insider

A Republican National Committee intern dressed in a furry orange squirrel costume has been following Hillary Clinton on the media tour for her book "Hard Choices." On Tuesday, Clinton confronted her squirrely stalker – by giving them a signed copy of her book.

The encounter occurred outside the Newseum in Washington D.C. where Clinton was participating in a town hall-style interview that aired on CNN. ABC News posted a video showing Clinton's chat with the squirrel.

"Hello Mr. Squirrel," Clinton said as she stepped out of her car. "How are you?"

The squirrel remained silent.

"I know you've been following me around and, while you're in between your gigs, I wanted you to get a copy of my book," said Clinton. "I hope that you will make the hard choice and read my book. ... You'd bring a smile to a lot of peoples' face."

The squirrel accepted the book and hugged it close to its chest before giving a thumb's up and offering its paw to Clinton for a handshake.

"Thank you Mr. Squirrel," Clinton said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(humor alert)

Future Watch:

December, 2016: "GOP 'Squirrel' admits to having voted for Hillary"



(/humor alert)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss.

lol... they're so lost.

 

[jillian]

The partisan right is indeed afraid of HRC.

Yes, we are very afraid. She is terrifying us.

of course she is because she is going to kick rightwingnut butt.

bummer the GOP hasn't learned its lessons.

 

[BobPlumb]

Does the first "gentleman"get to have an intern?

 

[Zander]

The partisan right is indeed afraid of HRC.

Yes, we are very afraid. She is terrifying us.

of course she is because she is going to kick rightwingnut butt.

bummer the GOP hasn't learned its lessons.

Please don't run Hillary. We are so afraid. Please, whatever you do, don't run Hillary.

 

[Samson]

Does the first "gentleman"get to have an intern?

^^^^
See, people already want to apply for the job

 

[Samson]

The partisan right is indeed afraid of HRC.

Yes, we are very afraid. She is terrifying us.

of course she is because she is going to kick rightwingnut butt.

bummer the GOP hasn't learned its lessons.

Will you sign my copy of your book?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Does the first "gentleman"get to have an intern?

^^^^
See, people already want to apply for the job

That would be you in the front of the line wearing your blue stained dress and beret, right?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Assuming that Gallup is correct (and that is a huge assumption given their admitted partisan bias) .

Either provide a source from Gallup admitting partisan bias, or don't claim there is partisan bias.

It is called "Credability."

Already mathematically proven right here, and yes, Gallup did indeed admit to having fucked up:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/343019-gallup-once-again-in-unicornland.html

(Please note WHEN that thread was created)

 

[Samson]

Assuming that Gallup is correct (and that is a huge assumption given their admitted partisan bias) .

Either provide a source from Gallup admitting partisan bias, or don't claim there is partisan bias.

It is called "Credability."

Already mathematically proven right here, and yes, Gallup did indeed admit to having fucked up:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/343019-gallup-once-again-in-unicornland.html

(Please note WHEN that thread was created)

I do not see that Gallup admitted partisan bias.

But, really, that's beside the point: Clearly the evidence you've very skillfulyy presented demonstrates Gallup is not a reliable source of polling data.

Bravo
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

 

[Statistikhengst]

Either provide a source from Gallup admitting partisan bias, or don't claim there is partisan bias.

It is called "Credability."

Already mathematically proven right here, and yes, Gallup did indeed admit to having fucked up:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/343019-gallup-once-again-in-unicornland.html

(Please note WHEN that thread was created)

I do not see that Gallup admitted partisan bias.

But, really, that's beside the point: Clearly the evidence you've very skillfulyy presented demonstrates Gallup is not a reliable source of polling data.

Bravo
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

No, it is not, and true to my word, I no longer calculate Gallup into any polling averages.

Being 9 points off in 2010 and actually considerably more than 5 points off in 2012 is inexcusable.


But actually, Gallup DID admit partisan bias. Only, you are seeing the word "bias" and attaching something emotional to is, which is ok, but the word also has a purely mathematical meaning, and that is what I mean here.

Nice to hear from you. How is Delilah?

 

[Samson]

Already mathematically proven right here, and yes, Gallup did indeed admit to having fucked up:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/343019-gallup-once-again-in-unicornland.html

(Please note WHEN that thread was created)

I do not see that Gallup admitted partisan bias.

But, really, that's beside the point: Clearly the evidence you've very skillfulyy presented demonstrates Gallup is not a reliable source of polling data.

Bravo
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

No, it is not, and true to my word, I no longer calculate Gallup into any polling averages.

Being 9 points off in 2010 and actually considerably more than 5 points off in 2012 is inexcusable.


But actually, Gallup DID admit partisan bias. Only, you are seeing the word "bias" and attaching something emotional to is, which is ok, but the word also has a purely mathematical meaning, and that is what I mean here.

Nice to hear from you. How is Delilah?

In English the term for mathematical bias is a "skew."

Gallup does political polling. A mathematical error in the model could be interpreted as a "partisan bias." However there is no admission from Gallup suggestion a PARTISAN REASON was the cause of the skew.

Regardless of the reason for the skew, the fact remains that the poll was a poor predictor of the 2012 election results. I wonder if the model has been fixed? I suppose we'll see in 2016?

I'm curious to know what polls you are using until then?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I do not see that Gallup admitted partisan bias.

But, really, that's beside the point: Clearly the evidence you've very skillfulyy presented demonstrates Gallup is not a reliable source of polling data.

Bravo
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

No, it is not, and true to my word, I no longer calculate Gallup into any polling averages.

Being 9 points off in 2010 and actually considerably more than 5 points off in 2012 is inexcusable.


But actually, Gallup DID admit partisan bias. Only, you are seeing the word "bias" and attaching something emotional to is, which is ok, but the word also has a purely mathematical meaning, and that is what I mean here.

Nice to hear from you. How is Delilah?

In English the term for mathematical bias is a "skew."

Gallup does political polling. A mathematical error in the model could be interpreted as a "partisan bias." However there is no admission from Gallup suggestion a PARTISAN REASON was the cause of the skew.

Regardless of the reason for the skew, the fact remains that the poll was a poor predictor of the 2012 election results. I wonder if the model has been fixed? I suppose we'll see in 2016?

I'm curious to know what polls you are using until then?

Gallup claims that that problem was fixed, but Gallup was also hauled before the judge for having cooked the books in 2012 an in order to avoid certain people having to go to jail, it paid a massive fine IN ADVANCE. That says something.

Also, in presidential approval polls, Obama minus numbers are considerably worse with Gallup than with any other pollster.

This causes me to question ANYTHING the Gallup puts out, which I why you see that I never quote Gallup in any recent polling, meaning, since 2012. I do not trust Gallup.

Gallup was without even a smidge of doubt the worst pollster of 2012, hands down.

At least Rasmussen, with a steady mathematical bias of +4 to the Right, is consistent.


I will remind that, hands down, the best overall pollster from 2012 was:

PPP (D), which nailed 11 of 12 battleground states.

http://rosenthalswelt.blogspot.de/2013/02/the-moment-of-truth-how-did-pollsters-do.html