President like a Progressive

[P@triot]

I guess being a populist is that much different than being a progressive. Donald Trump is a con man. ALways has been and always will be

First thing you've said that was accurate. But you fail to recognize and/or admit that Barack Obama is the ultimate con-man. He's a devout marxist who claimed he wasn't. He's a devout supporter of islam (hence his anti-Israeli positions) who claimed he wasn't. He claimed his "views on homosexuality were evolving" even though he supoorted gay marriage the whole time - just so that he could get elected.

The list goes on and on and on. But hey - you've already illustrated that facts and reality mean nothing to you.

 

[P@triot]

You can't make this stuff up folks. Like a typical progressive, Russ Alllah Gehry contradicts himself in back-to-back posts.

The first is post #29 and the second is post #30:

dead thread as far as common sense and civility goes.

the Indies and 3rd Party folks are pathetic losers.

He pretends to want "civility" (as soon as the facts expose him) but then immediately calls other people "pathetic losers".

 

[Pogo]

dead thread as far as common sense and civility goes.

Right? As soon as you entered the thread - all common sense and civility went right out the door. You started acting like a jerk right away. Typical of your side of the aisle though Russ Alllah Gehry. Sad.

Ahem....

I would seriously instruct the NSA to produce every last record they have on these two disgusting animals. All of their texts messages. All of their e-mails. All of their phone calls. All of their computer searches. Everything. Then I would make it all public. Everything they said about colleagues, family members, each other. Hopefully one of them cheated on the other and make that public as well. I would additionally instruct the NSA to infect every device they have (including automobiles) with malware to break them. And when they purchased new devices, I would do it again.

But I wouldn't stop there. I would make their health records public (hopefully, one or both of them have some STD's) which would not only publicly humiliate them, but prevent them from having relationships in the future. I would also use the Oval Office to get them fired from their jobs and prevent them from getting employed. Then I would leverage the IRS like Barack Obama did and have them audited and harassed. Finally, I would block any public assistance for them after they were fired.

Hopefully it ultimately ends with them committing suicide and/or dying in the streets homeless, hungry, and wanting for healthcare.

Car makers say "your mileage may vary".
This one's gonna get extreme mileage.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

This is basically a pissing match between pollsters. In terms of numbers and methods, Gallup has it correct. Because asking people if they LEAN towards one of two choices, precludes OTHER choices that might appear on a ballot. Choices that are new fresh and "mediating".. It's a biased question based on the FALLACY that the only 2 GOOD choices are the name brand Repubs/Dems. Same thing would happen if you were polling on soup. There would be a LARGE Indie vote. But when you BIAS the issue and ask them if they "LEAN" towards Campbells or Progresso --- it would APPEAR that those 2 giants have the market locked up. It's a stupid question to ask. What is the NEGATIVE of which party do you LEAN towards? What if I don't LEAN at all? Or LEAN in a third direction. Or only buy Top Raman?

What if I LEAN 35%Dem, 25%Repub, and 40%HellNoI'llStayHome? Tell me you think Pew takes THAT as a reliably "Dem party voter"..

The chart from Gallup gets it right. They don't MINE the question of leaning. They look at the dedicated party faithful that WOULD back flawed candidates like Clinton and Trump..

Check the news from Sept to Nov last year.. NEW registrations were surging Indie and Repub. OVERWHELMINGLY..

Trump WON because the Independents REJECTED your party's decision to perpetuate a political DYNASTY with an arrogant, entitled, INSIDER candidate. THIS time, they didn't "stay home".. This election was WON by Indies and 3rd parties. That's why Clinton LOST Wisc, Mich and maybe a couple others. Just because of the butthurt progressive left that turned out for Jill Stein. Nevermind the over 4% of other 3rd party candidates.

your opinions on what you consider bias are noted

I am not a member of the Democratic party.

This is pure nonsense "to perpetuate a political DYNASTY with an arrogant, entitled, INSIDER candidate." because you are talking out of your arse on this one. The data has not even come in yet and will dribble in over the next couple of years. Your analysis is flawed because your biases are front loaded

Why Clinton lost and by how much and when people moved in the polls will tell much. When Hillary ran as a carpetbagger in the US Senate race in NY in 2000 there was a surprise switch with voters ("She won surprising victories in Upstate counties, such as Cayuga, Rensselaer, and Niagara" - Wikipedia). How and why voters switch at what appears to be the last minute is an interesting thing to study. Cheap armchair, biased analysis like yours are so pedestrian it is amusing and sad

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Which BTW -- is the reason the polling was so far off in this election. Because the methodologies used REQUIRE you to weight the sample population with a representative number of voters from EVERY group. And MOST of them LEANED towards the assumption that WEIGHTING was just an exercise in choosing the right number of Dems and Repubs. If they continue to LEAN that way -- we'll never have accurate political polling in this country ever again..

bullshit

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

flacaltenn Was the polling really off this election? Do you exclude the primaries? Are you addressing polling or predictions?

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

The analysis of some polls right before election day in November showed Trump gaining in the states he ultimately scored his victories in. Election night, using the analysis of the polls, I saw Trump pulling off a win far before the win was called.


I believe you confuse things

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

You can't make this stuff up folks. Like a typical progressive, Russ Alllah Gehry contradicts himself in back-to-back posts.

The first is post #29 and the second is post #30:

dead thread as far as common sense and civility goes.

the Indies and 3rd Party folks are pathetic losers.

He pretends to want "civility" (as soon as the facts expose him) but then immediately calls other people "pathetic losers".

pathetic losers address people not even in the thread as if they have an audience waiting on every word they type

 

[P@triot]

You can't make this stuff up folks. Like a typical progressive, Russ Alllah Gehry contradicts himself in back-to-back posts.

The first is post #29 and the second is post #30:

dead thread as far as common sense and civility goes.

the Indies and 3rd Party folks are pathetic losers.

He pretends to want "civility" (as soon as the facts expose him) but then immediately calls other people "pathetic losers".

pathetic losers address people not even in the thread as if they have an audience waiting on every word they type

You don't think there are independents and third party voters in this thread?!?

 

[flacaltenn]

Which BTW -- is the reason the polling was so far off in this election. Because the methodologies used REQUIRE you to weight the sample population with a representative number of voters from EVERY group. And MOST of them LEANED towards the assumption that WEIGHTING was just an exercise in choosing the right number of Dems and Repubs. If they continue to LEAN that way -- we'll never have accurate political polling in this country ever again..

bullshit

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

Not bullshit. The pollsters biased the sampling to OVERWEIGHT reliable Dems and Reps. And IGNORED the larger part of the voting population.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is basically a pissing match between pollsters. In terms of numbers and methods, Gallup has it correct. Because asking people if they LEAN towards one of two choices, precludes OTHER choices that might appear on a ballot. Choices that are new fresh and "mediating".. It's a biased question based on the FALLACY that the only 2 GOOD choices are the name brand Repubs/Dems. Same thing would happen if you were polling on soup. There would be a LARGE Indie vote. But when you BIAS the issue and ask them if they "LEAN" towards Campbells or Progresso --- it would APPEAR that those 2 giants have the market locked up. It's a stupid question to ask. What is the NEGATIVE of which party do you LEAN towards? What if I don't LEAN at all? Or LEAN in a third direction. Or only buy Top Raman?

What if I LEAN 35%Dem, 25%Repub, and 40%HellNoI'llStayHome? Tell me you think Pew takes THAT as a reliably "Dem party voter"..

The chart from Gallup gets it right. They don't MINE the question of leaning. They look at the dedicated party faithful that WOULD back flawed candidates like Clinton and Trump..

Check the news from Sept to Nov last year.. NEW registrations were surging Indie and Repub. OVERWHELMINGLY..

Trump WON because the Independents REJECTED your party's decision to perpetuate a political DYNASTY with an arrogant, entitled, INSIDER candidate. THIS time, they didn't "stay home".. This election was WON by Indies and 3rd parties. That's why Clinton LOST Wisc, Mich and maybe a couple others. Just because of the butthurt progressive left that turned out for Jill Stein. Nevermind the over 4% of other 3rd party candidates.

your opinions on what you consider bias are noted

I am not a member of the Democratic party.

This is pure nonsense "to perpetuate a political DYNASTY with an arrogant, entitled, INSIDER candidate." because you are talking out of your arse on this one. The data has not even come in yet and will dribble in over the next couple of years. Your analysis is flawed because your biases are front loaded

Why Clinton lost and by how much and when people moved in the polls will tell much. When Hillary ran as a carpetbagger in the US Senate race in NY in 2000 there was a surprise switch with voters ("She won surprising victories in Upstate counties, such as Cayuga, Rensselaer, and Niagara" - Wikipedia). How and why voters switch at what appears to be the last minute is an interesting thing to study. Cheap armchair, biased analysis like yours are so pedestrian it is amusing and sad

How was choosing Clinton NOT perpetuating a political dynasty with an arrogant, ENTITLED, INSIDER candidate? Clinton won "moderate" upstate because she sold herself as a centrist. Not anything like the person we saw pandering to far left interests in this campaign.

I'm simply pointing out the flaw in Pew's choice to include "leaners". Not armchair. I have sufficient experience in statistics and making conclusions from data to do that.. You ignore the VAST majority of America that's more than fed up with the partisan tribal sideshows, and it will be "amusing and sad" to see you become irrelevant.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Not bullshit. The pollsters biased the sampling to OVERWEIGHT reliable Dems and Reps. And IGNORED the larger part of the voting population.

all pollsters or t hose doing the analysis of polls?

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

flacaltenn what "VAST majority of America that's more than fed up with the partisan tribal sideshows?" the vast majority voted in Republicans who were as partisan as they come. Your misreading most everything. It's a myopia mixed with a bias that is unshakable

you're an amazing study

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

You don't think there are independents and third party voters in this thread?!?

your delusion is that you speak for anyone but yourself

carry on

 

[flacaltenn]

Not bullshit. The pollsters biased the sampling to OVERWEIGHT reliable Dems and Reps. And IGNORED the larger part of the voting population.

all pollsters or t hose doing the analysis of polls?

Most all of the important ones. Like in the states that seemed locked for Hillary. Polling is largely an exercise based on HISTORY. and they ALL got LEANED towards past performance. They were completely USELESS.

In fact, and I've looked into this, there is a whole NEW generation of polling techniques. Ones that do NOT rely on phone dialing, which is insane in this day and age. Ones that PRE-VET the voting tendencies of ACTUAL people. And THESE folks are compiling MILLIONS of potential people to be polled with extensive "vetting" into their actual voting patterns and preferences. It's a REVOLUTION in polling technique to overcome the trend towards voter independence from being captive to a particular party..

 

[Pogo]

Not bullshit. The pollsters biased the sampling to OVERWEIGHT reliable Dems and Reps. And IGNORED the larger part of the voting population.

all pollsters or t hose doing the analysis of polls?

Most all of the important ones. Like in the states that seemed locked for Hillary. Polling is largely an exercise based on HISTORY. and they ALL got LEANED towards past performance. They were completely USELESS.

In fact, and I've looked into this, there is a whole NEW generation of polling techniques. Ones that do NOT rely on phone dialing, which is insane in this day and age. Ones that PRE-VET the voting tendencies of ACTUAL people. And THESE folks are compiling MILLIONS of potential people to be polled with extensive "vetting" into their actual voting patterns and preferences. It's a REVOLUTION in polling technique to overcome the trend towards voter independence from being captive to a particular party..

Part of reading polls ----- in fact really most of it ---- is not in snapshots of what respondents said on a particular day but rather trends. My own state was showing Clinton ahead by comfortable margins... then by slim margins.. then by razor thin, then teetering to red. By election day it was clear where the trend was pointing.

I wasn't following the Ohios and Pennsylvanias and Wisconins as closely but I suspect they too showed the same trends. That's why you take polls over and over ---- to get a sense of movement. A still picture, even one taken the day before the election, means nothing without its context.

It's just like looking at baseball standings on a random date and going "the New York Mets have more wins this season, therefore they must be the best team around, I'll bet on them to win" while oblivious to the fact that they've lost 9 of their last 10 recently.

Bottom line --- I don't think the polls were as "off" as is popularly mythed at all. They were indeed showing these trends, especially after the Comey letter, which was very late in the game and therefore didn't allow a whole lot of time to SEE a trend, but it was there for those with the skill to perceive it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not bullshit. The pollsters biased the sampling to OVERWEIGHT reliable Dems and Reps. And IGNORED the larger part of the voting population.

all pollsters or t hose doing the analysis of polls?

Most all of the important ones. Like in the states that seemed locked for Hillary. Polling is largely an exercise based on HISTORY. and they ALL got LEANED towards past performance. They were completely USELESS.

In fact, and I've looked into this, there is a whole NEW generation of polling techniques. Ones that do NOT rely on phone dialing, which is insane in this day and age. Ones that PRE-VET the voting tendencies of ACTUAL people. And THESE folks are compiling MILLIONS of potential people to be polled with extensive "vetting" into their actual voting patterns and preferences. It's a REVOLUTION in polling technique to overcome the trend towards voter independence from being captive to a particular party..

Part of reading polls ----- in fact really most of it ---- is not in snapshots of what respondents said on a particular day but rather trends. My own state was showing Clinton ahead by comfortable margins... then by slim margins.. then by razor thin, then teetering to red. By election day it was clear where the trend was pointing.

I wasn't following the Ohios and Pennsylvanias and Wisconins as closely but I suspect they too showed the same trends. That's why you take polls over and over ---- to get a sense of movement. A still picture, even one taken the day before the election, means nothing without its context.

It's just like looking at baseball standings on a random date and going "the New York Mets have more wins this season, therefore they must be the best team around, I'll bet on them to win" while oblivious to the fact that they've lost 9 of their last 10 recently.

Bottom line --- I don't think the polls were as "off" as is popularly mythed at all. They were indeed showing these trends, especially after the Comey letter, which was very late in the game and therefore didn't allow a whole lot of time to SEE a trend, but it was there for those with the skill to perceive it.

Generally tho. The SUMMARY of trends don't discuss the "margins of error". And it becomes much harder to determine the threshold between winning and losing. Even the confidence bounds of these polls were too high.

Did you EVER see a poll headline announcing Trump was AHEAD in Wisc, Mich, Penn? My bet is -- there was NOT a huge last minute "SURGE" for Trump. The pollsters were just creating a horse race. And moving the "mean" number between the error bars.

 

[Pogo]

Not bullshit. The pollsters biased the sampling to OVERWEIGHT reliable Dems and Reps. And IGNORED the larger part of the voting population.

all pollsters or t hose doing the analysis of polls?

Most all of the important ones. Like in the states that seemed locked for Hillary. Polling is largely an exercise based on HISTORY. and they ALL got LEANED towards past performance. They were completely USELESS.

In fact, and I've looked into this, there is a whole NEW generation of polling techniques. Ones that do NOT rely on phone dialing, which is insane in this day and age. Ones that PRE-VET the voting tendencies of ACTUAL people. And THESE folks are compiling MILLIONS of potential people to be polled with extensive "vetting" into their actual voting patterns and preferences. It's a REVOLUTION in polling technique to overcome the trend towards voter independence from being captive to a particular party..

Part of reading polls ----- in fact really most of it ---- is not in snapshots of what respondents said on a particular day but rather trends. My own state was showing Clinton ahead by comfortable margins... then by slim margins.. then by razor thin, then teetering to red. By election day it was clear where the trend was pointing.

I wasn't following the Ohios and Pennsylvanias and Wisconins as closely but I suspect they too showed the same trends. That's why you take polls over and over ---- to get a sense of movement. A still picture, even one taken the day before the election, means nothing without its context.

It's just like looking at baseball standings on a random date and going "the New York Mets have more wins this season, therefore they must be the best team around, I'll bet on them to win" while oblivious to the fact that they've lost 9 of their last 10 recently.

Bottom line --- I don't think the polls were as "off" as is popularly mythed at all. They were indeed showing these trends, especially after the Comey letter, which was very late in the game and therefore didn't allow a whole lot of time to SEE a trend, but it was there for those with the skill to perceive it.

Generally tho. The SUMMARY of trends don't discuss the "margins of error". And it becomes much harder to determine the threshold between winning and losing. Even the confidence bounds of these polls were too high.

Did you EVER see a poll headline announcing Trump was AHEAD in Wisc, Mich, Penn? My bet is -- there was NOT a huge last minute "SURGE" for Trump. The pollsters were just creating a horse race. And moving the "mean" number between the error bars.

If you have the training in statistics you say, then you know as well as I do that pollsters don't create horse races where none exist. Commercial 'news' outlets might, since it benefits their profit margin to spin that way but legitimate pollsters just report the numbers.

Again I really wasn't watching those other 'swing' states other than my own but I could see the trend clearly here, and I have no reason to doubt the same dynamic was in play there as well. So yes I do believe there was a last-minute surge, one that was exquisitely timed to peak on Election Day and before the polls had enough time go by to establish a history that would show it clearly enough. Polls will always necessarily lag behind the current moment, so the skilled interpretation is to perceive a trend that's about to happen or just beginning to happen, which was the case on about November 7th. The effect of that surge didn't yet have time to show up in the polls to a point where anyone could run the headline "Rump now leading in Michigan".

Ultimately what we had here is not a failure of polling but a success of exquisite perfect-storm timing to produce Rump's needed trend, exactly at the moment he needed it. So exquisite was that timing that it didn't have time to show up in the polls.

IMHO.

/offtopic

 

[flacaltenn]

If you have the training in statistics you say, then you know as well as I do that pollsters don't create horse races where none exist. Commercial 'news' outlets might, since it benefits their profit margin to spin that way but legitimate pollsters just report the number

Who do you think is PAYING these pollsters? It's the horse-race media. They will write the copy to MAKE it one even if the rigid analysis doesn't show it that way..

There are some independent polls. But they are not the oft-quoted and used ones. And the NEWER polling systems are just starting to get recognition and cred. It will revolutionize polling for all time.. You'll never be randomly diving "phonebooks" or cold calls again..

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

flacaltenn Pogo

most people I followed who were following 538 were as clueless about what 538 was saying, as they were clueless about everything else. The majority of Americans ate incapable of thinking critically and absorbing information that does not fit into their world view

I'd be interested in how both of you people would analyze and rate and criticize 538's overall performance in 2016 race

 

[Pogo]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

flacaltenn Pogo

most people I followed who were following 538 were as clueless about what 538 was saying, as they were clueless about everything else. The majority of Americans ate incapable of thinking critically and absorbing information that does not fit into their world view

I'd be interested in how both of you people would analyze and rate and criticize 538's overall performance in 2016 race

I was kinda tracking 538 during the campaign, along with electoral-vote.com. They showed some variations in close states, with (IIRC) EV.com generally showing a redder map than 538 did. I see this 538 map shows Wisconsin, Michigan, PA and NC all in blue, which is not what I was noticing my election day. My state (NC) was definitely in the red by then.

I dunno -- comparing the two I might guess 538 was somewhat slower to react and tended to show more blue, although with exceptions.

I've always liked Electoral-vote.com. Nothing fancy, just good info.