|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 25 2016 13:34 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:
I think we all would like better options, but that isn't the reality sadly. Not so sure about that. I think the Trump supporters in this thread are pretty happy with him. The republicans would have less support here if it was anyone else. If PA is any indication, democrats are the ones switching over. Meanwhile, billionaires are switching to endorsing Hillary.
I think even some of the Trump supporters in this thread have admitted him to be the lesser of two evils and not an ideal candidate by any stretch.
I want to say it was GGTemplar, but I don't remember exactly.
|
On July 25 2016 13:43 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 13:34 CorsairHero wrote:On July 25 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:
I think we all would like better options, but that isn't the reality sadly. Not so sure about that. I think the Trump supporters in this thread are pretty happy with him. The republicans would have less support here if it was anyone else. If PA is any indication, democrats are the ones switching over. Meanwhile, billionaires are switching to endorsing Hillary. I think even some of the Trump supporters in this thread have admitted him to be the lesser of two evils and not an ideal candidate by any stretch. I want to say it was GGTemplar, but I don't remember exactly.
Yeah Templar was one of those people, I was also one... The crowd of Trump supporters has been growing in this thread.
Speaking for myself, it's mostly the thought of Hillary and the current political climate that makes me vote for Trump, even though I would have voted democrat for the last 30ish years. I also don't think there's too many better people that the Republicans could have fielded for me, as Trump is the least religious Republican by far, and that's good for me, though almost anyone with a centrist/slightly-progressive social policy, and fiscal conservative economic policy (plus isolationist foreign policy) would get a vote from me (if I was a US citizen).
|
Bernie voters are not as important as they think they are. It is the bernie or bust block that is really anti clintion and they young voters or very newly registered just for bernie. They where never a part of the core block that dems relied on. Yes they are nice to have but are not need to win.
|
On July 25 2016 13:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
So where's the evidence that there was actual impropriety instead of some words being said and ideas being thrown around?
Seems pretty obvious to everyone but you, apparently. DWS's resignation isn't enough for ya?
|
I haven't been following this thread closely the last 24-36 hours...
Has it been posted that Obama's brother is voting for Trump?
edit: Upon further inspection, really not that big, though idk has the media and people eat this stuff up.
edit2: My bad for a zero content post, I'll take a look at the DNC convention tomorrow, curious to see what the unity there is going to look like.
|
Eh, the conventions are drier than dirt unless protesters stir shit up. And given the gigantic fence that the DNC has thrown up around the convention site, I doubt that there'll be much to see.
|
to whomever is interested http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9738
it's about why Brexit polls failed in UK; should have some valid points to US pollsters. With that said, what can we conclude?
Phone polls appeared to face substantially greater problems in obtaining a representative sample than online polls. While there was variation within modes, with some online polls doing better than others, some phone polls doing worse than others, on average online outperformed phone. The probability based samples from the BES and the NatCen mixed-mode experiment suggested a position somewhere between online and telephone, so while we cannot tell what they would have shown, we should not assume they would have been any better.
Longer fieldwork times for telephone polls are not necessarily the solution. The various analyses of how people who took several attempts to contact differed from those who were contacted on the first attempt were not consistent, and the companies who took longer over their fieldwork were no more accurate than those with shorter periods.
Some polls did contain too many graduates and correcting for that did appear to help, but it was not a problem that affected all companies and would not alone have solved the problem. Some companies weighted by education or had the correct proportion of graduates, but still got it wrong.
Attitudinal weights had a mixed record. The only company to weight attitudes to the BES figures overstated Remain significantly, but Opinium had more success at weighting them to a halfway point. Weighting by social attitudes faces problems in determining weighting targets and is unlikely to have made other online polls more Leave, but could be a consideration for telephone polls that may have had samples that were too socially liberal.
Turnout models that were based on the patterns of turnout at the last election and whether people voted at the last election performed badly and consistently made the results less accurate – presumably because of the unexpectedly high turnout, particular among more working class areas. Perhaps there is potential for such models to work in the future and at general elections, but so far they don’t appear successful.
|
On July 25 2016 12:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). ![[image loading]](https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13723905_10153802234731705_3216047776265453884_o.jpg) If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101. Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like. Sometimes you have to fuck over a client for another one that will be better long term.
Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest? Is that legal?
|
On July 25 2016 14:53 xM(Z wrote:to whomever is interested http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9738it's about why Brexit polls failed in UK; should have some valid points to US pollsters. Show nested quote +With that said, what can we conclude?
Phone polls appeared to face substantially greater problems in obtaining a representative sample than online polls. While there was variation within modes, with some online polls doing better than others, some phone polls doing worse than others, on average online outperformed phone. The probability based samples from the BES and the NatCen mixed-mode experiment suggested a position somewhere between online and telephone, so while we cannot tell what they would have shown, we should not assume they would have been any better.
Longer fieldwork times for telephone polls are not necessarily the solution. The various analyses of how people who took several attempts to contact differed from those who were contacted on the first attempt were not consistent, and the companies who took longer over their fieldwork were no more accurate than those with shorter periods.
Some polls did contain too many graduates and correcting for that did appear to help, but it was not a problem that affected all companies and would not alone have solved the problem. Some companies weighted by education or had the correct proportion of graduates, but still got it wrong.
Attitudinal weights had a mixed record. The only company to weight attitudes to the BES figures overstated Remain significantly, but Opinium had more success at weighting them to a halfway point. Weighting by social attitudes faces problems in determining weighting targets and is unlikely to have made other online polls more Leave, but could be a consideration for telephone polls that may have had samples that were too socially liberal.
Turnout models that were based on the patterns of turnout at the last election and whether people voted at the last election performed badly and consistently made the results less accurate – presumably because of the unexpectedly high turnout, particular among more working class areas. Perhaps there is potential for such models to work in the future and at general elections, but so far they don’t appear successful.
Polls have been failing for a while now, with significantly decreasing predictive power. Here's a study that considers the issue in more depth if anyone really cares: www.pewresearch.org.
|
On July 25 2016 13:49 Shingi11 wrote:
Bernie voters are not as important as they think they are. It is the bernie or bust block that is really anti clintion and they young voters or very newly registered just for bernie. They where never a part of the core block that dems relied on. Yes they are nice to have but are not need to win.
I think you and Clinton are about to find out how untrue that is. Should be pretty funny though when she loses. This election was a fuckin gimme, the easiest election ever. She's done nothing but ruin her chances repeatedly. This election was so free, and she's done nothing but throw it away with sheer incompetence.
I'd never vote Trump in a thousand years but Hillary lost my vote for good.
|
Hillary is more fragile than she thinks she is. She was the clear favorite a few months ago and now she is only narrowly favored to win. And she evidently doesn't see that as a problem and just keeps on weakening her chances.
|
Does the electoral college make Clinton win by default?
|
On July 25 2016 16:16 DontNerfInfestors wrote:
Does the electoral college make Clinton win by default?
no
have fun http://www.270towin.com/
|
|
|
It's looking more and more likely the US is headed for a Brexit of its own...
People will vote Trump just because they find Hillary revolting, or out of spite, or for the lulz, just to be naughty.
Then a year down the line with Trump as president everyone wakes up and realizes they've flushed the world into a cloaca.
|
On July 25 2016 14:57 Alur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:13 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2016 12:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101. Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like. Sometimes you have to fuck over a client for another one that will be better long term. Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest? Is that legal?
Please read follow up post.
|
On July 25 2016 14:31 xDaunt wrote:
Eh, the conventions are drier than dirt unless protesters stir shit up. And given the gigantic fence that the DNC has thrown up around the convention site, I doubt that there'll be much to see.
I think during votes and delegate proceedings the Bernie crowd will try to stir up as much as they can, and they will try to boo anything they can.
We have seen the shit they stir up several times before at state level meetings.
I expect the speeches to all be boring and standard non-interesting.
|
On July 25 2016 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 14:31 xDaunt wrote:
Eh, the conventions are drier than dirt unless protesters stir shit up. And given the gigantic fence that the DNC has thrown up around the convention site, I doubt that there'll be much to see. I think during votes and delegate proceedings the Bernie crowd will try to stir up as much as they can, and they will try to boo anything they can. We have seen the shit they stir up several times before at state level meetings. I expect the speeches to all be boring and standard non-interesting.
I wouldn't expect much of a bump out of that. Might even drop if Hillary earns some boo's of her own, which is very possible.
|
On July 25 2016 13:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 13:43 TheYango wrote:On July 25 2016 13:34 CorsairHero wrote:On July 25 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:
I think we all would like better options, but that isn't the reality sadly. Not so sure about that. I think the Trump supporters in this thread are pretty happy with him. The republicans would have less support here if it was anyone else. If PA is any indication, democrats are the ones switching over. Meanwhile, billionaires are switching to endorsing Hillary. I think even some of the Trump supporters in this thread have admitted him to be the lesser of two evils and not an ideal candidate by any stretch. I want to say it was GGTemplar, but I don't remember exactly. Yeah Templar was one of those people, I was also one... The crowd of Trump supporters has been growing in this thread. Speaking for myself, it's mostly the thought of Hillary and the current political climate that makes me vote for Trump, even though I would have voted democrat for the last 30ish years. I also don't think there's too many better people that the Republicans could have fielded for me, as Trump is the least religious Republican by far, and that's good for me, though almost anyone with a centrist/slightly-progressive social policy, and fiscal conservative economic policy (plus isolationist foreign policy) would get a vote from me (if I was a US citizen).
Honestly if there wasn't so much censoring and aversion to discussion about real issues like illegals/islam/etc Trump wouldn't even be a real candidate. Could you imagine a presidential candidate saying "I am going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" a year ago? People are so tired of being told what they can and can't say that they just don't give a shit at this point. In democracy you win by making the people who don't care vote.
|
Don't think this has been posted but wow...
An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.
Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Neither Vogel nor a representative for Politico were available for comment at the time of publication.
A person with knowledge of the agreement, however, said that it was made to ensure accuracy in a complex story.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
