|
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. |
There's also a string of Ipsos polls showing her going from +1 nationally on the 24th to +7 from the email leaks until Monday, showing they improved her vote share by over 4% and dropped Trump's by 1%!!!
Lesson here is don't make inferences from outliers.
|
On November 03 2016 08:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 07:50 jello_biafra wrote:On November 03 2016 07:45 On_Slaught wrote:Your cherry picking of polls is getting annoying. Nate Silver warned us about people like you. You mean Nate Carbon Atom? yes yes, t_d memes, so funny!
He didn't accept that Trump would be the nominee till after Indiana when it was clear that he had it in the bag after Super Tuesday, his mathematical model is failing him.
|
On November 03 2016 08:02 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 08:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2016 07:50 jello_biafra wrote:On November 03 2016 07:45 On_Slaught wrote:Your cherry picking of polls is getting annoying. Nate Silver warned us about people like you. You mean Nate Carbon Atom? yes yes, t_d memes, so funny! He didn't accept that Trump would be the nominee till after Indiana when it was clear that he had it in the bag after Super Tuesday, his mathematical model is failing him.
No, his punditry failed him (and I hope he learned his lesson). His mathematical model thought Trump was going to win the states he won-he didn't have a model for delegate count (since the GOP's allocation is a fucking nightmare), just ad hoc stuff which fared poorly because it wasn't a real model.
|
On November 03 2016 08:01 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 07:32 Doodsmack wrote:I’ve been covering Trump since 1985, when I worked for The New York Times’ women’s pages. He endorsed one of my books, about real estate, and was a character in two more of them. He talked to me about sex and substances and the substance of the arena in which he made his name, real estate. I published all of it. In 1999, he told me that in 1995 he’d been worth about negative $900 million. I didn’t have the chops to think to ask for his tax returns.
I also wrote a book about the modeling industry and heard stories about Trump but didn’t write them because he wasn’t important in it, just another rich guy buying a date farm, perhaps for his friends, perhaps for himself. This wasn’t pejorative, just how things were. (Leonardo DiCaprio, at the height of his “Pussy Posse” fame, thanked Trump for offering “one-stop date-shopping.”)
Now, those stories seem to matter more, and so I spoke in recent days with two Trump pals, both reluctant to talk about the man they once partied hard with who’s now the Republican nominee to be president of the United States. In that capacity, Trump has vowed to sue people who have come forward in recent weeks with allegations about his bad behavior.
One of the two men I spoke with, a fashion photographer, requested anonymity because he has fathered several children since his Trump days and doesn’t want his past dredged up. “There’s no upside for me,” he says.
The other man… well, you’ll read his words. Both confirmed that Trump, as I’ve reported, used to host parties in suites at the Plaza Hotel when he owned it, where young women and girls were introduced to older, richer men. This is hardly aberrant behavior in the modeling business. Indeed, it is standard operating procedure.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
I’m sorry, Ivanka, I really am, because your mother raised you well and I can’t blame you for supporting your father (even if he did give—at the least—his blessing when you were 15 and signed on as a model yourself with Elite, the hard-partying high-end agency founded by notorious teen-fucker John Casablancas) but here’s the sad truth: Your dad’s not a dog. He’s a pig. The Daily Beast ok. Where is the mention of brutal rape? Also this source is wonky as fuck. If Breitbart or some shitter right wing BS website had some washed up old model (who talked highly of Trump in the article) and an anonymous source claiming Hillary touched little boys, would you automatically believe it? I wouldn't. I hate coming across as defending greasy Trump, but this whole culture of automatically convicting somebody you dislike of horrible things based on literal nothing sources is ridiculous.
We shouldn't automatically convict. We also shouldn't automatically assume a lie, as you are explicitly doing. The thinking that "this rape accuser must be lying because the alleged crime is so heinous and he would never do that" is quickly going into the dustbin of history.
I do believe Bill Clinton is a disgusting monster when it comes to rape, and I believe the same of Trump, not based on an automatic conviction but based a massive, billowing cloud of smoke.
|
One thing that I wonder is how much all of the horrific news about the Obamacare premium hikes is affecting the election as opposed to the FBI announcement or Wikileaks dumps.
|
I was thinking that too. If Trump wins, it's because of a massive stroke of luck of last minute news. I guess Obama got that with Hurricane Sandy. You have to wonder why the horse race polls even change so much - it's because people are stupid and low info and only remember the most recent news.
|
On November 03 2016 08:23 xDaunt wrote:
One thing that I wonder is how much all of the horrific news about the Obamacare premium hikes is affecting the election as opposed to the FBI announcement or Wikileaks dumps.
Here in Arizona, likely significant more weight on the premium hikes.
|
Norway28911 Posts
that I also wonder. The obamacare premium hikes is justifiably damaging more so than any other hillary scandal out there.
|
not many people actually get heavily affected by the hike because of the subsidies
|
On November 03 2016 08:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
not many people actually get heavily affected by the hike because of the subsidies
But as we've seen in this thread, some people are simply complete dipshits who don't know how to get the subsidies.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On November 03 2016 08:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 08:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
not many people actually get heavily affected by the hike because of the subsidies
But as we've seen in this thread, some people are simply complete dipshits who don't know how to get the subsidies.
Well... but certain States also rejected federal money- so that would be more on the local government rather than ACA itself.
|
On November 03 2016 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that I also wonder. The obamacare premium hikes is justifiably damaging more so than any other hillary scandal out there.
If anything suffered in this election it was a rational and sober discussion about the economic benefits and costs of both candidate's policies
|
indeed, too bad, if the vote were based on policy analysis hillary would win trivially.
|
On November 03 2016 08:54 zlefin wrote:
indeed, too bad, if the vote were based on policy analysis hillary would win trivially.
That seems to me to be exactly why it hasn't been.
|
Trump the luckiest candidate of all time if we wins off of the media making daily headlines out of "omg state department told former SOS there's about to be news story about both state and her emails".
|
On November 03 2016 08:56 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 08:54 zlefin wrote:
indeed, too bad, if the vote were based on policy analysis hillary would win trivially. That seems to me to be exactly why it hasn't been.
How do you get Trump discuss policy when his plan amounts to magical thinking? You can't debate magical thinking.
|
The bigger problem is people buying it rather than Trump saying it. Trump is just like Waldo from that Black Mirror episode, the question is why the citizenry in one of the oldest democracies on this planet goes comletely haywire over the course of a few years. The whole vilification of all public offices and servants this election has been crazy.
|
On November 03 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:
The bigger problem is people buying it rather than Trump saying it. Trump is just like Waldo from that Black Mirror episode, the question is why the citizenry in one of the oldest democracies on this planet goes comletely haywire over the course of a few years. The whole vilification of all public offices and servants this election has been crazy.
well, obama has like what, a 55% - 60% approval rating fwiw
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the hrc team is really bad at devising a message strategy.
this polling and data shit worked because you had obama, grniuses. now go and let hillary give some goldman sachs style speeches about tough choices and whatnot
|
So apparently WashPo is about to run a story stating that Comey has known about the emails on Weiner's computer since early October and refused to reopen the investigation into Hillary until he got additional evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
