|
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 November 06 2016 19:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 19:37 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time. That might be why the HP article ends up like this: We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this. Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all. Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments. In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses. I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida. Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this?
The problem is that Nebuchad IS talking in absolute terms. Even if a model predicts an event at 99,9% and another at 0,1% and the event happens, there is no way to prove that the second model was not the correct one, and that the one chance over a thousand happened that time. It's just terribly unlikely, and when you talk statistics you talk about likeliness.
My main problem is that the HP guy has never said that "we will see who was right" and so i don't know why we are having this argument in the first place.
|
On November 06 2016 19:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 19:37 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time. That might be why the HP article ends up like this: We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this. Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all. Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments. In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses. I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida. Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this?
Not necessarily, no. But your example is so extreme that one of us has to be obviously wrong in how they interpret the data and this should be easy to demonstrate.
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 19:45 Acrofales wrote:On November 06 2016 19:37 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time. That might be why the HP article ends up like this: We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this. Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all. Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments. In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses. I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida. Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this? The problem is that Nebuchad IS talking in absolute terms. Even if a model predicts an event at 99,9% and another at 0,1% and the event happens, there is no way to prove that the second model was not the correct one, and that the one chance over a thousand happened that time. It's just terribly unlikely, and when you talk statistics you talk about likeliness. My main problem is that the HP guy has never said that "we will see who was right" and so i don't know why we are having this argument in the first place.
"So who’s right?
The beauty here is that we won’t have to wait long to find out."
...
|
On November 06 2016 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 19:45 Acrofales wrote:On November 06 2016 19:37 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time. That might be why the HP article ends up like this: We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this. Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all. Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments. In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses. I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida. Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this? The problem is that Nebuchad IS talking in absolute terms. Even if a model predicts an event at 99,9% and another at 0,1% and the event happens, there is no way to prove that the second model was not the correct one, and that the one chance over a thousand happened that time. It's just terribly unlikely, and when you talk statistics you talk about likeliness. My main problem is that the HP guy has never said that "we will see who was right" and so i don't know why we are having this argument in the first place.
Its statistical proove,when the odds are 5% or lower then you can say that it is true and accept that you are wrong in 5% of the cases. it works like that throughout all of statistics,100% certainty you never have.
|
But you can't do a lot of statistics with just one data point, that is the big problem here.
|
On November 06 2016 20:28 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:45 Acrofales wrote:On November 06 2016 19:37 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time. That might be why the HP article ends up like this: We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this. Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all. Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments. In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses. I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida. Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this? The problem is that Nebuchad IS talking in absolute terms. Even if a model predicts an event at 99,9% and another at 0,1% and the event happens, there is no way to prove that the second model was not the correct one, and that the one chance over a thousand happened that time. It's just terribly unlikely, and when you talk statistics you talk about likeliness. My main problem is that the HP guy has never said that "we will see who was right" and so i don't know why we are having this argument in the first place. Its statistical proove,when the odds are 5% or lower then you can say that it is true and accept that you are wrong in 5% of the cases. it works like that throughout all of statistics,100% certainty you never have.
Actually, that's not really true at all. There was just a statement from the American Statistical Association saying you shouldn't interpret p values that way, and the people who created hypothesis testing would be incredibly shocked at anyone characterizing p values that way.
For a decision making heuristic Neyman-Pierson argued you could kind of use it that way (with the caveat that 5% is meaningless, and your alpha should depend entirely on the decision) but decision making heuristics are not "proving" anything.
|
But there are more than one data points aren't there? For one, there are multiple data points in time, as this is not the first election where poll based prediction models were made, and Silver specifically rose to fame, because his model conformed to reality before when other models did not. Secondly, even this one time, there are multiple data points as the model makes a lot of predictions regarding the states and the house/senate races (or whichever).
A model that gets 90% of the states and the president race right is probably better than the model that got the presidential race outcome right, but with fumbled state results, no?
|
About the latino vote,since they seem to be the key. I have been thinking (lol)
Not meaning to offend anyone with the following: In latin American cultures female emancipation is a bit less well developed then in the usa in general,so I am wondering:would they easily vote for a women?
Off course many will,but overall the group might be less supportive of a women and more supportive of a (macho) man like trump? Based on this the democratic vote from the latino group could be disappointing or wont this be an issue at all?
|
Slight uptick for Hillary on 538. Hopefully the trend towards Donald has stopped.
|
On November 06 2016 22:01 pmh wrote:
About the latino vote,since they seem to be the key. I have been thinking (lol)
Not meaning to offend anyone with the following: In latin American cultures female emancipation is a bit less well developed then in the usa in general,so I am wondering:would they easily vote for a women?
Off course many will,but overall the group might be less supportive of a women and more supportive of a (macho) man like trump? Based on this the democratic vote from the latino group could be disappointing or wont this be an issue at all?
Speculative unless there's polling on this but one might think their more pressing concern is the guy who wants to deport them.
|
On November 06 2016 22:01 pmh wrote:
About the latino vote,since they seem to be the key. I have been thinking (lol)
Not meaning to offend anyone with the following: In latin American cultures female emancipation is a bit less well developed then in the usa in general,so I am wondering:would they easily vote for a women?
Off course many will,but overall the group might be less supportive of a women and more supportive of a (macho) man like trump? Based on this the democratic vote from the latino group could be disappointing or wont this be an issue at all?
Plenty of Latin American countries have elected female heads of state.
|
On November 06 2016 22:01 pmh wrote:
About the latino vote,since they seem to be the key. I have been thinking (lol)
Not meaning to offend anyone with the following: In latin American cultures female emancipation is a bit less well developed then in the usa in general,so I am wondering:would they easily vote for a women?
Off course many will,but overall the group might be less supportive of a women and more supportive of a (macho) man like trump? Based on this the democratic vote from the latino group could be disappointing or wont this be an issue at all?
I don't see why it would be an issue, you have a somewhat warped idea of Latin America. Female heads of state are quite common in the area.
+ Show Spoiler +
There's also this international poll, Russia is the only notable country where Trump does better than in the US.
http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/WINGIA_Global_Poll_on_US_Election_-_FINALIZED_Revised_Global_Press_Release.pdf
in Argentina Hillary has a 46 point lead
Brazil +66
Colombia +75
Ecuador +50
Mexico +73
Panama +54
Paraguay +68
Peru +40
And most of the remainder is 'don't know', he doesn't pass 11% in any of these countries.
|
On November 06 2016 14:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 14:34 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:27 Nyxisto wrote:On November 06 2016 14:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal. Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here? You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place. No, I understand perfectly. You don't hear what I'm saying - your points are irrelevant to why they're supporting Trump. What does their reason(s) for their immigration stance matter? The fact is they're supporting Trump because one of his major selling points to his constituents is his immigration policies, which are attractive to Cuban-Americans. The reason for why they hold that PoV is irrelevant. Do you understand? It just seems a little unbelievable that someone who has made the exact same experiences that illegal immigrants have made takes such a strong and facetious position against people that are right now in the same situation. I'd have guessed that normalisation with the Cuban government is what drives older Ex Cubans to Trump but immigration just seems weird.
What seems weird to me, is you as a complete outsider (neither American nor Cuban immigrant) try to devalue a point in an argument by someone who seems not only well informed on the issue, but also manages to logically explain said point to you. Your disbelief lies in your ideology. Look at immigrants in Germany, Italians were the the first big wave of immigrants, they dislike the Turks who came as the second big wave, who coincidentally dislike people from Yugoslavia, who dislike the "newcomers" from Middle East and North Africa.
It's a reaction similar to what most firstborn kids show "naturally" at a very, very young age, when they get a sibling.
|
On November 06 2016 22:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Slight uptick for Hillary on 538. Hopefully the trend towards Donald has stopped.
There has been very few polls yesterday according to nate silver, and only a couple of them today, so i would wait a few hours to say, but it looks to me the race has stabilized. Four-five days ago the model was miving towards Trump almost every hour.
Lots of newspapers very optimistic about Clinton these last days, but 538 is being VERY cautious.
|
On November 06 2016 22:18 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 14:47 Nyxisto wrote:On November 06 2016 14:34 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:27 Nyxisto wrote:On November 06 2016 14:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal. Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here? You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place. No, I understand perfectly. You don't hear what I'm saying - your points are irrelevant to why they're supporting Trump. What does their reason(s) for their immigration stance matter? The fact is they're supporting Trump because one of his major selling points to his constituents is his immigration policies, which are attractive to Cuban-Americans. The reason for why they hold that PoV is irrelevant. Do you understand? It just seems a little unbelievable that someone who has made the exact same experiences that illegal immigrants have made takes such a strong and facetious position against people that are right now in the same situation. I'd have guessed that normalisation with the Cuban government is what drives older Ex Cubans to Trump but immigration just seems weird. What seems weird to me, is you as a complete outsider (neither American nor Cuban immigrant) try to devalue a point in an argument by someone who seems not only well informed on the issue, but also manages to logically explain said point to you. Your disbelief lies in your ideology. Look at immigrants in Germany, Italians were the the first big wave of immigrants, they dislike the Turks who came as the second big wave, who coincidentally dislike people from Yugoslavia, who dislike the "newcomers" from Middle East and North Africa. It's a reaction similar to what most firstborn kids show "naturally" at a very, very young age, when they get a sibling.
Cuban immigration is a special case in the us; their very strong anti-communist vision has always made them more receptive to republican rhetoric. While latin americans in general are very critical toward right wing american aggressivness, the unique history of the cuban diaspora makes it a different story.
It also seem that the phenomenon is disappearing and that younger people with cuban origins are now more or less in line with the rest of latino voters.
|
On November 06 2016 20:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:45 Acrofales wrote:On November 06 2016 19:37 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time. That might be why the HP article ends up like this: We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this. Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all. Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments. In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses. I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida. Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this? The problem is that Nebuchad IS talking in absolute terms. Even if a model predicts an event at 99,9% and another at 0,1% and the event happens, there is no way to prove that the second model was not the correct one, and that the one chance over a thousand happened that time. It's just terribly unlikely, and when you talk statistics you talk about likeliness. My main problem is that the HP guy has never said that "we will see who was right" and so i don't know why we are having this argument in the first place. "So who’s right? The beauty here is that we won’t have to wait long to find out." ...
You are either not reading well or not posting in good faith.
Here is the passage you quote:
Nate Silver’s 538 model is giving Donald Trump a heart-stopping 35 percent chance of winning as of this weekend.
He ratcheted the panic up to 11 on Friday with his latest forecast, tweeting out, “Trump is about 3 points behind Clinton ― and 3-point polling errors happen pretty often.”
So who’s right?
The beauty here is that we won’t have to wait long to find out. But let’s lay out now why we think we’re right and 538 is wrong. Or, at least, why they’re doing it wrong.
In this exerpt, Grim is clearly talking about the whole election (51 states). You quote one sentence while we (you in the first place) are talking about the Florida result, forgetting to mention the context, which is the whole election,
Further in the article he said the result of Florida mattered very little to prove anything here:
We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax.
And you said:
I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida.
So again, Grim never said that, he said the opposite (the result of Florida won't prove or disprove anything it could be sheer luck). But he is perfectly right to say that the whole election will prove which model is better as he did in the first quote that you cut at your convenience, because their respective models will be tested not once (like in Florida) but 51 times.
(Silver became famous in the first place by forseeing the result of Obama's elections with a 51/51 and 50/51 accuracy.)
|
On November 06 2016 15:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 15:03 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote:
...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn) would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke. I really don't get why so many of the leftist/liberal posters go so far out of their way to fellate the Clintons. The Clintons are patently vile by any measure and should be readily acknowledged as such. I certainly understand the argument that the Clintons are comparatively better than Trump and can respect it, but the degree to which some posters stick their heads in the sand regarding who they're supporting simply boggles the mind.
The reason why people defend Hillary is not necessarily because they think she is perfect. I think you would find that most posters here who defend her find her mediocre at best. The reason why I feel the need to defend her is because of the groundless and massive smear campaign that seems to be grounded only in lies and conjecture. And this massive campagin also serves the purpose of getting someone who is far more corrupt and ruthless elected.
|
I am an outsider to this election and first time posting here. I wanted to ask , how much effect will Indian American voters have on this election? Asking out of curiosity .
Edit : I saw that ad Trump directed towards Indian Americans in which he speaks Hindi . Does he really care for Indian American community ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wh1aPya.png)
