POLITICAL THREAD

[ymmot31]

Wikileaks Podesta E-mails Release 7: October 14, 2016
On March 4, 2015, just hours after Hillary Clinton had been issued a subpoenaed by the Justice Department, John Podesta, the Chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign, sent an e-mail to Cheryl Mills, an attorney who works for the Clinton campaign:

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: cheryl.mills@gmail.com Date: 2015–03–04 20:41 Subject: Special CategoryThink we should hold emails to and from potus? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will. — https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545

In other words, those deleted 33,000 e-mails we keep hearing about contain Hillary Clinton’s communications with President Obama. Which means both Hillary Clinton, and Obama lied to the FBI, Justice Department, Congress, and the American people. We now have definitive proof Obama was communicating with Hillary Clinton on her private e-mail server, and knew she was using a private e-mail server despite his claims otherwise.

Would love to hear soon that the DOJ is opening an investigation into Obama. It would be hilarious to have him "uh uh uh" his way through a jury trial with no teleprompter to tell him what he thinks.

 

[ukalumni00]

I have gradually started to really enjoy this guy. His opening monologue last night was hilarious.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

I work in polling and these are legitimate organizations. Polling is very tough, but they are scientific and almost always unbiased.

 

[ymmot31]

I work in polling and these are legitimate organizations. Polling is very tough, but they are scientific and almost always unbiased.

Do you work for the organization that predicted Hillary would lose in an electoral landslide? Also, don't you think that "unbiased" is one of those words that are absolute? Can you be sort of unbiased or unbiased to a certain extent? I will agree that there are probably many polls taken on various subjects that are unbiased, however, the political polls are not in that group. It would appear.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Do you work for the organization that predicted Hillary would lose in an electoral landslide? Also, don't you think that "unbiased" is one of those words that are absolute? Can you be sort of unbiased or unbiased to a certain extent? I will agree that there are probably many polls taken on various subjects that are unbiased, however, the political polls are not in that group. It would appear.

Political polling is incredibly challenging and it's one of the only market research actions where you can compare what people say to what they actually do.

It's primarily challenging because you're dealing with people. People that change their mind, people that say they're going to vote but don't, life happens, etc. If you ask people, 75% of people will say they'll vote. We know that only about 55% actually vote. So how do you know who will vote?

It's also hard to reach people - there are different rules for cell phones vs land lines and lots of other challenges. National elections only happen once every four years so it's very tough to calibrate analytic models, particularly with a fast-changing society (aging, more ethnic, more cell phones, etc).

Yes, they're unbiased, but incredibly challenging - people spend their entire careers trying to perfect the analysis, and as you see it's often way off.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

This shit should be considered treason.

Obama-linked activists have a ‘training manual’ for protesting Trump

http://nypost.com/2017/02/18/obama-linked-activists-have-a-training-manual-for-protesting-trump/

The manual, published with OFA partner “Indivisible,” advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and “grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together.” Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urges them to ask “hostile” questions — while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” — and loudly boo the the GOP politician if he isn’t “giving you real answers.”

The same manual is being used on the message boards and this one too. Enter the room in pairs ask hostile questions and boo anything that Trump does. They don't understand they are pushing more people towards Trump and the GOP politician by acting like this. No way will I vote for anything they oppose in such ridiculous manners. Especially when they show how disgusting these people are. You don't speak for me freaks.

 

[BlueThruAndThru]

Political polling is incredibly challenging and it's one of the only market research actions where you can compare what people say to what they actually do.

It's primarily challenging because you're dealing with people. People that change their mind, people that say they're going to vote but don't, life happens, etc. If you ask people, 75% of people will say they'll vote. We know that only about 55% actually vote. So how do you know who will vote?

It's also hard to reach people - there are different rules for cell phones vs land lines and lots of other challenges. National elections only happen once every four years so it's very tough to calibrate analytic models, particularly with a fast-changing society (aging, more ethnic, more cell phones, etc).

Yes, they're unbiased, but incredibly challenging - people spend their entire careers trying to perfect the analysis, and as you see it's often way off.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

Political polling is incredibly challenging and it's one of the only market research actions where you can compare what people say to what they actually do.

It's primarily challenging because you're dealing with people. People that change their mind, people that say they're going to vote but don't, life happens, etc. If you ask people, 75% of people will say they'll vote. We know that only about 55% actually vote. So how do you know who will vote?

It's also hard to reach people - there are different rules for cell phones vs land lines and lots of other challenges. National elections only happen once every four years so it's very tough to calibrate analytic models, particularly with a fast-changing society (aging, more ethnic, more cell phones, etc).

Yes, they're unbiased, but incredibly challenging - people spend their entire careers trying to perfect the analysis, and as you see it's often way off.

Not to mention they are using algorithms from facebook, twitter, and other social media platforms but the problem is the flooding of paid bots and shills destroy their own polls. Then you have the shitposters like 4chan and reddit that escape basic AI. We live in crazy times and the narrative is not as easy to control.

 

[krazykats]

I don't care how difficult it is, polling is BS and politically speaking it's all biased by the time we see it. Propaganda.

Z is typical dem idiot. Not saying he is right or wrong but he clearly didn't give a shit during Obama's run.

 

[Moopyj]

Hit me

I don't care how difficult it is, polling is BS and politically speaking it's all biased by the time we see it. Propaganda.

Z is typical dem idiot. Not saying he is right or wrong but he clearly didn't give a shit during Obama's run.

any information that is released always has the ability to be manipulated. Polls are a complete joke. Just try to find actual true information. It's hard b/c every news organization is so in the pocket of mostly dems and Hillary ; they should be scrutinized for releasing the truth as it happened.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

What are the symptoms of long term untreated syphilis?

 

[moe_schmoe]

I have gradually started to really enjoy this guy. His opening monologue last night was hilarious.

View embedded media

That's awesome. He told the CNN/Melania plagiarism joke. I plagiarized it from a buddy of mine who texted it to me. He must have plagiarized it from Gutfeld. So much plagiarism. The irony of it all is beautiful.

 

[moe_schmoe]

What are the symptoms of long term untreated syphilis?

Still haven't seen Trump's rally in full, and considering you've probably raged out and watched it three or four times by now on that fancy DVR thing, was just wondering, is it worth the watch? Thanks.

 

[warrior-cat]

I work in polling and these are legitimate organizations. Polling is very tough, but they are scientific and almost always unbiased.

Seriously Clark?

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Not to mention they are using algorithms from facebook, twitter, and other social media platforms but the problem is the flooding of paid bots and shills destroy their own polls. Then you have the shitposters like 4chan and reddit that escape basic AI. We live in crazy times and the narrative is not as easy to control.

None of what you say is true in legitimate political polling.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Hit me

any information that is released always has the ability to be manipulated. Polls are a complete joke. Just try to find actual true information. It's hard b/c every news organization is so in the pocket of mostly dems and Hillary ; they should be scrutinized for releasing the truth as it happened.

Polling isn't biased but those that interpret the data can be biased.

I would love some evidence that polls are biased

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

That Trump press conference from the 16th will live forever. That is a priceless national treasure. There is no movie, comedy routine, album, DVD, or live act that made me laugh louder, longer, or harder. I was howling with laughter at that. The whole time.

 

[krazykats]

legitimate political polling.

 

[krazykats]

Polling isn't biased but those that interpret the data can be biased.

I would love some evidence that polls are biased

Hilliary was up 3 TDs. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all had her 10-15% up the day of the election.

Meanwhile GA and Utah were in play.

#polls

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Hilliary was up 3 TDs. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all had her 10-15% up the day of the election.

Meanwhile GA and Utah were in play.

#polls

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and being biased?

 

[mdlUK.1]

That Trump press conference from the 16th will live forever. That is a priceless national treasure. There is no movie, comedy routine, album, DVD, or live act that made me laugh louder, longer, or harder. I was howling with laughter at that. The whole time.

Yeah but you're psychotic. Soooooo.

 

[warrior-cat]

It should be obvious by now that Z is trolling and in pain. He is struggling with the fact that Billary lost. Now, he is just here trying to upset those who are now enjoying the rise once again of the American dream. He wants others to be as miserable as he is. It has become comic relief for me and others and I welcome it. The taste of bitter defeat is good. Now Fuzz on the other hand, is either too stupid or just plain ignorant of reality and cannot see what is going on. Poor brainwashed lemming, I almost feel sorry for him.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

None of what you say is true in legitimate political polling.

Oxymoron = legitimate political polling

 

[krazykats]

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and being biased?

Do you understand the difference between Trumps camp having data showing he needed to go to Michigan/Wisconsin last second to get him a bump while CNN blasted him for going since their polls showed he had no chance?

Now that's not just wrong bubba!

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Oxymoron = legitimate political polling

Then you're just ignorant. Perhaps the analysis of the polls is biased but not the polls themselves.

You don't know what you're talking about - educate yourself.

 

[warrior-cat]

Do you understand the difference between being wrong and being biased?

There was probably a measure of both. They can be measured in a manner where opinions where heavier on one side or the other thereby controlling the outcome of the poll.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

These are legitimate businesses, many that have been around for decades. They don't just do political polling, they do all types of other research - mostly to other businesses to help shape their brands. You really think they sit around and figure out how to be wrong about something? And then go out to the market place and get more business?

They were wrong - some much more than others. It's complicated. But they aren't intentionally trying to stack the deck.

 

[krazykats]

Agree to disagree then. You telling me Trump managed to find better polling companies than CNN?

In general I agree with your point, but in politics your point is invalid due to greed, propaganda and biased news. It's really that simple and not worth arguing.

There is a huge difference in being wrong and being wrong on purpose. It's called lying, and why would the media want to lie FOR a candidate they supported in more ways than one?

 

[Willy4UK]

They were wrong - some much more than others. It's complicated. But they aren't intentionally trying to stack the deck.

CNN's polls do

 

[Vandalayindustries]

I'm not "agreeing to disagree" because you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, some CNN announcers may think Trump has no chance, but that isn't a pollster or someone looking at actual research data. I've been doing this for 20+ years - a company isn't going to survive by being biased.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

CNN's polls do

Again, just false. They may suck at polling but they aren't stacking the deck

 

[delk4three]

These are legitimate businesses, many that have been around for decades. They don't just do political polling, they do all types of other research - mostly to other businesses to help shape their brands. You really think they sit around and figure out how to be wrong about something? And then go out to the market place and get more business?

They were wrong - some much more than others. It's complicated. But they aren't intentionally trying to stack the deck.

People are naturally biased creatures. Since humans write the questions and conduct the polls, the only logical answer is "yes" the polls are biased if only a small percent. If some businesses knew they would get benefits if a certain candidate "Hillary" got elected, then yes again, it seems very logical to make the polls as lopsided towards said candidate as possible. Why? So the other side will decide the election is over, no reason to vote.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

A company survives on money. Crazy how I educated myself. Whoever pays that company is probably going to want a certain outcome or you get no more money.

Only thing legitimate about polling is the money. Follow the money.

 

[krazykats]

I'm not "agreeing to disagree" because you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, some CNN announcers may think Trump has no chance, but that isn't a pollster or someone looking at actual research data. I've been doing this for 20+ years - a company isn't going to survive by being biased.

You are defending your profession and I applaud you for that.

I guess your point is CNN went after wrong information from the get go therefore the polls weren't wrong? So essentially you are agreeing. I don't know maybe CNN ordered their polls to be taken in high density black communities, or low density white communities and basically got the wrong results on purpose.

 

[moe_schmoe]

These are legitimate businesses, many that have been around for decades. They don't just do political polling, they do all types of other research - mostly to other businesses to help shape their brands. You really think they sit around and figure out how to be wrong about something? And then go out to the market place and get more business?

I get this point of the argument, I really do, and I agree to an extent.

But they aren't intentionally trying to stack the deck.

However, there were literally polls that had Hillary up 15 points, with a 98% chance to win the election. There is no possible way those polls were that wrong by accident or because of bad data. Not buying it.

They only possible explanation that I can think of for them being that wrong is because they were intentionally trying to mislead the public.

 

[screwduke1]

Saw Rush on Fox News Sunday, he made a great comment like this.

"The media didn't create Trump, the media can't destroy Trump".

10000000000000% the truth.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

There is no "poll" that says Hillary had a 98% chance of winning. And a legitimate for profit business is not going to be wrong intentionally.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

A company survives on money. Crazy how I educated myself. Whoever pays that company is probably going to want a certain outcome or you get no more money.

Only thing legitimate about polling is the money. Follow the money.

These companies are paying for these polls themselves and releasing them publicly. To not do it unbiased would be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[screwduke1]

Polling isn't biased but those that interpret the data can be biased.

I would love some evidence that polls are biased

Most polls have big D+ sampling. Thats bias.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Most polls have big D+ sampling. Thats bias.

Nope