Agreed. The only way to stop her is to vote against her, and to hope that everyone else does the same. As far as this board goes, it's fun to blast her, but it's kind of like Alabama running up the score against UK tomorrow night. She's getting destroyed by the BBN vote. She'll lose by astronomical margins in Kentucky, and she can also forget winning Ohio or any state next to Kentucky other than Illinois (if not for Chicago, she'd get destroyed in that state as well) and possibly Virginia. I can only hope that other states have enough sense to do the right thing. I think that it will happen.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Will you apply the same analysis to Virginia, Colorado, and NH as you're applying to Ohio? Sure, Ohio has been a bellwether in the post-Reagan era, but so has Colorado; Virginia in the post-Clinton era.
If anything, Trump is riding the coattails of the RINO cuck of all RINO cucks, Rob Portman...which is an incredible turn of fortunes. Trump's benefiting from Portman's incredibly well-funded and well-executed campaign (who has absolutely DESTROYED a strong and previously-popular challenger) while Trump's also benefiting from arguably the best state GOP machine in the country: they have a PHENOMENAL data operation, they have a phenomenal GOTV operation, and they keep their target demographics registered. A lot of the things that are killing Trump in VA, CO, PA and threatening to hamstring him in Florida aren't happening in Ohio due to the confluence of the factors above + favorable demographics (the latter of which are very similar to PA and MI...odd how the polling is so different from those other two states, no?)
I read with interest the USA editorial in which it was decreed that Trump was unfit to be President.
The unmitigated gall of these pompous, sanctimonious imbeciles astonishes me.
While paid DNC/media hacks such as Moe undoubtedly clap their hands at this foolishness, they do with a false assumption- they assume that the voting public takes directives from the MSM. Perhaps the public did in the past. Not anymore.
But who do these people in the media think they are, to be lecturing us in the first place?
In fact, the average person walking down the street is every bit as qualified to render an editorial regarding who, or who is not, fit to be President as the USA editorial board. Actually, that random person is actually more qualified- that person is not stinking of filth and corruption. The typical MSM journalist is. When it comes to the higher ups in the MSM, we need not limit that characterization to "the typical ones". They all are; all of them. They are the scum of the earth- USSR era Pravda was more honorable.
Who in the world do these editorialists think they are? Are they so arrogant to believe that the average voter gives a damn about their opinion? Who actually reads this garbage, and is persuaded to vote pursuant to their directive? The more editorials for Clinton, the more votes for Trump. I honestly think these pompous idiots fail to realize that their endorsements are a kiss of death. There's a reason for a 20 percent approval rating for the media. Even Hillary herself can best that.
The unmitigated gall of these pompous, sanctimonious imbeciles astonishes me.
While paid DNC/media hacks such as Moe undoubtedly clap their hands at this foolishness, they do with a false assumption- they assume that the voting public takes directives from the MSM. Perhaps the public did in the past. Not anymore.
But who do these people in the media think they are, to be lecturing us in the first place?
In fact, the average person walking down the street is every bit as qualified to render an editorial regarding who, or who is not, fit to be President as the USA editorial board. Actually, that random person is actually more qualified- that person is not stinking of filth and corruption. The typical MSM journalist is. When it comes to the higher ups in the MSM, we need not limit that characterization to "the typical ones". They all are; all of them. They are the scum of the earth- USSR era Pravda was more honorable.
Who in the world do these editorialists think they are? Are they so arrogant to believe that the average voter gives a damn about their opinion? Who actually reads this garbage, and is persuaded to vote pursuant to their directive? The more editorials for Clinton, the more votes for Trump. I honestly think these pompous idiots fail to realize that their endorsements are a kiss of death. There's a reason for a 20 percent approval rating for the media. Even Hillary herself can best that.
Last edited:
You do make some good points, but there are four flaws.
1. Notwithstanding Portman's coattails, and the Ohio state machine, Trump has to deal with a backstabbing governor who failed to live up to his word (you know exactly what I am talking about) and who would, if he could, sabotage him in favor of Hillary. He's trouncing her in Ohio because Ohio likes him better than Hillary Clinton.
2. Trump is probably going to win Colorado, which is astonishing, given the demographic change in that state, and Hillary's ridiculous assumption that she could pull marketing there and still win.
3. Pennsylvania is a tossup. He's not getting "killed" there. She's very concerned. Hence Obama going to Philly to campaign.
4. So much for a three touchdown lead. It's 3-3 in the seventh inning. And her starting pitcher is out of gas, and she has a bad bullpen.
Virginia is the new Illinois. DC Metro has spilled her ideological ilk across the Potomac - a new tail will wag the Old Colonial Dog for some time to come, much like Chicago has done to an otherwise good place. But mark my words, that may not last. RCP currently rates Illinois as a "leans Clinton" not as a "likely" and certainly not as a "solid" state such as California and NY. Sharp contrast to previous election cycles, when Obama won Illinois by approximately 17% in 2012, by 25% in 2004 . . . Hillary will win Illinois, but by a margin much smaller than ANY democrat since the last time it was won by a Republican (Bush in 1988). It will be well below 10% margin. Well below.
With the right candidate in 2020, Illinois could be in play.
For one example among others, a 9/26 CNN polls, with Clinton up by 1% among likely voters. That's kind of a problem for your girl. Considering turnout is going to favor the Donald, especially in that state.
Gravis poll, she's up by 3 in PA. Again, that's not good for her.
Lucerne County is generally the PA swing county, and he's destroying her there in the polls (plus 15 to 20). He certainly won't win the state by anywhere near that, but this is not good for Clinton. She may yet win PA- she's going to need to do better than Obama did in Philly. He got about 100% of the vote, with 130% of voters, including the dead ones, some precincts. and she'll need to do better than 100% in those places, and have more dead voters going her way, which is not out of the question.
To Jamo-
Dude. You self-identify as a cuck, but I am starting to wonder if that's even true. I am starting to suspect that you are "with her".
Let's take a closer look at these polls.
Let's discount any poll starting with the letters AUG. Let's discount any poll that starts with the letter SEPT if the first number is under 15. In other words, let's look at recent polls. But we should probably discount a PPP poll- it's a pushpoll, which asks questions like, do you prefer a bedbug to Trump? We can't consider that kind of poll
Now, let's run the numbers.
Clinton, plus 1, 3, 2, and 2.
Dude. That's the absolute definition of a swing state.
Dude. You self-identify as a cuck, but I am starting to wonder if that's even true. I am starting to suspect that you are "with her".
Let's take a closer look at these polls.
Let's discount any poll starting with the letters AUG. Let's discount any poll that starts with the letter SEPT if the first number is under 15. In other words, let's look at recent polls. But we should probably discount a PPP poll- it's a pushpoll, which asks questions like, do you prefer a bedbug to Trump? We can't consider that kind of poll
Now, let's run the numbers.
Clinton, plus 1, 3, 2, and 2.
Dude. That's the absolute definition of a swing state.
Jamo, here's another thing, dude. Both parties have internal polls, and they pay a lot of money for good information. If the numbers are leaked, it could be disinformation. But the campaigns know where they're at. If your girl is in great shape, then riddle me this:
1. Why make some ludicrous speech denouncing the "alt-right"?
2. Why essentially concede Ohio?
3. Why is she is denouncing, of all things, a frog?
4. Why is she making some fat ex-beauty queen (with horrible baggage) a campaign issue?
5. Why is Obama campaigning in Philadelphia, and not Cleveland, or Cincinnati?
1. Why make some ludicrous speech denouncing the "alt-right"?
2. Why essentially concede Ohio?
3. Why is she is denouncing, of all things, a frog?
4. Why is she making some fat ex-beauty queen (with horrible baggage) a campaign issue?
5. Why is Obama campaigning in Philadelphia, and not Cleveland, or Cincinnati?
current RCP average is Clinton +1.8% in PAdude...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html
Consistently trailing by a particular margin this close to the election isn't a "toss up". Florida, for example, is a toss-up, since you can actually find good data that shows both candidates leading during the same sampling period. While it's easy to hand-wave "enthusiasm" as a way to make up a 3pt deficit, you also have to account for things like GOTV and registration. Voting in this country isn't simple, and good campaigns figure this stuff out months in advance. Trump's campaign hasn't been doing that. He's running it like an American Idol voting competition, which isn't how this works.
Also, I find it interesting that you only look at polls based on time frame without weighting them based on things like sampling size, track record, method, etc...
Also, I find it interesting that you only look at polls based on time frame without weighting them based on things like sampling size, track record, method, etc...
I think you've made some interesting points, but as for track record (which is by far your best point of all), Pennsylvania margin of victory to dems has narrowed in previous election cycles. To look at 2016 polling numbers alone while ignoring the fact that Obama won PA by receiving only 1.12% more votes than Romney in 2012 is just foolish (and yes, the PA polling numbers for Obama were so much better than that prior to election day 2012) Track record, indeed. That state IS a toss-up. She will need every dead voter she can get. If she wins it, her margin will be less than a percent. You can write that on a rock.
Oh, come on, man! I'm not suggesting that you are actually wanting to get in her pants, or that you have romantic feelings towards her; either would make any stomach turn. I used that term in a political context. That's all I meant by that.
As far as polls go, I would recommend that you research "margin of error". If you're within the margin of error, which Trump is, in Pennsylvania, then it's all about actual turnout. I'm guessing that his supporters get their asses to the polls. I'm not so sure about the supporters of your girl (and, I emphasize that I only use those two words in the political sense).
I was more referring to track record of individual polling firms (i.e., "do they usually get these things right?"), but drift among states is certainly relevant, and PA is a great example of a state house that's increasingly (although slowly) drifted to the right.
That being said, Obama won by 5.4%, not 1.12%. Unless you're referring to something different? Maybe I'm misreading your post.
Yeah, I really need some education in what MOE is. Def should bone up on that before going back to my job where I use it every day.
One of the issues with narrowing the time window (as you did above) is that you increase your margin of error, particularly if there are only a couple polls, several of which are usually kinda sh*tty. You either need a whole bunch of data in that short time period or you need to patiently wait to see if those trends continue.
Sure, voters change their minds over time and sampling Aug 1-7 =/= Sept 1-7, but it's dangerous to whittle down a large body of data just because you think you see a trend within the most recent couple of data points.
Fair enough. I will take you at your word and assume that you have a good understanding of polls, and MOE. In all seriousness, how do you account for the Brexit disaster (a disaster for the pollsters, and most certainly not for the people of the UK), the Bevin shocker against all polling indications, and the 2014 Congressional results? I would respectfully submit that the polls failed, in each instance, to correctly measure turnout; or, in each instance, they were simply inaccurate in the polling itself. Exactly why should we be confident in the PA polls?
In any event, it wasn't too long ago that Hillary shills were debating about Utah, Georgia, and Missouri. Astonishingly enough, on a different board, a few of them were placing Kentucky in play. Now, we're analyzing Pennsylvania, and kind of assuming that Ohio is a done deal. Perhaps in a couple of weeks, we'll be debating New Jersey and New York. If the Clinton campaign can keep effectively focusing attention on fat beauty queens and alt-right frogs, we might find ourselves debating the polls in California.
For the same reason we were able to be relatively confident in 2012, 2008, 2004...
US POTUS election polling is as close to a science as you can get when it comes to human behavior statistics. There is a LOT of money poured into it and people spend a lot of time doing it. The POTUS election is very unique and just because you're good at interpreting the data (see: 2012 outcomes) doesn't mean you can export those models to Brexit, etc. Also, I'm not equating individual poll results to overall analysis of the polls (the type of thing Silver and Sabato do); the latter have become extremely reliable over the past 10-15 years despite races getting much closer, in general.
Furthermore, I wasn't in Kentucky during that election, but I'm assuming there were fewer total polls for that election than we get on a weekly basis in a POTUS election, and that's ignoring the quality of the polls, themselves. Perhaps I'm wrong on that point.
Bottom line: For every Brexit or Bevin/Conway strike outs, there are numerous ground-roll doubles during every POTUS election.
And that goes back to the point about MOE: Yes, it's possible that a +3 Clinton lead is actually a -1 if the MOE is 4, but it's essentially equally likely that it's a +7 lead. Rarely is there actually a +3 data point; you get a whole bunch of +2s and +4s, etc etc.
I read that in some article yesterday too, 300k is obviously not 1% of ~6million unless there were a significant amount of third party and other votes.
Jamo is being a dumbass though relying so heavily on statistics. A 3% difference soncisstent or not is by definition a toss up. Motivation is actually entirely what that is; just remember Kerry v Bush where Bush was basically leading by that in national polls all the way up until the end where the momentum had apparently shifted to Kerry. Why'd Kerry lose? Conservatives got motivated; they got scared they were going to have deal with an ivory tower, wind-surfing new england egghead liberal for 4 years.
Then stop cheering her on. You're obviously #imwither crowds otherwise you wouldn't be so giddy any time she gets life.
Most of the polls you giddily cite with her in the lead are 2 candidate polls. But we don't have 2 candidates.
She's conceded Ohio. By demographics she's nearly conceding Penn. She's way comfortably in Florida.
If Trump stays the course and doesn't do anything stupid, he wins. And you and your cuckold pals can go back to watching from the sidelines while we take back our country.
Has there ever been a black crook that got what they deserved?
