Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[kalm]

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I've been a small l libertarian for 20 years and have not hidden it. I want fiscal responsibility, limited foreign interventions, smaller government focused on infrastructure & defense and staying out of the bedroom, etc.

I agree with most of this. I disagree with the most partisan Libertarians on open borders. See Nick Gillespie, etc.

+2

You both do realize you are becoming kalmunists, right?

[Ivytalk]

I agree with most of this. I disagree with the most partisan Libertarians on open borders. See Nick Gillespie, etc.

+2

You both do realize you are becoming kalmunists, right?

Except for one little thing...

[UNI88]

I agree with most of this. I disagree with the most partisan Libertarians on open borders. See Nick Gillespie, etc.

+2

You both do realize you are becoming kalmunists, right?

Comrade Trotsky,

I will consider your proposal.

Signed,

Josef S.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[DSUrocks07]

I wonder if we'll see more of this heading to November...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Here's an example of what I was talking about with respect to people making a big deal about changes in poll results from week to week; as though they are looking at an exact measurement of the reality:

Yesterday IPSOS polling posted an article containing this Statement:

The general election race has narrowed between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Clinton (41%) continues to lead Trump (37%) among registered voters, but the Democrat has lost ground since last week

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pres ... px?id=7240

On May 5 IPSOS referenced the situation described as "last week" as follows:

In hypothetical 2-way general election matchups between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat (45%) continues to lead the Republican (36%) solidly (+9) among registered voters.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pres ... px?id=7230

Even if the poll had been conducted with perfect, theoretically sound probability sampling the difference between results from the two weeks could easily be due to random sampling error. And pollsters can't get perfect, theoretically sound samples. I think they do a remarkable job of adjusting for that. But it does mean there's going to be some non-sampling error. It just drives me crazy that people will NOT restrain themselves and instead act like results like the May 5 and May 9 IPSOS estimates provide sufficient evidence to conclude there was a change when they don't. And it's particularly bad that the the polling site itself does that because they should know better. I also think doing that actually influences peoples' opinions. Not as bad this far out but doing something like that close to an election could even cause people to decide to vote or not vote.

BTW the referenced polls are IPSOS on line polls; which are graded C+ according to http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... r-ratings/ . Interesting that IPSOS telephone polling is rated A-. For your information, in general, telephone polling which includes both land line and cell phone calling is considered to be the best data-gathering method by the people responsible for the ratings site. At least as of the date when the ratings were posted...which admittedly was in 2014...IPSOS on line polling was characterized by a slight bias in favor of the Republican candidate. In other words the suggestion was that it tended to over estimate how well the Republican was doing.

[BDKJMU]

Cruz's problem, other than his persona is that

1) Nobody liked him
2) He won't stop talking about SOCIAL issues. Hell, he was in socially liberal places and wouldn't shut the the hell up.

Social issues will always be a losing battle for the GOP, but they're too headstrong to admit it. Not to mention their attempts at doing so flies right in the face of their "we need to reduce the size of government" mantra.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Social issues won't always be a losing battle for the GOP, esp in mid terms. Take gay marriage for example. Remember 04'-14' in 38 states there were referendums on gay marriage (majority were mid term elections). In 34 of them the majority of voters voted keeping it man woman. States simple inaction of recognizing gay marriage didn't fly in the face of a reduce the size of govt manta.

Mentionig moderately conservative social beliefs but not constantly talking about them and putting that secondary to other issues, like the economy isn't going to hurt the GOP in a plurality of the country, esp in local, statewide, and in midterms..

Cruzs problem was as you correctly pointed out was likeability and his talking about his very conservative stance on social issues to much, even for a conk primary.

[BDKJMU]

Just another reminder about poll interpretation. Polling is a very valuable tool. But you have to keep the error in mind. And I am continually amazed at how people will declare that things are happening because polls change some. Like for instance look at this latest Real Clear Politics display on Trump vs. Clinton:



You can see a lot of variation. But let's talk about how it works. Take the latest poll indicated (Gravis). Let's assume that it reflects the actual truth. 48% for Clinton and 46% for Trump. What would happen if the actual truth never changed between now and November 8 but they kept doing the same poll and they were able to get a perfectly sound sample? That would be doing it 25 times. I did a simulation. The results ranged from Clinton being up by 5 percentage points to Trump being up by 3 percentage points. That's an 8 percentage point swing.

The poll reports a 2.5 percentage point margin of error. That refers to the percentage with any individual response (Clinton, Trump, Neither). The margin of error for the difference between Clinton and Trump is more like plus or minus 5 percentage points. That's IF the only error is random sampling error.

There are other sources of error because pollsters are NEVER able to get a completely theoretically sound sample. To begin with,the "margins of error" are 95% intervals. That means that the true value will be outside of them about 1 in 20 times. But it's going to be more than that because of the error beyond random sampling error.

There's another thing to consider. Polls vary in quality. The Gravis poll, for instance, got a "C" in the ratings at http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... r-ratings/. Of course I'm happy to say that the CNN/OPC poll got an "A-". Oh...and the Rasmussen poll got a "C."

I'm honest without myself about polling. Like for instance I was saying throughout the leadup to the 2012 election that Obama was going to win. I didn't like it. But that's what an overall assessment of all the polls I could see over time indicated.

But you have to remember that this stuff of saying that Candidate A being up 10 points one week then up 4 points the next week means something "real" is going on where candidate "B" is surging is jumping to conclusions. Like look at those Clinton Trump polls above. A poll conducted 4/22-4/28 shows Clinton up 7. Then a poll conducted 4/27-4/28 shows Trump up 2. THEN a poll conducted 4/28-5/1 shows Clinton up 13. Do you REALLY think things were switching back and forth like that?

Of course not.

JFC been gone for a week and trying to play catch up. Can someone give a cliff notes version to what JSO just wrote?

[Ibanez]

Just another reminder about poll interpretation. Polling is a very valuable tool. But you have to keep the error in mind. And I am continually amazed at how people will declare that things are happening because polls change some. Like for instance look at this latest Real Clear Politics display on Trump vs. Clinton:



You can see a lot of variation. But let's talk about how it works. Take the latest poll indicated (Gravis). Let's assume that it reflects the actual truth. 48% for Clinton and 46% for Trump. What would happen if the actual truth never changed between now and November 8 but they kept doing the same poll and they were able to get a perfectly sound sample? That would be doing it 25 times. I did a simulation. The results ranged from Clinton being up by 5 percentage points to Trump being up by 3 percentage points. That's an 8 percentage point swing.

The poll reports a 2.5 percentage point margin of error. That refers to the percentage with any individual response (Clinton, Trump, Neither). The margin of error for the difference between Clinton and Trump is more like plus or minus 5 percentage points. That's IF the only error is random sampling error.

There are other sources of error because pollsters are NEVER able to get a completely theoretically sound sample. To begin with,the "margins of error" are 95% intervals. That means that the true value will be outside of them about 1 in 20 times. But it's going to be more than that because of the error beyond random sampling error.

There's another thing to consider. Polls vary in quality. The Gravis poll, for instance, got a "C" in the ratings at http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... r-ratings/. Of course I'm happy to say that the CNN/OPC poll got an "A-". Oh...and the Rasmussen poll got a "C."

I'm honest without myself about polling. Like for instance I was saying throughout the leadup to the 2012 election that Obama was going to win. I didn't like it. But that's what an overall assessment of all the polls I could see over time indicated.

But you have to remember that this stuff of saying that Candidate A being up 10 points one week then up 4 points the next week means something "real" is going on where candidate "B" is surging is jumping to conclusions. Like look at those Clinton Trump polls above. A poll conducted 4/22-4/28 shows Clinton up 7. Then a poll conducted 4/27-4/28 shows Trump up 2. THEN a poll conducted 4/28-5/1 shows Clinton up 13. Do you REALLY think things were switching back and forth like that?

Of course not.

JFC been gone for a week and trying to play catch up. Can someone give a cliff notes version to what JSO just wrote?

Trump bad.

Hillary bad but just a barely better than Trump.

Gingers don't have souls

[DSUrocks07]

Social issues will always be a losing battle for the GOP, but they're too headstrong to admit it. Not to mention their attempts at doing so flies right in the face of their "we need to reduce the size of government" mantra.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Social issues won't always be a losing battle for the GOP, esp in mid terms. Take gay marriage for example. Remember 04'-14' in 38 states there were referendums on gay marriage (majority were mid term elections). In 34 of them the majority of voters voted keeping it man woman. States simple inaction of recognizing gay marriage didn't fly in the face of a reduce the size of govt manta.

Mentioning moderately conservative social beliefs but not constantly talking about them and putting that secondary to other issues, like the economy isn't going to hurt the GOP in a plurality of the country, esp in local, statewide, and in midterms..

Cruzs problem was as you correctly pointed out was likeability and his talking about his very conservative stance on social issues to much, even for a conk primary.

My point exactly. The last thing the GOP needs is to have their version of judgemental morality be a main platform of the party. "Because God..." is a horrible one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Another poll thing that I think kind of gives a feel for how things go. Not Trump vs. Clinton but Obama Approval rating. Here's what's up in terms of the margin for Obama with his approval rating up at Real Clear Politics right now for May 5 - 16:

May 5 +1
May 6 +4
May 6 +5
May 10 +1
May 11 -6
May 13 -3
May 16 -1
May 16 +7

So over an 11 day period you've got a a 13 point range; from -6 through +7. You've got an 8 point difference, -1 vs. +7, between two polls released on the same DAY.

I think it's reasonable to believe that Obama's job approval rating was pretty close to constant during the period. I think it gives a good feel for the "fuzziness" of polls and how foolish it is to hang on every percentage point change day by day as our media culture does.

[andy7171]

JSO, your "tea bagging" wife and you are prime targets for IRS audits as soon as you elect her. Scorched earth hasn't seen its day until HRC is in office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

JSO, your "tea bagging" wife and you are prime targets for IRS audits as soon as you elect her. Scorched earth hasn't seen its day until HRC is in office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great advice, Andy! We've been making a list...

[Ivytalk]

Drinking game for first Hillary-Drumpf debate: after Hillary tells a lie, each gal drinks a shot. After Teflon Don tells a lie, each guy drinks a shot. Last one standing wins.

[Chizzang]

Drinking game for first Hillary-Drumpf debate: after Hillary tells a lie, each gal drinks a shot. After Teflon Don tells a lie, each guy drinks a shot. Last one standing wins.

15 minutes into the debate...

[Grizalltheway]

Drinking game for first Hillary-Drumpf debate: after Hillary tells a lie, each gal drinks a shot. After Teflon Don tells a lie, each guy drinks a shot. Last one standing wins.

15 minutes into the debate...

Christ, I didn't know you were in Missoula filming me this weekend.

[DSUrocks07]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well, all these tweets were done when Senators were required to go back to their state (State Work Period)...because you know, Republicans created that rule in the 90s when they controlled Congress.

And the dems are guilty of being complacent to it. It's actually ridiculous that Senators come and go like they do. Literally, their sole job is to represent their State in Washington DC. They should be here near 24/7.

[Grizalltheway]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well, all these tweets were done when Senators were required to go back to their state (State Work Period)...because you know, Republicans created that rule in the 90s when they controlled Congress.

And the dems are guilty of being complacent to it. It's actually ridiculous that Senators come and go like they do. Literally, their sole job is to represent their State in Washington DC. They should be here near 24/7.

You can argue about how much time they should spend doing it, but maintaining ties with their home state is also part of the gig.

[HI54UNI]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well, all these tweets were done when Senators were required to go back to their state (State Work Period)...because you know, Republicans created that rule in the 90s when they controlled Congress.

And the dems are guilty of being complacent to it. It's actually ridiculous that Senators come and go like they do. Literally, their sole job is to represent their State in Washington DC. They should be here near 24/7.

They should be home as much as possible to see and hear the people they represent. Staying in DC makes them insulated from reality and is part of the problem we have in this country.

[YoUDeeMan]

I wonder if we'll see more of this heading to November...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Just another reminder about poll interpretation. Polling is a very valuable tool. But you have to keep the error in mind. And I am continually amazed at how people will declare that things are happening because polls change some. Like for instance look at this latest Real Clear Politics display on Trump vs. Clinton:



You can see a lot of variation. But let's talk about how it works. Take the latest poll indicated (Gravis). Let's assume that it reflects the actual truth. 48% for Clinton and 46% for Trump. What would happen if the actual truth never changed between now and November 8 but they kept doing the same poll and they were able to get a perfectly sound sample? That would be doing it 25 times. I did a simulation. The results ranged from Clinton being up by 5 percentage points to Trump being up by 3 percentage points. That's an 8 percentage point swing.

The poll reports a 2.5 percentage point margin of error. That refers to the percentage with any individual response (Clinton, Trump, Neither). The margin of error for the difference between Clinton and Trump is more like plus or minus 5 percentage points. That's IF the only error is random sampling error.

There are other sources of error because pollsters are NEVER able to get a completely theoretically sound sample. To begin with,the "margins of error" are 95% intervals. That means that the true value will be outside of them about 1 in 20 times. But it's going to be more than that because of the error beyond random sampling error.

There's another thing to consider. Polls vary in quality. The Gravis poll, for instance, got a "C" in the ratings at http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... r-ratings/. Of course I'm happy to say that the CNN/OPC poll got an "A-". Oh...and the Rasmussen poll got a "C."

I'm honest without myself about polling. Like for instance I was saying throughout the leadup to the 2012 election that Obama was going to win. I didn't like it. But that's what an overall assessment of all the polls I could see over time indicated.

But you have to remember that this stuff of saying that Candidate A being up 10 points one week then up 4 points the next week means something "real" is going on where candidate "B" is surging is jumping to conclusions. Like look at those Clinton Trump polls above. A poll conducted 4/22-4/28 shows Clinton up 7. Then a poll conducted 4/27-4/28 shows Trump up 2. THEN a poll conducted 4/28-5/1 shows Clinton up 13. Do you REALLY think things were switching back and forth like that?

Of course not.

JFC been gone for a week and trying to play catch up. Can someone give a cliff notes version to what JSO just wrote?

Mostly bloviation. John thinks he is the only person here that knows anything about statistics. He likes to use them to put a veneer of science on his wackjob evangelical beliefs.

[SDHornet]

Well, all these tweets were done when Senators were required to go back to their state (State Work Period)...because you know, Republicans created that rule in the 90s when they controlled Congress.

And the dems are guilty of being complacent to it. It's actually ridiculous that Senators come and go like they do. Literally, their sole job is to represent their State in Washington DC. They should be here near 24/7.

They should be home as much as possible to see and hear the people they represent. Staying in DC makes them insulated from reality and is part of the problem we have in this country.

A big government entitled type like Trip doesn't get that...it's kinda why he has sided with hilldog all along.

Oh and nice burn by Trumps twitter.

[SDHornet]

Mostly bloviation. John thinks he is the only person here that knows anything about statistics. He likes to use them to put a veneer of science on his wackjob evangelical beliefs.

He supplies jellybelly with the data used in his charts.

[Ibanez]

Well, all these tweets were done when Senators were required to go back to their state (State Work Period)...because you know, Republicans created that rule in the 90s when they controlled Congress.

And the dems are guilty of being complacent to it. It's actually ridiculous that Senators come and go like they do. Literally, their sole job is to represent their State in Washington DC. They should be here near 24/7.

You can argue about how much time they should spend doing it, but maintaining ties with their home state is also part of the gig.

Agree to a point but isn't that the role of a Representative and not a senator?

[∞∞∞]

You can argue about how much time they should spend doing it, but maintaining ties with their home state is also part of the gig.

Agree to a point but isn't that the role of a Representative and not a senator?

This is what I kind of mean. The Senator's main role is to be in Washington DC to represent their state; they really don't have any other duty or powers in the state itself. I agree that they should go back once in a while and speak directly to their constituents, but this isn't the 1800s or early 1900s. Even back then Senators stayed in DC, and now we have an insane amount of ways for Senators to stay in touch with their constituents and get a feel of what's happening back home (email, news, etc.). Never has it been as easy for a constituent hundreds of miles away get in contact with their Senator.

Plus like any enterprise, things get done more efficiently when people work together face-to-face. We literally elect these people to come to DC and get things accomplished. I think it's actually very disruptive to the flow of government (and work in general) when you have to take these forced breaks.

For Representatives, I think they do need to be home a little more often than Senators. I think that's because they represent a way smaller amount of people so their constituent's views will generally ebb and flow much more quickly than that of a whole state's population.