Ready for almost 7 more years?

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, on what basis are you guys saying 538 is liberal? I think we are in a time now where people on the right call anything that doesn't flatter what they want to believe "liberal bias."

At some point conservatives need to come out of their echo chamber and deal with reality. The reality here is that the Rasmussen poll is not one of the better polls. It historically has a relatively large mathematical bias. That's not philosophy. It's math.

[houndawg]

Whether frothing at the mouth White Nationalists can eek out one more Electoral College victory while losing the popular vote or not, it's going to soon be over for their movement in historical terms.

If the Democrats can come up with any kind of candidate at all they'll win in 2020. But they may not. It's kind of like the Republicans with Clinton. When it came time for Clinton to run for re-election the Republicans came up with Bob Dole.

Barack Obama, were he eligible to run, would've blown Trump out last time and if he were eligible to run in 2020 he'd blow Trump out. But he's not an option.

But you never know. Another thing about looking at Bill Clinton is that you can see that at this point of George H.W. Bush's administration there was no way to anticipate the Democrats coming up with somebody who could win in 1992.

After last November you know that that there is no election beyond the ability of the Democrats to fvck up.

As somebody who would like to see our system replaced by a Parliamentarian form of government I have to ask myself if perhaps Trump is maybe the guy to bring down the system if we just give him more time..

[houndawg]

It doesn't matter what a far left biased 538 says. Rasmussen is more accurate because it uses likely voters. The only reason the ignorant believe Rasmussen has a Republican bias is because they are more accurate and Republicans win more elections.

Yeah, JSO siting liberal 538

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

*citing.

This is why we need to spend more on education.

[JohnStOnge]

Whether frothing at the mouth White Nationalists can eek out one more Electoral College victory while losing the popular vote or not, it's going to soon be over for their movement in historical terms.

If the Democrats can come up with any kind of candidate at all they'll win in 2020. But they may not. It's kind of like the Republicans with Clinton. When it came time for Clinton to run for re-election the Republicans came up with Bob Dole.

Barack Obama, were he eligible to run, would've blown Trump out last time and if he were eligible to run in 2020 he'd blow Trump out. But he's not an option.

But you never know. Another thing about looking at Bill Clinton is that you can see that at this point of George H.W. Bush's administration there was no way to anticipate the Democrats coming up with somebody who could win in 1992.

After last November you know that that there is no election beyond the ability of the Democrats to fvck up.

As somebody who would like to see our system replaced by a Parliamentarian form of government I have to ask myself if perhaps Trump is maybe the guy to bring down the system if we just give him more time..

I just wish we'd go instant primary voting in Presidential elections. Also wish we'd ditch the Electoral College. There's just no reason to have it nowadays and we just had about as clear an illustration as we could get that it can lead to a really fucked up outcome.

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah, JSO siting liberal 538

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

*citing.

This is why we need to spend more on education.

BTW neither of those articles show liberal bias. The "Calm Down" article is just Silver's early qualitative opinion. He wasn't basing it on polling data either. He just didn't think Trump was conservative enough.

Also, Silver didn't call the election for Hillary Clinton. He provided a polling analysis that indicated about 70% confidence that she would win the electoral college. People who thought that was "calling" the election don't understand confidence levels. No statistician would ever say 70% confidence is sufficient to make a call.

In any case, even if he had made a call, that doesn't show liberal bias.

Having said all that I'll say the site I like to use has 538 rated as having a "left center bias." But it also has its factual reporting rated as "high." The bottom line conclusion on bias is:

FiveThirtyEight typically relies on its methodology and not opinion for its reports, however they do publish new stories that have a slight left-center bias in coverage.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fivethirtyeight/

Anyway, this thing where conservatives are just sticking their heads in the sand while finding excuses to just dismiss factual information that happens to represent stuff they don't want to hear is really getting bad.

[SDHornet]

If the Dems can keep the gun and racial hysteria going through the midterms Trump wont actually have to campaign at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This.

The donks keep misfiring...badly...on the sjw topics that will drive conk turnout. If the donks just stfu and let Trump to keep putting his foot in his mouth, they have a better chance at winning seats and the WH than what they are doing now.

It's actually quite hysterical to be honest.

[SDHornet]

JSO ranting about polls again...did he learn nothing from 2016?!?

[Ivytalk]

Biden puts out this image of himself as the soberest Irishman ever. Not true?

Ben O’Zobrist?

[houndawg]

After last November you know that that there is no election beyond the ability of the Democrats to fvck up.

As somebody who would like to see our system replaced by a Parliamentarian form of government I have to ask myself if perhaps Trump is maybe the guy to bring down the system if we just give him more time..

I just wish we'd go instant primary voting in Presidential elections. Also wish we'd ditch the Electoral College. There's just no reason to have it nowadays and we just had about as clear an illustration as we could get that it can lead to a really **** up outcome.

It's doing exactly what it was designed to do - give the establishment the final word.

[houndawg]

If the Dems can keep the gun and racial hysteria going through the midterms Trump wont actually have to campaign at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This.

The donks keep misfiring...badly...on the sjw topics that will drive conk turnout. If the donks just stfu and let Trump to keep putting his foot in his mouth, they have a better chance at winning seats and the WH than what they are doing now.

It's actually quite hysterical to be honest.

They've already flipped 40 seats in State elections this year.

But you're right, it is funny as all hell to watch..

[kalm]

Postby JohnStOnge » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:39 pm

BTW, on what basis are you guys saying 538 is liberal? I think we are in a time now where people on the right call anything that doesn't flatter what they want to believe "liberal bias."

At some point conservatives need to come out of their echo chamber and deal with reality. The reality here is that the Rasmussen poll is not one of the better polls. It historically has a relatively large mathematical bias. That's not philosophy. It's math.

Baldy and BDK...taken to the woodshed...

I'm starting to like this JSO fella.

[houndawg]

He's been campaigning since the day he got elected.. He never actually stopped campaigning
The guy holds rally's and delivers no information at the rally
except "Look at me" followed by "Love me"

It's about as silly as it gets...

Exactly. What's the point of announcing this far out? Stroking that ego....

..he's bored and needs a change of pace from looting?

[houndawg]

Postby JohnStOnge » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:39 pm

BTW, on what basis are you guys saying 538 is liberal? I think we are in a time now where people on the right call anything that doesn't flatter what they want to believe "liberal bias."

At some point conservatives need to come out of their echo chamber and deal with reality. The reality here is that the Rasmussen poll is not one of the better polls. It historically has a relatively large mathematical bias. That's not philosophy. It's math.

Baldy and BDK...taken to the woodshed...

I'm starting to like this JSO fella.

he brings some intellectual heft that can't be found in their vacuous postings.

[Gil Dobie]

Baldy and BDK...taken to the woodshed...

I'm starting to like this JSO fella.

he brings some intellectual heft that can't be found in their vacuous postings.

You called it something else when he was a Republican.

[89Hen]

Ben O’Zobrist?

Soberest.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO ranting about polls again...did he learn nothing from 2016?!?

As you know, the 2016 polls on election eve said that Clinton would win the popular vote but the Electoral College was too close to call. Or at least, by this point, you SHOULD know that.

[houndawg]

he brings some intellectual heft that can't be found in their vacuous postings.

You called it something else when he was a Republican.

Even then it was was pretty cerebral stuff compared to the never-ending whimpering and sniveling of the Butthurt Brothers.

[SDHornet]

JSO ranting about polls again...did he learn nothing from 2016?!?

As you know, the 2016 polls on election eve said that Clinton would win the popular vote but the Electoral College was too close to call. Or at least, by this point, you SHOULD know that.

[JohnStOnge]

As you know, the 2016 polls on election eve said that Clinton would win the popular vote but the Electoral College was too close to call. Or at least, by this point, you SHOULD know that.

If that means you STILL don't understand what the polls were saying on election eve, the Real Clear Politics info is still up there showing Clinton up in the popular vote but showing that neither candidate could be called as having anywhere close to the required number of electoral votes in their column. You know, showing 171 electoral votes as being associated with "toss up" states. If you don't get that, what do you think "toss up" means?

[SDHornet]

If that means you STILL don't understand what the polls were saying on election eve, the Real Clear Politics info is still up there showing Clinton up in the popular vote but showing that neither candidate could be called as having anywhere close to the required number of electoral votes in their column. You know, showing 171 electoral votes as being associated with "toss up" states. If you don't get that, what do you think "toss up" means?

[css75]

If that means you STILL don't understand what the polls were saying on election eve, the Real Clear Politics info is still up there showing Clinton up in the popular vote but showing that neither candidate could be called as having anywhere close to the required number of electoral votes in their column. You know, showing 171 electoral votes as being associated with "toss up" states. If you don't get that, what do you think "toss up" means?

Anyway you try to explain it all ends up with Trump won over 30 states. Popular vote is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

If that means you STILL don't understand what the polls were saying on election eve, the Real Clear Politics info is still up there showing Clinton up in the popular vote but showing that neither candidate could be called as having anywhere close to the required number of electoral votes in their column. You know, showing 171 electoral votes as being associated with "toss up" states. If you don't get that, what do you think "toss up" means?

Anyway you try to explain it all ends up with Trump won over 30 states. Popular vote is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah. So what if you lose by a couple million votes. That shit never stopped Idi Amin. Whom I think Photoshop could do some wonderful juxtaposition vis a vis Trump with...

[JohnStOnge]

If that means you STILL don't understand what the polls were saying on election eve, the Real Clear Politics info is still up there showing Clinton up in the popular vote but showing that neither candidate could be called as having anywhere close to the required number of electoral votes in their column. You know, showing 171 electoral votes as being associated with "toss up" states. If you don't get that, what do you think "toss up" means?

Anyway you try to explain it all ends up with Trump won over 30 states. Popular vote is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The point is that there was not high confidence from the State by State polls that Clinton would win. There's a myth out there that the polls showed that Clinton was a lock so now we can, whenever polls indicate things we wish they didn't indicate, point to the 2016 election as validation of the idea that the polls aren't reliable.

Only problem is the state by state polls did not show that Clinton was a lock. They showed that the Electoral College was too close to call. As I've written before this is not something I am not just saying now. I posted that observation on this board on the night before the election.

The popular vote thing comes in because the popular vote is an overall assessment of public opinion. So for instance right now the RealClearPolitics average of polls has Trump at -14 percentage points in terms of job approval. That's an overall national thing. If you want to look at the 2016 election for something to compare it to you'd look at the overall popular vote polls. And the RealClearPolitics average of polls in that regard was Clinton by 3 percentage points; which is very close to the actual outcome of Clinton by 2.1 percentage points.

Pointing to the 2016 election result and how it compares to what the polls were saying to try to kid yourself into thinking Trump isn't substantially underwater on job approval right now is just being in denial. He's substantially underwater on job approval right now.

[Gil Dobie]

Anyway you try to explain it all ends up with Trump won over 30 states. Popular vote is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The point is that there was not high confidence from the State by State polls that Clinton would win. There's a myth out there that the polls showed that Clinton was a lock so now we can, whenever polls indicate things we wish they didn't indicate, point to the 2016 election as validation of the idea that the polls aren't reliable.

Only problem is the state by state polls did not show that Clinton was a lock. They showed that the Electoral College was too close to call. As I've written before this is not something I am not just saying now. I posted that observation on this board on the night before the election.

The popular vote thing comes in because the popular vote is an overall assessment of public opinion. So for instance right now the RealClearPolitics average of polls has Trump at -14 percentage points in terms of job approval. That's an overall national thing. If you want to look at the 2016 election for something to compare it to you'd look at the overall popular vote polls. And the RealClearPolitics average of polls in that regard was Clinton by 3 percentage points; which is very close to the actual outcome of Clinton by 2.1 percentage points.

Pointing to the 2016 election result and how it compares to what the polls were saying to try to kid yourself into thinking Trump isn't substantially underwater on job approval right now is just being in denial. He's substantially underwater on job approval right now.

There was high confidence from the news media, primarily CNN and the liberal leaning media, that Clinton would win. That is why there was such a backlash against the polls, the electoral college, and the look to blame Trumps election on the Russians. Breaking news, the election results were how the people voted, just like it has been for many years.

If the election were held today, I still would not vote for either Clinton or Trump.

[Skjellyfetti]

It wasn't just in the liberal media.

Trump's own campaign was surprised they won.