Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2016, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 02:00 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 01:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:28 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Once again, at no time have I called into question 538 or their new numbers. I'm specifically pointing out that every time a liberal media pollster polls more democrats in a sample, Hillary leads that poll. When they poll more republicans, Trump leads.

Its really not that difficult.

But you're missing the point: When the polls and service fit your argument you never went digging to disprove the legitimacy of the polls, only now that everything I said would come to fruition after the DNC did you investigate further to imply her gain was bogus. She's crushing him and it has nothing to do with "rigged" polls.

She's not "crushing him." I just showed you the polls are bogus. I didn't go looking for this on my own. I read an article here and decided to look into it myself, since its a right wing source, and confirmed their findings.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/...ead-trump/

I wanted to believe the polls. I still believe some of them are fairly accurate. And those polls show a closer gap within the margin of error so its still a toss up. The ABC CBS CNN polls should be taken with a grain of salt.

Here is another example:

Reuters/Ipsos poll. Of the 1,276 respondents, 628 (49.2%) were Democrats, just 498 (39.0%) were Republicans, and 112 (8.8%) were independents.

Hillary leads that poll by 7%.

Gallup says Americans represent both parties around 28% each, but their poll has 49% democrats.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 12:40 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 10:34 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I think his biggest shot at winning will come from the upcoming WikiLeaks revelations. If they're as significant as Assange claims they are, they might be able to make enough of a difference to hand Trump the presidency.

Tough to predict the future, but I'd be very surprised if WikiLeaks has any impact at all. Asange's announcement that he's going to wait until October to release the rest is just going to annoy people. And, the implications the mails came from Putin, which they won't confirm or deny, makes it easy to dismiss the whole thing.

If they have information voters should know about, they should release it now and give the press time to vet it. By dangling the idea as a lure with a promise of an eve-of-election release, Asange calls into question his own motivations and, I think, makes it easy to just dismiss and ignore the whole thing.

Assange is out of his mind if he thinks he can swing it Trump's way. What a jerk? I know a few people who would vote Hillary if she shot someone on Times Square. Trump is simply not an option. These are those types of times.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 01:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I'm having a hard time imagining just what kind of information could give Assange such certainty, but I suppose we'll know soon enough.

Assange is a computer programmer like me. And he as much credibility on deciding whether indictments should be issued as me. We are programmers, not lawyers.

Programming, Motherfucker. Do you speak it?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-08-2016, 01:59 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
No one really knew the first set of mails were coming, though. Now, they are giving the Democrats weeks to prepare a response. They know what is in their mails. They will be well prepared for whatever comes out.

Second, Asange is not a lawyer. I can't believe he is qualified to determine what is sufficient for an indictment. And, if he really has strong, irrefutable evidence, why sit on it for 10 or so weeks?

Finally, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not Hillary Clinton. Getting rid of DWS is child's play vs trying to get something to stick to Clinton. She is Teflon and I'd be shocked if she was on any mail chains where illegal activity was discussed.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 02:00 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 01:49 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  She's not "crushing him." I just showed you the polls are bogus. I didn't go looking for this on my own. I read an article here and decided to look into it myself, since its a right wing source, and confirmed their findings.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/...ead-trump/

You do realize you just referenced an article by the dumbest man on the internet. Silly me. Of course you don't.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 02:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:49 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  She's not "crushing him." I just showed you the polls are bogus. I didn't go looking for this on my own. I read an article here and decided to look into it myself, since its a right wing source, and confirmed their findings.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/...ead-trump/

You do realize you just referenced an article by the dumbest man on the internet. Silly me. Of course you don't.

If his numbers are wrong, prove it. I looked them over and he's not making it up.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 02:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 02:02 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 02:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You do realize you just referenced an article by the dumbest man on the internet. Silly me. Of course you don't.

If his numbers are wrong, prove it. I looked them over and he's not making it up.

And you would be an expert who "don't know shit about statistics". Even though you are admittedly unqualified to determine whether or not the books are being cooked, you are sure Jim "Dumbest Man on the Internet" Hoft is not making it up. Jim "Dumbest Man on the Internet" Hoft has been discredited so many times it's not worth the effort. But it does entertain me when you go full retard and double down on the credibility of Jim "Dumbest Man on the Internet" Hoft.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 02:11 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 01:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 12:40 PM)BnW Wrote:  Tough to predict the future, but I'd be very surprised if WikiLeaks has any impact at all. Asange's announcement that he's going to wait until October to release the rest is just going to annoy people. And, the implications the mails came from Putin, which they won't confirm or deny, makes it easy to dismiss the whole thing.

If they have information voters should know about, they should release it now and give the press time to vet it. By dangling the idea as a lure with a promise of an eve-of-election release, Asange calls into question his own motivations and, I think, makes it easy to just dismiss and ignore the whole thing.
I wouldn't be so sure. The politically motivated timing of the DNC e-mail leak (right before the convention) didn't do much to quell the shitstorm that ensued afterwards and as far as I recall, the authenticity of the e-mails was never called into question because of their alleged source (Russia). The leak was significant enough to force both the chairman and the CEO of the DNC to resign and the next one is supposed to provide enough evidence for a grand jury to indict Clinton. I'm having a hard time imagining just what kind of information could give Assange such certainty, but I suppose we'll know soon enough.

Actually, I'm curious about your source on this, because what has been circulating has been a portion of a quote that misrepresented his statement. The bolded part below has been left off most reports so that they can make it seem like he was saying this instead of Assange putting himself in the FBI's shoes.

"The FBI is going to go, “We have accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton — we could proceed to an indictment. But because Loretta Lynch is the DoJ” — head of the DoJ in the United States, appointed by Obama — “Loretta Lynch is the person in charge of our case. She’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that’s not possible that could happen.” But the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment. But there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation …"

So just curious if you have something more than this out-of-context misquote.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 02:16 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 01:59 PM)BnW Wrote:  No one really knew the first set of mails were coming, though. Now, they are giving the Democrats weeks to prepare a response. They know what is in their mails. They will be well prepared for whatever comes out.
I think you overestimate their competence. I mean, just look at how they handled the FBI controversy this year. They knew it was coming over a year in advance, but Clinton still doubled down on her lies in an interview earlier this week instead of admitting to the truth. The Washington Post and Politifact awarded her statements in that interview with the lowest possible rating. How did her campaign respond to that? By tripling down on the lies. It's no surprise that almost 70% of the country thinks that she's dishonest and untrustworthy. That number is probably going to rise before November if they keep going like this.

(02-08-2016 01:59 PM)BnW Wrote:  Second, Asange is not a lawyer. I can't believe he is qualified to determine what is sufficient for an indictment. And, if he really has strong, irrefutable evidence, why sit on it for 10 or so weeks?
That's true, though I imagine someone like Assange is well-acquainted with many lawyers. I'd say he's sitting on them for the same reason why he sat on the DNC e-mails for weeks or months on end. Assange admitted in an interview that he timed the leak of those e-mails for maximum visibility.

(02-08-2016 01:59 PM)BnW Wrote:  Finally, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not Hillary Clinton. Getting rid of DWS is child's play vs trying to get something to stick to Clinton. She is Teflon and I'd be shocked if she was on any mail chains where illegal activity was discussed.
I have to agree with that. She keeps getting away with things that would put other people in a world of trouble. Incidentally, her complete lack of accountability is one of my biggest concerns about her becoming POTUS.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: Clinton leads all FiveThirtyEight poll-election scenarios
(02-08-2016 02:11 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I wouldn't be so sure. The politically motivated timing of the DNC e-mail leak (right before the convention) didn't do much to quell the shitstorm that ensued afterwards and as far as I recall, the authenticity of the e-mails was never called into question because of their alleged source (Russia). The leak was significant enough to force both the chairman and the CEO of the DNC to resign and the next one is supposed to provide enough evidence for a grand jury to indict Clinton. I'm having a hard time imagining just what kind of information could give Assange such certainty, but I suppose we'll know soon enough.

Actually, I'm curious about your source on this, because what has been circulating has been a portion of a quote that misrepresented his statement. The bolded part below has been left off most reports so that they can make it seem like he was saying this instead of Assange putting himself in the FBI's shoes.

"The FBI is going to go, “We have accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton — we could proceed to an indictment. But because Loretta Lynch is the DoJ” — head of the DoJ in the United States, appointed by Obama — “Loretta Lynch is the person in charge of our case. She’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that’s not possible that could happen.” But the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment. But there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation …"

So just curious if you have something more than this out-of-context misquote.
That quote is not where I got my information from. WikiLeaks was asked about the authenticity of the rumor started by the quote you posted by a reporter on Twitter and explicitly confirmed it there:

"@jessesingal We believe we have enough for a grand jury to indict; Assange never said he intended to harm Clinton. Are you going to update?
Source: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/759116907308023808

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: