2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal · 24-09-2016 11:10PM

oik wrote: »

Look, I realise that every candidate that gets past May with a realistic chance of winning in a primary campaign has been telling a few porkies regardless of what party they're in and has probably made some mad statements to try and drum up the base.

What does Trump say when he wants to get a cheer from the crowd? "We're going to build the wall", "we will enforce the law", "our police and our military are such good people", yeah real harmful stuff.

Ted Cruz, "let's carpet bomb Syria"

Trump, "we need to take out their families"

Akrasia · 24-09-2016 11:26PM

Overheal wrote: »

Trump, "we need to take out their families"

I can't believe you're taking something that Trump said and repeating it. Media Bias folks.

Well, the last laugh is on you. From now on Boards.ie are banned from all Trump events and you'll be hearing from Trump's lawyers

oik · 24-09-2016 11:36PM

Trump, "we need to take out their families"

Not the most popular or humane policy, but known to work.

"Six years later, in October 1985, Alpha Group was dispatched to war-torn Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin was informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[19] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. Through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task-force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis, and once identified, began to take the relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of no negotiations with terrorists, one of the hostages taken by Alpha Group had his testicles removed and sent to the militants before being killed. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately.[20] The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq."

In a purely amoral and calculating way, this would be the way to prevent the most amount of attacks possible.

Not that I support it, just sayin'.

oik · 24-09-2016 11:41PM

I can't believe you're taking something that Trump said and repeating it. Media Bias folks.

Well, the last laugh is on you. From now on Boards.ie are banned from all Trump events and you'll be hearing from Trump's lawyers

It's not media bias to point it out, it's media bias to also fail to point out that the US government already does that.

They threatened Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's son after extensive waterboarding failed to produce any results, and it worked.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2016 12:31AM

oik wrote: »

Not the most popular or humane policy...

You misspelled "war crime".

Not that I support it, just sayin'.

Of course you don't. That's why you basically said it's a good idea.

Trump advocates war crimes; Trump supporters become apologists for war crimes. There's literally nothing the man could do that would make his disciples disavow him.

Overheal · 25-09-2016 02:31AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You misspelled "war crime". Of course you don't. That's why you basically said it's a good idea.

Trump advocates war crimes; Trump supporters become apologists for war crimes. There's literally nothing the man could do that would make his disciples disavow him.

Basically Trump voters are having a referendum on whether they'd like the country to become a fascist world power that ignores UN and NATO obligations pisses on trading partners and otherwise goes it alone.

It would be almost frightening if Trump actually would ever follow through with it. The man can't even write a check to charity without going through the five stages of grief, he has too many vested international interests, including cheap overseas labor making trump clothing and such, to ever go along with it.

glued · 25-09-2016 07:41AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

Naturally, this has been greeted with, basically, "Carter Who? Never heard of him" by the Trump camp. Which is about par for the course from a candidate and campaign who make everything up as they go along (including whatever is currently convenient to pass off as the truth).

You'd expect that from a narcissist and his inner circle of yes-men. It's truly bizarre to watch complete outsiders do the same. Some of the rationalisation of his most irrational behaviour on this thread alone is utterly bemusing.

That's becuase Americans are so paranoid about any connection with Moscow at all. The difference between America and Russia is that one thinks they can do what the want and cry foul at other countries when they do similar and the other just does whatever they want without the self-righteous narrative.

The most bizarre thing about these elections isn't Donald Trump. You can see how a market has opened up for Trump considering how poorly Bush and Obama have managed the country since 2001. What is bizarre is that people are still trying to pomp up Hilary as some form of white knight in comparison to Trump. How many people is Trump responsible for killing? People seem to forget that Hillary has made a career covering up and getting away with mistake after mistake.

Two very dangerous candidates yet the media is focusing in on one because people would rather read about Trump building a wall than Hillary and Benghazi.

alastair · 25-09-2016 09:54AM

You do realise that Hillary is resposible for killing precisely no-one in Benghazi, right?

oik · 25-09-2016 02:14PM

Of course you don't. That's why you basically said it's a good idea.

Trump advocates war crimes; Trump supporters become apologists for war crimes. There's literally nothing the man could do that would make his disciples disavow him.

Saying something works is not the same as saying it's a good idea. Using the word "basically" to twist the meaning around is a barely concealed sleight of hand and a pretty disingenuous debating tactic from an admin of all people.

oik · 25-09-2016 02:16PM

You do realise that Hillary is resposible for killing precisely no-one in Benghazi, right?

I didn't kill him with my car. I just failed to push the brakes.

Manach · 25-09-2016 02:22PM

Clinton, in what appears to be a bid to engage with Mr. Saunder's proposal, has released a revised estate tax plan with a graduated level of taxes up to 65%. Trump on the other hand does not seem support such.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-65-tax-on-largest-estates-1474559914 [FYI Unsure if a paywall or not]

This hopefully at least provides an opportunity to bring policy instead of personality into the discussion.

oik · 25-09-2016 02:24PM

Clinton, in what appears to be a bid to engage with Mr. Saunder's proposal, has released a revised estate tax plan with a graduated level of taxes up to 65%. Trump on the other hand does not seem support such.

This hopefully at least provides an opportunity to bring policy instead of personality into the discussion.

She must be counting on no one except the most naive millenials believing her, because there's no chance of the anti-Trump GOP she's trying to appeal to going for that.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 03:01PM

From the list of national polls provided by RCP today, it appears that Hillary Clinton continues to lead in most, but the earlier gap between Clinton and Trump has been narrowing as 8 November draws nearer, some of the polls with a small Clinton lead or Trump lead falling within the margin of error and consequently not significant (e.g., may be due to random variability occurring within the confidence interval). Four years ago we saw many of the national polls do the same thing as the presidential election drew near between Obama and Romney, so no surprises here, along with some national polls showing Romney leading Obama, and Rassmussen suggesting a Romney win. The LA Times/USC poll continues to suggest a Trump win, but it is new this year, has a different sampling frame, model, and other methods not found in the other national polls, so it will be interesting to see how close it comes to vote count percentages following 8 November 2016.

Of course, cautions should be exercised when viewing any polls, given that they are descriptive and not inferential, and different polls should not be averaged like RCP does with all the methodological differences, samples, and time frames between polling organisations.

oik · 25-09-2016 03:05PM

From the list of national polls provided by RCP today, it appears that Hillary Clinton continues to lead in most, but the earlier gap between Clinton and Trump has been narrowing as 8 November draws nearer, some of the polls with a small Clinton lead or Trump lead falling within the margin of error and consequently not significant (e.g., may be due to random variability occurring within the confidence interval). Four years ago we saw many of the national polls do the same thing as the presidential election drew near between Obama and Romney, so no surprises here, along with some national polls showing Romney leading Obama, and Rassmussen suggesting a Romney win. The LA Times/USC poll continues to suggest a Trump win, but it is new this year, has a different sampling frame, model, and other methods not found in the other national polls, so it will be interesting to see how close it comes to vote count percentages following 8 November 2016.

Of course, cautions should be exercised when viewing any polls, given that they are descriptive and not inferential, and different polls should not be averaged like RCP does with all the methodological differences, samples, and time frames between polling organisations.

No campaign team pays attention to national polls. The current state polls have Trump about 5-10 electoral college votes off 270. Many swing states have been consistently for Trump for a while now and some like Colorado have just come into play.

RCP's no toss up map has it at 272-266 in favour of Clinton. If shy Trump voters are a thing, and it's bound to be a thing it's approaching landslide territory.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 03:13PM

oik wrote: »

No campaign team pays attention to national polls.

According to whom?

oik wrote: »

The current state polls have Trump about 5-10 electoral college votes off 270.

According to whom?

oik wrote: »

Many swing states have been consistently for Trump for a while now and some like Colorado have just come into play.

Specifically which swing states, and which state polls and percentages?

oik · 25-09-2016 03:19PM

According to whom?

.
According to whom?

Specifically which swing states, and which state polls and percentages?

According to the campaigns themselves. You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll. It's basically like a football team taking comfort from the possession stats while the match is a draw.

According to the polls. You know, the ones on the website you posted here just a second ago.

Seriously just browse the website you just posted all the info is there.

Christy42 · 25-09-2016 03:27PM

oik wrote: »

If shy Trump voters are a thing, and it's bound to be a thing it's approaching landslide territory.

It isn't a thing. We have been through this repeatedly. You would expect to see evidence of this in online polls and in the primaries if it was true. There is no such evidence but it gets claimed every few pages. Trump supporters are then called on it and it is forgotten for a few more pages till it is brought up again.

This is just want Trump supporters tell themselves forgetting of course that they are no where near silent enough to be the silent majority.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 03:30PM

oik wrote: »

The current state polls have Trump about 5-10 electoral college votes off 270.

Making inferences from today's descriptive state percentage polls to future November's EC state votes represents a conceptual error (e.g., comparing apples with oranges). Sure, they are both fruit using the same metaphor, but still very different. To explain why they are different indepth goes beyond the purview of this presidential election thread, but we could discuss such conceptual differences and how that affects associated poll and EC methodologies in our Researcher forum on this site (provided there is a serious interest).

oik · 25-09-2016 03:39PM

It isn't a thing. We have been through this repeatedly. You would expect to see evidence of this in online polls and in the primaries if it was true. There is no such evidence but it gets claimed every few pages. Trump supporters are then called on it and it is forgotten for a few more pages till it is brought up again.

This is just want Trump supporters tell themselves forgetting of course that they are no where near silent enough to be the silent majority.

How do you know it isn't a thing? The theory about there being no shy Trump voter phenomenon rests on data from the primary season, but since it was early in the campaign season, new dirt was being dug up and polls never reached any sort of equilibrium it's impossible to say whether it was shy supporters or just a general rise in support. Voters were primarily choosing between Trump and Cruz desperately trying to emulate Trump for most of it, and since all or most of those polled were Republicans anyway they'd obviously be less shy about supporting a Republican candidate.

Independents? Not so much.

Neither of us knows for certain until election day, but I think you're projecting when you say that Trump supporters are just telling themselves this. That might well be the case, but I think you seek comfort in the opposite belief just the same as them.

Also, the online poll theory doesn't stack up because young people don't answer the phone and old people don't browse online. Polling companies are all in limbo now because of the big generational gap in polling methods.

oik · 25-09-2016 03:51PM

Making inferences from today's descriptive state percentage polls to future November's EC state votes represents a conceptual error (e.g., comparing apples with oranges). Sure, they are both fruit using the same metaphor, but still very different. To explain why they are different indepth goes beyond the purview of this presidential election thread, but we could discuss such conceptual differences and how that affects associated poll and EC methodologies in our Researcher forum on this site (provided there is a serious interest).

I call bull****. You can't bring up polls in one post and then claim making inferences from them "represents a conceptual error" in the next.

Using rare words is a fairly transparent attempt to appear intelligent without actually saying anything, especially when using them to weasel out of a discussion. "Sorry guys I'd love to explain my theory but it's not within the purview of this thread". Thanks for bringing it up then genius.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 03:58PM

oik wrote: »

According to the campaigns themselves.

During the GOP primaries it was reported that Donald Trump would comment upon those "high respected" polls that showed him ahead of his Republican rivals.

"WHAT'S TRUE: Donald Trump said during an October 2015 appearance on Meet the Press that if polls indicated he wasn't going to win the Republican presidential nomination, he would drop out of the race."

oik wrote: »

You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll.

You "use your own brain" comment was anecdotal and without substantive support to suggest that it has any merit. Recommend that you provide links that suggest support for your position with specific and credible named persons with a similar view, not generic (e.g., look for yourself comments), otherwise it's just armchair opinion by you and nothing more.

Sofa Spud · 25-09-2016 04:06PM

Check out Nate Silver's site fivethirtyeight.com

This guy has a strong record of reliable analysis of existing polls, using some scientific jiggery pokery to weed out poll bias or demographic anomalies to give consistently accurate predictions - called the last election just about as accurate as possible....

oik · 25-09-2016 04:07PM

During the GOP primaries it was reported that Donald Trump would comment upon those "high respected" polls that showed him ahead of his Republican rivals.

"WHAT'S TRUE: Donald Trump said during an October 2015 appearance on Meet the Press that if polls indicated he wasn't going to win the Republican presidential nomination, he would drop out of the race."

You "use your own brain" comment was anecdotal and without substantive support to suggest that it has any merit. Recommend that you provide links that suggest support for your position with specific and credible named persons with a similar view, not generic (e.g., look for yourself comments), otherwise it's just armchair opinion by you and nothing more.

For god sake man. There's a difference between what Donald Trump himself says to reporters to create the positive impression that he's winning and what campaigns focus on behind the scenes. You would think you had no social intelligence at all.

"You "use your own brain" comment was anecdotal and without substantive sup..." There you go again. I don't know who you think you're impressing.

You know I can't post links due to the number of posts. As soon as I have enough posts I'll post a video in which a Clinton campaign spox and a CNN or NBC reporter agree that national polls do not concern the campaign teams.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 04:28PM

oik wrote: »

According to the campaigns themselves. You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll.

It would seem that Donald Trump, who was "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" did in fact "take any comfort from a national poll" when he replied to Chuck Todd during Meet the Press, 19 August 2015, 4:30 pm ET (transcript):

CHUCK TODD:

"Because it resonated with you."

DONALD TRUMP:

"Look, my life has been an interesting life. I've had a lot of fun. I'm leading in the polls."

oik · 25-09-2016 04:31PM

It would seem that Donald Trump, who was "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" did in fact "take any comfort from a national poll" when he replied to Chuck Todd during Meet the Press, 19 August 2015, 4:30 pm ET (transcript):

CHUCK TODD:

"Because it resonated with you."

DONALD TRUMP:

"Look, my life has been an interesting life. I've had a lot of fun. I'm leading in the polls."

Did he say national polls?

Do you also understand that in August 19th 2015 the first primaries were about 6 months away and state by state polls probably hadn't started.

Your desperate nitpicking has washed out the thin veneer of intelligence you were trying to project by using overly flowery language.

You're also missing the fact that relying on national polls with 45 or so days until the election is a bit different than 15 months out.

K-9 · 25-09-2016 04:50PM

oik wrote: »

Your desperate nitpicking has washed out the thin veneer of intelligence you were trying to project by using overly flowery language.

Mod:

Cut out these type of posts please, there has been a few recently. There's no need for them.

Christy42 · 25-09-2016 05:01PM

oik wrote: »

How do you know it isn't a thing? The theory about there being no shy Trump voter phenomenon rests on data from the primary season, but since it was early in the campaign season, new dirt was being dug up and polls never reached any sort of equilibrium it's impossible to say whether it was shy supporters or just a general rise in support. Voters were primarily choosing between Trump and Cruz desperately trying to emulate Trump for most of it, and since all or most of those polled were Republicans anyway they'd obviously be less shy about supporting a Republican candidate.

Independents? Not so much.

Neither of us knows for certain until election day, but I think you're projecting when you say that Trump supporters are just telling themselves this. That might well be the case, but I think you seek comfort in the opposite belief just the same as them.

Also, the online poll theory doesn't stack up because young people don't answer the phone and old people don't browse online. Polling companies are all in limbo now because of the big generational gap in polling methods.

The burden of proof is on you here.

Or shall we talk about the landslide for Hillary once all her silent voters come out in November:p.

Also you should see it in the online polls vs other polls for young people (face to face for instance). Sure it is a possibility but it can't be assumed without evidence. Mine (no silent voters for either side is the natural prior without further evidence).

oik · 25-09-2016 05:31PM

The burden of proof is on you here.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just stated my opinion that the shy Trump voter exists and I base this, quite credibly, on his connection to racism and other things most Americans don't want to associate themselves with publicly.

People going to Trump rallies still have to walk a gauntlet of protesters to get in and out.

You're the one who said it had been shown not to exist, which is a positive claim which requires evidence.

I don't base my prediction of a Trump victory on polls, although they are a good indicator, I base it off his own skills as a politician. For Hillary attack has been the best form of defence against him but he hasn't been on defence or attack this last month or so. He has been going straight to the people to make his case. He has from now until the election to convince the remaining swing voters that he is capable of being presidential and is not a threat to theirs or anyone else's safety. That's all he has to do to win. For Clinton to win, there's nothing she can do, all she can do his hope he doesn't succeed in changing his public perception.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 05:54PM

oik wrote: »

According to the campaigns themselves. You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll.

oik wrote: »

Did he say national polls?

Do you also understand that in August 19th 2015 the first primaries were about 6 months away and state by state polls probably hadn't started.

It does appear that Donald Trump is "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" and does "take any comfort from a national poll:"

Transcript from the Fox News 2016 hosted Republican primary debates:

TRUMP: Very nice words, but happens to be wrong. CNN just came out with a poll two days ago that...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... That national poll -- excuse me...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... The national poll -- a national poll where he's at 15, he's at 14...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)...
TRUMP: ... And, I'm at 49, so when he says 75 percent, that would mean that 80 percent of the people don't dig you, and I'm back down to 50...

oik · 25-09-2016 06:01PM

It does appear that Donald Trump is "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" and does "take any comfort from a national poll:"

Transcript from the Fox News 2016 hosted Republican primary debates:

TRUMP: Very nice words, but happens to be wrong. CNN just came out with a poll two days ago that...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... That national poll -- excuse me...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... The national poll -- a national poll where he's at 15, he's at 14... RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)...
TRUMP: ... And, I'm at 49, so when he says 75 percent, that would mean that 80 percent of the people don't dig you, and I'm back down to 50...

Take a step back and think about what you've managed to prove here. With all your effort.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments