2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Sweetemotion · 29-10-2016 10:21PM

alastair wrote: »

'Minorities' not ' a minority'.

Seriously?:rolleyes:

20Cent · 29-10-2016 10:22PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't think it's Republicans grasping at straws at all and how is appealing to a minority going to win the vote?

majority always wins, no?

The analysis after Mitt Romney's loss was that he failed to attract the female and minority vote. They then select someone who has managed to alienate and insult both groups to a remarkable degree.

Sweetemotion · 29-10-2016 10:23PM

alastair wrote: »

Explanation of the use of the English language above. It doesn't mean rigging anything.

Attacking my use of the English language again?

Is that all you have?

alastair · 29-10-2016 10:24PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Attacking my use of the English language again?

Is that all you have?

I'm sure you have very good reasons for not grasping straightforward english. None of my business.

Sweetemotion · 29-10-2016 10:26PM

20Cent wrote: »

The analysis after Mitt Romney's loss was that he failed to attract the female and minority vote. They then select someone who has managed to alienate and insult both groups to a remarkable degree.

Everyone who has won the catholic vote from the 70's I think, got elected.

Isn't Trump winning that?

Polls are just polls nobody knows.

Sweetemotion · 29-10-2016 10:27PM

alastair wrote: »

I'm sure you have very good reasons for not grasping straightforward english. None of my business.

Why attack my English and not my questions?

Does it make you feel superior than me and then for try to make me feel beneath you?

That doesn't work, quite the opposite.

PopePalpatine · 29-10-2016 10:28PM

alastair wrote: »

Except she's winning.

The latest polls available on RealClearPolitics were all started before the FBI's announcement. According to FiveThirtyEight, she dropped 2% in the national polls when Comey announced she wouldn't face any charges, and a similar drop which would see her chances of winning fall to 68%. IIRC, the last time she was doing that bad was October 3rd, before the tape of Trump's Steubenville-flavoured "locker room talk" was leaked.

alastair · 29-10-2016 10:33PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The latest polls available on RealClearPolitics were all started before the FBI's announcement. According to FiveThirtyEight, she dropped 2% in the national polls when Comey announced she wouldn't face any charges, and a similar drop which would see her chances of winning fall to 68%. IIRC, the last time she was doing that bad was October 3rd, before the tape of Trump's Steubenville-flavoured "locker room talk" was leaked.

So, still winning then.

alastair · 29-10-2016 10:35PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why attack my English and not my questions?

Does it make you feel superior than me and then for try to make me feel beneath you?

That doesn't work, quite the opposite.

I'm not 'attacking your English'. I'm pointing out your lack of comprehension of someone else's English.

Sweetemotion · 29-10-2016 10:38PM

alastair wrote: »

I'm not 'attacking your English'. I'm pointing out your lack of comprehension of someone else's English.

Your opinion of that quote and my opinion of that quote are different.

That doesn't make your opinion true nor does it make mine.

Let people decide for themselves, what they think it means.

ancapailldorcha · 29-10-2016 10:42PM

alastair wrote: »

Except she's winning.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Seriously?:rolleyes:

Less of this please.

alastair · 29-10-2016 10:43PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Your opinion of that quote and my opinion of that quote are different.

That doesn't make your opinion true nor does it make mine.

Actually it does. You didn't understand it, and I did.
It's not an issue of opinions, it's an issue of comprehension.

learn_more · 29-10-2016 10:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, they said the result of the latest email controversy could be a lower voter turn out, as people might feel they can't vote for either of the main candidates and think what is the point in voting for someone they don't like.

CNN spends hours teasing out ever single possibility with a panel of 6 or more. They do have some good experienced ex-white-house contributors but god they do like to talk and talk to the point that you'd think they are only trying to promote themselves rather than to express their opinion.

Personally I predict the turnout will be one of the highest ever. I really don't think 'protest non votes' will play any part in the result of this election.

Sweetemotion · 29-10-2016 10:49PM

alastair wrote: »

Actually it does. You didn't understand it, and I did.
It's not an issue of opinions, it's an issue of comprehension.

It is a matter of opinions how can you not see that?

ancapailldorcha, sorry for derailing the thread.

This will be my last post.

Count Dooku · 29-10-2016 11:08PM

alastair wrote: »

Except she's winning.

two weeks before elections Carter had 45% and Reagan only 39%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980
Should I remind what happened next?

alastair · 29-10-2016 11:19PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

two weeks before elections Carter had 45% and Reagan only 39%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980
Should I remind what happened next?

Should I remind you that neither Carter or Reagan are actually running in this election?

It's not actually true in any case - here's a plot graph of the various polls:

Lirange · 29-10-2016 11:25PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

majority always wins, no?

More women vote than men so

Count Dooku · 29-10-2016 11:51PM

alastair wrote: »

Should I remind you that neither Carter or Reagan are actually running in this election?

It's not actually true in any case - here's a plot graph of the various polls:

This graph have been debunked long time ago. This is why snopes says now

WHAT'S TRUE: Ronald Reagan won the 1980 general election in a landslide despite trailing as much as 8% behind Jimmy Carter in some mid-October polls.

WHAT'S FALSE: Reagan wasn't trailing Carter in all polls, and significant events in the final weeks of the 1980 campaign helped to swing public opinion in Reagan's favor.

http://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/

PopePalpatine · 29-10-2016 11:58PM

You do realise that the only debate between Reagan and Carter was held on the 28th of October, just a week before the election? That was pretty much THE significant event of the 1980 race.

alastair · 30-10-2016 12:13AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

This graph have been debunked long time ago. This is why snopes says now

http://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/

Oh please! This graph is accurate, and has not been debunked. Snopes confirms what it shows.
It shows a couple of outlier polling results that put Carter ahead of Reagan in October (as illustrated), but the overall polling results had Reagan ahead since the summer, and that remained true through October. There wasn't any massive turnaround, except for the boost to Reagans numbers when he did far better than Carter in the television debate.

From the Snopes link:

Carter didn’t lead Reagan for much of the campaign. The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carter’s poll standing throughout 1980. Indeed, Reagan didn’t need his convention bump — which he certainly got — to put him in the lead. The Democratic convention helped erode Reagan’s lead but it never closed it altogether.

At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead. His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign

So - Reagan leading the polls since the summer, and winning in the end. Clinton is on track for winning in 2016 - don't delude yourself otherwise.

Black Swan · 30-10-2016 08:24AM

RobertKK wrote: »

As for your last line. Why have you not been vocal on the Obama administration doing this with double tap drone strikes?
Obama was only two to three days into his presidency when 4 children were killed as part of a family that were targeted in a drone strike.

Is Obama running for a 3rd term in this 2016 presidential cycle? I thought there were term limits after the FDR presidency to where Obama could only run 2 terms?

Calina · 30-10-2016 08:41AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What if you invested in buying a car to get too the shops the faster?

Still doesn't change the distance.

Brian? · 30-10-2016 09:21AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Is that not still trying to rig the vote?

How is that trying to rig the vote? "Rig" implies cheating.

I've reread the quote. "Determine " doesn't mean influence the outcome, it means predict the outcome:

"I determine that Hillary will be the next president based on the current polling numbers."

oik · 30-10-2016 11:27AM

Black Swan wrote: »

Is Obama running for a 3rd term in this 2016 presidential cycle? I thought there were term limits after the FDR presidency to where Obama could only run 2 terms?

The "Bill/Obama aren't running" argument is paper thin.

Bill is not going to be a wallflower in her administration and Clinton was anything but a wallflower in Obama's administration for 4 years.

They're members of the same party/administrations.

You wouldn't rightly claim that Theresa May wasn't responsible for any of the policies of the Tory government the last few years, would you? Of course not.

oik · 30-10-2016 11:29AM

Brian? wrote: »

Your contention is that the only way to influence the outcome of an election is to cheat?

What about endorsing a chosen candidate or funding said candidate? No, because it's Hillary she mush have meant cheating. You know, because she's so evil.

I see the shoe is now on the other foot and Clinton supporters are engaging in mental gymnastics to justify their candidate's misstatements.

A Little Pony · 30-10-2016 11:30AM

Trump IS going to win!

ancapailldorcha · 30-10-2016 11:32AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Trump IS going to win!

Post more constructively than this please.

alastair · 30-10-2016 11:44AM

oik wrote: »

I see the shoe is now on the other foot and Clinton supporters are engaging in mental gymnastics to justify their candidate's misstatements.

It's neither a mis-statement, nor anything to do with rigging elections. It's a clear comment about not knowing who was likely to win the election. There in straightforward language.

alastair · 30-10-2016 11:49AM

oik wrote: »

The "Bill/Obama aren't running" argument is paper thin.

Bill is not going to be a wallflower in her administration and Clinton was anything but a wallflower in Obama's administration for 4 years.

They're members of the same party/administrations.

You wouldn't rightly claim that Theresa May wasn't responsible for any of the policies of the Tory government the last few years, would you? Of course not.

You clearly wouldn't pretend that Theresa May was responsible for all Tory policy over the last few years, would you? Were all those in her party competing with her for the Tory leadership proposing the same platform or direction? So why the difficulty in identifying that Bill, Obama, and Hillary, are different people, with different opinions on issues?

Sofa Spud · 30-10-2016 12:35PM

Nate Silver at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ still has Hillary at 81% chance of winning and 324 electoral votes. Looks like Trump could take Iowa and Ohio, but he still has no chance of Pennsylvania, and Florida will need a sizeable shift to go his way, so the road to 270 is still gonna be next to impossible for him to reach.

I guess all the new email stuff is gonna take until mid-week to be baked into the poll numbers - the possible pertinent question is how much the latest stuff will impact actual turnout? Will it have fence-sitters that had resigned themselves to holding their nose and voting for Hillary now staying at home? Will it have any impact on undecideds? Can Trump use it to build some momentum and increase his voter turnout?

I'm not sure anyone can make a call and what, if any, all the recent hullabaloo will impact the race, but the state by state facts mean that Hair Furor still has a mountain to climb to reach 270, so I'd ignore the national polls to a certain extent and instead focus on FL, OH, PA, IA, NC and watch for movement there....

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments