You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:misterID wrote:Yes, so....mature. It was more of a talking point parrot. And my family has run multi million dollar businessesfor decades, I know what it's like to pay those taxes and payroll, not just read about it, so please get off your pedestal that your experience trumps everyone else's. I just didn't need to interject any of that into any of these conversations until you decided to brag about yourself...carry on.
Maybe you should look into the fortune 500 and how much those companies are worth. You are clueless when it comes to the job market. Completely clueless. So you spewing ignorance as fact pissed me off.
And considering you claim I am just making things up, how can you turn around and claim I am parroting talking points? That's shit people say when they know they are beaten. Ridiculous. Just man up for once and admit you're wrong. I know it. Anyone that knows anything about the job market knows it. You're just embarrassing yourself now. I've hired everything from sales to engineers to IT to finance and accounting. I act like I know it all because I do. That's how I know what it's really like out there and no gov't fabricated numbers are going to change that.
See, I didn't use any government fabricated numbers. You're lying there. An outright, bold face lie. You're making things up off your own opinion and demanding everyone accept it as truth. Not gonna happen.
You're quoting unemployment, otherwise known as gov't fabricated numbers changed by the Obama administration to make them look better than they really are. That is an absolute proven fact. Sorry chump.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Gary Johnson hits 11 percent in latest NBC News poll (he needs 15% average to make debates).
Hillary Clinton breaks 50% in head-to-head matchup, which of course won't happen. Her 6-point lead in the 4-way race is unchanged from one week ago.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Gary Johnson hits 11 percent in latest NBC News poll (he needs 15% average to make debates).
http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2 … 00-480.png
Hillary Clinton breaks 50% in head-to-head matchup, which of course won't happen. Her 6-point lead in the 4-way race is unchanged from one week ago.
We need a 3rd party on that debate stage. Sadly Johnson is a weird little fucker. Why can't the 3rd party guy ever be a badass. I like Johnson, but he says dumb shit too sometimes.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
We need a 3rd party on that debate stage. Sadly Johnson is a weird little fucker. Why can't the 3rd party guy ever be a badass. I like Johnson, but he says dumb shit too sometimes.
You already have a bad ass in this election! You know what to do. 
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
A race closer than it looks
Despite Donald Trump’s disastrous post-convention performance, the presidential race is closer than it appears. While polls show he has decidedly and deservedly lost ground to Hillary Clinton, they tell only half the story. The other half is turnout. Looking at both, it becomes clear why Mrs. Clinton wants this race over before Nov. 8.
National polling following the conventions showed Hillary moving ahead. Rasmussen’s recent survey of 1,000 likely voters found Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, up from her previous week’s 43-42 percent advantage.
Mr. Trump’s drop is seemingly even larger considering the large turnout discrepancy in the party primaries earlier this year. As Mr. Trump noted in his nomination acceptance speech, Republican primary turnout was way up, while Democratic turnout was way down.
Simplistically, we could take the approach of “that was then, this is now” and dismiss the earlier turnout data and focus only on current polling. However, that would be a mistake.
Both methods of voter measurement have their strengths and weaknesses.
Primary voting is a proactive response — gauging the preferences of individuals motivated enough to act and likely do so again — in a wide number of states. However, those results are now months old. Opinion polls are more timely, but provide reactive responses — individuals may switch or never actually show up to vote — and usually only on a national basis (a drawback in an election determined state-by-state).
However, applying today’s polling averages to this year’s primary election figures gives an illustration of where this year’s presidential election could go. This view is far less rosy for Mrs. Clinton.
In 2016, both parties held presidential primaries in 35 states. In 12 of those, Mr. Trump outpolled Mrs. Clinton. In 20 states, Republicans outpolled Democrats.
In the Rasmussen poll, 72 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Democrats supported Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton had 82 percent of Democrats’ support and 14 percent of Republicans’. By adjusting the primary voting results in the 35 states by these percentages, we see Mrs. Clinton’s state-by-state danger, which is hidden in conventional national polling.
Multiplying 2016 primary voting results by the Rasmussen polling of Democratic and Republican voter preferences shows Mr. Trump winning 16 of the 35 primary states. Among those 16 are three crucial battleground states — Florida, Ohio and Virginia — comprising 60 electoral votes. President Obama won all three in 2012.
While the popular vote difference between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney — 3.8 percent — was far closer than most recall, the electoral vote margin was a lopsided 332 to 206. In our presidential election zero-sum contests, those three states shown potentially flipping to Mr. Trump would dramatically change those totals: Mrs. Clinton would have 272 and Mr. Trump 266.
Such a change in 2012 would made the election a tossup, because the magic electoral vote number is 270.
Mr. Obama’s average popular vote margin of victory in those three battleground states was just 2.8 percent — a full percentage point below his 2012 national popular vote margin of victory.
The possibility that Mr. Trump will poll ahead of Mr. Romney, and the virtual certainty that Mrs. Clinton will poll behind Mr. Obama, reveals this scenario’s plausibility.
But what about those voters missed by this analysis — Independents, who may not have participated in either party’s primary and may only vote in November? According to the Rasmussen polling, Mr. Trump held a 41 percent to 29 percent lead.
There are other factors to consider, too.
First, Mrs. Clinton has found it difficult to draw Democrats to her. It happened when she failed to win the 2008 Democratic nomination and reoccurred this year when Bernie Sanders took her the distance, continuing to hold 40 percent of the vote throughout the primaries. It is hardly unthinkable that she could lose significant Democrats to Mr. Trump.
And Mr. Trump doesn’t need that many Democrats. He would gain by trading equal percentages of Republicans for Democrats with Mrs. Clinton. The reason is simple: There are more Democrats. Exiting polling in 2012 showed Democrats made up 38 percent of voters to Republicans’ 32 percent.
Mr. Trump can also win through a decline in Democrats’ turnout. Again, the primaries showed this happening — despite the increased energy coming from Mr. Sanders’ insurgency.
Second, Mrs. Clinton remains in a close race despite massively outspending Mr. Trump and benefiting from almost universally negative coverage of the Republican by the mainstream media. What happens if these advantages dissipate? Money will equalize as November approaches. Media coverage will be less filtered in venues such as the debates — the forum where Mr. Trump dispatched 17 Republican rivals.
The question is not whether Mr. Trump can win in November. Below the media radar, he already had been doing quite well. The questions are whether he can keep doing what he has done, and whether Mrs. Clinton can reverse what she has been failing to do. So far the answers appear to be “no” and “yes” — hence Mrs. Clinton’s recent bump in the polls.
However, polls are ephemeral and they are only half of the story. There is still a lot of campaign left — particularly if Mr. Trump ends the distractions. This is why Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is so anxious for the story to end quickly. The race remains closer than it appears.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Just an FYI on that story, it's entirely based on Rasmussen polling, which is one of the most right-leaning pollsters out there. It only gets a C+ on Nate Silver's ranking of pollsters.
And I keep reading "the race is close."
Where is it close?
Will someone answer that? I'm begging you.
The battleground states aren't even battlegrounds at this point. Washington Post poll just released has Hillary up by 7, 8, 9 or more points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/201 … DPpMbWibQ#
The great thing about the poll above is you can change it based on different responses, likely voters, registered voters, democrats, etc. Take a look. She gets 88% of Dems to vote for her; he gets 77% of GOP. She gets 39% of Ind.
Alarmingly, she gets 87% of the black vote and 69% of the non-white vote.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Just an FYI on that story, it's entirely based on Rasmussen polling, which is one of the most right-leaning pollsters out there. It only gets a C+ on Nate Silver's ranking of pollsters.
And I keep reading "the race is close."
Where is it close?
Will someone answer that? I'm begging you.
The battleground states aren't even battlegrounds at this point. Washington Post poll just released has Hillary up by 7, 8, 9 or more points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/201 … DPpMbWibQ#
The great thing about the poll above is you can change it based on different responses, likely voters, registered voters, democrats, etc. Take a look. She gets 88% of Dems to vote for her; he gets 77% of GOP. She gets 39% of Ind.
Alarmingly, she gets 87% of the black vote and 69% of the non-white vote.
I'm not saying Trump will win, but you can't bash Rasmussen as a right wing puppet and then precede to quote the Washington Post.
