You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Which article?
There have been several articles written about it actually. But here is a good one, Poll Averages Have No History of Consistent Partisan Bias
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pol … isan-bias/
Notice Breitbart saying the same thing about oversampling in 2012, which was wrong on election night.
Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Today's polls
NBC, general election, Clinton +5, poll bias: .5 to Dems. Negligible. Gary Johnson got 11%. Needs 15% for debates. He's rising.
Roanoke, Virginia, Clinton +16, poll bias: .3 to Dems. Negligible.
Also, Trump cancels public rallies in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, which were supposed to be part of his "immigration week" events. Looks like the white flag there. He's delaying the unveiling of his immigration plan until, who knows. It's almost September. Delaying things at this point seems counterproductive when you are trailing.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:What have I focused on? Finck butchers the classic GnR songs (truth) and the job market. Why the job market? Because I know it better than all of you combined, that's why. So while in your imagination I chime in on everything, the facts beg to differ. This misdirection is what losers do when they know they are beaten. I am an expert, I am paid like an expert, and I am respected in the industry as an expert. My peers respect me as an expert. The fact that two assclowns online disagree with my assessment so they feel I can't be an expert changes nothing. You guys don't matter, my paycheck comes in every 2 weeks and I'd have companies begging to hire me if I had to find a new job tomorrow.
Suck on that for a little bit.
You're such a bore...truly. Just indignant, arrogant and banal. Your diatribes aren't even your own, they're just rehashed blog noise that I can just as easily find in the youtube comment section.
So again, your "Proof" is that you're a self proclaimed expert? As I said...
The reality is that there was only one basic metric in regards to how we arrived at UE numbers...until Obama became president. Once that happened, the GOP redefined how we would calculate that number and proceeded to trot out the "true" numbers. You clowns do the same thing, in different ways, with polling data and anything else that upsets you. Everything is "skewed" everything has a "liberal bias" etc etc. Math, science, economics...it's all a conspiracy because it doesn't say what you'd like it to say.
No need to answer (although I bet your enormous ego is incapable of silence) I'll just go look for a similar response over at Breitbart...will be the same thing anyway.
So now instead of making things up as was accused before I am quoting some site I've never heard of? Good to know. Carry on with your character assassination. You guys should at least try to get your stories straight.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Buzz, do you have any leads on an IT professional with years of operational experience in the Pittsburgh area. I'm happy at my current Fortune 100, but am always looking. Low 6 figure salary as a starting point.
The company I work for only has a call center in Pittsburgh. If you were interested in other locations in the northeast I might be able to hook you up with an opportunity to interview, but the rest is up to you. Depending on the role, that salary wouldn't be an issue.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzz , what is your analysis of the job market (one paragraph) and what is your opinion of the election as it pertains to your expertise on the job market (another paragraph)?
It's all here. I'm on my phone...Zero chance I'm typing a long response. 99% of my responses are on my phone...except when I post links.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
New poll.
Trump leads by 1 in Missouri, per Monmouth poll. Bias .6 to Dems; but Monmouth gets an A+ from Nate Silver. Missouri should not be close. It hasn't gone to a Dem since Bill Clinton in 1996.
Gary Johnson gets 8%.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Yes, Monmouth: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … -about-it/
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Yes, Monmouth: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … -about-it/
I trust Nate Silver. I can't analyze poll data. It's not my job. He trusts them.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:Yes, Monmouth: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … -about-it/
I trust Nate Silver. I can't analyze poll data. It's not my job. He trusts them.
You can do a basic calculation and find that the only two things that were weighted in that poll was party affiliation and age. Both groups where Trump does well coincidentally.
Now Nate & Co will claim that's just how they do things, but how about they told us exactly why that's the way to do things, because from where I'm looking there's every reason to expect Republicans to deliver a strong turnout this time around.
Since this kind of weighting can change the poll from "solid Trump" to "Hillary within margins" I think it matters.
Also, they are using the same model as 2012. About as normal an election as you'll get. I see no reason to expect this election will be anything close to normal. So far it has been historical. So I'd like to know why these guys think the Obama numbers will remain, or whatever reason they think Democrats and young voters will swamp the GOP old folks with these candidates.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Yes, Monmouth: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … -about-it/
I only took 2 stats classes in college, so I'm not qualified to say if this is right or wrong. Is there a valid reason to change the weights? Do you know of a reason not to? Even if this one is invalid for the specified reasons, other recent polls show a similar margin of Clinton support. Are they all wrong too?
I do think it's fair to poll likely voters over registered or public, because only those who actually vote matter. And I know first hand that Trump rallies garner more supporters than Clinton ones. But how many people are content to watch the nightly news, listen to the media distort and twist what Trump has said (Coulter's latest article opened my eyes to the whole bleeding Megyn Kelly incident and how Trump really didn't mean her period, but how many people watched the actual video in context and not just that one sound bite) and a lot of the stupid shit he has said, and stopped listening.
You can't objectively bash Trump and then argue Clinton is any better. I know a lot of people struggle with that, but you can't yell about trump University and Casinos and remain mum when 50% of Clinton's visitors while she was in State ended up donating to the Clinton Foundation. She's been paid millions for speeches by Wall street, and her supporters still think she's the champion of the working class. Some people are so blinded by their bias, they refuse to objectively look at the other side.
So you can't continue to say Trump is in this great position when virtually every poll shows that Clinton is headed towards a major electoral landslide. If you can find polls that are only looking at probable voters that show differently, I'll be glad to listen. But if you're the only one in the room who says the lights are off and everyone else says they're on, at some point you have to consider maybe you have it wrong.
