Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2016, 01:57:21 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 875
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico: Trump asked for sex tape made by a 17-year old girl on: Today at 05:33:58 am
Trump supporters need to ask themselves if they want Pence as president. Because Trump is likely to get impeached for something.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Mason Dixon - Florida: Clinton +4 on: September 30, 2016, 07:19:54 am
Just noticed that this is RV. Why is anyone doing RV at this stage?

...no?

"A total of 820 registered Florida voters were interviewed statewide by telephone. All indicated they were
likely to vote in the November general election."

A voter's indication that he/she is likely to vote isn't a reliable LV screen.

!
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: A Scandal A Day on: September 30, 2016, 06:46:31 am

Trump is not a "fake businessman." How do I know that? Walk by any Trump Tower in any major city. Go to any Trump golf course around the world. There are tangible, concrete manifestations of Trump's business prowess.


If he has tangible, concrete manifestations of his business prowess then his tax returns would prove this. They would prove his wealth, prove where he banks his wealth and prove he pays his fair share of tax

Quote
Trump is neither unethical nor immoral. His positions do not shift like the wind. You can pull up videos from 20 or 30 years ago and get the same position on NAFTA, for example.

He shifts his positions move often than my ass shifts on my seat.

In 1990 Donald Trump supported the legalization of drugs; 'legalize to win the war'. In 1999, he said was was 'very pro choice' and wouldn't support banning partial birth abortion. Now he's pro-life and says women should be 'punished'..maybe. Or maybe not. In 1999 he also supported a one time tax on individuals and trusts over 10 million dollars; 'By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan. The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes.'  In 2000 he was in favour of a ban on assault weapons and wanted waiting periods and background checks. In 2000 he said 'I am very liberal when it comes to health care, I believe in universal health care'.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 9/29 - Trump +5.6 on: September 30, 2016, 06:16:12 am
Why did Seriously? come back this year? Wasn't he embarrassed enough in 2012?
Obnoxious much? What are you doing here after 2014?

People are permitted to interpret data differently. I am growing tired of how a bunch of obnoxious brownshirts you red avatars are because I don't agree with you and your crooked candidate and your narratives, which are not based in reality.

70% of you red hacks had Hillary up 10 and the election over in August. And who was the one saying it would be close? Yes. This "embarrassed" blue avatar. Who was right?

I rest my case.

Then stop pretending you objectively understand polling.

Obama's internal polling data never had him behind on the national vote throughout the whole campaign. Neither did the Pollster polling average for that matter (in part because of how it vetted the polls going into the model) At this stage in 2012, Obama had a 2.8 lead. This was at the time of the first debate poll dive and his lead fell. Pollster also didn't show an Obama recovery after the debates; more of a flatline and then a recovery in the final few days. Obama's internal polling found the same thing, but at a higher baseline; dipping to 52% after the first debate and not really moving.

So far Clinton has also always been ahead with Pollster and currently has a 4.5 lead. It's a 3.3 lead on the multiple candidates tracker too. She is doing better than Obama in terms of her national lead at this stage of the campaign

It may well be close, if the end result is close. But 2012 was considered a close race until after the election it was accepted it was never a close race at all.



5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 9/29 - Trump +5.6 on: September 30, 2016, 04:21:34 am
Apparently Trump's widest margin amongst age groups is now the under 34's.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Newsweek (via Maddow) Trump co. did business in Cuba illegally during embargo on: September 29, 2016, 01:36:49 pm
Why do Republicans Hate America?
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP National: Clinton +4 on: September 29, 2016, 12:25:37 pm
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_92916.pdf

One thing is for sure, PPP thinks this election is going to be 53% female and 47% male. All 6 polls adjusted to that. D+7, not D+6 as I thought.

The electorate was 53% female in 2012 and 2008. 54% female in 2004, 52% female in 2000, 53% in 1996, 54% in 1992, 52% in 1988....

I think it's pretty safe to say it's going to be between 52-54% this year. It's the only demographic you can actually safely model way in advance.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP National: Clinton +4 on: September 29, 2016, 05:59:35 am
Seriously... how is this election even close with numbers like that:

African Americans:

Clinton 81
Johnson 7
McMullin 3
Stein 2
Trump 2

Hispanics:

Clinton 62
Johnson 17
Trump 16

That's an EXTREMELY good question
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: SC-Winthrop University (pre-debate): Trump +4 on: September 29, 2016, 05:56:45 am
In before #BattlegroundSouthCarolina

I believe the final Atlas polling map in 2012 had South Carolina as a toss-up...

Only because the last entered poll was from January 2012.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP National: Clinton +4 on: September 29, 2016, 04:07:28 am
Reversion to the mean. Though the debate probably stopped Obama winning a little bigger than he ended up.
11  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you afraid of death? on: September 28, 2016, 04:04:37 pm
afleitch, do you have any sympathy for Moore's ethics? I ask because you're (reasonably) preoccupied with the subjectivity involved in any divine Person defining morals, yet I don't think the steps towards an articulation of a sort of hedonism (in the technical sense of that word) that you've taken in the past (unless I'm confusing you with another poster, or simply misremembering your views? Sorry if I am) really solves this problem.

I believe in the Republic of Heaven.

I do sympathise with G.E Moore, I came across him a little later,which has allowed me to articulate my thoughts with a little less meandering. I think that theistic morality is subjectivist in the sense that I can consider all forms of morality to be subjectivist as the only entities doing the moralising are us, and anything we perceive external to that always comes across as a facsimile of what we would expect an arbiter with human concerns and indulgences to be concerned with (rather than say the 'morality' of a spider that devours it's mate)

And that is fine. Because ultimately the 'problem' with ethics being subjectivist exists only in the minds of those who consider it problematic in the first instance. Likewise, I have similar issues with the idea that ontology must be structured around the dichotomy of 'god v no god' and all concepts in the West (philosophy, the self, justice) subconsciously flow from this dichotomy, despite some eastern cultures developing a functioning ontology devoid of that prerequisite.

I don't consider myself hedonistic, and a quick on search hasn't brought that up, though I think a few other posters have expressed support for classicist hedonism. I have mentioned before I think, that if anything I think that pain is the marker by which we measure pleasure, and sadness how we measure joy and vice versa. Seeking perpetual 'joy', or 'peace' or 'meaning' (never 'find yourself', because you've basically given up on looking) even the spiritual promise of this is both hedonistic in intent and a false promise (because joy will cease being joyful with the removal of fear and pain). But I'm getting all 'buy my book' here so I'll stop.

12  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you afraid of death? on: September 28, 2016, 02:55:04 pm
The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

No. It would be more appropriate to say that saying 'god is good' or 'good flows from god' actually says nothing about the nature of god (or good)

Digging this out from before (because every day is a learning day)

Theistic morality is subjectivist. If things are ‘good’ because god says that they are good then morals are arbitrary. Indeed, they are more arbitrary from a subjectivist perspective than our definition of morality because god (if it is in any way god like) is entirely unbounded by anything that would otherwise constrain us, or alter our path when making decisions.

So it robs ‘good’ from any definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying ‘god is god’. It says nothing meaningful about its actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what it does. So that definition robs not only ‘good of its goodness’, but ‘god of its glory’. Why should there be praise for god if it would be equally praised even if it did the complete opposite? If what is arbitrary replaces what is just or reasonable, then all justice is, if anything, is what is pleasing to god.

So if things have to be ‘good’, then they must be good for another reason, if goodness needs to have value, then it can no more come from god that it can from us.

Saying that morality is actually grounded in god’s nature and expressed in its commands doesn’t avoid this problem. Whatever it was god’s nature to prefer would still be right by definition and still diminish the significance of moral terms. So saying god is good would just be saying that god also accords to its own nature which isn’t really an accomplishment. If it’s nature were different it would still be good. The wider issue is that theistic ethics are essentially ethically subjective; moral statements being made true by the attitude of certain people.

Which I think is what you might have wanted to say.


13  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of Julius Evola on: September 28, 2016, 02:48:34 pm
Ugh. It's like a character out of tween-lit, or a terrible 80's pulp fantasy. Looking at him, Adam Driver could play him, but then again I cast my crushes in everything Cheesy
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Politico/Morning Cons. Poll Clinton +3 (4 way) from Trump +1 before debates on: September 28, 2016, 12:04:12 pm
Again there are three sets of polls over the past few weeks

Those who put Trump ahead and have generally consistently done so (some of the tracker polls) and those that occassionaly spit out a Trump lead drifting towards a tie or a Clinton +1

Companies who have Clinton usually up around 2, sometimes less, sometimes more

Those who tend to think Clinton is probably up more than 3 or 4 points.

These polls really should start to converge, or conversely (and controversially) 'herd' towards a result.
15  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Favorite poster who joined in 2003 (Runoff) on: September 28, 2016, 10:50:31 am
I'm touched in a completely non sexual Atlas prudish way (is there any other) that I came in third Smiley
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's all laugh at r/the_donald megathread on: September 28, 2016, 06:35:07 am
You really need a safe space kiddo. Can't handle the criticism and want to have your own echo chamber where everyone believes you mean you want a safe space.

Tbh, you're kind of proving his point about "faux blue avatars".

I've known MasterJedi on this forum for years. He's an actual conservative. Actual conservatives are weather cocks not weather vanes and understand that Trumpism is a political abomination.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's all laugh at r/the_donald megathread on: September 28, 2016, 06:27:13 am
Seriously? was here in 2012 and left for four years. I like those odds
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: What is your ideal demographic coalition? on: September 28, 2016, 03:17:12 am
The No Religion/Unaffiliated/Don't give a shinks liberal white, Hispanic,  black, asian, Muslim, LGBT, communities with a splash of 'liberal redneck'. So basically the current Democratic coalition.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: When Donald Trump discriminated against African American tenants in 1973... on: September 28, 2016, 12:53:23 am
Donald is a proud member of the 47%! And he would never discriminate against anyone. Not the Donald I know.

This shtick is getting tired. 'Ironic Trumpism' pretty much ended in March. You still on doge too?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Google Consumer Surveys: Hillary wins debate by 4, Trump leads race by 2 on: September 27, 2016, 03:36:12 pm
Again. It's a survey of people who watched the debate. That's almost okay for trying to workout who won the debate, but you can't have a national voting intention based entirely on people who watched the debate and not sampling voters who didn't.

No cable households are obviously young/poor. We will see.

It's not a 'we will see'; it's not a valid poll of public opinion because it only asked the voting intention of people who watched the debate.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Google Consumer Surveys: Hillary wins debate by 4, Trump leads race by 2 on: September 27, 2016, 03:25:02 pm
Again. It's a survey of people who watched the debate. That's almost okay for trying to workout who won the debate, but you can't have a national voting intention based entirely on people who watched the debate and not sampling voters who didn't.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: National: Gravis/Breitbart - Trump +5 (2-way); Changed Undecideds go Trump 52-29 on: September 27, 2016, 12:39:15 pm
I dont think this poll is meant to be used as a national poll.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will the debate affect the polls? on: September 27, 2016, 10:39:57 am
It depends on which polls. For those putting Clinton up by 3-4 point plus, which already have screened higher Democratic enthusiasm, you might not see any movement. The ones with the enthusiasm gap that have her lower or tied might drift a point or two to Hillary. The trackers that have Trump ahead will probably do what the f they want to.

Question is, will they converge over the next month? Or will you end up with polls grouping as Trump ahead/tie, Clinton ahead/tie, Clinton ahead by a bit and so on.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Post-Debate Media Spin/Focus Group/Poll Megathread on: September 27, 2016, 10:36:23 am
Breitbart/Gravis Post-Debate Flash Poll shows Clinton winning the debate 48/43

Quote
Pat Caddell, the Democratic pollster and Fox News Insider, told Breitbart News that poll respondents said Clinton performed better at the debate; 48 percent said Clinton did a better job, compared to 43 percent, who said Trump did the better job.

“However, 95 percent of the people we contacted told us they were not going to change their vote based on the debate,” Caddell said.

Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump.

“Trump won on the most critical factor, on whether Clinton or Trump was more ‘plausible’ as president, 46 percent to her 42 percent,” he said.

It is Breitbart so all that is good news for Hillary.

Of the 95% of those 'Who did not change your mind who are you still for?' the answer was Trump 48%, Clinton 43%. So the sample was +5 for Trump before any other questions were asked.
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is the preceding poster a poltroon or not? on: September 27, 2016, 06:52:38 am
Yes. And by gum a fustilugs to boot.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 875


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines