2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-23-2016, 10:18 PM   #136
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.

But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
How about the fact that the second place candidate was way ahead of the first place candidate vs the GOP candidate in 2008 at this same point, and that those polls ended up being absolutely meaningless?

Nah? Oh alright.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:26 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:07 AM
How is Clinton faring better against McCain in polling meaningless? Are you saying those polls were wrong? You will never know that because Clinton vs. McCain never happened.

Likewise, a poll showing Romney in the lead is similar to polls currently showing Trump closing the gap. What does that even remotely have to do with Sanders and Clinton? The key point is that Sanders always outperforms Clinton in the polls against Trump, not that Trump is currently faring quite well in polls (which most are considering an outlier anyway given the polling firms involved and the current environment). You don't just invalidate one Democrat consistently outperforming the other just because polls are currently showing Trump doing better than expected against the Democrats. Apples and oranges.

It's like if I'm comparing two types of laundry detergent to remove a stain and one consistently fares better than the other. The stain suddenly being worse in another round of the experiment says nothing about the laundry detergents.

Furthermore, just because somebody wins their respective primary, it doesn't make them the best candidate in the general election. That's terrible logic, yet you've used it to cite "Sanders having no chance in Florida in the general because Clinton trumped him there" and others have made that same mistake around here. By that logic, Clinton doesn't have a prayer of winning Vermont or Washington this November. A marginal amount of voters compared to the general election whole says nothing, especially when most of those primary voters plan on voting for the Democrat regardless.

These polls aren't meaningless. They're asking thousands of people who they would vote for just like any other poll. Sure, months out it's near useless in terms of getting the correct percentages compared to what the November totals will actually be, but these people are choosing by a wide margin to vote for Sanders over Trump, but not Clinton over Trump and it's appearing consistently in poll after poll.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:32 PM   #138
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
How is Clinton faring better against McCain in polling meaningless? Are you saying those polls were wrong? You will never know that because Clinton vs. McCain never happened.

Likewise, a poll showing Romney in the lead is similar to polls currently showing Trump closing the gap. What does that even remotely have to do with Sanders and Clinton? The key point is that Sanders always outperforms Clinton in the polls against Trump, not that Trump is currently faring quite well in polls which most are considering an outlier. You don't just invalidate one Democrat consistently outperforming the other just because polls are currently showing Trump doing better than expected against the Democrats. Apples and oranges.

It's like if I'm comparing two types of laundry detergent to remove a stain and one consistently fares better than the other. The stain suddenly being worse in another round of the experiment says nothing about the laundry detergents.
You're arguing that Sanders should be the candidate because of how much better be polls vs Trump compared to Clinton...

Obama polled poorly at this point against McCain but ended winning soundly, which shows that polls this far out should be taken with a giant grain of salt...

But i suppose it should only matter when your Lord and Savior Bernie is involved.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:33 PM   #139
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.

But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
Take a look at your minimum salary theory; it got ripped to shreds within minutes. The math didn't work and the theory as to where the money came from you had to backtrack on within the first post. This is what Sanders' platform would look like on day one in the general. Back away from the polling groupthink mentality for a second, that will get you nowhere.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:35 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:07 AM
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts. You can't say something will happen that won't happen in the first place because Sanders isn't the nominee. That's the same condescending tone from Clinton supporters that has been so annoying for the past few months, making an assumption for something we can never know the outcome of...basically, your equation happens to be...

Sanders + Socialist label = Crushing defeat!!

With all of the other scientific data saying the exact opposite.




I've continually said my notion that Sanders would win and that he would perform better than Clinton is my opinion as it's not something I have any real information on, nor will I ever. You saying it's a guaranteed fact that he would lose or do worse is just you stating your opinion in a condescending tone.

So, all of the available evidence against you (the scant polling evidence that there is) and merely your opinion to rely on. It's the same logic believers use in saying there's a God as if it's a fact.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:37 PM   #141
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 07:07 AM
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:38 PM   #142
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts.
Ha!
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:40 PM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Take a look at your minimum salary theory; it got ripped to shreds within minutes. The math didn't work and the theory as to where the money came from you had to backtrack on within the first post.
I talked about minimum income and threw out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Posters were considering guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:44 PM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,011
Local Time: 10:37 PM
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:45 PM   #145
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts. You can't say something will happen that won't happen in the first place because Sanders isn't the nominee. That's the same condescending tone from Clinton supporters that has been so annoying for the past few months, making an assumption for something we can never know the outcome of...basically, your equation happens to be...

Sanders + Socialist label = Crushing defeat!!

With all of the other scientific data saying the exact opposite.
I can apply logic based on past events.



As far as your "scientific data"; I can make a poll that says American Muslims sympathize with jihad, climate change is a hoax, black people are inferior, or Sanders supporters have an IQ less than the average American. All of which have been done in recent years. It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.

Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:45 PM   #146
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 07:07 AM
I'm hardly a Hillary die hard. She wouldn't be my first choice for President. She's simply the only person I could ever vote for amongst the presented candidates.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:46 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.
Because you don't support progressive taxation and therefore aren't really a liberal and I doubt you would classify yourself as one either.

I honestly don't have much beef with people whose ideas align with Clinton's policy proposals. Fair enough.



Just wanting to elect a woman for tokenism so you can tell your kids you elected a black guy and a woman president, voting for Clinton merely because she "has a better chance of winning" despite all the evidence to the contrary and voting for her because she's "Obama's third-term" and/or due to name recognition, well, that's the sort of stuff that truly annoys me. Unfortunately, there's a hell of a lot of Clinton supporters that fall under these areas particularly the last section that I bolded.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:47 PM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I talked about minimum income and through out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Those ripping it to shreds were taken guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...with unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.


Kind of like Bernie.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:49 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.

Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.
1) Polling is a science.

2) They ask if you would rather vote for Sanders or Trump. They also ask if you would rather vote for Clinton or Trump. Sorry, but there's basically nothing about that where the outcome can change much based on how the question was worded, hence why Sanders consistently does better in every single poll that I've seen. It's like asking if you'd rather have beef or steak and then asking if you'd rather have pork or steak. Simple.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:50 PM   #150
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely.


Diehards? Please.

Everyone EVERYONE has reservations and concerns about Hillary. But simply because one looks at information and concludes that one candidate is better than the other does not a diehard make.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com