2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 11 - 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, 10:52 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Kind of like Bernie.
Except a lot of Bernie's plans aren't even new and just ripped off things that have already been implemented over in Europe and worked out just fine. It's the Clinton nuts that just say "it can't work" over and over in order to justify the fact that she never goes as far.

You can't just say universal college and health care and the like would never work when they're in existence all over the rest of the first world. It's a ludicrous way to argue. Like saying that there could never be blue fish in the ocean.


Saying his plans can't work even though they've been implemented elsewhere just fine? Check.

Saying he can't win the election because he's a Socialist despite all the evidence to the contrary? Check.

Saying that his supporters know nothing of politics and the issues despite people continually being more and more educated with each passing decade? Check.


This is the sort of condescension that Sanders supporters have been referring to for months and what's been irritating all of us. Arguing against the facts time and again simply because they don't line up nicely for Clinton. It's an endless patronizing tone without anything to back it up.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:54 PM   #152
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:19 PM
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.
But if you went any higher, the math would be even further off as to what the country could afford. It had nothing to do with the randomness of the amount.

It had nothing to do with "Clinton supporters"(which you still haven't even figured out); some of the folks that took apart your theory are some of the more left leaning individuals in this forum, they just understand economics better than you. If the left is destroying you this quickly, how do you think you'll survive the right?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:54 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Except a lot of Bernie's plans aren't even new and just ripped off things that have already been implemented over in Europe and worked out just fine. It's the Clinton nuts that just say "it can't work" over and over in order to justify the fact that she never goes as far.


Because she doesn't make promises and campaign on Denmark b-sides?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:56 PM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:19 PM
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.


Clearly you're not a true progressive.

Why don't you buy an SUV and forcibly divorce a gay couple while you're at it.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:58 PM   #155
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,462
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Clearly you're not a true progressive.

Why don't you buy an SUV and forcibly divorce a gay couple while you're at it.
My bad.

Does this mean I have to go buy a couple of guns and listen to country music?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:03 PM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 05:19 PM
It doesn't need to be an argument or a shouting match over who gets to be adorned with the label. A progressive wouldn't support Clinton's platform because it's not actually a progressive platform. There's nothing wrong with you thinking it's better for the country or what will actually work, etc.

But you can't really call yourself a liberal if you aren't for more of what Sanders is supporting as these are merely the same classic positions of the far left for decades. And I'm not trying to say it's a badge of honor that people in here can't have. I'm just saying that to call yourself a liberal or a progressive when about 45% of the people in your own party are considerably to your left doesn't really make any sense.

Clinton's own opinions on free trade, fracking and the military are considerably to the right of her own party's average congressional member and more Republicans than Democrats support a lot of those positions. That's not to mention other stances she has taken that switched sides well after the rest of the left (gay marriage) or the many stances she hasn't taken that the far left has had no problem already embracing. She is not a liberal/progressive/socialist/leftist whatever you want to call it. Not sure when anybody would ever equate those terms with someone doing half million dollar speeches for Goldman Sachs, nor did Clinton herself ever try to wrap herself up in these labels until she suddenly faced a strong primary challenger from the far left.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:05 PM   #157
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
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.
I call a handful of people on a landline(how many people under 50 do you know that still has one) and poll them about cats and dogs; do you consider that 'science'?

I hold an internet poll on Fox News website where you can vote multiple times, do you consider that 'science'?

Simple, right?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:10 PM   #158
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
My bad.

Does this mean I have to go buy a couple of guns and listen to country music?


I'm sure a 1%er like you already has lots of guns.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:13 PM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Nate Silver and the like would disagree with your assessments, especially when they argue correctly that polling has only become more and more exact over recent decades.

Meanwhile, he made the argument recently that the general election polls this far out from the election that you're declaring meaningless as being far more relevant to how the Electoral College plays out in November than individual state polls.

And the pollsters adjust for the landline issues and call people with cellphones and the like. These are mathematicians and statistics nerds running these things, even if some of them have their own house effects or problems. Otherwise, if they truly were only calling landlines, Clinton would be winning the nationwide primary about 95 to 5% at this point.

Also, variances in polling such as Rasmussen or Fox News leaning one way and some leaning the other is entirely because of having to estimate the individual turnout from each side come November. They're getting better and better at it, but it's still not the easiest thing in the world to do and polling tends to be way off whenever turnout is super low (mid-term and offseason elections, etc.)

Funny enough, I think it's actually pretty easy to predict Republican turnout in a Presidential year and it's exactly why Sanders and Clinton would both beat this guy with ease (and perhaps why they were so deadly accurate with Romney vs. Obama). The share of the white vote has dropped by the same amount (it's like 2.5% of the entire voting body) with every single recent Presidential election. The expected share for 2012 was right on the money and now it's only going to be even worse for Trump. That means an extra 2.5% of the vote total is going to be made up of the same Latinos, Blacks and Asians that he has offended.

People also tend to forget that Republicans merely vote in higher numbers. In other words, they are maxed out whereas there's tons of people who don't generally vote that need to be dragged to the polls and most of them skew liberal. A poll of likely non-voters in 2012 (that make up roughly 40% of the adult population) had Obama at 70%, Romney at 13% and the rest undecided (I remember it because it's hilarious). In other words, this country would already be significantly shifted over to the left if everybody voted. Meanwhile, those whose politics identify as "conservative" actually only make up about 1/4 of the electorate with Libertarians, Democrats and those on the far left making up the rest in 20-30% margins. But when only 60% of the country votes (and that's a high turnout year) and practically every member of that 25% Republican constituency bothers to show up, that really makes things seem a lot closer.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:13 PM   #160
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post

But you can't really call yourself a liberal if you aren't for more of what Sanders is supporting as these are merely the same classic positions of the far left for decades.
Don't be that guy who is still in high school and telling everyone they aren't goth enough, jock enough, or gay enough. Be an adult.

Maybe you should answer a scientific poll to show how progressive you are?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:15 PM   #161
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,462
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'm sure a 1%er like you already has lots of guns.
I keep them all in the back of my Rolls Royce pickup truck.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:23 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Don't be that guy who is still in high school and telling everyone they aren't goth enough, jock enough, or gay enough. Be an adult.
I already stated that wasn't my intention yet you'll find any excuse to try and tear into me.

Clinton's positions are not equivalent to the left or what has defined liberalism for decades, nor have a lot of Democrats fit that banner over the years (although it's becoming a lot more common given the party's leftward shift).
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:32 PM   #163
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Nate Silver and the like would disagree with your assessments, especially when they argue correctly that polling has only become more and more exact over recent decades.

Meanwhile, he made the argument recently that the general election polls this far out from the election that you're declaring meaningless as being far more relevant to how the Electoral College plays out in November than individual state polls.

And the pollsters adjust for the landline issues and call people with cellphones and the like. These are mathematicians and statistics nerds running these things, even if some of them have their own house effects or problems. Otherwise, if they truly were only calling landlines, Clinton would be winning the nationwide primary about 95 to 5% at this point.

Also, variances in polling such as Rasmussen or Fox News leaning one way and some leaning the other is entirely because of having to estimate the individual turnout from each side come November. They're getting better and better at it, but it's still not the easiest thing in the world to do and polling tends to be way off whenever turnout is super low (mid-term and offseason elections, etc.)

Funny enough, I think it's actually pretty easy to predict Republican turnout in a Presidential year and it's exactly why Sanders and Clinton would both beat this guy with ease (and perhaps why they were so deadly accurate with Romney vs. Obama). The share of the white vote has dropped by the same amount (it's like 2.5% of the entire voting body) with every single Presidential election. The expected share for 2012 was right on the money and now it's only going to be even worse for Trump. That means an extra 2.5% of the vote total is going to be made up of the same Latinos, Blacks and Asians that he has offended.

Nate Silver got it completely wrong with Trump. He gave him a 2% chance.

Those who opt to receive polling questions on their "cells" already have an active political leaning. The average Joe won't bother. Website polling is a fucking joke, there is no mathematical variance built-in to bias of the site or multiple voting.

The last time I was polled was 98. I have no landline and I don't bother with online polls.

But society loves it's groupthink, they need something else to reward their opinion. They need a review to tell them the music they listen to is good, they need a poll to reinforce their political view, or they need a celebrity to endorse their thought.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:38 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Nate Silver's Trump stuff was arbitrary guessing based on how Trump would fare as the cycle progressed. It had absolutely nothing to do with polling and the chances they assigned the candidates was completely subjective.

Also, you don't opt to receive polling questions. I get called from polling firms on my cellphone and I didn't opt in.

Your argument basically boils down to "polls are meaningless because Clinton surely would do better than Sanders in the general election." You would be citing those same polls as evidence of Clinton's strength were they showing a different outcome.

Why not for a second entertain the notion, that maybe, just maybe, the country prefers him to Clinton? Are the favorability ratings also nonsense in your mind too, even though the 50% cutoff tends to determine if a President is re-elected or not?


And again, he has had millions of people not affiliated with either party vote for him in open primaries or register as a Democrat for closed ones. Millions of people that have no intention, at least at this point, of voting for Clinton. Don't you think the person that can bring in a few extra million along with the guaranteed 60 million or so votes for the Democratic nominee in November would fare better than the one who can't? Clinton's supporters in the primary are virtually all lifelong Democrats that aren't going to say no to Bernie if he's the nominee (and they generally like him given his high favorables within party polling). In other words, she brings in nobody new and Sanders does, hence Sanders doing better in all of these polls. I don't know what's so hard to understand about it and it's those same non-Democrats that she is now targeting and those are the same voters that analysis sites like FiveThirtyEight are referring to as ones she'll want to pick up that aren't guaranteed to vote for her.




The simple equation for the umpteenth time:

Every registered Democrat that votes in the fall votes for Clinton (x) and she gets x amount of votes.

Every registered Democrat that votes in the fall votes for nominee Sanders (x) along with the millions of independent voters that supported him in the primaries (y). He gets x + y amount of votes.



The rest of the news media, pollsters and analysts have no problem seeing that and realizing why it explains Sanders faring better in these head-to-head polls. It's just people in this thread that can't see it.

Fair enough to make the argument that things would change if Sanders were the nominee because he could get attacked a certain way (keep in mind, an opinion rather than a fact). But as it stands right at this very moment, the above line of reasoning is pretty much on the nose. Democrats will vote for a Democrat (and Sanders even has a higher favorable rating within his own party than Clinton...) and Sanders also gets a bunch of non-democrats. Fact.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:52 PM   #165
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post

Also, you don't opt to receive polling questions. I get called from polling firms on my cellphone and I didn't opt in.

Your argument basically boils down to "polls are meaningless because Clinton surely would do better than Sanders in the general election." You would be citing those same polls as evidence of Clinton's strength were they showing a different outcome.

Why not for a second entertain the notion, that maybe, just maybe, the country prefers him to Clinton? Are the favorability ratings also nonsense in your mind too, even though the 50% cutoff tends to determine if a President is re-elected or not?

Yes, you opted in at some point, maybe you didn't read the fine print, but you opted in.

No, I've been talking about the meaninglessness of polls for a loooooong time in FYM. You'd be hard pressed to find me citing a poll in here.

Favorability is a real thing, but it only takes you so far. And it's a hard variable to determine how much it will win you over in the long run.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 05:19 PM.


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