Donald Trump

Billy86

Butters1979 wrote: »

I dont think it is a lie. From what I remember most of the polls were predicting and in result. So much so that people were studying why they got it wrong. I don't have specific details on the polls at hand but here is an example of the surprise it caused.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/04/why-the-majority-of-brexit-polls-were-wrong.html

If out have other data feel free to share.

Polls showed remain winning comfortably up until a few months before, then it shifted to leave by a bit, and back to remain in the few days after the terrorist attack that left Jo Cox dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Christy42

The_Captain wrote: »

No one is actually challenging Trumps views or making a reasonable counterargument to them, they're too busy falling over each other to call him a bigot, which won't change his supporters minds.

Making reasonable counterarguments does not change his supporters mind's either. They want to support him.

It has been repeatedly pointed out why a concrete wall is a terrible idea, why leaving the Baltic states for Russia is a bad idea, that his ideas will put the US into much much worse debt and why his cutting the death tax is purely a move to cut taxes for the rich and not the middle class. It gets argued for a bit and then entirely forgotten and this old thing of his policies haven't been attacked gets trotted out 5 pages later.

What do you think people are sick of experts means? It means they are sick of facts and figures and policies. They want to hear that their gut choice is correct and go vote at that. They get annoyed no matter how you challenge their position.

Grayson

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
FT's poll of polls had it as a two point swing. Is that not neck and neck?
BTW I don't know much about polling and stats, that was literally the first google result for "Brexit Polls". That page also lists the individual polls it's made up of and you can see the large swing towards leave in the weeks running up to the referendum. It was big news at the time, I'm surprised so many people have forgotten about it. Or else they would just like to pretend that it was an uprising of the silent majority (who had for weeks previous been the vocal majority in the polls).

There's a few issues with modern polling. The first is that most still rely on cold calling people on a landline. The sample is a bit skewed if you are only talking to people with a landline. Also most of these polls have an error factor of about 2 percent. So if you see a poll of 60/40 then you can be sure the 60% definitely has the lead. However a poll that shows a lead of two percent could be wrong. 48-52 could be 46-54 or 50-50.

pumpkin4life

Grayson wrote: »

There's a few issues with modern polling. The first is that most still rely on cold calling people on a landline. The sample is a bit skewed if you are only talking to people with a landline. Also most of these polls have an error factor of about 2 percent. So if you see a poll of 60/40 then you can be sure the 60% definitely has the lead. However a poll that shows a lead of two percent could be wrong. 48-52 could be 46-54 or 50-50.

There's also the fact that people don't like talking about controversial material on the phone. If I'm a Donald Trump supporter or anti gay marriage (polls had it at 70-30 and it ended 60-40) or even pro Fianna Fail, I could get in trouble at work if people know my real opinion. Hence I lie on the phone.

This is why Donald Trump is doing better with Americans than the polls suggest and why Trump has consistently outperformed polls during the Republician primaries. I'd say the effect is even stronger here with Hillary in mind.

Trent Houseboat

I thought he performed in line with polling in the primaries regularly winning 35-45% of the vote.

conorhal

Christy42 wrote: »

Making reasonable counterarguments does not change his supporters mind's either. They want to support him.

It has been repeatedly pointed out why a concrete wall is a terrible idea, why leaving the Baltic states for Russia is a bad idea, that his ideas will put the US into much much worse debt and why his cutting the death tax is purely a move to cut taxes for the rich and not the middle class. It gets argued for a bit and then entirely forgotten and this old thing of his policies haven't been attacked gets trotted out 5 pages later.

What do you think people are sick of experts means? It means they are sick of facts and figures and policies. They want to hear that their gut choice is correct and go vote at that. They get annoyed no matter how you challenge their position.

Those aren't the minds that need changing, it's the pissed off people likely to vote for him, not because he's apealing to them, but as a FU to a detached political establishment. Those voters know a a concrete wall is a terrible idea, but that doesn't mean they don't want sombody to actually address unchecked mass immigration. There is a lot of stuff that people want at least acknowledged, let alone addressed. Many on the left have harped about how the 'death tax cut' is designed to help only the rich, but just like here, it's the middle classes that have been priced out of home ownership that are listening and thinking, so what it a few millionares dodge the tax when hundreds of thousands of us stand a chance of inheriting a home without instantly having to sell it.

B0jangles

conorhal wrote: »

Those aren't the minds that need changing, it's the pissed off people likely to vote for him, not because he's apealing to them, but as a FU to a detached political establishment. Those voters know a a concrete wall is a terrible idea, but that doesn't mean they don't want sombody to actually address unchecked mass immigration. There is a lot of stuff that people want at least acknowledged, let alone addressed. Many on the left have harped about how the 'death tax cut' is designed to help only the rich, but just like here, it's the middle classes that have been priced out of home ownership that are listening and thinking, so what it a few millionares dodge the tax when hundreds of thousands of us stand a chance of inheriting a home without instantly having to sell it.

Inheritance tax in the US starts at $5.45million for a single person and $10.90 million per married couple. It genuinely, absolutely does not affect middle class americans.

Pro Hoc Vice

B0jangles wrote: »

Inheritance tax in the US starts at $5.45million for a single person and $10.90 million per married couple. It genuinely, absolutely does not affect middle class americans.

A, stop with your facts that will just force the undecided to vote for Trump.

Christy42

pumpkin4life wrote: »

There's also the fact that people don't like talking about controversial material on the phone. If I'm a Donald Trump supporter or anti gay marriage (polls had it at 70-30 and it ended 60-40) or even pro Fianna Fail, I could get in trouble at work if people know my real opinion. Hence I lie on the phone.

This is why Donald Trump is doing better with Americans than the polls suggest and why Trump has consistently outperformed polls during the Republician primaries. I'd say the effect is even stronger here with Hillary in mind.

I would have expected to have seen this crop up in the primaries if it was true. It didn't happen until his opponents started dropping out of the race at the end and that was just because the situation was moving too quickly for the polls to capture

I am glad the issue about the death tax was responded to by others. I am sure both of these points will be ignored by Trump supporters for a few pages before being brought up again. I do admit that calling people racist is a bad campaign move but hey when Trump insults people it is calling it like it is and those dang lefties should grow a spine. Suddenly when the Trump supporters are insulted they are running for their safe spaces with Trump whinging about people being mean to him.

Billy86

conorhal wrote: »

Those aren't the minds that need changing, it's the pissed off people likely to vote for him, not because he's apealing to them, but as a FU to a detached political establishment. Those voters know a a concrete wall is a terrible idea, but that doesn't mean they don't want sombody to actually address unchecked mass immigration. There is a lot of stuff that people want at least acknowledged, let alone addressed. Many on the left have harped about how the 'death tax cut' is designed to help only the rich, but just like here, it's the middle classes that have been priced out of home ownership that are listening and thinking, so what it a few millionares dodge the tax when hundreds of thousands of us stand a chance of inheriting a home without instantly having to sell it.

You are right in regards to disillusionment, however misinformation and lack of education also plays a large role as illegal immigration has been falling quite rapidly from Mexico over the last 10 odd years. If I recall (though I am jet-lagged and going on memory), more have actually been leaving than coming in for a while now.

The death tax has of course already been covered.

Ilovemybricks

Politifact giving Trump a rating of "Mostly False" for claiming black youth unemployment is 59% (claims it's 18.7) and giving Bernie a "Mostly True" for saying it's 51% (claims it may be even higher).

https://i.sli.mg/7rUCyY.jpg

They're going to cite these obviously biased folks during the debates too.

Christy42

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

Politifact giving Trump a rating of "Mostly False" for claiming black youth unemployment is 59% (claims it's 18.7) and giving Bernie a "Mostly True" for saying it's 51% (claims it may be even higher).

https://i.sli.mg/7rUCyY.jpg

They're going to cite these obviously biased folks during the debates too.

The Sanders' campaign pointed out where his stats came from and apologised for being unclear. Trump's campaign didn't back up their claim in the slightest.

Ilovemybricks

Christy42 wrote: »

The Sanders' campaign pointed out where his stats came from and apologised for being unclear. Trump's campaign didn't back up their claim in the slightest.

No they didn't. Note the use of "probably" and "It's reasonable to presume" when fact checking Sanders' claims. Then compare and contrast the "fact checking" between the two claims.

Billy86

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

Politifact giving Trump a rating of "Mostly False" for claiming black youth unemployment is 59% (claims it's 18.7) and giving Bernie a "Mostly True" for saying it's 51% (claims it may be even higher).

https://i.sli.mg/7rUCyY.jpg

They're going to cite these obviously biased folks during the debates too.

I wouldn't go crying about debate bias after the Matt Lauer incident a few weeks back.

Links to the two full Politico articles:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

take everything

First debate on Monday.
Can't wait to hear what the Donald comes up with.

Christy42

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

No they didn't. Note the use of "probably" and "It's reasonable to presume" when fact checking Sanders' claims. Then compare and contrast the "fact checking" between the two claims.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

"Sander's camp claims"

jackofalltrades

Grayson wrote: »

There's a few issues with modern polling. The first is that most still rely on cold calling people on a landline. The sample is a bit skewed if you are only talking to people with a landline. Also most of these polls have an error factor of about 2 percent. So if you see a poll of 60/40 then you can be sure the 60% definitely has the lead. However a poll that shows a lead of two percent could be wrong. 48-52 could be 46-54 or 50-50.

Also they can be rather meaningless if no effort is made to adjust the poll based on the likelihood that the person will actually vote.

Pro Hoc Vice

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Also they can be rather meaningless if no effort is made to adjust the poll based on the likelihood that the person will actually vote.

Most polls usually only count likely voters. It's funny how either side only seem to question polls if they not doing as well as expected. In reality on average both trump and Clinton are with in the margin.

p.b1

Some distance relation of Hillary's will no doubt die this weekend and Hillary will be obliged to attend the funeral and miss the debate.

Academic

The New York Times, in an extended editorial, has endorsed Clinton. It will appear in tomorrow's print edition but is available today on the net:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Well worth reading.

jackofalltrades

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Most polls usually only count likely voters. It's funny how either side only seem to question polls if they not doing as well as expected. In reality on average both trump and Clinton are with in the margin.

Based on asking if they are going to vote or not?
I'm talking about finding out a bit about the person being polled and then weighing that against the statistical likelihood that they will vote.

Academic wrote: »

The New York Times, in an extended editorial, has endorsed Clinton. It will appear in tomorrow's print edition but is available today on the net:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Well worth reading.

Newspapers that endorse candidates lose a lot of credibility IMHO.
They're going beyond they're remit and have forgotten the basics of being impartial reporting.

Academic

jackofalltrades wrote: »

[...]
Newspapers that endorse candidates lose a lot of credibility IMHO.
They're going beyond they're remit and have forgotten the basics of being impartial reporting.

The Times’ editorial endorsement has no effect on the reporting; there’s essentially a firewall between the Editorial Board and the reporters.


Historically it would be very strange for the NYT not to endorse a presidential candidate. They’ve done so at least since they first endorsed Abraham Lincoln:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html

Butters1979

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
FT's poll of polls had it as a two point swing. Is that not neck and neck?
BTW I don't know much about polling and stats, that was literally the first google result for "Brexit Polls". That page also lists the individual polls it's made up of and you can see the large swing towards leave in the weeks running up to the referendum. It was big news at the time, I'm surprised so many people have forgotten about it. Or else they would just like to pretend that it was an uprising of the silent majority (who had for weeks previous been the vocal majority in the polls).

Yeteveryone looked very ****ing surprised when Brexit won. Including the Brexit camp. But of course 'we knew we were gonna lose but didn't care' stuff comes out rom the remain camp and anyone who were anti Brexit. Strange that.

Ilovemybricks

Butters1979 wrote: »

Yeteveryone looked very ****ing surprised when Brexit won. Including the Brexit camp. But of course 'we knew we were gonna lose but didn't care' stuff comes out rom the remain camp and anyone who were anti Brexit. Strange that.

Even Farage looked shocked when it became apparent that Brexit was going to win.

Ilovemybricks

Looks like the Washington mall shooter was a Hillary supporter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ArcanCetin/status/556955812896444416

It will probably be ignored. Imagine if he was a Trump supporter. The media would be all over it!

Capt'n Midnight

take everything wrote: »

First debate on Monday.
Can't wait to hear what the Donald comes up with.

That's if they allow him to speak

There may be shenanigans.

B_Wayne

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

Looks like the Washington mall shooter was a Hillary supporter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ArcanCetin/status/556955812896444416

It will probably be ignored. Imagine if he was a Trump supporter. The media would be all over it!

He also has this tweet. Either way, it simply doesn't matter. He has 2 tweets in relation to Clinton, she wasn't a motivating factor in his actions...

https://twitter.com/ArcanCetin/status/611386239757844482

PopePalpatine

take everything wrote: »

First debate on Monday.
Can't wait to hear what the Donald comes up with.

Drumpfster diving, of course.

Butters1979

5 dead in Washington state shot by a Turkish immigrant. It's like they're trying to get him elected.

jackofalltrades

Academic wrote: »

The Times’ editorial endorsement has no effect on the reporting; there’s essentially a firewall between the Editorial Board and the reporters.


Historically it would be very strange for the NYT not to endorse a presidential candidate. They’ve done so at least since they first endorsed Abraham Lincoln:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html

If a newspaper openly picks a candidate then negative reporting of that candidate hurts their credibility.
That'll straight away have an impact on their reporting.
They're basically signalling to the world that they've less interest in impartiality.
One or two journalists supporting a candidate would be fine, but the newspaper itself is ludicrous.