The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

Amalgam

Not watched the other two, but this one would have you worried, clucking bell.. He's as mad as a box of frogs.

How did we get here..

Matt Furie's (original creator of the 'Pepe' meme) contribution to thenib.

https://thenib.com/pepe-the-frog-to-sleep-perchance-to-meme

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

CNN and media outlets will say a rigged election is nonsense, but only a few months ago the very same media outlets were praising Hilary and saying Bernie was not electable. They pushed the viewing audience to believe Hilary was the only electable one here! Media are idiots the leaked emails even show the democratic party from the get go decided Bernie will not win and they wanted him out of the way, thats rigged election you idiots.

If it was a question of character of course Bernie could win. But could his democratic socialist platform win a general election? Even I'm skeptical and I voted for him.

Amerika

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

StringerBell

You want to talk about an election being stolen look at the 2000 US Presidential election, I don't think the Democrats are in a position where they are going to need to steal this one tbh. Trump will not get close to her, and that is quite the achievement given how poor she is.

StringerBell

Amerika wrote: »

No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

The context of the question is that the change of power in America is a peaceful thing and thats one of the things that makes the country great and all that, will he go on record now and say he is prepared to accept the election result regardless of what it is. (This question is brought up because of the genuine fear of what is going to happen in terms of public disorder from the KKK and his other supporters when he loses, and loses badly)

He won't commit to that, he will "keep them in suspense" what kind of **** is that like? He will deem the election a fair one if he wins I suppose, funny that.

alastair

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

CNN and media outlets will say a rigged election is nonsense, but only a few months ago the very same media outlets were praising Hilary and saying Bernie was not electable. They pushed the viewing audience to believe Hilary was the only electable one here! Media are idiots the leaked emails even show the democratic party from the get go decided Bernie will not win and they wanted him out of the way, thats rigged election you idiots.

No it's not.

Bernie wasn't an electable candidate. That's just the harsh reality of it. I like a lot of his positions, and wish that there was greater electoral support for them in the US, but there just isn't. Hillary's platform, which is undoubtedly tepid stuff in the main, only garners her enough support to fend off a historically poor candidate, given the conservative bias of much of the electorate there. The DNC's call on who was the better candidate to win was correct.

The DNC didn't rigg any aspect of the nomination process. They certainly had a favoured candidate, and they tried to help her out at the expense of Bernie (and even then, it's hard to determine what they actually followed through on), but they don't actually get to control the vote, so just as the GOP probably didn't want Trump coming out on top of their nomination, they're still beholden to the choices that the actual members make.

nomadchocolate

Amerika wrote: »

No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

Trump was asked a simple question and could not bring himself to abide by the outcome of a democratic process.

There's no evidence of any fraud or rigging in the election. Al Gore didn't accept the validity of the count (a count which neither side could have confidence in, as it turned out), he accepted the result once the count was confirmed and conceded. Not the same thing at all.

Amerika

StringerBell wrote: »

The context of the question is that the change of power in America is a peaceful thing and thats one of the things that makes the country great and all that, will he go on record now and say he is prepared to accept the election result regardless of what it is. (This question is brought up because of the genuine fear of what is going to happen in terms of public disorder from the KKK and his other supporters when he loses, and loses badly)

He won't commit to that, he will "keep them in suspense" what kind of **** is that like? He will deem the election a fair one if he wins I suppose, funny that.

If the election process isn't executed in a fair and honest manner, can you really admonish someone for not willing to submit to blind faith for that change of power in America?

jcsoulinger

I think Bernie would have blown Trump out of the the water had he got the nomination, It's a real pity he didn't in hindsight. Bernie may have struggled against a more traditional Republican candidate tho.

vetinari

Referencing the 2000 election seems to be the only defense Trump surrogates have.
Considering that Gore ACCEPTED the result after it was certified, it's a strange election to pick.
There was a peaceful transfer of power after probably the closest election in US history.
Trump 3 weeks before the election couldn't even say he'll accept the election result.
The man is a danger to democracy.

StringerBell

Amerika wrote: »

If the election process isn't executed in a fair and honest manner, can you really admonish someone for not willing to submit to blind faith for that change of power in America?

What does that have to do with it? Where is your evidence that it isn't being processed in a fair and honest manner? What gives you reasonable grounds to decided this election is being rigged?

It was a simple question, will you agree to accept the will of the majority. He did not agree. You would wonder why he is bothering running really

StringerBell

vetinari wrote: »

Referencing the 2000 election seems to be the only defense Trump surrogates have.
Considering that Gore ACCEPTED the result after it was certified, it's a strange election to pick.
There was a peaceful transfer of power after probably the closest election in US history.
Trump 3 weeks before the election couldn't even say he'll accept the election result.
The man is a danger to democracy.

This.

Overheal

He wouldn't even say he would accept the result if it was a certifiably fair process.

Amerika

nomadchocolate wrote: »

A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling

The O’Keefe’s Project Veritas video shows democratic operatives circumventing the law to cause violence, and how they funnel the money from the DNC to the groups that hope to cause violence at Trump rallies.

“We have a clip deliverable that we have to deliver every day for our groups of clients who are involved in this project: AUFC; A4C, which is Alliance for Change; Alliance for Retired Americans, which is part of AFL-CIO — they’re one of our partners on the AUFC stuff … Depends on the issue. And then there’s the DNC, and the campaigns, and Priorities [USA]. Priorities is a big part of this, too. The campaigns and DNC cannot coordinate with Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the Super PACs all talk to each other, and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication.

We’re consultants, so we’re not the official entity. And so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts. That’s why there’s Bob, who’s the primary there, and I’m a sub to him. And I’m also a primary to AUFC separately, that’s why.

It’s less of a Morse code than it is a text conversation that never ends. It’s like that. It’s kind of like an ongoing “Pony Express.” It’s not as official as it could be, but that’s because the law doesn’t allow it to be.”

And the democrats claiming themselves as a moral authority would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. The video shows what democrats really think of the election process and the slimy things they will do to win.

Republicans are less adept at such tactics because they obey rules: “They have fewer guys willing to step out on the line for what they believe in. … There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

And notice how the mainstream media focuses on "The Russians" regarding the WikiLeak's emails, and almost nothing about digging into the truth and grave concerns of democratic vile tactics and lies to the people. When did the search for the truth die in American journalism?

jcsoulinger

vetinari wrote: »

Referencing the 2000 election seems to be the only defense Trump surrogates have.
Considering that Gore ACCEPTED the result after it was certified, it's a strange election to pick.
There was a peaceful transfer of power after probably the closest election in US history.
Trump 3 weeks before the election couldn't even say he'll accept the election result.
The man is a danger to democracy.

Gore for the greater good accepted the election result, I'm not sure Trump understands what for the greater good means.

Billy86

nomadchocolate wrote: »

A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling

Define "struggling"?

Amerika

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Gore for the greater good accepted the election result, I'm not sure Trump understands what for the greater good means.

How long after the election did the noble Al Gore finally end up doing this? If irregularities are apparent in the election, can't Trump have the same courtesy that was afforded the Gore?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

How long after the election did the noble Al Gore finally end up doing this? If irregularities are apparent in the election, can't Trump have the same courtesy that was afforded the Gore?

If the election came down to 500 votes because of hanging chads on the ballot sure. But when he loses this thing it's going to be by over 100 electoral votes so unless you think there's a conspiracy running in that many states and polling then he's out of his goddamn mind

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

The O’Keeffe...

The exact point at which everyone would be best served to stop reading this post. You'll save yourself seeing this poster go on and try to use Trumps own campaign (breitbart) as a source of any integrity.

Anyone confused should Google O'Keeffe and ask themselves if this is the kind of argument they should even be bothered engaging in.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Trump was asked a simple question and could not bring himself to abide by the outcome of a democratic process.

There's no evidence of any fraud or rigging in the election. Al Gore didn't accept the validity of the count (a count which neither side could have confidence in, as it turned out), he accepted the result once the count was confirmed and conceded. Not the same thing at all.

Sure there is evidence of fraud. It's even on tape.

http://lawnewz.com/video/secret-video-shows-election-commissioner-saying-there-is-a-lot-of-voter-fraud-in-minority-areas/

And there are more than 4 Million ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls. I believe mostly democrats. Ask yourself, why do democrats fight so hard against removing them?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters-american-voter-rolls-video/

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

If the election came down to 500 votes because of hanging chads on the ballot sure. But when he loses this thing it's going to be by over 100 electoral votes so unless you think there's a conspiracy running in that many states and polling then he's out of his goddamn mind

Are you saying it's quantity, not quality, of our election process that counts?

Overheal

Dead voters on the rolls is not equivalent to a dead vote.

South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division investigated voter fraud after Gov Nikki Haley and her party spent an entire campaign cycle crying about zombie voters and election fraud as a cause to add voting restrictions.

In conclusion, they couldn't find a single vote cast by a dead person. Any errors that were found in the voting were determined "non malicious"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3566194

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Are you saying it's quantity, not quality, of our election process that counts?

Oh get off that horse. So if Trump miraculously won the general election in a landslide, if there was a single case of fraud we should throw out the whole result? You're funny!

Enzokk

Amerika wrote: »

No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

nomadchocolate wrote: »

A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling

Amerika wrote: »

If the election process isn't executed in a fair and honest manner, can you really admonish someone for not willing to submit to blind faith for that change of power in America?

On reply to all three these comments, if the election is rigged against Donald Trump, what about every other GOP representative that will win on election night? Are we to assume that the whole election was rigged and their election cannot be trusted? If you question the validity of the elections like he seems to be then every person elected is elected in a false vote. You cannot pick and choose where voter fraud will happen.

nomadchocolate

Billy86 wrote: »

Define "struggling"?

Trump is a ludicrous candidate. Clinton should be crushing it. Some polls indicates that she is but it is so disappointing that the DNC couldn't find a better candidate than Clinton.

johnnyskeleton

Billy86 wrote: »

The exact point at which everyone would be best served to stop reading this post. You'll save yourself seeing this poster go on and try to use Trumps own campaign (breitbart) as a source of any integrity.

Anyone confused should Google O'Keeffe and ask themselves if this is the kind of argument they should even be bothered engaging in.

Mod Note:

Attack the post not the poster. Suggesting that people should google something is not proper discussion. You have previously been threadbanned for this type of posting.

nomadchocolate

Enzokk wrote: »

On reply to all three these comments, if the election is rigged against Donald Trump, what about every other GOP representative that will win on election night? Are we to assume that the whole election was rigged and their election cannot be trusted? If you question the validity of the elections like he seems to be then every person elected is elected in a false vote. You cannot pick and choose where voter fraud will happen.

I don't believe the election is rigged and I'm not a Trump fan.

I do attach legitimacy and veracity to some of the e-mails and the interpretations associated but alot of the left are dismissing it as Russian interference which is not good enough.

Some of the e-mails and the interpretations are ridiculous though.

Amerika

The IBD/TIPP poll has Trump up in the polls by I point.

http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-leads-clinton-by-one-point-going-into-debate-in-ibdtipp-tracking-poll/

The point of significance here is the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate poll in the 2012 election.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

Billy86

nomadchocolate wrote: »

Trump is a ludicrous candidate. Clinton should be crushing it. Some polls indicates that she is but it is so disappointing that the DNC couldn't find a better candidate than Clinton.

Clinton is crushing it though, some bookies were paying out even before last night on her winning and she had about an 87% chance of a win on 538 which is pretty definitive for election races. There aims are no grounds to say she is struggling - she's been miles ahead for a month or so and president elect for over a fortnight now. Now it's just a matter of if this will be the biggest landslide since since 1996 or 1988.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

The IBD/TIPP poll has Trump up in the polls by I point.

http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-leads-clinton-by-one-point-going-into-debate-in-ibdtipp-tracking-poll/

The point of significance here is the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate poll in the 2012 election.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

So polls are good again?

Edit: Just to note that the IBD poll is a tracking ppoll like the LA Times one. More interesting is the Rasmussen Reports Poll which shows Trump +3. It previously had Clinton +5 back on October 11th.

Amerika

Enzokk wrote: »

On reply to all three these comments, if the election is rigged against Donald Trump, what about every other GOP representative that will win on election night? Are we to assume that the whole election was rigged and their election cannot be trusted? If you question the validity of the elections like he seems to be then every person elected is elected in a false vote. You cannot pick and choose where voter fraud will happen.

The thing here is from just about every account I’ve ever read, republicans do not actively participate in voter fraud. It appears to be a democratic exclusion. Yes, the republicans do participate in gerrymandering to affect elections, as do democrats, but that’s about it, and gerrymandering is a legal tactic when utilized properly.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So polls are good again?

Polls show different outcomes. Just making a point that Trump isn't, as reported, already dead and buried quite yet.

I have a question... the Irish bookies are already paying out on the Clinton wins bets. What happens if Trump actually wins? Do they just have to eat the loss for their foolishness, or can they try and get their money back?

Cheerful Spring

alastair wrote: »

No it's not.

Bernie wasn't an electable candidate. That's just the harsh reality of it. I like a lot of his positions, and wish that there was greater electoral support for them in the US, but there just isn't. Hillary's platform, which is undoubtedly tepid stuff in the main, only garners her enough support to fend off a historically poor candidate, given the conservative bias of much of the electorate there. The DNC's call on who was the better candidate to win was correct.

The DNC didn't rigg any aspect of the nomination process. They certainly had a favoured candidate, and they tried to help her out at the expense of Bernie (and even then, it's hard to determine what they actually followed through on), but they don't actually get to control the vote, so just as the GOP probably didn't want Trump coming out on top of their nomination, they're still beholden to the choices that the actual members make.

Rubbish. Sanders had 13 million votes to Clinton 16 million votes. So i don't believe he was not electable. I think democratic politicians and the America media conspired to ruin Bernie election hopes and there is no way in hell i will accept this was a fair election process. You are just accepting he could not win a national election because the media said so, but that's nonsense because the winner would have the full backing of the democratic party and Bernie ideas and feelings would win over lot more voters when it came time to vote for president.

And there is plenty of evidence it was rigged from the start.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

Billy86

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod Note:

Attack the post not the poster. Suggesting that people should google something is not proper discussion. You have previously been threadbanned for this type of posting.

Fair enough and apologies, was on a break in work and didn't have time to do the googling myself. So to clarify what I meant in relation to the content of the post and sources used.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

O'Keefe, along with accomplices Joseph Basel, Stan Dai, and Robert Flanagan, the son of William Flanagan, acting U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Louisiana at the time, were arrested in New Orleans in January 2010 during an attempt to illegally make recordings at the office of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat. The four were apprehended, with two of them dressed as telephone repairmen.[7][24]

The four men were initially charged with malicious intent to damage the phone system, a felony.[25] O'Keefe claimed he entered Landrieu's office to investigate complaints that she was ignoring phone calls from constituents during the debate over the Affordable Care Act bill.[26] The charges in the case were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[27][28] O'Keefe and the others pleaded guilty on May 26. O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

In 2009, workers at offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a non-profit organization that had been involved for nearly 40 years in voter registration, community organizing and advocacy for low- and moderate-income people, were secretly recorded by conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe - and the videos "heavily edited" to create a misleading impression of their activities.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

And plenty, plenty more on why he is one of the most untrustworthy hacks around to be found here - http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

My point is, it's telling that the alt right only have these types of characters to fall back on, and good as nobody more reputable to back up their version of reality.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

The thing here is from just about every account I’ve ever read, republicans do not actively participate in voter fraud. It appears to be a democratic exclusion. Yes, the republicans do participate in gerrymandering to affect elections, as do democrats, but that’s about it, and gerrymandering is a legal tactic when utilized properly.

Yet every study I've seen and every investigation that has been carried out show that voter fraud is so small as to be inconsequential.

The penalties for voter fraud are serious. Up to 5 years in jail and up to $10,000 fines. I'm not sure if people in any kind of significant numbers would risk that.

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

The thing here is from just about every account I’ve ever read, republicans do not actively participate in voter fraud. It appears to be a democratic exclusion. Yes, the republicans do participate in gerrymandering to affect elections, as do democrats, but that’s about it, and gerrymandering is a legal tactic when utilized properly.

Organized large-scale voter fraud has never been shown to a real thing that actually happens in US elections as far as I know. Voter restriction tactics are however, a very popular and successful method used mainly republican-controlled states to disenfranchise minorities:

http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016



(If you click on the link you can click on each state to get the details of what changes have been made there)

pumpkin4life

Things to look for in polls (phone I'll post an online one later):

If the margin of errors are higher than typically 5%, that's bad.

If the poll is unweighted (especially where you have more of one group than another), that's bad.

If the poll methodology asks to speak to the "youngest person in the house", especially if it is unweighted, that's bad.

If the poll does not take undecided voters into account, then that's bad.

If the question order is not randomised, then that's bad.

If the poll has more landline than cellphones, or a significant number anyway, that's bad.

If no methodology is published, then that's bad.

Personally I would pay more attention to the polls like the L.A Times

http://cesrusc.org/election/

or the IBD polls. Those are the polls which (imo) are despite their flaws, the most statistically sound. And why (alongside the social desirability effect) I think (tentatively) Trump is still going to win.

If I'm wrong, I guess the social desirability bias simply isn't as strong as i thought it was/is.

alastair

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish. Sanders had 13 million votes to Clinton 16 million votes. So i don't believe he was not electable.

That was a Democratic nomination vote, not an electorate vote.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think democratic politicians and the America media conspired to ruin Bernie election hopes and there is no way in hell i will accept this was a fair election process. You are just accepting he could not win a national election because the media said so, but that's nonsense because the winner would have the full backing of the democratic party and Bernie ideas and feelings would win over lot more voters when it came time to vote for president.

And there is plenty of evidence it was rigged from the start.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

Once again - Saunders stood no chance at winning a presidential election because his policies don't garner enough support with the US electorate. They've been very clear on this, election after election. That's the crux of the matter.

CMOTDibbler

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish. Sanders had 13 million votes to Clinton 16 million votes. So i don't believe he was not electable. I think democratic politicians and the America media conspired to ruin Bernie election hopes and there is no way in hell i will accept this was a fair election process. You are just accepting he could not win a national election because the media said so, but that's nonsense because the winner would have the full backing of the democratic party and Bernie ideas and feelings would win over lot more voters when it came time to vote for president.

And there is plenty of evidence it was rigged from the start.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

Bernie's electability is dubious at best. The Republicans would have loved him as a candidate because he himself describes his politics as democratic socialist; a label that would be blood in the water to Republicans.

He may have picked up a lot of the Democratic vote, but his wider appeal would have been negligible.

Perhaps not unelectable, but certainly not a unifying force in a country that defines socialist as communist.

CMOTDibbler

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Things to look for in polls (phone I'll post an online one later):

If the margin of errors are higher than typically 5%, that's bad.

If the poll is unweighted (especially where you have more of one group than another), that's bad.

If the poll methodology asks to speak to the "youngest person in the house", especially if it is unweighted, that's bad.

If the poll does not take undecided voters into account, then that's bad.

If the question order is not randomised, then that's bad.

If the poll has more landline than cellphones, or a significant number anyway, that's bad.

If no methodology is published, then that's bad.

Personally I would pay more attention to the polls like the L.A Times

http://cesrusc.org/election/

or the IBD polls. Those are the polls which (imo) are despite their flaws, the most statistically sound. And why I think (tentatively) Trump is still going to win.

If I'm wrong, I guess the social desirability bias simply isn't as strong as i thought it was/is.

I know it's a bit lazy, but 538 does all that. Why reinvent the wheel?

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

And why I think (tentatively) Trump is still going to win.

If you actually believe that, I'll offer you a bet on it. Trump wins and I donate €100 to a charity of your choice. Clint in wins, and you donate just €5 to a charity of my choice. Proof has to be provided. That's 20/1 odds for the person you think is the favourite. If you actually believe that you can't turn it down. And it's all for a good cause. So is it a deal?

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

Organized large-scale voter fraud has never been shown to a real thing that actually happens in US elections as far as I know. Voter restriction tactics are however, a very popular and successful method used mainly republican-controlled states to disenfranchise minorities:

http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016



(If you click on the link you can click on each state to get the details of what changes have been made there)

It’s not just myth and speculation. It is a serious matter. And nobody can explain to me why we wouldn’t want to have the most fair and honest elections. We require ID for just about everything associated with the government. Why is voting anything different?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

jcsoulinger

alastair wrote: »

That was a Democratic nomination vote, not an electorate vote.





Once again - Saunders stood no chance at winning a presidential election because his policies don't garner enough support with the US electorate. They've been very clear on this, election after election. That's the crux of the matter.

This may be true of an traditional rep candidate but against Trump it would go out the window, Trump would only be able to attack Bernie on his policies which is unfamiliar ground for Trump, where as Bernie could openly attack Trump on all his controversy the moral high ground would be much clearer, Bernie hammers Trump imo.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

The O’Keefe’s Project Veritas video shows democratic operatives circumventing the law to cause violence, and how they funnel the money from the DNC to the groups that hope to cause violence at Trump rallies.

They're not hoping to cause violence - they're hoping to disrupt rallies. The violence is the responsibility of those who kick off - and it's not the Democratic operatives who are doing that. 'Circumventing the law' is really just another way of saying 'operating entirely within the law' - which they, unlike those who opt for a violent reaction, are doing.

pumpkin4life

Billy86 wrote: »

If you actually believe that, I'll offer you a bet on it. Trump wins and I donate €100 to a charity of your choice. Clint in wins, and you donate just €5 to a charity of my choice. Proof has to be provided. That's 20/1 odds for the person you think is the favourite. If you actually believe that you can't turn it down. And it's all for a good cause. So is it a deal?

So as long as I'm not revealing my identity on this thing, I've no problem with that. Deal.

alastair

jcsoulinger wrote: »

This may be true of an traditional rep candidate but against Trump it would go out the window, Trump would only be able to attack Bernie on his policies which is unfamiliar ground for Trump, where as Bernie could openly attack Trump on all his controversy the moral high ground would be much clearer, Bernie hammers Trump imo.

But the electorate would still face policies from Bernie that they neither like, nor want. They've been very clear on that, year after year - irrespective of the candidates' personalities. You and I (and indeed many Democrats) might love what he's proposing, but it runs counter to the prevailing attitudes across the country.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not just myth and speculation. It is a serious matter. And nobody can explain to me why we wouldn’t want to have the most fair and honest elections. We require ID for just about everything associated with the government. Why is voting anything different?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

It's not. The issue that was raised is using forms of identification that poorer people may not have access to. This is also voter fraud, but dressed up as anti-voter fraud measures. Depriving people of their vote by raising the bar above which they can reach is worse than the possibility of them voting twice.

Your link almost overwhelmingly points to errors in voter registration. The big numbers are in states sending out registration cards to ineligible people. The people themselves didn't initiate the process.

I know that if I received a voter registration card from the state, I would assume it meant I could vote.

By the look of that map, there should be less for Donald to whine about surely?

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not just myth and speculation. It is a serious matter. And nobody can explain to me why we wouldn’t want to have the most fair and honest elections. We require ID for just about everything associated with the government. Why is voting anything different?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

Where is the actual evidence for this (O'Keeffe's videos do not count as evidence btw)

It has been demostrated over and over again that most of these new voter restriction methods overwhelmingly target minorities. This is not a coincidence, it is a development of the strategy outlined by Lee Atwater in 1981

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”"

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not just myth and speculation. It is a serious matter. And nobody can explain to me why we wouldn’t want to have the most fair and honest elections. We require ID for just about everything associated with the government. Why is voting anything different?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

You can't even convey what the problem is so it seems moot.