U.S. Election: It's Gonna Be a Huge Thread, It's Gonna Be the Best Thread!

[Fez]

10 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I am reluctant to take this poll at face value.  Perhaps the source is severely biased?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-2-points-nationwide/ar-BBt0BNz?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

Gravis got a congressional primary wrong earlier this cycle by 96 points (!!!). Which is by far the worst miss they, or anybody, has ever had, but the thing about Gravis is that they routinely get polls very, very wrong. They are a shit polling company.

As for other recent Clinton-Trump polls:

Rassmussen is also a shit polling company, but in a different way. They almost certainly put their thumb on the scales to push a pro-Republican narrative. In this case, they were the first to find a Trump lead after there had been 50 polls in a roll showing a Clinton lead. I'm willing to make the following beat: At some point, later this cycle, maybe after the Democratic convention, there will be a period of time where all the major pollsters are showing a big Clinton lead. Rassmussen will also show a big Clinton. And then, before anyone else, they will have a series of polls showing Trump cutting into that dramatically. All of a sudden a narrative of Trump the come-back kid will start. All thanks to Rassmussen.

Quinnipac is not a shit polling company. They are generally very good at their job. But they have a very different vision of the 2016 electorate than any of the other major pollsters. The way they see things could absolutely come to pass, if Democratic turnout is incredibly down (although I find it very unlikely). Their polls shouldn't be dismissed. But that caveat should be noted. And they shouldn't really be compared to the other polls because they do differ so much in how they see the electorate. Instead they should just be compared to themselves, for the trendlines.

On the flip side, CNN found Clinton with a +13 lead. And they are also generally a very good pollster. So its not like everyone is saying the race is getting closer. Hell, a Landmark poll last week found Trump at only +1 in Georgia, which would be in line with about a +10 Clinton lead nationally.

My best guess is that she either has, or is close to, a double digit lead right now. And will gain another +3 or so the moment Sanders drops out. Trump will probably eat into that some, as the GOP continues to grudgingly get behind him, but not nearly enough.

[Altherion]

There are more polls at the Huffington Post if you want them. The average is still slightly less than +6 for Clinton. There's really no way to prove anything at the moment because the election is 6 months away and these polls don't mean much in the first place, but I kind of doubt that Clinton has a double-digit lead given that there is not a single poll after May 1st that shows her having one and we're now in the middle of May.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

There are more polls at the Huffington Post if you want them. The average is still slightly less than +6 for Clinton. There's really no way to prove anything at the moment because the election is 6 months away and these polls don't mean much in the first place, but I kind of doubt that Clinton has a double-digit lead given that there is not a single poll after May 1st that shows her having one and we're now in the middle of May.

Polls are predictive of a presidential election outcome beginning in April of the election year. So don't simply say they don't mean much.it may only be a 55-60% chance of being true at this point but "meaning" continues to inch steadily  upward

[mormont]

On 14/05/2016 at 4:08 AM, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

The rise of God Emperor continues!

John Miller, is that you?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

John Miller, is that you?

Definitely not as good as Donald Trump. The man trolls MSM for a living. 

[Guess who's back]

 

1 hour ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

Definitely not as good as Donald Trump. The man trolls MSM for a living. 

 

That's exactly what Trump would say.

[Shryke]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

There are more polls at the Huffington Post if you want them. The average is still slightly less than +6 for Clinton. There's really no way to prove anything at the moment because the election is 6 months away and these polls don't mean much in the first place, but I kind of doubt that Clinton has a double-digit lead given that there is not a single poll after May 1st that shows her having one and we're now in the middle of May.

There's a poll right there after your arbitarry cut-off date that is +9 Clinton.

And again, the average of a bunch of shit does not mean anything.

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^ Unlike Georgie Porgie here, I'm just going to apologize to the world in advance for the inevitable horror show that will unfold this fall as we (the U.S.) offend eyes and ears globally with a reality TV worthy, shitfest of a General Election campaign. I'm Pre-cringeing this Springerfest thats coming.

[Maester Drew]

 I might as well start calling Trump our 45th President... 

[JGP]

I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever, I don't care what the facts are... Right. Odd how easily I'd forgotten what a pandering pencil neck olde Sr was too. Thanks for the reminder. 

The apology isn't necessary, though. If my nation is anything like me, it'll feel sympathetic to your plight.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Probably because senior was relatively reasonable in comparission with the budget killing, union buster he succeeded. Who is for some strange reason more popular than Jesus with his party - and sadly, I don't think I am exxagerating here. I really believe Reagan would win that popularity contest hands down. But Ronny simply best examplified the zeitgest of the 1980s. But historically he is in the right company with the likes of Thatcher. 

And next to junior. Well, Junior was just awful. 

[Martell Spy]

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/15/nate_silver_has_a_donald_trump_problem_where_does_data_journalism_go_now/

Nate Silver has a Donald Trump problem: Where does data journalism go now?

The press either abetted Trump's rise or got it all wrong. But the stakes seem higher for one-time oracles at 538

[Kalbear]

Okay @Maester Drew - you don't want trump to win. What are you going to do about it?

[Maester Drew]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay @Maester Drew - you don't want trump to win. What are you going to do about it?

Either vote for Bernie, or if Hillary picks Sen. Warren as her VP, then I'll consider casting my vote for her.

[The guy from the Vale]

In a FPTP system, your write-in for Bernie is worth about as much as a vote by somebody else for Trump, though. You'll need to weigh what is more important to you: keeping Trump out of the WH, or holding Hillary to a standard no white male Democratic politician would ever be held to.

[Maester Drew]

4 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

In a FPTP system, your write-in for Bernie is worth about as much as a vote by somebody else for Trump, though. You'll need to weigh what is more important to you: keeping Trump out of the WH, or holding Hillary to a standard no white male Democratic politician would ever be held to.

So... basically this is what your saying?

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

So... basically this is what your saying?

 

If you really equate Donald Trump with Clinton, you shouldn't be particularly upset that Trump is going to win. Or you should just be upset, period. It didn't sound like that.

If you don't equate Donald Trump with Clinton, the above isn't accurate or reasonable and is exactly the sort of thing that Trump is counting on - that people believe that he is as good (or bad) as Clinton, so your choice doesn't matter. 

Personally, the people that equate Trump with Clinton are fairly horrible to me. They're right up there with the people that believe that 4-8 years of Clinton will do nothing, so it's better to go with Trump, deal with the outcome for 4 years and then hope for someone like Warren. This is magic pixie dust politics at its best, and has no real idea of how on earth politics works or the damage that Trump can do in office. Or they don't care because said damage will probably not hurt them that much, personally, right now. 

[Kalbear]

Also, the chaos at the Nevada convention was pretty remarkable.

Quote

 

Hillary Clinton maintained her delegate advantage in Nevada as the state Democratic convention adjourned amid chaos Saturday night.

The reason things wrapped up quickly and unceremoniously: They were kicked out of the casino hosting the convention.

The Nevada State Democratic Party said Sunday that the Paris Las Vegas Hotel's security said it could no longer handle their event.

 

There were reports and videos of Sanders supporters and delegates actually getting into fights with others, booing the Sanders representatives and then being escorted out by police. More videos and reports over at the hill. 

[Maester Drew]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you really equate Donald Trump with Clinton, you shouldn't be particularly upset that Trump is going to win. Or you should just be upset, period. It didn't sound like that.

If you don't equate Donald Trump with Clinton, the above isn't accurate or reasonable and is exactly the sort of thing that Trump is counting on - that people believe that he is as good (or bad) as Clinton, so your choice doesn't matter. 

Personally, the people that equate Trump with Clinton are fairly horrible to me. They're right up there with the people that believe that 4-8 years of Clinton will do nothing, so it's better to go with Trump, deal with the outcome for 4 years and then hope for someone like Warren. This is magic pixie dust politics at its best, and has no real idea of how on earth politics works or the damage that Trump can do in office. Or they don't care because said damage will probably not hurt them that much, personally, right now. 

See, there's this thing called humor.  Granted, I ain't all that funny, but still...

...Bottom line, please learn to take a joke, funny or otherwise. 

On a serious note, I did indicate that I may vote for Hillary if she chose Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, or for that matter any other actual progressive.

Furthermore, I can be upset if Trump wins, likewise I can also be upset if Hillary wins. And to be honest, I highly doubt Hillary will get much done in her tenure. What with congressional gridlock and what not...

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

See, there's this thing called humor.  Granted, I ain't all that funny, but still...

On a serious note, I did indicate that I may vote for Hillary if she chose Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, or for that matter any other actual progressive.

Furthermore, I can be upset if Trump wins, likewise I can also be upset if Hillary wins. And to be honest, I highly doubt Hillary will get much done in her tenure. What with congressional gridlock and what not...

Again, you're willing to not want Trump to win, but unless Clinton meets a very specific goal you're not willing to do fuck all to stop Trump. And then you'll complain when things don't work out the way you want. Fuck that noise. 

Clinton may not be able to get a ton done in her tenure. There is reasonable hope that some of the gridlock will be gone with this election, but if it isn't that'll be tough. She will be able to do one of the most important things that a president can do - nominate and approve justices, especially SCOTUS. She can do more for immigration reform. She can do things like put a lot of pressure for criminal justice reform via executive order. She can do a lot to change the educational system. She can do thing similar to what was announced recently by AG Lynch about trans rights in schools, and is almost certain to continue that sort of thing. But yeah, she'll be somewhat hamstrung.

Conversely, Trump can do things like order the immediate deportation of 11 million people and actually do so without major due process. He can order the torture of anyone considered to be an enemy of the US. He can order bombing of civilian centers provided that it does not need to be in a state of war. He can nominate SCOTUS justices as well, and has indicated that he will attempt to overturn Roe v Wade and get more people like Scalia and Alito on the bench. He can ban all muslims from immigrating to the US or even entering the US. These are things that regardless of congress, the president can do.

And both of these things are things that the candidates have stated that they intend to do. 

It's your call whether you think that these are equivalent.