Michael Hardner Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: The LA Times sure figured it out beforehand. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20161109-story.html They were a better predictor, no doubt. This is a profile on the guy who ran the model, who said he was surprised to be right. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20161109-story.html They were a better predictor, no doubt. This is a profile on the guy who ran the model, who said he was surprised to be right. He was objective enough to get it right. No lying required. If people are not answering land lines or outright lying to pollsters, then the polling results are lies. Edited January 23, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: There was ample evidence that Trump would be competitive on election night. The LA Times sure figured it out beforehand. The LA Times wasn't even close. Quote
Smallc Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20161109-story.html They were a better predictor, no doubt. This is a profile on the guy who ran the model, who said he was surprised to be right. The LA times predicted his win, but was far off on the popular vote. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Smallc said: The LA times predicted his win, but was far off on the popular vote. I guess some would call them liars then. I wouldn't. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Smallc Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: I guess some would call them liars then. I wouldn't. Neither would I - they were simply wrong. Quote
-TSS- Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Trump would be foolish to carry out very adversarial policies as if he didn't realise that he only won because of the mechanisms of the electoral system. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Smallc said: The LA times predicted his win, but was far off on the popular vote. Popular votes do not always win elections. Ask Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Popular votes do not always win elections. Ask Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. Maybe, but getting the popular vote wrong doesn't make you a very good pollster though. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Smallc said: Maybe, but getting the popular vote wrong doesn't make you a very good pollster though. That's why state level matters more and why the Times was better. The liars were obsessed with "popular vote", as if it mattered. The liars said that Trump must win Florida...FALSE. Edited January 24, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: That's why state level matters more and why the Times was better. The liars were obsessed with "popular vote", as if it mattered. The liars said that Trump must win Florida...FALSE. That's just it - the LA times got the vote wrong. They just happened to guess the winner correctly. The overall polls had pretty much every state within the margin of error. Election day simply broke down differently. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Smallc said: That's just it - the LA times got the vote wrong. They just happened to guess the winner correctly. The overall polls had pretty much every state within the margin of error. Election day simply broke down differently. The media pundits and pollsters insisted that Donald Trump had to win Florida to have any chance at all. They set up a false scenario that excluded other possibilities in breaking down Clinton's "firewall". The liars created the very notion of "firewall". Edited January 24, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Clinton finished so far ahead of Trump, she lost the election. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
-TSS- Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Does any other country than the USA have its Israeli embassy in Jerusalem instead of Tel-Aviv? One of Trump's first orders was to make that move. Quote
kimmy Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 5 hours ago, betsy said: Sean Spicer did not lie! This is what he'd said: “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe”. This was addressed at today's Press Secretary briefing, and Sean Spicer had reiterated and stood by what he'd said. When you consider the internet, television, tablets, and other ways thru modern tech, that people can watch the inaugural ceremony - indeed, Trump's got the broadest audience, ever! His inaugural address was watched around the globe! See, you're illustrating the point I was making about the difference between spin and lies. Saturday he came out and said that Trump had a record crowd at his inauguration-- LIE-- and that the media framed photographs of the National Mall to make the crowd look smaller than at Obama's inauguration-- LIE-- and that Washington Transit had more rides on Friday than it did at Obama's inauguration-- LIE. He claimed that the lawn coverings on Friday made the crowd look smaller than it was-- hilarious, and LIE. Today Spicer comes out and says that Trump had a record AUDIENCE, if you include international viewers and streaming video. That might be true, but it's not the same as having a record CROWD, which he claimed was true, and it certainly doesn't support his Saturday claims that the Washington Transit had more rides or that the media used different photo angles, both LIES as discussed earlier. So as I was explaining earlier, "spin" is when you massage the facts to support your preferred narrative, and "lies" are when you say things that are flat out lies. The things Spicer said on Saturday were LIES. The stuff Spicer said today-- that Trump may have had a larger total audience if you count viewers in around the world watching on streaming internet video-- is SPIN. Today he comes out and presents information-- a hypothetical international audience watching on streaming internet video-- that may support the narrative that he wanted to create. We all know that Spicer wasn't talking about hypothetical viewers watching on Youtube in Stanstanistan when he talked about "record crowds" on Saturday, but at least there's an element of plausibility to it, even though we all know that's not really the point he wanted to make. Spicer's statement on Saturday was like Baghdad Bob saying "There are no American soldiers in Iraq!" Spicer's statement today was like Baghdad Bob clarifying that when he said there are no American soldiers in Iraq, he just meant that no American soldiers had recently entered the country at border-crossings using passports. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, kimmy said: ...Today Spicer comes out and says that Trump had a record AUDIENCE, if you include international viewers and streaming video. That might be true, but it's not the same as having a record CROWD, which he claimed was true, In today's world of mainstream and alternate media, it was true, including "crowd". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Omni Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Rex Tillerson gets approved as Sec. of State with the narrowest of majorities ever. 11-10 with all the Dems. voting against, and all the Repubs. voting for. Yet a further example of the divide in America. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Just now, Omni said: Rex Tillerson gets approved as Sec. of State with the narrowest of majorities ever. 11-10 with all the Dems. voting against, and all the Repubs. voting for. Yet a further example of the divide in America. Is this divide anyone's fault? Is it any different than the divide when the previous party was in power? Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
DogOnPorch Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Close counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Say hello to the new Hillary. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Omni Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: Is this divide anyone's fault? Is it any different than the divide when the previous party was in power? I think it's quite different. The repubs. admitted they would attempt to veto every bill the previous gov. put forward, regardless of what it contained. I think the dems. are a little more discerning than that. But there is no denying the current divide is deep, and we shall see which direction it goes. I'm not hopeful. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 9 minutes ago, Omni said: I think it's quite different. The repubs. admitted they would attempt to veto every bill the previous gov. put forward, regardless of what it contained. I think the dems. are a little more discerning than that. But there is no denying the current divide is deep, and we shall see which direction it goes. I'm not hopeful. Not so far! Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Omni Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: Not so far! Have you actually looked at the cast of "characters" Trump has lined up? Discerning people would have difficulties voting in favor of a lot of them. Billionaire buddies of Putin's, known racists, climate change deniers, one who said he would like to get rid of the deptartment he now heads, when he can remember the name of it, etc., etc. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 Best cabinet in years....selected for experience and loyalty...not gender balance. Love love that Rex Tillerson ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Omni Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Best cabinet in years....selected for experience and loyalty...not gender balance. Love love that Rex Tillerson ! I can see how YOU would. But actually the majority of the cabinet stinks to high heaven. Of course, they are people who are going to give power back to the people. Ho Ho Ho. Do you also believe in Santa? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.