MLW poll for the 1st Presidential debate

[betsy]

None of the links in your post or quote say that.

Wrong link. Thanks for saying. Updated it.

[betsy]

I wonder how many Russians voted in these polls.

As many as Clinton Foundation donors and Islamic terrorists voted for Hillary, I suppose.

Of course, that's assuming the polls ain't rigged by the blasted lying media.

[Bryan]

You are right, I did cherry pick. I picked standard polls and excluded on-line polls that are subject to rigging. Please find other standard polls and add them to the list.

There's nothing about the other polls that made them more "subject to rigging" than any others. Everyone had the same opportunity to give their answer.

[?Impact]

There's nothing about the other polls that made them more "subject to rigging" than any others. Everyone had the same opportunity to give their answer.

An online poll allows on to tweet to their friends (and retweet) to participate, as well as individuals can vote multiple times under aliases. A standard poll is based on demographics that match the country, and nobody can vote twice. You are wrong, the opportunities are completely different.

[Bryan]

An online poll allows on to tweet to their friends (and retweet) to participate, as well as individuals can vote multiple times under aliases. A standard poll is based on demographics that match the country, and nobody can vote twice. You are wrong, the opportunities are completely different.

Most online polls track your IP and do not allow more than one vote. And EVERYONE has the same opportunity to get out the vote for the polls. The opportunity to vote is IDENTICAL for everyone.

[?Impact]

Most online polls track your IP and do not allow more than one vote. And EVERYONE has the same opportunity to get out the vote for the polls. The opportunity to vote is IDENTICAL for everyone.

IP address is completely useless to identify an individual. Most on-line polls do not use it, your suggestion is baseless, in addition it is meaningless because it doesn't identify the specific polls used and going back to the main point it doesn't accomplish what you suggest.

[Bryan]

IP address is completely useless to identify an individual. Most on-line polls do not use it, your suggestion is baseless, in addition it is meaningless because it doesn't identify the specific polls used and going back to the main point it doesn't accomplish what you suggest.

Most of them DO use it, and they tell you that when you vote. It absolutely DOES accomplish what I suggest: giving everyone the exact same opportunity to give their opinion.

[?Impact]

Most of them DO use it, and they tell you that when you vote. It absolutely DOES accomplish what I suggest: giving everyone the exact same opportunity to give their opinion.

Most of them track you with cookies, not ip address. I suggest you learn a bit about technology before commenting. Just to prove it, I went to the Time poll and voted 4 times (3 times for Clinton, and once for Trump for good measure); all from the same IP address.

Edited September 29, 2016 by ?Impact

[Spiderfish]

Actually she said they make up half of Trump supporters which, at that time, considering undecideds, was no more than 30% and probably less.

Good point...the 50% of Trump supporters only likely amounted to 60-80 million American voters so no big deal.

But yeah, she apologized so all good.

[msj]

Good point...the 50% of Trump supporters only likely amounted to 60-80 million American voters so no big deal. :rolleye.

Your math is deplorable.

Romney got 61 million votes and Trump will be lucky to get 60 million, so 50% of that is 30 million.

[?Impact]

Best sound bite from Rex tonight on Monday's debate: "seance of unreason"

[bush_cheney2004]

Trump already got more votes than Romney during the primary/caucus season....breaking George W. Bush's record set in 2000.

[betsy]

One thing very obvious: nobody mentioned The Wall! I was expecting that issue to be quite prominent....what with all the possible follow-up questions tied to it.

Why didn't the moderator ask? Why didn't Hillary say it?

Anyway, here's an excerpt from an interesting piece by Judge Napolitano.

In this weekly column and in my on-air work at Fox News, I have characterized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a crook and as the "Queen of Deception."

I can point to five times when she lied under oath. I know of FBI agents who believe that their hands were tied by the Obama administration in the criminal investigation of her. And I know of American intelligence agents who firmly believe that Americans died because Clinton failed to keep state secrets secure.

She refused to use government-secured email devices because she wanted to keep her behavior hidden from the public and from the president. Some of that behavior had to do with using the power of the government to enrich her family’s foundation. I have argued that there is strong, credible evidence to demonstrate that she exercised her official behavior as secretary of state in accordance with the financial needs of her family’s foundation. She refused to see some foreign dignitaries until they gave money to the foundation.

She even permitted Russian President Vladimir Putin to gain control of a Utah uranium mine in return for the payment by an intermediary of $145 million to her family’s foundation.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/29/judge-napolitano-one-essential-word-that-was-missing-from-first-debate.html

I don't think we heard the last of the emails and the Clinton Foundation. Who knows.....someone might come up with the

smoking gun.

Edited September 29, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

When FoxNews hired their own judge, did they hire a jury and executioner too?

[cybercoma]

Unscientific non-traditional online polls voted Trump as the winner.

"Unscientific non-traditional online" means biased and irrelevant. They have no generalizability due to the respondent selection bias of first being online and second being unscientific. Statistical predictions are only valid with a truly random sample or through quantitative methodologies that control for biased sampling.

More importantly, even the scientific polls have little predictive value. They're a cross-sectional snapshot of a moment in time and only give you people's opinions about debate performance. There are plenty of partisan morons who couldn't give a crap less if their candidate lost the debate or not. On election day they will still vote for a loser.

[cybercoma]

Most online polls track your IP and do not allow more than one vote. And EVERYONE has the same opportunity to get out the vote for the polls. The opportunity to vote is IDENTICAL for everyone.

I'm going to assume you know nothing about the computers if you don't know that there's a million different ways around IP address tracking. Have you not heard of Canadians watching US Netflix?

[cybercoma]

Most of them track you with cookies, not ip address. I suggest you learn a bit about technology before commenting. Just to prove it, I went to the Time poll and voted 4 times (3 times for Clinton, and once for Trump for good measure); all from the same IP address.

Not to mention that it's very easy to design a script that deletes the cookie and revotes over and over again or repeatedly changes the IP that your computer tells a website that you're connecting from.

[Spiderfish]

Romney got 61 million votes and Trump will be lucky to get 60 million, so 50% of that is 30 million.

Yeah, you're right...my guess was likely high. Who knows how many people she put into her basket for sure? Maybe Holt should have asked her.

He seemed quite interested in getting to the bottom of what the candidates meant. Maybe after asking Trump what he meant when he said Hillary didn't look presidential, he should have then asked Hillary how many American voters exactly she thought were deplorable. Was it exactly half of trump supporters, or was that just a rough estimate? Maybe it was only 20 million, or 10 million. That would have surely made the comment much more acceptable.

My comment was about the moderating, not about Trump or Hillary. I don't think either one of them are fit to be leader in my opinion, it’s either “bragadocious” buffoonery, or scandalous corruption take your pick.

[msj]

My comment was about the moderating, not about Trump or Hillary. I don't think either one of them are fit to be leader in my opinion, it’s either “bragadocious” buffoonery, or scandalous corruption take your pick.

With Clinton you get one. With Trump you get both.

Remember, Trump does not understand the concept of a blind trust.

He thinks as President it's okay for his kids to run his companies and there is no conflict.

At least one of his sons agrees with this position.

They are buffoons who would inflict so much graft on the US that I would gladly tolerate his election although no doubt I would get fat from all the popcorn eating.

[kimmy]

Not to mention that it's very easy to design a script that deletes the cookie and revotes over and over again or repeatedly changes the IP that your computer tells a website that you're connecting from.

It has been documented that the Trump boosters in the 4Chan and Reddit communities made an organized effort to spam online polls. 4chan has a long history of doing this, and are so good at it that they once got 4chan's founder voted as "Man of the Year" in Time's online poll. As most 4chan members are 400 pound basement-dwelling teens who aren't old enough to vote, it's unlikely their votes count much in the general election.

For a couple of days after the election, every political site I visited had a banner add inviting me to click on the ad to register a vote that Trump won the debate. I didn't click on the ad, but I imagine that if you did you were taken to a Trump campaign donation site rather than an online poll.

-k

[kimmy]

When FoxNews hired their own judge, did they hire a jury and executioner too?

They do have their own in-house Catholic priest! Fr John Morris! His parish is Bill O'Reilly's green room. I bet his confessional has heard some interesting stories.

-k

[Bryan]

I'm going to assume you know nothing about the computers if you don't know that there's a million different ways around IP address tracking. Have you not heard of Canadians watching US Netflix?

I'm well aware of how VPNs work. I have a couple of them. The vast majority of computer users have no idea how to use them or how they work. Or even how to delete their cookies.

[Bryan]

"Unscientific non-traditional online" means biased and irrelevant.

Apparently you don't know what the word biased means. Everyone had the same opportunity to respond to the same polls. There was literally no bias whatsoever.

[?Impact]

here's an excerpt from an interesting piece by Judge Napolitano....

Since you bring up former New Jersey Court Andrew P. Napolitano, why did't you also repeat what he said about the debate?

I thought she clobbered him. It wasn't even close. These debates are won or lost not on debating points but general impressions. The impression was that she controlled the ball, he was on the defensive, and he utterly failed to address the perception she is unworthy of trust...

I don't think he was prepared. Since I know some of the people that were preparing him, some are here and probably went in one ear and out the other. He thought he would win this debate the way he won the primary debate. She was poised, charming, intelligent and for the first time, likable.

[cybercoma]

Apparently you don't know what the word biased means. Everyone had the same opportunity to respond to the same polls. There was literally no bias whatsoever.

Apparently you don't understand that I'm talking about statistical bias and not ideological bias. Everyone did not have the same opportunity. Not everyone has the internet. Not everyone visits those sites. Not everyone who does fills out the polls. There's all kinds of bias there.

More importantly, as kimmy pointed out, 4chan has a record of intentionally messing with open online polls. The data is not scientific. It's not rigorous. It's not generalizable. Period.

Even scientific and highly controlled online studies are not allowed to talk about margins of error. They have to remark on margin of error in "equivalent sized samples" because there's methodological limitations with online sampling.