So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

If they are afraid to tell. Then they might not tell you...

 

Media by and large is liberal, and I'm not just talking news media.

 

But social media too.

Trump being so polarizing and over the top, and let's admit not a perfect candidate either makes it hard to go all in on the guy on FB, Twitter, etc. at least if your friends are on both sides of the political spectrum. So you're already at a big disadvantage there.

 

I have a coworker from Oklahoma City who says he knows nobody who is voting for Hillary and only knew 1 person who voted for Obama. LOL.

 

For the big city cats, it would be the opposite mostly.

 

Lastly, there is no nice and clean civil discussion on FB regarding politics. Let's be real, what we have in this thread would never ever happen on FB.

 

My absentee ballot is a no go.......I never changed from a VA driver's license when I moved to DG, and can't provide a VA address anymore. A NY absentee ballot would require a NY driver's license which I do not have either.

 

Not going to go all out to participate in this election.

 

Besides, I'm 0-4 in presidential elections since 2000, voting major party each time. Maybe I can be of help here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3PgJkuczHU

Trump is a creative genius. Conspiracy theory du jour.

 

The polls are rigged.

 

The same ones we had to listen to him tout all through the primaries when he was ahead.

 

Keep digging Donald you're almost to Chinah.

Trump is a creative genius. Conspiracy theory du jour.

 

The polls are rigged.

 

The same ones we had to listen to him tout all through the primaries when he was ahead.

 

Keep digging Donald you're almost to Chinah.

 

hasn't wikileaks released emails corroborating that they oversample democrats for the polls so they can publish polls showing her way ahead?

hasn't wikileaks released emails corroborating that they oversample democrats for the polls so they can publish polls showing her way ahead?

 

More people are registered Democrats and it's a pretty significant margin. Here is an article from Pew Research that breaks down the data.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-d...ty-affiliation/

 

And Fox News is in on this grand scheme too?

 

Gallup[edit]

 

As of October 2014, Gallup polling found that 43% of Americans identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans, when party "leaners" were included; those figures changed to 41% Democratic and 42% Republican after the November 2014 elections.

 

That's all I can find on it currently. But nothing concrete on the relation.

 

How many of you are afraid to publicly express support to Trump or conservative talking points on your social media? If so, why?

 

Here's an example of a post I came across tonight:

 

"I would say that someone who is not a racist, misogynist, nativist, fascist rapist is yes, really, better. And that is couching it in negative terms when in fact we have someone who is arguably the most experienced and qualified individual to run for this office in a very long time, perhaps even ever. #imwithher 💯and I can't wait to cast that vote nov 8"

 

She's a bit of a girl power feminist but that's besides the point.

 

Where do you begin to have a discussion with that viewpoint?

 

 

 

Here's an example of a post I came across tonight:

 

"I would say that someone who is not a racist, misogynist, nativist, fascist rapist is yes, really, better. And that is couching it in negative terms when in fact we have someone who is arguably the most experienced and qualified individual to run for this office in a very long time, perhaps even ever. #imwithher 💯and I can't wait to cast that vote nov 8"

 

She's a bit of a girl power feminist but that's besides the point.

 

Where do you begin to have a discussion with that viewpoint?

 

 

Exactly, there is no reason to argue. I suspect this is why we don't have some more established members posting in this thread.

 

 

 

 

Hilary talks about 'being the President for every American." I find it very unlikely that she can follow an example, as Putin does here:

 

If I was voting, I'd vote for Trump simply because he is closer to this, closer to authenticity and real change.

 

I don't get it. It's already been proven the DNC helped rig the primaries for Hillary over Bernie, and then Trump is skeptical about polling and possible election results and everyone laughs at him.

Yet nobody wants to talk about when Al Gore refused to except the election results when he was beaten by Bush and it took a court ruiling for the results to be confirmed

I don't get it. It's already been proven the DNC helped rig the primaries for Hillary over Bernie, and then Trump is skeptical about polling and possible election results and everyone laughs at him.

Yet nobody wants to talk about when Al Gore refused to except the election results when he was beaten by Bush and it took a court ruiling for the results to be confirmed

 

I don't know where you are going with that first statement, you seem to be implying the DNC is somehow going to rig the general election? I don't see how you can logically make that connection. I don't disagree they stacked the deck for Clinton in the primaries, but that's as far as it goes. Wikileaks (nee Russia) wouldn't have released this massive bombshell by now?

 

On your second point, so you consider contesting the results before they are known and the integrity of the entire US election system is the same as requesting a recount in one state after the election when a real issue came to light?

 

All I have read is Podesta is talking about internal polling. Oversampling is a common polling technique to better understand smaller demographic subsets and correct for margin of error when polling small sample sizes.

 

Excerpt from a Pew Research article.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s...earch/sampling/

 

Oversampling

 

For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.

 

For example, African Americans make up 13.6% of the total U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census. A survey with a sample size of 1,000 would only include approximately 136 African Americans. The margin of sampling error for African Americans then would be around 10.5 percentage points, resulting in estimates that could fall within a 21-point range, which is often too imprecise for many detailed analyses surveyors want to perform. In contrast, oversampling African Americans so that there are roughly 500 interviews completed with people in this group reduces the margin of sampling error to about 5.5 percentage points and improves the reliability of estimates that can be made. Unless a listed sample is available or people can be selected from prior surveys, oversampling a particular group usually involves incurring the additional costs associated with screening for eligible respondents.

 

An alternative to oversampling certain groups is to increase the overall sample size for the survey. This option is especially desirable if there are multiple groups of interest that would need to be oversampled. However, this approach often increases costs because the overall number of completed interviews needs to be increased substantially to improve the representation of the subgroup(s) of interest.

Please stop providing rational explanations, otherwise there will be no basis to claim rigging.

Please stop providing rational explanations, otherwise there will be no basis to claim rigging.

 

A lot echo chambers out there where things aren't challenged or analyzed. As long as it reinforces the underlying bias, it's gospel. And that applies on both sides.

For those who gleefully await each day to dissect the next Wikileaks dump and then use it as ammunition against Clinton, the DNC etc. while claiming there is no proof Russia is ultimately not behind it. Ponder this.

 

Do you think for one second, Wikileaks hasn't or won't acquire similar information about the Republican political machine and when it serves Russia's interest to destabilize, interfere or undermine, dump it. I guess that is one conspiracy theory too far for this election cycle.

 

This is a case where the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

If they are afraid to tell. Then they might not tell you...

I think people who support Trump for ligitimate reasons will shy away because the good things he stands for (ie being a political outsider, not being a career politician, etc etc.), are overshadowed by the bad, and by supporting Trump many will automatically associate them with the racist and ignorant support base that he has which frankly is a lot of people.

 

I get the appeal of Trump, I really do. The idea that someone says things like it is and is an outsider on the political stage is good. Its good if he's an amazing businessman so he brings that experience to the role. Its just clear that Trump isn't the right person for it. He may say things brashly but that doesnt mean he says it as he sees it...he's flip flopped quite a lot in a short period of time.

 

Support for Trump is support for his image...his brand if you will. In the west Trump is someone who has always been known for his wealth and his brand. Hes reveared as many people's definition of success and as Roman said he's someone who can't be bought and owes noone anything...

 

...or so we think...We have NO IDEA who he owes money to. We have no idea how much money he makes and as for being a great business man we dont know that either. We know his business has had a huge loss he's used to not pay taxes for a few years. We also know hes been in thousands of lawsuitsand has the temperment of a 5 year old. Hes also has many business failures we know of as well. These arent signs of a good businessman in my books at least. And who knows maybe he doesnt want to release his tax returns because some of his opponents would show to be making as much money as him, if not more.

 

We also dont know who he owes money to. Would the presidency help him in that regard if he owes foreign investors anything?

 

I think anyone can be bought they just have their price.

 

Hillary has been in the political spotlight for years and yes, like most politicians has her flaws and has her two faces (I honestly can't imagine how you could navigate politics being 100% honest, I cant even do that shit in my personal life ). I think its very wishful thinking that Trump wouldnt be the same or tenfold worse in this regard. As it is he's got plenty of shit brewing to the surface and he's not even in the political limelight yet...imagine if he was in a position of power.

 

What Trump is in his own businesses is a dictator...that's what an owner/CEO would be...what he says goes. Hes bringing that mentality to his candidacy and its obvious. He's a dictator and talks like one and I wouldn't expect anything else from him. I would however expect a better understanding of, and appreciation for, the democracy a presidential candidate is a part of.

 

 

Good post, Nima.

 

 

 

 

Ok so outline how her proposed policies are BETTER? Third debate they pointed out neither one has a healthcare policy with any merit. The two have been so busy slinging mud that the true issues that matter are all but forgotten.

Excellent video Roman... A bit of truth from Moore

For those who gleefully await each day to dissect the next Wikileaks dump and then use it as ammunition against Clinton, the DNC etc. while claiming there is no proof Russia is ultimately not behind it. Ponder this.

 

Do you think for one second, Wikileaks hasn't or won't acquire similar information about the Republican political machine and when it serves Russia's interest to destabilize, interfere or undermine, dump it. I guess that is one conspiracy theory too far for this election cycle.

 

This is a case where the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

 

Ok lets roll with Russia is behind WikiLeaks:

 

WikiLeaks is exposing corruption in DNC/Clintons. That implies Russia would benefit from a less Corrupt USA. I think the whole world and the US population would benefit from that. Yes WikiLeaks info is destabilizing the USA in the short term but I don't see how a less corrupt USA would outright benefit Russia long term.

 

I can think of two abstract reasons but would like to hear your take 1st.

 

 

LMAO!!!

 

 

:icon_thumleft:

Ok lets roll with Russia is behind WikiLeaks:

 

WikiLeaks is exposing corruption in DNC/Clintons. That implies Russia would benefit from a less Corrupt USA. I think the whole world and the US population would benefit from that. Yes WikiLeaks info is destabilizing the USA in the short term but I don't see how a less corrupt USA would outright benefit Russia long term.

 

I can think of two abstract reasons but would like to hear your take 1st.

 

And the RNC isn't corrupt? Sure there are no emails regarding derailing Trump's nomination bid?

 

What it implies is Russia believes America would be weaker with somebody like Trump who has no real understanding of foreign policy and said things like nuclear proliferation is a good thing. Trump also has publicly stated he is willing to destabilize long existing alliances that have kept Russian aggression in check. Trump's statements America could work with Russia are a pipe dream. Clinton is a hawk and will be far more assertive than Obama and they know it. Russia couldn't give a flying fcuk whether we are more or less corrupt. All they care about is weakening America both internally and externally. Romney was right about Russia in 2012.

And the RNC isn't corrupt? Sure they are no emails regarding derailing Trump's nomination bid?

 

What it implies is Russia believes America would be weaker with somebody like Trump who has no real understanding of foreign policy and said things like nuclear proliferation is a good thing. Trump also has publicly stated he is willing to destabilize long existing alliances that have kept Russian aggression in check. Trump's statements America could work with Russia are pipe dream. Clinton is a hawk and will be far more assertive than Obama and they know it. Russia couldn't give a flying fcuk whether we are more or less corrupt. All they care about is weakening America both internally and externally. Romney was right about Russia in 2012.

 

Russia would love for there to be an amateur at the helm.

I will be interesting to see if Trump can get any traction with the just announced 25% average increase in health premiums.

 

 

LMAO!!!

 

It's not funny at all, it's chilling. He is dead right and also realizes the consequences for all of us if we do blow up the system however flawed the status quo is. He doesn't support Trump.

 

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/