(10-23-2016 09:23 PM)Eastside Wrote:  LOZ, you are arguing about definitions and semantics over "overweighting" versus "oversampling," but missing the whole point of the emails where they said "so we can maximize what we can get out of our media polling."

LOZ was simply pointing out that the argument about 'oversampling' was incorrect, since it based on an incorrect definition. He then went on to specifically say that he wasn't making a claim about what pollsters do one way or the other.

(10-23-2016 09:30 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:23 PM)Eastside Wrote:  LOZ, you are arguing about definitions and semantics over "overweighting" versus "oversampling," but missing the whole point of the emails where they said "so we can maximize what we can get out of our media polling."

LOZ was simply pointing out that the argument about 'oversampling' was incorrect, since it based on an incorrect definition. He then went on to specifically say that he wasn't making a claim about what pollsters do one way or the other.

I understand that. I talked about it later in my post, but also the bigger picture of how some of the polling is going right now.

Eastside, that whole email chain is explicitly related to internal polling commissioned by the HRC campaign. It has nothing do with any supposed collusion between the campaign and public pollsters. When the email says "our media polling" it means polls commissioned by the campaign for internal consumption. When the campaigns want to do internal polls they will work with pollsters to get them done. In this particular case the polling firm they're using is GQR (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner). They are a pollster that often works with Democratic campaigns. The GOP have their own pollsters that they usually work with.

And again, the point of the oversamples is to get a better understanding of particular populations that the campaign needs to study and understand more closely. This is all standard practice routinely done by campaigns and there is simply nothing unusual or nefarious going on there.

Lizard you got any thoughts on the latest polls? Is it fair for us to hold the tracking polls (IBD, USC/Dornsife) to a higher standard than the recent avalanche of conventional polls that show Clinton is dominating? Where do you think the race stands right now?

(10-23-2016 09:47 PM)komatiite Wrote:  Lizard you got any thoughts on the latest polls? Is it fair for us to hold the tracking polls (IBD, USC/Dornsife) to a higher standard than the recent avalanche of conventional polls that show Clinton is dominating? Where do you think the race stands right now?

I think HRC has a clear lead, but doesn't lead by as much as the most extreme high quality / live telephone polls are showing. If I had to bet, I'd say she's leading by about 5 points now and will win by 3-5 points on election day. She will carry women by historic margins -- particularly college educated white women -- and this will more than offset Trump's large advantage among white men with no college education. Women are typically about 53% of the electorate and that is the fact that matters more than any other.

To explain all this would require a long post and I really don't want to argue about these things; it serves no purpose at this point. We'll all find out soon enough. No one will be happier than me if I'm wrong -- indeed, that would make me more ecstatic than I could easily describe. But the above is what I expect.

(10-23-2016 01:44 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  JCVD needs a real dog. Good message though.

(10-23-2016 04:03 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 01:38 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 11:46 AM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

This is fucking high energy.

Van Damme is redpill as fukk, he is also on record talking about Rothschilds and what not. All these 80s and 90s action heros are on the Trump train except for 'I banged my Ecudorean maid' Swarzenegger.

JCVD needs a real dog: not really. When you are a proven extra-tough guy, as in former World Champion kick-boxer or some, you may possess a tiny ludicrous dog or whatever, because, you've already proven that, nevertheless, you're a real man. JCVD can have a faggoty dog or I don't know, wear pink, he remains and will always remain alpha

By the way, the journalists promised that they wouldn't cut him, but they did, of course (1'30)

Actual pic of JCVD vs. Kaine:

(10-23-2016 10:06 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:47 PM)komatiite Wrote:  Lizard you got any thoughts on the latest polls? Is it fair for us to hold the tracking polls (IBD, USC/Dornsife) to a higher standard than the recent avalanche of conventional polls that show Clinton is dominating? Where do you think the race stands right now?

I think HRC has a clear lead, but doesn't lead by as much as the most extreme high quality / live telephone polls are showing. If I had to bet, I'd say she's leading by about 5 points now and will win by 3-5 points on election day. She will carry women by historic margins -- particularly college educated white women -- and this will more than offset Trump's large advantage among white men with no college education. Women are typically about 53% of the electorate and that is the fact that matters more than any other.

To explain all this would require a long post and I really don't want to argue about these things; it serves no purpose at this point. We'll all find out soon enough. No one will be happier than me if I'm wrong -- indeed, that would make me more ecstatic than I could easily describe. But the above is what I expect.

The polls are shit.

I've seen tons of Trump bumper stickers and enough Clinton ones to count on one hand, met and spoke to tons of Trump supporters, seen Trump yard signs and signage everywhere (I've not seen one Clinton yard sign), Trump flags, people wearing Trump hats, all in whats probably the bluest state in the country.

When I take into consideration everything I've seen and taken in over the coarse of this election, from the GOP debates to right now, there's no way Clinton honestly wins.

(10-23-2016 10:07 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 01:44 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  JCVD needs a real dog. Good message though.

(10-23-2016 04:03 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 01:38 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 11:46 AM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

This is fucking high energy.

Van Damme is redpill as fukk, he is also on record talking about Rothschilds and what not. All these 80s and 90s action heros are on the Trump train except for 'I banged my Ecudorean maid' Swarzenegger.

JCVD needs a real dog: not really. When you are a proven extra-tough guy, as in former World Champion kick-boxer or some, you may possess a tiny ludicrous dog or whatever, because, you've already proven that, nevertheless, you're a real man. JCVD can have a faggoty dog or I don't know, wear pink, he remains and will always remain alpha

Contrast game recognized.

(10-23-2016 10:30 PM)aeroektar Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 10:06 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:47 PM)komatiite Wrote:  Lizard you got any thoughts on the latest polls? Is it fair for us to hold the tracking polls (IBD, USC/Dornsife) to a higher standard than the recent avalanche of conventional polls that show Clinton is dominating? Where do you think the race stands right now?

I think HRC has a clear lead, but doesn't lead by as much as the most extreme high quality / live telephone polls are showing. If I had to bet, I'd say she's leading by about 5 points now and will win by 3-5 points on election day. She will carry women by historic margins -- particularly college educated white women -- and this will more than offset Trump's large advantage among white men with no college education. Women are typically about 53% of the electorate and that is the fact that matters more than any other.

To explain all this would require a long post and I really don't want to argue about these things; it serves no purpose at this point. We'll all find out soon enough. No one will be happier than me if I'm wrong -- indeed, that would make me more ecstatic than I could easily describe. But the above is what I expect.

The polls are shit.

I've seen tons of Trump bumper stickers and enough Clinton ones to count on one hand, met and spoke to tons of Trump supporters, seen Trump yard signs and signage everywhere (I've not seen one Clinton yard sign), Trump flags, people wearing Trump hats, all in whats probably the bluest state in the country.

When I take into consideration everything I've seen and taken in over the coarse of this election, from the GOP debates to right now, there's no way Clinton honestly wins.

Basically the polls are split between non-media (independent) polls and media polls or polls with close ties to HRC's campaign (Monmouth, Qpoll, etc.). Trump wins the independent polls all by about 2 points where Hillary wins the media polls by anywhere from 2 to 12, wacky internals and all. Taking an average of all of them doesn't mean much because you have two categories of polls getting different outcomes. Either one is right or the other is. You basically choose to trust one category of polls or the other. Personally I would side with the independents. IBD and Rand (LATimes) have been proven highly accurate (more than other polls in previous elections), and mirror what you see on the ground and rumored internal polling. But If Hillary wins by 10% on election day (absent major and obvious fraud) then I'll admit I was totally wrong.

(10-23-2016 10:30 PM)aeroektar Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 10:06 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:47 PM)komatiite Wrote:  Lizard you got any thoughts on the latest polls? Is it fair for us to hold the tracking polls (IBD, USC/Dornsife) to a higher standard than the recent avalanche of conventional polls that show Clinton is dominating? Where do you think the race stands right now?

I think HRC has a clear lead, but doesn't lead by as much as the most extreme high quality / live telephone polls are showing. If I had to bet, I'd say she's leading by about 5 points now and will win by 3-5 points on election day. She will carry women by historic margins -- particularly college educated white women -- and this will more than offset Trump's large advantage among white men with no college education. Women are typically about 53% of the electorate and that is the fact that matters more than any other.

To explain all this would require a long post and I really don't want to argue about these things; it serves no purpose at this point. We'll all find out soon enough. No one will be happier than me if I'm wrong -- indeed, that would make me more ecstatic than I could easily describe. But the above is what I expect.

The polls are shit.

I've seen tons of Trump bumper stickers and enough Clinton ones to count on one hand, met and spoke to tons of Trump supporters, seen Trump yard signs and signage everywhere (I've not seen one Clinton yard sign), Trump flags, people wearing Trump hats, all in whats probably the bluest state in the country.

When I take into consideration everything I've seen and taken in over the coarse of this election, from the GOP debates to right now, there's no way Clinton honestly wins.

Time to read the Senjikun, forget the demoralization, and apply:

First chapters of Senjikun:
The Empire
Discipline
Unity
Co-operation
Aggressiveness
The Conviction to Win

From the New York Times:

"Karl Rove, the chief strategist of George W. Bush’s successful presidential campaigns, said on Sunday on Fox News that he no longer believed Mr. Trump had a realistic path to victory against Mrs. Clinton.

“I don’t see it happening,” Mr. Rove said."

^ Have these people not learned by now to not count Trump out? How many times have the pundits and establishment politicians been completely wrong in predicting what would happen in this election cycle thus far? I don't see any reason to start taking their opinions seriously now.

(10-23-2016 10:41 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  From the New York Times:

"Karl Rove, the chief strategist of George W. Bush’s successful presidential campaigns, said on Sunday on Fox News that he no longer believed Mr. Trump had a realistic path to victory against Mrs. Clinton.

“I don’t see it happening,” Mr. Rove said."

IKE you don't remember Rove losing it on Fox news on Election Night unable to believe his prediction of Romney winning was not coming true?

(10-23-2016 10:41 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  From the New York Times:

"Karl Rove, the chief strategist of George W. Bush’s successful presidential campaigns, said on Sunday on Fox News that he no longer believed Mr. Trump had a realistic path to victory against Mrs. Clinton.

“I don’t see it happening,” Mr. Rove said."

Lol, 20 seconds after I wrote about how the Left's trying to demoralize us through basic psy-warfare, attacking our Conviction to Win,... enters IKE to tell us that "all is lost, friends, better surrender"!

Losing, as an officer, your Conviction to Win, during Japanese Empire, was punished by death, by the way...

Now is not the time to have doubts (or over-intellectual worries). Now is the time to be religiously convinced that we will win, and go out to vote en-masse for D. Trump... And on the other hand, many of Hillary's low-energy lazybones will not go out to vote ...

Guys, while I appreciate the need to keep up morale, there's no need to lambast LizOz just for thinking Hilary's ahead. He's said specifically he's happy to be proved wrong, and he's specifically said he has a long rationale for his view but doesn't want to clog up the thread arguing about it. I can respect that.

It's been said over and over in this thread that the polls are skewed by the MSM. We all know this. I don't see Oz disagreeing with that point as such. How much the polls are wrong is, like it or not, a matter of speculation at this point. The only poll that counts is the one in early November.

EDIT: Similar goes for IKE. FFS, all he did was post up Karl Rove's brain fart that he doesn't see a realistic path for Trump to win. If you want to take note of it, just add it to the list of "Increasingly Nervous Man" quotes and move on making America great again.

(10-23-2016 10:41 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  From the New York Times:

"Karl Rove, the chief strategist of George W. Bush’s successful presidential campaigns, said on Sunday on Fox News that he no longer believed Mr. Trump had a realistic path to victory against Mrs. Clinton.

“I don’t see it happening,” Mr. Rove said."

1. He'll drop out any day now!
2. He'll never get the nomination!
3. He'll never win the presidency!
4. Here's how Donald Trump can win...1, 2, 3, 4, 5
5. ?????

IKE is obviously trolling. He has been doing this more lately.

Don't feed the troll.

Come November 8th a lot of people will face cognitive dissonance about their abilities to discern truth from pretty fiction.

Dont believe the polls. Look how wrong polls were in predicting Hillary was supposed to beat Sanders in Michigan in the Primary.

^^^ How could they have been so wrong?? That tells us Trump has a serious shot at that state.

Here it is, vote 5 stars! = https://www.facebook.com/pg/fricanospizza/reviews/

(10-25-2016 03:05 PM)Adonis Wrote:  High energy pizza guy from Michigan

(10-26-2016 01:59 AM)HD668B Wrote:  Here it is, vote 5 stars! = https://www.facebook.com/pg/fricanospizza/reviews/

(10-25-2016 03:05 PM)Adonis Wrote:  High energy pizza guy from Michigan

Based on the the Facebook star ratings of the aforementioned restaurant (sample size 1008), I can now confidently predict a comfortable win by Trump on November 8th:

   

(10-26-2016 01:59 AM)HD668B Wrote:  Here it is, vote 5 stars! = https://www.facebook.com/pg/fricanospizza/reviews/

(10-25-2016 03:05 PM)Adonis Wrote:  High energy pizza guy from Michigan

MAGA (Making Alfresco Great Again)

(10-25-2016 08:31 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  I'll post the video off Youtube once it drops, but Newt Gingrich just eviscerated Megyn Kelly live on air, calling out her show, bullshit polling and the entire MSM [Fox included] for blatant bias. He also mentioned that Trump is winning early voting in Pennsylvania which is unprecedented.

Edit: Beat me too it. ^^ Newt was glorious. ^^ Anyway... Here it is:

Newt: You are fascinated by sex!


Me: