(10-21-2016 04:06 PM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

Page 888 for high-energy forum readers :/

(10-21-2016 04:03 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I forgot to tell you guys, when I went to the Pence speech I was standing next to a woman and we started chatting.

She's a huge Trump supporter and was going on about all the things we do.

We talk about jobs.

Guess what her's is?

A FUCKING VICTIM'S ADVOCATE

You can't tell me people don't see through the bullshit when a victim's advocate is a die hard Trump supporter.

MAGA!

That's...unusual - I always thought most so-called Advocates tend to vote Democrats. But Fisto, WYB a Victim's Advocate?

(10-21-2016 04:26 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 04:03 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I forgot to tell you guys, when I went to the Pence speech I was standing next to a woman and we started chatting.

She's a huge Trump supporter and was going on about all the things we do.

We talk about jobs.

Guess what her's is?

A FUCKING VICTIM'S ADVOCATE

You can't tell me people don't see through the bullshit when a victim's advocate is a die hard Trump supporter.

MAGA!

That's...unusual - I always thought most so-called Advocates tend to vote Democrats. But Fisto, WYB a Victim's Advocate?

Only if it's in a foursome with a young Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein

(10-21-2016 04:30 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 04:26 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 04:03 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I forgot to tell you guys, when I went to the Pence speech I was standing next to a woman and we started chatting.

She's a huge Trump supporter and was going on about all the things we do.

We talk about jobs.

Guess what her's is?

A FUCKING VICTIM'S ADVOCATE

You can't tell me people don't see through the bullshit when a victim's advocate is a die hard Trump supporter.

MAGA!

That's...unusual - I always thought most so-called Advocates tend to vote Democrats. But Fisto, WYB a Victim's Advocate?

Only if it's in a foursome with a young Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein

That sounds ominous.

HIGH FUCKING ENERGY FOR 1776 !!

EDIT: FUCK I missed it.

A whole alternate reality would have happened if I could go back in time and bang those two broads.

RCP: "Trump losing in all the polls".
ME: "Trump winning in all three RCP General Election polls today".
RCP:"Trump losing in all the polls".

(10-21-2016 03:40 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 01:26 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  When you say the 'black vote', are the percentages you're talking about percentages of black Americans in general? or the percentage of blacks who actually vote?

There's only 12 million black Americans, how many will vote? 50, 40, 30%?

Arguing whether 3% or 30% of black people vote for Trump, it doesn't seem that significant to me. What am I missing?

I don't think that is correct. 40 million is what I found on a quick search.

Mixed up the total number with the percentage of the population. Blacks number about 40 million, but are approximately 12-13% of the total population.

Another positive sign: This is a Fox Poll which puts Hillary +4 [With some over sampled Demographics: Women/Latinos]. Despite this, Trump is still +4 in early voting. From the poll:

Quote:Trump is winning the early/absentee vote by 4 points (51-47)
Clinton is winning independent voters by almost 30 points (57-28)
Clinton is winning women by 11 points (53-42); Trump wins men by 5 points (49-44)
Trump is winning the I-4 corridor by 8 points (51-43); Clinton winning SE Florida by 32 points (64-32)
Clinton wins the 30-44 age group by 23 points (59-36); Trump wins 65+ by 7 points (52-45)

Who are they trying to fool: You don't trail by +20 in key demographics and somehow turn in +4 in early voting. Probability doesn't work like that.

In 2012: Early voting looked like this:

Quote: FLORIDA

Who's leading the early vote: Democrats, 43 percent to 41 percent.

How significant is it: More than 50 percent voted early in 2008.

The spin: Though Democrats are leading the combined early and absentee vote in Florida, they led it in 2008 by a much greater margin. Their current lead of nearly 60,000 votes is far short of the 280,000-vote lead (and 46-37 margin) they carried into Election Day in 2008. (The dropoff could be a result of the shortening of in-person early voting.) Republicans' share of the early vote, 41 percent, is 5 points higher than their share of voter registration, 36 percent, while Democrats' 43 percent of early voters is just 2 points above their 41 percent voter registration share. In a state Obama won by less than 3 points in 2008, where the majority of votes are early and Republicans tend to win Election Day, any falloff should be concerning for Democrats.

In the 2012 election, Obama won Florida by less than 1% and was leading by 2% in early voting. Today, Trump's already +4 in Florida. Couple this with the fact that last week, Democrats were actively trying to extend voter registration [A sign you're losing], and we're looking good to win Florida.

You want proof that even Fox [The network not the hosts] are Pro Hillary? Even they've been running the lie that Trump needs a big early voter lead to win in Florida [A lie which likely stems from the producers]. Why would the production team peddle such a lie? Demoralization? Why would they want to demoralize Trump supporters? I'll give you one guess...

(10-21-2016 04:43 PM)Fisto Wrote:  A whole alternate reality would have happened if I could go back in time and bang those two broads.

Quote:"Your Honor, I did not bang that woman."

Fisto, 1998 A.D

Quote:Hillary Off The Campaign Trail
Posted on October 20, 2016 by Anonymous Conservative

Hillary was off the campaign trial yet again today. You do not hide when you just won a debate. You scream it from the rooftops. Even when you lost, you get back out there and claim you won.

Hillary is off the trail because Donald physically injured her last night. All he used was words, interruption/frustration, out-grouping, and other forms of amygdala stimulation. I assume Hillary entered that debate with some form of minor amygdala stimulation due to something going wrong before it, because she was triggered from the moment she walked out. But whatever the cause of the magnitude of her injury, it might as well have been a baseball bat Donald was wielding. After the debate, as she talked with the crowd, I was amazed at how closely her smile appeared to crying at times. She was epically triggered.

When she went home, she was probably as sick as a dog, and by this morning her immune system, and particularly her GI immune system, was completely dysregulated. As a result, I’m sure the microbes in her GI tract were toxic and flooding her blood with all sorts of toxic metabolites, her nervous system was exhausted, and she was literally laid low as if Donald had beaten her with a baseball bat.

That will have longer term consequences. Her physical breakdown, proceeding before our eyes already, will hasten. Where it will go is unpredictable, but it will not aid her campaign. If she takes tomorrow off, you will know Donald did real damage, and if I were Donald, I would joke about it. “I don’t know what happened to Hillary during the debate, but she is laid out in bed again today. Maybe I broke her? She could be broke from all the stress of facing me. She did not look well after it, I tell you that. I think I did that to her. It is such a shame – such a nice woman, too.” Then big laughter. If Donald did that to her and is laughing about it and joking about it, it will not be good for her. It will enrage her – at Donald, at her own body, at fate, and at herself for being weak. Of course the media will try to cover up for her.

That can only be good for America.

Source: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blo...ign-trail/

A compilation of quotes from Ann Coulter's new book:

Quote:“Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another Home Alone movie with Macaulay Culkin—or playing in the NBA Finals—than winning the Republican nomination.”
—Harry Enten, “Why Donald Trump Isn’t a Real Candidate, in One Chart,” FiveThirtyEight, June 16, 2015

“[Trump] doesn’t expect to win the White House. The only thing he’s selling is an image-enhancing candidacy for the presidency.”
—Jack Shafer, “Welcome to the Donald Trump Show,” Politico, June 16, 2015

“The reality that he’s in ninth place in the Republican field and my guess is [that he] probably won’t ever crack the top five or six. . . . [Trump will have to] find some way to bow out of this race at some point while at least, in his mind, saving face.”
—McKay Coppins, political writer for BuzzFeed, MSNBC’s All in With Chris Hayes, June 17, 2015

“I think if you look at the Irish booking odds right now, Jeb Bush is a 7–1 favorite to win the presidency, Marco Rubio is 7–2.”
—Hugh Hewitt, conservative radio host, MSNBC’s Up with Steve Kornacki, June 20, 2015

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Let me ask you a couple of questions. How should Republicans handle Donald Trump?
KARL ROVE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Ignore him. Look, he is completely off the base. . . . This guy is not a serious candidate.
—Fox News Sunday, June 21, 2015

“Jeb Bush, who might be president, and Donald Trump, who won’t be president, competing for media oxygen, and well, it was a contest.”
—Howard Kurtz, host, Fox News’ MediaBuzz, June 21, 2015

“Anyone who takes [Trump] seriously should really, really, really be ashamed.”
—Michelle Bernard, president of the Bernard Center for Women, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, June 23, 2015

“At the end of the day, it’s quite possible that Donald Trump will get 11 percent in New Hampshire, but that might be his cap.”
—Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, Politico, June 24, 2015

“If anything, Trump’s current poll numbers suggest his weakness.”
—Daniel W. Drezner, professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, The Washington Post, July 2, 2015

“Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee. There’s absolutely no way—his unfavorables are above 60 percent.”
—Lisa Boothe, Republican strategist, CNN’s New Day, July 4, 2015

“The early Republican polls showing Trump in second position behind Jeb Bush are hilarious—and meaningless.”
—Carl Hiaasen, author and columnist, “There Will Never Be a President Trump,” The Miami Herald, July 11, 2015

“Let’s start with this: Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.”
—Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post, July 12, 2015

“I’m pretty confident that when we’re waiting for the votes to be counted in Iowa and New Hampshire, we won’t be talking about Donald Trump.”
—Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s chief political strategist, MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, July 13, 2015

“I do not believe we will be talking much about Donald Trump in November, December, [and] January.”
—Charles Cook, editor of The Cook Political Report, MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, July 13, 2015

“I don’t think Donald Trump is going to be the nominee of the Republican Party.”
—Rich Galen, Republican strategist, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360°, July 15, 2015

“Don Voyage! Trump Is Toast After Insult: ‘McCain Not a War Hero’”
—New York Post headline, July 19, 2015

“Trump’s support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest of the field consolidates.”
—Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, July 20, 2015

“There is no chance that Donald Trump is going to be nominated by the Republican Party as their presidential nominee.”
—Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, CNN Tonight, July 20, 2015

“The Donald Trump candidacy is almost over. Don’t be fooled by Trump’s double-digit lead in a new poll: He is not going to win. . . . Donald Trump is not running a real campaign. . . . Soon, the bolder members of the field will follow Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in making harder and more decisive strokes against him. Unlike Trump, they’ll use real oppo, tested, and targeted messages—ads built not just to cut, but to kill. They’ll break his operational tempo, get inside his OODA loop, and turn his circus into a crispy ruin. It’s what real campaigns do.”
—Rick Wilson, Republican message and media strategist, Politico, July 22, 2015



“[Trump’s] unfavorable ratings are extraordinarily high. So this is not a popular person. And people tend, in the end, to vote for people they like.”
—Gerald Seib, Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, CBS News’ Face the Nation, July 26, 2015

“Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee, in almost—almost all certainty.”
—John Heilemann, co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics, CBS News’ Face the Nation, July 26, 2015

“At the end of the day, [Trump] is not going to be the Republican nominee.”
—Sara Fagen, Republican strategist and former political director for President George W. Bush, NBC News’ Meet the Press, July 26, 2015

“He hit a ceiling now, at 20 percent? When you look at his negatives in New Hampshire, he’s got 53 percent. There’s nowhere to go after 20 percent.”
—Amy Walter, national editor of The Cook Political Report, NBC News’ Meet the Press, July 26, 2015

“I think Trump is not going to win the nomination.”
—Ron Fournier, senior political columnist for National Journal, NBC News’ Meet the Press, July 26, 2015

“I run into very few people who think Donald Trump is likely to be the nominee of the Republican Party,” (a feat accomplished by not inviting them to his program). “The second thing is that Donald Trump has a high floor relative to everybody else. He’s got 20 percent. He’s also got a low ceiling.”
—Karl Rove, Republican strategist, Fox News Sunday, August 2, 2015

JOHN BRABENDER, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT: Donald Trump is not going to be the nominee. I’m telling you that right now. But . . .
DON LEMON, HOST: How do you say that?
BRABENDER: He’s not just going to be. My experience of doing this for 30 years. I’m just telling you he’s not going to be the nominee.
—CNN Tonight, August 3, 2015

“Donald Trump is doing well now, but I rather suspect the air will come out of that balloon at some point in time. I don’t know when, I don’t know how, but it’s very difficult to imagine him being the Republican nominee for president.”
—Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, CNN’s World Right Now with Hala Gorani, August 5, 2015

“He’s an entertainer. And therefore he’s popular. But he will not be the nominee.”
—Charlie Black, Republican political strategist, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, August 5, 2015

“Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. . . . If you want absurd specificity, I recently estimated Trump’s chance of becoming the GOP nominee at 2 percent.”
—Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, August 6, 2015

“Let me go on the record saying this right now: Donald Trump will not be our next president. He won’t even be the GOP nominee. And I know, I know: We’ve underestimated him before. But still.”
—Amber Phillips, The Washington Post, August 10, 2015

“Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination. It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so.”
—Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, August 11, 2015[/b]

“Virtually all the political prognosticators are united on one point: Donald Trump’s surge is fascinating, but of course he won’t be the Republican nominee.”
—Howard Kurtz, host Fox News’ MediaBuzz, August 16, 2015

“Whomever is going to be the eventual nominee . . . it’s not going be Donald Trump.”
—Robert George, editorial board member of The New York Daily News, MSNBC’s Up with Steve Kornacki, August 16, 2015

“I do think that Trump will hit a ceiling. . . . So, at the end of the day, I don’t believe that Trump will be the nominee.”
—Mindy Finn, Republican political consultant, CNN Newsroom, August 18, 2015

“[Trump is] here to stay for a while, maybe through a few primaries. But he is not going be the nominee. . . . When the field narrows, he won’t go very far.”
—Charlie Black, NBC News’ Meet the Press, August 23, 2015

“Donald Trump, who is not going to be the nominee . . .”
—Alex Castellanos, Republican presidential campaign veteran, NBC News’ Meet the Press, August 23, 2015

“I’m going to show you Donald Trump will not be the nominee of the Republican Party!”
—Adolfo Franco, Republican strategist, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, August 28, 2015

“I am sure Donald Trump will not be our party nominee.”
—Adolfo Franco, MSNBC’s Up with Steve Kornacki, August 30, 2015

“[It] won’t happen, won’t happen. I mean, Trump has . . . I think he’s hit a ceiling of about 30 percent. . . . We’re at peak Trump. Of course, I said this about six weeks ago. . . . Maybe peak Trump will last for another two, three weeks, but I don’t think so . . . I do not believe [Trump] can be the nominee.”
—William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, September 6, 2015

“Last week’s debate . . . could mark the leveling off of Trump’s rise and the beginning of his deflation.”
—Thomas Fitzgerald, politics writer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 20, 2015

“He is getting boring. That’s what destroys Trump. . . . I will be stunned if the next time you and I sit down at this table he still has the numbers that he has now.”
—Ian Bremmer, political scientist, PBS’s Charlie Rose, September 22, 2015

“The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary.”
—Ross Douthat, columnist for The New York Times, Twitter, September 25, 2015

“Carson, Fiorina, and Trump are not going to be our nominee. It is a two-man race, Jeb versus Marco.”
—A “senior GOP strategist,” quoted in Chris Cillizza’s column in The Washington Post, September 29, 2015

“Ultimately, I don’t think he’ll ever put himself at the mercy of actual voters in a primary.”
—Joe Nocera, columnist for The New York Times, “Is Donald Trump Serious?”, September 29, 2015

“You would see him spending a lot more money if he were putting together a true national infrastructure.”
—Rick Wilson, quoted in Joe Nocera’s “Is Donald Trump Serious?” The New York Times, September 29, 2015

“I don’t think [Trump’s] going to be on the ballot by February 1.”
—Stuart Stevens, CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, October 5, 2015

“It’s true that Trump continues to maintain a comfortable lead in national polling—about 10 percentage points ahead of Ben Carson, and another 10 or more over the rest of the field. . . . Despite that, nothing so far tells us that Trump has any serious chance of being the Republican nominee.”
—Jonathan Bernstein, columnist for Bloomberg View, “Seriously, Trump Won’t Win,” October 19, 2015

“And 26.2 percent, Mr. Trump’s number in the RealClearPolitics average, is still a long way from 50 percent. . . . He actually peaked in the RealClearPolitics average, Mr. Trump did. . . . He peaked on September 19th, declined, and has risen a little recently.”
—Karl Rove, Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, October 20, 2015

“No major party has ever nominated a figure like Trump . . . and I don’t believe that the 2016 G.O.P. will be the first.”
—Ross Douthat, The New York Times, October 24, 2015

“Sen. Marco Rubio leads the Republican pack in Iowa—at least according to CNN’s Political Prediction Market. . . . For the Republican nomination, the Prediction Market reveals that Rubio is leading that front, with his odds currently at 46%. Trump’s chances for the nomination are at 22% and Cruz is at 12%.”
—Daniella Diaz, digital producer for CNN Politics, November 19, 2015

“Nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era. . . . That adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent.”
—Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, November 23, 2015

“Do I think it’s likely [that Trump will win the nomination]? No. . . . There are candidates who can plausibly win the nomination. . . . If I’m betting money—three: Bush, Christie, Rubio.”
—Karl Rove, MSNBC’s Morning Joe, November 25, 2015

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, what’s happening now in the Republican Party?
KARL ROVE: They’re a group of people who are so angry. . . . Look, I’m going to be for the Republican nominee, whoever that is. But I do think that politicians who are successful are people who add, don’t subtract.
—Morning Edition, NPR, December 3, 2015

“Facing an existential electoral threat in the form of Donald Trump’s nomination, the rest of the party will unite around a candidate. Right now, I think Ted Cruz is very likely to be that guy.”
—Chris Stirewalt, Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs Tonight, December 8, 2015

“Where’s Donald Trump going to win? Iowa? Don’t think so. . . . Fourth is where I think he’ll end up in Iowa. . . . I’d say the top three in New Hampshire will be Christie, Rubio, and Bush.”
—Stuart Stevens, quoted in Chris Cillizza’s “Mitt Romney’s top strategist thinks Donald Trump won’t win a thing,” The Washington Post, December 11, 2015

“In the Monmouth poll, which is well regarded, if you look at their data on repeat likely [Iowa] caucus-goers, Trump is fourth.”
—George Will, Fox News Sunday, December 13, 2015

“What does a brokered convention mean? What it means is that nobody arrives in Cleveland with a majority of the delegates. That’s likely to happen . . .”
—Karl Rove, Fox News Sunday, December 13, 2015

“Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee.”
—John Harwood, CNBC’s Washington correspondent, December 31, 2015

“I’ll be surprised if it is a choice between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and I would bet against both of them to be party nominees.”
—Larry Sabato, CNN Newsroom, January 18, 2016

“Trump cannot get 51% in a head-to-head against any Republican candidate remaining in the race.”
—Bradley Todd, veteran Republican political strategist, quoted in Adam Edelman’s “Donald Trump, Despite N.H. Primary Victory, Faces Tough Task to Win GOP Nomination,” New York Daily News, February 11, 2016

“I really do believe last night could be a moment where finally Republican voters say enough. . . . And finally, maybe people will focus on: Can and should he be president of the United States? And I think Republican primary voters will say no.”
—William Kristol, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, February 14, 2016

“There are lots of scenarios by which Trump could be denied the nomination.”
—Larry Sabato, CNN Newsroom, February 21, 2016

“But what if Donald Trump already is stopped? What if he’s stopped in the mid-thirties? . . . Rubio wins some of these other states, goes into Florida and wins that—what if there’s a Romney endorsement? . . . Rubio may have won the nomination.”
—Alex Castellanos, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, February 21, 2016

“I don’t believe Donald Trump is ultimately going to be the nominee. It may . . . come down to a bloody fight on the convention floor, but I don’t believe ultimately he will represent the party in November.”
—Sara Fagen, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, February 21, 2016

“I believe Marco Rubio is going to win Florida. . . . And I think a month from now, we may be back here talking about an open convention, because I think old rules apply.”
—Hugh Hewitt, conservative radio host, NBC’s Meet the Press, February 21, 2016

“But I also think it’s probable [Trump] will not have 50 percent of the delegates. . . . So we could go for the first time since 1948 to a second ballot or even a third ballot, where I can assure you that Trump will not be the nominee.”
—Michael Medved, conservative radio host, MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, February 24, 2016

“I think ultimately Marco Rubio is going to be the nominee this fall.”
—Jason Roe, senior adviser to Marco Rubio, CNN Newsroom, February 24, 2016

“And whoever beats Donald Trump will have the right to be the nominee.”
—Stuart Stevens, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360°, March 4, 2016

“Donald Trump would literally have to win every—half the delegates remaining between now and the end of this—to be the nominee. And he’s not on pace to do that.”
—Senator Marco Rubio, CNN’s Early Start, March 8, 2016

“If Ohio and Florida split, I think there’s a pretty good chance to stop Trump. I agree, people are being much too fatalistic. “
—William Kristol, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, March 13, 2016

“I still believe that Donald Trump will not be the nominee.”
—Sen. Marco Rubio, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, March 13, 2016

“Trump’s probability of winning the nomination fell to 44 percent on Friday from 67 percent a week ago. . . . The probability that the Republicans will have a brokered convention to decide the nominee for the Nov. 8 election jumped to 69 percent from 43 percent a week ago, according to PredictIt, an online predictions market where users place money on who they think will win the election.”
—Anjali Athavaley, Reuters, April 1, 2016

“[Trump] is probably not going to be the Republican nominee after all.”
—Jacob Weisberg, Slate, April 8, 2016

“Republican insiders overwhelmingly believe this summer’s national convention will require multiple ballots to select the presidential nominee.”
—Steven Shepard, campaigns editor for Politico, “Insiders: 90 Percent Predict Contested GOP Convention,” Politico, April 8, 2016

• • •

The Drudge Report, April 28, 2016: Trump most votes in Republican history.

IMPORTANT
.
Soros' Open Society Fountation's Vice Chairman is on the Board of Directors of the voting machines used in 16 states. The voting machines which have been proven to be susceptible to hacking and preplanned programming for a desired result are owned by Soros. If you do not see a problem with this, then you're not paying attention.
.
You don't understand the gravity of this situation? A billionaire Clinton donor who has funded multiple leftwing riots in the United States and Europe programs and distributed 392,000 electoral devices in America, and 'deployed' 57,000 vote counting machines to several states. This is not a joke, guys. This is a conflict of interest on a devastating scale.

http://www.smartmatic.com/…/our-team/det...ark-mall…/
http://www.smartmatic.com/…/article/unit...elections/

From Disdain for Plebs

I went to the post office today and mailed in my absentee ballot.

I voted for Trump.

(10-21-2016 05:46 PM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  A compilation of quotes from Ann Coulter's new book:

All of these 'experts' keep talking about unfavorables. What they fail to understand is that there's nothing worse than indifference. The most popular people in every field have one thing in common: The ability to split an audience and the create emotion. "You either love him, or hate him" is a term usually used to describe them. Tarantino, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Muhammad Ali. Etc.

They may have millions of 'haters' but that's a by product of being popular. Trump still has high 'unfavourables' and yet the journalists are still missing the point. Unfavorables are a good thing! There is a reason Trump set the GOP record for votes in the primaries. He's popular and the more popular you become, the more vocal your haters get.

Only a third of the nations 300+ million people turn out to vote. Would you prefer to be the person who has huge favorable ratings and 50 million votes? Or someone who has huge unfavorable ratings and 80 million votes? The choice seems clear...

(10-21-2016 07:44 PM)Adonis Wrote:  

Jorge Ramos is so full of shit, I just saw him being interviewed by Anderson Cooper and he told a story about interviewing a white nationalist who said "he was better than me because he was white and I"m Latino" about twenty seconds later Anderson joked about how similar they look, two white men with light hair and blue eyes, Jorge isn't a victim until he opens his mouth.

(10-23-2016 07:08 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Podesta emails indicate what we always knew: Democrats oversample polls. Did so back in the 2008 election.

If there is one thing i am tired of with our political process is being lied to. Tired of the lies and the bullshit. These idiots lie about everything and its not just the US either....its most of the West.

When a government official or political hack speaks i expect a lie.
"Yes Obamacare has helped people and never raised their rates"
"We have always been at war with EastAsia....i mean Russia in Syria"
"Taxes will never go up and we dont want to take your guns away."

(10-23-2016 07:08 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Podesta emails indicate what we always knew: Democrats oversample polls. Did so back in the 2008 election.

Just for the record, this is a total misunderstanding of the email and of what is going on there.

In polling an "oversample" is a term of art which means that you sample more voters from a smaller but potentially important population to get a better estimate of how that population will vote, or to get a better estimate of the crosstabs within that population. The final results of the poll (the topline) are still reweighted by the estimated fraction of the population in the overall electorate, so the topline will not represent an "oversample" in the sense that you might think.

For example, in a typical poll of 500 voters, black voters will be only 10%-15%, so only about 50-75 voters. That will result in a noisy estimate of the black vote (since the margin of error on 50-75 voters is very high), and will make the estimation of crosstabs among black voters impossible (if you want to further break them down by sex, educational attainment, etc). If the client -- in this case Podesta -- wants to get a more accurate sense of this population -- because it's particularly important for him to understand it, -- he will ask the pollster for an "oversample", so eg to sample 200 black voters or what have you. This will allow him to understand the voting patterns of this slice of the electorate, so that they can be targeted appropriately in terms of ads, campaigns, turnout efforts etc. For the topline, the results will still be weighted by the estimated proportion of this population in the overall electorate.

In short, what is being described in the email is standard procedure, completely benign, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that pollsters intentionally misrepresent the electorate by overweighting (not oversampling, overweighting, that is a key distinction) certain groups. I'm not making any claims here about whether pollsters do that or not, but the Podesta email cited above provides zero evidence of that.

(10-23-2016 07:21 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 07:08 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Podesta emails indicate what we always knew: Democrats oversample polls. Did so back in the 2008 election.

Just for the record, this is a total misunderstanding of the email and of what is going on there.

In polling an "oversample" is a term of art which means that you sample more voters from a smaller but potentially important population to get a better estimate of how that population will vote, or to get a better estimate of the crosstabs within that population. The final results of the poll (the topline) are still reweighted by the estimated fraction of the population in the overall electorate, so the topline will not represent an "oversample" in the sense that you might think.

For example, in a typical poll of 500 voters, black voters will be only 10%-15%, so only about 50-75 voters. That will result in a noisy estimate of the black vote (since the margin of error on 50-75 voters is very high), and will make the estimation of crosstabs among black voters impossible (if you want to further break them down by sex, educational attainment, etc). If the client -- in this case Podesta -- wants to get a more accurate sense of this population -- because it's particularly important for him to understand it, -- he will ask the pollster for an "oversample", so eg to sample 200 black voters or what have you. This will allow him to understand the voting patterns of this slice of the electorate, so that they can be targeted appropriately in terms of ads, campaigns, turnout efforts etc. For the topline, the results will still be weighted by the estimated proportion of this population in the overall electorate.

In short, what is being described in the email is standard procedure, completely benign, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that pollsters intentionally misrepresent the electorate by overweighting (not oversampling, overweighting, that is a key distinction) certain groups. I'm not making any claims here about whether pollsters do that or not, but the Podesta email cited above provides zero evidence of that.

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." There have been other paper trails in the emails and elsewhere that point to coordinated polls between the media and Clinton campaign as well (Monmouth, NBC, ABC, etc.). The emails mentioning the media polling is another data point to back that up. The issue is that the media is working together with Podesta on polls that are released publicly and can skew public perception of how the race is shaking out, even if they are reweighted after the skewed sample. Manipulation like that means they are not purely unbiased and "scientific" polls anymore and instead are Clinton campaign metrics at best and dishonest, Clinton-favorable news cycle PR items at worst. Both are things the media should not be doing unless it is disclosed to the public.

As for "oversampling," what you are saying is rational enough and is stated in a well-organized way, but if we are being honest, people (and, I would assume even people like Podesta and other political types) use "oversampling" and "overweighting" interchangeably sometimes even though they technically have slightly different definitions. That's not to say he wasn't talking about the literal form of oversampling though, just another consideration. If it was internal HRC campaign polling, then your point about oversampling would be completely acceptable. But since it is media polling, then any data points/documents/leaks pointing to coordination with the Clinton campaign regarding sampling OR weighting manipulation is suspect, regardless of which it happened to be (overweighting OR oversampling).

Even so, you are right that this one section of one email doesn't totally prove anything. It is one more document in a bigger picture of conflicting media polling (versus non-media/non-campaign connected polling) and other leaks pointing to coordination on this front. If more suspect media polling samples continue and are proven ridiculous when it comes to the actual vote (ie Clinton doesn't win by millions of votes like these media polls are claiming will happen), and/or we see other leaks pointing to media coordination with the Clinton campaign/DNC as well, then it will be obvious what was going on.

Jessica Drake says, asking me how much for sex: "Is not acceptable behavior for anyone much less a candidate for President". Hmm. So you're telling me that Mr. Trump, A man propositioned by supermodels on a regular basis offered you 10k for sex. You! A washed up cumdumpter whos taken more dick than the state of Utah...




No honey. I don't think so. You used to get paid for being a whore, well now you're about to get sued for being one.