Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 185

Thread: The Democratic wave is growing, just how big will it be?

  1. #136 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Fair enough. How about most of the national political pundits who used the polling data were wrong?
    I am one of the only conservatives on JPP since the election that never has said the polls were wrong. What I have said is people made wrongful interpretations of the polls, or that they didn't understand variance.

    I don't think people were wrong for reporting what the polls were saying, where I take issue with are people not understanding how common a 30% shot actually is. Or they would see a poll with trump at a 15% chance and think it's completely over. That type of analysis is simply not accurate. People were taking very reasonable probabilistic occurrences and rounding them down to zero. When you do that, you are getting an inaccurate picture of the electoral landscape.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  2. #137 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irthriuth View Post
    I never said national polls didn't predict hillary by 3%, reta
    Your argument is that we shouldn't trust the polling of today's midterms because the national polls back in 2016 correctly predicted Hillary would win by about 3%.

    Then you tried to pretend that all those National Polls, which were straight up polls, included the EC when they clearly didn't.

    So what you're trying to do is gaslight polling data today so you don't have to accept the inevitable conclusion that the GOP is going to get wiped out in November. Bigly.

    What I want to know is why are you doing that if not for the reason I gave above?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  3. #138 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    So the polls were right that she would win the popular vote by about 3%.

    So why are you trying to gaslight polls today?
    And she (thankfully) is still not President. Not sure what your point is here other than your obvious oblivion to how our elections work.

  4. #139 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irthriuth View Post
    nate silver literally was looking at overall metrics. Not just popular vote. Multiple outlets were doing this, assessing overall probability of winning BASED on national popular vote, which translates in part to an electoral college advantage. and while there isn't a 1:1 correlation between the national popular vote and the electoral college win, there IS correlation.
    We're not talking about Nate Silver, we were talking about the reliability of polls.

    And all those polls showed Clinton winning by a margin of about 3% which was her actual margin of victory.

    So it seems to me like you are trying to pretend that Silver's analysis of polls is somehow representative of the polls themselves, and you're doing that to gaslight the recent polls showing a pretty huge Democratic margin. So it would appear you're trying to gaslight midterm polls just to feel better about yourself.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  5. #140 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irthriuth View Post
    you are a very stupid individual. you are arguing things I am not even talking about. You are in way over your head here.
    Your argument is that we should not rely on polls because they accurately predicted Clinton's margin in 2016.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  6. #141 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Your argument is that we shouldn't trust the polling of today's midterms because the national polls back in 2016 correctly predicted Hillary would win by about 3%.
    No, that is not my argument. not even slightly.

    Then you tried to pretend that all those National Polls, which were straight up polls, included the EC when they clearly didn't.
    No, I did not. I said multiple outlets made PREDICTIONS, BASED on polling data, which in part correlates to the EC. This is what nate silver and others did. They studied the polls and then made projections.

    I am not saying the polls were wrong. I am saying they were correct. You are assuming I am making an argument or have ulterior motives in this thread, and have jumped the gun with wrongful assumptions because you cannot read what I am saying.

    Now that I have literally said "no, that is not what I am saying at all," and I have clarified that I am 100% not saying we shouldn't trust polls, you can either admit to yourself you jumped the gun on my argument, or that you don't understand my argument, and either ask for further clarification or simply move on, because I am not making the arguments you think I am.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  7. #142 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Your argument is that we should not rely on polls because they accurately predicted Clinton's margin in 2016.
    no, i am not making that argument at all, not even slightly. Not even remotely. As I said, you clearly don't understand what it is I am discussing.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  8. #143 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    We're not talking about Nate Silver, we were talking about the reliability of polls.

    And all those polls showed Clinton winning by a margin of about 3% which was her actual margin of victory.

    So it seems to me like you are trying to pretend that Silver's analysis of polls is somehow representative of the polls themselves, and you're doing that to gaslight the recent polls showing a pretty huge Democratic margin. So it would appear you're trying to gaslight midterm polls just to feel better about yourself.
    I am and was taking about nate silver, and other analysts trying to predict the election BASED ON POLLING DATA, before you butted in and assumed I was disagreeing with you.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  9. #144 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    And she (thankfully) is still not President. Not sure what your point is here other than your obvious oblivion to how our elections work.
    So you're jumping around from non-sequitur to non-sequitur and it's pretty obvious why.

    This debate started out with someone saying that the Democrats have a large polling lead on the generic ballot, and that lead could spell a blue tsunami. Conservatives, rattled by those polls, decided to indict and gaslight polling by saying polls can't be trusted because Clinton polled ahead of Trump, yet lost the election because of the EC. What the EC has to do with a popular vote poll is a mystery to me, but it would seem like you want people to think that Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote, because that way you don't have to accept the conclusions of the polling that shows a Democratic advantage in the midterms.

    I see right through you.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. #145 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irthriuth View Post
    No, I did not. I said multiple outlets made PREDICTIONS, BASED on polling data, which in part correlates to the EC. This is what nate silver and others did. They studied the polls and then made projections.
    Right, but you keep wanting to talk about projections and interpretations, and I'm telling you that none of that matters when it comes to polling accuracy because the polls in 2016 were accurate.

    So there's no reason to believe the polls aren't accurate today.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  11. #146 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Right, but you keep wanting to talk about projections and interpretations, and I'm telling you that none of that matters when it comes to polling accuracy because the polls in 2016 were accurate.

    So there's no reason to believe the polls aren't accurate today.
    i agree they were accurate in 2016.

    I agree they are accurate today.

    Again, you are too stupid apparently to notice I have said this already ten times in this thread. No where did I say the polls would not be accurate for this upcoming election.

    Trump had accurately a 30% to win in 2016, and that 30% chance materialized.

    The republicans have roughly a 30% chance to maintain the house this year. It may or may not materialize. It is unlikely that it will, but there is still a strong chance it could occur.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  12. #147 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    4,929
    Thanked 3,685 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 707 Times in 647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    So you're jumping around from non-sequitur to non-sequitur and it's pretty obvious why.

    This debate started out with someone saying that the Democrats have a large polling lead on the generic ballot, and that lead could spell a blue tsunami. Conservatives, rattled by those polls, decided to indict and gaslight polling by saying polls can't be trusted because Clinton polled ahead of Trump, yet lost the election because of the EC. What the EC has to do with a popular vote poll is a mystery to me, but it would seem like you want people to think that Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote, because that way you don't have to accept the conclusions of the polling that shows a Democratic advantage in the midterms.

    I see right through you.
    None of it matters the racist right wing cheated anyway. Hilary was clearly the winner.

    The polls didn't mean anything except now the media can twist everything into the republican favor.

  13. #148 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Hold on.

    Back up.

    You tried to indict the polling by claiming that the polls can't be trusted because Clinton didn't win the election, despite winning the popular vote by the same margin the polls all predicted.

    So before we can move on and let you have your bottle, you need to be held accountable for the attempted gaslighting you just tried to do. Why were you trying to gaslight polling when the polling was accurate in 2016? The polls showed Clinton winning nationally by 2-3% and that was her actual popular vote margin. So would you say you were wrong when you were trying to gaslight polling data by very duplicitous pretending it had anything to do with the Electoral College?

    It's actions like the one you took here that makes me think you're a piece of shit garbage person, and why I have absolutely no respect for you.
    Bro, you are taking this waaay to personally. I said the EC predictions prior to the election were wrong and somehow that has triggered you and made me a horrible person. Most people thought Hillary would win the Presidency, that's just a fact. That's not gaslighting anything.

  14. #149 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,563 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    538 has a 75 percent chance the Dems take the house.

  15. #150 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Bro, you are taking this waaay to personally. I said the EC predictions prior to the election were wrong and somehow that has triggered you and made me a horrible person. Most people thought Hillary would win the Presidency, that's just a fact. That's not gaslighting anything.
    What EC predictions? This is all within the context of the general polling showing a Democratic advantage in the midterms right now. What does the EC have to do with that? Nothing.

    You're just a garbage person. One of the worst of the worst.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


Similar Threads

  1. Midterms: Blue wave, or Red wave?
    By Evmetro in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 07-09-2020, 10:28 PM
  2. The Red Wave is Growing
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-15-2018, 12:34 PM
  3. Heat wave
    By wanderingbear in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-22-2011, 08:35 AM
  4. A Developing Wave
    By Cancel7 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-17-2008, 06:12 AM
  5. John Edwards and the democratic Wing of the Democratic Party
    By Cypress in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 10:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •