Given that the lie centered around how “having sex with that woman” was defined, I think its debatability is debatable. Particularly since the original investigation was about a land deal.
Cite?
And Trump’s lead on honesty is yuuuge now.
And here’s why the Quinnipiac poll is rubbish:
So if I were betting the farm on the election, I wouldn’t be using this poll as my yardstick.
We can finally score one for Trump on the policy front. Trump has a plan to reform the VA. Clinton does not, or at least not a serious one. She’s more interested in protecting the bureaucrats than veterans:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-gets-it-right-on-reforming-the-va/
While the “skewed polls” argument is obviously crap, any one poll can be skewed. Which is why I said it will be interesting to see if other pollsters find the same thing.
The guy who ran a phony fundraiser for veterans and then got rankled when asked to tell us where the money went is going to win hearts and minds based on veterans issues? And you honestly think that Hillary isn’t going to have a policy on the VA?
McLatchy also sees a deterioration in her poll numbers:
Those are the today poll numbers that aren’t great; yesterday Bloomberg had a very detailed poll that was a nightmare for Trump (Hillary way ahead on college-educated whites, which no Republican has ever lost).
A trend would be a series of polls over weeks that show Trump gaining ground consistently. Anything short of that is noise.
No, totally wrong. As stated, if the election were held today Clinton would win by a landslide. The reason for the 20% likelihood for Trump is that a lot can change in the next 4 months and so there are large error bars as far as a prediction of what will happen in November.
I actually do know a little bit about stats (check my occupation under profile 
), and I agree that no stat person worth his salt would give a 100% or 0% chance this far out, because of the aforesaid error bars. But as a stats person I would acknowledge that the reason I wouldn’t call it 0% or 100% is that the data is quite sparse at this point and so I am not entirely confident in my predictions this early.
For example I can predict that there is about a 55% chance that it will rain in Seattle on December 17th 2023. But that doesn’t mean that I feel I have a whole lot of recent meteorological data that supports this, or that I predict that it will be cloudy that day, just that based on historic trends it rains an average of 17/31 days in December. Similarly, Nate has evidence that the error bars on a landslide victory today make a model that makes there a 20% chance that Trump will be able to close the gap, but that doesn’t mean its currently close or will be close on election day.
ETA: Reading back over what I wrote I think you may have misunderstood my final statement. I wasn’t talking about Nate’s predictions in general, which I agree have been excellent, but just in the current situation where all he has available is early polling data that may not be very well correlated with the final polls in November.
This just in- Michele Bachmann says Trump was chosen by God.
This year, I think a front-end loader would be more suited to the task.
TL:DR “ME! Donald, over here, me! ME! ME!”
:rolleyes: Nice try, but the “skewed polls” naysayers you are talking about tried to claim the candidate *behind *in the polls was actually going to win. I’m not doing that! I’m saying the guy who’s behind is almost certainly going to lose.
On this point, I agree with RickJay. If I actually believed Drumpf had a 30% chance of winning, I would find that terrifying. That’s close to putting two bullets in a revolver and playing a round of Russian roulette! :eek:
As one poster (forget who exactly; feel free to raise your hand if you are reading this) long ago tired of my pointing out, I spent a couple years assigning probabilities to world events for a DARPA-funded project. I was not a “superforecaster” (top couple percent), but I was well above average among a crowd of forecasters who all did better than anyone expected when the project began. And if I were forecasting this election, I’d crank that dial over to 99% for Hillary. If it allowed an estimation of <1% (it didn’t), I’d give Drumpf about .001%. Effectively, I believe he’s got no plausible path to victory.
Looking only at the numbers ignores the forest for the trees. Republicans have increasingly become automatic longshots in presidential elections, due to demographic changes and their own increasing extremism, infighting, and general disarray. Take that inherent situation and nominate someone who exacerbates those demographic challenges and further turns off the older married white women who usually love Republicans, while running *against *a married white woman, and I don’t care what has happened in past elections: this is not a horse race. The trailing horse’s leg is broken, and all that’s left is to put him out of his misery.
Ha! Love this.
I would tell you where I stole it, but my memory isn’t what it used to be. Or, maybe it is, and I just don’t remember.
She does have one. It just doesn’t say anything and to the extent it does, prioritizes protecting federal workers.
With Trump’s VA plan, we don’t have to take his word for it since he would just allow any vet to use Medicare.
Yes, because God doesn’t do floods or fire from the sky anymore.
Actually, she appears to have put some thought into it. Unlike Trump, who is perpetually the student who didn’t read the book but thinks he can bullshit his way through an essay exam.
The problem with the VA for the most part is not their medical care, it is the lengthy and unhealthy process of getting on board. So, grant Medicare for veterans applying for VA care, so they can get the care they need while waiting.
You want a simple, practical solution, consult your local radical lefty. We got oodles of them!
See, this is where the “simple” guy can sometimes have an advantage in politics. Since poiltics is, you know, politics, complexity is often embraced for no other reason than that the simple solution is politically problematic for your base. Clinton’s plan is basically bureaucratic reform, which is very hard, although I believe she’s talented enough to pull it off(future Presidents without her attention to detail might screw it up though). What’s simple is just allowing veterans to get care outside the system. She doesn’t want that, and there’s really no reason to be opposed to it other than that your base really, really likes the NHS model the VA is based on, and that VA workers don’t appreciate the competition from private providers.
Trump’s plan is simply better, even though it’s simpler. And one of the reasons it’s simpler is because he doesn’t have to take into consideration the needs of federal workers or the ideological desires of a base that wants to bring the NHS to America.