So what method do you propose?
As a mathtard, I don’t delve much into statistical models, took me a week to grasp what that Greek guy was saying about triangles. A right triangle, not a wrong one. Its kinda fuzzy.
So maybe that’s just a prejudice, a kind of sour grapes, thinking that something I can’t grasp isn’t all that important.
But last week in Michigan, Hillary 45%, Trump 42%, and this week its reversed! the Trump march to victory has begun! Maybe. (Just an example, the actual numbers in Michigan, I could look up, but won’t bother…)
But then there’s stuff that shows that Hillary might have a shot in Texas! Now, that is a clap of thunder! We all pretty much know that, down the road, Texas will get all blueish. (“Are you Blueish? You don’t look Blueish!”). But five years, ten, maybe… Now, granted, just because more people in Texas *want *to vote for Hillary is no reason to think they will get to. Because, well, Texas. And Republicans.
If Hillary is competitive in fucking Texas and Mississippi!..then the trajectory of the shit is about to intersect of locus of the fan. Sure, precisely why Trump may win Texas by 2%, an interesting question. A more interesting question is why its even in doubt!
And we live in interesting times…
This poll used a data sample that was 50% non-college educated whites, a demographic that supports Trump but is a much smaller percentage of the population. In other words, the poll oversampled the people most likely to support Donald Trump.
I don’t think there’s much value in trying to “unskew” the poll but there’s also no real value to trying to draw conclusions about it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-poll-cnn-msnbc-227804
Here’s one example: the issue of whether Hillary Clinton released all her work-related emails or not. On the one hand, she claimed, back in April “… I have now put out all of my emails” and we can contrast that with Chris Christie’s claim in July that HRC “said all work-related emails were sent back to the State Department. The FBI director said, that’s not true.”
So how did Politifact score that issue?
Well, HRC got a “Half-True” rating for her April claim, but Christie got a “True” rating for his July claim. Huh? Politifact says it’s “True” that the FBI Director said Clinton’s claim of having returned all work-related emails to the State Department was “not true”, and yet somehow Clinton’s claim is “Half-True”. Do you see a problem here? You ought to.
But if we just total up Clinton’s ratings, she gets to add another one to Half-True, instead of something that probably deserves a “Mostly False”, “False” or “Pants of Fire” rating, at least according to the Director of the FBI. And the little chart that you linked to get to misrepresent her dishonesty as “half-true”.
Cite, please, for details of Trump’s economic plans?
Well, I think the collective conclusion of the majority of likely voters is a pretty good indication. A majority of people polled think she’s dishonest. She appears to be dishonest to me. Even when she’s being technically correct, she is so into lawerly-parsing of her statements to attempt to obscure her faults and misdeeds that it comes across as sleazy and evasive. Remember the FBI “security inquiry”? That was a classic Clinton moment.
Yes, only an aggregate analysis gives a close-to-accurate picture.
Anyone who thinks Clinton is more dishonest than Trump is either a liar, an imbecile, or totally deluded.
Unlike all those honest politicians who normally run for president.
She and Trump are polling particularly bad in this area, worse than the usual run-of-the-mill politicians who run for President.
Hurr? That’s the Plan? And you read it? Nodded your head, stroked your chin, and thought “Yes! Here is a Plan!”. Any part of it you think may not be all that well thought out?
This one, just for instance:
The details are a bit fuzzy. So, we fire the bureaucrats and hire the experts. Is there a test we can give them, make sure they are experts? Did Trump University have a Public Policy program?
Did the whole “cybersecurity” issue come up here yet?
“You have described at times different components of a strategy,” the moderator — retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a Trump supporter — asked, according to a transcript from CBS News’ Sopan Deb. "Military, cyber, financial and ideological. Can you just expand on those four a little bit?"
“Well, that’s it. And you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that a number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big. And you know you look at what they’re doing with the Internet, how they’re taking and recruiting people through the Internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. Any you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today’s psychology — where CNN came out with a big poll. Their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It’s good psychology, you know. It’s good psychology. I know that for a fact because people they didn’t call me yesterday, they’re calling me today. So that’s the way life works, right?”
That’s not an answer to the (softball) question. In fact, that’s barely even coherent. “And now the cyber is so big.” That doesn’t sound like a presidential candidate, that sounds like Miss Teen North Carolina on a bad day! But seriously, look at this answer. Trump tries to respond on the issue of cybersecurity by talking about terrorists on social media. That’s the closest his word salad gets to an answer before he dives off into a diversion about how good his poll numbers are.
What the fuck.
Aren’t there a bunch more Trump kids waiting in the wings? Baron could be Secretary of Thinking Big Thoughts.
If any of y’all want a good idea of what a Trump presidency could be like, look into South Africa’s current incumbent (or most any Third World dictator)
Politifact does not use their own data in that way, since Politifact does not analyze every statement made by the candidates, nor does it assess lies vs. simply not having your facts straight in most cases. It also does not measure significance of statements. By simply counting Politifact data, Clinton saying, “38% of black children live in poverty” has the same significance as saying, “My email system was allowed”. Since Clinton has a very good campaign team, she gets to cite a lot of facts and figures that are put in her speeches for her, which can run up her “True” and “Mostly True” scores. Meanwhile, most of her “Pants on Fire” and “False” moments have to do with her trying to protect herself from allegations of wrongdoing. So no, she does not get to cancel those out by packing her speeches with policy facts.
I do so miss the days when you were telling us how all the polls showing Romney losing were “skewed” …
Now it’s your side. Again.
Bullshit, unless you’re just talking about cranks. And bullshit that Trump and some of his supporters aren’t still unskewing polls.
I wish you’d try not to say false things so often.
So are you going to tell us the basis of your “invalid” claim or aren’t you?
First tell me how a 2 point lead makes for a 90% chance of winning on Clinton’s part. Did you miss all the liberal Dopers who think Silver is wrong this year?