That’s not unskewing – Sam Wang has a good track record, and some liberals like him this year because his predictions are better for the Democrats. I think that might be a bit of wishful thinking, since I think Silver’s track record is even better, but wishful thinking and picking the more favorable (but still one with a good record) aggregator is not nearly the same as unskewing.
That’s it? Have you ever even *heard *of the Electoral College?
nm - dup
That’s also been addressed. Clinton does not win the Electoral College if Trump wins the popoular vote except in very rare scenarios.
Except Trump isn’t winning the popular vote in the poll you describe as “invalid”.
You can do better than this.
He’s down by 2-3 with 60 days to go. And Clinton still hasn’t stopped falling. We don’t know if this is where the race settles or not. Tomorrow Trump could be down 1-2.
Wasn’t Clinton in “free fall” months ago? 
About your “invalid methodology” claim, will it be put up or shut up for you? I’ll bet on Neither.
It’s not a claim, it’s a fact, and it’s been explained multiple times, in very simple terms that anyone can understand.
To reiterate, Politifact does not rate every statement. They rate the ones they find interesting. They also do not assign weighting to various statements. Not all lies are created equal, and not all false statements are lies. I’d call it shoddy methodology, except that reasonable people can be fooled by shoddy methodology. Tallying up Politifact ratings to determine who is more or less honest doesn’t even rise to that level, since no reasonable person can take such an attempt to prove Clinton’s “honesty” seriously. Supposedly. Clinton is more honest than Bernie Sanders. No, Clinton just cites more facts(that her staff feeds her) in her speeches, which runs up her score.
Accurately citing facts is indeed part of honesty. People who say false things without checking if they are true are being dishonest, even if they believe it to be so.
Your claim was that a poll that didn’t tell you what you want to hear exhibits “invalid methodology”, not about Politifact.
Keep your own bullshit straight, please. It shouldn’t be up to the rest of us.
:rolleyes:
Then all politicians are dirty liars, since even the best of them say true things only half the time.
Only 50% of the statements Clinton has made have been True or Mostly True, despite an extensive fact checking staff. One can only conclude that the 123 statements that are Half true-Pants on Fire are intentional deception, whereas politicians and non-political figures without large staffs just don’t always know what they are talking about.
And to bring up the non-political people that Politifact rates, they tend to perform pretty poorly compared to professional politicians. One could conclude that politicians are therefore more honest than average folks. After all, almost everyone you speak to about politics in your personal life probably says a lot of wrong things. That makes professional politicians more honest than them I guess.
Which poll was that? I said the Robert Mann Politifact article used invalid methodology. I wasn’t contesting any poll results.
And you were just about to explain how it’s invalid, weren’t you?
Come on now.
All politicians are liars? Is this supposed to be news?
Keep pretending accuracy doesn’t matter, or politifact doesn’t measure anything, but I’m not convinced. Fact checking matters.
Politifact is a wonderful site. The purpose of Politifact is to fact check single statements, not to draw broad conclusions about the honesty or accuracy of any particular candidate.
Clinton probably is more honest than Trump. She’s not more honest than Bernie Sanders, or Joe Biden, or John Kasich, or even Ted Cruz.
The large number of independent voters this year probably explains a lot of it. Both parties have seen a decline in support over the past 20 years. There was actually a surge in partisan support in 2013 before a massive drop the following year. The republican party in particular has lost voters to independents, which tells me that many of these undecideds probably have centrist and perhaps right-center leanings. They probably have serious issues with both candidates and all of these talk of attitudes being baked into the cake is inaccurate. This election will be about who is less repugnant to mostly white centrist middle American voters. At the same time, there is the possibility that in pursuing white voters in middle American states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he could simultaneously repel conservatives and motivate even more Latinos, African Americans, and Asians to go to the polls to vote against him. In the end, I think Texas and Arizona stay red, but it could be an uncharacteristically and uncomfortably close race in both states.
I was reading until you said Cruz.
The map overall looks a little different from normal due to the different ideological characteristics of Trump. Trump is close in New Jersey and Rhode Island, although it’s only one poll.
It’s entirely reasonable to draw at least some broad conclusions about honesty and accuracy of a candidate when most of what they say is bullshit.
Pure opinion. My opinion is quite different – I’d say she’s as honest as Bernie and Joe, and more honest than Kasich and Cruz. Unlike your opinion, my opinion actually is based on some facts, including the measurements of sites like Politifact.
Has Cruz lied repeatedly to protect himself from scandal?