:rolleyes:
Not my problem if you want to show all that you prefer to deal with a straw man, I was pointing at the USA today/Suffok poll, do you deny that?
As for trends, you should be aware that you are cherry picking, that LA Times poll has been pointed as having issues, but it has been pointing at the trend very well, bottom line, most polls and aggregates still show Clinton ahead.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
I tried that, and it made even less sense to me this go-around. Could you maybe break it down for me? These two sentences, in particular, were very confusing:
Another timely article, this by Krugman.
No question that the media plays up the JAQing on Hillary and honesty and that large segments of the public have eaten it up. All this smoke! Must be fire!
It is mindboggling that even some polls have voters seeing Trump, whose lies have been fast and furious, as more honest that Clinton is. A majority thinks one or the other or both are dishonest. (Rasmussen puts them both at 56% today.)
Then again in October 1992 Bill Clinton was viewed as not honest by over 50% of likely voters compared to only 27% who felt that way about Bob Dole. And we know how that turned out.
See while the most recent Fox poll also had more viewing Clinton as not honest than Trump (66 to 63), it also has them seeing her as “caring about people like me” more (47 to 37), “reliable” (45 to 38), and “intelligent” (78 to 57). My take-away is that Trump has been, as Krugman puts it, graded on curve by the media and thus the public for his explicit crookedness but that even as the public is convinced there simply must be some fire with all that G.O.P. coal-rolling going on they still see the choice between two not completely honest choices, one of who they believe cares about people like them, is smart, and is reliable, one of who they see as not particularly caring about people like them, not so smart, and unreliable. Given choices neither of which they feel is particularly honest they prefer Clinton, even buying the dishonest storyline about her. (Double meaning intended.)
Again, you are getting it wrong now.
One can not say that a majority is distrusting Clinton when not all polls tell us that the mayority of the people distrust Clinton, indeed not all of the polls do. And to show that I cited the USA Today poll and you decided to cut that line from my quote to make me sound dishonest.
I also did point to the USA Today poll and to the the people aggregating multiple polls to also show that you are wrong regarding your other point. More voters are likely to vote for Clinton still.
The point I was trying to make in post #979 was apparently a bit too subtle. I’ll try again:
Your claim in post #977, and reiterated in #984, was, I thought, that we can’t make claims about things if the polls disagree. That’s at least what I took from “one can not say that a majority is when not all polls tell us that is the case” and “One can not say that a majority is distrusting Clinton when not all polls tell us that the mayority of the people distrust Clinton …”
That’s all well and good. I can accept that point, for arguments sake at least, and I completely recognize that not all polls show Clinton as less-trusted than Trump. Your Suffolk poll was an excellent cite for that. I’m sorry if you felt my quote-trimming made you appear dishonest. It was not my intention. I was trying to focus the post on my point, which is:
How can a person who is telling me that (paraphrasing here) ‘you can’t say that if the polls disagree’ then turn right around and say something that the polls disagree about (in your case, that “more voters are likely to vote for Clinton still”). The polls disagree about that! As a cite, I provided the LA Times poll, which I understand is an outlier, but I was merely providing evidence that the polls disagree.
That is good until the last paragraph, you are now missing that I pointed to the aggregates, you did cherry pick the the LA Times poll indeed as the aggregate cites show. My overall point is to look at many polls not just one. I would had been wrong if the aggregates had shown that Clinton was not ahead.
You said (in #977, and repeated in #984, even bolded it) “not all polls”. You weren’t talking about aggregates, or averages, you were talking about a consensus. Those were your words. And of course your counter-point to mine certainly wasn’t an aggregate of polls on her honesty, it was a single poll, Suffolk.
I already replied to this in post #981, I did bold it in 984 because I had linked it already in 981. Again, you were wrong and cherry picking.
You seem to have missed the point I made in #979 and clarified in #985 and #987. I’m sorry but I don’t have the time or patience to try to explain it to you further, so I’m going to have to let this line of discussion go. Feel free to insert your last word below.
I was just saying, sorry if you want to make a straw grow into a straw man that I was not dealing with. If you want to make the point that I did not mention something earlier to your liking, you can, but the reality is that I did clarify. The aggregators of polls, that in past contests showed to be more accurate than single polls, tell us that Clinton is still ahead indeed.
As for honesty, the picture is not clear or Clinton and Trump are mostly tied on that item when we compare many polls.
That was George H.W., his dad.
Jesus, can we get back to the actual election?
I couldn’t give you more than say $15 a day not to stab me in the dick. Don’t have any more than that without selling blood on a daily basis. Which I would, of course.
It’s a little less true (one might even say “Mostly False”) if you promise you’re not going to stab me this whole week, but in reality you’re planning on stabbing me this Wednesday, and on Wednesday, you do in fact stab me.
So WTF is it with this “five minute coughing fit” I keep seeing breathless (pun intended) headlines about? Even if it is something, would it even have been remarkable if certain circles hadn’t been yelling about strokes and dementia and crap?
Well, she said it was because she is allergic to Donald Trump. ANOTHER LIE!
Because a) He wasn’t even there, and b) Trump’s doctor studied the tape carefully and says it’s throat chlamydia
Somebody just tweeted this to me:
“persistent cough has recently been found to be associated w/ serological evidence of acute Chlamydia pneumoniae infection. STD BILL”
So, Don Logan…
Here is a visualization that compares PolitiFact’s grading of major politicians since 2007. Obama is on the most truthful end with Clinton second, and Jeb Bush third, while Trump is first for least truthful.
Everyone, let’s just keep it civil. We’ve generally been OK but I can see a path to derailment.