US Politics

[KAL-EL]

@Desert Fox yes, the mighty being I was referring to was indeed Count Vlad Tepes Dracula.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Note, Hillary has a bigger lead (28%) over Trump than Obama had (19%) over Romney.

Hillary Clinton Expands Lead Among Younger Voters

Poll shows Democrat beating Donald Trump by 28 points among those aged 18 to 29

By JANET HOOK
Oct. 26, 2016

Hillary Clinton has expanded her lead over Republican rival Donald Trump to 28 percentage points among voters younger than 30, according to a new survey by the Harvard Institute of Politics that signals trouble ahead for Republicans with this crucial voting bloc.

The national survey, released Wednesday, found that Mrs. Clinton is backed by 49% of likely voters aged 18 to 29, compared with 21% for Mr. Trump, 14% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 5% for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

The poll suggests Mr. Trump could set back GOP efforts to improve its standing with millennials, a voting bloc that is about to surpass baby boomers as the largest generation of eligible voters. In Harvard’s October 2012 survey, GOP nominee Mitt Romney trailed President Barack Obama, who was a magnet for young voters, by just 19 points among those under 30, 55% to 36%.

John Della Volpe, polling director of the Harvard Institute of Politics, said Mrs. Clinton’s growing lead—up from 22 points in a July Harvard poll—was noteworthy because Mrs. Clinton has struggled to bring along millennials. During the Democratic primary campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders was the prohibitive favorite among the group.

“She has had a very complicated relationship with this generation for eight years,” said Mr. Della Volpe, who believes Mrs. Clinton is reaping benefits from a concerted campaign effort to court them since the summer’s Democratic convention. “She understood the importance of this vote. If not for millennials, this would be a much closer race.”

Both candidates are viewed more negatively than positively, but Mrs. Clinton’s image has improved since July, while Mr. Trump’s stayed about the same. Among likely young voters, Mrs. Clinton is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 51%. For Mr. Trump, 22% are favorable and 76% unfavorable.

The poll found Mrs. Clinton’s dominance among young voters extended to all subgroups—besides Republicans—even among young white voters who in 2012 had favored Mr. Romney by 4 points. She also led Mr. Trump among young women and voters without a college degree by wider margins than Mr. Obama led Mr. Romney in 2012. However, her lead with young Hispanics is narrower than Mr. Obama’s, and among blacks, her lead is the same as his. Read more

 

[RabzonKhan]

Third Parties: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

 

[T-72]

Scott Adams' Blog

• Top Tech
• Berkeley Start-ups

Watch the Persuasion Battle

If you want to watch the persuasion game-within-the-game, follow me on Twitter @ScottAdamsSays. Here’s the situation so you know what to look for.

1. Yesterday I announced my endorsement of Trump, primarily as a protest to the bullying culture of Clinton supporters. I don’t like bullies. And I don’t like that Clinton is turning citizens against each other. (My political preferences don’t align with any of the candidates.)

Yes, Trump is a bully, but he’s offering to provide that service on behalf of the country. When leaders do it, we call it leadership. (Think LBJ or Steve Jobs.) Trump isn’t encouraging his supporters to bully Clinton supporters. But Clinton has painted Trump and his supporters as Nazi-like deplorables, and that creates moral cover for the bullying you see all over the country against Trump supporters. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to bully a Nazi, would it? That’s the dangerous situation Clinton has created.

2. My anti-bullying message must have raised a flag somewhere in the Clinton campaign machinery. That means it hit a nerve and is seen as a persuasion reframing they don’t want to risk.

3. Huffington Post, Salon, Daily Kos and other liberal outlets “coincidentally” ran hit pieces on me on the same day. That’s a sign of media coordination with the Clinton campaign. (Or a big coincidence.)

4. Hordes of either paid or volunteer Twitter trolls descended on me with two specific types of attacks. The similarity of the attacks suggests central coordination. One attack involves insults about the Dilbert comic (an attack on my income) and the other is a coordinated attack to suggest I am literally insane or off my meds (to decrease my credibility).

You’re also supposed to think I’m crazy for seeing these “coincidences” as coordinated attacks. You’ll probably see this blog post retweeted as evidence of my further spiral into madness. The same happened when I noted that Twitter was shadowbanning me for talking about Trump. Shadowbanning is real, and well-documented in my case and others, but it sounds preposterous, so it is easy to frame me as crazy. Expect more of that.

The takeaway here is that my message about Clinton supporters being bullies is effective persuasion. Otherwise I would be ignored. This reframing is a kill shot because the bullies themselves are philosophically opposed to bullies. Once they realize they have been persuaded by Clinton’s campaign to become the thing they hate, the spell will be broken. And they won’t show up to vote.

The other plausible explanation for recent events is that I’m literally insane, and in a big way. You can be the judge of that.

I’ve never had this much fun in one year. I’ll be sad after election day, no matter who wins. Unless I am literally insane. In that case I’ll probably keep enjoying myself.

—

You might enjoy my book because it is entirely possible that I am insane.




===================================

^this is really good journalism, obviously very anti Trump lefty progressives, but no "racist/nazi" spin, and they're focusing on real issues like Clinton's warmongering and corruption, not just on pottymouth Trump's latest fumble.

also, Trump is like a harmless puppy compared to this evil witch.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The surveys are over sampled in Hillary's favor since the media is heavily biased against Trump and is actively colluding with the Clinton campaign in an effort to demoralize Trump supporters.

Well, if all the polls are rigged, then how come Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway in interviews to different news channels has admitted that Trump is losing in the polls? Keep in mind, by profession, she’s a pollster.






Trump and his stupid lies and now his followers are parroting the same BS.





"Wikileaks also shows how John Podesta rigged the polls by oversampling Democrats, a voter suppression technique."
— Donald Trump on Monday, October 24th, 2016 in a rally in Florida


Donald Trump absurdly claims Clinton campaign chairman rigged the polls. Pants on Fire!
By Linda Qiu on Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

Two weeks away from the Nov. 8 election, Donald Trump is behind in the polls.

According to him, it’s because the Hillary Clinton campaign tampered with them.

"Wikileaks also shows how (Clinton campaign chairman) John Podesta rigged the polls by oversampling Democrats, a voter suppression technique," Trump said at a Oct. 24 rally in St. Augustine, Fla. "And that’s happening to me all the time. When the polls are even, when they leave them alone and do them properly, I’m leading. But you see these polls, where they’re polling Democrats -- ‘how’s Trump doing’ ‘oh he’s down’ -- they’re polling Democrats!"

We were curious about Trump’s charge of bogus polling.

Trump is wrong that Wikileaks shows Podesta rigging the polls against him. He’s referring to an email obtained by the hacker group from Clinton’s 2008 (not 2016) campaign on what appears to be internal polling (not public ones published by media organizations). And oversampling in this instance means polling more people in a specific demographic group for analysis -- not ignoring Republican voters to suppress their votes.

In short, oversampling is a common polling technique and not, as Trump says, one of "voter suppression."

The email, one of thousands of Podesta emails released by Wikileaks, is a January 2008 exchange between Democratic strategists and employees of the Atlas Project, a political polling and data firm.

Atlas sent over 98 pages of polling and media recommendations that includes several recommendations to oversample minorities, independent voters and Democrats in certain states.

Experts told us the technical term for this is "stratified disproportionate sampling," but most pollsters use "oversample" as a shorthand. It’s done not to skew the polls, but to gauge the attitudes of specific demographic groups, who would not be a statistically large enough group to analyze if sampled randomly.

For example, in a national sample of 1,000 eligible voters, only 12.5 percent, or 125, would be black. To accurately gauge black attitudes on certain issues, a pollster may oversample 500 black eligible voters (four times more than the random sample). Then, in analyzing the full sample, the sample of blacks would be assigned a weight of 0.25 to represent the overall population.

"If the analysis of the group is done separately, it is simply a large sample of that group. If combined with all respondents the oversample is weighted down proportionately so that the overall sample is representative of the population as a whole," said Charles Franklin, the director of Marquette Law School Poll. "This is a standard procedure and does not mean the weighted sample gives disproportionate weight to the oversampled group."

The Pew Research Center explained that it, for example, oversampled Hispanics for an in-depth look at the U.S. Hispanic population in June 2016. Analysts then weighted Hispanics when looking at the overall population to have both "more precise estimates when looking at Hispanics specifically" and also "the correct distribution when looking at the sample as a whole."

Roger Tourangeau, president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, pointed out that monthly federal surveys on unemployment do the same. To get an accurate understanding of joblessness in Wyoming, pollsters would need to call a number of Wyoming residents disportionate to the number of people in the entire country.

Trump’s overall charges of skewed polls is "nonsense," Tourangeau said, "Nobody wants to produce a biased assessment and look like an idiot (on Election Day). Why would people deliberately get it wrong? It’s business suicide."

Our ruling

Trump said, "Wikileaks also shows how John Podesta rigged the polls by oversampling Democrats, a voter suppression technique."

A leaked email shows the Clinton campaign of 2008 consulted data firm that suggest oversampling in what is likely internal polling. The term refers to a common technique used by pollsters to analyze demographics groups more precisely than possible in a random sample.

We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire. Link


@Desert Fox stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Clinton holds 9-point lead over Trump in new national poll

By Nolan D. McCaskill 10/26/16

Hillary Clinton has a nearly double-digit lead over Donald Trump nationally, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll released Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton tops Trump by 9 points with less than two weeks until Election Day. She leads a four-way race with 47 percent support, followed by Trump at 38 percent, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson at 4 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 2 percent, with 7 percent undecided.

In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton leads Trump by 10 points, 49 percent to 39 percent, with 10 percent undecided.

While Clinton is still viewed unfavorably, her net favorability is much better than Trump’s. The former secretary of state’s net favorability is -1 (46 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable), while Trump’s is -30 (31 percent favorable, 61 percent unfavorable). Read more

 

[T-72]

Donald Trump Rally in Kinston, NC 10/26/16

 

[LA se Karachi]

I think you are wrong on this count. I have not seen any news network make a profit or even break even from revenues ,subscription or advertising.All of them ,bar some alternate media houses, are dependent on some business-house or charity for writing off their losses.

Most major American news networks are indeed making a profit, especially the most prominent ones:

"All three channels were projected to grow their profits in 2015. Fox News was projected to grow by about a fifth (21%) to $1.5 billion. CNN was projected to grow its profits by 17% to $381 million. And MSNBC was projected to grow by 10% to $227 million."

http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/cable-news-fact-sheet/#economics

We suffer because of our own complicity. Am not being melodramatic here. I am a product of the Cold War. I fled communism in 1975. Then once I got my citizenship, I did my part in being a member of the NATO line. I have literally touched live nuclear weapons as part of a Victor Alert crew. I played tourist in East Berlin when it existed. I do not want the government to be the final arbiter of what I may read or express.

I wasn't suggesting heavy censorship. You seem to have misunderstood my previous comments. I was just implying that we Americans are doomed to our fate when it comes to the media.

Thank you for sharing your personal history, though. It was a fascinating read.

It is only when we reach bottom that we realize how wrong we have been. The American people know how dishonest and corrupt their media, reaching the bottom is when the media no longer have any shame and that point is not yet here. As a whole, the American people is generous, or too generous in my opinion, with forgiveness. We have to suffer the arrogance of the American media all the way until the bottom.

And here, we disagree.

I don't think that there is a "rock-bottom" coming. Some people aren't interested current events. The ones that are often prefer a biased view to an unbiased one. Even those who are well-educated. In my opinion, the market has decided. And unfortunately, this is the media that most people want.

This applies to both sides of the aisle. You should talk to some Clinton or Trump supporters sometime. Most are unwilling to listen to negative information about their respective candidate, and often can't defend their own viewpoints. Many lack basic knowledge about politics and economics, but keep talking about both.

 

[gambit]

I wasn't suggesting heavy censorship. You seem to have misunderstood my previous comments. I was just implying that we Americans are doomed to our fate when it comes to the media.

If we are 'doomed', then the optimist in me believes that we are 'doomed' only to the extent that we will finally see our worst. The same optimist also believes that as a whole, Americans will rise again.

You should talk to some Clinton or Trump supporters sometime. Most are unwilling to listen to negative information about their respective candidate, and often can't defend their own viewpoints. Many lack basic knowledge about politics and economics, but keep talking about both.

I have talked to both.

You are correct that many, and I would dare say most, lack understanding of even the basics of the important issues.

It is very tempting to give in to the belief that such people should have either none or limited say in governance.

 

[T-72]

 

[TimePass]

I think its safe to say Clinton will be the next president.

US first women president.

 

[Solomon2]

I think its safe to say Clinton will be the next president.

I don't think so. You can't trust the polls: people say one thing on the phone and may vote differently in private. In-person polls can be biased by the choices of the interviewer: I recall witnessing one exit pollster - in 2000, I think it was - who concentrated on polling pretty young women.

 

[TimePass]

I don't think so. You can't trust the polls: people say one thing on the phone and may vote differently in private. In-person polls can be biased by the choices of the interviewer: I recall witnessing one exit pollster - in 2000, I think it was - who concentrated on polling pretty young women.

What does your gut tell you ?

 

[Solomon2]

What does your gut tell you ?

My "gut" tells me that Trump is ipecac and Hillary is hemlock.

 

[RabzonKhan]

My "gut" tells me that Trump is ipecac and Hillary is hemlock.

Most probably the new guy did not understand your coded-language, I'll explain:

Trump called for a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the United States = ipecac

Hillary offers blistering rebuttal to Trump’s Muslim Ban = hemlock

and this is for you:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.