i mean cmon. shitposting this biting will never happen again
https://twitter.com/ObamaMalik/statu...02741989560320
10-29-2016 03:00 PM
#3151
| |
|
i mean cmon. shitposting this biting will never happen again |
10-29-2016 05:54 PM
#3152
| |
lol that one uncle, but he's part of the president's family | |
| |
10-29-2016 05:56 PM
#3153
| |
wufwugy | |
10-29-2016 05:57 PM
#3154
| |
| |
10-29-2016 06:06 PM
#3155
| |
Well an issue my forecast of a close but not neccesarily overwhelming Clinton win is that I actually use real evidence and not just things I heard on a peculiarly biased website where i get my evidence from. But that's my own fault for being so biased by objective evidence and ignoring the ghoul and other undead vote. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-29-2016 at 06:09 PM. | |
10-29-2016 06:27 PM
#3156
| |
Also, forgot to mention the inestimable number of shy paedophile and sex abuser voters who will definitely align with Trump. 'tis definitely a landslide of at least 400 EV because if there's nothing America wants more it is to show the entire world how they stand for their right to be perverse sexual deviants. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-29-2016 at 06:31 PM. | |
10-29-2016 06:53 PM
#3157
| |
|
Great question. |
10-29-2016 07:04 PM
#3158
| |
|
You realise people cancel appearances in places they put down as wins too right? The idea is to battle it out in close seats not waste your time in places where you already have it won. I'd imagine the people running her campaign are going off the real evidence that everyone else uses rather than your posts on here. |
Last edited by Savy; 10-29-2016 at 07:07 PM. | |
10-29-2016 07:35 PM
#3159
| |
|
The early vote data in those states are far more favorable to Republicans than it was in 2012. While you are correct in theory, in this case it would not be that they're leaving those states because they think they're winning. In addition, even if they were 10 points ahead in those states, they would not leave since Trump's path to victory is devastating if he loses one of those states. Also the other states where the Clinton camp has its remaining rallies are in states that favor Clinton even more. |
10-29-2016 07:43 PM
#3160
| |
|
I'm not sure why you think I just go on opinion or on what people say. Most of what I've posted in this thread has come from me reading the poll pdfs and pointing out reasoning flaws. |
10-29-2016 07:56 PM
#3161
| |
In speech and thought "No one in their right minds" should not be synonymous with "No one who agrees with me" | |
10-29-2016 08:02 PM
#3162
| |
| |
Last edited by wufwugy; 10-29-2016 at 08:05 PM. | |
10-30-2016 12:05 PM
#3163
| |
Yeah, I mean, I think you're not wrong but you're being at least a little hyperbolic. If there is no reason given for predicting a higher black turnout for Clinton than Obama, it certainly is a place to dig, but there are plenty of explanations that are on the non conspiratorial side of Occam's razor. Remember, BLM did not exist pre Obama. It didn't exist until after his second term had started. Sure Obama got a big turn out from the black vote simply by dint of being black, but Clinton is running on a platform on continuity of the first black president and in support of a highly energised movement that likely makes single issue voters out of non voters. | |
Last edited by boost; 10-30-2016 at 12:09 PM. | |
10-30-2016 01:20 PM
#3164
| |
It depends on how they arrive at their estimate: If they just assume some large number of black people will vote because that gives them the result they want, then yeah that's wrong. And they wouldn't be taken seriously as a pollster if they did that. | |
10-30-2016 01:24 PM
#3165
| |
10-30-2016 01:39 PM
#3166
| |
Sure, but you usually only speak in generalities - e.g.., polls are rigged by saying blacks will turn out in 2012 numbers. When you've actually argued about a specific issue with a specific poll or polls, I've seen that it comes down to you not understanding polling well enough. The Arizona poll where you criticized it for being D+ something is one example where you argued a bias existed where I had to explain to you how they arrived at their final (unbiased) figures. Thus your credibility as a critic of polls is low. Maybe you should try to learn how the polls work so you can evaluate them objectively; then you could provide specific critiques that are actually valid. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-30-2016 at 01:42 PM. | |
10-30-2016 01:48 PM
#3167
| |
|
The evidence I am referring to is the early vote. The polls, up until very recently (like today, maybe yesterday), had her quite a bit ahead. But as we all know, the actual voting results matter more than the polls, and those results in OH FL and NC are devastating to Clinton. She is significantly underperforming Obama at this point 4 years ago and projections have Trump winning all those states handily. |
10-30-2016 01:57 PM
#3168
| |
|
I misread that thing. I thought the D+ was the weight, not the raw sample. Reading things incorrectly happens from time to time. You'd be well advised to not read more into this. I admitted I read it wrong as soon as you pointed it out. Even though you interpret this as reducing my credibility, it actually gives me more credibility since it shows that I change my claims based on new information. |
10-30-2016 04:29 PM
#3169
| |
You can say you misread it, but fact is you either didn't understand it and/or you hadn't looked into it critically but had accepted someone else's conclusion. Either that or it's a major coincidence that you and someone who runs a conservative website happened to reach the same flawed conclusion independently. | |
10-30-2016 04:46 PM
#3170
| |
|
The flawed conclusion was mine alone. I misread it because frankly I'm a little tired of this stuff so I haven't been reading them that closely the last couple weeks. I just briefly read something and thought it said something different than it said. |
10-30-2016 04:47 PM
#3171
| |
| |
| |
10-30-2016 04:50 PM
#3172
| |
Wuf, news flash: it's not up to you to determine how credible you are. | |
10-30-2016 04:57 PM
#3173
| |
I will go figure: Early voters are self selecting and tend to not, as a group, be representative of voters overall. Further, different types of early voting tend to attract different types of voters. So early early voting returns, when early voting is predominantly mail in, will show one thing, but in person early voting will show another. The polls you refer to are not attempting to predict the early vote. You're trying to use a screwdriver to drive a nail and complaining about the results. | |
10-30-2016 05:24 PM
#3174
| |
|
Absolutely. I added the type of logic that can be derived from the fact that those with credibility are never those who aren't wrong, but those who admit when they are wrong and change views accordingly. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 10-30-2016 at 05:45 PM. | |
10-30-2016 05:28 PM
#3175
| |
|
I would like to note that months ago I evaluated this election using a very critical eye. Back then I backed everything up with data. But the last couple weeks I've been mostly just a fan boi, which is why I'm not much presenting data anymore. |
10-30-2016 05:28 PM
#3176
| |
|
We'll call it a brief spell of laziness on my part. |
10-30-2016 05:41 PM
#3177
| |
|
Also if the mainstream media is reporting that it's a dead heat, it shows the polls have been wrong since they have had Trump very far behind. |
10-30-2016 05:53 PM
#3178
| |
It's because you make fantastic claims while providing nothing to back them up. When you say 'the evidence shows...' and then don't explain what that evidence is or how it leads to your conclusion, it's fucking annoying. | |
10-30-2016 06:11 PM
#3179
| |
| |
10-30-2016 06:24 PM
#3180
| |
|
Okay here's data on North Carolina: http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/ |
10-30-2016 06:27 PM
#3181
| |
|
The above strongly suggests that Trump will win North Carolina by more than Romney did. Perhaps significantly so. |
10-30-2016 07:39 PM
#3182
| |
The graph right below that one on that same website shows fewer white republican voters, about the same democrat, and more 'others'. Doesn't that suggest that those extra white voters are mostly due to a big surge in 'other', combined with a moderate drop in republicans? How does that make Trump a strong favorite? | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-30-2016 at 07:47 PM. | |
10-30-2016 07:45 PM
#3183
| |
Seems like one explanation for why fewer blacks are voting early. | |
10-30-2016 08:02 PM
#3184
| |
|
Independents broke for Romney and broke for the Republican primaries. They're likely to break for Trump. |
10-30-2016 08:37 PM
#3185
| |
It appears they forgot to tell Bill. | |
10-30-2016 08:41 PM
#3186
| |
10-30-2016 09:04 PM
#3187
| |
|
I made along post about this and it got deleted by FTR so I'll summarise. |
10-30-2016 09:16 PM
#3188
| |
| |
10-30-2016 09:21 PM
#3189
| |
|
Not on me. I'll post it if I see it again. |
10-30-2016 09:23 PM
#3190
| |
| |
10-30-2016 09:43 PM
#3191
| |
10-30-2016 10:02 PM
#3192
| |
|
It's the orthodox wisdom of politicians and pundits. This is probably because vote for a candidate correlates very highly with turnout by that candidate's party. It's never a 1:1 correlation, but it's usually 5:4 or closer. 5:4 is actually pretty rare and low. In 2012 Obama got 92% of the Democrat vote and Romney got 93% of the Republican vote. Romney got 50% to Obama's 45% of Independents nationwide, so there's part of some evidence Poopy asked for http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-2012/ |
10-31-2016 12:15 AM
#3193
| |
Ya, but my household voted Hillary, and thats two votes Trump didnt get. You-cant-explain-that.gif | |
10-31-2016 03:01 AM
#3194
| |
| |
10-31-2016 04:52 AM
#3195
| |
10-31-2016 04:58 AM
#3196
| |
10-31-2016 04:59 AM
#3197
| |
It's not the early reports. It's that nothing has actually been cancelled. It's that the whole thing was made up. | |
10-31-2016 05:02 AM
#3198
| |
Notsureifserious.jpg | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-31-2016 at 05:06 AM. | |
10-31-2016 02:16 PM
#3199
| |
I didn't see the point in mentioning the ethnicity. | |
10-31-2016 04:18 PM
#3200
| |
The point is that blacks tend to vote democrat. So when a republican-run state government deliberately makes it harder to vote in counties that are predominantly black, it's easy to see their motivation. US Supreme Court already ordered N. Carolina to stop some other cheap voter rights abuses they were trying to pull, so it seems pretty clear it's deliberate. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-31-2016 at 04:23 PM. | |
10-31-2016 04:31 PM
#3201
| |
|
While that can be the case, it's important to note the enormous quantity of noise on reporting of this (fake) issue. The vast majority of the claims about blacks having their voting rights restricted that I've seen over the last several years have been hoaxes. Things like shutting down centers that got very little activity and adding to centers that get a lot of activity regularly makes the news as harming black people by shutting down where they can vote. 2012 saw hoax after hoax of this stuff. |
10-31-2016 04:32 PM
#3202
| |
| |
10-31-2016 04:36 PM
#3203
| |
10-31-2016 04:37 PM
#3204
| |
| |
10-31-2016 04:40 PM
#3205
| |
| |
10-31-2016 04:41 PM
#3206
| |
| |
10-31-2016 04:46 PM
#3207
| |
Surely you understand why people get in an uproar over attempts to impede the rights of certain populations of voters though. It doesn't matter if the effect is large or small, the point is its unfair and undemocratic. The Supreme Court should not have to coerce a state into upholding voter rights. And when it does, the state shouldn't go looking for loopholes to find other ways to restrict voter rights. | |
10-31-2016 04:54 PM
#3208
| |
10-31-2016 04:57 PM
#3209
| |
|
What I'm saying is that this isn't necessarily the effect. The media paints even the most reasonable regulations (like requiring ID) as egregious infringements on black people. |
10-31-2016 05:00 PM
#3210
| |
| |
10-31-2016 05:14 PM
#3211
| |
You may not like to believe it, but it wasn't just about asking people for basic ID. The law would have imposed strict ID requirements, shortened early voting periods, and eliminated same-day voter registration, among other barriers to voting. The circuit judge who overturned their law said it targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision." | |
10-31-2016 05:19 PM
#3212
| |
What is this supposed to prove? That you can get an absentee ballot in NC? And what if you want to vote in person, too bad? | |
10-31-2016 05:22 PM
#3213
| |
|
First off, I never said that blacks aren't being targeted. They can easily be targeted for a decline in vote turnout without their rights being infringed upon. |
10-31-2016 05:33 PM
#3214
| |
Targeting voters because they belong to a particular racial group is infringing on their rights. That's why the law got overturned. | |
10-31-2016 05:51 PM
#3215
| |
|
I could have been more clear. I'm talking about the right to vote, which necessarily includes reasonable opportunity to vote, not stuff like discrimination. A lot of which falls under discrimination doesn't effectively deter the right to vote. A lot does. |
10-31-2016 06:19 PM
#3216
| |
The Supreme Court ruling was in the summer of this year. So they hardly felt it was outdated. | |
10-31-2016 06:40 PM
#3217
| |
|
I'm not saying many of the things you think I'm saying. I don't defend attempts to discriminate against black voters, but that isn't the same thing as deterring ability to vote. Is it wrong to close polling stations based on skin color? Yeah. Does that deter their ability to vote? Not by any reasonable measure. Absentee voting has rendered the need for stations obsolete. I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell. I wonder if Washington will ever go non-socialist since we went all-absentee. |
10-31-2016 09:00 PM
#3218
| |
The laws were made in the first place to deter blacks from voting. They couldn't have designed them any better without coming right out and saying 'if you're black we're going to make it harder for you to vote.' But you seem to think because blacks have other options that the law shouldn't affect them and they shouldn't complain. Then why make the law in the first place if it's not going to have an impact? It makes no sense. | |
10-31-2016 10:16 PM
#3219
| |
|
I think nothing of the sort. The context in which I responded to you was the idea that these protocols make it harder to vote. They don't. Absentee voting is much easier than using booths, and it's cheaper. |
11-01-2016 04:37 AM
#3220
| |
| |
11-01-2016 04:41 AM
#3221
| |
11-01-2016 04:43 AM
#3222
| |
11-01-2016 04:40 PM
#3223
| |
|
People voting for the wrong reasons is different than the wrong people voting, at least by normal connotation. Suggesting fascism shows the connotation applied. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 11-01-2016 at 04:45 PM. | |
11-01-2016 04:57 PM
#3224
| |
|
|
11-01-2016 04:58 PM
#3225
| |
|
|