**** Elections thread *****

[BankItDrew]

Hilary is crooked. Trump is an idiot. But Hilary is crooked.

[OngBonga]

Trump started the "crooked hillary" brand so you'd say exactly this.

I'm pretty sure Hillary started it by being crooked in the first place.

[Poopadoop]

I think you might agree with him more than you think because he's definitely quite sanguine about the state of polling. At least in those articles he shows that results have gotten (slightly) better, but elsewhere he discusses more about the underlying characteristics that are getting worse that he's worried about.

I don't have time to check the veracity of his arguments about polls getting worse, but as I said the data doesn't back it up.

A more likely possibility is that individual polls have become less reliable but that it's reflected in their variability not their mean accuracy. You might expect that to happen if average sample sizes were getting smaller, for example. In other words different polls might give more varied estimates that still tend to cluster near the true value. But as he doesn't measure their variability it's impossible to tell that either.

This is what makes me think he doesn't really understand the issue of statistical reliability very well, because he's asking one question, not getting the answer he expects, but forgetting it's not the only, or even most likely, explanation.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry to keep rambling on about this, but this might be a better way of explaining things.

There's two ways a poll can be 'bad'. It can either be biased or it can be unreliable.

A biased poll is one in which the sample misrepresents the population. For example, if I went to a Trump rally and polled the people there on their voting choices, you'd expect me to get an answer within a hair's breadth of 100% Trump. Let's say I then decide to extrapolate that result and claim that nearly 100% of Americans are going to vote Trump. Meanwhile someone equally as stupid has done their poll at a Clinton rally and is now saying nearly 100% of Americans are going to vote Clinton. Both these polls are bad because they're both so obviously biased.

An unreliable poll is one in which the sample is not biased but there are issues with accuracy nonetheless. The most common issue is having too small a sample. If I poll 100 people using perfect random selection, polling different demographics equally, etc., there should be no bias in the results of the poll. It's likely to give an answer somewhere in the neighborhood of the truth. However, the size of that neighborhood depends on my sample size. Since my sample of 100 is so small I couldn't have very much confidence in how close my results were to the truth (the neighborhood is large). If I polled 1000 people the same way I'd have more confidence (the neighborhood gets smaller), 10,000 even more confidence (neighborhood gets even smaller), and so on.

All polls are likely biased to some degree at least and all polls are unreliable to varying degrees. Bias gets introduced automatically because you're polling people who can be bothered to respond to polls and it's not impossible that may correlate with particular voting choices. Some unreliability is unavoidable as well whenever you have to extrapolate from a sample to the population. The nice thing about reliability is that it can at least can be estimated through knowledge of statistics. That's why you hear things like 'accurate to within +/-4 points 95% of the time' - the smaller the value after +/- the more reliable the poll (the smaller the neighboorhood). Further, when averaged across multiple polls, this issue tends to be self-correcting, meaning that even a number of unreliable polls will ON AVERAGE give a reliable estimate (a small neighborhood).

These are two fundamental issues with sampling from a population. The difference is that bias tends to skew your results in one direction or another (think the pollsters at the Trump or Clinton rallies), whereas unreliability tends to skew your results in a random direction.

This Nate person claims that polls seem to be becoming 'bad'. Then he queries why they're just as accurate on average as previous polls. It's because either a) he's wrong about them becoming 'bad', or b) he is equating 'bad' with 'biased', which isn't necessarily true. 'Bad' could also mean 'unreliable' and as I said, unreliable polls tend to still give reliable results when you average across enough of them.

[OngBonga]

Stop using American spellings when you're British, you fucking traitor.

[OngBonga]

I think you missed one category - bullshit polls. They're they ones where they ask people who they're going to vote for, then don't even bother counting it up and just print whatever number they want. In fact, they might not even bother asking anyone, they could just pretend they did.

I think those kind of polls exist too.

[Savy]

I think you missed one category - bullshit polls. They're they ones where they ask people who they're going to vote for, then don't even bother counting it up and just print whatever number they want. In fact, they might not even bother asking anyone, they could just pretend they did.

I think those kind of polls exist too.

Surely that falls under biased?

[Poopadoop]

Stop using American spellings when you're British, you fucking traitor.

I'm Canadian, but I use American spellings even though we don't. British spellings are a waste of a keystroke.

[Savy]

All polls are likely biased to some degree at least and all polls are unreliable to varying degrees. Bias gets introduced automatically because you're polling people who can be bothered to respond to polls and it's not impossible that may correlate with particular voting choices. Some unreliability is unavoidable as well whenever you have to extrapolate from a sample to the population. The nice thing about reliability is that it can at least can be estimated through knowledge of statistics. That's why you hear things like 'accurate to within +/-4 points 95% of the time' - the smaller the value after +/- the more reliable the poll (the smaller the neighboorhood). Further, when averaged across multiple polls, this issue tends to be self-correcting, meaning that even a number of unreliable polls will ON AVERAGE give a reliable estimate (a small neighborhood).

I found it very interesting in TFAS that this happens, talks about guessing the # sweets in the jar. Individual values can be way off but averages tend to be very good. That talks about the isolation that has to occur for this to really happen though, if you start letting groups do it they influence each other too much although that just means you need bigger samples as your group is the random variable rather than individuals unless there is something specific like over confident people who tend to control groups tend to overestimate the # sweets.

Which is where I think the slight problem is if that number of people who are being polled are inherently biased such as people who vote democrats are more likely to care more and respond whereas the republicans have less people who care strongly so lots of the people who don't bother to reply to the poll then your polling is always going to give bias answers. I imagine in reality this changes somewhat rather than being a constant although on average it's probably what gives us the shy tory effect.

[OngBonga]

Surely that falls under biased?

Well, I suppose, although then you'd have to have a distiction between deliberate bias and indirect bias. Someone who asks a load of Trump supporters who they intend to vote for could just be too dumb to realise their poll will be biased.

[OngBonga]

I'm Canadian, but I use American spellings even though we don't. British spellings are a waste of a keystroke.

Oh. If you're Canadian, then well done for not speaking French. I retract my "fucking traitor" insult.

[Poopadoop]

I think you missed one category - bullshit polls. They're they ones where they ask people who they're going to vote for, then don't even bother counting it up and just print whatever number they want. In fact, they might not even bother asking anyone, they could just pretend they did.

I think those kind of polls exist too.

Probably, but that's why you don't just look at one poll and accept it. You need to look at all of them together, and if you really care, you need to go deeper and check their methods, etc..

Thankfully I don't care enough to be bothered doing all that hard work, but I still know what makes a good poll and what makes a bad one and what the different kinds of bad are.

[Poopadoop]

I found it very interesting in TFAS that this happens, talks about guessing the # sweets in the jar. Individual values can be way off but averages tend to be very good. That talks about the isolation that has to occur for this to really happen though, if you start letting groups do it they influence each other too much although that just means you need bigger samples as your group is the random variable rather than individuals unless there is something specific like over confident people who tend to control groups tend to overestimate the # sweets.

I don't know what TFAS is (probably some stupid British spelling) but yup that's how it works.

Which is where I think the slight problem is if that number of people who are being polled are inherently biased such as people who vote democrats are more likely to care more and respond whereas the republicans have less people who care strongly so lots of the people who don't bother to reply to the poll then your polling is always going to give bias answers. I imagine in reality this changes somewhat rather than being a constant although on average it's probably what gives us the shy tory effect.

Absolutely, I agree. A pollster could get an estimate of it from finding the average bias in previous polls, then correcting their poll accordingly.

[Poopadoop]

If you're Canadian, then well done for not speaking French.

Funny thing is they made us learn French when I was in school even though I live about 2500 miles closer to any French people now than I did then.

[OngBonga]

They make us learn French too. At least they did when I was at school. Not that I paid much attention. I know how to buy milk from a shop. Prance around saying a stupid rhyme. Je voudrais un litre de lait si vous plais. I bet my spelling is woeful. I fucking hated French.

[Savy]

Absolutely, I agree. A pollster could get an estimate of it from finding the average bias in previous polls, then correcting their poll accordingly.

That's where my point about it not being a constant comes in. If it changes throughout time it's very hard to adjust for I'd imagine because then you're having to come up with a formula to predict the future based on previous events. I have no doubt there are some constants which can and are easily corrected I just imagine some aren't.

TFAS is the book Thinking Fast and Slow, gets mentioned on here a while and I bought it not that long ago. I am only like 8 chapters into it though because reading lol.

[BankItDrew]

Poop, who do you think will win and by what margin?

[Poopadoop]

That's where my point about it not being a constant comes in. If it changes throughout time it's very hard to adjust for I'd imagine because then you're having to come up with a formula to predict the future based on previous events. I have no doubt there are some constants which can and are easily corrected I just imagine some aren't.

Yup.

TFAS is the book Thinking Fast and Slow, gets mentioned on here a while and I bought it not that long ago. I am only like 8 chapters into it though because reading lol.

Ya, it's not easy reading that's for sure. Good book though for poker players!

[Poopadoop]

Poop, who do you think will win and by what margin?

Don't know. I think Hillary is ahead now, but not by a lot. If there's a serious terrorist attack on US soil, or if she fails at masking her brain damage too many times she will prolly lose.

Part of me wants Trump to win just to see what happens. I think it'll be disappointing though (in the sense that he won't be as crazy as he seems to act sometimes). There are a lot of checks on a president's power that make it unlikely some of his more radical ideas will get implemented.

Another part of me wants Clinton to win just so we can get a better confirmation on what the fuck is wrong with her. It'd also be entertaining to watch her slowly being replaced by the world's first 3D printed copy of a country's leader.

[wufwugy]

Good write up Mr. Poopy

I think what Mr. Hydrogen discusses is bias. There are signs that it is becoming harder and harder for pollsters to maintain standards regarding bias.

My points are not so much about the stats themselves but with the political assumptions, because those are creating what other signs are strongly suggesting to be very significant bias. An easy example is how the pollsters this cycle typically weight for 2012 demographics, yet no non-stupid assessment of the political landscape would suggest that Clinton can reasonably be expected to get the 2012 turnout. The reason pollsters are doing this appears to be either (1) they don't know what else to do or (2) they're playing their part as a persuasion tool for Her Majesty. If I'm completely honest, I think some of it is the latter (and in subtle ways) but most of it has elements of the former. 2012 demos is the best of the not-hard ways to do it. Since polling is an inherently conservative practice, there is little going outside of the box.

Which brings us to my next point. It's regarding your point yesterday about your concern regarding the USC poll methodology. My interpretation is that they are thinking outside of the box in an attempt to more correctly predict "likely voters." This team's comparative advantage can be thought of as their innovation. They did some things differently in 2012 and got very fantastic results. Many signs are pointing towards the turnout modeling for 2016 likely looking nothing like 2012, so they're trying to predict that best they can.

Another point is that sometimes some pollsters have achieved fantastic results by merely not weighting for some standard variables. Ann Selzer, for example, was lauded as the best pollster alive since her polls blew all the others out of the water in the 2012 primaries. Her brief explanation for why she caught the trends better than anybody else was that she merely reported what the respondents were telling her. Instead of assuming the Iowa caucus would look similar in demos to the previous ones, she reported her poll with as few weights as she could. Lo and behold, this gave her a much more accurate measure of the turnout because it allowed her to catch what could probably be called an enthusiasm shift.

This cycle we have seen several polls with unweighted data showing Trump ahead but then the pollsters weight for 2012 demos and it shows him significantly behind. I do not know why pollsters don't release their polls with various assumptions. They should do something like release each of their polls with one iteration as 2012 demos, one a little closer to response demos, and probably one with predicted demos based on other variables. The latter would be an attempt to include things like the shy Tory effect or evaluating what the change in primary turnout means. Regarding just these two, there are very likely a bunch of blue collar men that typically do not respond to polls and don't vote, yet are going to vote this time; and a state like New Hampshire can be predicted to fall more to the right than polling suggests due to changes in its primary turnout numbers from 2008 to 2016.


My last point is going back to Mr. Hydrogen. Even though he shows that polling accuracy has slightly increased, the reason why includes techniques that create a reduction in predictive power during "off" cycles. Polls are getting more accurate by weighting more accurately, yet they're only able to weight more accurately because there has been little political realignment. We are very likely looking at a political realignment year. New Jersey and Rhode Island have polled within the margin of error ffs iirc. Pennsylvania alone is in a very unique, tip of the iceberg situation. Solid analyses have shown that the state is trending red rather swiftly even though on the surface it went for Obama twice. It just so happens that what Trump targets is exactly where the redness has been coming from. It is quite reasonable to predict that we are looking at a solid probability of the "blue wall" breaking, but as long as pollsters assume that doing the same thing they've always been doing is the way to go, they're not going to catch it before it happens.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, well I don't have any way of disputing all that without getting more deeply involved in understanding the whole polling mechanics thing than i really want to. So I'm happy to say you could be right.

[Poopadoop]

wtf is she trying to accomplish here?

[Poopadoop]

Watch these on the slowest speed.

When her eyes go to the left at 0:46, the right eye moves first then the left.

[Poopadoop]

Again, watch the above on slowest speed.

For the next few seconds from 1:08, her eyes' movements are out of synch at several places.

Around 1:29, right eye moves while left eye doesn't.



Definite neuromotor issues there.

[Keith]

why are american degrees 4 year ? uk its generally 3 years to get your degree except scotland

[Poopadoop]

why are american degrees 4 year ? uk its generally 3 years to get your degree except scotland

Because here it's treated more like training for a vocation and there it's more education for its own sake (i.e., they take a lot of courses outside their major). I prefer their system personally.

[surviva316]

What you have to understand is that when there is a huge public debate raging, many people just quietly keep their thoughts to themselves and only express their opinion in the form of voting. I think such behaviour has a tendancy to skew the polls in favour of the candidate or option that the media favours, because those who oppose the media's idea of the "positive" option are less likely to engage in public discussion or polls.

This sounds like a groundbreaking argument for a dissertation/study, and something that wouldn't be all that difficult to verify with research. Maybe your armchair brilliance is unmatched by anyone in the field ... or maybe you're just coming up with slapshod theories for why the polls with your favored results are better than other polls. I don't know, just spitballing here.

Not sure why you're so obsessed with Brexit upset. The polling average was well within the margin of error, especially considering they were consistently reporting double digits for Undecided voters. Seems a little over-reactionary to completely blow up your idea of the value of polls over that one result.

[OngBonga]

I'm probably talking shit, but I'd like to think there's some basis to that. idk, it's just in my very small sample of facebook friends, most people who were talking about Brexit were remainers, yet most people I spoke to in private about the issue said they were voting leave. It's not an obsession by any means, merely an observation that could be heavily flawed and misinterpreted by my stupid stonedness.

Certainly, I know of people who withdrew from public debate because of accusations of racism. That was a card that remainers were using a lot, and I sense the same is happening in the States with Trump. That might or might not have an effect on public debate.

Of course, withdrawing from public debate might or might not even have any impact of people's tendancy to be honest with pollsters.

So it's probably bollocks. But... considering remain was big favourite with the bookies, it was something of an upset as far as I'm concerned. I thought we'd vote to stay.

[Savy]

Yeah but we understand how odds work right? We also understand how bookies work?

Makes me laugh when you hear omg bookies got it wrong, they're not there to try and predict the result (being able to would be very helpful obvs) they are there to try and make money from an event.

[Poopadoop]

Ya, I don't understand why anyone would be shy about telling the truth to someone in a poll.

btw, Hillary by the end of the campaign

[OngBonga]

Well I keep saying bookies, but I'm actually referring to betfair prices, a betting exchange, which doesn't reflect the odds the bookies set, instead it reflects where the money is going (a reflection of the betting public's opinion). The bookies will usually have the prices a little less generous than betfair.

Betfair provides us with a measure for what a reasonably large sample size of people think will be the outcome of an event. The bigger the market in terms of people, the more accurate (on average) the odds are relative to probability.

In the case of the referendum, it was a very large market. Remain was odds on favourite because the vast majority of money was being staked on remain.

The bookies are irrelevant really, I should stop saying bookies and be more clear about what I mean.

[OngBonga]

Ya, I don't understand why anyone would be shy about telling the truth to someone in a poll.

I wouldn't, but that's probably got nothing to do with my political lean. I just don't like being stopped by people in the street. I'd tell them to get a proper job, before continuing on my way to the jobcentre.

[Poopadoop]

which doesn't reflect the odds the bookies set, instead it reflects where the money is going

That's how bookies set their odds too though.

[Poopadoop]

I wouldn't, but that's probably got nothing to do with my political lean. I just don't like being stopped by people in the street. I'd tell them to get a proper job, before continuing on my way to the jobcentre.

Same here (except for the jobcentre part), but it's anonymous and it's not like they're asking them if they're a pedo or summat.

[OngBonga]

That's how bookies set their odds too though.

Of course.

But betfair is a more accurate measure.

[Poopadoop]

Of course.

But betfair is a more accurate measure.

How so? I'm not arguing it isn't I just don't understand.

[OngBonga]

I'm stoned and not being very accurate with my language. I do understand how bookies work... their odds are nearly always tighter than betfair because their odds are what they deem to be probability + a margin of error in their favour for profit. Betfair is not a profit-driven company, it's a mass market of punters. Of course the average punter is trying to make money, but he is also by nature not very good at it because he is gambling. Betfair odds get close to probability because it's essentially a mass poll, with the added honesty factor of people putting money on their opinions.

It's a useful tool, and shouldn't be ignored because it's a bunch of gamblers. Their opinions are not insiginificant.

[OngBonga]

How so? I'm not arguing it isn't I just don't understand.

Because there's no profit factor, it's pure betting. Betfair cuts out the middle man that is the bookmaker, which means it's a direct reflection of where the money is going. The bookies will change their odds as the bets come in, but the change in odds might not be an accurate measure of the amount of money that is being staked.

In a betting exchange, especially a large market where there are bets waiting to be matched at various odds, the current odds are a very accurate measure of how much money is being staked relative to the other option(s).

The bookies will be able to tell you where most of the money is going, just not as accurately, not unless you know how much the bookmaker in question is adjusting the price to account for profit.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think most bookies pad the odds I think they charge a fee for their services. Could be wrong about that, I don't know a lot about bookies i admit.

[OngBonga]

I don't think most bookies pad the odds I think they charge a fee for their services. Could be wrong about that, I don't know a lot about bookies i admit.

Well the bookmakers are nearly always less generous than betfair. On the occasion they are more generous, there's money to be made.

[Poopadoop]

Eh, I don't understand what you mean by 'generous'. Assuming it's an either/or outcome (i.e., either A happens or B happens), then if you're adjusting the odds to be more generous to one side (say the people who bet on A), you're automatically being less generous to the other side (the B bettors).

Maybe I'm missing something tho.

[OngBonga]

As an example, let's look at Murray vs Djokovic... it's 2-2 going into deciding set, nothing between them.

Odds on betfair will very likely be 2.0 for both, let's assume they are... if you bet on both of them, you'd break even... not taking into account that you owe betfair a small % for their service.

Now go to the bookies. You're not going to get 2.0 for both, you'd see perhaps 1.9 for both... that 0.1 is profit for the bookmaker. That isn't there on betfair, or maybe it is but to a much smaller degree.

[OngBonga]

Eh, I don't understand what you mean by 'generous'. Assuming it's an either/or outcome (i.e., either A happens or B happens), then if you're adjusting the odds to be more generous to one side (say the people who bet on A), you're automatically being less generous to the other side (the B bettors).

Maybe I'm missing something tho.

Generous in terms of odds.

2:1 is less generous than 3:1.

[Poopadoop]

Ok ya that makes sense. So in essence the bookies' fee is set into the odds. I was thinking more along the lines of sports betting where there's often an over/under kind of thing going on.

Still don't understand how that applies to the Brexit betting though. If the betfair odds for Brexit and Brextay were both higher than, ah never mind doesn't matter.

[OngBonga]

Yeah what started out as an observation relating to our referendum has ended up with us talking shit about bookmakers.

I'm smoking nice weed, what's your excuse?

[Poopadoop]

I'm talking to you.

[BankItDrew]

Of course.


But betfair is a more accurate measure.

I'd like to see evidence of this.

Are their customers smarter than other customers?

[Poopadoop]

I think what he means is they don't pad their odds, so it's a more accurate reflection of how people are actually betting.

[Poopadoop]

The more interesting question to me is who bets on a referendum? It seems infinitely less fun than betting on a sporting event or other game.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I mean betfair don't have "customers" in the same sense bookmakers do.

Betfair's customers are betting against each other.

A bookmaker's customers are betting against the bookmaker.

That means the bookmaker must set correct odds to profit, while betfair merely needs to exist.

[Savy]

The more interesting question to me is who bets on a referendum? It seems infinitely less fun than betting on a sporting event or other game.

My friends dad makes a nice bit of money putting up stupid odds on popular tv shows where people bet on those they really like/dislike so it's a very exploitable market.

Or it is until betfair start taking much bigger cuts of your money.

[OngBonga]

The more interesting question to me is who bets on a referendum? It seems infinitely less fun than betting on a sporting event or other game.

People who might want to mitigate losses as a result of us staying/leaving, or people who think they know something that others don't? idk, I'm guessing.

I had no interest in betting on it. I was only interested in the odds from a polling pov.

[Poopadoop]

My friends dad makes a nice bit of money putting up stupid odds on popular tv shows where people bet on those they really like/dislike so it's a very exploitable market.

Or it is until betfair start taking much bigger cuts of your money.

Ya betting on who lasts longer on Big Brother or whatever. Jesus Christ.

Sounds like your friend's dad found a good racket though. Those people must be fucking morons.

[Poopadoop]

People who might want to mitigate losses as a result of us staying/leaving, or people who think they know something that others don't? idk, I'm guessing.

Those were my guesses too, along with pathological gamblers who bet on everything under the sun.

[Savy]

Ya betting on who lasts longer on Big Brother or whatever. Jesus Christ.

Sounds like your friend's dad found a good racket though. Those people must be fucking morons.

It's one of the few gambling stories I've been told where I've actually thought yeah that sounds like a legit clever way to make money. We're probably talking a couple hundred quid over the course of a series though, nothing special but a nice bit of spending money.

[BankItDrew]

In the summer of 2014 I bet at 20:1 that Justin Bieber would be admitted to rehab before the end of 2015.

Lost that bet. Dude probably should have gone though imo.

[BankItDrew]

I once tested a funny parlay to see what the odds were.

Bodog offered a bet on the royal baby specs a few years ago when the princess or whatever was preggerz.

A black, ginger, fat baby named Obama paid like 50,000:1

[Poopadoop]

Bodog offered a bet on the royal baby specs a few years ago when the princess or whatever was preggerz.

A black, ginger, fat baby named Obama paid like 50,000:1

Does seem like a long shot...I might have taken 50k:1 tho just for the hell of it.

[wufwugy]

The parallels between Brexit and 2016 US Presidential election are important. There were very high undecideds in Brexit, and they broke for Leave. Remain was "incumbency" yet didn't poll as well as the milieu of establishment does if it's favored. The same is true in this election. There are very high undecideds (and third party, which are also mostly undecideds). The "incumbency" is intensely unpopular, much moreso than Remain was. In the last month of Trump entering 3rd Act mode (acting presidential), undecideds have broken so remarkably for him that he gained ~10 points on Clinton.

If Trump doesn't blow past her and landslide this thing, we'll have rigging to thank.

[Poopadoop]

In the last month of Trump entering 3rd Act mode (acting presidential), undecideds have broken so remarkably for him that he gained ~10 points on Clinton.

Which poll are you looking at now Wuf? The USC numbers are about the same as a month ago.

[wufwugy]

I could be wrong in that it's closer to 2 months. It was shortly after the Khan fiasco that Trump entered full presidential mode and he gradually began closing in on Clinton. It was well documented in real time, which is where my memory comes from. If you want data evidence though, you can maybe see the trend on 538. Shortly after his convention bounce was the Khan thing, where he plummeted. His rise has been steady since. Granted 538 shows their win percentage instead of the polls, perhaps unless you look around

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo

[wufwugy]

iirc the usc numbers always were different than the other polls. really im just referring to aggregation of the polls over the last ~6 weeks. he was way behind but then he closed. this caused clinton to finally give a faux presser and other things like the "why am i not 50 points ahead" comment. she thought she had it in the bag 6 weeks ago. now she's scrambling. it's becuase he closed ~10 poionts

[wufwugy]

i dont think im gonna try to find the data to show it, but i remember quite well how over the last ~6 weeks he went from polling terribly in ohio and florida to leading there now. same w/ nevada. the electoral map gives clinton only the slimmest of victories right now, according to the polls

[Poopadoop]

I could be wrong in that it's closer to 2 points.

Ya, that's what I thought you meant.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

wait wtf i never said 2 points. i said 2 months. you tricked me!

[Poopadoop]

i said 2 points in 10 months.

You're getting smarter all the time.

It is an interesting race in a lot of places though. Ohio and Florida for example. Could go either way.

Debate should be fun. I wonder how the hologram of Hilllary will do.

[wufwugy]

Hillogram? Cartogram of Crooked? Rapin' Bill's Light Show?

[Poopadoop]

Ya not sure her actual self will be able to stand there that long without a malfunction. Kind of hoping I can get some video in time to show to my class on Tues. Always nice to go in with fresh material.

[Poopadoop]

p.s. Poor old crook. I do feel sorry for her.

[wufwugy]

I lose all my "feel sorry fors" when it comes to somebody who covers up her husband's violent rape, somebody who deliberately undermines western values and people, and somebody whose incompetence is so severe that if I had done the same thing I would have been fired and prosecuted yet she is being offered a promotion.

[Poopadoop]

Perhaps, but we don't know how much of that is true and how much has been fabricated or at least exaggerated to make her look bad.

I don't doubt she's a crook because that seems like a given considering she's in politics.

Either way I wouldn't wish brain damage on anyone.

[Poopadoop]

In fact, one of the fascinating things about US elections to me is the amount of blatant poo-flinging that goes on. It seems like a standard tactic to give out disinformation on the other guy.

[wufwugy]

The third thing is well documented and true. The second thing has been verified by a variety of well-respected sources, but not to the exhaustive nature of the claims of a reasonable observer. The first thing is very likely true to a reasonable observer but not confirmed.

[wufwugy]

Early mail ballots in Florida strongly suggesting landslide for the not crooked candidate.