Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

"Did you grope women without their consent?"
"Well you see the thing about ISIS…"

The sniffles continue.

Just hearing Hillary talk about war crimes in Syria, while her side is responsible for the blood bath in the Middle East (and they still keep supporting terrorists) makes my blood boil. How can one human being be that much of a piece of shit.

Overall, I think Trump did pretty well :D

Yay :3

I knew he was going to come out with the rape accusers.

Had them in the front row.

I don't think it succeeded as a debate at all but it sure shut Hillary down. He made her reiterate that she lied about her emails and called her out on her harassment of Bill's victims, and the 12 year old she blamed for getting raped, and all she could do back was call him a lying racist.

it might not have been a crushing victory Lisalombs, but I think Trump did win this one. If he does just as well or better in the last debate, he'll be unstoppable.

Trump rattled Clinton right from the start, was on offense all night long, avoided multiple attempts by both moderators to generate a damaging sound byte, managed to work in a lot of shots at her liabilities, and got her to sound foolish at times (comparing her "public and private" statement to Abraham Lincoln?).

As a classical debate neither did very well, but that seems to be irrelevant in Current Year America. Trump offered a few specifics, but not many, and Clinton appeared to be reciting from a 40 year old tome of political bromides. But I believe Trump managed to change the news cycle in his favor, and that is a win for him.

That "because you would be in jail" line was dank as fuck. Holy shit that was the second best slam trump has ever done

(Heres the first)

Wikileaks Drops Second Batch of Podesta Emails

polls show Hillary with over a 10 point lead. Its over, Hillary has won. Clinton will literally have to have a seizure during a debate for anything to change.
Welp, was fun while it lasted.

1 poll has Clinton with 14 lead in Trump v Clinton, 11 with Trump v Clinton v Johnson v Stein. MoE ~5%. 447 likely voter sample.

Sample is rather small. Being based off of likely voter is good. I checked their definition of likely voter, and IMO it could be better but it's ok. Might overestimate the youth vote a bit, maybe.

538's rating of NBC/WSJ polling is an A-, which is pretty good. (They rated tons of pollsters based off of their "lean" to one candidate over another, and how predictive they were, historically.) 538's "adjusted" polling (where they account for LV versus RV, historical candidate lean, etc) changes the 11 point lead in the 4-way poll to a 10 point lead.

As in general with polls, don't put too much stock in any one poll. Given the transcripts, the Trump tape, and the debate, I'd suspect there's going to be some shift that'll be shown confidently in the coming week.

4 polls were conducted that at least went into the weekend, in the 4-way category, and in the 1v1 category. In the 4-way category, the average is about a 7 point lead. In the 1v1 category, the average is about 6.

Pivit currently says the probability of Clinton becoming president is 87%, which has been its peak (it was also at the same height after the DNC). The lowest its been ever since she clinched the nomination is 56% (which was after the RNC), so currently I don't have any worries for right now.

Yea, only one poll shows over 10 point lead, but every single other poll shows +5 to +7 lead, which is also huge. I just don't see Trump swaying ~10% of the population to vote for him instead of Hillary at this point. Its over and time to look at the future and start planning for that.

bruh 10pts is not even the biggest poll gap we've seen this election, she had a 15 point lead in all the polls less than two months ago, don't you remember when the MSM went bananas posting about how the race was over but then the next week they were tied again according to the exact same polls?

Protip: Check the polling internals before despairing. Republican registration is way up this election cycle and the polling outfits are using 2008/2012 voting data to either establish or weight the polls' demographics. In all likelihood this doesn't reflect the reality of the 2016 electorate, although we won't know for sure until the election is over.

For example in the CNN debate poll every other news site is pushing, which showed Clinton won 57%-34% respondents were 58% Democrat. The other 42% were either Republicans or independents. This ratio does not reflect the American electorate, and is heavily over sampled towards Democrats.

That's not to say polls don't reflect reality to a degree. I'm sure this issue has hurt Trump, but don't get caught up on poll numbers.

I put more importance in the daily tracking polls, since they demonstrate trends rather than snapshots. The LA Times daily tracking poll still has Trump +3. This is down from a 7-point lead on September 19th, so his campaign is on a downward trend, but the race is still within the margin of error.

It's still a close race.

Looking at RCP, there has only been one poll that showed her with a lead of more than 14. Either way, you are purposely being ignorant to act like a 10+ point lead 2+ months before the election and a 10+ point lead less than 30 days from the election are the same. We have had the dem and rep primaries, we have had their speeches, we have had the first big debate, and yesterday the 2nd debate. There just is nothing left to change the polls by over 10% in Trump's favor.

wtf they're media polls based on a thousand random phone calls, they're not official ballots. It's a known trend that a third of Democrats who say they're likely voters wont even show up on election day, and we know another current trend is that Trump voters don't want to admit they're Trump voters to pollsters.

Do you know the Drudge Report has skyrocketed to ~50 million views per day because the MSM keeps bitching about what an awful right wing junk source the news aggregate website is? Reporters and pundits from literally every channel get on Twitter after the debate and tell people about the Drudge Poll, driving a far larger and more diverse sample group to it.

ur random media poll of 1100 callers shows Hillary ahead huh?

I think I'll wait for November.

>the Drudge Poll, driving a far larger and more diverse sample group to it.

k

I mean, drudge report does have a great history with correct predictions

You just have to be trolling at this point.

I said reporters have been linking to the DR after debates this cycle and you link me to a chart from 2k14… & you used a poll about who won the debate to prove what point exactly? Did most people not think Bernie won his debates

127k votes is what the polls used to look like before they were being pimped out by the mainstream media. Now they attract at least a million. I'm not saying it's proof Trump is 100% going to win, but it's proof standard political polls of a few thousand people at most have no meaning during this extremely atypical election. You're trying to write off the election because Hillary Clinton is 10pts ahead in one poll.

poochyena said:

…polls show Hillary with over a 10 point lead. Its over, Hillary has won.

Didn't she have a ten point lead in August? In fact, RCP shows she's had no less than three big leads before the rollercoaster shoots back down again. A lot can happen in three weeks. Don't say anybody's won until November 9th.

There just is nothing left to change the polls by over 10% in Trump’s favor.

Dewey led Truman 5% in October of 1948. Truman won by 5%. Carter led Reagan by 6% in October and lost by 10%. Bush led Gore 11% in October and SCOTUS ultimately had to decide who won it is so close. And over the pond, pollsters had to invent a new demographic when the Conservatives defied all polls and led Labour 8% over what polls had predicted (a 2% defeat). They then repeated the trick last year, winning by 7% despite most polls showing either a dead head or Labour victory.

Polls are great for debating and causing headlines, but they're just statistics and you know what Mark Twain said about statistics.

Here's another perspective on the debate and the state of the race.

"Luntz tweeted that before the debate, eight members of his focus group were willing to vote for Clinton and nine were willing to vote for Trump [there were five undecided participants]. After the debate, only four said they were willing to vote for the Democratic nominee and 18 said they were willing to vote for Trump. Overall, Luntz's focus group said Trump won the debate."

As a caveat, I'm not a strong believer in Luntz. His focus group analysis during the Republican primary debates proved unreliable, as most did not match up the end result (Trump winning the nomination). And as with polling, focus groups can be unreliable and subject to manipulation, as charges against CNN's focus group have reminded us.

However, it is more information to weigh alongside polling data, and not all of that data is showing the election is over.

I feel like I'm on reddit again when Sanders was 10 points behind and the primaries were half way over. "He just needs to win this state by 80%, it can totally happen guys".
k.

That's a false analogy, because we're not counting primary delegates and the actual election is not halfway over. Sanders needed to win 80% of certain states because he trailing in actual votes at that point. And the Democratic primaries were rigged.

No one is denying reality. As I said, the Trump campaign has a major issue to deal with, and it has been trending down in polls for about a month. But admitting this does not mean that polls are reality. They are interpretations of reality, and some of those interpretations may be more accurate than others.

The reality of this election is outside of our past experience. We have a bombastic, unapologetic alpha male outsider and a transparently corrupt, seriously ill female insider. Both provoke strong emotional responses and have closets crammed with skeletons. In addition to the candidates being unstable entities, the world around them is unstable as well. Everything is highly volatile.

As such, I believe the ability of polling to accurately reflect reality is open to greater skepticism this election, and the value of that ability is diminished. Clinton may really be up by 10 points, but I don't trust traditional metrics' ability to tell us whether this is true or not, it's not going to change my approach to voting, and I'm not going to stress about that possibility when we're a audio clip/terror attack/Wikileaks release/seizure/Jane Doe away from an event that could upend everything.

Here's Why You should Treat the NBC-WSJ Poll Showing Clinton Up By 11 Points WiIth Extreme Skepticism

1) The polling sample was ludicrously over-weighted towards Democratic:

♦ Republican and Republican leaners 36%
♦ Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%
♦ Independents 12%

By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is roughly 27%®, 32% (D), and 40% (I) – SEE HERE – However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.

Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people do when they are refuting a media poll.

2) The polling organization's President works with the Clinton Campaign:

"OK, so Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates”, is currently working as “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“. Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?"

3) A Clinton Super-PAC paid over $220,000 to the polling organization in September 2016.

[A note on the source. Yes, it is a conservative, Pro-Trump blog. However, the claims are supported with links to original data sources.]

And know you know why I don't put give much credence to polls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-trump-sexual-assault_us_57fbb902e4b068ecb5e06988

[Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a top Donald Trump surrogate, said on Sunday that even if the GOP nominee actually grabbed a woman “by the pussy,” as he bragged about in a leaked tape from 2005, that behavior would not amount to sexual assault.

“I don’t characterize that as sexual assault,” Sessions told The Weekly Standard in the spin room after Sunday night’s presidential debate. “I think that’s a stretch. I don’t know what he meant.” ]

Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone, and people would still support him.

Also, fine, I'll ask. What do you mean by "The polling sample was ludicrously over-weighted towards Democratic"
The poll is unfair since they asked too many clinton supporters who they are voting for? Do you know how polls work?

If you missed it:

National Registration%/Poll Sample%:

Democratic: 32%/43% +11%
Republican: 27%/36% +9%
Independent: 40%/12% -28
Total: 99%/91% [Other, Not Sure: 9% reported for the poll, bring total to 100%]

Democrats and Republicans are both over-represented, with a slight edge to Democrats

Now let's dig down into some of the internals:

Strong Democrat: 26%
Not Very Strong Democrat: 8%
Independent/Lean Democrat: 9%

Strong Republican: 19%
Not Very Strong Republican: 7%
Independent/Lean Republican: 10%

Strictly Independent: 12%
Other: 5%
Not Sure: 4%

Separating out the Independents we are left with:

34% Democrat (+2% over the national registration)
26% Republican (-1% under national registration)
31% Independent (-9% under national registration, 40% if you want to throw the Others and Not Sure in)

Now I will grant that a three point difference isn't a major difference, though it would likely narrow the 11 point lead by 2-3 points.

What is ludicrous is the fact that 26% of the respondents identified as Strong Democrat, and 19% identified as Strong Republican.

Strong Party Affiliation/National Registration
Democrat: 26%/32% (6 point difference)
Republican: 19%/27% (8 point difference)

Not only are Democrats over-represented, but those Democrats have a stronger party affiliation.

So to reiterate, this poll

a) was conducted by an organization whose president works for the Clinton Campaign
b) received over $220,000 from a Clinton Super-PAC within the last month
c) over-sampled Democrats and under-sampled Republicans by a 3 point spread
d) Strong Democrats were 2 points closer to their national registration average total than Strong Republicans were to their national registration average total.

Adding c) and d) together we see that not only were Democrats over-sampled, the Democrats over-sampled were more dedicated to their party than the under-sampled Republicans. This is going to influence whom the respondents prefer, but to what extent we cannot determine.

And why is that important?

e) the Margin of Error for 500 respondents is 4.38%

Based on the poll's conclusion of an 11 point lead, Clinton could have anything between 15.5 and 6.5 point lead. With a corrected party affiliation it would be closer to an 8 point lead with a MOE spread of 12.5% to 3.5%. If we were able to calculate what effect strength of party affiliation had on the outcome, the lead would probably be even smaller.

But you know what? It's not worth arguing about these details, because in my opinion a poll of 500 cell-phone respondents conducted by a company with direct personal and financial ties to one of the candidates is absolutely worthless.

well this discussion sounds familiar https://twitter.com/AllyRoche/status/785680511960166400

Claim: 4-Chan User Tried Podesta Logins Contained in Wikileaks Emails, Accessed ICould and Outlook This Afternoon

"Someone found the icloud account info in the wikileaks release.

Dude in Canada tried it out.

It worked.

people went nuts.

Ended up apparently getting into his outlook account as well (not clear yet)

Then wiped his ipad and phone.

The end."

Trump's lewdness controversy rolls on. A shame the skeletons waited until October to reveal themselves instead of in the primary, but that's what happens when your establishment is complacent and slow to adapt.

@Colonel Sandor
If that was the same /pol/ thread that they accessed the Clinton Foundation private photos in, then I actually read it before things got good.

Wikileaks: Guess whose campaign is spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" narrative in a 2008 push poll

"* 7 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)'s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world's most populous Islamic country."

New poll in texas shows Trump with a lead of 4.
Thats right, texas, the biggest GOP state, has Trump leading with only 4.
In fact, the only states that have any polling with Trump with a lead of 10 or more are all incredibly tiny states.
Looking at califonia, Clinton is up by over 25 points.

But all the polls are wrong or funded by Clinton herself and everything could totally change within the next ~30 days.

Game over, gg.

Yeah, that California poll is so unexpected…

I've already covered the issues of polling. I'll take it from this short and non-specific response that there is nothing left for you to contribute to that conversation.

You can read the methodology yourself, you know.

{ Of the 800 adults interviewed over the three-day poll, 734 were registered to vote. Of the registered voters, 638 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote on or before November 8. }

SurveyUSA also conducted the poll that shows Clinton up 25, though it's a month old at this point. { SurveyUSA interviewed 900 California adults, and of those, 782 were registered to vote. Of those registered voters, 678 were considered likely to vote in the general election. }

Even the polls you rely on and link here have shown dramatic changes day to day during this election, irdk why you've become so obsessive about it.

I looked for info on the Texas poll; all I could find was a fairly generic statement at the bottom of the WFAA story.

Since OP couldn't even be bothered to link to that, I don't feel the need to put any more effort into investigating it or demonstrating how polls can be manipulated (not that I am saying this one was). It's not worth the effort when OP chooses to set up strawmen instead of actually discussing the evidence.

No one has said all the polls or rigged or funded by Clinton. I presented evidence that one poll showing Clinton up significantly has deep ties to the Clinton Campaign. The lack of a response to that evidence speaks for itself.

At this point to me, the race seems pretty set in stone for Clinton to win. Pivit, which I remind you pulls in data from various polls, says now that she has a 92% chance, the highest its ever been. As far as I can put it, any naysayers are only in denial.

The paragraph I pasted is the paragraph above the generic statement in the WFAA story, right above this picture:

which further illustrates the problem with these media polls. Small samples, and their participants are concentrated in big cities where participants with smart phones are easy to find. Those people also tend to vote Democrat, while Trump's support is coming from the blue collar workforce. This is why his overwhelming primary wins were such a shock to the pollsters who were declaring his campaign a dead gimmick by that point, all of their polls said there's obviously no way this guy would win. But he did.

Anybody who thinks this race is set in stone for Clinton isn't actually paying attention. All of the rolling polls (Reuters, LA Times, etc) still have them within 5 pts of each other and its been that close throughout the election with the occasional ups and downs post convention/debates/revelations. The turnout at his now almost daily speeches is thousands above what Hillary attracts, and Democrat turnout is already far lower than it was for Obama.

Evan McMullin. Nearly no talk about him the entire election. A few articles when he announced his candidacy, and then basically ignored.

That is, until Utah got some updated polling. Now he's grabbing ~20% of the vote, while Trump is getting ~30% and Clinton ~27%.

It's such a huge amount, that 538 added him to their model, and give him over 3% chance of winning Utah. If he won, the chances of an electoral deadlock are that much higher, with Trump not getting 6 electoral votes previously considered pretty much his.

Regardless of what you think of McMullin, or his chances of winning Utah, this is another blip of extreme unusualness during this election – an independent candidate is polling relatively close to the two major candidates in a state.

He's not going to win Utah, and the late rise is only semi-interesting because it's his home state. It would mean more if voters in other states had heard about his campaign and become interested.

Third parties really dropped the ball this election cycle, they threw out their standard JVs while the other two parties were trying to start a revolution. They could have even more support by now if they'd taken advantage of the primaries and the internet better.

WasPo Sunday lead: Clinton only +4 in poll after Trump Tapes.

{ The Post-ABC poll was conducted Oct. 10-13 among a random national sample of 1,152 adults reached on cellular and landline phones. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus three percentage points; the margin of error is 3.5 points among the sample of 920 registered voters and four points among the sample of 740 likely voters. }

LA Times rollings says Trump +1.

After two weeks of claiming Trump's sniffles are clearly a coke habit symptom, Democrat strategist Axelrod says Trump's call for a drug test before the next debate is so 'low' Hillary should just skip it.

Matt Drudge has been cryptically tweeting that Hillary is about to "gets hers" on sex abuse victims since last night. Seems to be aware of something in the next round of Podesta emails.

CNN reporter blames Trump… for firebombing of North Carolina Republican Headquarters

I bet it was that guy in San Jose whose head attacked a peaceful protestor's bag.

No word on which Trump supporter vandalized over 20 cars parked outside a Trump Rally in Bangor, Maine.

And to round out vehicle news, Clinton's official campaign ambulance van is equipped with a bed according to the 9th round of Podesta emails released by Wikileaks.

After sending out a series of encryption keys for archives apparently involving Secretary of State John Kerry, Ecuador, and the British FCO earlier today, Wikileaks is now reporting Assange's internet "has been intentionally severed by a state party."

link text

link text

And to round out vehicle news, Clinton’s official campaign ambulance van is equipped with a bed according to the 9th round of Podesta emails released by Wikileaks.

"Person sometimes likes to sleep in a bed, also reported to like sitting in a chair. More at 8."

It might be just me, but this is news… why?

^ it's the van she's been seen (literally) stumbling into and the bed she collapses on immediately after her extremely brief campaign stops because her old, broken body can barely support itself. They're also checking the article to make sure it puts her and her van in a good light.

CNN anchor tells viewers it's illegal for regular people to look at the Podesta emails but (he actually says the words) 'its different for the media' so make sure you only listen to CNN's Clinton Campaign Approved wikileaks coverage so you don't get in trouble by trying to look it up yourself.

The Plot Thickens

Wikileaks points finger at Ecuador in Internet Loss

"It might be just me, but this is news… why?"

So I did sort of throw that in there at the end. It's not the biggest revelation in the world, but in the context of Clinton's health problems it's more interesting than it would be otherwise.

This choice of campaign vehicle is very strange. Most American politicians typically use SUVs for traveling. I don't think I've ever seen a candidate or officer holder using a van to travel to and from public events. The fact that is an odd choice is reinforced by the fact that the campaign felt the need to influence how it was portrayed in the media.

Initially I was under the impression that this van isn't used for long distance travel. While that is not its current use (since Clinton, like Trump, now uses a jet), news articles from the start of the primary campaigns reported it was used by Clinton to travel from New York to Iowa (about 1,000 miles). In that case there could be a non-medical reason for a bed. These articles also give the impression she chose a van because she received criticism last time for traveling by helicopter and private jet.

So in all likelihood the campaign used a van to try and appeal to middle-class voters. Of course, that choice backfired because it looks ambulance-like and she collapsed in front of it while leaving the September 11th memorial.

Edit: Added 2nd photo because the first one didn't show the whole vehicle

Those comments tho

Also thanks a bunch for posting this.

Meh, I'm still not convinced the van is news-worthy. I can understand campaigning can be quite stressful, and that you might not always get your required amount of sleep by regular means, especially if you have trouble sleeping while sitting (such as in a jet).

It doesn't shine a positive light on her health sure, but honestly do we really expect a President to run a marathon daily like during their campaign?

In the context of a post pointing out the recent firebombing and previous vandalizing of cars, a bed in a van is comparable to an outrage over Ken Bone liking porn. Something I assume you agree with:

{ but honestly do we really expect a President to run a marathon daily like during their campaign? }

uh, yes, if we go by every previous election ever. Trump is traveling to multiple states per weekend giving at least hour long speeches and making TV appearances on top of it. Hillary gives one speech for the first time in 278 days and she has to be helped into a special van equipped with a bed so she can recover?? She'd have to fly around the world meeting with other world leaders and officials on complex issues that require her full attention as President. She'll drop before she's inaugurated!

Health is always considered in presidential campaigns. Politicians have gone to psychotherapists and released clean bills of mental health due to speculation during elections, but god forbid we look too closely at Hillary as she decomposes in front of us.

The van bed isn't meant to be the October Surprise that ruins her, it's just another addition to the list of things she's specifically doing in an atypical manner because of her health troubles.

Let's try this again:

"Meh, I’m still not convinced the van is news-worthy"

I wasn't trying to make a huge issue out of the bed. I can understand how it could appear that way from the first post, but I thought it was cleared up in the second by a) saying it wasn't the biggest revelation in history and b) there was a completely non health-related reason that could explain why there was a bed in the van. In the absence of further details there's not much more to be said about the bed issue.

I still contend the van is a weird choice for an official campaign vehicle, but as I pointed out there are political reasons that might have been behind its selection which had nothing to do with her health. Ironically, that decision backfired because Clinton's health incident at the memorial service occurred right in front of the thing, and it happens to have an ambulance-shaped profile.

So we've had a short discussion about the issue- which is the point, isn't it?

"It doesn’t shine a positive light on her health sure, but honestly do we really expect a President to run a marathon daily like during their campaign?"

Well since it's been brought up…

She's off the campaign trail again. Her last appearance was October 14, which was a taping of the Ellen show, and she has no planned appearances before the debate. That's another five days off to prepare for the debate.

I've been looking for a breakdown of her event appearances since the primaries, but can't find one. I will keep looking, but I'm not sure what can be done besides piecing it all together on my own… which I don't really want to consider doing. This has been a pattern with her since the conventions, however. She makes one or two appearances a week and then disappears for 3-5 days. A quick search for "Clinton off campaign trail" or some similar phrase will give one an idea of her activity or lack there of.

She's not running a marathon, she's taking short walks every couple days and then going off to recuperate while others (her husband, running mate, various surrogates) do the campaigning for her. I think this lack of ability to appear even every other day is legitimate issue to bring up with considering her age, what is known about her health (by which I mean the blood clot, double-vision, and history of falling/concussions- not the various speculation by Doctor Internet), and the demands of the Presidency.

The FBI and State Department may have attempted to engage in a 'quid pro quo' regarding the classification status of one of Clinton's emails. Both the FBI and State Department are denying it.

Judge for yourself. The FBI has released summaries of interviews they conducted. The relevant section begins on page 26 and runs through page 29.

RandomMan said:

I can understand campaigning can be quite stressful, and that you might not always get your required amount of sleep by regular means, especially if you have trouble sleeping while sitting (such as in a jet).

Why a van, though? Why not a campaign bus? I'm sure you could fit a much comfier bed in an RV than in a chevy van with an extended ceiling.

It's not like she doesn't have one.

I can't believe Hillary rides around in a van. Her campaign is literally dead now.