That is exactly what I said and that is why I said they are crap. Subjective opinions about subjective criteria used to create discussion. It means nothing unless you are filling air time.
Bornaneer
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
That is exactly what I said and that is why I said they are crap. Subjective opinions about subjective criteria used to create discussion. It means nothing unless you are filling air time.
I responded to one sentence "There are no accurate polls". That statement is false and I provided some links for you to educate yourself about conducting polls. I was not addressing anything to do with the prez election or recent debate. Try communicating in a more clear manner in the future and you will have a better chance of making true statements.
It's means something to the people running the campaigns. Ordinary people aren't really impacted by the results, but it does satisfy people's curiosity about how things are trending in the election. If I'm driving somewhere 300 miles away, I'm going to check my trip odometer every once in a while. It doesn't give me an exact prediction of when I will arrive at my destination - no idea what traffic ahead will be or road or weather conditions - but I still look to see how many more miles I have to go.
I'm paraphrasing his line, 25, 30, whatever. His best bet is to paint the picture of her being a career politician. And while she was not in office prior to 2000 she was involved in "politics" and policy prior to her Senate run.
Like I said before, everything you measure has a margin of error. That's a measure of how accurate something is. I can synchronize 2 clocks on a wall. When I go to adjust for daylight savings time, those clocks aren't synchronized any more. That doesn't mean they are crap, just that they have different levels of accuracy.
I agree that campaign polls mean something. They show trends and allow for benchmarks and other things. I am talking about how they apply to "who won a debate" because it is trying to draw an objective conclusion from subjective data points.
I would argue that elections are subjective choices to. Who is the best person to perform this job from tissue list of people? There is no absolute answer to that. There are only answers based on individual opinions. Same as who won the debate.
Sure, that is debateable. The results of an election are probably not "accurate" but they are objective in that we have rules for how to vote and how to count the votes so at the end of the day you have an objective result based on an objective data set (who do you vote for the office). The choice is still an opinion but the win or lose is more objective. With a debate the definition of winning is a variable.
They are crap. You said that "Anyone who watched knows that Hillary won and it wasn't close" and while the polls are not really equipped to declare a winner, they are clearly objectively equipped to reject your statement because at least 1 person disagreed with you and they are part of "anyone."
Hillary won and Donald would do well to cancel the next two.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/rudy_s_right_trump_should_skip_the_debates.html
Any poll that is comprised of mouse clicks is open to attack by 'click armies.' Duh, remember Marshall's push to have the bridge painted green in Charleston? Ha, they had the needle pointing their way for a second. In terms of recent debate polls, short of stuffing the proverbial ballet box, if there was anywhere near honest clickage, it very well could be indicative of an overriding want for change rather than a 90 minute performance. Personally, I wasn't especially impressed with either speaker in terms of debate skills. Many think Trump left a lot of meat on the bone. I have a working theory that he was so pre-programmed not to 'react' to Clinton that he didn't react when he should have. He should shoulder most of the blame for not ceazing the moment, but his assembled counsel of...ahem...geniuses should feel somewhat culpable. I mean, they are being paid, right? Too many chefs in the kitchen? Same goes for Hillary. With the huge staff is there no one who can come up with humorous and humanizing lines? Her one liners are obviously predetermined and not ad lib. She's not getting much for the money, but she's a bureaucratic liberal so that's to be expected. [See how easy that was?]
Last edited:
I tend to agree. I don't think she was lights out. She did pretty well with the split screen format. She showed some semblance of a sense of humor - able to laugh at some of of the stuff Trump was putting forward. They didn't catch her in any goofy moments while Trump was speaking, and she didn't show any signs of the lack of stamina that Trump was trying to pin on her. The biggest win for her was when she was finally able to get under Trump's skin enough for him to react. In terms of content, she didn't impress me with much. I didn't come out of that debate knowing much more than I already knew about her platform. If Trump had prepped worth a darn, he could have taken her down fairly easily. He also wasn't thinking on his feet like he should have been. When cyber security comes up, how do you not mention the email server? He was too concerned about defending himself instead of turning the focus. Quibbling about whether or not the DNC hack was the Russians? Who cares if it might have been someone else? Bring up the server in her basement and who might have been able to hack it. Basically admitting that you pay nothing in income taxes? Why do that? It might be true. It might be smart. It's ammo for her, and it makes people who pay taxes on much less income feel like there are 2 sets of rules for society: those for the rich and those for everyone else. HC is getting the advantages of the rules for the rich too, but no one is focusing on that now. Making excuses about why you didn't pay people what they were owed under contract? How do you think small business people look at that?
That's the thing. His side was too predisposed not to react to her. They got reverse psyched, I think.
Taxes. I'm sure he pays taxes coming and going like the rest of us and the line to pay extra is a short one, but he let bravado get in the way of common sense, imo. How he can be unprepared for any question defies logic, unless he has a motive we're not aware of. Maybe he plans to load Up a Ryder truck and have them delivered to CNN if he wants to overwork their staff late in the election, ha.
Small business. Small business as a whole shouldn't look favorably on the accusations leveled against him, but polls (that ugly word, again) show that small business and big business alike are more in favor with his economic plan verses Clinton's. Business is business.
Last edited:
No no no. When she was trying to do the HillaryCare or whatever 23 years ago and was working with politicians, that doesn't mean she was in politics. Apparently, people who work for lobbying firms don't work in politics either since Bru's definition is that you actually have to be running for office. Campaign staffers? Nope, they aren't in politics. You dumb bastard, you should know better. Bru sets the left and right lateral limit of his own reality that everyone will march to. Or you're scum!!!!!!