| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of trends, you know the trend suggesting the Trump Foundation is shady enough for Norgorber to hide in?
It might be lacking the required certification to do what it's doing. This is doubly notable because if Trump had registered it properly (per the requirements of New York State law, I believe it is), the Foundation would likely have been subject to audits and examinations that would have noticed some of the discrepancies it's been showing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the data was pretty much on the money for the primariesExcept for those times they were off by more than 8 points. Or that one time they were off by 20 points...Exactly what Rednal said. Polling and other data were pointing to Trump and Clinton as the clear winners early on. They didn't get all states right, but they got the outcome.
That happens in every election cycle. This one isn't some mysterious exception that's immune to polling.
Look at averages and trends, not individual polls.
It isn't that they didn't get all the states right, it is that in more than one case 538 was giving a 99% win chance to Clinton and turned out wrong. We are talking about more than a shift within the margin of error. That is the result of poor practices.
There is a huge difference between, "well it looks pretty close, but I'm leaning toward A" and being wrong; than, "A is a lock, may as well not have the voting, this is predetermined, it's over before the polls open" and being wrong.
There has been a suspicious amount of the latter this season. And it hasn't been on both sides of the street. Every time it favors Clinton.
This isn't a play at saying, "Trump is really leading," I really hope not. That is terrifying. But even Clinton supporters (like myself) NEED to be vigilant that there appears to be a polling bias in her favor this season.
EDIT: I would also add that leading up to Michigan, EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, Chris.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
the data was pretty much on the money for the primariesExcept for those times they were off by more than 8 points. Or that one time they were off by 20 points...Exactly what Rednal said. Polling and other data were pointing to Trump and Clinton as the clear winners early on. They didn't get all states right, but they got the outcome.
That happens in every election cycle. This one isn't some mysterious exception that's immune to polling.
Look at averages and trends, not individual polls.It isn't that they didn't get all the states right, it is that in more than one case 538 was giving a 99% win chance to Clinton and turned out wrong. We are talking about more than a shift within the margin of error. That is the result of poor practices.
There is a huge difference between, "well it looks pretty close, but I'm leaning toward A" and being wrong; than, "A is a lock, may as well not have the voting, this is predetermined, it's over before the polls open" and being wrong.
There has been a suspicious amount of the latter this season. And it hasn't been on both sides of the street. Every time it favors Clinton.
This isn't a play at saying, "Trump is really leading," I really hope not. That is terrifying. But even Clinton supporters (like myself) NEED to be vigilant that there appears to be a polling bias in her favor this season.
EDIT: I would also add that leading up to Michigan, EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.
Trump's campaign has embraced the long-festering hate and bigotry deep within this country. I still hope that Trump isn't merely defeated on Election Day, but defeated in a landslide, to send a loud resounding rebuke that the overwhelming majority of voters in this country reject this hate and bigotry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".
Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.
The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.
Other countries have different voting systems allowing 3rd parties to be viable. We have a strict runnoff, which means that it is always in your interest to have as few ideologically similar candidates as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.
Other countries have a parliamentary system or local politics. America's winner take all system is constitutionally baked into the system, and a two party system drops out of that. If you cannot get 51% of the vote you cannot be effective.
The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.
Hillary is definitely the status quo but i will DEFINITELY take that over trump and the staut quo of 1890.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I voted third party, once.
The year was 2000...
I voted third party, once.
The year was 2000...
Don't blame me I vote traded to someone in florida.
How about a Trump Presidency with Republicans controlling the House and Senate? Cause that's the likeliest outcome if things shift enough for Trump to win.
Note: I deleted my post because it referenced a post that Chris had already deleted.
Shrug. I've seen just about every combination of party control, and yet the same things keep happening. Good Cop and Bad Cop are both still cops.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other countries have different voting systems allowing 3rd parties to be viable. We have a strict runnoff, which means that it is always in your interest to have as few ideologically similar candidates as possible.
3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".
Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.
The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.
This chart should be a required high school class unto itself.
3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".
Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.
The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.
Trump and Sanders should have, by all rights, run as third party candidates. (I will, for the sake of civility, refrain from naming either hypothetical party.) It seems extremely disingenuous to blame the choice of individual voters when one of the Democratic primary candidates and the Republican Presidential candidate have chosen major party name brand recognition over their own political identity.
tl;dr: I'm not trying to beat the game, I just want my candidate of choice to be elected as President.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it is not baked into the system. That is completely untrue and just what the establishment wants you to believe so they maintain their power.
I realize that to you, your opinion that it isn't true is all that's needed, but to me you're just another random person on the internet. You're going to need to SHOW how it's possible. What mechanism gets 10% of the vote to get a candidate into office?
And neither candidate will get 51% of the vote this year because 3rd parties are going to take about 8-10%.
And it doesn't matter. because the one with the most votes gets everythinig and third parties get nothing whether they have 1% 5% 10% or 20% . The person with the most votes gets everything. (unless you're al gore)
So you end up voting for a criminals and fools over and over and they keep laughing because they have convinced the public that there are no other options.
SHOW that there are other options. Don't just insult me for disagreeing that there are other options.