Elections Hillary v. Trump Presidential Debate Three

[cooks1]

This isn't a good bet.

Historically the polls do tighten right before the election, the outcome remains the same but the undecided voters finally start picking something.

It's very unlikely for a good candidate in either party to win by more than 5 points.

This election will likely have record low turnout for both Republicans and Democrats so the numbers are going to get a little wonky.

I like putting myself out there. It's a sherdog bet. It's not for my soul. Obama beat Mccain (who himself was a decent candidate) by 7 points.

 

[ehtheist]

Polling agencies are part of the "mainstream media" or the "DNC"?

And if you think that the "mainstream media" is in league with the evil DNC, that would also sound like rationalization of irrational emotions.

Actually, I think if you're following what's going on, you'd be hard pressed to not at least take a step back and be sceptical of the relation to the bodies which are presenting what the so-called “popular” opinion is of either candidate. I mean, if you’re attempting to look at it objectively and not imposing a starkly subjective bias onto your whole judgement process, I daresay that the very least you could do is take what the media at large is saying with a grain of salt. Yet, here you are describing things derived from likely compromised and themselves biased sources as “objective” and “facts.”

Now, somewhere along the line you’ve done it again… Your previous post puts a word into my mouth which I haven’t used in the context you’re claiming – “particularly.” You say “she's particularly dishonest for a politician” is a position I’ve been putting forth. Now, it’s superficially close to what I’ve been saying, but worlds apart in the import, and now you’re telling it like it’s a defining characteristic of my position on Hillary.

The last time you did something akin to this this – and it is most definitely not an isolated incident - I all but begged you to provide textual evidence of an assertion you were making concerning my motives and things I’d said. You refused to do so citing that it was too much work to actually show that I had held the position you insisted I did, but you proceeded to spout the position as “objective” and “fact.” So, I’m asking you again – show me arguing that Hillary is “particularly dishonest for a politician.” The position in my head is significantly different so I want quotes. Bring them, and I may play this game with you for the nth time. Until you do, I’m not going to get too involved in this. I feel you’ve set the bar for how we perceive each others’ motives astoundingly low to the point where we can pretty much invent narratives and add significant flavor words because they fit if you just fudge the details a little bit. So, get me quotes – I want to see me arguing that Hillary is “particularly dishonest for a politician.” Hey, maybe I did when I was partaking one evening, but I doubt it, since I don’t actually think she’s particularly dishonest for a politician, and my ire for her stems from a few other areas…

 

[Jack V Savage]

Actually, I think if you're following what's going on, you'd be hard pressed to not at least take a step back and be sceptical of the relation to the bodies which are presenting what the so-called “popular” opinion is of either candidate. I mean, if you’re attempting to look at it objectively and not imposing a starkly subjective bias onto your whole judgement process, I daresay that the very least you could do is take what the media at large is saying with a grain of salt. Yet, here you are describing things derived from it as “objective” and “facts.”

I've never heard of polls described as part of the media before. But is your suggestion that the media would fabricate data along these lines? Do you know how crazy that sounds?

Now, somewhere along the line you’ve done it again… Your previous post puts a word into my mouth which I haven’t used in the context you’re claiming – “particularly.” You say “she's particularly dishonest for a politician” is a position I’ve been putting forth. Now, it’s superficially close to what I’ve been saying, but worlds apart in the import, and now you’re telling it like it’s a defining characteristic of my position on Hillary.

If you're saying that you've never said or suggested that she was particularly dishonest for a politician, I have to say I'm skeptical. If you're saying that that is not your current position, I'll take your word for it and congratulate you for being a better thinker and more decent than I'd taken you for.

Where does your ire stem from?

 

[ehtheist]

Yeah. Some people think I am cray-cray for predicting that big a margin of victory. And I have been wrong about shit before. I personally never thought Trump was actually serious about running. I thought he would be out of the race by the Iowa caucus. And I am still not convinced he even wants to be President.

The results of this election are going to tell us an awful lot about the way people make decisions in this country. While certainly taking advantage of technology, Hillary has run a fairly traditional campaign. Lots of advertising. Lots of popular high profile surrogates stumping for her in key areas. HUGE ground network.

Trump has spent very little on advertising. He has no popular, credible, high profile surrogates out there, and virtually no ground network. If this election ends up being really close despite all those things, it will permanently alter the way people run for President. And in an ironic twist of fate, that could actually help take money out of politics.

But if any or all of those things are still germane to getting votes, Trump could be in for a historic beating. And though I would not bet anything on it, I think the conditions are right for (potentially) a 300 electoral vote landslide. In addition to ALL the things I mentioned above, Trump has been catastrophically stupid when it comes to Texas. He has alienated the Bushes, who are popular there. He alienated Cruz, who is popular there. It is closer in Texas than some believe. If HRC gets Texas, it means she would likely pull GA, Iowa, and possibly AZ as well.

Good post, and I particularly agree with the bolded part. If a trainwreck like Trump can put forth a respectable showing in something like this, I’m genuinely worried we’ll get more reality star type candidates coming to the forefront as the political powers will be will recognize the tremendous economical advantage of running his type of campaign… On the upside, it will mix things up from the usual political routine, but it will do so by moving things in a really questionable direction.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

If Hillary keeps pushing this "No Fly Zone over Syria" foolishness I will not be voting for her.

 

[ehtheist]

I've never heard of polls described as part of the media before. But is your suggestion that the media would fabricate data along these lines? Do you know how crazy that sounds?



If you're saying that you've never said or suggested that she was particularly dishonest for a politician, I have to say I'm skeptical. If you're saying that that is not your current position, I'll take your word for it and congratulate you for being a better thinker and more decent than I'd taken you for.

Where does your ire stem from?

I’m saying that you’ve claimed a falsehood as being my position and are using this false position to make assertions about why I dislike Hillary. Provide sources. I’m assuming you wouldn’t make such claims without some sort of factual or objective evidence rather than just your subjective judgements which can’t be qualitatively demonstrated. So, go – get me quotes. I’d hate to think that you’re just following me around telling me about your feelings about me when you’re so damned concerned with objectivity from the rest of the forum – though, you’ve already failed to provide evidence for your positions concerning my strands of arguments in the past, so this would just be another piece of evidence supporting this being the case.

I’m off to class. I look forward to coming back to seeing that you have substantiated your assertions and not that you’re going to pull another “Well, this is obviously the case, and I will continue to assert that it is the case, but I’ll be damned if I’m actually going to prove that this is the position you hold…” You back up what you've said before I go answering your questions.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I’m saying that you’ve claimed a falsehood as being my position and are using this false position to make assertions about why I dislike Hillary.

Here's what you've said. Among many, many other things along similar lines:

"She's a textbook case of a morally bankrupt political climber. Effective in many ways, yes, but so abhorrent a character - a deceitful, ruthless yes-woman who says whatever she needs to get what she wants and has shown no evidence of scruples or moral character - that I want to upchuck at the thought of her being rewarded for her actions by achieving the highest office in my country."

And now you're saying that she's not dishonest for a politician and you've never suggested otherwise! How sleazy is that?

And the "polls are the media, and the media makes up stuff to help Clinton" thing will go undefended or retracted, apparently. Yikes.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I like putting myself out there. It's a sherdog bet. It's not for my soul. Obama beat Mccain (who himself was a decent candidate) by 7 points.

Mccain was terrible. Sarah Palin anyone? Besides he was a bigger flip flopper than Hillary. What a terrible election year that was, almost as bad as this year.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Here's what you've said. Among many, many other things along similar lines:

"She's a textbook case of a morally bankrupt political climber. Effective in many ways, yes, but so abhorrent a character - a deceitful, ruthless yes-woman who says whatever she needs to get what she wants and has shown no evidence of scruples or moral character - that I want to upchuck at the thought of her being rewarded for her actions by achieving the highest office in my country."

And now you're saying that she's not dishonest for a politician and you've never suggested otherwise! How sleazy is that?

And the "polls are the media, and the media makes up stuff to help Clinton" thing will go undefended or retracted, apparently. Yikes.

I am constantly befuddled by Trump supporters who say that Hillary will say anything you want to hear to get elected, when Trump has literally flip flopped on every single political stance he's ever stated in the past 20 years. He was very liberal and on the left to switching position on everything to fool the alt-right group to build a supporter base.

 

[Blackened]

Yep. Polls that, you know, protect against self selection bias. Among many, many other things.

I'm not sure if I'm sold on that

 

[ehtheist]

Here's what you've said. Among many, many other things along similar lines:

"She's a textbook case of a morally bankrupt political climber. Effective in many ways, yes, but so abhorrent a character - a deceitful, ruthless yes-woman who says whatever she needs to get what she wants and has shown no evidence of scruples or moral character - that I want to upchuck at the thought of her being rewarded for her actions by achieving the highest office in my country."

And now you're saying that she's not dishonest for a politician and you've never suggested otherwise! How sleazy is that?

And the "polls are the media, and the media makes up stuff to help Clinton" thing will go undefended or retracted, apparently. Yikes.

I’m looking through there to see any claim of her being particularly dishonest for a politician? Do you actually have evidence supporting that claim being my position, or are you just applying your own subjective slant on what I’ve said that doesn’t actually support your claim? As I said, your claim fits if you fudge the details a bit - but that's precisely what you're doing and are most definitely interpreting this quote to fit what you already think of me. I think that the above pretty accurately describes what a lot of politicians are – she just happens to be caught red handed in conducting herself as such and the show, amazingly, goes on as a cynical audience is happy to literally have it staring them in the face and say “I’m OK with this.”

Now, brainstorm for a bit. If I, as a woman, think the first female politician to have a shot at becoming president is dishonest, as politicians are, and my motivations for being a Bernie supporter concern my perception of him as a virtual unicorn – my words – among politicians in being an earnest one, what could bother me about Hillary heading for the Oval Office? Is it perhaps not that I think that she’s *particularly* dishonest in a dishonest profession, but that I’m *so* disappointed that the first woman to be president is going to go down in history as one of the ones who got caught and, in that, displays how little we care about it? I’ve said many times that Hillary represents the evils of American politics – but I don’t think I’ve ever said she exceeds them. In other words, I don’t think I’ve ever said she’s *particularly* dishonest for a politician – but am I ever disappointed that the first female president is going to be one who brazenly shows something very wrong with American politics and is given a pass on it. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by our current president who, at the very least, leaves the illusion that we support him because he’s a good man…

 

[Jack V Savage]

I am constantly befuddled by Trump supporters who say that Hillary will say anything you want to hear to get elected, when Trump has literally flip flopped on every single political stance he's ever stated in the past 20 years. He was very liberal and on the left to switching position on everything to fool the alt-right group to build a supporter base.

Yeah, I get that she's never been an extremist, and as the country has shifted left on some issues, she's been caught behind. But she's consistently been on the left quarter of the mainstream left. It's not like she's going to be for abortion prohibition, regressive tax cuts, financial deregulation, cuts to entitlements, or a general weakening of the safety net. She has clear principles, unlike Trump. Obviously a lot of Americans disagree with those principles, and that's why we have discussions and elections, but you can't honestly claim that she just says anything. You can claim it with Trump (and many of his supporters--note that Evangelicals have shown a 40% swing on the question of whether character counts for a candidate and that the NRA is endorsing a guy who is very questionable on the issue of gun control).

I’m looking through there to see any claim of her being particularly dishonest for a politician?

Are you seriously going to be disingenuous enough to claim that you were just saying that she's normal for a politician in terms of character and honesty? What's the point of even discussing something if you're going to pull that kind of thing? Stand behind your words, retract them, or don't bother.

And FYI, while Bernie is also well above average for a politician, he did make false statements more often than Clinton.

And no comment on your polling/media conspiracy theory?

 

[cooks1]

Mccain was terrible. Sarah Palin anyone? Besides he was a bigger flip flopper than Hillary. What a terrible election year that was, almost as bad as this year.

Sarah Palin was a very polarizing figure. Those kinds of people-they can generate a lot of buzz, and bring out HUGE crowds (sound familiar).

But when it get's down to actual voting, they can create a lot of anxiety. Trump is even more polarizing than Palin, and he is running for President, not VP. So I would not be surprised to see bottom fall out of Trumps support on election day, as sphincter muscles all over the nation tighten over the prospect of actually pulling the lever for him.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Yeah. Some people think I am cray-cray for predicting that big a margin of victory. And I have been wrong about shit before. I personally never thought Trump was actually serious about running. I thought he would be out of the race by the Iowa caucus. And I am still not convinced he even wants to be President.

The results of this election are going to tell us an awful lot about the way people make decisions in this country. While certainly taking advantage of technology, Hillary has run a fairly traditional campaign. Lots of advertising. Lots of popular high profile surrogates stumping for her in key areas. HUGE ground network.

Trump has spent very little on advertising. He has no popular, credible, high profile surrogates out there, and virtually no ground network. If this election ends up being really close despite all those things, it will permanently alter the way people run for President. And in an ironic twist of fate, that could actually help take money out of politics.

But if any or all of those things are still germane to getting votes, Trump could be in for a historic beating. And though I would not bet anything on it, I think the conditions are right for (potentially) a 300 electoral vote landslide. In addition to ALL the things I mentioned above, Trump has been catastrophically stupid when it comes to Texas. He has alienated the Bushes, who are popular there. He alienated Cruz, who is popular there. It is closer in Texas than some believe. If HRC gets Texas, it means she would likely pull GA, Iowa, and possibly AZ as well.

The "cooks1 inverted predictor" has been one of the most reliable predictors of this election. Just take cooks1 stated prediction, and take the opposite result.

If cooks1 is predicting 300 electoral votes for Hillary, it will be likely that Trump wins with about 290 electoral votes.

This inverted or "bizzaro" predictor has been one of the more accurate this election season.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Sarah Palin was a very polarizing figure. Those kinds of people-they can generate a lot of buzz, and bring out HUGE crowds (sound familiar).

But when it get's down to actual voting, they can create a lot of anxiety. Trump is even more polarizing than Palin, and he is running for President, not VP. So I would not be surprised to see bottom fall out of Trumps support on election day, as sphincter muscles all over the nation tighten over the prospect of actually pulling the lever for him.

But Mccain just actually sucked. At least Donald in all his shittyness tells it like it is when it comes to the media and our current political environment. He also has better foreign views than Hillary. Sarah Palin was a complete joke. Anyone can make her look stupid. You can make Donald look stupid too but he'll come right back and make you look just as stupid while getting laughs out the crowd. I guess Sarah was pretty fuckablw though, right?

 

[Gervinho]

But Mccain just actually sucked. At least Donald in all his shittyness tells it like it is when it comes to the media and our current political environment. He also has better foreign views than Hillary. Sarah Palin was a complete joke. Anyone can make her look stupid. You can make Donald look stupid too but he'll come right back and make you look just as stupid while getting laughs out the crowd. I guess Sarah was pretty fuckablw though, right?

What is his foreign policy situation? I am gonna be Russias bitch? Russia is fighting ISIS

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

What is his foreign policy situation? I am gonna be Russias bitch? Russia is fighting ISIS

You're not even American, shut the fuck up limpwrist

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not sure if I'm sold on that

You don't have a choice but to buy that self selection is the major bias separating online, straw etc polls from real professional ones. That's simply a fact.

 

[Gervinho]

You're not even American, shut the fuck up limpwrist

Maybe I dont want emotionally unstable man lead the super power of the world because the ignorant majority in America want to fuck up their own country. I dont care if you fuck up your own country. but I also dont want WW3 because you select someone with child temperament as a president. It says a lot about people like you to think yeah.....putting this clown in office is a good idea. Because a billionaire who brags about not paying taxes, brags about using cheap labour is the man to look after the poor. You couldnt make this up

 

[Blackened]

You don't have a choice but to buy that self selection is the major bias separating online, straw etc polls from real professional ones. That's simply a fact.

I'm not sure I trust the organizations doing the polling. All you have to do is look at the brexit