Donald Trump for President Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
mezzrow said:
CsagbMtXEAApFB4.jpg


http://www.dailywire.com/news/9174/...m_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro
Click to expand...
As we've discussed in the past Trump was often his own worst enemy, allowing his missteps to overshadow ones by Clinton.

We'll see if that message discipline continues.

@dandydan as I understand it there are some quirks to both British and US polling that make them somewhat different animals. I don't follow UK polling so haven't got a feel for how accurate or not they are. However I've been following US polling for several years now though and am much more comfortable with the data although no poll will ever be 100% accurate.

But it is obviosuly up to an individual as to how much they trust it or if they they discount it completely.
 

deipnosophist said:
I think Obama was (initially) elected on a positive wave.
Same with Bill Clinton
Same with JFK

But in general, you're not wrong.
Click to expand...
Of those I'd say Obama wasn't elected on a positive wave. I think the yanks were war weary and sick of dubya.
Edit I'm aware of the 2 term law but he poisoned the GOP.
 
img_0511.jpg


Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/
 
mezzrow said:
img_0511.jpg


Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/
Click to expand...
Completely unacceptable thing to do, hope the campaign ensures this never happens again and offers compensation to those harmed.
 

LinekersLegs said:
Completely unacceptable thing to do, hope the campaign ensures this never happens again and offers compensation to those harmed.
Click to expand...

Why would they do this? It seems inconceivable, but... (from the link above)

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.

Another bank source told the Observer that Clinton’s motivation in purposefully overcharging donors is not only to rake in more money for her campaign but also to inflate her small donor numbers reported to the FEC. “This gives a false impression about how much money Clinton has raised,” the source said. “The money that the bank has refunded would not be reflected in the FEC filings till after the election. This gives off the illusion to the public that her support and the amount she’s raised is much greater than what it is in reality.”

Once is a fluke, twice is a trend.
 
mezzrow said:
Why would they do this? It seems inconceivable, but... (from the link above)

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.

Another bank source told the Observer that Clinton’s motivation in purposefully overcharging donors is not only to rake in more money for her campaign but also to inflate her small donor numbers reported to the FEC. “This gives a false impression about how much money Clinton has raised,” the source said. “The money that the bank has refunded would not be reflected in the FEC filings till after the election. This gives off the illusion to the public that her support and the amount she’s raised is much greater than what it is in reality.”

Once is a fluke, twice is a trend.
Click to expand...
One note of caution in this case, Snopes can only find one other instance of someone complaining about this issue so might be an isolated incident http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-overcharging-donors/

Unfortunately it is not an unusual complaint about political campaigns, Trump's for instance didn't have a "cancel subscription" button which made it very difficult to stop recurring donations.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/05/donald-trump-really-ripping-small-donors/

No excusing it whoever does it though, if you build systems that take people's money you need to make them resistant to fraud/abuse and easy for a consumer to use.
 
For anyone curious in the geeky side of polling this might be of interest, they are using voter registration records to base the polling on rather than traditional random cold calling and then weighing the sample by those voter records rather than by census.

Background here
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/u...ork-times-upshot-siena-college-poll.html?_r=0
First result here
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/19/upshot/florida-poll-clinton-trump.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/upshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Like with any new system I wouldn't put great reliance on the results until they have gone through an election cycle and ironed out their inevitable kinks - although it does support traditional polling results that Florida remains a toss up state and turnout will be a major factor in who eventually wins it.

The interest lies more in this is the type of system/granular data that the campaigns are getting so provides a glance behind the scenes into what information is driving campaign management - or it does if you are into that kinda thing which I guess not many are given the overall skepticism on polling lol
 
Bryan said:
Imagine being an American and having to choose between these two? It's like asking to bang your mum or be bummed by your dad
Click to expand...
In everton perspective it's like having to start kone or naisse in a cup final except kone is actually likable as a person
 

So Trump wants a ban on Muslim immigrants? I've just seen on the news that Canada has already taken in over 30,000 Syrian refugees. Think he might need to build a wall with them as well as Mexico. Just to be safe of course...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top