Donald Trump for President Thread

[MartyMcFly]

I'm pretty sure I just read that he thinks Fox News is unbiased.

Then you are another one who can't read. I said the moderator from Fox news is unbiased.

Fox news is actually in this election probably the closest to being unbiased. Just simply because they hate both candidates. Trump took over the GOP in a hostile takeover and they've always hated Hillary.

 

[MartyMcFly]

They just claim people who voted leave are too dumb and racist to hold a basic human right.

You also can't exactly claim something is rigged when you are the ones in charge.

 

[dandydan]

Breitbart is conservative. It's partisan.

The only way to actually cut through media bias is to go to the underlying sources and data - not simply read a variety of different biases.

Breitbart is to the right of Louis XIV, but nobody else will touch what they report on.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Breitbart is conservative. It's partisan.

The only way to actually cut through media bias is to go to the underlying sources and data - not simply read a variety of different biases.

True but even I don't have the time for that so I'll stick to my method but I realize it's not perfect. However the adversarial system works for our courts so it's good enough for me.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Breitbart is to the right of Louis XIV, but nobody else will touch what they report on.

I never questioned that. I just want to point out that anywhere with a clear editorial spin and a blurred line between editorial and 'news' is not the best place to get news about politics, right? Because you assume the articles will be written in a way that support an agenda.

Which is why I believe that ideally when faced with potential bias, you simply cut the editorializing entirely and go to the empirical evidence.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I think Brexit ended up winning by 4 and the day before where 4 points down which makes it an 8 point swing. That's huge and well outside the margin of error.

I think there probably is more closet Trump supporters. I suspect a lot of Gary Johnson supporters are on the fence and if Trump stopped putting his foot in it he would have probably got the majority of them. I also think Trump's supporters are more committed so their turnout will be higher.

It's not over till it's over and last night he destroyed Clinton until he again put his foot in it by saying he wouldn't necessarily trust the result and the hombre remark.

I thought he was awful in the first and slightly better in the 2nd however the moderator was from Fox news this time so at least for a change was unbiased. The first two moderators where disgraceful and given them and the media and uni-party tactics I'm not surprised he thinks they would go that far. Frankly so do I but you don't say it and just walk into a volley of criticism.

The polls of polls I saw were much closer than that as indicated in the graph, somewhere between slight lead for Leave to the Telegraph's +2 for Remain. Margins of error for referendums should be high as turnout and voting patterns are a lot harder to predict than general elections.

Primaries also have higher margins of error than general elections but for all the talk of "shy" Trump voters he actually underperformed his poll forcasts on the way to the nomination although hard to know whether that will also be true in the general.

The last poll I saw that asked the enthusiasm question had a big change after the debate with both candidates equal but haven't seen more recent polling on that question.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/10/06/clintons-lead-persists-democrats-enthusiasm-her-ca/

Trump's job this debate was to try to persuade some of the undecided/thired party voters, or even better Hillary supporters, to change their mind. Personally I couldn't see anything in last nights debate that would have done that, or at least nothing that would not have been outweighed by the election rigging/bad hombre/nasty woman remarks. Usually takes a few days for the impact of debates to reflect in polls, Monday's polls will be interesting.

But over 2 million votes have already been cast and he has an awful lot of ground in the electoral college to make up.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Do you understand words and such?

I said.

"If you want to get a fair understanding of what's going on then you also have to go to somewhere like Breitbart. Now of course that's neither fair or balanced either but if you get your news from both sides then it's equal."

If you go to Breitbart you can see the evidence of all the media colluding including what was released by Wikileaks. Whereas CNN said it was against the law for Americans to read Wikileaks... which it's not.

I don't want to get too complex, see, but twitter works by you selecting which people/handles to follow. Then the ones you follow show up in your feed. If you want to add/remove people to follow, you can do that, but you have to perform a complicated high-dexterity task involving your mouse/finger and moving to the upper right corner of the screen and choosing the Follow/Unfollow button. It's tricky too, because if you select twice, you'll be back where you started, all unawares.

But still, damn the twitters and its pro-media, bias-inducing algorithms and such.

 

[dandydan]

I never questioned that. I just want to point out that anywhere with a clear editorial spin and a blurred line between editorial and 'news' is not the best place to get news about politics, right? Because you assume the articles will be written in a way that support an agenda.

Which is why I believe that ideally when faced with potential bias, you simply cut the editorializing entirely and go to the empirical evidence.

I try to read both left and right views on a story but find myself increasingly patronised by the left.

 

[ItsOKImAPilot]

So that is 15 minutes of my life I am not getting back.

Even if you could do all the ridiculous stuff they say (the private vehicle purchases alone would make it an incredibly expensive and man hour intensive scheme) how on earth do you scale it up enough to steal a general election? You'd need thousands and thousands of votes to even make a slight dent and that is just for single state - it would have to be replicated over multiple states.

Even if you think it can be done on a lower scale eg House/Senate/Govenors you'd still need a hell of a lot of votes and if it is being done they are doing a remarkably poor job of it given the dominance of Republicans in those positions.

And in this vast conspiracy scheme are they also rigging all the polls - including ones run by Fox and Breitbart?

Here is an idea - perhaps the Republicans should nominate someone other than a sexist bigot who can keep message discipline and see how that works out rather that indulging in fantasies that the only reason their guy looks to be losing is because of voter fraud.

Hate to revisit this but I'm bored and reading this entire thread. I had this discussion with some other people when the video surfaced and I could not agree more with this post. People are latching onto what this campaign manager is claiming but the numbers simply don't work. In the last election, so state was decided by just a few thousand votes. I think the smallest margin of victory was about 30,000 votes in a state with roughly 4 electoral votes. Most every other state was decided by 100,000+ votes.

It would have to cost billions to pull of the scam in a meaningful way and how do you spend that amount without people noticing? How else do you get that many people to conspire and not tell another person?

 

[SerenityNigh]

Hate to revisit this but I'm bored and reading this entire thread. I had this discussion with some other people when the video surfaced and I could not agree more with this post. People are latching onto what this campaign manager is claiming but the numbers simply don't work. In the last election, so state was decided by just a few thousand votes. I think the smallest margin of victory was about 30,000 votes in a state with roughly 4 electoral votes. Most every other state was decided by 100,000+ votes.

It would have to cost billions to pull of the scam in a meaningful way and how do you spend that amount without people noticing? How else do you get that many people to conspire and not tell another person?

Don't bother with it. Facts take time and energy, but conspiracies are like multis--take a little spark and some wind and you can create a large fire without much effort.

 

[MartyMcFly]

The polls of polls I saw were much closer than that as indicated in the graph, somewhere between slight lead for Leave to the Telegraph's +2 for Remain. Margins of error for referendums should be high as turnout and voting patterns are a lot harder to predict than general elections.

Primaries also have higher margins of error than general elections but for all the talk of "shy" Trump voters he actually underperformed his poll forcasts on the way to the nomination although hard to know whether that will also be true in the general.

The last poll I saw that asked the enthusiasm question had a big change after the debate with both candidates equal but haven't seen more recent polling on that question.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/10/06/clintons-lead-persists-democrats-enthusiasm-her-ca/

Trump's job this debate was to try to persuade some of the undecided/thired party voters, or even better Hillary supporters, to change their mind. Personally I couldn't see anything in last nights debate that would have done that, or at least nothing that would not have been outweighed by the election rigging/bad hombre/nasty woman remarks. Usually takes a few days for the impact of debates to reflect in polls, Monday's polls will be interesting.

But over 2 million votes have already been cast and he has an awful lot of ground in the electoral college to make up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...st-who-will-win-results-populus-a7097261.html

You can read the polls here. The YouGov one was only 2 so that might be one you saw however that was an online poll that normally favors Brexit.

There's loads of primaries they predicted him to lose and he swept them all but ultimately the only poll that matters is the election.

I'm not sure his job was to win over undecided voters although that's what people say. It looks like he went in with the strategy of getting out his base and in particular the Tea Party/Evangelicals who he has seen his support drop with due to the sex scandals - which has been the reason for his drop in the polls. If he can get them back then he's within 1 or 2 points like before and after that it's turnout and he will win if it comes down to turnout.

There's not many ways Trump can win. He needs to maximize everything but it's still possible if he can win those back and his stance on both the 2nd Amendment and abortion will have helped him greatly plus I think he did an excellent job with the sex scandal basically saying you can't trust Hillary which people can't.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Hate to revisit this but I'm bored and reading this entire thread. I had this discussion with some other people when the video surfaced and I could not agree more with this post. People are latching onto what this campaign manager is claiming but the numbers simply don't work. In the last election, so state was decided by just a few thousand votes. I think the smallest margin of victory was about 30,000 votes in a state with roughly 4 electoral votes. Most every other state was decided by 100,000+ votes.

It would have to cost billions to pull of the scam in a meaningful way and how do you spend that amount without people noticing? How else do you get that many people to conspire and not tell another person?

Just in on the twitters (not that you can trust such stuff, but it has a screenshot, which is very difficult to fake unless you have a marginal background in photoshop)

 

[MartyMcFly]

Don't bother with it. Facts take time and energy, but conspiracies are like multis--take a little spark and some wind and you can create a large fire without much effort.

You do realize people have resigned from their positions due to those conspiracy stories.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Hate to revisit this but I'm bored and reading this entire thread. I had this discussion with some other people when the video surfaced and I could not agree more with this post. People are latching onto what this campaign manager is claiming but the numbers simply don't work. In the last election, so state was decided by just a few thousand votes. I think the smallest margin of victory was about 30,000 votes in a state with roughly 4 electoral votes. Most every other state was decided by 100,000+ votes.

It would have to cost billions to pull of the scam in a meaningful way and how do you spend that amount without people noticing? How else do you get that many people to conspire and not tell another person?

The logistics of it alone make it crazy - even the guy was saying that a bus was easily spotted so you'd have to have private cars. So say 5 people per car, generously say that could, with travel to next poll place/parking/checking in/voting/travel onwards, that you might be able to visit two places in one hour so rate of 10 fraud votes per hour, say opening hours of 8am to 6pm at polling places so roughly 100 fraud votes per day by this car - and that still leaves out all the organization effort to get on the voting rolls and getting your story straight at each polling place.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Just in on the twitters (not that you can trust such stuff, but it has a screenshot, which is very difficult to fake unless you have a marginal background in photoshop)

Look at the media's coverage so far in this election. Look at how Clinton avoided having to take responsibility for the emails. Look at the fact that you have even the GOP establishment voting for Clinton and saying others should.

This isn't any normal election. Normally both candidates are the puppets of the lobbyists. For once one of them isn't and they're terrified they won't be able to control him.