Progressives (Liberals)

@Lash,

I have no idea what you are suggesting or how it's relevant to the claim you made earlier. The video Brand X linked was a year out and showed Clinton within a couple of points of Trump, Rubio and Cruz.

Can you formulate a coherent thesis on what you are trying to say?

1 Reply

@blatham,

Answer my question.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Why have networks traditionally kept prognostications quiet until the polls close on election days?

1 Reply

@Brand X,

Interesting times. It’s bugging me that I can’t account for all those Kamala voters. I can definitely pigeonhole them. Their move coincides with a Oete jump.

Anyway. Happy to check in with you as things progress/evolve/get cheated.

😜🔥

0 Replies

Pete's having a bad week, who knows, maybe his free ride in the media is about to end.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Why have networks traditionally kept prognostications quiet until the polls close on election days?

They don't. Polling is done (and reported) right up to and on election day. Opinion pieces are written and televised. I truly don't know what you are trying to suggest. Can you flesh it out?

Perhaps you are referring to holding up on reporting east coast results (early results) so as not to discourage west coast (later voters) from turning out. But that isn't a hard and fast rule and not subject to any laws I know of.

But if that's what you mean, I still don't see how it's relevant to what you claimed above.

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Perhaps you are referring to holding up on reporting east coast results (early results) so as not to discourage west coast (later voters) from turning out.

Exactly.

So, the Hillary-crazy media and their wealthy patrons say Hillary is walking away with it by a 97% likelihood—hoping Trump voters would count it lost and stay home.

4 Replies

@Lash,

we all know where the real money went in 2016, even the Koch's finally helppd Plump out.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash is finally coming out of the closet to admit she has always been a Trumpie. Are you there Edgar. Lash is showing her true cocolors.Backing Bernie because she is sure the republican dirt machine can take Bernie down so Trump can be reelected

0 Replies

@blatham,

So if I understand it, the media (whoever they are) and a bunch of rich people who support them (I thought they made money from advertising) were all crazy for HRC (why?) and conspired to fake the results of exit polls to make it look like she was likely to win because that would discourage Sanders supporters (who were running a very successful grassroots insurgency) from voting? That seems really far-fetched; maybe I have it wrong. But why vote for a candidate if you know she's going to win? Seems to me that this would be just the sort of thing that would keep Hillary voters at home and send Sanders loyalists to the polls in overwhelming numbers.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I don’t think you’re right about that, but if you have a good link, I’d like to see it.

Excerpt
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2016/06/10/billionaire-charles-koch-slams-both-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump/amp/
While the Kochs have supported most of the previous GOP presidential nominees, they have a far less favorable view of Trump. A billionaire himself, Trump wrote on Twitter last year that most of his GOP rivals were “puppets” of the Kochs. The bad blood reflects the tensions between Trump and some of the Republicans’ biggest donors, which could hurt his fundraising efforts.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

So, the Hillary-crazy media and their wealthy patrons say Hillary is walking away with it by a 97% likelihood—hoping Trump voters would count it lost and stay home.

What on earth are you talking about.

In the video Brand X linked, the gap between Trump and Clinton a year out was just several points.

In the week or so prior to the 2016 election, almost all the polls had Clinton ahead by 2 - 5 points wikipedia has the numbers

1 Reply

@blatham,

Think about the days before the election.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Yeah. The "sanders was shafted" narrative seems the real subtext here but she was referring to Trump v Clinton and her numbers are way wrong and her presumption of consequences is, as you say, rather counter-intuitive. All rather careless.

0 Replies

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html%3famp

Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump

___________________

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

Think about the days before the election.

Those polls I just linked you to run as late as November 7. The election was November 8.

What are you talking about?

1 Reply

@blatham,

The previous link and this one:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html

99% chance of beating Trump
91% chance of beating Trump

It was overwhelming priming of the public to believe that trump didn’t have a chance.

1 Reply

@Lash,

For God's sake. That was one mathematical interpretation of data (from a neuro data scientist, whatever that is) that was a distant outlier. What do think the chances are that GOP voters or Dem voters were tuned into the Princeton Election Consortium? If voters were tuned into polls at all, it would have been the array of pollsters regularly covered in news media. That is, the ones listed in the wikipedia page I linked you.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

The previous link and this one

Well, that's two. I'm a junkie and I have zero recollection of either of those projections whereas I have a general recollection of many of the others that wikipedia lists.

Quote:

It was overwhelming priming of the public to believe that trump didn’t have a chance.

That's a quality paranoid theory.

Quote:

Many progressives believe the polling was intentionally skewed to make it seem no one was voting for Trump in an effort to help Clinton win.

So first, those two aren't polls. They are probability projections. The actual polls said something quite different.

Second, your conclusion or supposition that a broad perception of an overwhelming victory by Clinton would lead to higher voter turnout by Dem supporters makes no sense. As elections near, the parties don't suggest they are about to win in a landslide. They work to convince voters that it's going to be close - and that is specifically to encourage voters to turn out rather than stay home.

1 Reply

@blatham,

I watched news constantly during the run up to the election, and they were all giving Hillary over 90% chance of winning.

Trump voters were either being avoided by pollsters or keeping quiet about their plans to vote for him—and whether you admit it or not, in the days before an election, one side with a 90% projection to win —many times— has a cooling effect on the other side.

0 Replies

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know