2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

[Red Viking]

This is nonsense.

Well on higher educational places like Universities you learn how to gather information and then the handling of it and last how you present it ( the essence of any statistic work ). This poll are not conducted in a proper manner and this is done on purpose to show Hillary in a better light for PR reasons and this kinda thing annoys the hell out of me. I only wanted to make people aware of how polls can be constructed in very miss leading ways. But i guess i can´t explain it well enough on an online forum. But it can be hard to understand without the training to dissect information from statistics, also just leaving out 1 type of important information can make a statistic look completely different.

I don't understand the Bernie thing? Add Cruz/Marco etc as well?

Yes adding Cruz/Rubio would have added more correct information to the poll as well.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Essentially tied on votes cast so far by mail and early voting, Dems do have an advantage on mail ballots registered. No idea if that'll make a difference.
https://countyballotfiles.elections...eports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

 

[Giant Midget]

When you remove 1 major player from such a poll it will have an influence on the rest of statistics. Bernie Sanders is a major player in the democratic party and when you remove him from the poll it will make Hillarys stats better, as those would rather vote positively for Bernie Sanders cant and are forced to vote Hillary thus inflating her states which is miss leading. This can easily happen if selective polling is being done.

How does it matter? The only people running for President are Clinton and Trump.

Is it true Sanders is more like than Clinton? Of course. But the purpose of the poll is to check the favorability of the candidates running for President. The purpose isn't to compare their favorability against every other Democrat or Republican.

 

[Ubik]

Well on higher educational places like Universities you learn how to gather information and then the handling of it and last how you present it ( the essence of any statistic work ). This poll are not conducted in a proper manner and this is done on purpose to show Hillary in a better light for PR reasons and this kinda thing annoys the hell out of me. I only wanted to make people aware of how polls can be constructed in very miss leading ways. But i guess i can´t explain it well enough on an online forum. But it can be hard to understand without the training to dissect information from statistics, also just leaving out 1 type of important information can make a statistic look completely different.



Yes adding Cruz/Rubio would have added more correct information to the poll as well.

You're still talking nonsense. Bernie wasn't given as a candidate in the Presidential poll as he's not a candidate for President (because he lost). People have the option to pick "other" if they're that butthurt still. And Bernie not being in the favourability section has zero bearing whatsoever.

 

[Giant Midget]

Essentially tied on votes cast so far by mail and early voting, Dems do have an advantage on mail ballots registered. No idea if that'll make a difference.
https://countyballotfiles.elections...eports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

That's a Democrat advantage considering that at this stage in 2012, Romney was well ahead of Obama and still lost Florida.

 

[senorgregster]

Well on higher educational places like Universities you learn how to gather information and then the handling of it and last how you present it ( the essence of any statistic work ). This poll are not conducted in a proper manner and this is done on purpose to show Hillary in a better light for PR reasons and this kinda thing annoys the hell out of me. I only wanted to make people aware of how polls can be constructed in very miss leading ways. But i guess i can´t explain it well enough on an online forum. But it can be hard to understand without the training to dissect information from statistics, also just leaving out 1 type of important information can make a statistic look completely different.



Yes adding Cruz/Rubio would have added more correct information to the poll as well.

I think those polls were completed a few months ago. If not, bring on the other 16 GOP nominees as well.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

That's a Democrat advantage considering that at this stage in 2012, Romney was well ahead of Obama and still lost Florida.

108,000 new people registered too, I suppose that's going to be pretty important!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...any_people_registered_to_vote_in_florida.html

 

[Red Viking]

You're still talking nonsense. Bernie wasn't given as a candidate in the Presidential poll as he's not a candidate for President (because he lost). People have the option to pick "other" if they're that butthurt still. And Bernie not being in the favourability section has zero bearing whatsoever.

Again, not my fault you don´t understand how statistics work. The poll have 6 other included like 2 non politicians ( Melania and Michelle ) which means do they include non current presidential candidates in the poll. Bernie Sanders certainly do have an impact on the favourability list as he is at least as popular as Hillary roughly speaking.

 

[Member 5225]

Michelle is a terrible orator. I don't get the hype at all.

 

[senorgregster]

Again, not my fault you don´t understand how statistics work. The poll have 6 other included like 2 non politicians ( Melania and Michelle ) which means do they include non current presidential candidates in the poll. Bernie Sanders certainly do have an impact on the favourability list as he is at least as popular as Hillary roughly speaking.

I see what you are saying. Not really statistics but methodology. I wonder how they asked the question as that will influence outcome as well. Looking at the list, Hillary is up against more favorable people from Dems (Obamas) than Trump is from GOP (none).

 

[Giant Midget]

Again, not my fault you don´t understand how statistics work. The poll have 6 other included like 2 non politicians ( Melenia and Michelle ) which means do they include non current presidential candidates in the poll. Bernie Sanders certainly do have an impact on the favourability list as he is at least as popular as Hillary roughly speaking.

Mate, your posts are a bit condescending. I do know how statistics work, I have a Master's degree in Economics from a University who's Econ department is considered top 10 in the world. During this time, I have had plenty of coursework and research that has required me to use statistics.

Melania, Michelle and Bill are included because the potential First Lady/Husband (?) have an effect on the candidates themselves.

This is also not a zero-sum poll. People can vote both Sanders and Clinton as favorable or not. Voting favorable for Sanders does not mean that they cannot vote Clinton as favorable also.

And I will also repeat again, the fecking point of the poll isn't to compare Clinton to Sanders. It's to compare PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, which Sanders is not.

 

[senorgregster]

Really? Have you seen a new speech? I've not seen a bad one by her.

Michelle is a terrible orator. I don't get the hype at all.

 

[Carolina Red]

or run from you're responsibilities as state governor to go to Argentina, the home of you're mistress, leaving a wife and a bunch of young kids wondering what the feck is going on

Ah yes good old Mark Sanford.

He's in the House of Representatives now, btw.

 

[Member 5225]

Really? Have you seen a new speech? I've not seen a bad one by her.

She's on now...

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Again, not my fault you don´t understand how statistics work. The poll have 6 other included like 2 non politicians ( Melania and Michelle ) which means do they include non current presidential candidates in the poll. Bernie Sanders certainly do have an impact on the favourability list as he is at least as popular as Hillary roughly speaking.

Clinton's favourable in that poll is 44. Her current favourable in Gallup tracking is 43.

Rigged!

Bernie Sanders not included because he's nothing to do with either prez/vice prez candidates, or their spouses, or the incumbent president and his spouse.

 

[GlastonSpur]

The longer this campaign goes on, the more and more shocked I get by what Trump says. And worse, that around 150 Million American people are buying it. ....

This is not accurate. You are forgetting that 40 - 50% of the electorate usually don't bother to vote.

 

[Fergies Gum]

Michelle is a terrible orator. I don't get the hype at all.

Well said.

 

[Red Viking]

Mate, your posts are a bit condescending. I do know how statistics work, I have a Master's degree in Economics from a University who's Econ department is considered top 10 in the world. During this time, I have had plenty of coursework and research that has required me to use statistics.

Melania, Michelle and Bill are included because the potential First Lady/Husband (?) have an effect on the candidates themselves.

This is also not a zero-sum poll. People can vote both Sanders and Clinton as favorable or not. Voting favorable for Sanders does not mean that they cannot vote Clinton as favorable also.

And I will also repeat again, the fecking point of the poll isn't to compare Clinton to Sanders. It's to compare PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, which Sanders is not.

Considering Bernie Sanders current popularity he certainly does have an major impact on how Hillary is perceived and thereby Hillary is affected by his presence on her campaign when he is taking part in it on her behalf. The poll have an limited ( fixed ) number of people you can vote on which means you could not vote for him in this poll as you suggest.

Seriously if it was JUST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES it would have 2 options only but they have included others which have an impact but excluded others with equal or more importance than those listed. This is bad poll work.

 

[Ubik]

These probably don't count either, but ah well.

 

[Giant Midget]

Considering Bernie Sanders current popularity he certainly does have an major impact on how Hillary is perceived and thereby Hillary is affected by his presence on her campaign when he is taking part in it on her behalf. The poll have an limited ( fixed ) number of people you can vote on which means you could not vote for him in this poll as you suggest.

Seriously if it was JUST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES it would have 2 options only but they have included others which have an impact but excluded others with equal or more importance than those listed. This is bad poll work.

It literally says in the tweet, "For each of the following individuals, please select if you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of that persons. If you don't know enough about the person to have an opinion, you can say that too."

And yes, it is just presidential candidates. I have already explained why Melania and Bill were included: because they are the part of the campaign of each candidate.

 

[Red Viking]

Clinton's favourable in that poll is 44. Her current favourable in Gallup tracking is 43.

Rigged!

Bernie Sanders not included because he's nothing to do with either prez/vice prez candidates, or their spouses, or the incumbent president and his spouse.

Incorrect as Sanders is actively campaigning for Hillary and do a lot of work for her politically, so he does indeed have everything to do with her. They have have held speeches together as well and some of Hillarys policies like the 1 payer system is part of an political deal she did with him for hes support for president.

 

[Red Viking]

It literally says in the tweet, "For each of the following individuals, please select if you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of that persons. If you don't know enough about the person to have an opinion, you can say that too."

Yes on 8 fixed people! you cant add anyone to the list but only vote for those decided by the pollsters which is the problem here! :

But lets stop this as it dosn´t contribute to the over all discussions and no need to get worked up about it

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Incorrect as Sanders is actively campaigning for Hillary and do a lot of work for her politically, so he does indeed have everything to do with her. They have have held speeches together as well and some of Hillarys policies like the 1 payer system is part of an political deal she did with him for hes support for president.

So every poll not including Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich or Giuliani as favourable rating option is bunk as well? They are just as much if not more active as surrogate for Drumpf than Sanders to Clinton.

 

[Giant Midget]

Yes on 8 fixed people! you cant add anyone to the list but only vote for those decided by the pollsters which is the problem here! :

Are you serious? Let's make this a little simpler for you to understand. If there is a poll asking which candy I have a favorable view of:

- Smarties
- Toblerone
- Dairy Milk

I pick Favorable: Dairy Milk. Unfavorable: Toblerone and Smarties.

Now you come across and say, "Wait a minute. This poll doesn't work because it doesn't include Baskin Robbins, and we all know that's the best dessert."

The criticism against this is:

1) Baskin Robbins isn't a candy, just like Bernie Sanders isn't a presidential candidate.
2) Even if I do like Baskin Robbins, it has no impact on my favorability of Smarties because the way this poll works is that I can mark them both favorable. In the same way, if I like Clinton and Sanders, I can mark them both favorable in the poll if Sanders was included.

 

[RexHamilton]

This is not accurate. You are forgetting that 40 - 50% of the electorate usually don't bother to vote.

Ok worse then. Let's say 50% don't bother to vote. In this election. To prevent Donald Trump becoming president. Then you have around 200 million who may as well be buying it.

 

[Red Viking]

So every poll not including Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich or Giuliani as favourable rating option is bunk as well? They are just as much if not more active as surrogate for Drumpf than Sanders to Clinton.

Since when did either of those get even near 50% of the republican votes to make a huge difference ? Trump blew them all away in the primaries which means they matter little on the over all scheme of things as they have little political support from the voters like Sanders. If you think Sanders don´t have an major say on Hillarys campaign when he nearly beat her by voters count... then i dont know what to say really.

 

[Red Viking]

Are you serious? Let's make this a little simpler for you to understand. If there is a poll asking which candy I have a favorable view of:

- Smarties
- Toblerone
- Dairy Milk

I pick Favorable: Dairy Milk. Unfavorable: Toblerone and Smarties.

Now you come across and say, "Wait a minute. This poll doesn't work because it doesn't include Baskin Robbins, and we all know that's the best dessert."

The criticism against this is:

1) Baskin Robbins isn't a candy, just like Bernie Sanders isn't a presidential candidate.
2) Even if I do like Baskin Robbins, it has no impact on my favorability of Smarties because the way this poll works is that I can mark them both favorable. In the same way, if I like Clinton and Sanders, I can mark them both favorable in the poll if Sanders was included.

It is best we dont continue this further as i have no intention of escalating this further. I hope you have an good day where ever you are in the world.

 

[Rado_N]

Unfavorable: Toblerone

Wise man.

 

[JustAFan]

Are you serious? Let's make this a little simpler for you to understand. If there is a poll asking which candy I have a favorable view of:

- Smarties
- Toblerone
- Dairy Milk

I pick Favorable: Dairy Milk. Unfavorable: Toblerone and Smarties.

Now you come across and say, "Wait a minute. This poll doesn't work because it doesn't include Baskin Robbins, and we all know that's the best dessert."

The criticism against this is:

1) Baskin Robbins isn't a candy, just like Bernie Sanders isn't a presidential candidate.
2) Even if I do like Baskin Robbins, it has no impact on my favorability of Smarties because the way this poll works is that I can mark them both favorable. In the same way, if I like Clinton and Sanders, I can mark them both favorable in the poll if Sanders was included.

You are correct this type of poll is not about choosing one over the other, in theory you could like them all or hate them all. Though let me point out the poll in question contained 6 people who are not Presidential Candidates. Being a smart arse of course, I apologize could not resist.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Since when did either of those get even near 50% of the republican votes to make a huge difference ? Trump blew them all away in the primaries which means they matter little on the overrall scheme has they have little political support from the voters. If you think Sanders don´t have an major say on Hillarys campaign when he nearly beat her by voters count... then i dont know what to say really.

Im saying that you've picked a very strange silly bone to make a mountain out of a molehill. The exclusion of Sanders doesn't make people who have unfavourable opinion of Clinton change their mind. She's one of the most well known people in the world let alone the US so doesn't need to be pitted against someone else with higher favourable to gauge her own favourable.

Gallup's tracking over the past two months have her steady at 43-44. Oh the statistical manipulation

 

[GlastonSpur]

Ok worse then. Let's say 50% don't bother to vote. In this election. To prevent Donald Trump becoming president. Then you have around 200 million who may as well be buying it.

Eh? I don't get this, far less how it's worse.

If 50% of the electorate don't vote, that means roughly 120m adults will vote (this assumes they're all eligible to vote, which they all won't be). If Trump gets 43% of their votes (the current RCP poll average), this means that only 52m Americans will have bought into him ... not the 150m you cited earlier.

 

[Red Viking]

Im saying that you've picked a very strange silly bone to make a mountain out of a molehill. The exclusion of Sanders doesn't make people who have unfavourable opinion of Clinton change their mind. She's one of the most well known people in the world let alone the US so doesn't need to be pitted against someone else with higher favourable to gauge her own favourable.

Gallup's tracking over the past two months have her steady at 43-44. Oh the statistical manipulation

This after Sanders told hes supporters to vote for her after he lost the primary to her in a close race. It is also rather well known that a lot of Sanders supporters despise her ( mistrust plays a huge role ), now if Sanders had refused to endorse her politically after he lost. There is a lot of people who would have either not voted at all or against her if he had chosen this path. This could have have had an major impact on her popularity generally speaking. So saying Sanders is just a tiny matter in this election is wrong in my opinion, when the voting was nearly fifty-fifty.

 

[George Owen]

go greens!

 

[Dante]

Wouldn't all the sheep drown? Weird job to have.

 

[KikiDaKats]

This after Sanders told hes supporters to vote for her after he lost the primary to her in a close race. It is also rather well known that a lot of Sanders supporters despise her ( mistrust plays a huge role ), now if Sanders had refused to endorse her politically after he lost. There is a lot of people who would have either not voted at all or against her if he had chosen this path. This could have have had an major impact on her popularity generally speaking. So saying Sanders is just a tiny matter in this election is wrong in my opinion, when the voting was nearly fifty-fifty.

I am a lurker here but will have to break my silence, just like Americano forced me to a while back.
The fact most tend to ignore when making such assertions is Hillary beat him when she was supposed to be very unpopular among democrats. So tell us who was more trusted at the time (according to votes)?
Was that survey not about the individual instead of in comparison to the other? How would Sanders being added affect the survey when it's not a choice pick between the two?
It's like saying Paul Ryan added to that list would have had an effect on Trump's favourability, considering the only sensible policies he has are adopted from Ryan. That's why he can't go into details because he has no idea what's in them ie the health care bill, the judges, education, his gradual change in stance on immigration,etc.
As a liberal socialist myself, I accept Sanders has made an exception contribution to the political arena at grassroots levels but for now that's the only area it should effect for it to hold ground going forward. Hopefully it will yield the right results in house races for us to see how well it's been received. If the house doesn't get flipped this year, it'll be obviously his message is not as popular as most are trying to ram down our throat.

 

[the unknown one.]

go greens!

Vote Green 2016.

 

[Grinner]

'Tresiba Ready' has got a real funky baseline to it.

 

[Grinner]

I am a lurker here but will have to break my silence, just like Americano forced me to a while back.
The fact most tend to ignore when making such assertions is Hillary beat him when she was supposed to be very unpopular among democrats. So tell us who was more trusted at the time (according to votes)?
Was that survey not about the individual instead of in comparison to the other? How would Sanders being added affect the survey when it's not a choice pick between the two?
It's like saying Paul Ryan added to that list would have had an effect on Trump's favourability, considering the only sensible policies he has are adopted from Ryan. That's why he can't go into details because he has no idea what's in them ie the health care bill, the judges, education, his gradual change in stance on immigration,etc.
As a liberal socialist myself, I accept Sanders has made an exception contribution to the political arena at grassroots levels but for now that's the only area it should effect for it to hold ground going forward. Hopefully it will yield the right results in house races for us to see how well it's been received. If the house doesn't get flipped this year, it'll be obviously his message is not as popular as most are trying to ram down our throat.

Don't lurk...join in, man.

 

[langster]

go greens!

Oh my. He's a fecking fruit loop and although I admire and respect trying to stop the killing of whales, he's just a complete looney toon. He also treats his crew like shit and I don't agree how he fell out with greenpeace either. Some of the stories from his ex crewmates are horrific. His endorsement is more like a curse to serious environmentalists.

 

[Grinner]

Phwoar...who's that warming up the Trump crowd?