Clinton V Trump - into the final three weeks.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

new thread. :)

Because WW they will believe DT whatever he comes out with. They are buying into everything he says hook line and sinker.* That's just something you're saying. I've shown you it's not true^

But you haven't, because you can't. You cannot conceivably claim without evidence that it is untrue of all or even most of his supporters, and the evidence you have produced doesn't demonstrate that to be the case. But when you see the fanatics at his rallies massively cheering every word, can you seriously suggest that they are all sitting there thinking "Yes, but I don't buy all of it"? You will correctly point out that they don't represent all of Trump's supporters, but the fact remains that Trump supporters who show a cool and considered assessment of what he says are simply not in evidence. The obvious explanation of that is that, once they do carry out that assessment, they stop being supporters.

Well I can. All I have to do is provide some links where people criticise Trump and some of his policies but say they'll vote for him. It's not hard. It's been done.

I can claim it about all or most of his supporters. You seem to be claiming you know something about all or most of his supporters. And you're not even a supporter, so I don't know how. Is it prejudice? I can't tell. But at least I have an insight into what motivates them, which you don't at all and I'm amazed you can even claim that.

My assumptions about what motivates Clinton supporters (the regular ones) are based on positive thoughts about the human nature: I think we all want what's best for people and for our families. Am I right? I think I am.

I don't know what your assumptions are based on as you don't seem to understand the first thing about the impetus behind his support.

You only need to see how Trump supporters consider him less bad than Clinton to conclude that they are blinkered to what he is and what he stands for.

And Clinton has been portrayed as much worse than she is. People (Trump's fans and Russian puppets) have been picking on Clinton molehills to make mountains, whereas they've been shrinking Trump towers to little cottages.

Obviously he's less bad than Clinton: I'd rather vote for a bottled fart than vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has been portrayed as much better than she is. About 90 per cent of the media is on her side. I have never, ever seen it claimed that she's been portrayed as worse than she is because it really doesn't fly. At all.

this is the polls/forecast site I have been looking at. its pretty interesting and pretty certain who will win:

[http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-senate-forecast]

Am not actually suggesting that i think Donald Trump is a bottled fart there.

'FiveThirtyEight.com is a website born from a blog on Daily Kos, who, for anyone living in a political cave over the past few years, is a very left-wing site. '

Statistics and polling aren't neutral.

Obviously he's less bad than Clinton

Yes, like the Sun obviously orbits the Earth.

Trump is just an obnoxious, self absorbed, self-serving, superficial, sexual predator, who's been selling himself well to some people.

He will only do what's best for himself and his own businesses.
And treat the US as his own casino and his own university.

Statistics and polling aren't neutral

That only seems to be true when Trump is losing.
When he was up in the Republican polls and whenever he's been ahead of Clinton, everybody has been happy to accept those polls.
What a surprise.

Well, obviously you're going to disagree. Clinton will be appalling for all sorts of reasons which have been gone through previously. She's a noxious, self absorbed, self-serving, deeply unpleasant enabler of sexual abuse who's been selling her country down the line while selling herself as motivated by good intentions. She'll only do what's best for herself and her own business. And she'll treat the US like her private purse and fiefdom.

Statistics and polling aren't neutral. Have you learned nothing from the last two years. I have already given one example on the thread (NBC poll accepted as neutral and run across all media - made by a Clinton super pac adviser) . Another that ran across all media: Breitbart poll showing mighty Hillary support after the third debate, widely reported as accurate. Infected by bots in Romania and South Korea. You've got herding, you've got shy voters, you've got status quo bias, media bias, personal bias. Polling isn't accurate - that's why it's been failing badly.

Yes, like the Sun obviously orbits the Earth

Ooh, is that an invitation to discuss epistemology and the manipulation of truth again? Would love to but unfortunately, work calls. Laters

Polling isn't accurate - that's why it's been failing badly.

It hasn't, actually. There have been a few cases of failures, that are always well publicised and remembered, but, for the most part, polling has worked.

You are suffering from the well known and common phenomenon of recalling bias.

Also, you didn't read my post about polling and how differently it's called according to who's ahead on the polls, did you? Because your reply has nothing to do with it, claig.

'Because your reply has nothing to do with it, claig.'

Hold on! What have I got to do with anything apart from speaking common sense?

You can parse it if you like, but recent polling of major electoral choices hasn't worked. Maybe polling used to work but it's not working right now. This is a similar scenario to those in which polling hasn't worked in the past, most notably Brexit and May 2015. Similar conditions obtain. There's no reason to suggest it's working now based on polling in very different conditions. Particularly since poll bias has been shown (see above).

Any predictions for example that are also based on demographics (538) are also vulnerable. The demographics are changing: noted even by the establishment media, which said Ohio may no longer be a key battleground state (after Trump took a good lead in the polls).

I'm not suffering from any phenomenon except a very well exercised patience.

Maybe she means me. In which case I've addressed the point about polling and reporting. You can look at the Ohio observation for one, but there've been others.

I'm sorry, for some reason I got confused between you two.

It must have been the number of consecutive posts and the diversion.

Still as snide as ever, I see.

What are you saying?

The truth, as always

What truth?

Never mind, you wouldn't recognise it

No, please explain.

I had to explain jokes to you and you still didn't get them, so I learned the lesson that there is no point, you don't get it