New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Quick Update

PhilFish said:
tough road here going forward, given that the scientific basis for much of the election data...totally betrayed him..
Click to expand...
The polling data held up as well as could be reasonably expected. The day before the election, I described myself as "not terribly confident" because the polling average favored Clinton by just 2.5 points, which was well within the margin of error of polling averages historically:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/chelsea-clinton.97271/#post-1739138

The polls had been off by 3.2 points in 2012 (underestimating Obama's support). This year, they did better than that, with Clinton's half-point popular vote victory falling closer to what the polls predicted than Obama's 3.9-point victory had.
 
ya-ta-hey said:
Ms. As Seen on TV,

Don't be so sure that it is worthless. Similar to Nancy Pelosi, it's got a lot of political money to hand out. You don't think they keep Nancy as the House Democratic leader because of her looks, do you?
Click to expand...

Why are you wingers so obsessed with a person's appearance?

Don't get me wrong, it surely happens on the left, yet in a relative sense it's the turkey you own.
 
Arkady said:
The polling data held up as well as could be reasonably expected. The day before the election, I described myself as "not terribly confident" because the polling average favored Clinton by just 2.5 points, which was well within the margin of error of polling averages historically:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/chelsea-clinton.97271/#post-1739138

The polls had been off by 3.2 points in 2012 (underestimating Obama's support). This year, they did better than that, with Clinton's half-point popular vote victory falling closer to what the polls predicted than Obama's 3.9-point victory had.
Click to expand...

but what did your gut tell you...

as with many...my guess is it..wasnt this..
 
Arkady said:
The polling data held up as well as could be reasonably expected. The day before the election, I described myself as "not terribly confident" because the polling average favored Clinton by just 2.5 points, which was well within the margin of error of polling averages historically:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/chelsea-clinton.97271/#post-1739138

The polls had been off by 3.2 points in 2012 (underestimating Obama's support). This year, they did better than that, with Clinton's half-point popular vote victory falling closer to what the polls predicted than Obama's 3.9-point victory had.
Click to expand...
"as good as reasonably expected" wouldn't strike me as culminating in the worst prediction of the past 7 presidential elections.

basically, you're asserting that pollsters have learned nothing over the past 3 decades. and in fact, they've actually regressed and gotten worse?

this is why the public ranks "the media" at the bottom of reliability, along with politicians, lobbyists, used car salesmen, and telemarketers.
 
Arkady said:
The polling data held up as well as could be reasonably expected. The day before the election, I described myself as "not terribly confident" because the polling average favored Clinton by just 2.5 points, which was well within the margin of error of polling averages historically:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/chelsea-clinton.97271/#post-1739138

The polls had been off by 3.2 points in 2012 (underestimating Obama's support). This year, they did better than that, with Clinton's half-point popular vote victory falling closer to what the polls predicted than Obama's 3.9-point victory had.
Click to expand...


Sorry you chose to go though. I'd bribe you to stay... something real cool n impressive and all..

but what with us being all ethereal posters in the internet ether and all...I got's nada..
 
PhilFish said:
but what did your gut tell you...

as with many...my guess is it..wasnt this..
Click to expand...
I thought it was more likely than not that Clinton would win, based on my impression (which ended up being right) that she was the more popular of the two candidates. But I thought there was a very real chance that Trump would win, which is why, as I said, I was having trouble sleeping due to politics for the first time since 2000:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/election-nerves.97294/

As I said in that thread, humans have the ability to perceive things at a subconscious level --essentially, what you'd call a "gut" reaction-- and my gut was telling me this felt like 2000, only worse.
 
as seen on tv said:
"as good as reasonably expected" wouldn't strike me as culminating in the worst prediction of the past 7 presidential elections.
Click to expand...

As a reminder: the polling average was actually closer to the mark than in 2012. It's just that in a very close election, even a tiny miss in a few states can make the difference between one result and the other.
 
PhilFish said:
Sorry you chose to go though. I'd bribe you to stay... something real cool n impressive and all..

but what with us being all ethereal posters in the internet ether and all...I got's nada..
Click to expand...
I enjoyed my time here and am thankful for forums like these as a venue for getting my own thoughts in order and having my ideas tested. But I haven't given up hope that people can actually be convinced by way of information and rational analysis, and that takes a different audience profile than the one here, which consists of deeply entrenched partisans.
 
as seen on tv said:
one thing we HAVENT heard is "who runs for president as the democrat in 2020"

clearly it won't be:

  • Sanders (he'll be even more befuddled)
  • Hillary (she's off the list, permanently)
  • Lynch (she's tainted too)
  • Michelle Obama ("the president's wife" movie just played to disinterested throngs; limited demand for a sequel so soon)
  • Al Franken - too many ridiculous comedy clips of him during his SNL days; lack of any real accomplishments during 2 terms as senator.
Realistic Possibilities include:

  • Warren (yes, she IS that deluded about how many far left voters there are in America)
  • Cory Booker (black first term senator, NJ)
  • Kristen Gillibrand (the pragmatic "woman's candidate" with zero Hillary corruption baggage)
  • Bill DeBlasio (NYC mayor, interracial marriage, darling of urbanites)
  • Andrew Cuomo
  • Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - he's announced he's running for governor of California. if he gets that, he can make a compelling case for the white house. He brings block voting of latinos to the race as well, unless someone like marco Rubio appears on the GOP ticket
  • Some democrat industrialist to be named later. Democrats will (correctly) feel that they can exert tremendous control over a left of center corporate candidate. And if the Trump/outsider thing catches hold, Trump himself may be vulnerable if he hasn't delivered on enough promises.
Click to expand...

Next democrat presidential candidate will most likely be a illegal immigrant and if you don't vote for him your a racist bigot.
 
BitterPill said:
Why are you wingers so obsessed with a person's appearance?

Don't get me wrong, it surely happens on the left, yet in a relative sense it's the turkey you own.
Click to expand...

Mr. Bitter,

Whoa, talk about obsessive. My post had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi's appearance.
 
Arkady said:
I thought it was more likely than not that Clinton would win, based on my impression (which ended up being right) that she was the more popular of the two candidates. But I thought there was a very real chance that Trump would win, which is why, as I said, I was having trouble sleeping due to politics for the first time since 2000:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/election-nerves.97294/

As I said in that thread, humans have the ability to perceive things at a subconscious level --essentially, what you'd call a "gut" reaction-- and my gut was telling me this felt like 2000, only worse.
Click to expand...

I admit I didn't think Trump had a chance, and I now see why. I wholly misread the level of racist bigotry that exists in this country, yet this forum should have warned me.
 
worldlymrb said:
Next democrat presidential candidate will most likely be a illegal immigrant and if you don't vote for him your a racist bigot.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is quite possible one is a racist bigot if one voted for Trump, and I'm just going to assume one is unless one is able to defend Trump's racist and bigoted comments.

Can you defend Trump's racist and bigoted comments?
 
Arkady said:
I often pointed out that it was unlikely that any poster here, liberal or conservative, was a paid activist, for the simple reason that Political Jack would be a poor target for paid work, given its small audience of mostly hard-core partisans. You could post here for years and be lucky to sway a single vote. It would be more cost-effective to target forums with a lot more people, or at least people who are less entrenched in their positions. That point has a broader implication. Posting about politics here is self-indulgent, in that the same time and effort would do a lot more good elsewhere. So, if people are curious about my absence, that's the reason. I'm going to be more strategic about where and how I post.
Click to expand...
Good idea, Arkady.

Posting here is definitely self-indulgent.

I hope you find your niche.
 
Arkady said:
I enjoyed my time here and am thankful for forums like these as a venue for getting my own thoughts in order and having my ideas tested. But I haven't given up hope that people can actually be convinced by way of information and rational analysis, and that takes a different audience profile than the one here, which consists of deeply entrenched partisans.
Click to expand...

Please don't go.
 
as seen on tv said:
one thing we HAVENT heard is "who runs for president as the democrat in 2020"

clearly it won't be:

  • Sanders (he'll be even more befuddled)
  • Hillary (she's off the list, permanently)
  • Lynch (she's tainted too)
  • Michelle Obama ("the president's wife" movie just played to disinterested throngs; limited demand for a sequel so soon)
  • Al Franken - too many ridiculous comedy clips of him during his SNL days; lack of any real accomplishments during 2 terms as senator.
Realistic Possibilities include:

  • Warren (yes, she IS that deluded about how many far left voters there are in America)
  • Cory Booker (black first term senator, NJ)
  • Kristen Gillibrand (the pragmatic "woman's candidate" with zero Hillary corruption baggage)
  • Bill DeBlasio (NYC mayor, interracial marriage, darling of urbanites)
  • Andrew Cuomo
  • Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - he's announced he's running for governor of California. if he gets that, he can make a compelling case for the white house. He brings block voting of latinos to the race as well, unless someone like marco Rubio appears on the GOP ticket
  • Some democrat industrialist to be named later. Democrats will (correctly) feel that they can exert tremendous control over a left of center corporate candidate. And if the Trump/outsider thing catches hold, Trump himself may be vulnerable if he hasn't delivered on enough promises.
Click to expand...


I've been saying Gillibrand for awhile now.
 
Arkady said:
I enjoyed my time here and am thankful for forums like these as a venue for getting my own thoughts in order and having my ideas tested. But I haven't given up hope that people can actually be convinced by way of information and rational analysis, and that takes a different audience profile than the one here, which consists of deeply entrenched partisans.
Click to expand...
Have you ever thought of using statistics to make your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top