Could that just be because its unpopular to like Shillary? I don't know, I just remember reading somewhere polling and public opinion tends to be more progressive than it actually is as its "uncool" to say you're conservative.
Exit polls are considered to be very accurate. They are used to detect election fraud the world over.
That particular 'theory' was advanced after the Ohio 2004 vote was flipped for Bush.
Anyone who thinks that there isn't massive fraud going on is just an idiot.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:13 pm
by UGagain
Corbyn didn't win in a landslide?
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:24 pm
by UGagain
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:26 pm
by Eugene Wrayburn
jared_7 wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
J Dory wrote:I thought Bernie had already promised not to run as an independent, struggling to find that statement on t'internet though.
I'm pretty sure he did. Pretty helpful in getting Democrats to vote for you if you've spent most of your career as an independent. He'll still run. I can't imagine it's possible to legally stop someone from running, no matter what promises they have made. There's a decent chance we could get a couple of independents running - Sanders to the left of Clinton and Bloomberg to the sane of Trump. Would make it a much more interesting election.
No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod
They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:31 pm
by jared_7
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
jared_7 wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I'm pretty sure he did. Pretty helpful in getting Democrats to vote for you if you've spent most of your career as an independent. He'll still run. I can't imagine it's possible to legally stop someone from running, no matter what promises they have made. There's a decent chance we could get a couple of independents running - Sanders to the left of Clinton and Bloomberg to the sane of Trump. Would make it a much more interesting election.
No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod
They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.
He has all but endorsed Clinton. They are both fiscally republican and socially progressive, and establishment politicians. The only point of entering as an independent is if you believed there is a huge untapped or unrepresented group of people - what is Bloomberg's unrepresented group? He and Clinton will, by and large, be going after the exact same groups of people, which simply splits the vote.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:34 pm
by Eugene Wrayburn
jared_7 wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
jared_7 wrote:
No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod
They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.
He has all but endorsed Clinton. They are both fiscally republican and socially progressive, and establishment politicians. The only point of entering as an independent is if you believed there is a huge untapped or unrepresented group of people - what is Bloomberg's unrepresented group? He and Clinton will, by and large, be going after the exact same groups of people, which simply splits the vote.
Plenty of Republicans will never vote for Hillary, simply because she's Hillary and they loathe the Clintons but who also don't want to vote for Trump. As I say, it rather depends on whether he wants to be President, because this election would give him a pretty good shot.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:47 pm
by UGagain
Plenty of Democrats will never vote for Clinton.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:51 pm
by UGagain
Stom wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.
Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.
Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.
Nope. The primaries are run by public officials in most states.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:54 pm
by UGagain
jared_7 wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
jared_7 wrote:
No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod
They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.
He has all but endorsed Clinton. They are both fiscally republican and socially progressive, and establishment politicians. The only point of entering as an independent is if you believed there is a huge untapped or unrepresented group of people - what is Bloomberg's unrepresented group? He and Clinton will, by and large, be going after the exact same groups of people, which simply splits the vote.
In which case Bernie, running on a write in campaign, would win.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 11:23 pm
by UGagain
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 8:02 am
by UGagain
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.
Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.
That's a truly astonishing 'analysis' from someone who claims to be smart enough to be a barrister.
Maybe you are the best WUM ever.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 8:24 am
by Zhivago
UGagain wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.
Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.
That's a truly astonishing 'analysis' from someone who claims to be smart enough to be a barrister.
Maybe you are the best WUM ever.
As if a lawyer would know anything about statistics. Same goes for journalists and politicians too, such an innumerate bunch.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 8:29 am
by UGagain
Zhivago wrote:
UGagain wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.
Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.
That's a truly astonishing 'analysis' from someone who claims to be smart enough to be a barrister.
Maybe you are the best WUM ever.
As if a lawyer would know anything about statistics. Same goes for journalists and politicians too, such an innumerate bunch.
My astonishment has nought to do with statistics but with the logic.
He's saying in effect that if the test for fraud suggests fraud the test must be wrong.
And further, that anyone who says otherwise is insane.
Authoritarianism at its finest.
Re: RE: Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 8:37 am
by UKHamlet
UGagain wrote:
Stom wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.
Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.
Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.
Nope. The primaries are run by public officials in most states.
But voter registration and ballot counting are increasingly run by private companies.
Re: RE: Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 8:42 am
by UGagain
UKHamlet wrote:
UGagain wrote:
Stom wrote:
Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.
Nope. The primaries are run by public officials in most states.
But voter registration and ballot counting are increasingly run by private companies.
True but legally still a state function. The returning officers are state appointed officials.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:01 am
by Stom
UGagain wrote:
TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:10 am
by Eugene Wrayburn
Stom wrote:
UGagain wrote:
TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...
How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:13 am
by Zhivago
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Stom wrote:
UGagain wrote:
TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...
How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?
Difference is larger than the margin of error.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:15 am
by UGagain
Stom wrote:
UGagain wrote:
TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...
Dude please.
Exit polls are used to detect fraud.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:19 am
by UGagain
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Stom wrote:
UGagain wrote:
TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...
How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?
Outside of the USA they are commissioned by the US government to detect election fraud.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:36 am
by rowan
Couple of good articles here:
"Like Obama, Hillary Clinton is a liberal internationalist and a strong believer in American exceptionalism, meaning she is convinced that the world looks to America for leadership, that US involvement everywhere is unavoidable as well as desirable, that US-based multinational corporations are a positive force for global development, and that the US should be ready to commit force in support of humanitarian ideals and American values—but not necessarily in accordance with US or international laws—as much as because of concrete strategic interests. "
"Without hesitation, Clinton condemned her Muslim supporters, returned their donations and refused to meet with Arab and Muslim Americans for the remainder of her campaign…"
It's funny in a sad way that Eugene believes in the integrity of the corporate media.
Even Fox News gives to a Clinton Super PAC.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:03 am
by UGagain
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 1:54 pm
by Sandydragon
UGagain wrote:
Stom wrote:
UGagain wrote:
TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...
Dude please.
Exit polls are used to detect fraud.
Its a p*ss poor way of achieving that objective given that I can say one thing to the pollster and then vote in a completely different way.
Re: Clinton
Posted: Thu May 26, 2016 1:57 pm
by Sandydragon
Of course differences in exit polls and the actual results are proof of fraud, yet the fact that more Democrats are voting for Hilary than Bernie is conveniently ignored. Perhaps his supports are just making more noise?
