Ramshock
CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
brilliantOk Johnnowhite of the Liberals, provide 10 from verified sources.
brilliantOk Johnnowhite of the Liberals, provide 10 from verified sources.
Way to help out BuchanSome of the state polls were wrong though. Michigan poll in democratic primary itself had a 20 percent swing in favour of Bernie in terms of its difference with actual result. Same goes for state specific polls in GE when it came to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Clinton was leading in polls across these states and hence why predictors of all outlets predictor her to win the electoral college too. Just saying that polls got the popular vote right is a bit of a cop out since getting so many individual states' call wrong is also a big failure.
The Federalist and Brietbart pushing it.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Presumably this was just on Fox and Friends
I saw a tweet that said the weather is bad in DC today so Trump won't be able to golf, just watch TVTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Presumably this was just on Fox and Friends
Every Republican being interviewed on TV or during a debate does this. They'd talk over the person they're having the conversation with and before you know it the topic is far from what was originally discussed. If you can control the conversation whatever the other person has to say becomes so muffled it's almost like they said nothing. I don't know if people are aware of this but Frank Luntz is who drives most of these common GOP strategies in public.The art of the Con-way
If these thing had happened with Clinton he would ask to lock her up.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Its all happening in the Russia Investigation thread.Nobody following the Manafort news? How significant is it?
I laugh every time the democrat surrogate gets caught in the trap. The more liberal they are they easier they get sucked inEvery Republican being interviewed on TV or during a debate does this. They'd talk over the person they're having the conversation with and before you know it the topic is far from what was originally discussed. If you can control the conversation whatever the other person has to say becomes so muffled it's almost like they said nothing. I don't know if people are aware of this but Frank Luntz is who drives most of these common GOP strategies in public.
He was his campaign Chairman. If they can nail him with significant jail time and give real threats of the same for family members and friends then he might be willing to give incriminating evidence on Trump and satellites and they can keep building a stronger and more significant case.Nobody following the Manafort news? How significant is it?
Ah, thanksIts all happening in the Russia Investigation thread.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/paul-manafort-russia-trump.htmlHe was his campaign Chairman. If they can nail him with significant jail time and give real threats of the same for family members and friends then he might be willing to give incriminating evidence on Trump and satellites and they can keep building a stronger and more significant case.
The biggest question for me is who chose Manafort to head the campaign and why him?
Financial records filed last year in the secretive tax haven of Cyprus, where Paul J. Manafort kept bank accounts during his years working in Ukraine and investing with a Russian oligarch, indicate that he had been in debt to pro-Russia interests by as much as $17 million before he joined Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in March 2016.
The money appears to have been owed by shell companies connected to Mr. Manafort’s business activities in Ukraine when he worked as a consultant to the pro-Russia Party of Regions. The Cyprus documents obtained by The New York Times include audited financial statements for the companies, which were part of a complex web of more than a dozen entities that transferred millions of dollars among them in the form of loans, payments and fees.
I completley agree about state polls. But he is looking at nationwide US favourability numbers. Nationwide polling was accurate regarding Trump in both primary and general. It also said he (and Clinton) were very unpopular before the election too- and this agreed with the exit poll that the plurality of voters for both people voted mainly to keep the opponent out.Some of the state polls were wrong though. Michigan poll in democratic primary itself had a 20 percent swing in favour of Bernie in terms of its difference with actual result. Same goes for state specific polls in GE when it came to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Clinton was leading in polls across these states and hence why predictors of all outlets predictor her to win the electoral college too. Just saying that polls got the popular vote right is a bit of a cop out since getting so many individual states' call wrong is also a big failure.
Literally 3 people mentioned earlier that you don't know the difference between polls and probabilities, and then you go and do this
Edit: it goes without saying perhaps, but naturally none of what you've written here proves what you were supposed to be trying to prove
No, no, no. You still have not proven that at all! You've proven nothing you say and it's still not related to the actual question you were asked.
The probabilities are calculated from the polls. Of course they are correlated. Both, as it turned out, were way out, hence my initial claim that placing any sort of faith in 'the data' is pure and utter nonsense.
Nice way to completely ignore my point about CNN producing - knowingly - skewed statistics, too. Well done.
Only thing hit has to do with Mueller is that Trump is trying to distract us from the arrests.Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the likelihood is that all this Fusion GPS stuff he's going on about probably has very little to do with Mueller's investigation, right? He'll be chasing obstruction of justice, money trails and meetings with foreign actors like the adoption meeting.
Did the national polls prior to the election reflect the actual national voting numbers after the election?
The probabilities are calculated from the polls. Of course they are correlated. Both, as it turned out, were way out, hence my initial claim that placing any sort of faith in 'the data' is pure and utter nonsense.
Nice way to completely ignore my point about CNN producing - knowingly - skewed statistics, too. Well done.
I agree about that but I just don’t buy this arguement of hiding behind national polling by folks who were made to look stupid on election night due to some outlandish predictions. That too after they made a historical blunder in Michigan during primary already and had that as a warning to learn from.I completley agree about state polls. But he is looking at nationwide US favourability numbers. Nationwide polling was accurate regarding Trump in both primary and general. It also said he (and Clinton) were very unpopular before the election too- and this agreed with the exit poll that the plurality of voters for both people voted mainly to keep the opponent out.
I don't see any reason to doubt this polling right now. If they release a swing-state poll, sure, that might well be garbage.
Nah, I'm not talking about 538. The raw numbers (average of polls) estimated the popular vote totals quite well.I agree about that but I just don’t buy this arguement of hiding behind national polling by folks who were made to look stupid on election night due to some outlandish predictions.
Believe me, not a lot of people know this, but Donald Trump can't speak proper
His beloved friends at Fox.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s bizarre, as is her make up too.Sarah Sanders starting her briefing out with some rambling analogy