Topic: USAmerican presidential debate draad
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY started this discussion 10 years ago #56,168
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRlI2SQ0Ueg
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #725,209
I don't see Chelsea Clinton there.
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY (OP) triple-posted this 10 years ago, 55 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #725,210
@previous (beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY)
Oh she's there, she just didn't shake hands with Trump's evil children.
Oh she's there, she just didn't shake hands with Trump's evil children.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,273
Who won, m8s?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,275
yawnnnn
buto joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,279
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 59 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,284
It was noticed that they do their hair like the guy in the American Psycho movie. The murderer guy.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,285
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/clinton-wins-debate-but-trump-exceeds-expectations/
Clinton wins debate
Clinton wins debate
Hillary Clinton won the second presidential debate, according to a CNN / ORC poll of debate watchers. The results showed a clear victory for Clinton, with 57% saying Clinton won, as opposed to 34% for Trump.
It's a strong showing for Clinton, but not as good as her performance at the first presidential debate, when 62% of debate watchers said she won.
The results Sunday also track closely with watchers' pre-debate preference. Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers said they were supporting Clinton before the debate.
It's a strong showing for Clinton, but not as good as her performance at the first presidential debate, when 62% of debate watchers said she won.
The results Sunday also track closely with watchers' pre-debate preference. Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers said they were supporting Clinton before the debate.
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 31 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,292
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,293
is asked to speak in public
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,295
@725,285 (F)
That's a good sign, then.
Any idea how the polling was conducted? It doesn't say in the article, but I'm assuming it wasn't one of those online polls? Because those are easily manipulated.
That's a good sign, then.
Any idea how the polling was conducted? It doesn't say in the article, but I'm assuming it wasn't one of those online polls? Because those are easily manipulated.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,296
mistrust and outsiders .. dealing with people face-to-face .. clinton knows
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 46 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,305
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,306
low tone laughing and gaze-down
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,333
@725,285 (F)
Those numbers don't say Hillary won the debate though.
> The results showed a clear victory for Clinton, with 57% saying Clinton won
> Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers said they were supporting Clinton before the debate.
Looks like trump grabbed that debate by the pussy because he is the 1%
Those numbers don't say Hillary won the debate though.
> The results showed a clear victory for Clinton, with 57% saying Clinton won
> Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers said they were supporting Clinton before the debate.
Looks like trump grabbed that debate by the pussy because he is the 1%
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,336
@725,292 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)> It's lies man.
In our USA we have
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
Totally respected Politifact that both sides use as the Go2Place to check out each statement and fact check it with full references per line item including transcripts and recordings -
Syntax double-posted this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,337
@725,295 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> That's a good sign, then.
>
> Any idea how the polling was conducted? It doesn't say in the article, but I'm assuming it wasn't one of those online polls? Because those are easily manipulated.
Online? Hell no its one of those EXPENSIVE Operations and CNN does say because it has to be fast and quick its not weighted the same as CNN regular polls that are super high rating wise by Nate Silver
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/
So it is he same Poll operation that CNN uses for their regular polls but you can imagine the cost of having an army of people on the phones and its Land Line and Cell phone calls and YOU can look up the questions they ask - But this stuff is so expensive very few even attempt to do this kind of super fast result system - The on line stuff is so bad even Fox News calls is crap
> That's a good sign, then.
>
> Any idea how the polling was conducted? It doesn't say in the article, but I'm assuming it wasn't one of those online polls? Because those are easily manipulated.
Online? Hell no its one of those EXPENSIVE Operations and CNN does say because it has to be fast and quick its not weighted the same as CNN regular polls that are super high rating wise by Nate Silver
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/
The CNN/ORC post-debate poll includes interviews with 521 registered voters who watched the September 26 debate. Results among debate-watchers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Respondents were originally interviewed as part of a September 23-25 telephone survey of a random sample of Americans, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over.
So it is he same Poll operation that CNN uses for their regular polls but you can imagine the cost of having an army of people on the phones and its Land Line and Cell phone calls and YOU can look up the questions they ask - But this stuff is so expensive very few even attempt to do this kind of super fast result system - The on line stuff is so bad even Fox News calls is crap
Syntax triple-posted this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,338
I did that quickly and did not read about the group being the same group that watched the first poll. From memory hours ago ONLY 17 percent of the people changed their mind on who to vote for based on this one debate - So minds are really made up when its 521 people
However that alone if this were truly scientific wood be enough to totally change the outcome if Trump and Clinton were neck to neck. Today back in 2012 Romney and Obama were neck to neck in the popular vote and that neck to neck held right to the very end.
Clinton is kicking Trumps ass by +5.71 which in USA Presidential politics is a HUGE margin - She was even up to +10 prior to the first poll and I AM ON RECORD and Betting that the margin will increase over the next few days - OK I no for a fact one poll not yet published makes it UP and its a quality super high track record poll - That number is b4 the new bad news about the sex tape/talk and the rush to run from Trump
Trump who admits to watching the polls carefully and even selected his new Campaign manager er Co manager the gal She makes her living as a Pollster so she is clued in re which Polls really count as end result accurate Only a couple of Polls in past decades have been close to Spot on end result - The Guru Nate Silver has published Trumps odds and that was b4 the NEW Sex stuff
Your country now has a lot of my Cold Hard Cash THERE - Alas I was not able to get in on laying down more money during the current Sex shit - OUT Of spare money to lay down and I am really in over my head currently - I did lose re ur Brexit screw up
However that alone if this were truly scientific wood be enough to totally change the outcome if Trump and Clinton were neck to neck. Today back in 2012 Romney and Obama were neck to neck in the popular vote and that neck to neck held right to the very end.
Clinton is kicking Trumps ass by +5.71 which in USA Presidential politics is a HUGE margin - She was even up to +10 prior to the first poll and I AM ON RECORD and Betting that the margin will increase over the next few days - OK I no for a fact one poll not yet published makes it UP and its a quality super high track record poll - That number is b4 the new bad news about the sex tape/talk and the rush to run from Trump
Trump who admits to watching the polls carefully and even selected his new Campaign manager er Co manager the gal She makes her living as a Pollster so she is clued in re which Polls really count as end result accurate Only a couple of Polls in past decades have been close to Spot on end result - The Guru Nate Silver has published Trumps odds and that was b4 the NEW Sex stuff
Your country now has a lot of my Cold Hard Cash THERE - Alas I was not able to get in on laying down more money during the current Sex shit - OUT Of spare money to lay down and I am really in over my head currently - I did lose re ur Brexit screw up
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,339
@previous (Syntax)> The Guru Nate Silver has published Trumps odds
2% odds of Trump winning the primary.
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,342
@previous (Metæ)Yep LoL
And again you are not going to find the Math nor Protocol nor Supercomputer tyme he bought to conclude that super low number
However just for YOUR entertainment ONLY So keep this to SELF Please and share with no one as it makes a mess when I get more money to place bets
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-are-trumps-polls-getting-worse/
In our polls-only model, Clinton’s chances were 55 percent before the debate
***[Editor me Thee Thy Syntax Note B4 the Debate refers to Debate number ONE]
and increased to 72 percent as of this Monday. But her odds have also grown significantly over the course of this week, to 80 percent now, which corresponds to a lead of 5 or 6 percentage point in the popular vote. Our polls-plus model has followed a similar but slightly more conservative trajectory, with Clinton’s probability increasing from 55 percent before the debate, to 68 percent on Monday, to 76 percent now.
The polls do not yet account for any fallout from the Washington Post’s explosive disclosure on Friday of a tape from 2005 in which Trump made a variety of lascivious comments about women, including bragging about being able to get away with groping women because he was “a star.”
Somewhat contrary to its reputation for being hyper-aggressive, even the polls-only model can sometimes take a few extra days to fully account for shifts in the race. So in circumstances like these, it can sometimes be useful to look at the FiveThirtyEight now-cast, which incorporates new polls very quickly at the cost of potentially picking up on noise and overshooting the mark. In fact, Clinton’s lead also continued to rise in the now-cast over the course of the week (although it shifted very slightly downward on Friday itself), and her popular-vote lead in the now-cast (6.1 percentage points) remains larger than in the polls-only model (5.3 percentage points). So if there’s been any reversal back toward Trump, it hasn’t really shown up in the polls yet, at least not on a consistent basis.
***[Editor me Thee Thy Syntax Note B4 the Debate refers to Debate number ONE]
and increased to 72 percent as of this Monday. But her odds have also grown significantly over the course of this week, to 80 percent now, which corresponds to a lead of 5 or 6 percentage point in the popular vote. Our polls-plus model has followed a similar but slightly more conservative trajectory, with Clinton’s probability increasing from 55 percent before the debate, to 68 percent on Monday, to 76 percent now.
The polls do not yet account for any fallout from the Washington Post’s explosive disclosure on Friday of a tape from 2005 in which Trump made a variety of lascivious comments about women, including bragging about being able to get away with groping women because he was “a star.”
Somewhat contrary to its reputation for being hyper-aggressive, even the polls-only model can sometimes take a few extra days to fully account for shifts in the race. So in circumstances like these, it can sometimes be useful to look at the FiveThirtyEight now-cast, which incorporates new polls very quickly at the cost of potentially picking up on noise and overshooting the mark. In fact, Clinton’s lead also continued to rise in the now-cast over the course of the week (although it shifted very slightly downward on Friday itself), and her popular-vote lead in the now-cast (6.1 percentage points) remains larger than in the polls-only model (5.3 percentage points). So if there’s been any reversal back toward Trump, it hasn’t really shown up in the polls yet, at least not on a consistent basis.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,343
@previous (Syntax)So if he's at 18%, that keans he's 900% more likely to win the election than the primary!
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 15 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,347
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,348
@725,343 (Metæ)> So if he's at 18%, that keans he's 900% more likely to win the election than the primary!
Ur Math Korrected I am backdating the numbers to Oct 8 as old out of date numbers for Legal safe harbor reasons
I expect the numbers to be somewhat different over the next few days
ALSO THIS IS NOT Nate Silvers numbers - A small unknown firm in Ireland n UK and more like a Prediction Market than Betting Parlor with just a few millllions of dollars behind them
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Syntax double-posted this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,349
@725,347 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Good to know that it was a serious, methodologically-sound poll.
CNN continues to call this Poll
> truly scientific
It does come down to the larger margin of error
Just got output from a HUGE Computer So Client has numbers on Wobbles of 44 Satellites n to think I used to do that math by hand
and NOW I can get some sleep n wake up to my Ocean a Blue which will be more like a Lake than Ocean re Goin 2B Flat and still well be fun
G'd Nite
> Good to know that it was a serious, methodologically-sound poll.
CNN continues to call this Poll
> truly scientific
It does come down to the larger margin of error
Just got output from a HUGE Computer So Client has numbers on Wobbles of 44 Satellites n to think I used to do that math by hand
and NOW I can get some sleep n wake up to my Ocean a Blue which will be more like a Lake than Ocean re Goin 2B Flat and still well be fun
G'd Nite
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,351
debate