House Panel Approves $10B for the Wall.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
That's all kool, as is that spreader. Now address the polls for us. kind sir, which turned out to be uncannily accurate. They predicted a Big popular vote victory for the other candidate, which turned out to be the case. And amazingly, they also, by extension, predicted that if the "Republican" won --ha, don't you just love the idea of Trump "The Republican"!!!- he would win the electoral college by the skin of his teeth. As we all know, the Polls only predict popular vote, which they do a marvelous job of. Of course, when they are predicting a landslide popular vote victory for one candidate, they are at the same time implying that if the other candidate loses the popular vote by a wide margin but wins the election, they will win in the electoral college by the skin of their teeth. They will join the very few minority Presidents the U.S. has had in 238 years. By the way, if history is to be believed, I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for The Donald's chance at re-election. He is such a jerk, and so many people hate him, I'm actually starting to feel sorry the guy --just a tiny bit though-- but not as sorry as I am for the American people who will likely have to put up with him for another 39 months.Yeh, if you two were surgeons you would have pre-packaged rap to explain why you are the smartest surgeons in the city- if people can overlook the little factoid that most of your patients die.
You guys can bullshiite all you want. The reality is the all of leftydom joined in on the message that Hillary was about to be coronated. The dems- including camp hillary- even joined in on the kabucki dance of getting bernie out and running because camp hillary got nervous about it appearing like a coronation and so they wanted a little bit of a charade of competition. Except it got out of hand and the dnc had to sabotage bernied to tone him down.
You will also recall that the dems were touting hillary as "the most qualified presidential candidate in American history." Then she turned out to be a complete loser and all the projections of her turned out to be completely wrong and the leftoids here and elsewhere started to backpeddle...."oh she was my second choice, she was sooooo flawed that just about any other dem could win in 2020." How do you guys keep from vomiting when you spread that crap out of your mouth? All of you tards blew it BIGTIME. You are the Dick Morris of political analysis. You remember Dick right? He projected that Romney was going to win by a landslide and has not been seen since, except maybe on his own webcast of something. You should be ashamed of yourself to try to spread that crap.
Last edited:
Sorry, you are just wallowing in hillary type delusion looking for someone to tell you that you and your ilk were "uncannily accurate" when in fact you were all uncannily wrong about the core question that all the polls were designed to address/answer.
WRONG, WRONG, AND MORE WRONG. There was not a single dem who did not look like he/she/it had not been hit by a bus and hillary herself admitted that she had never even prepared a possible concession speech for election day.
Now Hillary and her bootlickers- including you- pathetically come with little things to be right about so that you can get your participation trophy. That's all Hillary does now. You would think that she was right about everything, everywhere if you listened to her daily excuse tour.
Go ahead and be "uncannily accurate" if that works for you. Works for me.
I would be a bit embarassed to engage in that kind of low testosterone excuse making but apparently it is right for you. Along with your siamese twin buddy here who was about as wrong as can be about the last election but is now able to predict the 2020 election to within three decimal points.
warning piezoe's quote below is the delusion of a george soros loving hard core disinformation spewing leftist who self identifies as a libertarian.
1. there were many minority candidates in U.S. election history.
when corrected piezoe bullshits his way out by appealing to the definition in England... which any educated person is a different system.
2. Most of the crooked polls had hillary winning massively until they hearded and told the truth just before the election.
3. On this very thread we showed Tony Starks posts from 2 to 3 days before the election in which multiple leftists outlet were predicted big wins for hillary in the electoral college. They made those predictions based on the polls.
4. In short the USC poll was the only won I recall which consistently had Donald Trump winning. (which by your definition Tony... is what matters... I favor the proper template and don't care about the actually outcome)
the mass media polls using crooked templates had hillary with 7 to 14 point leads just a few days before they hearded. If you recall the abc poll got rid of 10 points for hillary in about 3 days as they shed their crooked template.
1. there were many minority candidates in U.S. election history.
when corrected piezoe bullshits his way out by appealing to the definition in England... which any educated person is a different system.
2. Most of the crooked polls had hillary winning massively until they hearded and told the truth just before the election.
3. On this very thread we showed Tony Starks posts from 2 to 3 days before the election in which multiple leftists outlet were predicted big wins for hillary in the electoral college. They made those predictions based on the polls.
4. In short the USC poll was the only won I recall which consistently had Donald Trump winning. (which by your definition Tony... is what matters... I favor the proper template and don't care about the actually outcome)
the mass media polls using crooked templates had hillary with 7 to 14 point leads just a few days before they hearded. If you recall the abc poll got rid of 10 points for hillary in about 3 days as they shed their crooked template.
Last edited:
Are you illiterate?
Unfortunately You are wrong on several counts. For one, I am not a "Hillary boot licker", I am not even a Democrat. I did not support Hillary in the election. I contributed to another candidate. But I did vote for Hillary. What else could any reasonably informed person do. But I am a scientist with formal training in statistics and I can correctly interpret the polling results from the professional polling organizations. If the chance of a Hillary victory is quoted as 98%, that means that there is a very high probability of her winning the popular vote and statistically it is likely she will also win the election. By logical extension of that prediction, if she does not win the election, her opponent, with high probability will squeak by in the electoral college, simply because a large popular vote victory would statistically reduce the probability of her opponent getting a substantial margin of victory in the electoral college. Ergo, had the predicted election results been wrong, for example had the popular vote gone to Trump, or even been close, the professional pollsters would have immediately began examining their methods, because the probability of them being off that much, if their polling is unbiased, is very small indeed.Sorry, you are just wallowing in hillary type delusion looking for someone to tell you that you and your ilk were "uncannily accurate" when in fact you were all uncannily wrong about the core question that all the polls were designed to address/answer.
WRONG, WRONG, AND MORE WRONG. There was not a single dem who did not look like he/she/it had not been hit by a bus and hillary herself admitted that she had never even prepared a possible concession speech for election day.
Now Hillary and her bootlickers- including you- pathetically come with little things to be right about so that you can get your participation trophy. That's all Hillary does now. You would think that she was right about everything, everywhere if you listened to her daily excuse tour.
Go ahead and be "uncannily accurate" if that works for you. Works for me.
I would be a bit embarassed to engage in that kind of low testosterone excuse making but apparently it is right for you. Along with your siamese twin buddy here who was about as wrong as can be about the last election but is now able to predict the 2020 election to within three decimal points.
All in all, it was yet another triumph for modern political polling. When you take the aggregate of the various professionally designed polls you get surprisingly reliable predictions of the popular vote, which is all that is polled for. Since the winner of the popular vote nearly always wins in the electoral college, very roughly 90% of the time, it is only natural that the media will interpret the popular vote prediction as a reliable predictor of the electoral college outcome. However the popular vote poll is not so reliable as most of us are inclined to believe.
There has been 43 Presidents, but since Cleveland was elected twice in non-consecutive terms , statistically he should be counted twice to make 44 first-term elections, but lets eliminate the first 4 Presidents, as I don't think there was a popular vote. There has been five minority Presidents including the present one. These are J.Q. Adams, R. Hayes, B. Harrison, G.W. Bush. and D. Trump. The G.W. Bush v. Gore election was essentially a tie. The media likes to point out that D. Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any minority President, however this is not the correct way to compare the outcomes of the various minority President's elections. Because the total voting population has changed dramatically over the years since the J. Q. Adams election, one should consider relative margin of the opponents popular vote victory instead. On that basis John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by 10.4%, and Rutherford Hayes by 3.0%, whereas Trump's popular vote loss is only third worst at 2.1% among the five minority Presidents.
If we divide five by 40 we estimate an 12% chance of a candidate losing the popular vote but carrying the vote in the electoral college when running for a first term in office. But this is a small sample size,* and so we should be cautious not to put much stock in the result. I haven't included second or third term re-elections, because these might evidence a bias toward the incumbent and might logically anyway, whether or not statistically, belong to a different population of observations.
_____________________
*And of course there are other difficulties, including the evolving nature of Presidential campaigns and electoral politics over the past two centuries, not to mention the 12th Amendment, a Civil War, and a three-way tie in 1824.
Okay. I stopped reading right there.
As I said yesterday, if you and the robo-poster were surgeons you would have reams of data on why your methodology was the best- except all your patients would be dead.
you just refuse to learn.... so I will post this again...
in this thread you appealed to a parliamentary system to pretend you were correct rather than just admit you should have said Trump earned fewer than a plurality of the votes instead of being ignorant.
here was the thread...
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...nt-to-pardon-himself-and-others.311493/page-5
here is a definition explaining 19 presidents were elected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories
In the United States, Presidential plurality victories are those elections in which the winning candidate received less than 50% of the popular votes cast but the largest share of votes.
The popular vote in an American presidential election was first fully recorded and reported in the election of 1824.[1] Since then, 19 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.[1] The following is a list and description of those elections in which a candidate won the election with a plurality of the popular vote. The elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 are not on this list because in those elections the winning candidate actually received lessthan a plurality.[2]
in this thread you appealed to a parliamentary system to pretend you were correct rather than just admit you should have said Trump earned fewer than a plurality of the votes instead of being ignorant.
here was the thread...
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...nt-to-pardon-himself-and-others.311493/page-5
here is a definition explaining 19 presidents were elected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories
In the United States, Presidential plurality victories are those elections in which the winning candidate received less than 50% of the popular votes cast but the largest share of votes.
The popular vote in an American presidential election was first fully recorded and reported in the election of 1824.[1] Since then, 19 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.[1] The following is a list and description of those elections in which a candidate won the election with a plurality of the popular vote. The elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 are not on this list because in those elections the winning candidate actually received lessthan a plurality.[2]
