Scientific Polls All Show Hillary as Clear Winner of First Presidential Debate. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;51123357]So who's going to be the first to quibble about sample sizes?[/QUOTE] I don't think there's a reason to quibble about sample sizes as long as it's around 1000 and random sample (if that's possible). There will probably be idiots who will though.

Why's it even matter who 'won' or 'lost'? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the talking points themselves rather than some abritrary gold star bullshit?[QUOTE=archangel125;51122862]Well, the moderator didn't do a great job in keeping them under control and on task. When my residents' organization hosted a debate for members of parliament, if they refused to listen to the moderator we remotely cut their microphones. It took that happening just twice before they fell in line.[/QUOTE] I half expect Trump would respond by either stealing Hilary's mic or getting out a megaphone.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51123520]Why's it even matter who 'won' or 'lost'? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the talking points themselves rather than some abritrary gold star bullshit? I half expect Trump would respond by either stealing Hilary's mic or getting out a megaphone.[/QUOTE] Well, it's important to talk about who people think 'won' because it's a good indicator of coming changes to polling averages. Talking points are certainly important to talk about, but what we're measuring here isn't the merits of their policies but the feelings of the voting public.

We got another one [media]https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/781238580081520640[/media]

If you want to talk about the issues, here's my two cents: The biggest concern economically right now - or at least a sizeable concern - is that businesses in America are outsourcing jobs to countries where operating costs are lower. There are concerns that Hillary's proposed tax increases on America's wealthiest people is going to accelerate this outsourcing. The truth is, there's no way to prevent this sort of thing without stripping American workers of their rights entirely, which will end up plunging an already struggling working class into even deeper poverty, make crime rates skyrocket, and generally screw things up too much to be worth it. Any legislation to regulate American companies conducting overseas business is likely to have a lot of unintended negative side-effects. There is one solution to the problem - Redirecting tax money to guaranteed minimum income. It's going to be astronomically expensive, but it'll help the majority of the country that is struggling economically, even if more American jobs are outsourced. No politician is willing to talk about that because of what it implies, both culturally and fiscally. Sooner or later there'll be no choice but to address it. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;51123646]We got another one [media]https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/781238580081520640[/media][/QUOTE] Is that a scientific poll? I mean, it says SurveyMonkey, and that doesn't seem like a particularly scientific system.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51123655]Is that a scientific poll? I mean, it says SurveyMonkey, and that doesn't seem like a particularly scientific system.[/QUOTE] SurveyMonkey have [url=https://www.surveymonkey.com/business/solutions/election-tracking/]a legit opinion polling unit[/url] and do proper internet polls, although they have a C- on the [url=http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/]FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings[/url] so they're not great

[QUOTE=smurfy;51123679]SurveyMonkey have [url=https://www.surveymonkey.com/business/solutions/election-tracking/]a legit opinion polling unit[/url] and do proper internet polls, although they have a C- on the [url=http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/]FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings[/url] so not the best[/QUOTE] Huh, I didn't know that. I guess we'd have to determine how this one in particular was done before deciding.

I only found it out fairly recently, but I guess it makes sense for a survey website to get into election polling

SurveyMonkey do scientific polls as well nowadays

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN11Y2VB]And another one, Ipsos/Reuters[/url]. But there's a twist: they also polled the horse race, and it shows Clinton 2 points [I]down[/I] on their pre-debate poll. But there's another twist: their pre-debate poll had Clinton +6, so she still has a decent lead and is above her pre-debate polling average. The wait for more data continues

[QUOTE=archangel125;51123632]Well, it's important to talk about who people think 'won' because it's a good indicator of coming changes to polling averages. Talking points are certainly important to talk about, but what we're measuring here isn't the merits of their policies but the feelings of the voting public.[/QUOTE] I guess I'm just an oddball, then, in my apathy for the 'overall win' and the desire to know [i]exactly[/i] how either shithead is going to fuck us over the next 4-8 years, what constitutional rights get used as toilet paper, how they justify more privacy invasions, balbla.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51123655]There is one solution to the problem - Redirecting tax money to guaranteed minimum income. It's going to be astronomically expensive, but it'll help the majority of the country that is struggling economically, even if more American jobs are outsourced.[/QUOTE] We'll need it by the time we start automating huge swaths of the service and transportation industries, two of the largest industries in the country, and we already have the means to replace cashiers and drivers. Hundreds of thousands of people will find themselves unemployed, and it'll be on the Government to do something about it, or risk widespread civil unrest.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51123836]I guess I'm just an oddball, then, in my apathy for the 'overall win' and the desire to know [I]exactly[/I] how either shithead is going to fuck us over the next 4-8 years, what constitutional rights get used as toilet paper, how they justify more privacy invasions, balbla.[/QUOTE] It's actually precedent that presidents no longer really abide by the constitution. They can get away with just about anything if Congress agrees or stays in gridlock. Not to mention, there have been worse 'offenses' by presidents. For example, Pres. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and misapproriated funds towards the millitary.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51123261]It doesn't make sense for former Sanders supporters to vote Jonhson, either. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Sanders' policies, and really no better than the Republican platform economically.[/QUOTE] Maybe because we actually give a shit about human rights. [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] And just economically, socially they are exactly the same.

[QUOTE=Maadz;51122739]'SCIENTIFIC POLLS' not just any regular polls scientific polls see if you add the word science it makes you sound smarter I think Clinton won shouting contest 2016 imo[/QUOTE] Scientific is being used in place of methodologically sound in this instance and it's a very important distinction

donald trump already won he's the next president what are u kids talking about

[QUOTE=Megadave;51125963]Maybe because we actually give a shit about human rights. [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] And just economically, socially they are exactly the same.[/QUOTE] First off Sanders' entire platform was centered around his economic policy. Secondly the economic platform of the libertarian party is wholly insufficient for anyone who actually cares about human rights. Human rights require an integrated approach to social and economic policy. Libertarian policy acknowledges social issues but does absolutely nothing to try to correct them by favoring a deregulatory approach and reducing taxes, defunding programs that are vital to achieve humanistic social progress. The platform plays lip service to social issues, but does absolutely nothing to enact progress. At least the Republicans have the balls to say "what's mine is mine now fuck off" on both economic and social policy. [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] You can't say you care about inequality and race and then simply exacerbate the issue by reducing taxes and regulations on the wealthy and large scale corporations [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] tldr going from supporting Sanders to Johnson is fucking stupid The only viable candidates for former Sanders supporters are Stein and Clinton. If you go for Johnson you didn't really give a shit about anything Bernie fights for.

Debate fallout is starting to work its way into the 538 model thanks to some new state polls from PPP. Left: Immediately before the debate Right: Now [t]http://i.imgur.com/EVMfMfH.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/z1htUil.png[/t]

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;51126327]First off Sanders' entire platform was centered around his economic policy. Secondly the economic platform of the libertarian party is wholly insufficient for anyone who actually cares about human rights. Human rights require an integrated approach to social and economic policy. Libertarian policy acknowledges social issues but does absolutely nothing to try to correct them by favoring a deregulatory approach and reducing taxes, defunding programs that are vital to achieve humanistic social progress. The platform plays lip service to social issues, but does absolutely nothing to enact progress. At least the Republicans have the balls to say "what's mine is mine now fuck off" on both economic and social policy. [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] You can't say you care about inequality and race and then simply exacerbate the issue by reducing taxes and regulations on the wealthy and large scale corporations [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] tldr going from supporting Sanders to Johnson is fucking stupid The only viable candidates for former Sanders supporters are Stein and Clinton. If you go for Johnson you didn't really give a shit about anything Bernie fights for.[/QUOTE] If you vote for the person who constantly beat up Sanders and manipulated millions of people among many other things you don't really give a shit about Sanders either. The only thing you care about is winning the election. See I can be a condescending dickhead too. [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] Point being, I'm not gonna vote for a fucking manipulating cunt if the only reason I can come up with is "huur she's not Trump". Like seriously, if Johnson fucks up enough and Stein doesn't get on my ballot, I'm not going to vote at all.

The idea of a politician turning back on promises post election is ridiculous. Everything that motivates a politician, mainly having a positive legacy, hinges on being approved, and therefore doing what they said they'd do. Research backs this up, a study (I forget the source) said that most politicians at least try to make good on their promises. With that in mind, vote for Clinton if you like Sanders, not because you like her, but because her policies are close to his. Any other choice is holding your chin up high as Trump does everything you hate.

[QUOTE=person11;51126593]The idea of a politician turning back on promises post election is ridiculous. Everything that motivates a politician, mainly having a positive legacy, hinges on being approved, and therefore doing what they said they'd do. Research backs this up, a study (I forget the source) said that most politicians at least try to make good on their promises. With that in mind, vote for Clinton if you like Sanders, not because you like her, but because her policies are close to his. Any other choice is holding your chin up high as Trump does everything you hate.[/QUOTE] [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lWKTBm4.png[/IMG] [QUOTE]Political scientists have been studying the question of campaign promises for almost 50 years, and the results are remarkably consistent. Most of the literature suggests that presidents make at least a “good faith” effort to keep an average of about two-thirds of their campaign promises; the exact numbers differ from study to study, depending on how the authors define what counts as a campaign promise and what it means to keep it. George W. Bush promised tax cuts and education reform, and within the first year of his administration had delivered on both. Barack Obama promised to focus on the economy, health care and the environment. Once in office, he pushed first a massive stimulus package and then the Affordable Care Act through Congress, and he has worked with China and others in the international community on climate change, despite strong legislative opposition. As for the promises that get abandoned, many have more to do with changing circumstances than a lack of principles. (Think of Bush, an ardent free-marketeer, signing the Troubled Asset Relief Program bill during the first tremors of the Great Recession.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51126872][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lWKTBm4.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I think I noticed this the last time you posted a screenshot, but dude what is up with your font rendering? Doesn't it hurt your eyes??

Be that as it may, that's not really why I'm not voting Clinton. She can do good with every one of her promises and I will still not vote for her. She was dirty as hell during the nominations and it rubbed me seriously wrong. If she wants to be president, fine, I [B]don't[/B] think she will destroy the country, but I'm not going to assist in helping a manipulator.

-snip above was edited- [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;51126875]I think I noticed this the last time you posted a screenshot, but dude what is up with your font rendering? Doesn't it hurt your eyes??[/QUOTE] IIRC I turned off antialiasing on my font (or something like that) because it was doing weird things to my computer, and I've just gotten used to it.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51126546]If you vote for the person who constantly beat up Sanders and manipulated millions of people among many other things you don't really give a shit about Sanders either. The only thing you care about is winning the election. See I can be a condescending dickhead too. [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] Point being, I'm not gonna vote for a fucking manipulating cunt if the only reason I can come up with is "huur she's not Trump". Like seriously, if Johnson fucks up enough and Stein doesn't get on my ballot, I'm not going to vote at all.[/QUOTE] In the end no I don't give a shit about Sanders because the cult of personality isn't what he wants. I care about the policies he fights for. The only one in the game right now who shares the same goals and has a fighting chance is Clinton. Bernie is a straight shooter. He might not be pleased with the result of the primaries and not be thrilled with Clinton, but there's a reason he supports her. If you vote for Johnson you're spitting in Bernie's face. If you want to protest vote in support of Bernie, it should be for Jill Stein. Not a man who is both incompetent for the office and supports fundamentally different policies that run contrary to what Sanders fights for.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;51126995]In the end no I don't give a shit about Sanders because the cult of personality isn't what he wants. I care about the policies he fights for. The only one in the game right now who shares the same goals and has a fighting chance is Clinton. Bernie is a straight shooter. He might not be pleased with the result of the primaries and not be thrilled with Clinton, but there's a reason he supports her. If you vote for Johnson you're spitting in Bernie's face. If you want to protest vote in support of Bernie, it should be for Jill Stein. Not a man who is both incompetent for the office and supports fundamentally different policies that run contrary to what Sanders fights for.[/QUOTE] Honestly I want Jill, I'm just waiting for her to get on the Indiana ballot, which looks unlikely considering Indiana reasons.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51127014]Honestly I want Jill, I'm just waiting for her to get on the Indiana ballot, which looks unlikely considering Indiana reasons.[/QUOTE] Then write her or Bernie in.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51123261]It doesn't make sense for former Sanders supporters to vote Jonhson, either. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Sanders' policies, and really no better than the Republican platform economically.[/QUOTE] Many voters are choosing candidates based on their credibility or how likeable they are rather than economic policy. A lot of people are sick of corrupt politicians and liked Sanders because he gave the impression of being honest, reliable, and fair. Some might see those traits in Johnson as well.

[QUOTE=Glo;51127078]Many voters are choosing candidates based on their credibility or how likeable they are rather than economic policy. A lot of people are sick of corrupt politicians and liked Sanders because he gave the impression of being honest, reliable, and fair. Some might see those traits in Johnson as well.[/QUOTE] The problem with that then is that you're voting for policies that very well could not align with your politics and might run against what you want. It's admirable to want to vote someone non-corrupt in but its pointless to do so if their policies would actively harm you and others.

[QUOTE=smurfy;51123326] On the flipside, 2% of Clinton supporters thought Trump won[/QUOTE] This is really weird to me, I wonder what their reasons are for thinking Trump did better.