• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Even supporters agree: Clinton has weaknesses as a candidate. What can she do?

ludin said:
that isn't fact. it doesn't negate what the article said but nice try.
Click to expand...

It isn't a fact that Hillary beats Trump in the overwhelming majority of polls? Are you contradicting reality again?
 
Hatuey said:
It isn't a fact that Hillary beats Trump in the overwhelming majority of polls? Are you contradicting reality again?
Click to expand...

and your strawman arguments. I posted an article that showed trump tied with Hillary in 3 key states.
so far you have yet to offer any evidence that suggests that the story is not correct or is false.

so do you actually have anything that shows this if not that is understandable.

don't go off on your typical rant of something completely different than what is being discussed
which was the article that shows Clinton and trump in a tie in those key states.

there is a reason they are called opinion polls not fact polls.
do you not understand this?

also if you look at your own chart which you probably didn't Clinton only has about a 5 point lead
which is 1% outside the margin of error that is -12 points where she was a few months ago.

so yea it is basically a dead heat right now. you should read your chart better before spouting off.
 
ludin said:
and your strawman arguments.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a strawman is. I stated that Hillary beats Trump in 14 out of 15 polls carried by RCP. That is a fact.

I posted an article that showed trump tied with Hillary in 3 key states.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how irrelevant that is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

imrs.php


If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.
Click to expand...

That's really all that matters. You put into consideration the last election:

electoral.college.map.2012_11.6.final.gif


And it's a Hillary win. Face it, ludin:

Here is what Trump has going against him.

1. Hillary only needs to go looking for 29 electoral votes in the map.
2. Hillary beats Trump in the overwhelming majority of polls with the exception of the ones you (as per usual) cherry pick.

Those two facts alone defeat any premise that this is a 'dead heat'. It simply isn't.
 
ludin said:
that isn't fact. it doesn't negate what the article said but nice try.
Click to expand...

What negates what the article says is the poll's methodology. Lets look at the data they collected for Ohio, my home state, for example. According to their methodology; they collected responses from 1,042 self-identified registered voters. Of those, 30% identified as Republicans, 29% as Democrats, 34% Independent and 7% some other party (41% combined). There are two major problems:

1) Small sample size. The last count of registered voters in Ohio totals 7,540,306. Quinnipiac collected data from only 0.01% of our registered voters. A sample size that small doesn't tell anyone anything.

2) Either intentional or unintentional selection bias. The breakdown of registered voters by party affiliation in Ohio is 72% Independent or some other party, 23% Republican, and 11% Democrat. The affiliations of the survey respondents aren't even close to being representative of the party affiliation spread here (see above link for proof).

Inadequate sample size and severe selection bias are fatal flaws for individual polls. That is why calculating averages from multiple surveys, such as the data provided to you by Hatuey, is both useful and necessary.
 
Hatuey said:
You don't know what a strawman is. I stated that Hillary beats Trump in 14 out of 15 polls carried by RCP. That is a fact.
.
Click to expand...

again you failed to read you own site. she is only 5 points ahead in all polls. that is 1 point off the margin of error.
which basically means the race is a dead heat. that is down from the 12 point margin she shared a month ago.

again nothing you have state proved the article I said wrong.
and as usual you can't actually address what is being said.

not only that but you posted a site that confirms even what the article posted said.
congrats on defeating your own argument.
 
ludin said:
again you failed to read you own site. she is only 5 points ahead in all polls. that is 1 point off the margin of error.
Click to expand...

Lmao, that is not how polls (or for that matter statistics) work. You don't arbitrarily add up polls with different margins of error, methodologies, sample sizes etc. and get a new margin of error. Are you seriously this ignorant?
 
Napoleon said:
What negates what the article says is the poll's methodology. Lets look at the data they collected for Ohio, my home state, for example. According to their methodology; they collected responses from 1,042 self-identified registered voters. Of those, 30% identified as Republicans, 29% as Democrats, 34% Independent and 7% some other party (41% combined). There are two major problems:

1) Small sample size. The last count of registered voters in Ohio totals 7,540,306. Quinnipiac collected data from only 0.01% of our registered voters. A sample size that small doesn't tell anyone anything.

2) Either intentional or unintentional selection bias. The breakdown of registered voters by party affiliation in Ohio is 72% Independent or some other party, 23% Republican, and 11% Democrat. The affiliations of the survey respondents aren't even close to being representative of the party affiliation spread here (see above link for proof).

Inadequate sample size and severe selection bias are fatal flaws for individual polls. That is why calculating averages from multiple surveys, such as the data provided to you by Hatuey, is both useful and necessary.
Click to expand...

no proof no evidence so yeah typical nonsense.
you know all the polls that he posted have about the same sample rate so I guess all those polls are invalid as well.
same BS arguments for things that don't agree with you.
come up with something else.

so you basically have no proof that anything was wrong with the article.
 
The fact that she hadn't been hounded off the campaign trail speaks to the quality of the "New" democrat party. The "party of the little guy" has pretty much become the party of the Clinton Crime Machine.

The democrats deserve better. Christ, she even ripped the White House off for souvenirs!
 
ludin said:
no proof no evidence so yeah typical nonsense.
you know all the polls that he posted have about the same sample rate so I guess all those polls are invalid as well.
same BS arguments for things that don't agree with you.
come up with something else.

so you basically have no proof that anything was wrong with the article.
Click to expand...

I just provided you with proof of inadequate sample size and selection bias so at this point you're just in denial.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao, that is not how polls (or for that matter statistics) work. You don't arbitrarily add up polls with different margins of error, methodologies, sample sizes etc. and get a new margin of error. Are you seriously this ignorant?
Click to expand...

actually what they do is a comparison of all the polls.

your poor projection arguments are not my problem but yours.
you shot argument in the foot that is not my fault but yours.

once again you need to read your sources better.
 
Napoleon said:
I just provided you with proof of inadequate sample size and selection bias so at this point you're just in denial.
Click to expand...

no you provided your opinion based on your own bias.
so therefore it is irrelevant.

PS the same size and other things is no different than other polls use.
so yes you are in denial.

attempting to push your own bias as an argument isn't one.
 
Napoleon said:
I just provided you with proof of inadequate sample size and selection bias so at this point you're just in denial.
Click to expand...

He thinks if you average out margins of error from a whole bunch of polls conducted using different methodologies as well as sample sizes you get a new margin of error. If he can't see the flaws in such an argument, he really should be voting for Trump. It's absolutely ignorant.
 
Napoleon said:
What negates what the article says is the poll's methodology. Lets look at the data they collected for Ohio, my home state, for example. According to their methodology; they collected responses from 1,042 self-identified registered voters. Of those, 30% identified as Republicans, 29% as Democrats, 34% Independent and 7% some other party (41% combined). There are two major problems:

1) Small sample size. The last count of registered voters in Ohio totals 7,540,306. Quinnipiac collected data from only 0.01% of our registered voters. A sample size that small doesn't tell anyone anything.
Click to expand...

That is a 3 % margin of error. 403 Forbidden Edit: link works for me despite saying forbidden. Does it work for others?

2) Either intentional or unintentional selection bias. The breakdown of registered voters by party affiliation in Ohio is 72% Independent or some other party, 23% Republican, and 11% Democrat. The affiliations of the survey respondents aren't even close to being representative of the party affiliation spread here (see above link for proof).

Inadequate sample size and severe selection bias are fatal flaws for individual polls. That is why calculating averages from multiple surveys, such as the data provided to you by Hatuey, is both useful and necessary.
Click to expand...

Don't go down this road. Republicans did the same thing 4 years ago, claiming the polling was wrong because it overrepresented democrats, and therefore had to be adjusted. They proved to be 100 %, hilariously wrong(only republicans can manage to complain that polling data has a liberal bias...)
 
ludin said:
actually what they do is a comparison of all the polls.
Click to expand...

They haven't compared anything. They've averaged out the polls which creates an RCP average. That does not create a new margin of error as these polls are conducted using different methods and as such have entirely different margins of error. This is statistics 101. Seriously, lol.
 
Hatuey said:
He thinks if you average out margins of error from a whole bunch of polls conducted using different methodologies as well as sample sizes you get a new margin of error. If he can't see the flaws in such an argument, he really should be voting for Trump. It's absolutely ignorant.
Click to expand...



RealClearPolitics aggregates polls for presidential and congressional races into averages, known as the RealClearPolitics average, which are widely cited by media outlets. New York Times contributor Neil Degrasse Tyson, wrote in an op-ed that "in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election—even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

so even the NYT and other outlets site the RCP averages as accurate.
so I guess they are all morons as well lol.

good thing they agree with me.
 
ludin said:
no you provided your opinion based on your own bias.
so therefore it is irrelevant.

PS the same size and other things is no different than other polls use.
so yes you are in denial.

attempting to push your own bias as an argument isn't one.
Click to expand...

That is a lie. I posted a link to their own methodology documentation and quoted the figures from it. I provided a link to the official counts of Ohio's registered voters and their party affiliation. Both of which demonstrate that the sample size is too small and the affiliations are grossly misrepresented in the survey. If you want to challenge me then address the data instead of referring to Quinnipac's own documentation and the voter registration data originating from the Ohio Secretary of State's office as my "opinion" and accusing me of bias like a baby.
 
ludin said:
I didn't average out anything so you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed you did. I made it explicitly clear that RCP averages out these polls. What has been explained is that you can't add a whole bunch of different polls with different sample sizes, as well methodologies and create a new margin of error. That is NOT how statistics works. Continuing to repeat that these polls put together have some new average 'margin of error' is absolutely ridiculous.

Seriously, do you know how polls work?
 
Napoleon said:
That is a lie. I posted a link to their own methodology documentation and quoted the figures from it. I provided a link to the official counts of Ohio's registered voters and their party affiliation. Both of which demonstrate that the sample size is too small and the affiliations are grossly misrepresented in the survey. If you want to challenge me then address the data instead of referring to Quinnipac's own documentation and the voter registration data originating from the Ohio Secretary of State's office as my "opinion" and accusing me of bias like a baby.
Click to expand...

you are using YOUR bias opinion to say they are wrong.
your opinion is irrelevant and unless you are some authority on
poll analsys then your opinion of what you think and how they did it
is simply irrelevant. do you not get it yet?

you used your bias liberal opinion to say they are wrong without providing
any objective evidence.

almost all surveys use about 1000 people some even use less, but most polls
I have see use 1000 people. so I guess all polls have sample size bias according to you.

they used a widely distributed yet even number of people from all categories.
so there is no selection bias there.

so the only thing you have to say they are wrong is that you don't like the results
which isn't an argument.
 
Hatuey said:
Nobody claimed you did. I made it explicitly clear that RCP averages out these polls. What has been explained is that you can't add a whole bunch of different polls with different sample sizes, as well methodologies and create a new margin of error. That is NOT how statistics works. Continuing to repeat that these polls put together have some new average 'margin of error' is absolutely ridiculous.

Seriously, do you know how polls work?
Click to expand...
RealClearPolitics aggregates polls for presidential and congressional races into averages, known as the RealClearPolitics average, which are widely cited by media outlets. New York Times contributor Neil Degrasse Tyson, wrote in an op-ed that "in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election—even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error

again most media sites and other experts use their number as legit source of information on polling.
so evidently they know more about it than you do.
hmmm. interesting. by the way they agree with me.

experts > random forum poster who shoots his own argument.
 
ludin said:
RealClearPolitics aggregates polls for presidential and congressional races into averages, known as the RealClearPolitics average, which are widely cited by media outlets.
Click to expand...

This - does - not - create - a - new - margin - of - error. Are you having a lot of trouble with this? These polls all have different sample sizes, different methodologies, as well as different questions to gain their data. Their combined margins of error - do not create some new margin of error. What can be done with them is average their results out. Averaging results, does not mean you can create a new margin of error from that average.

Keep digging. I forgot how fun it is to watch you argue things you clearly don't understand.
 
ludin said:
actually what they do is a comparison of all the polls.

your poor projection arguments are not my problem but yours.
you shot argument in the foot that is not my fault but yours.

once again you need to read your sources better.
Click to expand...

Shockingly enough, Hatuey is right and you are wrong. That's not how margin of error works.
 
Redress said:
Don't go down this road. Republicans did the same thing 4 years ago, claiming the polling was wrong because it overrepresented democrats, and therefore had to be adjusted. They proved to be 100 %, hilariously wrong(only republicans can manage to complain that polling data has a liberal bias...)
Click to expand...

I think its important to get the data right. You won't have an inkling as to to the direction Ohio is leaning based on party affiliation if you're vastly under-representing independents and third party while over-representing democrats and republicans. That said, anything can happen on election day. Just because people respond to a telephone survey doesn't mean they'll show up at the polls. The only thing that is clear is that its the independents who decide general elections in this State so its terrible polling to only represent them in a capacity of 34% when their actual slice of the registration pie is more than double that.
 
Kobie said:
Shockingly enough, Hatuey is right and you are wrong. That's not how margin of error works.
Click to expand...

He should have simply said that the 5.7% spread averaged by RCP leaves Trump a possibility of catching up to Hilary. Nope. Instead he went full ridiculous and created an arbitrary margin of error completely detached from the actual means and ways in which the polls were created. I've rarely heard anything so shockingly absurd in my life.
 
Napoleon said:
I think its important to get the data right. You won't have an inkling as to to the direction Ohio is leaning based on party affiliation if you're vastly under-representing independents and third party while over-representing democrats and republicans. That said, anything can happen on election day. Just because people respond to a telephone survey doesn't mean they'll show up at the polls. The only thing that is clear is that its the independents who decide general elections in this State so its terrible polling to only represent them in a capacity of 34% when their actual slice of the registration pie is more than double that.
Click to expand...

The problem is that how people identify changes over time. That is why it failed for republicans 4 years ago. They assumed that the percentage of democrats would remain constant, instead it went up as more people decided to vote for Obama. As people chose a preferred candidate, they will tend to give that candidates party as their party affiliation.
 
Risky Thicket said:
This is nothing new to most of us and even Hillary supporters will admit it: Hillary's continuing (and growing?) problem is not many people like her. Not as bad as Cruz, but the words "Hillary" and "like" are rarely used in the same sentence. "Hillary" and "dynamic" have never been used in the same sentence without quotation marks.

What is new? Even Hillary supporters are admitting that Hillary doesn't appeal to people and that, in terms of the general election, her personality and character or lack thereof may cost her and the Democrats the Presidential election. People don't like her.

[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
And people dont like Trump even more. So she doesnt have to do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom