• 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!

Trump-Backed Candidate Wins Ohio Special Election

Your actual argument is based on a faulty premise of summary statistics. The RCP uses the arithmetic average. By using the arithmetric mean, they're not saying, "We believe all of these polls have equal importance." They're saying, "We need is a single value that attempts to describe these polls by identifying the central position within these polls." It's called, "central tendency." They just need one value that describes all the polls recorded within the last week.

That's exactly what they're saying because the method they use to aggregate them results in them being treated AS IF they have equal importance.

And they don't use "all the polls."

Now I'm willing to grant you that prehaps not every poll is included in the average, whether it's due to timing inconsistencies, or incomplete data on the part of individual pollsters, or maybe they just didn't want to look at random online poll due to it's flawed sampling methodology. However, you'll only assuming this; you're not demonstrating this.

Good that you are willing to grant me REALITY. If you want to prove it to yourself, here's a listing of all the polls ranked by 538, then try to trace them to the final 2016 RCP poll. You'll see RCP only includes a small sample of all polls made public.
 
I'd like to know the names of any Democrat spokespeople and if possible a quote and source.

Undeniably it is true the INS (now ICE or BP) does not police voter registration, it is also true proof of citizenship is not required in California to register and neither INS (now ICE or BP) neither monitors polling places at election time nor verifies the citizenship of voters who cast ballots, these are facts, what I'm looking for is the names of Democrat spokespeople who have told illegal immigrants such facts (as this would suggest to me an effort to encourage non-citizen voting).

What difference does it make who may have told illegals the facts you just posted if they can easily find those facts from friends and neighbors? Democrats do not want illegals prevented from voting or they would move to enforce proof of citizenship for those registering to vote.
 
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Out of 100 million votes cast or so, many elections, there's some small amount of fraud... It's trivial, but there is no way to prevent all fraud, so error/fraud rates of something like 0.0005% or so will have to do.

The democrat talking point is wrong. It is deliberately deceptive. You say there is "some small evidence of fraud." That does not mean there is no fraud. Do you understand that voting by illegals who are not identified as illegals and are never checked for proof of citizenship will yield no evidence of fraud even though the fraud may be massive?
 
The democrat talking point is wrong. It is deliberately deceptive. You say there is "some small evidence of fraud." That does not mean there is no fraud. Do you understand that voting by illegals who are not identified as illegals and are never checked for proof of citizenship will yield no evidence of fraud even though the fraud may be massive?

Correct! There is a small amount of fraud and error in every election. It's inherent in the fact they're run by fallible humans and we correctly accept some small risk of 'fraud' and error to make the system work at an acceptable cost and convenience to 100 million voters.

The newest thing is photo ID, but photo ID and the documents behind them can be forged easily enough to fool some clerks or volunteers at the polls. If we wanted more security we'd hire TSA style checkpoints and slow voting to a crawl, at a huge cost. We don't do that because the tradeoff in time, cost and fraudulent votes prevented doesn't make sense.
 
It certainly would unless O'Connor lost the election.

Last time I checked O'Conner had less votes so in my book that is losing the election. Guess that makes me a low information voter
 
I quoted U.S. News. Should I reject that report and blindly embrace your opinions that list no details and no facts? No. You need to come up with persuasion that involves more than just propagandist dogma and talking points.

I am going to give you a hint about something.

There is a difference between an actual news article, and opinion pieces and blogs.
 
Do you have a point? Is O'Conner going to take the oath of office or did he lose the election? Does it truly matter by how many votes?

Do you have a clue? Balderson hasn't won it yet. His lead is down to 1574 with perhaps as many as 8000 votes still yet to be counted. Either way it's not a good showing for what was once thought to be one of the safest Republican seats in the land.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a clue? Balderson hasn't won it yet. His lead is down to 1574 with perhaps as many as 8000 votes still yet to be counted. Either way it's not a good showing for what was once thought to be one of the safest Republican seats in the land.
Yes I have a clue, my clue is that as of right now O'Connor has lost the election. I am sure that I can count on you letting us know should that change. So please let me know when O'Connor gets sworn in into the House of Representatives in September? Then there was another election in November in which the Republican turnout will be much greater than it was in this special election. Is absolutely awesome that this election was so close and gives you hope but as of right now it is a loss. Congratulations you did one hell of a job but a loss is a loss

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Out of 100 million votes cast or so, many elections, there's some small amount of fraud... It's trivial, but there is no way to prevent all fraud, so error/fraud rates of something like 0.0005% or so will have to do.

How many illegals voted in California in 2016? You don't know? That's right, because nobody can know since there is absolutely no way to check. I suspect, however, that possibly hundreds of thousands may have voted, given the clear animosity towards Trump from immigrant demonstrations in so many US cities. And why wouldn't they vote since they can and nobody will ever find out if they did?
 
Correct! There is a small amount of fraud and error in every election. It's inherent in the fact they're run by fallible humans and we correctly accept some small risk of 'fraud' and error to make the system work at an acceptable cost and convenience to 100 million voters.

The newest thing is photo ID, but photo ID and the documents behind them can be forged easily enough to fool some clerks or volunteers at the polls. If we wanted more security we'd hire TSA style checkpoints and slow voting to a crawl, at a huge cost. We don't do that because the tradeoff in time, cost and fraudulent votes prevented doesn't make sense.

Democrats do not want citizenship verification to interfere with illegal voting. I suspect that is because they know they have benefited from illegal voting for decades, especially in the last 10 years or so. But the sweet thing for them is that they have manufactured laws in many states which make it impossible to stop illegals from voting or to detect them when they do.
 
I am going to give you a hint about something.

There is a difference between an actual news article, and opinion pieces and blogs.

And there is a huge difference between lying Democrat talking point propagandist crap and the truth.
 
And there is a huge difference between lying Democrat talking point propagandist crap and the truth.

Why, then there is a point of showing that 'talking point' is a lie too. Being verbose and making a claim about it does not make it a lie. IT does show the rigid viewpoint of the person making the claim.. but that is not a good sign for having the claim be true.
 
Back
Top Bottom