Moore or Jones?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

No, what's sad is someone who refuses to admit Clinton won the popular vote - just as the polls predicted.

Who refuses to admit that? I've seen nor heard anyone state otherwise. Well, I think there was that illegal vote thing. 

I am glad she was victorious and she is our president. 

Wait......................

[homersapien 11,447]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Who refuses to admit that? I've seen nor heard anyone state otherwise. Well, I think there was that illegal vote thing. 

I am glad she was victorious and she is our president. 

Wait......................

So, wait, you are now reversing yourself and saying the polls were accurate?  

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

@AUFAN78, now you're just flat out lying.  You can dish out facepalms like some blithering idiot if you want, but you made an argument, it has been shown to be wrong, and now you want to act as if you said something else.  But just as a reminder, here are your posts where you started in on the inaccuracy of the polling:

You were the one who questioned the accuracy of the polls.  Then when people tried to go into things that actually matter to educated people who understand polling and statistics, YOU were the one who limited it to a "simple right/wrong" answer.  YOU were the one who linked to national polls as your "proof."  YOU were the one who said "Look, polling was a colossal failure in the 2016 election from a simple right/wrong standpoint."

So forgetting margin of error, statistical noise, and everything else, I showed you that 11 of the 14 final polls had Clinton winning the popular vote.  All of that came from the link YOU provided.  Clinton won the popular vote.  Had you wanted to argue about electoral college predictions, then you should have made THAT argument.  Maybe you'd be right.

You're wrong.  Be a man and admit it.  Stop lying.

 

 

From the beginning I was speaking to the prediction from polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory. She was not victorious. Can we agree on that? Or must you frame it to better suit you? 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, wait, you are now reversing yourself and saying the polls were accurate?  

Polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. got it admittedly wrong in predicting Hillary would be our president. Newsflash homes, she isn't.

[homersapien 11,447]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

From the beginning I was speaking to the prediction from polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory. She was not victorious. Can we agree on that? Or must you frame it to better suit you? 

Your argument is that the polls got it wrong.  They didn't. 

You are the one who is now trying to reframe the question. 

[homersapien 11,447]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. got it admittedly wrong in predicting Hillary would be our president. Newsflash homes, she isn't.

But the polls didn't get it wrong.  They predicted the popular vote about as accurately as they ever have.

It's just soooo important to you they be wrong, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are the one who is now trying to reframe the question. 

It's exactly what he's doing.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your argument is that the polls got it wrong.  They didn't. 

You are the one who is now trying to reframe the question. 

No. That you misinterpreted doesn't remotely make you right.

So, if you were one of these people, publications, experts, media, etc., where would you go for a prediction or to aid said prediction? That's right, you'd go to polling data. 

And in this case, Clinton was not victorious as mostly predicted. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

From the beginning I was speaking to the prediction from polls, people, experts, publications, media, etc. that predicted a Clinton victory. She was not victorious. Can we agree on that? Or must you frame it to better suit you? 

Except that is not what you said and you are the one now reframing it to suit you.  I posted what you said, verbatim.  You said the polls were wrong.  Spectacularly wrong.  So wrong that you can't believe anyone would could have faith in polling data. Yet the polls were remarkably accurate for what they were intended to measure - the national popular vote.  So the polls, while certainly not perfect, were remarkably reliable.

If you had wanted to make a different argument than the one you made, you could have.  But you didn't.  

[AUDub 11,184]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

It's exactly what he's doing.

He's being intellectually dishonest. It's pretty funny, as he tries to frame himself as a free thinker, what with his "seek truth" avatar and all that. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your argument is that the polls got it wrong.  They didn't. 

You are the one who is now trying to reframe the question. 

BS. Mind reader? LOL

[AUDub 11,184]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

BS. Mind reader? LOL

Word reader. Your words are pretty damning. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Except that is not what you said and you are the one now reframing it to suit you.  I posted what you said, verbatim.  You said the polls were wrong.  Spectacularly wrong.  So wrong that you can't believe anyone would could have faith in polling data. Yet the polls were remarkably accurate for what they were intended to measure - the national popular vote.  So the polls, while certainly not perfect, were remarkably reliable.

If you had wanted to make a different argument than the one you made, you could have.  But you didn't.  

You need to go back and reread my first two post with an open mind. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

Not trying to insert myself into the argument, but weren't there a lot of state polls that were pretty far off? Even outside their margin of error? Like Michigan and Pennsylvania? 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Word reader. Your words are pretty damning. 

Just as I mentioned to Titan, go back and read my first two post.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You need to go back and reread my first two with an open mind. 

I have reread them.  You're spewing bull****.  Stop it.

You may have meant to say something else, but you said what you said and you doubled down on it repeatedly.  

[AUDub 11,184]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

You need to go back and reread my first two with an open mind. 

Yeah, Titan. Don't take his word at face value. Read between the lines. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

5 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

He's being intellectually dishonest. It's pretty funny, as he tries to frame himself as a free thinker, what with his "seek truth" avatar and all that. 

More BS

[AUDub 11,184]

Just now, Barnacle said:

Not trying to insert myself into the argument, but weren't there a lot of state polls that were pretty far off? Even outside their margin of error? Like Michigan and Pennsylvania? 

Yep. And I said as much. Pollsters in the rust belt have some explaining to do. That's why I'm skeptical of the Fox poll I posted earlier. I don't think they know how to poll our state in a competitive race. 

[AUDub 11,184]

9 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Yep. And I said as much. Pollsters in the rust belt have some explaining to do. That's why I'm skeptical of the Fox poll I posted earlier. I don't think they know how to poll our state in a competitive race. 

And for any on a conspiracy bent, I'll admit I dislike Fox tremendously, but their polling staff is separate from their editorial staff. I don't believe for a second that this is a tainted effort to get conservatives to the polls by showing Jones with a big lead. I think it's just questionable methodology. Their polling hasn't been bad otherwise. Just don't think our state is too conducive to what works elsewhere. 

[AUDub 11,184]

12 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

And for any on a conspiracy bent, I'll admit I dislike Fox tremendously, but their polling staff is separate from their editorial staff. I don't believe for a second that this is a tainted effort to get conservatives to the polls by showing Jones with a big lead. I think it's just questionable methodology. Their polling hasn't been bad otherwise. Just don't think our state is too conducive to what works elsewhere. 

The one thing that gives me pause is that the Fox poll much like the WaPo poll that shows Jones ahead, includes people using mobile phones. This is a demographic missed by the polls, and this includes most of the rest, utilizing landline only. The landline polls only tends to skew older, therefore more likely to be Moore  voters. Jones leads by 30 among mobile phone respondents in the Fox poll.

[AUDub 11,184]

Back to our regularly scheduled programming. 

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454542/roy-moore-election-conservative-case-against-him?__twitter_impression=true

There is no good reason for a faithful conservative to support this man.

Partisan politics does strange things to human minds. I continue to see Twitter, Facebook, and my email inbox light up with the most bizarre comparisons. Roy Moore is like Martin Luther King Jr. Moore is like General George S. Patton. Moore is like Thomas Jefferson. In other words, Americans have a long history of tolerating sexual indiscretions for the sake of larger and more important causes. Great men can have feet of clay and still be great men.

There does exist a fascinating moral question, here: To what extent should we honor undeniably brilliant and important men even after we learn of their profound moral failures? The short answer is that we can certainly honor their accomplishments while still recognizing and condemning their failures. The Declaration of Independence is one of the great documents in world history, yet that doesn’t make Jefferson’s reported treatment of his slaves acceptable or tolerable.

But the question of how we remember men like Patton, Jefferson, and King — men whose greatness was known well before many of their sins were disclosed — is completely separate from the question of the day. That question is not whether the people of Alabama should vote for a great man with a serious flaw, but whether the people of Alabama should vote for a terrible man who lacks any redeeming virtue. In fact, Moore is so terrible that the most likely outcome of his elevation to the Senate is direct and important harm to the causes most Alabama Republicans claim to support

Before Americans learned one single thing about Moore’s alleged mistreatment and sexual assault of young girls, they had more than enough information to know that he was unfit for higher office. This was no mystery. He’d been tossed from office twice before, and his record of vicious constitutional ignorance was well known.

Let’s review the facts:

Continue at the link

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

Other thing about the polling here - even though polls are anonymous here, I suspect there are plenty of Alabamians who may not be willing to admit they are voting for Moore, who will vote for him tomorrow. Still think it comes down to how well Jones has gotten the vote out. He's gotten a mixed response from African American voters. I know that he's really turned it on the past week, but his and other Dem's failure to speak to those communities about "kitchen table" issues may cost him. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2016 presidential predictions were overwhelmingly pointing to a Clinton victory.

Those predictions were fueled by polling data. 

If the data "these many, many predictors" utilized was correct, Clinton would be president.  

 

That many here disagree is fine by me. Seriously. 

Later............................................oh and WDE!

 

[AUDub 11,184]

A good breakdown on the polling from Nate Silver. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-hell-is-happening-with-these-alabama-polls/amp/?__twitter_impression=true