It is very uncontroversial to say that Donald Trump is – well – controversial.
The Republican nominee for president has burned bridges with a number of communities: he mocked a reporter with a disability; he attacked the Muslim Gold Star parents of a fallen solider, alienating veterans and veterans’ families as well as Muslim-Americans; his attacks on women are too many to enumerate here, but a couple of highlights include the “grope” video describing how he sexually assaults women as well as his insinuation that moderator Megyn Kelly was perhaps menstruating during a Republican primary debate last year; he has also continuously suggested that black Americans live in some sort of post-apocalyptic hellscape.
Much to the chagrin of the majority of the United States electorate, none of these incidents seemed to dent Trump’s popularity among his support base, which helped reenforce the narrative of a viable Trump campaign by turning out in droves to his speaking events.
But as we edge closer to the end of this historically bizarre (and exceedingly long) election cycle, it appears a near-certainty that Trump will fall to Clinton on November 8. While Republican senate candidates are faring a little better than their toxic presidential nominee, the fact remains that the “Trump effect” has impacted their poll numbers. The result? Democrats are now the cautious favorite to retake the senate, dividing congress and sapping Republicans of the ability to completely stonewall a Clinton administration.
A quick look at the polling map lends some interesting insight into just how divisive Trump has been. Even if they still fall in Trump’s electoral basket come election day, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia have drifted very close to the toss-up column. This is a huge alarm for Republicans, who – following defeat to Barack Obama – drafted a plan to appeal to demographics pushed away by the Republican party’s rhetoric and policy, including millennials and Latin Americans.
Even before Trump’s scorched earth campaign, Republicans were worrying about demographic changes that indicate that traditionally safe conservative states – such as those mentioned above – could become more competitive as soon as the year 2020. This cycle did the party no favors; the political transition underway in conservative states may accelerate as Trump’s strategy of catering to white nationalist voters has alienated large swaths of the population Republicans were eager to mollify.
Republicans’ task of broadening their appeal will only be further complicated by a post-election Trump, who – analysts are suggesting – could use his formidable base and powerful media allies to target GOP leadership for failing to adequately support the pugnacious nominee. This “Republican civil war” could end in a number of ways. Perhaps it will end with a more 21st century party in-tune with contemporary social norms, women’s rights, and climate change. Or, the party could dissolve entirely.
We’ll have to wait and see.
#1: U don't know me To: Willie Green (#0)
I thought it was a near-certainty.
U don't know me posted on 2016-10-27 09:36:40 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Willie Green (#0)
And that's much more important than Trump's plan to seal the border, lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare, fix the VA, increase military spending, get rid of Common Core, term limits for Congress, renegotiate trade deals, increase jobs, an and and two dozen other conservative initiatives.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-27 10:17:50 Reply Private Reply
#3: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#2)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-27 10:25:56 Reply Private Reply
#4: Vicomte13 To: Willie Green (#0)
But if he loses, the GOP is effectively finished and we'll have Democrat rule for the next century. Politics will cease to be interesting or important: the full Democrat agenda will be enacted, and we will live in the country as they want it.
Politics will no longer be a useful place to put one's energy, people with political ambitions will join the Democratic Party, and it will eventually split into two and become the two parties. The Republicans will shrivel up and disappear like the Whigs and Federalists did.
If Trump wins, the GOP will have a new lease on life, as a populist, nationalist party.
The GOP as it CURRENTLY exists is dead no matter who wins. We live in a democracy, and the portion of the population that accepts Republican theories is already too small to win elections.
The GOP will change to formally reflect Trumpism, if he wins. It will go on, as an old party name with a new ideological engine.
If Trump loses, the GOP will still be as it is, but a lot smaller, and it will never win another national election.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 11:17:30 Reply Private Reply
#5: Willie Green To: U don't know me (#1)
Trump a pathetic loser? Yep, it's all over but the cryin'...
But does the GOP recover? Who knows?
Willie Green posted on 2016-10-27 11:26:01 Reply Private Reply
#6: Hank Rearden To: Willie Green (#0)
You know Odumbasscare and the Middle East War will all of a sudden be "Trump's fault!" otherwise.
Hank Rearden posted on 2016-10-27 11:40:15 Reply Private Reply
#7: redleghunter To: Vicomte13 (#4)
This top forecaster agrees with you. He is accurate but the outlier opinion this go around.
It’s not over yet: Donald Trump will win, says top forecaster
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/world/not-yet-donald-trump-will-win-says- top-forecaster/
redleghunter posted on 2016-10-27 11:54:33 Reply Private Reply
#8: Vicomte13 To: redleghunter (#7)
Everybody who has lost his job to China or to Mexican immigration is going to vote for Trump. That is why Trump is going to win. The Republicans will vote for him, and everybody screwed by free trade and open borders will vote for him. And that is all that it will take to flip over the Rust Belt states.
Trump will take Michigan.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 14:35:03 Reply Private Reply
#9: redleghunter To: Vicomte13 (#8)
redleghunter posted on 2016-10-27 15:11:25 Reply Private Reply
#10: Stoner To: Willie Green, all (#0)
A better question is:
" After Trump Wins, What's Next For Willie & Hondo? "
Probably suicide !
Stoner posted on 2016-10-27 16:08:13 Reply Private Reply
#11: A K A Stone To: Willie Green (#0)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-10-27 16:13:25 Reply Private Reply
#12: ConservingFreedom To: Vicomte13 (#4)
"Brexit? Even that comparison doesn’t really work. The final polls showed a toss-up between the United Kingdom leaving the European Union or remaining in it, and “leave” eventually won by 4 points. If the polls were biased against Trump by that much in this election, he’d still lose, by a margin approximating the one by which Mitt Romney lost to President Obama four years ago." - fivethirtyeight.com
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-27 16:40:25 Reply Private Reply
#13: CZ82 To: A K A Stone (#11)
CZ82 posted on 2016-10-27 16:40:44 Reply Private Reply
#14: Vicomte13 To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 16:47:01 Reply Private Reply
#15: ConservingFreedom To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-27 16:50:40 Reply Private Reply
#16: A K A Stone To: CZ82 (#13)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-10-27 16:52:31 Reply Private Reply
#17: rlk To: Willie Green (#0)
If Hillary wins and we get four more years of malignant subversive counterculturism, what's next for the nation?
rlk posted on 2016-10-27 16:55:25 Reply Private Reply
#18: Vinny To: Willie Green (#5)
Vinny posted on 2016-10-27 17:00:53 Reply Private Reply
#19: Hondo68 To: Stoner, Hillary shill, NWO stooge, Chuck Schumer, very pro choice, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#10)
Continue to fight the Hillary stooge, Transgender Trump.
Hondo68 posted on 2016-10-27 17:01:41 Reply Private Reply
#20: CZ82 To: rlk (#17)
We'll have even more loser Leftards to babysit.
CZ82 posted on 2016-10-27 17:03:22 Reply Private Reply
#21: CZ82 To: A K A Stone (#16)
CZ82 posted on 2016-10-27 17:06:03 Reply Private Reply
#22: Vicomte13 To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
Not all of them.
But it's good that there is no sale. Because if Trump wins, my ability to see through the fog will have been very strongly established.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 17:18:49 Reply Private Reply
#23: Vicomte13 To: rlk (#17)
100 years of Democrat rule. If she wins, she controls the Supreme Court, and then Congress is rendered an afterthought.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 17:19:58 Reply Private Reply
#24: ConservingFreedom To: Vicomte13 (#22)
Since mid-September, only one pollster has ever shown a Trump lead.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-27 17:30:25 Reply Private Reply
#25: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Your predictions are pretty silly sometimes.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-10-27 17:43:20 Reply Private Reply
#26: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
You are misinformed Tooconservative.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-10-27 17:43:54 Reply Private Reply
#27: Vicomte13 To: A K A Stone (#25)
I don't make many predictions. I do comment a lot, and say what the long-term effects will be. But long-term is hard to show in the here and now.
Anyway, Trump will win because more than half of the country has been made poor, and they want it to stop. Trump's the only one who has spoken straight to them, and offers policies that THEY want. So he will get the surge from them and win.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 18:49:58 Reply Private Reply
#28: GrandIsland To: Vicomte13 (#27)
The "poor" are who Trump should fear most. Today's poor would rather live like smelly scumbags and DEPEND on government then work hard for something more.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-10-27 20:15:34 Reply Private Reply
#29: Vicomte13 To: GrandIsland (#28)
If Trump were a standard Republican, that would be true. But it isn't, He - unlike standard Republicans - understands that most of the poor are made poor by the lack of jobs, and that this comes from so-called "free" trade shutting down factories, and from uncontrolled immigration undercutting the wage of the American worker.
Rebalance the trade rules and stop the illegal immigration, and American manufacturing will have to reopen to provide the jobs here, and illegals will not be able to hold the jobs Americans should have. Poverty will go down, employment will go up. That is Trump's approach, and it is not Republican.
Republicans love "free" trade, because those savings on offshoring labor go to the top as profits, instead of the workers as wages. The government then has to deal with the unemployed poor. Trump is aiming at forcing American employers to use Americans to make goods sold in the American market. That s not traditional Republicanism. It is economic nationalism, and it is the reason that Trump won the nomination and will win the election.
Once he does, it is the reason that the Republican Party power structure will change, as the party moves downscale and becomes a middle class party instead of a party of the rich. The rich will not like this, and the Bushes and Romneys will scream about it. But they will have lost control of the party to Trump and the broad middle class whose needs Trump's policies will address. Class warfare will be out in the GOP, and moving to primarily represent the interests of the middle and working class will be in. Instead of handing over their excess profits in redistributive taxes, the top 1% will be handing them over in the form of wages and benefits. And that is much better for everybody, including the very rich, because the temptation to see their own countrymen as mere commodities that can be cast aside for foreigners will have had its wings clipped.
Americans should be looking out for Americans. Rich Americans should be employing Americans, not Chinese and Mexicans. We have to look after our own first. The rich have forgotten that and tried to fly away into a "global economy". Trump is here to yank them back down to earth and remind them where they came from, and who they have to look out for besides just themselves.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-28 04:23:36 Reply Private Reply
#30: ConservingFreedom To: A K A Stone (#26)
Please educate me - what are the other recent polls that have shown a Trump lead?
(My sources are Realclearpolitics and Fivethirtyeight ... what are yours?)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 11:29:59 Reply Private Reply
#31: Gatlin To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#26)
Polls are not always correct:
ROTFL ...Gatlin posted on 2016-10-28 11:40:12 Reply Private Reply
#32: ConservingFreedom To: Gatlin (#31)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 11:58:31 Reply Private Reply
#33: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...s/301834-poll-trump-up-1- on-clinton-nationally
hotair.com/archives/2016/...nal-poll-trump-ahead-one- point-4140/
www.westernjournalism.com...trump-moves-past-clinton- to-claim-the-lead/
There are a few there are more.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-10-28 15:16:37 Reply Private Reply
#34: ConservingFreedom To: A K A Stone (#33)
Those are two stories on the same poll. But your larger point is correct: looking at RCP's more-than-2-candidate polls, and sorting 538 by date as I originally failed to do :-[ , there have been a handful of pollsters who at some point have shown Trump with a narrow lead.
I continue to not buy that with those few exceptions, every one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 15:43:27 Reply Private Reply
#35: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
When has push-polling and misrepresenting poll results ever hurt their brand?
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:27:13 Reply Private Reply
#36: Roscoe To: Gatlin (#31)
But Gallop would never hurt their "brand."
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:29:47 Reply Private Reply
#37: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#36)
One or a few pollsters might - but dozens?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 16:34:17 Reply Private Reply
#38: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#35)
When have pollsters ever released the results of push-polls as real results ... or, indeed, released them at all?
Misrepresenting accurate results wouldn't affect their reps as providers of accurate results.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 16:37:27 Reply Private Reply
#39: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#37)
Your "brand' argument is self-serving nonsense.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:37:57 Reply Private Reply
#40: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#37)
"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'" --The problem with polls
Put some ice on it.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 16:52:31 Reply Private Reply
#41: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#39)
Those who purchase, or heed, their results - by ceasing to do so.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 17:29:19 Reply Private Reply
#42: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#40)
Leads with a general underestimation of a Rat victory, and does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.
Put some ice on it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 17:37:11 Reply Private Reply
#43: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
You mean like they did after Michigan?
Epic fail.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 19:00:06 Reply Private Reply
#44: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#42)
"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'"
Liar. You were spewing "brand" nonsense.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-28 19:02:19 Reply Private Reply
#45: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#43)
Straws. Camels.
Apparently you're the pussy Trump wants to grab.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 22:38:13 Reply Private Reply
#46: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#44)
Me, post #15: "Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale."
The liar is, as always, you.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-28 22:39:27 Reply Private Reply
#47: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
You argued that bad forecasts would damage their brand, therefore they wouldn't deliberately produce such results. I can understand why would want to flee your premise, to the point of pretending is wasn't your actual argument.
I've already demolished your brand premise, showing massive large scale bad polling results. Your premise demolished, you crawled back then to your invalid conclusion. The logic abilities of a tpaine.
Let's review: "Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points."
You haven't shown that those massive bad results damaged any of those pollsters brands. When you take a break from sniffing Hillary's cunt, would you like to at least try to address your "brand" premise that crashed and burned so spectacularly?
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 05:38:16 Reply Private Reply
#48: CZ82 To: Willie Green (#0)
CZ82 posted on 2016-10-29 08:47:58 Reply Private Reply
#49: Willie Green To: CZ82 (#48)
Willie Green posted on 2016-10-29 10:53:09 Reply Private Reply
#50: Roscoe To: CZ82 (#48)
After losing the race for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton retired and spent her final sad days puttering around in her garden. She jealously noticed that her even more elderly neighbor, Bernie Sanders, had a garden full of big healthy red tomatoes, but that her tomatoes were all sickly and green. She finally asked Bernie for his gardening secret, and he told her, "Every morning I expose myself in my garden and the tomatoes turn red from embarrassment." For the next few weeks Hillary followed Bernie's example in her own garden, but without the results she hoped for. Not only did her tomatoes stay sickly and green, all of her cucumbers shrank.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 10:59:49 Reply Private Reply
#51: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#47)
One primary is not "large scale." You want to believe that pollsters saw in their surviving their blown 2014 a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please, you go ahead and believe that.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 16:04:17 Reply Private Reply
#52: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
"...the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points."
You pathetic cunt sniffing liar.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 17:50:48 Reply Private Reply
#53: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample.
Weasel.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:27:37 Reply Private Reply
#54: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#52)
I object to your description!
It's more accurate to say, "You condescending cunt sniffing liar".
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:30:53 Reply Private Reply
#55: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#54)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 18:38:08 Reply Private Reply
#56: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
The Tribune is still in business, pumping out liberal lies.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:44:04 Reply Private Reply
#57: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#55)
Yeah ... well.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 18:44:52 Reply Private Reply
#58: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#56)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 18:46:01 Reply Private Reply
#59: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#53)
I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 19:00:22 Reply Private Reply
#60: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#56)
And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please? You go ahead and believe that if you want.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 19:03:41 Reply Private Reply
#61: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-29 19:04:59 Reply Private Reply
#62: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#61)
Take your horse fantasies elsewhere.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 19:09:41 Reply Private Reply
#63: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Pollsters, weather forecasters and union members -- all bulletproof.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-29 20:44:05 Reply Private Reply
#64: Vinny To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Vinny posted on 2016-10-29 21:58:24 Reply Private Reply
#65: ConservingFreedom To: Vinny (#64)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 22:44:31 Reply Private Reply
#66: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#63)
They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-29 22:48:12 Reply Private Reply
#67: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#63)
You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 01:30:17 Reply Private Reply
#68: Vinny To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
My words do mean something. The Constitution Party that you keep pushing was registered in 44 states in 2012 and received app. 2700 votes in each of those states. More people attend one Friday night HS football game than vote for the CP. Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.
Vinny posted on 2016-10-30 09:44:17 Reply Private Reply
#69: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#67)
No, Great and Powerul! Not at all! I ... uh ... was referring to weather. That's it! Weather. Not climate change.
I do believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do! I do! I do!
How about if I come back tomorrow?
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:40:49 Reply Private Reply
#70: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
My point is, when they are wrong it's never held against them.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:45:07 Reply Private Reply
#71: misterwhite To: Vinny (#68)
Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:47:52 Reply Private Reply
#72: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#59)
You use the word and when you do others apply that definition. You need to either explain your word or use another. People may begin to think you're being disingenuous.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 10:53:29 Reply Private Reply
#73: Vinny To: misterwhite (#71)
They might as well write in Pat Paulsen.
Vinny posted on 2016-10-30 12:18:45 Reply Private Reply
#74: misterwhite To: Vinny (#73)
My uncle!
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 12:42:46 Reply Private Reply
#75: Pericles To: Willie Green (#0)
Pericles posted on 2016-10-30 13:49:04 Reply Private Reply
#76: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#72)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 15:09:49 Reply Private Reply
#77: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#76)
With Comey's announcement they now have the excuse to show the true polling results.
"Trump was down 20 points but, given this newest FBI revelation, he's now up by 6."
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 15:24:39 Reply Private Reply
#78: ConservingFreedom To: Vinny (#68)
Oh, you think I support them with the idea they might win ... how very stupid of you.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:14:11 Reply Private Reply
#79: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#72)
Anyone besides you?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:15:52 Reply Private Reply
#80: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#76)
"Mrs. Clinton would have actually led in The Upshot’s survey if it, like most others, didn’t weight by party registration."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:23:31 Reply Private Reply
#81: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#70)
They must fear it might be, else why bother to attempt to be accurate?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 18:24:50 Reply Private Reply
#82: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#80)
YOU claimed there was NO bias because bad forecasts would damage their BRAND.
You're too dim to see you're now attacking your own previous position.
Cucks are dumb.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 19:25:20 Reply Private Reply
#83: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#81)
Weather forecasters attempt to be accurate out of fear?
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 19:42:47 Reply Private Reply
#84: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#83)
They're afraid of ManBearPig.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 19:45:32 Reply Private Reply
#85: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#79)
Whoever read my post.
Not you, of course. You have your own secret definition.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 19:48:56 Reply Private Reply
#86: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#84)
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-30 19:52:32 Reply Private Reply
#87: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#86)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 20:00:35 Reply Private Reply
#88: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#85)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-30 20:07:13 Reply Private Reply
#89: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#82)
Reread "any 'bias'" - move your lips if it helps.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 22:26:00 Reply Private Reply
#90: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#83)
Fear of market failure ... desire to avoid market failure ... call it what you will.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 22:28:40 Reply Private Reply
#91: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#85)
Can you offer any reason to believe that? Smells like bullshit from here.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 22:29:50 Reply Private Reply
#92: Vinny To: ConservingFreedom (#78)
I realize you don't support them thinking that they can win, after all they get 0.09% of the national vote.
Your support is more of a brain malfunction thingie.
Vinny posted on 2016-10-30 22:36:59 Reply Private Reply
#93: ConservingFreedom To: Vinny (#92)
And yet you post to me evidence of what you know I already know. Sounds like a brain malfunction.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 22:51:43 Reply Private Reply
#94: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#88)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-30 23:55:32 Reply Private Reply
#95: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#94)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-31 06:26:07 Reply Private Reply
#96: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#90)
Ah! I see.
So some weather forecasters have been fired because they were wrong? TV stations closed because their weatherman caused "market failure"?
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-31 09:52:19 Reply Private Reply
#97: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#91)
Sure. It's the definition of accuracy. Given the data, they produce an accurate report.
As I said before, it's not at all representative of the electorate but it does allow you (and them) to say it's accurate.
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-31 09:57:45 Reply Private Reply
#98: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#96)
Weather forecaster Philippe Verdier was fired for publicly questioning Global Warming. IOW, fired for NOT being wrong.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-31 09:59:26 Reply Private Reply
#99: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#97)
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-31 10:00:18 Reply Private Reply
#100: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#98)
I can't remember. Back in the 70's when there was GLOBAL COOLING, were liberals telling us to produce more atmospheric carbon to "save the planet"?
misterwhite posted on 2016-10-31 10:30:18 Reply Private Reply
#101: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#96)
I've seen weather forecasters replaced; the reasons have never been disclosed to me. If you're position is that weather forecasters and pollsters feel they have blank checks to predict any damn thing they please, you're welcome to it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-31 14:59:15 Reply Private Reply
#102: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#95)
Which proves what ... that John Wayne Gacy's employer may be held to have paid him to commit his crimes?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-31 15:01:13 Reply Private Reply
#103: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#97)
Not according to the first two definitions from http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/accurate:
: free from mistakes or errors : able to produce results that are correct : not making mistakes
Where have I claimed that any particular results are accurate? (Free clue: not in the quoted text above where I addressed the irrelevance of "misrepresentation" to the question at hand.)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-10-31 15:09:03 Reply Private Reply
#104: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#102)
It has nothing to do with your hero John Wayne Gacy.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-31 16:00:13 Reply Private Reply
#105: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#101)
And you're so proud of your ignorance that you just had to share it.
Roscoe posted on 2016-10-31 16:01:49 Reply Private Reply