Another Presidential Poll Late June 2016

[lopri]

The fact is that the middle class has been shit on for decades and by BOTH parties. It wasn't always this way, however, up until the early 90's the Dems actually made some efforts to protect the middle class as that was there base, but Bill Clinton paved the way for the Dems to get the big money and in order to get the big money the Dems needed to support policies they had previously been against -- policies that favor the leisure class and fuck the middle class!

There may be some truth to it, but do you know how many Democratic presidents came before Clinton since the 70's? What does that say about American politics as well as your (myopic) criticism on Clinton?

 

[ivwshane]

Where the fuck do you get off pretending to know who I'm for in this election -- the answer is NO ONE! I am not a Donald Duck supporter!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact is that the middle class has been shit on for decades and by BOTH parties. It wasn't always this way, however, up until the early 90's the Dems actually made some efforts to protect the middle class as that was there base, but Bill Clinton paved the way for the Dems to get the big money and in order to get the big money the Dems needed to support policies they had previously been against -- policies that favor the leisure class and fuck the middle class!

So, take you preconceived notions about who I support and shove it!


Brian

I'm sure you realize that the last time the middle class (all classes actually) saw a rise in median income was under bill Clinton, right? Because I'm sure you aren't one of those idiots who think both sides are the same.

 

[compuwiz1]

I'm sure you realize that the last time the middle class (all classes actually) saw a rise in median income was under bill Clinton, right? Because I'm sure you aren't one of those idiots who think both sides are the same.

I'm sure you remember that both houses of congress were controlled by republicans at that time too, don't you?

Things have changed. The reason congress doesn't get anything done is because they don't work for the people anymore.....and they are different sides of the same coin, while publicly acting otherwise. People that think putting the Clintons back in the White House is going to be, like a reset, or something backwards, are fooling themselves. Since they left the White House, they have become more self serving and power hungry. Go on, elect her....you'll see. It'll be a disaster. I'd bet that we go from 19T in debt to 30+ in her first term. The next president is going to war, no matter who it is. We'll have a nuclear Iran and NK to deal with.

 

[emperus]

I'm sure you remember that both houses of congress were controlled by republicans at that time too, don't you?

Things have changed. The reason congress doesn't get anything done is because they don't work for the people anymore.....and they are different sides of the same coin, while publicly acting otherwise. People that think putting the Clintons back in the White House is going to be, like a reset, or something backwards, are fooling themselves. Since they left the White House, they have become more self serving and power hungry. Go on, elect her....you'll see. It'll be a disaster. I'd bet that we go from 19T in debt to 30+ in her first term. The next president is going to war, no matter who it is. We'll have a nuclear Iran and NK to deal with.

Nice straw man argument. Most people who will vote for Hilary, believe the Democratic party has a better track record standing up for workers and the middle class. It's that simple. I at least am voting for the collective policies of two parties. I think both nominees will stray but will be curtailed by their parties. There is nothing in the last 50 years that leads me to believe that the Republicans are a credible populist party. Really, what have they done for the middle class? As Obama said in his rant, you just cant start calling yourself a populist when in your whole life you've been working against the very things very things you now want to be.

 

[sm625]

I'm sure you realize that the last time the middle class (all classes actually) saw a rise in median income was under bill Clinton, right? Because I'm sure you aren't one of those idiots who think both sides are the same.

The tech bubble was responsible for most of that, and it happened in spite of Clinton and his NAFTA. In the 90's, tech actually created jobs because we had 30% more of a manufacturing base compared to now. Since then, we have crossed the threshold where tech actually destroys jobs (not counting meaningless waiter/bartender/walmart greeter type jobs.)

 

[dullard]

I ran basic stat formulas on the numbers and I came up with 5 out of 8 polls having outliers in them. None in the 2012 final 9 polls. This poll in the OP has an outlier in it and that is with Hillary's support.

I suspect you are mixing two different types of polls.

1) The polls where you MUST choose Clinton or Trump tend to have Clinton in the lead, just above 50% and Trump in the high 40s.
2) The polls, like the one in the original post of this thread, where you can choose "other", "don't know", or "not voting" tend to have Clinton in the lower 40s and Trump in the 30s.

Don't mix the two when you do your "basic stat formulas" searching for an outlier.

Here is an example. Suppose a hypothetical population-adjusted poll had 400 Clinton, 350 Trump and 250 for "not voting". There are a total of 1000 poll answers, so it would say that Clinton is at 400/1000 = 40%, Trump is at 350 / 1000 = 35%, and Clinton has a 5% lead. But, that same poll could have excluded the people who aren't voting, because well, they aren't voting. Thus, with the exact same poll you could do a press release saying that Clinton is at 400 / 750 = 53% and Trump is at 350 / 750 = 47%, with Clinton in a 6% lead.

Same hypothetical poll, but one version puts Clinton at 40% and the other at 53%. Some polls release the first number, some polls release the second number as their headline number. There is a stronger than normal third party and not voting group this time around, thus you have to be more careful when doing the math looking for outliers.

 

[alien42]

not counting meaningless waiter/bartender/walmart greeter type jobs.

those jobs are anything but meaningless to the Americans working them to earn a paycheck.

why do you feel the need to take a shit on hard working Americans?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm sure you realize that the last time the middle class (all classes actually) saw a rise in median income was under bill Clinton, right? Because I'm sure you aren't one of those idiots who think both sides are the same.

Agreed. Hillary isn't an exciting candidate but why do we all ignore that we had better lives under the last Clinton Presidency. What evidence is there that Hillary would ignore any suggestion from Bill.

 

[DrPizza]

You need to be more rigorous than that. What does "significantly different" mean? When it gets into grey areas, how do you tell the difference between an outlier and something within expected values?

I ran basic stat formulas on the numbers and I came up with 5 out of 8 polls having outliers in them. None in the 2012 final 9 polls. This poll in the OP has an outlier in it and that is with Hillary's support.

wtf kind of math is this where 5 out of 8 are outliers?


Incidentally, what is your math background? Bachelor's degree? Master's degree? Do you have any graduate credit hours in statistics? Or, are you just making shit up?

 

[DrPizza]

No I can't. I don't simply assume different data is an outlier to be ignored and discarded.
I wish my analytical chemistry prof was as loose with outliers as you guys seem to be. Just throwing out the "its an outlier" just bothers me, maybe my non 4.0 in that lab has scarred me beyond repair. It being different wasn't a good enough reason to discard the data point and my calculations were off because of it.

Who said outliers were automatically ignored and discarded? Sometimes you can learn from outliers. They should never be ignored and discarded! At least, not at first. Apparently, your operational definition of an outlier is "a piece of data that is automatically ignored and discarded because it is different."

 

[TheGardener]

I suspect you are mixing two different types of polls.

1) The polls where you MUST choose Clinton or Trump tend to have Clinton in the lead, just above 50% and Trump in the high 40s.
2) The polls, like the one in the original post of this thread, where you can choose "other", "don't know", or "not voting" tend to have Clinton in the lower 40s and Trump in the 30s.

Don't mix the two when you do your "basic stat formulas" searching for an outlier.

You are half right and wrong on your conclustion. The new Rasmussen Poll which just came out, includes 12% of likely US voters, who like another candidate and 5% undecided. And Trump has 43% compared to Clinton at 39%. Where oh where has that double digital Clinton lead gone? Oh where oh where?

So unlike your unsubstantiated claims that Trump would be hurt by better poll options, it turns out that it is Clinton who is getting substantially hurt by adding in more choices. It is Clinton who loses potential votes to the Green and Libertarian parties. I'll post my citation from Rasmussen here, where is yours?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

There are those Clinton supporters who are going to whine about my posting the Rasmussen poll here, because someone started another poll thread. Given that you complained about my alleged cherry picking, I'm showing you that this is not the case. But I expect you'll find something to whine about anyway. Whine away.

 

[buckshot24]

wtf kind of math is this where 5 out of 8 are outliers?

Only three of the eight polls had no outliers for either candidate according to being "1.5 times the interquartile range above Q3 or below Q1".

Incidentally, what is your math background?

My background doesn't have anything to do with the calculations. I took one course of stats and don't claim any expertise. I took many physics and calculus courses, never liked stats.

Bachelor's degree? Master's degree? Do you have any graduate credit hours in statistics? Or, are you just making shit up?

You don't need graduate statistics for this stuff.

 

[buckshot24]

Did you guys see all the polls that came out today? Que locura!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

 

[emperus]

Only three of the eight polls had no outliers for either candidate according to being "1.5 times the interquartile range above Q3 or below Q1".
My background doesn't have anything to do with the calculations. I took one course of stats and don't claim any expertise. I took many physics and calculus courses, never liked stats.
You don't need graduate statistics for this stuff.

This may be helpful
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Outliers

But seriously, check out this page and see if you can find the outliers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

 

[buckshot24]

This may be helpful
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Outliers

That is the method I used.

But seriously, check out this page and see if you can find the outliers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

They are all over the place.

 

[BxgJ]

Huh, last poll here in Texas a few days ago only has Trump +8, Trump 41 Clinton 33. Other was 19 and undecided 8.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/poll-trump-leads-clinton-8-texas/

 

[buckshot24]

I suspect you are mixing two different types of polls.

1) The polls where you MUST choose Clinton or Trump tend to have Clinton in the lead, just above 50% and Trump in the high 40s.
2) The polls, like the one in the original post of this thread, where you can choose "other", "don't know", or "not voting" tend to have Clinton in the lower 40s and Trump in the 30s.

Don't mix the two when you do your "basic stat formulas" searching for an outlier.

Here is an example. Suppose a hypothetical population-adjusted poll had 400 Clinton, 350 Trump and 250 for "not voting". There are a total of 1000 poll answers, so it would say that Clinton is at 400/1000 = 40%, Trump is at 350 / 1000 = 35%, and Clinton has a 5% lead. But, that same poll could have excluded the people who aren't voting, because well, they aren't voting. Thus, with the exact same poll you could do a press release saying that Clinton is at 400 / 750 = 53% and Trump is at 350 / 750 = 47%, with Clinton in a 6% lead.

Same hypothetical poll, but one version puts Clinton at 40% and the other at 53%. Some polls release the first number, some polls release the second number as their headline number. There is a stronger than normal third party and not voting group this time around, thus you have to be more careful when doing the math looking for outliers.

Good points. I re-did the numbers only using the proportion of votes between the two candidates to try and normalize the results. There were no outliers in Hillary support and one for Trump (Rasmussen).

 

[Brian Stirling]

1.) Calm down and reread what I wrote. "You" refers to those who want change for the middle class and vote for Trump of the Republican party.

2.) You weren't surprised the polls would close (it's debatable they have) after Brexit. But why? Why would anybody who genuinely cares about the middle class vote for Trump?

3.) You engaging in more false equivalencies. The Republican party has been far worse than the Democratic party. People like the Clintons I consider Republican lite. Their craziness pulls the center far right, that the Clintons are considered center of the road.

The one jumping to conclusions was you and by you I mean YOU.

Until Bill Clinton the Dems did offer a counter to the business minded fuck the middle class sentiments of the Republicans, but since BC the D's no longer provide that counter and instead are equal players in the fuck the middle class game.

In 2012 Obama received about $250M more for the campaign than Romney. Hillary is likely to outspend Trump by at least 2X in this election.

We have plenty of folks on this very board who talk a good game about being Progressives/Dems/Liberals but are OK with the corporate bent the Democratic party has taken since BC. The most common swill I hear from those on the left when someone like me lumps them in with the middle class killing policies of the right is to claim "false equivalence". There's nothing false about it!


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

There may be some truth to it, but do you know how many Democratic presidents came before Clinton since the 70's? What does that say about American politics as well as your (myopic) criticism on Clinton?

And without the D's adopting the money grab game that Clinton engineered it's likely we would have had an even longer period without a Democratic president. So, the question is ... is it OK to fuck the middle class as a way to get an invite to the money trough?

Assuming the D's had not gone the money game it's likely there would have been a political revolution by now, but instead that revolution will be deferred and the consequence far worse. If the dam finally breaks in 5 years or 25 years it's likely we will see bloodletting the like of which the world hasn't seen since WWII and make no mistake, we are headed for one.


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

I'm sure you realize that the last time the middle class (all classes actually) saw a rise in median income was under bill Clinton, right? Because I'm sure you aren't one of those idiots who think both sides are the same.

The Clinton presidency was not all of one thing and to his credit he managed things better than Bush or Bush. He did benefit from several things that he managed to be president when it happened: first, the PC which had been more of a novelty actually began to make a difference just about the time he took office; second, the internet, which had its start in the early 70's under DARPA, also finally hit it big time and ushered in many new business opportunities. Of course, some (a lot) of that run up was speculation and the decade ended with that bubble bursting.

But, along with the good (balanced budget) came the bad of selling out the middle class. The balanced budget was short lived, but the crushing of the middle class goes on and on and on...


Brian

 

[umbrella39]

Huh, last poll here in Texas a few days ago only has Trump +8, Trump 41 Clinton 33. Other was 19 and undecided 8.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/poll-trump-leads-clinton-8-texas/

As if Hillary would ever take Texas. State polls from non battle ground States are about useless...

 

[jackstar7]

As if Hillary would ever take Texas. State polls from non battle ground States are about useless...

Though it's worth noting that in that case, if some of the undecideds swing her way and then apply margin of error and she has a chance in Texas. The right VP pick could also swing things her way there, too... and suddenly if TX is a swing state... electoral landslide starts to look possible. And the down-ticket voting gets more interesting as well.

 

[dullard]

Though it's worth noting that in that case, if some of the undecideds swing her way and then apply margin of error and she has a chance in Texas. The right VP pick could also swing things her way there, too... and suddenly if TX is a swing state... electoral landslide starts to look possible. And the down-ticket voting gets more interesting as well.

Texas will become a swing state after a few more elections (assuming demographic changes keep occurring as they have been). This particular election seems like a bit too much of a stretch at this point. 538 has it marked as only a 26.6% chance right now.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/texas/

 

[sm625]

those jobs are anything but meaningless to the Americans working them to earn a paycheck.

why do you feel the need to take a shit on hard working Americans?

They can clean it up afterwards. It's what they do. And speaking of crap, dont give me any crap about "hard working" Americans. If they were really hard working, they wouldnt have stood around with their thumbs up their butts and let Wall Street, Billy Boy, Bumbling Bush, and OBozo ship away all the real jobs. And they sure as hell wouldnt be lining up to vote for another 4 years of it.

 

[alien42]

They can clean it up afterwards. It's what they do. And speaking of crap, dont give me any crap about "hard working" Americans. If they were really hard working, they wouldnt have stood around with their thumbs up their butts and let Wall Street, Billy Boy, Bumbling Bush, and OBozo ship away all the real jobs. And they sure as hell wouldnt be lining up to vote for another 4 years of it.

you are possibly the most mentally challenged poster on this forum. btw, that doesn't excuse your hatred for America and hard working Americans.