MAGA - Trump Accomplishments Thread - Now with links!

[fskimospy]

Huff Post didn't give Hillary a 98%+ chance of winning based on the polls?

HuffPost predictions are not polls. On RCP the polling average and the final results are there for everyone to see. Although actually I was wrong, the RCP final average was Clinton by 3.2 so the polls were actually closer than I gave them credit for.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm interested to see how long you attempt to furiously argue against reality here though, this is pretty amusing.

 

[bshole]

All in all Trump is doing a decent job in pushing his agenda and achieving. AT P&N is in a bubble and won't agree, but he'd easily win again against Hillary today, he likely has MORE pro-Trump voters today than before.

TODAY ..... now what about when the bill comes due? With Shrub it took 7 years for his economic policies to implode the economy. There is a chance for Trump to do it in 4, that remains to be seen. Do conservatives like you have any notion of the future?

Gutting environmental and consumer protections, stacking courts to ensure that these changes are "legal" and stuffing agencies with corporate shills opposed to their existence have massive consequences that take years to materialize. Massive tax fraud schemes intended to gut the middle class, balloon the deficit and enrich the job creators also have massive consequences that will take a few years to hit. You guys are building a monumental shit sandwich which America will have to eat in a few years. When we are eating it you will look at us with a straight face and tell us the Democrats made that sandwich. The shockingly sad part of it is.... you will believe it yourself.

 

[Jaskalas]

TODAY ..... now what about when the bill comes due? With Shrub it took 7 years for his economic policies to implode the economy.

In 1999? Republican Congress, yes. Shrub, No.
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/

 

[Meghan54]

HuffPost predictions are not polls. On RCP the polling average and the final results are there for everyone to see. Although actually I was wrong, the RCP final average was Clinton by 3.2 so the polls were actually closer than I gave them credit for.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm interested to see how long you attempt to furiously argue against reality here though, this is pretty amusing.

As I've been told before, I don't know why you keep banging you head against that wall of his. You've explained this same exact thing to him numerous times, yet it always ends up with him ignoring facts and inventing ones to fit his narrative, despite your best efforts in trying to educate him....a losing proposition in any universe.

 

[Jhhnn]

In 1999? Republican Congress, yes. Shrub, No.
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/

There was a lot more to it than that-

http://investmentmercenaries.blogspot.com/2011/09/bank-regulators-cutting-red-tape-and.html

 

[Jhhnn]

HuffPost predictions are not polls. On RCP the polling average and the final results are there for everyone to see. Although actually I was wrong, the RCP final average was Clinton by 3.2 so the polls were actually closer than I gave them credit for.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm interested to see how long you attempt to furiously argue against reality here though, this is pretty amusing.

That was her winning margin in the popular vote, iirc. Trump is President by dint of anomalous result of the Electoral College, not the Will of the People.

 

[fskimospy]

As I've been told before, I don't know why you keep banging you head against that wall of his. You've explained this same exact thing to him numerous times, yet it always ends up with him ignoring facts and inventing ones to fit his narrative, despite your best efforts in trying to educate him....a losing proposition in any universe.

I find it genuinely interesting to see what contortions he twists himself into in order to try and justify whatever nonsense he's chosen to believe.

 

[woolfe9998]

The national polls were highly accurate for the 2016 election, lol. Some state polls were off, but nobody is discussing state polls here. Color me shocked that when it comes to polling and statistics yet again you have no idea what you're talking about.

Even the inaccuracy of the state polls has been overstated. In Michigan they only had Clinton up by 3, while Trump won it by .5. 3.5 off isn't great but it isn't that terrible either. In PA they had Clinton up by 1 and Trump won by .7. Only in Wisconsin were the polls significantly off (by ~7).

The problem last year wasn't the polls. It was with the people who analyzed the polls and assigned percentiles to the outcome. Those people were biased by their incredulity at Trump winning, but really the poll numbers were pretty close. I was disappointed by not hugely surprised by the outcome.

Slowspyder doesn't seem to understand the difference between polls and people who analyze polls. Or he's pretending not to.

 

[SlowSpyder]

HuffPost predictions are not polls. On RCP the polling average and the final results are there for everyone to see. Although actually I was wrong, the RCP final average was Clinton by 3.2 so the polls were actually closer than I gave them credit for.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm interested to see how long you attempt to furiously argue against reality here though, this is pretty amusing.

Where do you think Huff Post gets their information on how states / people will vote? They based their information off of polls and predicted how the states would end up voting. Again, they were totally off. You keep trying to word smith some kind of denial of reality, and you'll lose every time. REALITY CHECK. Polls and many liberal news outlets had Hillary winning, I saw MSNBC thought Billary could have gotten as many as 370+ electoral votes, the polls assured them! But, here's the reality part you continue to put on a shelf when you make your arguments, TRUMP WON, the polls said he wouldn't, the liberal outlets said he wouldn't. He did though, America spoke, you lost.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Even the inaccuracy of the state polls has been overstated. In Michigan they only had Clinton up by 3, while Trump won it by .5. 3.5 off isn't great but it isn't that terrible either. In PA they had Clinton up by 1 and Trump won by .7. Only in Wisconsin were the polls significantly off (by ~7).

The problem last year wasn't the polls. It was with the people who analyzed the polls and assigned percentiles to the outcome. Those people were biased by their incredulity at Trump winning, but really the poll numbers were pretty close. I was disappointed by not hugely surprised by the outcome.

Slowspyder doesn't seem to understand the difference between polls and people who analyze polls. Or he's pretending not to.

I understand the numbers just fine. The flawed numbers suggested Billary was going to win. The people in the liberal media outlets magnified things due to their agenda and ran with the flawed poll numbers and declared "madam president" before votes were cast. Smug lefties ate crow. Too busy looking at agenda driven numbers vs. looking at the plain reality unfolding in real life.

 

[Thebobo]

All in all Trump is doing a decent job in pushing his agenda and achieving. AT P&N is in a bubble and won't agree, but he'd easily win again against Hillary today, he likely has MORE pro-Trump voters today than before.

And neither would the majority of americans thus his 32 percent approval rating.

 

[brycejones]

Where do you think Huff Post gets their information on how states / people will vote? They based their information off of polls and predicted how the states would end up voting. Again, they were totally off. You keep trying to word smith some kind of denial of reality, and you'll lose every time. REALITY CHECK. Polls and many liberal news outlets had Hillary winning, I saw MSNBC thought Billary could have gotten as many as 370+ electoral votes, the polls assured them! But, here's the reality part you continue to put on a shelf when you make your arguments, TRUMP WON, the polls said he wouldn't, the liberal outlets said he wouldn't. He did though, America lost.

Fixed that last sentence for you.

 

[brycejones]

And neither would the majority of americans thus his 32 percent approval rating.

More liburl lies, the people love Trump, he is the most popular and bestest at presidenting ever. Whoever says otherwise is a commie pinko pc liberal cuck! America is the most respected its ever been by fascists around the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Where do you think Huff Post gets their information on how states / people will vote? They based their information off of polls and predicted how the states would end up voting. Again, they were totally off. You keep trying to word smith some kind of denial of reality, and you'll lose every time. REALITY CHECK. Polls and many liberal news outlets had Hillary winning, I saw MSNBC thought Billary could have gotten as many as 370+ electoral votes, the polls assured them! But, here's the reality part you continue to put on a shelf when you make your arguments, TRUMP WON, the polls said he wouldn't, the liberal outlets said he wouldn't. He did though, America spoke, you lost.

Talk about total projection. You are desperately trying to find a way to convince yourself the national polls were inaccurate despite the fact that I literally linked to you the final RCP poll average as it compared to the actual outcome. They were 1.1 points apart.

There's no escaping reality here.

 

[fskimospy]

Even the inaccuracy of the state polls has been overstated. In Michigan they only had Clinton up by 3, while Trump won it by .5. 3.5 off isn't great but it isn't that terrible either. In PA they had Clinton up by 1 and Trump won by .7. Only in Wisconsin were the polls significantly off (by ~7).

The problem last year wasn't the polls. It was with the people who analyzed the polls and assigned percentiles to the outcome. Those people were biased by their incredulity at Trump winning, but really the poll numbers were pretty close. I was disappointed by not hugely surprised by the outcome.

Slowspyder doesn't seem to understand the difference between polls and people who analyze polls. Or he's pretending not to.

Yeah, the bolded seems like the most likely answer.

That's a good point though, that most of the state polls were pretty close too, especially considering the amount of uncertainty in state polling. As for the models not predicting his victory it seems that everyone except for 538 made a pretty serious error in assuming polling errors aren't correlated across states. That was the basis for 538's ~30% chance of Trump victory, which was basically the probability they assigned to the polls being off by a standard error in Clinton's favor.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Talk about total projection. You are desperately trying to find a way to convince yourself the national polls were inaccurate despite the fact that I literally linked to you the final RCP poll average as it compared to the actual outcome. They were 1.1 points apart.

There's no escaping reality here.

I don't need to "desperately find a way." Reality provided the answer. Polls and leftist news outlets said Billary to win. Reality was that Trump won.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't need to "desperately find a way." Reality provided the answer. Polls and leftist news outlets said Billary to win. Reality was that Trump won.

You implicitly argued that polls shouldn't be trusted because they were inaccurate in the 2016 election. The polls you claimed were inaccurate were within 1.1 points of the actual outcome. That's extremely accurate. You are flailing in desperate reality denial mode right now. There's no escape from the facts that are staring you right in the face.

We all know you're never going to admit you said something dumb no matter how much your nose is rubbed in it, all we're doing right now is seeing how deep a hole you will dig trying to deny it, haha. The other day we got you to scream about how white people are the most oppressed race so I'm hoping for a similar meltdown here. That one was hilarious.

 

[mect]

The feels won't let you say it. President Donald Trump. I didn't ignore the numbers, I pointed out how they were wrong.

Wait, how were the numbers wrong? Please include the raw data and methodology used for the polling so that you can show us how the numbers were wrong.

 

[woolfe9998]

I understand the numbers just fine. The flawed numbers suggested Billary was going to win. The people in the liberal media outlets magnified things due to their agenda and ran with the flawed poll numbers and declared "madam president" before votes were cast. Smug lefties ate crow. Too busy looking at agenda driven numbers vs. looking at the plain reality unfolding in real life.

The numbers were not flawed. Popular vote polling was within a single point. If you describe that as "flawed" then you know nothing about polling. In 2012, the popular vote polling was off by over 2 points in Mitt Romney's favor. No one bothered to call that polling inaccurate but it was less accurate than last year's polling.

 

[zinfamous]

I understand the numbers just fine. The flawed numbers suggested Billary was going to win. The people in the liberal media outlets magnified things due to their agenda and ran with the flawed poll numbers and declared "madam president" before votes were cast. Smug lefties ate crow. Too busy looking at agenda driven numbers vs. looking at the plain reality unfolding in real life.

And so the dotards' war on science continues.

 

[umbrella39]

You implicitly argued that polls shouldn't be trusted because they were inaccurate in the 2016 election. The polls you claimed were inaccurate were within 1.1 points of the actual outcome. That's extremely accurate. You are flailing in desperate reality denial mode right now. There's no escape from the facts that are staring you right in the face.

We all know you're never going to admit you said something dumb no matter how much your nose is rubbed in it, all we're doing right now is seeing how deep a hole you will dig trying to deny it, haha. The other day we got you to scream about how white people are the most oppressed race so I'm hoping for a similar meltdown here. That one was hilarious.

He's just another troll that has tagged in. No matter what truths you post he'll contort, obfuscate, and lie. Not worth the effort...

 

[mect]

The numbers were not flawed. Popular vote polling was within a single point. If you describe that as "flawed" then you know nothing about polling. In 2012, the popular vote polling was off by over 2 points in Mitt Romney's favor. No one bothered to call that polling inaccurate but it was less accurate than last year's polling.

He apparently thinks that if you flip a coin and get 6 heads and 4 tails, that proves a person is wrong if they say there's a 50% chance of flipping heads.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I understand the numbers just fine. The flawed numbers suggested Billary was going to win. The people in the liberal media outlets magnified things due to their agenda and ran with the flawed poll numbers and declared "madam president" before votes were cast. Smug lefties ate crow. Too busy looking at agenda driven numbers vs. looking at the plain reality unfolding in real life.

Have a cigar and calm down. The election was a year ago. To properly continue your work for the well being of Mother Russia you have to concentrate on the present.

 

[SlowSpyder]

He's just another troll that has tagged in. No matter what truths you post he'll contort, obfuscate, and lie. Not worth the effort...

FFS... did liberal media outlet Huff Post suggest Hillary had a 98%+ chance of winning? How did they get the information of which state would vote which way? (Incorrect) Polls.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

FFS... did liberal media outlet Huff Post suggest Hillary had a 98%+ chance of winning? How did they get the information of which state would vote which way? (Incorrect) Polls.

It's almost like watching a slightly more unhinged drumpf post in real time.