Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Pointing it Out! wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Well you've proven to be pretty poor with numbers in the past (candidate debate thread), so we shouldn't be surprised here. But if you look at the national polls, they were not what most would call "accurate." They were somewhat "precise", and "more accurate than state polls", but truly not accurate by any means.

You had 10 of 11 polls showing Clinton winning. Of those 10, only 1 was at +2. And just 2 were at +3. 6 were at +4. And one was at +6.

So across those 10 polls, the average was 3.8.

The one IBD outlier comes in and shows Trump at +2. So that brings the average down to the 3.3.

3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good. It's better than being 5 or more off like many of the state polls, but it's truly not accurate by any definition of the word.

Wow, are you really that stupid? Or is that just some sort of act?

So, if the actual margin had been 0.1% while the polls had shown a 0.5% margin in the same direction then by your reasoning the polls would have been off of the actual result of 0.1 by a factor of 5.00 (or "400% larger than 0.1")!!! Holy smokes, that would have been worthless polling, no?

Can you really be that stupid? Is it even possible? Do they really make people who apparently have a negative IQ?

Pointing it Out! wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Well you've proven to be pretty poor with numbers in the past (candidate debate thread), so we shouldn't be surprised here. But if you look at the national polls, they were not what most would call "accurate." They were somewhat "precise", and "more accurate than state polls", but truly not accurate by any means.

You had 10 of 11 polls showing Clinton winning. Of those 10, only 1 was at +2. And just 2 were at +3. 6 were at +4. And one was at +6.

So across those 10 polls, the average was 3.8.

The one IBD outlier comes in and shows Trump at +2. So that brings the average down to the 3.3.

3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good. It's better than being 5 or more off like many of the state polls, but it's truly not accurate by any definition of the word.

Wow, are you really that stupid? Or is that just some sort of act?

So, if the actual margin had been 0.1% while the polls had shown a 0.5% margin in the same direction then by your reasoning the polls would have been off of the actual result of 0.1 by a factor of 5.00 (or "400% larger than 0.1")!!! Holy smokes, that would have been worthless polling, no?

Can you really be that stupid? Is it even possible? Do they really make people who apparently have a negative IQ?

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Pointing it Out! wrote:

Wow, are you really that stupid? Or is that just some sort of act?

So, if the actual margin had been 0.1% while the polls had shown a 0.5% margin in the same direction then by your reasoning the polls would have been off of the actual result of 0.1 by a factor of 5.00 (or "400% larger than 0.1")!!! Holy smokes, that would have been worthless polling, no?

Can you really be that stupid? Is it even possible? Do they really make people who apparently have a negative IQ?

So you type 7 sentences. 5 of which are attacks, 1 is a sarcastic question, and in the 1 where you try to make a qualitative point, you fumble it badly. Bravo!

Agip used the term "cold clear accuracy" when describing the national polling data. That is simply not the case. This isn't a single poll we're talking about where one can say "well, 4 is close to 2." We're talking about many, many polls, with most showing at least +4 for HRC. In the final 2-3 weeks they looked even more ridiculous, with some topping +10!!

If 90% of the polls are showing someone winning by 4 or more, and the actual result ends up only +2, I can guarantee the polling institutes themselves would not claim that they were "accurate" in their polling.

Learn what standard deviation and confidence intervals are and get back to me on if the poling was "accurate."

Pointing it Out! wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

So you type 7 sentences. 5 of which are attacks, 1 is a sarcastic question, and in the 1 where you try to make a qualitative point, you fumble it badly. Bravo!

Agip used the term "cold clear accuracy" when describing the national polling data. That is simply not the case. This isn't a single poll we're talking about where one can say "well, 4 is close to 2." We're talking about many, many polls, with most showing at least +4 for HRC. In the final 2-3 weeks they looked even more ridiculous, with some topping +10!!

If 90% of the polls are showing someone winning by 4 or more, and the actual result ends up only +2, I can guarantee the polling institutes themselves would not claim that they were "accurate" in their polling.

Learn what standard deviation and confidence intervals are and get back to me on if the poling was "accurate."

Wow, so you are going to double down on stupid, huh? Good for you.

This is what you said, is it not?

"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."

Are you really too stupid to realize how absurd that is? Seriously?

Here's another example for you, on the off chance you actually have a few functioning brain cells.

A) polls predict 5% win, actual result is 1% win

B) polls predict 1% win, actual result is 5% win

Now, according to your brilliant calculations, for A) 5.0% prediction is off by 400% ! On the other hand, B) is off by only 80% .

Hey yeah, you're really good at math, bud!

Here's a hint for you in the future - the fact that you can divide two numbers does not make the result meaningful.

Now please do try to stop advertising your stupidity. It is embarrassing to witness.

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Pointing it Out! wrote:

Wow, so you are going to double down on stupid, huh? Good for you.

This is what you said, is it not?

"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."

Are you really too stupid to realize how absurd that is? Seriously?

Here's another example for you, on the off chance you actually have a few functioning brain cells.

A) polls predict 5% win, actual result is 1% win

B) polls predict 1% win, actual result is 5% win

Now, according to your brilliant calculations, for A) 5.0% prediction is off by 400% ! On the other hand, B) is off by only 80% .

Hey yeah, you're really good at math, bud!

Here's a hint for you in the future - the fact that you can divide two numbers does not make the result meaningful.

Now please do try to stop advertising your stupidity. It is embarrassing to witness.

Speaking of doubling down, it appears you still haven't grasped the concept of standard deviation or confidence intervals.

Your attempt at quantitative analysis is amusing. You're statement is completely irrelevant to determining the accuracy of the national polls.

Here's all you need to know: With the subject polling data, there was roughly a five percent (5%) chance that the result would be 2%.

If you think that is "cold clear accuracy", then I guess we should just end this discussion.

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Pointing it Out! wrote:

Wow, so you are going to double down on stupid, huh? Good for you.

This is what you said, is it not?

"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."

Are you really too stupid to realize how absurd that is? Seriously?

Here's another example for you, on the off chance you actually have a few functioning brain cells.

A) polls predict 5% win, actual result is 1% win

B) polls predict 1% win, actual result is 5% win

Now, according to your brilliant calculations, for A) 5.0% prediction is off by 400% ! On the other hand, B) is off by only 80% .

Hey yeah, you're really good at math, bud!

Here's a hint for you in the future - the fact that you can divide two numbers does not make the result meaningful.

Now please do try to stop advertising your stupidity. It is embarrassing to witness.

Speaking of doubling down, it appears you still haven't grasped the concept of standard deviation or confidence intervals.

Your attempt at quantitative analysis is amusing. You're statement is completely irrelevant to determining the accuracy of the national polls.

Here's all you need to know: With the subject polling data, there was roughly a five percent (5%) chance that the result would be 2%.

If you think that is "cold clear accuracy", then I guess we should just end this discussion.

Flagpole wrote:

1) The Lifeline program (the one created under Reagan) was expanded to add coverage of cell phones in 2008 before Obama even took office. Doesn't matter that there weren't cell phones in 1984...it has to do with providing phone service to those who are low income. Obama didn't create this program. The name "Obama phone" came about because of the timing of everything, but Obama had nothing to do with it.

2) I never said the country was racist.

3) Accounts ARE that Trump is having a miserable time as president. Dispute that if you like, but those ARE the reports. Could those reports be wrong? Sure.

4) Again, why do you Trump defenders like to bring up Hillary and Obama and any other Democrat when defending Trump? It wouldn't matter if Hillary were convicted of murder and actually be in prison. That fact wouldn't make Trump any better. He has a long history of cheating contractors who do work for him, a long history of bad business dealings with US banks (to the point they won't do business with him anymore). His Trump Foundation has been shown to be a fraud, and the state of New York won't allow it to operate as a charity. Trump University was shown to be a fraud. His casinos were money launderers, and Trump had to pay big fines because of that. Criminal activity is what that is. This only scratches the surface of what Trump has done, and I don't have time to list them all out for you. Don't waste your time listing a bunch of Obama shady things. It doesn't matter at this point as I have already explained, and nothing he has done is anywhere close to as bad as Trump. If you make a list, I will not read it...just not interested.

5) If you want to defend typical Republican planks or even a need for a different way of thinking about politics, then fine, but to defend Donald Trump in any way is to defend an amoral person and by far the worst person who has been the President of the United States. This is not an attack on conservative values or a defending of Democrats. Democrats have failed the working class, something I was saying even before Trump became a serious candidate. When Bernie Sanders goes on and on about free college, that doesn't help the working class. Not everyone has the ability to go to college.

6) Trump has not delivered on any of his big promises from the campaign trail, mostly because he had no idea about the things he talked about and the fact that he wouldn't be elected King. "Big beautiful wall" won't happen. He can't get a travel ban because of his rhetoric. Why isn't Hillary locked up? Where is his toughness with China? He said the world would respect the US more. Well, first of all, he shouldn't care as he is not a Globalist, and second of all, the world has never laughed at the US like it is now.

7) Again (I say this again because it is important), there is value in Conservative views, and they are needed to balance SOME liberal views that can go too far (a strong Republican Party and a strong Democrat Party is preferred rather than having one that is overpowering the other). Trump though is not a conservative even though he tries to play like he is one. You Republicans would do well to divorce yourself from him and maybe even play up the fact that he was a Democrat and friends with the Clintons for years. He is a bad guy and should not be anyone's champion.

Wagererer wrote:

No, it's not a misnomer at all. He wanted to take credit for it you bonehead and we didn't have cell phones in 1984 like we did when Obama became President. Ya can't have it both ways, he wanted to steal from Reagan, Bush and Clinton, so he called it Obama Phones and was proud.

Stay with me poleflag. If the country were truly racist, there could never be a black president as the majority of whites would vote for anyone white. Did I lose ya there? Yet, over 90% of blacks voted for Obama, so who's racist?

Hillary was a crooked as they come, but you voted for her. All accounts on Trump are not miserable, only your jealous accounts because you were proven wrong.

List the shady things that Trump did. Afterwards, I'll give you Obama's list.

Man you are not only a sore loser and biased, you're not that bright. As for you money, he who yells the loudest:):):):):):):):):):)

Pointing it Out! wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Speaking of doubling down, it appears you still haven't grasped the concept of standard deviation or confidence intervals.

Your attempt at quantitative analysis is amusing. You're statement is completely irrelevant to determining the accuracy of the national polls.

Here's all you need to know: With the subject polling data, there was roughly a five percent (5%) chance that the result would be 2%.

If you think that is "cold clear accuracy", then I guess we should just end this discussion.

OK, let me make this simple for you. Here is your statement (again):

"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."

Now are you going to try to defend those calculations (effectively dividing by the actual 2.1 figure) as being meaningful and relevant - as being appropriate to anything (other than showing off a profound level of ignorance?

Or are you just going to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to post by avoiding addressing it once again?

Take your choice, admit to stupidity directly or admit to stupidity by failing to defend what you posted? What's it going to be?

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

Pointing it Out! wrote:

OK, let me make this simple for you. Here is your statement (again):

"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."

Now are you going to try to defend those calculations (effectively dividing by the actual 2.1 figure) as being meaningful and relevant - as being appropriate to anything (other than showing off a profound level of ignorance?

Or are you just going to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to post by avoiding addressing it once again?

Take your choice, admit to stupidity directly or admit to stupidity by failing to defend what you posted? What's it going to be?

My lord you're dense. It certainly is meaningful and relevant, as being off by such a factor is not "cold clear accuracy", which was my point [that you continue to omit for some reason]. If the figure was 2.1 vs 2.2, or even 2.1 vs 2.5, I'd agree it was pretty accurate, as these are both low enough figures AND within an acceptable tolerance to be considered accurate (the standard deviation and confidence interval also supports this theory by the way). 2.1 vs 3.3, especially when including an outlier like the +2 for Trump, certainly does not reflect "cold clear accuracy", which again, was the point. (Removing the outlier results in 2.1 vs 3.8, which is far less "accurate", considering just a single poll in the sample even matches the 2.1 figure!)

We shouldn't skew the term "accurate" by performing relative analyses for polls. Accurate means exact ("cold clear" or otherwise). These polls were far from exact.