NationStates

Eol Sha wrote:

Socialist Nordia wrote:Yes, that was a joke.

Oh, I know. I just like to make my dislike of monarchies known wherever possible.

Criticising monarchy by saying it's contrary to republicanism is like criticising socialism because it's contrary to capitalism. It doesn't make sense.

Novsvacro wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:Oh, I know. I just like to make my dislike of monarchies known wherever possible.

Criticising monarchy by saying it's contrary to republicanism is like criticising socialism because it's contrary to capitalism. It doesn't make sense.

Not sure how since one is a repudiation of the other and since I agree with one, I do not like or approve of the other.

Eol Sha wrote:

Novsvacro wrote:Criticising monarchy by saying it's contrary to republicanism is like criticising socialism because it's contrary to capitalism. It doesn't make sense.

Not sure how since one is a repudiation of the other and since I agree with one, I do not like or approve of the other.

You didn't understand what I meant. It's a truism of an argument.

Novsvacro wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:Not sure how since one is a repudiation of the other and since I agree with one, I do not like or approve of the other.

You didn't understand what I meant. It's a truism of an argument.

You'll have to explain what you mean.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 016-214343

I really must say I can't imagine living in the deep south, being as political as I am.

Collatis wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/second-presidential-debate-trump-clinton-alabama-2016-214343

I really must say I can't imagine living in the deep south, being as political as I am.

The lines that divide our ideologies, or parties, is really present. It's also amazing how the Democrats were once super popular in the south, yet the Republicans were also popular in the north.

Navaronia wrote:

Collatis wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/second-presidential-debate-trump-clinton-alabama-2016-214343

I really must say I can't imagine living in the deep south, being as political as I am.

The lines that divide our ideologies, or parties, is really present. It's also amazing how the Democrats were once super popular in the south, yet the Republicans were also popular in the north.

Not that amazing if you've looked into American political history.

Implacable Death wrote:

Migdal Bavel wrote:Really?!
So how exactly are you defining 'man'? Last I checked, 'being a man' is something they share with about three and a half milliard people, many of whom don't have much in common with each other.

Yes, really. My signature has nothing to do with the reasons why I would support either Reagan or Theodore Roosevelt.

You are impressively resistant to sarcasm, dearest.

Navaronia wrote:

Collatis wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/second-presidential-debate-trump-clinton-alabama-2016-214343

I really must say I can't imagine living in the deep south, being as political as I am.

The lines that divide our ideologies, or parties, is really present. It's also amazing how the Democrats were once super popular in the south, yet the Republicans were also popular in the north.

The ideological shift, specially with civil rights, led to a shift in which party was more popular in each region. Republicans once produced their fair share of progressive presidents, and then they gave that up in favor of racist dog-whistles, religious fundamentalism and conservative economics.

Collatis wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/second-presidential-debate-trump-clinton-alabama-2016-214343

I really must say I can't imagine living in the deep south, being as political as I am.

I could, I just join the Republicans, no use fighting when the entire state is against you, better try to change it from within.

New poll. We'll have to wait and see if this is the new normal or a bump in the road for Donald. He's shaken off bad shit before, you know.

Clinton leads trump by 11 points in a four way matchup, by 14 in a two way matchup.

Galloism wrote:New poll. We'll have to wait and see if this is the new normal or a bump in the road for Donald. He's shaken off bad shit before, you know.

Clinton leads trump by 11 points in a four way matchup, by 14 in a two way matchup.

Jesus. This one poll has been brought up four or five separate times in this thread.

Eol Sha wrote:

Galloism wrote:New poll. We'll have to wait and see if this is the new normal or a bump in the road for Donald. He's shaken off bad shit before, you know.

Clinton leads trump by 11 points in a four way matchup, by 14 in a two way matchup.

Jesus. This one poll has been brought up four or five separate times in this thread.

Sorry. It's a fast moving thread!

Galloism wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:Jesus. This one poll has been brought up four or five separate times in this thread.

Sorry. It's a fast moving thread!

It's cool. It's just been brought up a lot.

Galloism wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:Jesus. This one poll has been brought up four or five separate times in this thread.

Sorry. It's a fast moving thread!

It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:

Galloism wrote:Sorry. It's a fast moving thread!

It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

4.5% isn't huge, but it is larger than normal. Huge is like 6% or 7%.

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:

Galloism wrote:Sorry. It's a fast moving thread!

It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

Still somewhat amusing, because we know that if Trump got some oddball poll like that he'd have found an excuse to tweet it 20 or 30 times by now. "Trump up by 11", "Thank you America, up by 11", "11 Point Lead for Trump New Poll!" "Making America Great Again, 11 points!" etc.

Eol Sha wrote:

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

4.5% isn't huge, but it is larger than normal. Huge is like 6% or 7%.

+/- 4.5 is huge, the swing could be 9 points.

Khadgar wrote:Bias didn't lose Bernie the election. Writing off the south as unimportant lost Bernie the election. Then implying votes from red states didn't really count certainly didn't help.

I only remember his supporters saying red state votes didn't matter.

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:

Galloism wrote:Sorry. It's a fast moving thread!

It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

Sample size of 500 is smallish, but that's WHY it has a largish (not huge) margin of error. You can make one of those objections but not both.

The margin of error is 4.6 for Likely Voters. You can't dismiss an 11 point lead because of that.

There IS a reason not to pay much attention to it though:

NBC News wrote:The poll, conducted on Saturday and Sunday but before the second presidential debate, shows Clinton with 46 percent support among likely voters in a four-way matchup, compared to 35 percent for Trump.

It was taken after the "locker room talk" but before the second debate. Things have changed a bit since.

Corrian wrote:

Khadgar wrote:Bias didn't lose Bernie the election. Writing off the south as unimportant lost Bernie the election. Then implying votes from red states didn't really count certainly didn't help.

I only remember his supporters saying red state votes didn't matter.

Some supporters of the Democratic establishment are still so obsessed with hating and discrediting Bernie Sanders that they will smear him falsely even when he's now campaigning on their side against the real threat- the Republicans and their rape-loving leader. Sad.

Thankfully, both Bernie and Clinton have shown more sense.

Myrensis wrote:

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

Still somewhat amusing, because we know that if Trump got some oddball poll like that he'd have found an excuse to tweet it 20 or 30 times by now. "Trump up by 11", "Thank you America, up by 11", "11 Point Lead for Trump New Poll!" "Making America Great Again, 11 points!" etc.

I know he would. But. do not lend too much credence to it either.

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:4.5% isn't huge, but it is larger than normal. Huge is like 6% or 7%.

+/- 4.5 is huge, the swing could be 9 points.

It COULD be, yeah. If that's 90% certainty, there's a 5% chance the margin is wrong by 9 points over. And a 5% chance the margin is wrong the other way. Like, Clinton +20!

Even then, it would be Clinton +2 or better, with 95% certainty.

You're just dismissing it because yo boi gettin thrashed, yeah?

Ailiailia wrote:

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:It got old after the second time... I would chalk it up as an outlier, its sample size is too small, and it has a huge margin of error.

Sample size of 500 is smallish, but that's WHY it has a largish (not huge) margin of error. You can make one of those objections but not both.

The margin of error is 4.6 for Likely Voters. You can't dismiss an 11 point lead because of that.

There IS a reason not to pay much attention to it though:

NBC News wrote:The poll, conducted on Saturday and Sunday but before the second presidential debate, shows Clinton with 46 percent support among likely voters in a four-way matchup, compared to 35 percent for Trump.

It was taken after the "locker room talk" but before the second debate. Things have changed a bit since.

Indeed. As I say for any single poll, they aren't the word of God, but you shouldn't just write them off, either. I think the important thing this poll shows is that the video hurt him quite a bit.

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:4.5% isn't huge, but it is larger than normal. Huge is like 6% or 7%.

+/- 4.5 is huge, the swing could be 9 points.

But it's still significantly smaller than the lead in question.