Roger DeLaria Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said: Otherwise you would have the concentrated population centers on the East and West Coasts deciding for the rest of the country, and the other states would get thrown under the bus. 5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: So now the people on the coasts get thrown under the bus? No, I don't think anyone should be thrown under the bus, whatever area they happen to live in. It's most certainly not a perfect system and needs some changes, I'm just not sure how to go about it. Edited November 16, 2016 by Roger DeLaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Dan: Everything else in your post above is cogent and valid. Except this: I had high profile Black clients in California back in 2008 and they were so sure that Obama wasn't going to win no matter what the polls indicated because of latent racism and the Bradley Effect. Obama won. But this was almost 30 years later. Also, that election was a wave election because the nausea about George W Bush had reached skyscraper heights. People wanted real change and that is what Obama sold, recall Hope and Change. If you recall 1982, a smaller percentage of white voters voted for Bradley than predicted. And the undecided voted for Deukmejian at a higher rate than predicted. That is pretty good evidence that the GOP was correct about knowing they would win when everyone else thought they would lose. The GOP chief strategist predicted a five per cent swing due to this effect. Again, pretty comparable to 2016. PS I have to add the quote above where CV links to Nate Silver to say I was wrong about the Bradley Effect in 1982 and in 2016 is about as deceptive as one can get. Nate was not talking about 2016 there and he really was not talking about 1982; but when he did, he said there probably was such a thing then. He was talking about 2008 and Obama--which as I explain above, he was probably correct for reasons I stated here. These are the kind of cheap tricks you get from zealots who accuse everyonewho disagrees with them of being fascist sympathizers. Edited November 16, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: What? First of all it was October 28. And you think the FBI Director should have gone further in determining who our President is? Because of e-mails concerning hot dogs and pizza? It should make us ill that Hillary's people were eating so poorly? Opps I knew it was OCT 28, sorry. And you clearly have done ZERO investigation into the email stuff. It ain't about food but when one is blind all the evidence won't do a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 9 minutes ago, Dawn Meredith said: Opps I knew it was OCT 28, sorry. And you clearly have done ZERO investigation into the email stuff. It ain't about food but when one is blind all the evidence won't do a thing. Eleanor Clift and her raisin walnut salad aside, that is beside the point. When all one party does is investigate leaders of the opposition ceaselessly -- that's not Democracy, that's fascism. When the FBI Director loudly announces 11 days before an election that one of the candidates is under renewed investigation and then 9 days later says forget it -- that's a clear violation of the Hatch Act. The reasoning here reminds me of _"So what if JFK was killed by a conspiracy he deserved it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: PS I have to add the quote above where CV links to Nate Silver to say I was wrong about the Bradley Effect in 1982 and in 2016 is about as deceptive as one can get. You inability to provide any factual evidence to back up the Bradley Effect-- other than your say-so -- is incredibly deceptive. You state the Bradley Effect as if it's proven. Who's pushing propaganda, Jim? Quote Nate was not talking about 2016 there and he really was not talking about 1982; but when he did, he said there probably was such a thing then. He was talking about 2008 and Obama--which as I explain above, he was probably correct for reasons I stated here. Of course if one didn't watch the 2016 election on CNN/MSNBC/Fox you really have no clue what happened over the last two weeks. So Jim DiEugenio continues to pretend that 11 days of 24/7 negative coverage had no impact on last minute voters. Absurd. Quote These are the kind of cheap tricks you get from zealots who accuse everyonewho disagrees with them of being fascist sympathizers. Not "fascist sympathizers" -- fascism-apologists. Not the same thing. A lot of left wingers are "fascism apologists" because they can't see beyond their Hillary-hatred. They defend one political party launching endless investigations into the opposition, they applaud when the FBI director radically changes the TV programming over the last 11 days of an election. I welcome all of you fascism-apologists to the barricades when you wake the ef up. Edited November 16, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Roger DeLaria said: No, I don't think anyone should be thrown under the bus, whatever area they happen to live in. It's most certainly not a perfect system and needs some changes, I'm just not sure how to go about it. Vote out Republicans. Democrats don't launch investigations into GOP leaders, but Republican investigate Democrats endlessly over nothing issues. Democrats don't pass laws making it difficult for Republicans to vote, but Republicans pass all kinds of laws to make it difficult for Democrats to vote. Sound like a fair set-up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Unfortunately the news doesn't get any better about our President Elect. I figured I'd be gracious and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that if he was faced with winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college, he would accept the verdict and not throw the country into turmoil, but now it appears not. Back in 2012,on the night of the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. Trump actually tweeted this: "Obama lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election, We should have a revolution in this country". If he's talking about a revolution in an election he's not even in, How would he have any restraint in an election he was directly involved in?. He later deleted the tweet. Of course the conclusions he was basing this incitement on were totally false. Not that it mattered to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Unfortunately the news doesn't get any better about our President Elect. I figured I'd be gracious and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that if he was faced with winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college, he would accept the verdict and not throw the country into turmoil, but now it appears not. Back in 2012,on the night of the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. Trump actually tweeted this: "Obama lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election, We should have a revolution in this country". If he's talking about a revolution in an election he's not even in, How would he have any restraint in an election he was directly involved in?. He later deleted the tweet. Of course the conclusions he was basing this incitement on were totally false. Not that it mattered to him. According to Donald Trump himself he was not legitimately elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Call me stupid but. unless there names were on their ballots, how do we know 26% of Latinos and 53% of women voted for Trump? And James D You say HRC voted for the Iraq War. I seem to recall that an awful lot of people voted for that war, given the false evidence they were presented. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger DeLaria Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 It appears nearly half the population didn't vote. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nearly-half-eligible-voters-didnt-151936791.html http://globalnews.ca/news/3054505/u-s-presidential-election-2016-voter-turnout-drops-to-near-50-per-cent/ http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/voting-poll-numbers/#FhtwEK5nsqqz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Cliff Varnell has become the master of the word salad and he uses it with the equivalent skill of Antony Bourdain to cover up his own blatant distortions. Nate was not referring to 1982, no problem. Nate was not referring to 2016, no problem. Nate agrees that the Bradley Effect was probably the impact in 1982, no problem. LOL, pour on the French Dressing next Cliff to disguise the odor underneath your non facts. And then say to to others Factually Incorrect. Edited November 16, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Bob: My references for the demographic vote stats were Pew and CNN. But so many Latino Activists were angry with the 26 per cent figure that some agencies are now backtracking on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Cliff Varnell has become the master of the word salad and he uses it with the equivalent skill of Antony Bourdain to cover up his own blatant distortions. Nate was not referring to 1982, no problem. Nate was not referring to 2016, no problem. Nate agrees that the Bradley Effect was probably the impact in 1982, no problem. Here's what Nate wrote: <quote on> 2. Confusing Past with Present. There is fairly strong academic evidence that the Bradley Effect used to exist back in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the evidence is just as strong that it does not exist any longer. The people who vouch for the existence of the Bradley Effect are not wrong so much as they are relying on dated evidence. <quote off> On what basis does DiEugenio assert the Bradley Effect exists in 2016? Nothing, just his say-so. It can't even be said for certain that it existed in 1982. Quote LOL, pour on the French Dressing next Cliff to disguise the odor underneath your non facts. And then say to to others Factually Incorrect. Note that Jim D cannot defend his indefensible assumption that 11 straight days of negative 24/7 cable news coverage had no impact on late breaking voters. So he pretends that news coverage didn't exist. He didn't watch it, so it must not have happened? Edited November 16, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) On the Bradley Effect in 2016: http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-donald-trumps-data-analytics-team-on-election-night-1478725225 And btw CV is such a zealot that he does not even understand how I mean the Bradley Effect. He actually thinks I mean it in terms of white voters who will not for black candidates. Can he really be that obtuse? I hope not. But considering he thinks Harriman killed Kennedy, hey maybe? Edited November 16, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: On the Bradley Effect in 2016: http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-donald-trumps-data-analytics-team-on-election-night-1478725225 Slick move. Link to a post you have to be a member to access. Why don't you post the relevant passages, Jim? Here's an argument that the Bradley Effect never existed. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/the_bradley_effect_the_myth_that_never_dies.html Quote And btw CV is sucha zealot that he does not even understand how I mean the Bradley Effect. He actually thinks I mean it in terms of white voters who will not for black candidates. Quote me. I took it to mean voters wouldn't tell pollsters the truth about who they were voting for. Quote Can he really be that obtuse? Can you really quote me directly? Guess not. Quote I hope not. But considering he thinks Harriman killed Kennedy, hey maybe? Nice pivot away from your fascism-apologia. Edited November 16, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now