Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#211

Post by rconti »

2AF3 wrote: post #156
mixologic wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why thats an awful gauge of the electorate. The vast majority of voters do not attend political events, and "attendees at events" is really just an uncorrelated measure of "enthusiasm for a candidate amongst their base". If 40% of the country loved him so much that they all showed up at every single rally, yet the other 60% hate him, and will vote for HRC despite not really loving her, then you see a rally f…

It might not be great, but I trust it more than these dishonest polls

I'm sorry, but offhandedly dismissing "these dishonest polls", when, frankly,

1. They're the best data we have

2. We have no reason to believe they're incorrect

3. There is REALLY no reason to believe they're dishonest

Is 100% intellectually dishonest.

This is exactly what happened 4 years ago, and apparently some people have not learned from their tremendous mistake.

If you want to know why "turnout at a campaign event" is a crappier metric than "real actual scientific data", I don't know how else to help, other than to point to other instances in which it has failed:

"Mitt drawing larger crowds" http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/mitt-drawing-larger-cr...

"Donald Trump continues to draw YUGE crowds. That matters less than he thinks." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/do...

"Trump brags about crowd size but will it turn into votes?" http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d74fbd472f7a420a90737e55cfb20...

I do not know or care who you support in the Presidential election. However, I suggest you get realistic about your metrics, as you're way off in fantasyland at the moment, as far as I can tell.

If you turn out to be incorrect, I hope you learn from this experience. I know I will, if the data turns out to be wrong.

Re: undefined

#212

Post by adjkant »

chroem- wrote: post #198
adjkant wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. To answer your question, yes. 2. Putting Trump and Clinton on the same level simply isn't accurate. I would revise this: |============================X==| amazing candidate |================X==============| normally acceptable candidate |============X==================| Clinton |==X============================| Trump Clinton is certainly worse than most candidates historically, but her corruption and scandals are…

Clinton has been exposed in plain daylight as having done things that would have made Richard Nixon blush. It's so bad that her campaign has been forced to hire a crew of dedicated astroturfers to cover for her, and they have no scruples over doing this either. How does that make her better than Trump?

Yes, she has. Hence why she is lower than the normally acceptable candidate. It doesn't make her equal to Trump, though.

1. Clinton has a platform that is static (even if it's crafted and not a personal belief). Trump's changes with his mood and is unclear on even the basic principles and topics he chooses to focus on.

2. Clinton has shown she can keep a level head, which is important when an outburst affects millions of people. Trump has not in the slightest.

3. Clinton has shown that she can hold a high position of power and not have the world blow up (quickly).

4. Clinton has shown an ability to be relatively truthful and consistent. When she lies, she carefully crafts them, even going so far as to avoid definition lying. We now have the email chains to back that up. Trump has trouble sticking to basic facts.

Again, Clinton is objectively worse than the majority of candidates. I think at this point, if you gave the US the option to elect Romney in lieu of voting for Trump and Clinton, you would have major support on both sides. Heck, at this point, (Romney = Clinton - scandals) in terms of policy.

None of this touches their specific policies or even personal biases such as Trump's sexism, racism, islamophobia and more. Sure, you can say that a candidate's personal beliefs shouldn't affect his policies, but we have seen by Trump's proposals that this does not hold. Trump has not shown the ability to separate his personality from his work - his business is entrenched in his personal workings, even so much in how it operates and his brand is crafted.

If you disagree with that last paragraph, scratch it. The numbered points are plenty difference enough, and again, do not touch policy or personal beliefs of the candidates.

Re: undefined

#213

Post by rconti »

kybernetikos wrote: post #193
threeseed wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly there is a big myth going around that polls never predicted Brexit when in fact they absolutely did. People just didn't want to believe them. Polls are objective not subjective.

Can you provide some links about the Brexit polls? I was following the betting markets and the prediction markets and they were dramatically wrong, even the day of the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot/why-the-surprise-ov...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36648769

Re: undefined

#214

Post by rconti »

threeseed wrote: post #151
Tsugumo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The record-breaking Republican turnout was due to Trump, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of Republicans will vote Trump over Hillary, or 3rd party. At the same time, many independents and Bernie supporters will vote Trump as well. In my mind, Trump is the Republican Obama, and will benefit from many first-time voters, and a large turnout in general. It does not seem to me that Hillary h…

You're confused again. Trump had record breaking PRIMARY turnout. All polls taken so far have him only getting about 40% of Republicans. And there is no evidence what so ever that he is drawing in independents or Bernie supporters at any significant rate. He is down by on average 7 points nationally for a reason.

Correction: 75% of Republicans, 40% overall. He seems to have a fairly hard ceiling. His support among Republicans is shockingly low, but likely to rebound a bit to keep it from being a total blowout.

Re: undefined

#215

Post by savagej »

threeseed wrote: post #151
Tsugumo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The record-breaking Republican turnout was due to Trump, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of Republicans will vote Trump over Hillary, or 3rd party. At the same time, many independents and Bernie supporters will vote Trump as well. In my mind, Trump is the Republican Obama, and will benefit from many first-time voters, and a large turnout in general. It does not seem to me that Hillary h…

You're confused again. Trump had record breaking PRIMARY turnout. All polls taken so far have him only getting about 40% of Republicans. And there is no evidence what so ever that he is drawing in independents or Bernie supporters at any significant rate. He is down by on average 7 points nationally for a reason.

You're off by 2X. Well over 80% of GOP is voting Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/for-many-gop-women-party...

Re: undefined

#216

Post by sumedh »

sidcool wrote: post #181

First mistake was allowing Trump to run. Second was to be Republican presidential candidate. Third and the final one would be to make him win

Who was going to stop Trump from running?

Re: undefined

#217

Post by ubernostrum »

morgante wrote: post #210
ubernostrum wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I walked home from work yesterday I was listening to a podcast about economics which mentioned that the Trump brand has been permanently devalued by his campaign -- people no longer want to stay in a Trump hotel, for example. And people have been leading efforts to drive potential students away from his "Trump University", and potential customers away from his other businesses. It's possible you haven't seen such…

I've definitely heard about direct economic effects for Trump (though I think he'll end up gaining a lot more economically from the massive diehard fanbase he has now built) but why hasn't there been more backlash against Thiel? In my book his cause is a whole lot worse than Eich's. Would you feel comfortable working at Peter Thiel's company?

I would not work for Thiel.

Also there are people pressuring, for example, pg to dump his association with Thiel.

Re: undefined

#218

Post by rconti »

morgante wrote: post #208
Radim wrote: post #170

Everything has to be such a spectacle, so black-and-white and binary in the US. The forum discussions, here and elsewhere, give outside observers this impression: |=============================X=| Candidate X: some minor flaws, but overall a great option |=X=============================| Candidate Y: the new Hitler, world falls apart if elected For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "gr…

> For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "great American match": I have a lot of European/non-American friends and not a single one of them thinks Trump and Clinton are "within rounding error of each other." It's fundamentally dishonest to compare a run-of-the-mill corrupt politician to someone who openly advocates nuclear proliferation.

Furthermore, most of the "Clinton = corrupt" stuff has been played in the US far harder than elsewhere in the world.

In my formative years, it seemed like I couldn't go a week without hearing a new "scandal" that the Republican party wanted to foist on the only President I really knew as a politically-conscious person.

I'm not saying they were dishonest or wrong, I'm just saying it felt a bit too much like the boy who cried wolf. It's hard to even bother paying attention to yet another person trying to claim another Clinton "scandal".

Especially when the people pushing it support, well.... Someone who literally parrots back every slight used against him to be used against his rival. I didn't realize "I'm rubber, you're glue" was a campaign strategy.

Re: undefined

#219

Post by enraged_camel »

marincounty wrote: post #147
rconti wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On matters of opinion, ABSOLUTELY. On matters of polling, absolutely false. Even Brexit was predicted by the polls, it just didn't happen until a week before the vote. (It's worth noting, of course, the same could happen here. And that's probably what Thiel is counting on).

This is different. Just say you were going to vote for Trump. Someone stops you on the street, or call you up; would you admit it? I wouldn't. The guy is an absolute joke of a person on so many levels. He's stupid. He's just aweful. But there's a tiny bit of Trump in a lot of us buried deep in that ID. Personally, I do think we need to get much more vigilant on immigration, even though Obama has sent more illegials h…

>>even though Obama has sent more illegials home than any other president

Where can I find the source for this? I may need it when arguing with people...

Re: undefined

#220

Post by gallonofmilk »

ivv wrote: post #177
2AF3 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be great, but I trust it more than these dishonest polls

Bernie is a good counter-example. Huge rallies, way behind in votes.

have you not read wikileaks? the DNC/Hillary rigged it against him from day one, he never stood a chance
Post reply on HN