2016 Presidential Election Thread: TRUMP vs. Hillary SMACKDOWN - Page 1706 - Politics and Economics

Judge orders RNC to detail voter fraud pacts with Trump campaign

By*JOSH GERSTEIN

*

11/01/16 09:54 AM EDT

A federal judge is ordering the Republican National Committee to detail any agreements it has with Donald Trump's campaign to engage in "ballot security" efforts in connection with next week's election — something the national GOP has been banned from doing for decades without court approval.

The order also instructs the RNC to explain by 5 p.m. Tuesday what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence were talking about in recent comments when they said that Trump's campaign was working closely with the RNC to make sure there is no fraud at the polls.

Read more:*http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ixzz4Onsmm6ch*
Follow us:*@politico on Twitter*|*Politico on Facebook

11-01-2016 , 07:41 PM

#42627

+rep_lol

banned

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 14,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPHoya

Well actually, you're right that her personal life deserves sympathy and that rep is being cruel, but he's right that intentionally harboring dead-bang-****ing-obvious political liabilities is an annoying Hillaryland crutch that shocks ****ing no.bo.dy

So, you know, not sure you're being very fair to rep given that his point is not lolwomen's suffering or lolHuma in the abstract, but instead lol-self-inflicted-political-damage-on-the-regular and lol-are-you-kidding-me-with-this-guy

Perhaps the point would be better made by saying "if your life's work is to facilitate in all capacities Hillary's shot at the White House, you probably should not remain married to one of the most scandalized nitwits in party history, but certainly not the SECOND time he proves he's worthless, not because you know what it will result in, but because it's a ****ing lock it will never be good to be around him."

ty hoya, that's really all i'm getting at here. if i'm being too much of an ******* about it then like, my bad and stuff

it just burns me a bit...poor huma? no, poor ****ing us for having to deal with all this self inflicted baggage that makes us however much closer (i'm at least confident that it's not much closer) to a lord commander drumpf in our future

11-01-2016 , 07:44 PM

#42628

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kedu

Wisconsin allows you to change your vote. That's what he's doing.

0% chance a single person going to a Trump rally isn't already voting for Trump, possibly multiple times

11-01-2016 , 07:45 PM

#42629

chymechowder

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,584

noodle and fly,

I'm not lusting for a former kgb agent lol

I'm merely making fun of the Clinton camp's reactions to the WikiLeaks. Like saying RUSSIANS! over and over is some kind of verbal talisman that will render invisible any and all embarrassing leak revelations.

11-01-2016 , 07:48 PM

#42630

Cotton Hill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,307

Another point in 538's favor is that the betting market %'s almost always mirror 538's almost to the exact % frequently.

Maybe they reinforce each other to a degree, but if there were better models I would expect the money to follow them.

11-01-2016 , 07:48 PM

#42631

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

fortunately that's not why they keep saying it

11-01-2016 , 07:50 PM

#42632

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cotton Hill

I think their models actually respect statistical variance way more accurately.

Some people will say "Oh Hillary has been ahead in every poll of this state for the past 6 months, she's got it 100%" without necessarily considering the very small, but non-zero possibility, that those polls were all off.

538 are not baking in a "very small" probability that all the polls are off though. In New Hampshire, where Trump has not led in a RCP-aggregated poll EVER and the aggregate is C+4.7, they nonetheless have Trump at 26.9% to win the state. (Trump has led in a few polls that 538 have aggregated, their methodology was too dubious for RCP to include them).

I'm not buying that the poll average is not just 5 points out, but 5 points out in the correct direction, over a quarter of the time. That sounds way wrong to me. Like that is outside the MoE of single polls, let alone aggregates.

11-01-2016 , 07:51 PM

#42633

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clovis8

I would guess less than 0.001% of the electorate could tell you anything meaningful about all 129 issues.

If one county had 129 measures, that would be very unusual. LA county, the biggest in California, had like 6.

There were 17 initiatives.

My city had 2 measures.

So, approx 25 votes for laws on my ballot.

Last edited by microbet; 11-01-2016 at 07:59 PM.

11-01-2016 , 07:53 PM

#42634

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,198

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cotton Hill

Is this based on anything other than your feels? I don't know a ton about statistics so I can't speak about the quality of various aggregators' models, but my understanding is that when one dude out of a dozen has results that are far different from everybody else, that dude is usually wrong.

11-01-2016 , 07:54 PM

#42635

dinopoker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,437

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimmer4141

Yeah there were GOP Elected officials calling for Obama to be IMPEACHED because of passing Obamacare or something. If Hillary says the word "classified" during any public or private speech, they'll have hearings in an instant.

Things Obama should have been impeached for, according to the alt right:

[x] Black Panthers at polling stations
[x] ACORN
[x] Fast and Furious
[x] IRS scandal
[x] Obamacare!
[x] Supreme court upholding Obamacare (cheating ldo)
[x] Benghazi x 1 billionz
[?] being black

And that's just a partial list.

11-01-2016 , 07:55 PM

#42636

dessin d'enfant

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cotton Hill

It just can't be correct to project Clinton winning the popular vote by 3.5% with polling as stable as it has been this whole race while giving Trump 30% this close to the election. This has been discussed endlessly on PEC and even some here. There is just way too much uncertainty put into the 538 model for no reason.

11-01-2016 , 07:55 PM

#42637

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cotton Hill

Politics betting markets are a notable exception to the rule of efficient markets. They're always badly wrong every election and every election people keep expecting them to perform accurately.

And yeah, a ton of people would be betting based on 538 predictions, that was a winning strategy in 2008 and 2012 and everyone is now convinced Nate is infallible. Look at you for instance, there are like 5 other models that all agree Hillary is a huge fave and you're going with 538 over all of them based on nothing but feels, essentially. It's not like the guys running The Upshot are unacquainted with the concept of variance in polling. They get it.

11-01-2016 , 07:59 PM

#42638

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAIDS

its a 650 person poll, probably about 250 dems, of which 60 odd say they are voting drumpf

their most recent poll before this one had about 90% NC Ds voting hill

everything on a national level has had about 90% of Ds going hill

either emailghazi part 500000 changed everything or they got a duff 250 person sample imo

xpost from Election Betting thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

The +7 poll is obviously not good news, but I thought BAIDS' take in the election thread was correct. The most recent WSJ/Marist poll in NC had 6% of registered Dems voting Trump. Most recent CBS/YouGov poll had 3%. This SurveyUSA poll says 23%. I really don't think registered Dems are going to start breaking for Trump in huge numbers just because Clinton did the emails again. Like OK maybe the number is really 12% now or something but 23? Don't think so.

Randomly oversampling Dems who are voting Trump is a good way of skewing a poll, because pollsters can adjust polls to make sure they don't oversample a certain affiliation, but if they happen to run into a lot of Trump-voting Dems there won't be any adjustment for that.

What happens if I UNSKEW the poll? Registered Dems were 44% of the sample, lets assume the Marist poll was correct that 6% of Dems should be voting Trump. So move 44% * 17% of the sample from the Trump column to the Clinton column. That's about 7% of the sample, so that would move it from being Trump +7 to Clinton +7. Note, I'm not saying it's legit to do this, but it's a thought experiment that shows how big the effect can be on the poll if you happen to run into a lot of Trump-supporting Dems.

11-01-2016 , 08:00 PM

#42639

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by +rep_lol

that's a pretty ridiculous way to interpret what i said...considering i was explicit about the fact that i wasn't passing judgment for it and couldn't care less about their pre-marital coitus on a moral level.

So, what was the point saying it at all? Therein lies my confusion. Both of them are in politics, ipso facto the marriage is a sham, and the baby is like a Raymond Shaw backup plan..? The hottest takes.

11-01-2016 , 08:02 PM

#42640

sylar

Ivan Drago's homeslice

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,307

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

needs more muslim.

11-01-2016 , 08:03 PM

#42641

BAIDS

2013 FA Cup winner

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 32,645

+ reverend wright SCANDAL

11-01-2016 , 08:04 PM

#42642

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by chymechowder

Like which leak revelations are still visible, chyme?

11-01-2016 , 08:05 PM

#42643

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

chyme you hate non-white Americans so much you're rooting for anti-American interests lol I'm so ****ing tired of you people worshiping The Troops and chanting U-S-A when you don't believe any of that ****.

11-01-2016 , 08:05 PM

#42644

HastenDan

banned

Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 1,711

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Like which leak revelations are still visible, chyme?

Podesta saying they need to dump the emails right after the story broke but before they were 'oops accidentally' deleted seems to be having some traction.

11-01-2016 , 08:07 PM

#42645

Cotton Hill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,307

Well I agree Hillary is a huge favorite regardless.

11-01-2016 , 08:07 PM

#42646

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

Just to emphasise how absurd this is, one would assume the RCP average is just as likely to be 4.7 points out in favor of Clinton as in favor of Trump. Right? So that's 26.9% to happen as well, according to 538? So that means they're saying the RCP average is better than even money to be wrong by at least 4.7 points. That's ridiculous.

11-01-2016 , 08:11 PM

#42647

daca

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,507

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBP04

I shouldn't have capitalized it as I'm vaguely familiar with its other use as it applies to the British economy. but as I use it I'm referring to Trump's polling numbers not being a fully accurate gauge due to people not wanting to admit they are voting for him (for obvious reasons)

this isnt what happened with the brexit vote. the polls held up well enough.

what he's worried about is stuff like the uk generel election and the latest Israeli one where the polls turned out to miss the end result by a decent bit. so he has added more uncertainty. it's more or less a judgement call on how accurate you expect polling to be.

11-01-2016 , 08:12 PM

#42648

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by +rep_lol

lol i mean it's a fact that she got pregnant before they got married. excuse me for not assuming that these two career politicians have the most noble intentions, and suggesting that their marriage may have been more an arrangement of political expediency and some dumb luck than an epic love story

Is there a good reason she couldn't have gotten an abortion if she didn't want to marry the dude?

Are you a time-traveler from the ****ing 1950s?

Quote:

i'm not passing judgment on a moral level, i couldn't really care less.

Well, I think your posts on the matter clearly indicate that you're ten times worse than Mao times Stalin to the Hitlerth power. But I'm not passing moral judgement.

11-01-2016 , 08:13 PM

#42649

HastenDan

banned

Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 1,711

Susan Sarandon has openly Endorsed Jill Stein. Link is her statement.

One of the issues is Clinton's lack of a position on the Dakota Access Pipeline. This article helps explain the lack of a position on it from Clinton. And of course the Trumpster has financial ties to the pipeline.