Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
2016 Primary Debates Thread! 2016 Primary Debates Thread!

09-16-2015 , 06:21 PM
Santorum overshot his mark on the entrance. So even when he's just walking, he veers to the far right.
09-16-2015 , 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASAP17
I've seen polls say she is as high as 5% which is 500% more than what she was polling at pre first JV debate. Yeah it matters, thanks though.
I mean I guess. When candidates are moving around from like 1-5% that could just as easily just be random noise. Or like it could be due entirely to the debate. But who gives a ****, because Carly Fiorina won't be President of anything, so in the end, the truth remains these JV debates are complete clown shows.
09-16-2015 , 06:23 PM
No way any of these four see a noticeable jump higher. Santorum is hilarious he thinks he'll gain any traction like Perry (already out), Huckabee (will be out soon) had in previous elections. Pataki, Jindal, Graham LOL please.
09-16-2015 , 06:23 PM
Regan out of the gate.
09-16-2015 , 06:24 PM
Glad that "FIRST CANDIDATE STATEMENT - REAGAN NUTHUGGING -350" is going to pay out. I parlayed that with "MENTION OF 'DEMOCRAT PARTY' +180", so I'm still live on that.
09-16-2015 , 06:25 PM
Was hoping Santorum would be like "some of you know me as the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Would have shipped him $50 if he did.
09-16-2015 , 06:25 PM
If we drink every time Reagan is mentioned, we will be dead by the time this is done.
09-16-2015 , 06:26 PM
I need some of those THEY LIVE glasses.
09-16-2015 , 06:26 PM
GET HIM BOBBY
09-16-2015 , 06:27 PM
I like how they're just trolling these JV losers.

First question: give us our Trump soundbites.
09-16-2015 , 06:28 PM
GTFO with the baby parts.
09-16-2015 , 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
I mean I guess. When candidates are moving around from like 1-5% that could just as easily just be random noise.
Just statistically speaking, this actually isn't true. This was recently discussed in an instant classic DS thread called "Rachel Maddow is stupid" or something like that.

The basic idea is that a margin or error of 4% is actually only accurate for candidates near 50%, and as you get way lower than that (or way higher), the MoE shrinks significantly. Here's an example I made up in a hypothetical poll:



So somebody going from 1% in a poll to 5% in the next poll is actually very statistically significant.
09-16-2015 , 06:29 PM
Tapper should just look up to his producer and be like "have we got enough on Trump to for clickbait articles tomorrow about Trump? Yes? Alright we're shutting it down to get ready for Trump", just drop the mic, turn off the lights and end this.
09-16-2015 , 06:29 PM
Chances to respond confirmed.
09-16-2015 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockfsh
If we drink every time Reagan is mentioned, we will be dead by the time this is done.
Sit with a significant other. Have that person touch your penis every time Reagan is mentioned. Over/under on ejaculations?
09-16-2015 , 06:29 PM
Oh snap on graham there. Ouch.
09-16-2015 , 06:30 PM
Iran issue is going to hurt GOP in long run, Americans don't love this deal but as of now we hate warmongering more. To use it as a lightening rod will only alienate independents.
09-16-2015 , 06:30 PM
Did graham just say he wants to be president for the 1%?
09-16-2015 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
Just statistically speaking, this actually isn't true. This was recently discussed in an instant classic DS thread called "Rachel Maddow is stupid" or something like that.

The basic idea is that a margin or error of 4% is actually only accurate for candidates near 50%, and as you get way lower than that (or way higher), the MoE shrinks significantly. Here's an example I made up in a hypothetical poll:



So somebody going from 1% in a poll to 5% in the next poll is actually very statistically significant.
Right, I get it. But also Fiorina wasn't quite 1% and isn't at 5% and I wasn't really referring to MOE and lastly, most importantly to my point, Fiorina isn't going to win so I maintain these JV debates are still for ultimately huge losers.
09-16-2015 , 06:32 PM
10 minutes into this thing and TRUMP is crushing it.
09-16-2015 , 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Right, I get it. But also Fiorina wasn't quite 1% and isn't at 5% and I wasn't really referring to MOE and lastly, most importantly to my point, Fiorina isn't going to win so I maintain these JV debates are still for ultimately huge losers.
Oh, no question about that.
09-16-2015 , 06:32 PM
More TRUMP than Reagan.
09-16-2015 , 06:33 PM
Trump going to tell them to take that pledge and shove it up their ass real soon

Ask him to sign pledge, now Kristol writes about running 3rd party of Cheney(lol), and half the field will be saying they won't even vote Republican if Trump wins

lol at Pataki saying he didn't break agreement after saying he wouldn't vote for him
09-16-2015 , 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
Just statistically speaking, this actually isn't true. This was recently discussed in an instant classic DS thread called "Rachel Maddow is stupid" or something like that.

The basic idea is that a margin or error of 4% is actually only accurate for candidates near 50%, and as you get way lower than that (or way higher), the MoE shrinks significantly. Here's an example I made up in a hypothetical poll:



So somebody going from 1% in a poll to 5% in the next poll is actually very statistically significant.
Dvaut1 Shows Stupidity!
09-16-2015 , 06:33 PM
Pataki's answer on the loyalty pledge really belies how stupid the thing actually is. "Trump is absolutely not qualified to be president, but of course I'd still vote for him, because the pledge."

      
m