Has this been posted? I'm assuming it has. Harris is one of my heroes.
I posted this a ways back, in the middle of your vapid defense of Trump's racism.
Harris is a huge liberal, is a big academic, is a bigger thinker who focuses on the complexities of issues rather than focusing on a minute detail. He actually listens to others and is willing to concede when he's misstepped. Harris is the anti-troll. So he is a hero? Weird. Normally people emulate their heroes.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
If there's any part of that that's key to listen to it's from 16:14 to 20:00 or so. Totally dead on about the latino Indiana judge. Pretty much exactly what I said in response to that.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Harris would most certainly be viewed as a "troll" by large swaths of the regressive left. The Cenks of the world. He's certainly viewed as a troll by Reza and Greenwald. Probably by the likes of Fareed, and other non Classical Liberal liberals. Have you seen how much abuse Sam gets?
He also generally agrees with my proposition on Trump: much of his public speaking is baiting the left into the wrong type of discussion. And so many here fall for it so easily. His comments on labeling Trump and being a racist should be enlightening for many here - at least his view has some nuance on the topic. Or the obvious and deliberate baiting of the Democrats by asking Russia to find the missing emails.
Harris would most certainly be viewed as a "troll" by large swaths of the regressive left. The Cenks of the world. He's certainly viewed as a troll by Reza and Greenwald. Probably by the likes of Fareed, and other non Classical Liberal liberals. Have you seen how much abuse Sam gets?
He also generally agrees with my proposition on Trump: much of his public speaking is baiting the left into the wrong type of discussion. And so many here fall for it so easily. His comments on labeling Trump and being a racist should be enlightening for many here - at least his view has some nuance on the topic. Or the obvious and deliberate baiting of the Democrats by asking Russia to find the missing emails.
He certainly wouldn't be a troll here because he'd have earnest positions he'd defend instead of drive by's to cause a reaction (ie playing down the speech by the Muslim man who lost his son because he probably beats his wife). I love Harris and Nawaz. You aren't them
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
He also generally agrees with my proposition on Trump: much of his public speaking is baiting the left into the wrong type of discussion. And so many here fall for it so easily. His comments on labeling Trump and being a racist should be enlightening for many here - at least his view has some nuance on the topic. Or the obvious and deliberate baiting of the Democrats by asking Russia to find the missing emails.
Look, I know you want to like Trump, and are choosing to defend him in a deflective way, but if Trump is a master "baiter" ()goading the Left (and Right) with a nefarious subplot, I truly doubt he'd be losing - and will lose soundly - to a terrible Democratic candidate like Hillary.
Despite your best efforts to explain otherwise, Trump just doesn't have much going for him, and is actually, really just a buffoon.
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
Look, I know you want to like Trump, and are choosing to defend him in a deflective way, but if Trump is a master "baiter" ()goading the Left (and Right) with a nefarious subplot, I truly doubt he'd be losing - and will lose soundly - to a terrible Democratic candidate like Hillary.
Despite your best efforts to explain otherwise, Trump just doesn't have much going for him, and is actually, really just a buffoon.
Whether he will win or lose is still somewhat in the air. He's certainly at risk because of the electoral college issues that have been discussed here previously, but it's not like he is getting trounced in the polls.
I think it's funny that people still think I'm a Trump supporter, even though it should be clear by now that I am not. The most charitable way to characterize it would be that I'm fascinated by Trump. I just don't bother regularly refuting people who say I am a Trump supporter because peoples' opinions of me are of not interest to me. Calling someone a Troll or whatever is wasting an opportunity to make an interesting point about the topic at hand.
But, all things equal, people vastly prefer simply affirmation, rather than being asked to think through things with a bit more umph.
Whether he will win or lose is still somewhat in the air. He's certainly at risk because of the electoral college issues that have been discussed here previously, but it's not like he is getting trounced in the polls.
I think it's funny that people still think I'm a Trump supporter, even though it should be clear by now that I am not. The most charitable way to characterize it would be that I'm fascinated by Trump. I just don't bother refuting people who says I am a Trump supporter because peoples' opinions of me are of not interest to me. Calling someone a Troll or whatever is wasting an opportunity to make an interesting point.
But, all things equal, people vastly prefer simply affirmation, rather than being asked to think through things with a bit more umph.
If the two points you've now made are true (people don't change their opinions, and you don't care what people think of you) you'd literally have no reason to post here
For anyone sweating the details, the same survey is tied among likely voters in a four-way race. Among the larger "registered voters" sample, Clinton leads by 7.
I have never heard of RABA Research, so no idea if they are reputable or fly-by-night. They previously had Clinton up by 6 when others showed a nearly tied race, so there may be a methodological issue here.
On the other hand Suffolk U. showed Clinton up 9 in PA and Mason-Dixon had a nearly tied race in Missouri; those results are consistent with a wide lead for Clinton nationwide--so the early indications are that we will see a "bounce" for Clinton in the wake of the DNC.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Haha I was about to say. Who the hell is RABA research?!
Worth noting:
Quote:
A separate Reuters/Ipsos survey that provided respondents with the option to choose from Clinton, Drumpf, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, has Clinton and Drumpf tied at 37 percentage points.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Haha I was about to say. Who the hell is RABA research?!
Worth noting:
That is worth noting, and one of the things that will merit some discussion over the next 100 days (lord help us) is whether pollsters get more accurate results by including third-party candidates. It turns out that isn't a simple question.
It is likely worth, when possible, looking at both numbers--while keeping in mind that some portion of poll respondents who tell a pollster they will vote for a third party will change their minds before Election Day, which often causes third-party support to be overstated somewhat in polls. This happened, for instance, with Ross Perot.
As an example, a Republican who doesn't like Trump may tell a pollster they are voting Gary Johnson. But push comes to shove, and Election Day arrives--they may hold their nose and vote Trump because they find Clinton unpalatable.
I think we will learn a lot about polling this season.
Is there any example in recent memory of two candidates this unlike-able? Do you people lie to the pollsters because they are embarrassed that they would vote for Trump?
I think we will learn a lot about polling this season.
Is there any example in recent memory of two candidates this unlike-able? Do you people lie to the pollsters because they are embarrassed that they would vote for Trump?
The "shy Trump" voters was discussed by Silver. He talked at length about how this isn't the first candidate where this was a concern and it's never borne out in voting. In fact, the polls still overestimated the vote share with those candidates
The "shy Trump" voters was discussed by Silver. He talked at length about how this isn't the first candidate where this was a concern and it's never borne out in voting. In fact, the polls still overestimated the vote share with those candidates
More pertinently: there has been no evidence of a "Shy Trump Effect" in the primaries.
The idea is sort of foolish in a way. Most surveys now are either automated or online. Why would someone be embarrassed to disclose to a computer that they are voting Trump?
More pertinently: there has been no evidence of a "Shy Trump Effect" in the primaries.
The idea is sort of foolish in a way. Most surveys now are either automated or online. Why would someone be embarrassed to disclose to a computer that they are voting Trump?
I think this could be the rare race where both candidates have a shy effect. I'm sure some people will vote for Hillary who won't admit to it in a poll. These are both historically disliked candidates, that Reuters poll has them both at 37% which even with still a lot of time to go is pretty amazing to see them both under 40%.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
For anyone sweating the details, the same survey is tied among likely voters in a four-way race. Among the larger "registered voters" sample, Clinton leads by 7.
I have never heard of RABA Research, so no idea if they are reputable or fly-by-night. They previously had Clinton up by 6 when others showed a nearly tied race, so there may be a methodological issue here.
On the other hand Suffolk U. showed Clinton up 9 in PA and Mason-Dixon had a nearly tied race in Missouri; those results are consistent with a wide lead for Clinton nationwide--so the early indications are that we will see a "bounce" for Clinton in the wake of the DNC.
Is there interest in having a separate number-crunchers thread for this, as we've done with past elections? Personally I like keeping that discussion separate from debates on the merits of candidates and policies.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Is there interest in having a separate number-crunchers thread for this, as we've done with past elections? Personally I like keeping that discussion separate from debates on the merits of candidates and policies.
I would be fine with that. I agree--I actually enjoy the "polls and numbers" discussion more.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
)goading the Left (and Right) with a nefarious subplot, I truly doubt he'd be losing - and will lose soundly - to a terrible Democratic candidate like Hillary.
