1. It’s not a thirst for blood, not at all—but an astonishment, an appreciation for the capabilities of a human that bares his soul naked for the art of combat using strictly his body. That’s entertainment. "UFC Fight Night 139: Korean Zombie vs. Rodríguez" Live Discussion *Spoilers*. Prelims begin at 7:00 p.m. ET on Fight Pass.
    Dismiss Notice

Clinton Probably Finished Off Trump Last Night

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by jokerthief, Oct 20, 2016.

  1. jokerthief

    jokerthief No reason to get excited. Site Donor

    Reputation:
    218,897,288
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/

    Clinton Probably Finished Off Trump Last Night



    By Nate Silver

    Filed under 2016 Election

    [​IMG]
    Hillary Clinton speaks with members of the media aboard her campaign plane at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas on Wednesday following the third presidential debate.
    Andrew Harnik / AP

    I’m not sure I need to tell you this, but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president. It’s just a question of what “probably” means.

    Clinton went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday with a lead of about 7 percentage points over Donald Trump. And according to the only two scientific polls we’ve seen, voters thought that Clinton won the debate. Occasionally, the initial reaction to a debate can differ from the way it’s perceived days later. But in this case, the morning headlines, which focused overwhelmingly on Trump’s refusal to say whether he’ll accept the election results, are potentially worse for Trump than the debate itself. In YouGov’s poll of debate watchers, 68 percent of voters said they think the candidates should pledge to accept the results of the election.

    There are less than three weeks left in the campaign, and there are no more guaranteed opportunities for Trump or Clinton to command a huge public audience, as they do at the conventions and the debates (although, they’ll get plenty of attention, of course). Millions of people have already voted. Trump has had a significant advertising deficit, and an even more significant deficit in terms of his turnout operation. He’ll probably spend a significant chunk of the remaining news cycles quarreling over his contention that the election is rigged, and with the numerous women who have accused him of sexual assault. He doesn’t have an obvious — or even a not-so-obvious — path to the presidency.

    So we’re left to argue about the probability of an unforeseen event, or a significant polling error. It’s perhaps significant that almost no matter what news has occurred, and there’s been a lot of it — terrorist attacks, mass shootings, foreign crises, her email scandal, the Wikileaks dump, her Sept. 11 health scare — Clinton has almost always led Trump in the polls, although there have certainly been times when the election was close. What if her State Department emails are sitting on one of Julian Assange’s servers? That would be interesting, I suppose. But there are also October (or November) surprises that could work against Trump: more accusations from women, more damaging videotapes, further leaking of his tax records.

    The other possibility is a massive polling failure. There aren’t really any direct precedents for a candidate coming back from this far down to win an American presidential election, although you can make a few loose analogies. Harry Truman’s comeback over Thomas Dewey in 1948 almost works as a comparison, but Truman wasn’t coming from as far behind as Trump is, and there was much less polling in 1948. Ronald Reagan had a significant late surge against Jimmy Carter in 1980, but he was ahead beforehand — and the surge came in large part because of a debate that occurred just one week before the election, whose impact was too late to be fully reflected in the polls. If Trump was going to have a Reaganesque surge, in other words, it probably would have started with a commanding performance in last night’s debate — and not another loss.

    Brexit? Even that comparison doesn’t really work. The final polls showed a toss-up between the United Kingdom leaving the European Union or remaining in it, and “leave” eventually won by 4 points. If the polls were biased against Trump by that much in this election, he’d still lose, by a margin approximating the one by which Mitt Romney lost to President Obama four years ago. The primaries? They’re a reminder that one ought to be humble when making predictions. But the polls pegged Trump just fine — in fact, slightly overestimating his performance in many early states such as Iowa.

    Related: Elections Podcast
    Late-Night Podcast: Recapping The Third Debate
    That’s not to say that a polling miss is impossible. Our polls-only model still gives Trump a 14 percent chance and our polls-plus forecast a 17 percent chance, although that’s before accounting for any impact of last night’s debate or some of the other circumstances I’ve described. Presidential elections are rare events, rare enough that we don’t really know what the tail ends of the probability distribution look like, and it’s prudent to make somewhat conservative assumptions under those conditions. It’s possible, also, that the polls are significantly underestimating Clinton rather than Trump — perhaps a combination of Trump’s lack of a ground game and his voters’ feeling despondent because he says the election is rigged will yield a double-digit loss.

    If Clinton wins by a clear margin, it will help to resolve a longstanding debate among political scientists and historians, since it will suggest that campaigns and candidates do matter and that elections aren’t always determined by economic conditions, which would predict a much closer outcome than the one we’re likely to see. Furthermore, Clinton’s win will have come by rather conventional means. Her big surges in the polls came following the conventions and the debates. She got the largest convention bounce of any candidate since at least 2000, and she won the debates by a clearer margin than any previous candidate in the six elections in which there were three debates that CNN polled.


    MARGIN IN POST-DEBATE POLLS
    DEBATE WINNER
    YEAR 1ST DEBATE 2ND DEBATE 3RD DEBATE TOTAL
    Clinton (vs. Trump) 2016 +35 +23 +13 +71
    Obama (vs. McCain) 2008 +13 +24 +27 +64
    Clinton (vs. Bush) 1992 +14 +42 +0 +56
    Kerry (vs. Bush) 2004 +16 +2 +13 +31
    Romney (vs. Obama) 2012 +42 -7 -8 +27
    Bush (vs. Gore) 2000 -7 +13 -2 +4
    Clinton was the most dominant debater to date
    Elections without three debates (or without post-debate polls for all three debates) are not shown.

    Source: CNN, USA Today/Gallup Polls

    There was nothing flashy about Clinton’s performance at either the convention or the debates. She was just prepared, steady and tactically smart — such as goading Trump into feuds with the family of Khizr Khan, or Alicia Machado. Trump might seem like an easy opponent to take down, and he certainly hasn’t helped himself. But as Trump himself would probably point out, 16 Republicans failed to do so. We won’t know for sure for another 19 days, but Clinton may have finished him off last night.


    Now the big question for the country seems to be, what to name @cheeseflosser?
     
    ATJ-Lucko likes this.
  2. cheeseflosser

    cheeseflosser Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    38,161,960
    Whatever, trumps been finished off by better; himself (following a nice grope of a soap star or two).
     
  3. Peezy

    Peezy Voice of the people

    Reputation:
    42,357,313
    I'd venture to say that's the first time she's finished off a man since the 80's.
     
    TriangleSmoke, 0mega1 and Sniggles like this.
  4. Taste Testing Tannehill’s Fart Box

    Taste Testing Tannehill’s Fart Box Ninja

    Reputation:
    6,436,896,780
    That depends on if you want to include "suicides" as finishing someone off.
     
    TriangleSmoke, 0mega1 and Sniggles like this.
  5. Sniggles

    Sniggles ex nihilo

    Reputation:
    -166,191,290
    Let's not pretend these debates won her the election. The stranglehold on the censorship of mainstream media via TV, Facebook, Reddit, major print/net publications ensured victory. Don't delude yourself into believing the Cosby express. Clinton is a master of buying people because she is a master of selling herself.

    Trump was nothing more than a Manchurian candidate. Hillary gave him the media push for the primary because Cruz and Trump were such sleezeballs that they could never get hold of public confidence. Anyone else would have beaten her given the present evidence of conniving cuntery. Kasich would have whooped Hillary.
    --- Post Added -- Oct 20, 2016, ---
    That DNC techie that got whacked... errr... robbed got finished pretty quietly.
     
  6. ATJ-Lucko

    ATJ-Lucko MMAtheist Survival Pool Champion

    Reputation:
    3,380,101,587
    You making her out to be El Chapo..
    lets say rich was the leakier why would you murder him so soon, if the leaks already happened and this was for revenge, you wouldn't murder anyone during a presidential campaign. And if even it wasn't for revenge. why you you want to murder anyone during a campaign?, a campaign that you know you should win when you going against Trump.
    Add to that the fact that Clinton doesn't even know how to email servers work and even the people that she hires have to go on Reddit and ask for help. She can't hire a competent tech to fix the email problem but she has a hit squad at her disposal ready at a moments notice to take people out. How good is this clinton "death squad" we know all the shit she and bill has done, and all that shit is minor in comparison to fucking murder, you don't cover affairs and staff meeting chatter with murder.

    You been watching to much Hollywood Movies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2016
    Cat--Smasher and Poindexter like this.
  7. Sniggles

    Sniggles ex nihilo

    Reputation:
    -166,191,290
    She is like a mafia leader. Her cronyism is organized crime.

    If these leaks were on George Bush or Mitt Romney, your tone would be different.
    --- Post Added -- Oct 21, 2016, ---
    I am the firm belief that Kasich, Romney, Ryan, Paul or even crazy Carson would have shitkicked Hillary after all that has been revealed. Cruz and Trump sitting at the top of the heap was by design.


    Hillary Clinton's campaign 'wanted to elevate Donald Trump and other extreme Republicans' to make the GOP's nominee 'unpalatable', according to Wikileaks
     
  8. ATJ-Lucko

    ATJ-Lucko MMAtheist Survival Pool Champion

    Reputation:
    3,380,101,587
    The fact that you think she is like a mafia leader shows how bad she is at covering things up, a true mastermind wouldn't leave so many lose ends, but this is not the movies, this is real life, not X-Files.

    I am not against the leaks but just against wikileaks lying and having a political agenda, they should not be in favor or against any particular candidate. Beside the leaks have uncovered nothing.
     
  9. Sniggles

    Sniggles ex nihilo

    Reputation:
    -166,191,290
    I really do not care what you think. I think this way. Have you even read the leaks? I highly doubt it.

    Assange is against BOTH candidates. As am I, my ideal race is Kasich vs Sanders in this cycle. Assange has said that Trump's flaws are obvious and the Clinton-owned media has uncovered them but no MSM is working to uncover anything about Hillary.

    You're right. This is real life and humans make mistakes. Podesta probably got hacked by the simplest email phishing techniques.
     
    chrisc likes this.
  10. Hassquatch

    Hassquatch Slayer

    Reputation:
    182,862,757
    Those loyal Clinton supporters are dumber than the Trump followers CNN plasters everywhere for the fact that they think they're smart. I think the Trumpers at least know they're dumb as fuck. The Clintonites either have an empty head or it's been wiped clean and replaced with a sandy vagina.
     
  11. Taste Testing Tannehill’s Fart Box

    Taste Testing Tannehill’s Fart Box Ninja

    Reputation:
    6,436,896,780
    This is why your truly an idiot and your opinion holds absolutely zero credibility on anything
     
    Hassquatch likes this.
  12. unforgivn

    unforgivn Nunquam Fidelis

    Reputation:
    660,205,122
    I love how Hillary apparently not only controls her party, the media, and the US government but now also apparently controls the Republican party and its primary voters, too. She's a politician, not one of the heads of goddamned Hydra or something.
     
    TriangleSmoke and Bran like this.
  13. cheeseflosser

    cheeseflosser Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    38,161,960
    What will win this election is simply the ability of the Democrats to do what the Republicans couldn't: Stop the "outsider" or "revolutionary" within their primary.

    I don't think Bernie Sanders could have beaten a well-prepared Republican candidate on the national stage.

    Likewise, I don't think Trump could have beaten a well-prepared Democratic candidate (which he hasn't).

    The DNC worked their ass off to get this election closer to the middle and maintained the status quo. Dirty, leaky, unfair, whatever adjective you want to apply to the process is probably appropriate but secondary to the fact that they are going to win the White House and further the Democratic establishment's agenda.

    What I don't think they were prepared for was the capacity of hackers and young people to see through their bullshit. They won a battle but both they and the Republicans have likely lost the war. There is a DISTINCT rift forming within the Democratic party that really resembles the Tea Party rift that happened not long ago with the GOP. More and more people are seeing both parties as irreparably corrupt and migrating more and more to the left or right.

    Shit will be interesting in 2020, for sure.
     
    Sniggles likes this.
  14. Hassquatch

    Hassquatch Slayer

    Reputation:
    182,862,757
    Not Hillary. Those who control Hillary control both parties, the media, government.
     
    Sniggles likes this.
  15. unforgivn

    unforgivn Nunquam Fidelis

    Reputation:
    660,205,122
    Including the voters?
     
  16. Hassquatch

    Hassquatch Slayer

    Reputation:
    182,862,757
    The ones that count or the popular vote?
     
  17. unforgivn

    unforgivn Nunquam Fidelis

    Reputation:
    660,205,122
    Which candidate won without winning the popular vote again?
     
    Bran likes this.
  18. Hassquatch

    Hassquatch Slayer

    Reputation:
    182,862,757
    Bush 2000

    a few other times in history
     
  19. unforgivn

    unforgivn Nunquam Fidelis

    Reputation:
    660,205,122
    But still, in every one of those instances the states' electors still followed the popular vote in their state.
     
  20. Tapout

    Tapout Bringing Sexy Back Site Donor

    Reputation:
    978,409,240
    Until the Republican Party fixes a majority of their stances on Social issues. They will never win the Presidential election again. They are 50-300 years in the past on most social issues.

    The crappy part is, they do have some good ideas on government, spending, health etc. But they use Jesus to oppress people. So fuck that.
     
    Dimson and kanobro like this.

Share This Page