06 October 2016

Yup

I said, yup.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I touched that stove in 2012 and 2016 and it turned out to be hot both times. From your keyboard to God's ears and all that, but I won't believe the polls are that skewed until November 9th.

greenlight

Peggy said...

I read that article as well. I am sure that the media are doing all they can to suggest that Hillary is poised to win. I am hopeful that the theory of the article is true.

I feel like we got burned in 2012, however, when Obama won. Now, it's true Hillary will not have the black vote, nor the white guilt vote, that Obama enjoyed. But, Obama won. Of course there was election fraud. Romney was stunned--as was I. He thought he'd win. Were his pollsters wrong? Were they not working for him in good faith? Did no one anticipate fraud?

[Relatedly, have you noticed a lack of feminist-backed promotion of the first woman president? It's not a cultural big deal, apparently. We have experienced women CEOs for years.]

I have not looked at the various polling techniques. Too many to track. I know they skew sample participants toward Dem interests. I don't know how they get a hold of people, however. Have they abandoned wireline calling? Are the pollsters really getting completed interviews via cellphones? How have the pollsters dealt with the fact that older citizens (maybe 40+) are more likely on landline and younger have probably never bought a landline? Are they getting all ages via cell? I engaged in market research 10 years ago when these issues were beginning. You get lots of dead cell #s in any database or random calling mechanism. There is a ton of calling needed just to get working numbers. The pollsters by now have probably weeded out non-working numbers from the random generators. There are further questions about geographic distribution of respondents within a state and nationwide, as there are cultural and urban/rural differences.

Well, that's getting into the weeds, but it is important.

I think the country is ready for Trump if DC Establishment is not. [I heard a DC guy talk at a local luncheon last week. It was interesting and predictably establishment at the same time. I knew all the same stuff from reading and watching the news.]

Peggy said...

As for today's unfortunate WashPost bombshell, it is not a surprise that Trump is like that. I thought, however, that godless liberals approved of shallow sex. I thought that the liberal belief is that women like random sex as much as men do. Trump bragged that women WANT to have sex with him. What's the moral problem from a liberal standpoint?

Is Trump worse than Bill, who forced women?

Do liberals support Christian teaching on human sexuality or not?

All that said, of course I do not think it speaks well of Trump's character. Hilly is so glad it surfaced though. (I can't imagine how WP got it... (sarc))

Jane Chantal said...

Those who are pretending to be such delicate flowers that they cannot bear the thought of the White House being occupied by a man who once engaged in what Trump himself has accurately characterized as "locker room banter", are fooling no one.

Considering that Hillary's people, as well as some in the Republican establishment, as well as most of the mainstream media, have from the outset been seeking a way to stop Trump, the interesting thing is that it has taken so very long for them to find something they think might do it. I think they underestimate both Trump, and the voters who prefer him to Clinton. Which should not be surprising, given that Trump's opponent represents depravity on a scale that makes locker room banter seem like poetry.