HRC within margin of error in indiana

[miguel]

Do you not understand?

Where are conservatives threatening to put a gun to the head of liberals for enjoying a basic constitutional freedom?

But, but...they call us mean names and won't make me a cake... <sniff>

 

[LPMan59]

And trump said p***y

 

[T.Lex]

What part of this:


Do you not understand?

Where are conservatives threatening to put a gun to the head of liberals for enjoying a basic constitutional freedom?

Oh, I understand perfectly. Politically, you and I agree on far more than we disagree. Which probably makes you uncomfortable.

I'm telling you about reality, though, which also clearly makes you uncomfortable.

Too often around here, the rhetoric is that all those who are either silent or support Dems are evil because they are complicit in efforts to limit gun rights. I think you can agree with that, right? The whole, all-Dems-are-evil thing.

The flip side to that is that gun owners are complicit in gun violence. By failing to allow for restrictions that would increase everyone's security, gun owners are morally complicit with the murders that happen with guns.

Can you not see that it is the same rhetorical framework each are applying to vilify the other?

 

[JTScribe]

BTW Monmouth's polling is . . . suspect.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...th-university-poll-release-today/#more-123234

 

[KittySlayer]

Margin of Error???

So if the difference between the two candidates is less than the margin of error some assume it could close and the other one wins. i.e. Hillary 47 Trump 43 with a 4.1% margin of error it is assumed he could close the gap and win with Hillary 43 and Trump 43.1. Couldn't the margin of error swing the other way and it turn out Hillary 51.1 and Trump 43?

I have always had issues with polling and believe this years race is so out of the ordinary that the polls likely are flawed and have a larger margin of error than they are willing to admit. Remember that the experts have told us Trump would lose at every step of the race. I suspect there are some people who will vote for Trump that may not even tell their spouse, much less an anonymous poll taker.

If Hillary loses and the polls showed her winning the day before you will need to stock up on fire extinguishers in addition to ammo as there will be more fire bombings from the peaceful and accepting people of the left.

Does anyone even legitimately know a hillary supporter in this state? I have yet to meet one outside of the internet.

I don't think people that evil are very common in this community.

Had dinner with a couple this weekend that is fully behind Hillary. We did not spend a lot of time discussing politics. Our friends genuinely believe Hillary will be the best leader in their minds and support many of their personal beliefs. As much as I may not agree with them that doesn't make their opinion less valid, just different than mine. This same couple would be aghast if they knew I was carrying while we were at dinner.

 

[T.Lex]

BTW Monmouth's polling is . . . suspect.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...th-university-poll-release-today/#more-123234

Is it?

That link seems to suggest that the numbers are wrong because the person conducting it disagrees with the author. It doesn't really seem to have any substantive critique of the poll itself.

They post their methodology in part at the link I posted, and in greater detail on a pdf that is downloadable. The "weighting" that they use is usually not disclosed by any pollster. That's their "secret sauce" that they use for marketing.

I may be repeating myself, but any one poll should not be relied upon in any one state, or at any one time. Rather, they are useful most useful when aggregated to show trends, from which predictions can be made.

 

[JettaKnight]

Had dinner with a couple this weekend that is fully behind Hillary. We did not spend a lot of time discussing politics. Our friends genuinely believe Hillary will be the best leader in their minds and support many of their personal beliefs. As much as I may not agree with them that doesn't make their opinion less valid, just different than mine. This same couple would be aghast if they knew I was carrying while we were at dinner.

How did you avoid getting covered in split pea soup? Because we all know that all democrats are demon possessed - that's the only reason that makes sense when you think about.

 

[T.Lex]

How did you avoid getting covered in split pea soup? Because we all know that all democrats are demon possessed - that's the only reason that makes sense when you think about.

What's with the purple?

 

[chipbennett]

New poll out today. Another one showed Trumps lead down to 4 points from 11.

and bayh and Gregg appear to be winning in some polls by a substantial lead.

going blue for HRC, dem governor and dem senators? Go Indiana!!

Monmouth is a propaganda firm posing as a legitimate polling outfit. I'll at least give them credit for giving their internals, and showing how they manufactured such a top-line shift, by changing the makeup of self-identified affiliation.

Previous poll (August):
R: 39%
D: 26%
I: 35%

Current poll (October):
R: 32%
D: 29%
I: 39%

That's a shift of -7% R, and +3% D, with the end result of a topline shift of -2% R, and +5% D.

See how that works?

 

[T.Lex]

Monmouth is a propaganda firm posing as a legitimate polling outfit. I'll at least give them credit for giving their internals, and showing how they manufactured such a top-line shift, by changing the makeup of self-identified affiliation.

Previous poll (August):
R: 39%
D: 26%
I: 35%

Current poll (October):
R: 32%
D: 29%
I: 39%

That's a shift of -7% R, and +3% D, with the end result of a topline shift of -2% R, and +5% D.

See how that works?

I'll quibble with that characterization. (I see you wearing your surprised face.)

That metric is self-identifying. They can't help if the people they call self-identify as something. The increase in Independents suggests to me that it is legitimate, as opposed to calculated. I think they disclosed where they got their lists from, and assuming randomness in the selection of numbers (and who would actually respond), I don't think that shift means what you think it means.

If anything, I think fewer people are willing to self-identify as Republicans in the last 2 months.

In fact, that group might include me!

 

[Tombs]

Oh, I understand perfectly. Politically, you and I agree on far more than we disagree. Which probably makes you uncomfortable.

I'm telling you about reality, though, which also clearly makes you uncomfortable.

Too often around here, the rhetoric is that all those who are either silent or support Dems are evil because they are complicit in efforts to limit gun rights. I think you can agree with that, right? The whole, all-Dems-are-evil thing.

The flip side to that is that gun owners are complicit in gun violence. By failing to allow for restrictions that would increase everyone's security, gun owners are morally complicit with the murders that happen with guns.

Can you not see that it is the same rhetorical framework each are applying to vilify the other?

Safety isn't a constitutional right.

So no, I fail to see what you're trying to say as everything is contingent on that.

We don't throw away free speech because some people get trampled after a few instances of people yelling fire in a theater, because we all know sacrificing constitutional liberties in favor of safety is a huge mistake.

And if we ignore the constitution, as they do, looking at crime statistics and scientific evidence alone surrounding "gun violence" all shows that the guns are not a contributing factor. The CDC even had to release a study claiming they found no evidence between guns and crime. The left invents a new type of crime called "gun violence" as a political tool to disarm conservatives because they think it's funny. A few of their less intelligent followers might not realize nor understand politics at this level, but that most certainly is the truth behind it.

 

[T.Lex]

Safety isn't a constitutional right.

So no, I fail to see what you're trying to say as everything is contingent on that.

We don't throw away free speech because some people get trampled after a few instances of people yelling fire in a theater, because we all know sacrificing constitutional liberties in favor of safety is a huge mistake.

So, again, at a policy level, I agree.

But here's another point worth restating: the Dems I know don't want to ban guns. In fact, most of them believe in RKBA conceptually, and at a practical level have home defense guns.

Constitutionally, they are on solid ground when they talk in terms of "reasonable" restrictions. (See Heller.) It is not absolute. They see nominal changes that (they believe) will enhance everyone's security, which is a foundational role of government.

They are not evil. They may be mistaken, misled, or misinformed, but they are not evil.

 

[chipbennett]

Too often around here, the rhetoric is that all those who are either silent or support Dems are evil because they are complicit in efforts to limit gun rights. I think you can agree with that, right? The whole, all-Dems-are-evil thing.

Except for the straw man at the end ("all-Dems-are-evil"), this rhetorical position is verifiable and accurate. Democrats have always and will always work toward infringing upon the gun rights of the law-abiding; therefore, any avoidance of effort to keep democrats from being in office/in power is complicit in furthering the democrat agenda of infringing upon those rights.

The flip side to that is that gun owners are complicit in gun violence. By failing to allow for restrictions that would increase everyone's security, gun owners are morally complicit with the murders that happen with guns.

This rhetorical position is verifiably inaccurate. Said restrictions (or any unsaid restrictions) have not been proven to "increase everyone's safety". Further, said restrictions, when enacted, have been proven to be utterly ineffective in accomplishing the stated goal to "increase everyone's safety". Asserting it as true is begging the question. Therefore, since said restrictions do not "increase everyone's safety", effort to prevent said restrictions is not complicit, morally or otherwise, in furthering the "murders that happen with guns."

Can you not see that it is the same rhetorical framework each are applying to vilify the other?

Except that the rhetorical framework is not analogous between the former and the latter, because it is demonstrably based on logical fallacy in the latter case.

 

[chipbennett]

They are not evil. They may be mistaken, misled, or misinformed, but they are not evil.

Point of order: YOU injected the "evil" straw man.

Edit: looking back, I see that it came from Tombs, within the specific context of enabling the infringement of gun rights. So, mea culpa.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Point of order: YOU injected the "evil" straw man.

I believe he was calling back to some INGO members using words like "evil", "cancer", "enemy", etc. You haven't been around much, but that's the sort of labeling we've been seeing.

 

[chipbennett]

I believe he was calling back to some INGO members using words like "evil", "cancer", "enemy", etc. You haven't been around much, but that's the sort of labeling we've been seeing.

Yeah, already corrected myself.

 

[JettaKnight]

Chip, why are you arguing with T.Lex? You and he already agree.

He's merely displaying the mindset of a HRC voter in order to counter the statement that they are evil.

 

[actaeon277]

Margin of Error???

So if the difference between the two candidates is less than the margin of error some assume it could close and the other one wins. i.e. Hillary 47 Trump 43 with a 4.1% margin of error it is assumed he could close the gap and win with Hillary 43 and Trump 43.1. Couldn't the margin of error swing the other way and it turn out Hillary 51.1 and Trump 43?

I have always had issues with polling and believe this years race is so out of the ordinary that the polls likely are flawed and have a larger margin of error than they are willing to admit. Remember that the experts have told us Trump would lose at every step of the race. I suspect there are some people who will vote for Trump that may not even tell their spouse, much less an anonymous poll taker.

If Hillary loses and the polls showed her winning the day before you will need to stock up on fire extinguishers in addition to ammo as there will be more fire bombings from the peaceful and accepting people of the left.



Had dinner with a couple this weekend that is fully behind Hillary. We did not spend a lot of time discussing politics. Our friends genuinely believe Hillary will be the best leader in their minds and support many of their personal beliefs. As much as I may not agree with them that doesn't make their opinion less valid, just different than mine. This same couple would be aghast if they knew I was carrying while we were at dinner.

What, you don't "whip it out" and say "look at what I got."?

 

[KittySlayer]

What, you don't "whip it out" and say "look at what I got."?

Well besides the obvious laughter that would ensue they are both lesbians and would not be interested.

 

[T.Lex]

Well now. This thread took an interesting turn.

And here I was, getting ready to post a Blazing Saddles reference.