Hilldog proposes amendment to overturn citizens united

[BDKJMU]

And she is either tied or losing in the polls.

No she's not. I just posted on that in another thread. Below is the RealClearPolitics list of polls that include Johnson and Stein; which is the list to look at because Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot. The most recent set of swing State polls also had her ahead in Florida and Pennsylvania as well as tied in Ohio. If the election were to be held tomorrow and you had to bet on who was going to win the smart bet would be Hillary. And I think she'd win all three of those referenced swing States. But it's true that she's been overwhelmingly outspending Trump on ads. That's a legitimate consideration.

My hope is that it doesn't matter as much as it might because everybody knows Trump. But we'll see.

That graph fails to include the:
-7/12-7/13 Rasmussen poll that has Trump up 7.
-7/8-7/12 CBS/NY Times that has it a tie.
-LA Times Poll that came out Fri that had Trump up 3.

[BDKJMU]

You are hilarious in your constant defense of your girl Hillary. The fact that Trump is breathing down her neck when she should be winning in landslide fashion has you so shook up. It is really a joy to watch how much energy you are spending trying to refute everything posted negatively about your girl.

Trump may just pull this off. And if he doesn't Hillary will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. Either way, we'll be pointing at you and laughing on this board.

I said that the fact that she has been outspending Trump is a concern. But, right now, she is clearly ahead in the polls. I was just saying that it's not true that she is behind or tied in the polls. When you look at the RealClearPolitics averages she is ahead in the polls nationally and she is ahead in the polls in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Is she ahead by as much as I'd like? No. But the objective reality right now is that at this moment in time she's ahead in the polls. She's not "behind or tied."

I am well aware of the fact that Trump has a chance. And I'm probably not going to be satisfied by the outcome regardless because I think what would be best for this country is for Trump to lose in a landslide of historic proportions. But if you're talking about right now she's not behind or tied in the polls. She's ahead.

Almost. Seeing as how you want to compare 4 ways:

In FL Trump is up by a hair:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5963.html

In PA Hildacunt is up by a hair (1.0):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5964.html

In OH Hildacunt is up by 2.0:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5970.html

[Ibanez]

You are hilarious in your constant defense of your girl Hillary. The fact that Trump is breathing down her neck when she should be winning in landslide fashion has you so shook up. It is really a joy to watch how much energy you are spending trying to refute everything posted negatively about your girl.

Trump may just pull this off. And if he doesn't Hillary will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. Either way, we'll be pointing at you and laughing on this board.

We already point and laugh...

[Ibanez]

Really? Nobody points out the idiocy in a candidate saying she'll propose a constitutional amendment?

[BDKJMU]

Citizens United needs to be overturned, but having this cunt try to own it is like having a drug dealer lecture people on the dangers of narcotics.

No it doesn't. We just need to get full transparency on campaign funding & donations, which we still don't have..

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. Educate me. Tell me about some writings from the time that would suggest that those involved in crafting the Constitution wanted to prevent people from contributing as much as they wanted to political campaigns.

You're still being intellectually dishonest but...

I'm not seeing that as indicating there was any intent to prevent people from investing as much as they wanted to to support the candidate of their choice. And I really, really doubt that John Adams would've supported doing that.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not seeing that as indicating there was any intent to prevent people from investing as much as they wanted to to support the candidate of their choice. And I really, really doubt that John Adams would've supported doing that.

Is there any indication they considered corporations people?

[JohnStOnge]

That graph fails to include the:
-7/12-7/13 Rasmussen poll that has Trump up 7.
-7/8-7/12 CBS/NY Times that has it a tie.
-LA Times Poll that came out Fri that had Trump up 3.

I do think the best thing to look at is the four way because that's the reality. However, yes, if you look at the polls available for just Clinton and Trump it's not a complete shutout.

The Rasmussen poll is a low rated poll with a history of overestimating how well the Republican is going to do. Not that I like seeing what it estimates, but it's kind of an outlier and has been throughout.

In any case, if you look at all the polls for just Trump vs. Clinton, you'd have to say Clinton is generally ahead in the polls right now.

[kalm]

You're still being intellectually dishonest but...

I'm not seeing that as indicating there was any intent to prevent people from investing as much as they wanted to to support the candidate of their choice. And I really, really doubt that John Adams would've supported doing that.

Willful ignorance, John.

[BDKJMU]

That graph fails to include the:
-7/12-7/13 Rasmussen poll that has Trump up 7.
-7/8-7/12 CBS/NY Times that has it a tie.
-LA Times Poll that came out Fri that had Trump up 3.

I do think the best thing to look at is the four way because that's the reality. However, yes, if you look at the polls available for just Clinton and Trump it's not a complete shutout.

The Rasmussen poll is a low rated poll with a history of overestimating how well the Republican is going to do. Not that I like seeing what it estimates, but it's kind of an outlier and has been throughout.

In any case, if you look at all the polls for just Trump vs. Clinton, you'd have to say Clinton is generally ahead in the polls right now.

According to whom?
2004 POTUS: they were the most accurate- were the only poll to get both Bush's and Kerry's vote within a half percentage point
2008 POTUS: they were the most accurate before the POTUS election. Had Obama winning 52-46. Obama won 53%-46%,
2010 midterms: a year out they predicted the Republicans would gain 62 House seats. They gained 63.
2012 POTUS: they were one of the worst
2014 midterms they OVERESTIMATED the Democrats
Over the last 4 years they might have been one of the worst but not over the last 12 years..

If you look at the head to head since Comey's annoncement (7/8) on Hillary Hillary is only up an avg of about 1.1%:
La Times (not listed by RCP) Trump +3
CNN/ORC 7/13 - 7/16 Clinton +7
ABC News/Wash Post 7/11 - 7/14 Clinton +4
Rasmussen Reports 7/12 - 7/13 Trump +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/9 - 7/13 Clinton +5
CBS News/NY Times 7/8 - 7/12 Tie
Economist/YouGov 7/9 - 7/11 Clinton +2

[Ibanez]

Citizens United needs to be overturned, but having this cunt try to own it is like having a drug dealer lecture people on the dangers of narcotics.

No it doesn't. We just need to get full transparency on campaign funding & donations, which we still don't have..

Yes it does.

[BDKJMU]

No it doesn't. We just need to get full transparency on campaign funding & donations, which we still don't have..

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

[DSUrocks07]

Are we really complaining about money in politics, when Bernie Sanders raised hundreds of millions of dollars this election cycle? I would believe that his supporters would qualify as a "class of men"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

You have no problem politicians being bought and sold?

[Ivytalk]

No it doesn't.

You have no problem politicians being bought and sold?

Not as long as we know who's buying and selling them.

[Skjellyfetti]

And, how do you differintiate between "bribery" and "contribution"?

I know that SCOTUS recently ruled on this regarding Bob McDonnell... but, it's still pretty fucking hazy to me.

Care to elucidate, Ivy?

[Ibanez]

And, how do you differintiate between "bribery" and "contribution"?

I know that SCOTUS recently ruled on this regarding Bob McDonnell... but, it's still pretty fucking hazy to me.

Care to elucidate, Ivy?

Easy.

If you're a Republican: If the candidate is a Republican, then it's a contribution. If a Democrat, then it's a bribe.

If you're a Democrat: reverse it

[Ivytalk]

And, how do you differintiate between "bribery" and "contribution"?

I know that SCOTUS recently ruled on this regarding Bob McDonnell... but, it's still pretty **** hazy to me.

Care to elucidate, Ivy?

All depends on what the meaning of "quid pro quo" is.

[JohnStOnge]

The Rasmussen poll is a low rated poll with a history of overestimating how well the Republican is going to do.

According to whom?
2004 POTUS: they were the most accurate- were the only poll to get both Bush's and Kerry's vote within a half percentage point
2008 POTUS: they were the most accurate before the POTUS election. Had Obama winning 52-46. Obama won 53%-46%,
2010 midterms: a year out they predicted the Republicans would gain 62 House seats. They gained 63.
2012 POTUS: they were one of the worst
2014 midterms they OVERESTIMATED the Democrats
Over the last 4 years they might have been one of the worst but not over the last 12 years..

If you look at the head to head since Comey's annoncement (7/8) on Hillary Hillary is only up an avg of about 1.1%:
La Times (not listed by RCP) Trump +3
CNN/ORC 7/13 - 7/16 Clinton +7
ABC News/Wash Post 7/11 - 7/14 Clinton +4
Rasmussen Reports 7/12 - 7/13 Trump +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/9 - 7/13 Clinton +5
CBS News/NY Times 7/8 - 7/12 Tie
Economist/YouGov 7/9 - 7/11 Clinton +2

Rasmussen does a lot of polls so it shouldn't be surprising to find some cases in which it did well. That would be expected to happen through random chance. 538 assessed 657 Rasmussen polling efforts.

In any case, this conversation started with a response I made to the Statement that Hillary Clinton is behind or tied in the polls. That's not the case. It's not as dominant as I would like but she is clearly generally ahead at least right now. It could change at any time. But she's generally ahead. And not only generally ahead in the popular vote. If you look at RealClearPolitics electoral maps she's clearly got the edge there right now too. The first map below calls States where the polls are too close allow for high confidence "toss ups." There she's got States with 209 electoral votes while Trump's got States with 164.

The second map puts each State in one camp or the other even if the confidence isn't the best. When you put every State into one of two camps with just a more probably than not standard it's Clinton 351, Trump 187.

There's a long way to go. But Clinton generally leads in the polls right at this moment. If the election were going to be held tomorrow and you were betting on who would win the smart bet would be Clinton. That doesn't mean I'm happy to see where the polls are right now. I'm not.

[Ibanez]

According to whom?
2004 POTUS: they were the most accurate- were the only poll to get both Bush's and Kerry's vote within a half percentage point
2008 POTUS: they were the most accurate before the POTUS election. Had Obama winning 52-46. Obama won 53%-46%,
2010 midterms: a year out they predicted the Republicans would gain 62 House seats. They gained 63.
2012 POTUS: they were one of the worst
2014 midterms they OVERESTIMATED the Democrats
Over the last 4 years they might have been one of the worst but not over the last 12 years..

If you look at the head to head since Comey's annoncement (7/8) on Hillary Hillary is only up an avg of about 1.1%:
La Times (not listed by RCP) Trump +3
CNN/ORC 7/13 - 7/16 Clinton +7
ABC News/Wash Post 7/11 - 7/14 Clinton +4
Rasmussen Reports 7/12 - 7/13 Trump +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/9 - 7/13 Clinton +5
CBS News/NY Times 7/8 - 7/12 Tie
Economist/YouGov 7/9 - 7/11 Clinton +2

Rasmussen does a lot of polls so it shouldn't be surprising to find some cases in which it did well. That would be expected to happen through random chance. 538 assessed 657 Rasmussen polling efforts.

In any case, this conversation started with a response I made to the Statement that Hillary Clinton is behind or tied in the polls. That's not the case. It's not as dominant as I would like but she is clearly generally ahead at least right now. It could change at any time. But she's generally ahead. And not only generally ahead in the popular vote. If you look at RealClearPolitics electoral maps she's clearly got the edge there right now too. The first map below calls States where the polls are too close allow for high confidence "toss ups." There she's got States with 209 electoral votes while Trump's got States with 164.

The second map puts each State in one camp or the other even if the confidence isn't the best. When you put every State into one of two camps with just a more probably than not standard it's Clinton 351, Trump 187.

There's a long way to go. But Clinton generally leads in the polls right at this moment. If the election were going to be held tomorrow and you were betting on who would win the smart bet would be Clinton. That doesn't mean I'm happy to see where the polls are right now. I'm not.

Leading by 1% is hardly leading. It's in the margin of error.

[kalm]

And, how do you differintiate between "bribery" and "contribution"?

I know that SCOTUS recently ruled on this regarding Bob McDonnell... but, it's still pretty **** hazy to me.

Care to elucidate, Ivy?

All depends on what the meaning of "quid pro quo" is.

It's a shiny Latin phrase that SCOTUS judges hide their bullshit behind?

[Ivytalk]

All depends on what the meaning of "quid pro quo" is.

It's a shiny Latin phrase that SCOTUS judges hide their bullshit behind?

You're just jealous.

[JohnStOnge]

Leading by 1% is hardly leading. It's in the margin of error.

As I've written, when you look at any individual poll the margin of error for the difference between the two main candidates is larger than the margin of error reported for the poll even if you assume the poll is a perfect probability sample; and no poll is a perfect probability sample. You can see that when you look at individual polls. For example: Last week the Rasmussen poll had Trump up by 7. This week it has him up by 1. A six point difference. The IPSOS poll went the opposite way. Last week it had Clinton up by 11. This week it has her up by 4. A seven point difference. Does anybody really believe sentiment changed by 6 percentage points in Clinton's favor or 7 points in Trump's favor since last week? Plus there's the fact that they went in opposite directions.

But when you look at all the polls it looks very likely Clinton is ahead. For example: When you look at the most recent 9 polls for the four way race up at RCP right now Clinton leads in 8 of them. If you figure the truth is that the two are tied there is only a 2% chance that you wouldn't see Trump up in more than one of the polls. Also, that doesn't consider the margins. Trump's one poll lead is by 1 point. Clinton's leads range from 2 through 6 percentage points. It's just very unlikely that you'd see the distribution of results among the number of polls that you see if Clinton did not have somewhat of a lead in the population.

I don't see how you guys think it's a benefit to believe Trump is in the lead or tied with HIllary right now when it's pretty clear that that's very unlikely. To me you ought to be happy enough just to note that there's a long way to go and it's close even though the Clinton campaign has been outspending the Trump campaign by a wide margin.

BTW the probability that you could see what you see in the straight up Trump vs. Clinton polls up at RCP right now without the four way if Clinton were not ahead is 0.04 or 4%. And that's just doing what they call a binomial probability thing. If I were inclined to take the time to look at the probability of each individual margin given a true "tie" situation (50:50) that probability would go down substantially.

The confidence level that Clinton was ahead during the period when those polls were taken is high, guys. Not by nearly as much as I would like and it could change at any time. But there's no benefit in you being in denial about what the polls have been saying about who is ahead now just as there would be no benefit in me doing it if things change.

[Ibanez]

As I've written, when you look at any individual poll the margin of error for the difference between the two main candidates is larger than the margin of error reported for the poll even if you assume the poll is a perfect probability sample; and no poll is a perfect probability sample. You can see that when you look at individual polls. For example: Last week the Rasmussen poll had Trump up by 7. This week it has him up by 1. A six point difference. The IPSOS poll went the opposite way. Last week it had Clinton up by 11. This week it has her up by 4. A seven point difference. Does anybody really believe sentiment changed by 6 percentage points in Clinton's favor or 7 points in Trump's favor since last week? Plus there's the fact that they went in opposite directions.

But when you look at all the polls it looks very likely Clinton is ahead. For example: When you look at the most recent 9 polls for the four way race up at RCP right now Clinton leads in 8 of them. If you figure the truth is that the two are tied there is only a 2% chance that you wouldn't see Trump up in more than one of the polls. Also, that doesn't consider the margins. Trump's one poll lead is by 1 point. Clinton's leads range from 2 through 6 percentage points. It's just very unlikely that you'd see the distribution of results among the number of polls that you see if Clinton did not have somewhat of a lead in the population.

I don't see how you guys think it's a benefit to believe Trump is in the lead or tied with HIllary right now when it's pretty clear that that's very unlikely. To me you ought to be happy enough just to note that there's a long way to go and it's close even though the Clinton campaign has been outspending the Trump campaign by a wide margin.

BTW the probability that you could see what you see in the straight up Trump vs. Clinton polls up at RCP right now without the four way if Clinton were not ahead is 0.04 or 4%. And that's just doing what they call a binomial probability thing. If I were inclined to take the time to look at the probability of each individual margin given a true "tie" situation (50:50) that probability would go down substantially.

The confidence level that Clinton was ahead during the period when those polls were taken is high, guys. Not by nearly as much as I would like and it could change at any time. But there's no benefit in you being in denial about what the polls have been saying about who is ahead now just as there would be no benefit in me doing it if things change.

Tl;dr

[Baldy]

As I've written, when you look at any individual poll the margin of error for the difference between the two main candidates is larger than the margin of error reported for the poll even if you assume the poll is a perfect probability sample; and no poll is a perfect probability sample. You can see that when you look at individual polls. For example: Last week the Rasmussen poll had Trump up by 7. This week it has him up by 1. A six point difference. The IPSOS poll went the opposite way. Last week it had Clinton up by 11. This week it has her up by 4. A seven point difference. Does anybody really believe sentiment changed by 6 percentage points in Clinton's favor or 7 points in Trump's favor since last week? Plus there's the fact that they went in opposite directions.

But when you look at all the polls it looks very likely Clinton is ahead. For example: When you look at the most recent 9 polls for the four way race up at RCP right now Clinton leads in 8 of them. If you figure the truth is that the two are tied there is only a 2% chance that you wouldn't see Trump up in more than one of the polls. Also, that doesn't consider the margins. Trump's one poll lead is by 1 point. Clinton's leads range from 2 through 6 percentage points. It's just very unlikely that you'd see the distribution of results among the number of polls that you see if Clinton did not have somewhat of a lead in the population.

I don't see how you guys think it's a benefit to believe Trump is in the lead or tied with HIllary right now when it's pretty clear that that's very unlikely. To me you ought to be happy enough just to note that there's a long way to go and it's close even though the Clinton campaign has been outspending the Trump campaign by a wide margin.

BTW the probability that you could see what you see in the straight up Trump vs. Clinton polls up at RCP right now without the four way if Clinton were not ahead is 0.04 or 4%. And that's just doing what they call a binomial probability thing. If I were inclined to take the time to look at the probability of each individual margin given a true "tie" situation (50:50) that probability would go down substantially.

The confidence level that Clinton was ahead during the period when those polls were taken is high, guys. Not by nearly as much as I would like and it could change at any time. But there's no benefit in you being in denial about what the polls have been saying about who is ahead now just as there would be no benefit in me doing it if things change.

Tl;dr

You didn't miss anything. He's still trying to convince himself.