Ivytalk wrote:Valley girls came first, but their demon seed became the Millennials.93henfan wrote:
Didn't the Valley Girls predate the Millenials, or are they still a thing?
Some of us are the by products of Baby Boomers. 
Except he isn't making a mistake, its part of his schtick of evangelical-christian-incognito-as-statistician.DSUrocks07 wrote:JSO is making the mistake, what else is new, of looking at NATIONAL level poll data. Which considering that the election process has nothing to do at a "national level" makes it a pretty pointless academic exercise. I wonder how many of that 52% live in California, New York, and other liberal bastions who feel like Clinton was "better" because they didn't see the economy as a problem that wasn't being improved under Obama...with the whole unemployment rate, Obamacare and other crap data that supports that belief. Hillary wasn't going to change a single thing, hence "Obama's third term".
Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.
Or if it's not bad for an individual, they still look around and see the generational dependence and food stamp recipients driving Escalades and blame that on the Democratic Party.houndawg wrote:Except he isn't making a mistake, its part of his schtick of evangelical-christian-incognito-as-statistician.DSUrocks07 wrote:JSO is making the mistake, what else is new, of looking at NATIONAL level poll data. Which considering that the election process has nothing to do at a "national level" makes it a pretty pointless academic exercise. I wonder how many of that 52% live in California, New York, and other liberal bastions who feel like Clinton was "better" because they didn't see the economy as a problem that wasn't being improved under Obama...with the whole unemployment rate, Obamacare and other crap data that supports that belief. Hillary wasn't going to change a single thing, hence "Obama's third term".
Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.
John's mistake is not realizing that while the economy isn't bad for most of us it is very bad for those rural white folk without a college degree.
The economy is not good for the average rural white without a college degree John, a classic example of stats being like a bikini even before you cherry-pick them. That's why they're mad at immigrants who they think get handed a Cadillac Escalade and a corporate VP job as soon as the hit US soil. You're out-of-touch.JohnStOnge wrote:No, it's not inaccurate data. It just shows you to be wrong so you don't like it. You have absolutely no basis for believing what you do about the economy as a factor except that you believe it. So when you see survey data that contradicts it you just dismiss the survey data.CAA Flagship wrote:JSO, stop with the friggin' exit poll data. It is inaccurate data. You are a data guy and I don't know why you accept that nonsense. And before you tell me that there is a historical margin of error, I will say that everything about this election was outside normal ranges. There was dishonesty in the data from voters and there was dishonesty in the data from the pollsters. Just stop.
See my last post on the polling data. It was not "wrong." It was a "too close to call" election.
With respect to Exit polls, Again: I don't know if someone used exit polling data before the votes were counted to say Clinton was going to win but if they did they misused the tool. Final calibrated exit polling data are not debunked by that sort of thing.
I guarantee you that political consultants are pouring over the exit polling data right now to get insight into why people voted the way they did. They consider it to be very credible. Accept reality. Trump did not win because of the economy. If you had to pick one thing that got him over the top other than just the desire for "change" it was the illegal immigration issue.
I mean, it doesn't matter anyway. You got the disastrous result you wanted. So what if it was because of things other than the economy?
I'm "relieved" that I can make a decision now. Thanks 5er.HI54UNI wrote:
There's no cherry picking. The information is there for all to see. If you still say that the economy is the reason Trump won after looking at the exit polling data you are just in denial. You apparently decided ahead of time to buy into that narrative and so now you want to dismiss what the data say.houndawg wrote:
The economy is not good for the average rural white without a college degree John, a classic example of stats being like a bikini even before you cherry-pick them. That's why they're mad at immigrants who they think get handed a Cadillac Escalade and a corporate VP job as soon as the hit US soil. You're out-of-touch.
Going to the question that asks which issue you think is most important and looking at the responses by those who said the economy is most important is not "cherry picking" when it comes to looking at the role the economy played in how people voted. It's the appropriate question and response to look at. It's the obvious choice.houndawg wrote: a classic example of stats being like a bikini even before you cherry-pick them.
JohnStOnge wrote:Going to the question that asks which issue you think is most important and looking at the responses by those who said the economy is most important is not "cherry picking" when it comes to looking at the role the economy played in how people voted. It's the appropriate question and response to look at. It's the obvious choice.houndawg wrote: a classic example of stats being like a bikini even before you cherry-pick them.
Cherry picking is trying to find ways to parlay answers to OTHER questions into fitting a pre conceived belief that concern over the economy was the primary reason for what happened.
BTW Nate Silver pointed out during the primary that Trump supporters are not generally people who are economically distressed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... s-support/
JSO is flailing worse than the leftist media is.Baldy wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Going to the question that asks which issue you think is most important and looking at the responses by those who said the economy is most important is not "cherry picking" when it comes to looking at the role the economy played in how people voted. It's the appropriate question and response to look at. It's the obvious choice.
Cherry picking is trying to find ways to parlay answers to OTHER questions into fitting a pre conceived belief that concern over the economy was the primary reason for what happened.
BTW Nate Silver pointed out during the primary that Trump supporters are not generally people who are economically distressed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... s-support/
Nate Silver also pointed out, on election day I might add, that The Hildabeast had a 90%+ chance to win.
Using flawed statistics to support your flawed reasoning.
Two wrongs don't make a right Johnny Boy.
Nate Silver: 'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nominationBaldy wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Going to the question that asks which issue you think is most important and looking at the responses by those who said the economy is most important is not "cherry picking" when it comes to looking at the role the economy played in how people voted. It's the appropriate question and response to look at. It's the obvious choice.
Cherry picking is trying to find ways to parlay answers to OTHER questions into fitting a pre conceived belief that concern over the economy was the primary reason for what happened.
BTW Nate Silver pointed out during the primary that Trump supporters are not generally people who are economically distressed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... s-support/
Nate Silver also pointed out, on election day I might add, that The Hildabeast had a 90%+ chance to win.
Using flawed statistics to support your flawed reasoning.
Two wrongs don't make a right Johnny Boy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -election/In the modern era of presidential politics, no candidate has ever won the popular vote by more than Hillary Clinton did this year, yet still managed to lose the electoral college. In that sense, 2016 was a historic split: Donald Trump won the presidency by as much as 74 electoral votes (depending on how Michigan ends up) while losing the nationwide vote to Clinton by 1.7 million votes and counting.
But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.
Wait a minute. Over 2 weeks after the election and they STILL haven't called Michigan yet?CAA Flagship wrote:Donald Trump lost most of the American economy in this election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -election/In the modern era of presidential politics, no candidate has ever won the popular vote by more than Hillary Clinton did this year, yet still managed to lose the electoral college. In that sense, 2016 was a historic split: Donald Trump won the presidency by as much as 74 electoral votes (depending on how Michigan ends up) while losing the nationwide vote to Clinton by 1.7 million votes and counting.
But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.
Interesting way to phrase the headline.
So what this is saying is that the people that prospered in the Obama economy voted for Hillary. The ones that didn't, voted for Trump.
WTF is wrong with these people? 
Maybe he'll listen if you tell him. He always changes the subject when I say it.CAA Flagship wrote:Donald Trump lost most of the American economy in this election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -election/In the modern era of presidential politics, no candidate has ever won the popular vote by more than Hillary Clinton did this year, yet still managed to lose the electoral college. In that sense, 2016 was a historic split: Donald Trump won the presidency by as much as 74 electoral votes (depending on how Michigan ends up) while losing the nationwide vote to Clinton by 1.7 million votes and counting.
But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.
Interesting way to phrase the headline.
So what this is saying is that the people that prospered in the Obama economy voted for Hillary. The ones that didn't, voted for Trump.
Same kind of thing. It's looking at jurisdictions rather than individuals. In exit polling, people with lower incomes voted Democrat just as they always do. There is no real correlation such that individuals who prospered voted for Hillary while people who did not voted for Trump. It's just not there.CAA Flagship wrote:Donald Trump lost most of the American economy in this election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -election/In the modern era of presidential politics, no candidate has ever won the popular vote by more than Hillary Clinton did this year, yet still managed to lose the electoral college. In that sense, 2016 was a historic split: Donald Trump won the presidency by as much as 74 electoral votes (depending on how Michigan ends up) while losing the nationwide vote to Clinton by 1.7 million votes and counting.
But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.
Interesting way to phrase the headline.
So what this is saying is that the people that prospered in the Obama economy voted for Hillary. The ones that didn't, voted for Trump.
Nice try, but it doesn't do it. Exit polling gives you direct insight into why people voted the way they did and it shows that this was clearly not about the economy.93henfan wrote:It's always the economy, stupid.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
You're wrong, as usual. And too stubborn to admit it. Understandable though, as you've been grasping at straws for months, completely out of touch with what's going on in this country.JohnStOnge wrote:Nice try, but it doesn't do it. Exit polling gives you direct insight into why people voted the way they did and it shows that this was clearly not about the economy.93henfan wrote:It's always the economy, stupid.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
It's not like I care though. I've been right so much I almost feel guilty posting here.
Doesn't do it. Look, there is direct data on people looking at how people voted and how they felt about various issues. It's called Exit Polling. And it clearly shows that it wasn't the economy.93henfan wrote:You're wrong, as usual. And too stubborn to admit it. Understandable though, as you've been grasping at straws for months, completely out of touch with what's going on in this country.JohnStOnge wrote:
Nice try, but it doesn't do it. Exit polling gives you direct insight into why people voted the way they did and it shows that this was clearly not about the economy.
Here's some more reading for you, which you obviously won't read.
Blue-collar Democrats to party: It's still the economy, stupid: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-d ... SKBN13K12X
No, it's the same old thing. You're looking at jurisdictions when there is actual data providing insight into why individuals voted the way they did.93henfan wrote:If pictures help you understand things, it doesn't get any clearer that the economy is what won this election for Trump.
Game, set, match, election.
It can't be any more clear that it was the economy. I'm right and you're wrong once again. Like shooting fish in a barrel.JohnStOnge wrote:No, it's the same old thing. You're looking at jurisdictions when there is actual data providing insight into why individuals voted the way they did.93henfan wrote:If pictures help you understand things, it doesn't get any clearer that the economy is what won this election for Trump.
Game, set, match, election.
