TexasCHLforum.com

Bitter Clinger wrote:polls that sample predominately hard core Democrats could possibly exhibit some inherent bias, but that would never occur to our friend

Oversampling a particular demographic would indeed affect a poll's predictive value. Of course, you neglected to provide any credible evidence that the majority of polls are oversampling. I'm so old that I remember people clinging to the same delusional belief in 2012. Romney himself on election night still believed he was going to win because he clung to the "unskewed" polls. And speaking of Romney, he won Texas by +16. Trump is currently polling at +4 in Texas.

In any case, let's reconvene on November 9th to assess how (in)accurate the polls turned out to be.

TreyHouston wrote:POLLS ARE NOT CORRECT, they never have been, look at their history in past elections and with Brexit.

Polls have a stated margin of error. Some polls are better than others. There were Brexit polls that showed slight majority support for exiting, but pundits decided to ignore them in favor of their preferred outcome.

As for the US: In the 2008 election Nate Silver correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states. In 2012 he got all 50 right. Here's his latest prediction for 2016:

mojo84 wrote:Don't underestimate the damage you and others that are publicly jumping on the progressive democratic smear bandwagon are doing

I haven't jumped on any smear bandwagon. My opinion of Trump is based entirely on his own statements, actions and admitted actions.

When Trump was doing better in the polls he and his surrogates claimed they didn't need the #NeverTrump crowd to win against Hillary. So by his own words his upcoming loss cannot be blamed on those who did not rally behind his incompetent campaign.

mojo84 wrote:Let me ask you this. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by publicly bashing Trump at this point?

To bring certain people back to reality (the one where Trump is only +4 in Texas) so that they'll be less shocked on Nov 8th and have a better understanding of why Trump lost, so we can avoid a repeat of this fiasco in the next election.


(Photo of two sexual predators and the next President)

mojo84 wrote:Not those of us that supported and voted for another candidate during the primaries.

Fair point. There's a distinction between "Trump voter" and "Trump supporter".

However, my guy didn't win the nomination and it does the country no good to publicly slam the only viable option to Hillary.

Ah, but therein lies the rub: Trump being viable is subjective opinion and not fact (and of course the same goes for my opinion that Trump isn't and never was viable as a general election candidate). Many of us warned during the primary that Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Hillary. As far as we're concerned, Hillary won the Presidential election on July 19th. When Trump is only +4 in Texas (of all states) three weeks out from the election, it beggars belief that Trump is going to win enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. It's not impossible, but I consider McMullin winning Utah and throwing the election into the House as more likely (as unlikely as that is).

Mxrdad wrote:If she is horrible, why would anybody vote for her?

For the same reason there's people who think Trump is horrible yet they are still planning to vote for him: they think the other candidate is worse.

Bitter Clinger wrote:v7a, apparently you are so busy waging keyboard jihad on your fellow forum members, you fail to see that you have been duped by the Clinton machine:

Comedy gold. Wikileaks has confirmed that Hillary's campaign wanted Trump as the nominee. So it's actually Trump supporters who were duped by the Clinton machine.

parabelum wrote:These are the moles who have been sitting here as poseurs pretending to be "one of us".

I'd be curious to hear how my contributions to the campus carry lawsuit thread fit into your mole theory. Presumably you're already familiar with those contributions from your in-depth research of moles on this forum.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:And I will point out that you have offered zero basis for your claim that our personal experiences are equally representative of the male population in the U.S.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I didn't make the claim that they're equally representative, which would be a stupid claim to make as they cannot be equally representative. I said your experience is no more representative than mine. That's another way of saying that with only anecdotes and no data we have no way of knowing which experience is actually representative. You're right that I didn't provide any proof, for the obvious reason that unlike you I did not make a claim that a particular experience is representative (of the majority of males).

My delicate ears were not offended by Trump's comments. If yours were, then I'm sorry you had to endure that abuse.

I wasn't offended by his words per se. I was offended by the sexual assault he described himself committing. I'm sorry for you that you do not find sexual assault offensive.

And it doesn't really matter where the private conversation occurs.

A conversation with a TV host while wearing a microphone is not a private conversation, even if one is so naive as to assume that the mic is off.

"Locker room banter" is a euphemism for a type of talk, not meant to be taken literally as talk that happened in a locker room.

Indeed. You might want to inform Rep. Ted Yoho and other Trump supporters, though:

WaPo wrote:I talked with several Trump supporters this week who truly thought the comments were made in an actual locker room...

CBSNews wrote:Rep. Yoho just said Trump made 2005 comments in a locker room. No he didn't. He said it while mic'd up talking to someone he barely knew

"Clown candidate"? Really?

I think it's a fitting description for a candidate who refused his own campaign's repeated requests to do the customary opposition research on yourself. Is there another word you would have used instead? Incompetent, perhaps? I'd be happy to switch to another word. After all, I wouldn't want to upset Trump supporters by using words that are politically incorrect.

Go vote for Hillary and enjoy your life as a subject.

If thinking that I'm voting for Hillary makes you feel better about voting for Trump, then by all means, carry on with your delusion.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

v7a wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:That same conversation was happening in every locker room I found myself in when I played sports. It may be foreign language to you, but most males are familiar with it.

Feel free to cite a scientific survey of men that shows that admissions of sexual assault are normal in locker rooms.

Sure. I will also cite a scientific study that shows men claiming 2X the number of sexual partners they have actually had, women admitting to 1/3 of the actual number of partners, and men claiming that a certain appendage is 20% larger than it actually is. Men and women both exaggerate and yes, they outright lie on occasion.

Right, so you were extrapoliting your own personal experience to the majority of the male population. However, your personal experience is no more representative than mine (which is that men in locker rooms generally do not boast about sexually assaulting women by touching their genitals without consent). Never mind that locker room talk isn't even the applicable standard here. Trump made these comments to a TV host, not in a locker room setting.

As far as "sexual assault", lets start with HRH and her attacks on the victims of her husbands sexual assault. I must have missed her disgust at the criminal acts of her rapist husband and her insistence that all of his accusers needed to be believed.

Hillary's crimes and behavior do not excuse Trump's and vice versa.

This has nothing to do with a sudden concern for women on the part of HRH or any of her minions. This is only about attacking Trump.

Of course it's being used to attack Trump. Which is why it was the height of stupidity for Trump to make Bill's sexual misconduct and alleged sexual assaults the closing theme of his campaign when he had his own skeletons in the closet. Professional campaigns do opposition research on their own candidate so they can be prepared for attacks. Trump however is a clown candidate so naturally he refused to let his campaign do opposition research on himself:

Bloomberg wrote:Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, requested that Trump submit himself to a forensic evaluation that is traditional for any public figure seeking office, according to people granted anonymity to speak freely about the campaign’s start-up days last year. Opposition research would allow Trump’s new political team to prepare for potential attacks on his candidacy.
Paul Manafort and his team made a similar request when they took over the reins after Lewandowski, who was ousted this June.
Trump declined, the people said, and the issue became a point of contention among his closest political advisers and some long-time employees at the Trump Organization. Trump spokespeople Jason Miller and Hope Hicks didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

mojo84 wrote:Here is some info on the alternative.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/fbi-d ... otect-her/

I'm well aware that Hillary is horrible. Unfortunately for the country, a plurality of Republican primary voters decided to walk straight into the trap that the Clinton campaign and the media set for the Republican party. Even though many Republicans during the primary were shouting:

parabelum wrote:You guys are hilarious, with your humor and cynicism. Way too high brow for me.

In this election, humor is all I have left. Well that, and praying that the Senate stays in Republican hands.

Reality check: three weeks until the election, Trump is only +4 in the latest Texas poll. So, yeah, I hope nobody here is holding on to hope that he's going to win traditionally blue states (New Jersey, etc) like his campaign said he would.

Oh, and if anyone here haven't actually asked their spouse who they're voting for, you might actually want to ask instead of just assuming:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:That same conversation was happening in every locker room I found myself in when I played sports. It may be foreign language to you, but most males are familiar with it.

Feel free to cite a scientific survey of men that shows that admissions of sexual assault are normal in locker rooms.

parabelum wrote:

v7a wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yet Trump uses crude language in what he thinks is a private discussion with a guy and all the republicans scatter?

Uh, he didn't merely use crude language. He described himself committing actions that are legally considered sexual assault. Numerous women have since stepped forward and accused him of doing exactly what he described himself doing.

Here we go with holier than thou attitude. Sure, you'd never ever say something or do anything in private that would either offend someone or be considered crude, or, dare I say, even criminal.

Again, the issue here is not speech, but actions. Touching a woman's genitals without her consent is sexual assault. Trump boasted that he does this and women have since confirmed that he does.

You're of course free to not believe the women, even though they're simply confirming what Trump already admitted to doing.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yet Trump uses crude language in what he thinks is a private discussion with a guy and all the republicans scatter?

Uh, he didn't merely use crude language. He described himself committing actions that are legally considered sexual assault. Numerous women have since stepped forward and accused him of doing exactly what he described himself doing.

ScottDLS wrote:I see what's going on. In this poll you have only two choices, Trump or Clinton. And since if you don't vote for Trump you're helping Clinton win...so you should check Clinton,if your being honest.

While you're being honest... If you voted for Trump in the Republican primary then you definitely should check Clinton in the poll, because YOU voted for HER by electing the absolute worst of the 17, and the only one that Clinton wanted to run against.

Bingo.

Whatever happened to the Trump supporters who claimed he would dominate Clinton in the general election because he's a media genius?