Did all the manuevering by the Left kill the Blue Wave?

meh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
2,108
Likes
3,114
Location
Massachusetts
The projection of their own specific transgressions on to their political opponents is just so hard to take. It's bad enough that the rabid racists call non-racists racists. Now the very ones attacking and disrespecting the Constitution and the nation are claiming that the ones who are actually defending the Constitution and trying to save the nation from an angry mob are the ones threatening the Constitution. It's sad that people are stupid enough, or warped enough, to accept such things. Do you think they (the leaders) do it as a tactic to control bubble heads or do they really believe that they're the good guys?
 

mibro

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
17,958
Likes
25,757
Location
Mass.
The projection of their own specific transgressions on to their political opponents is just so hard to take. It's bad enough that the rabid racists call non-racists racists. Now the very ones attacking and disrespecting the Constitution and the nation are claiming that the ones who are actually defending the Constitution and trying to save the nation from an angry mob are the ones threatening the Constitution. It's sad that people are stupid enough, or warped enough, to accept such things. Do you think they (the leaders) do it as a tactic to control bubble heads or do they really believe that they're the good guys?

They really believe they're the good guys. Humanity is very prone to this kind of delusion.
 
Last edited:

jct61765

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,162
Likes
3,174
Location
Alabama
I don't think there was any manipulation (at least in the more relied upon polls like rasmussen, etc. ) honestly I just think that their methodology fundamentally sucked in some way or another. Likely because it couldn't get "clean" results or didn't take a weighting in terms of voter turnout, etc. They might have even had a high sample right but failed to ask the right questions to determine things like voter turnout by race/ethnicity or political designation.

One fun example of shit methodology problems- you take 2 women walking down a street and a pollster stops them but they stop together; and one is an independent and the other one is liberal. One of them hates shitlery and thinks she is a piece of waste, but doesn't want to start an argument with her friend, or admit that she's actually 110% going to vote for trump. So she lies to the pollster to save face with her friend, etc, because she doesn't want to get into an argument with her. You can't get accuracy in polling without complete privacy. So at the end of that "stop" you now have "2 people voting for Hillary" when in reality one of them definitely isn't. So now you have just collected contaminated data. I could go on and on for 3 pages of ways that polling data is likely contaminated.

I also think that polling is likely to get worse as time progresses because of political threats, and the general deterioration of civil discourse, etc, people are going to be more and more afraid to go on the record about who they are actually voting for.

I think a cool exit poll question would have been an anonymously collected whopper- "Did you lie to any of your friends or family about who you were actually voting for because of felt political pressure?"

It would not surprise me in the least if that number is a HUUUUUUGE number of votes, with most of the crossover being on the trump side of the fence.

-Mike
You’re right, polls are only as good as who is taking them. If your asking people in DC, it will be far different than how they’d answer in concord NH. Phone polls same thing. Most republicans have jobs so we work during the day.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,344
Likes
24,722
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
I don't think there was any manipulation (at least in the more relied upon polls like rasmussen, etc. ) honestly I just think that their methodology fundamentally sucked in some way or another. Likely because it couldn't get "clean" results or didn't take a weighting in terms of voter turnout, etc. They might have even had a high sample right but failed to ask the right questions to determine things like voter turnout by race/ethnicity or political designation.

The 2016 question you really wish you knew the answer to
is what the secret "internal" polls funded by the campaigns themselves
were saying at the very end.

Years earlier Jay Severin would often point out that published polls were always crap -
slanted to satisfy the organization paying for it.

"Internal" polls (always of "likely voters" - not "registered voters" or "legal residents")
bought by candidates were the good stuff.

I don't know if anyone has leaked the last few Trump or Hildebeest polls.
Could have happened over a year ago;
may not happen for decades to come.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,179
Likes
14,616
Location
Toy Town
The 2016 question you really wish you knew the answer to
is what the secret "internal" polls funded by the campaigns themselves
were saying at the very end.

Years earlier Jay Severin would often point out that published polls were always crap -
slanted to satisfy the organization paying for it.

"Internal" polls (always of "likely voters" - not "registered voters" or "legal residents")
bought by candidates were the good stuff.

I don't know if anyone has leaked the last few Trump or Hildebeest polls.
Could have happened over a year ago;
may not happen for decades to come.
I'm guessing Trump had good poll data, and knew it, and knew he had a real good chance.
I'm also guessing Hildebeest had no freaking clue where she was really polling. Some in her campaign (or DNC) might have had good data, but given her temperament, can you imagine anyone bringing her bad news, and surviving. I bet everything she was (and still is) told was shaded, censored, or completely manufactured.
 
Last edited:

hedgehound

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
911
Likes
1,675
I personally think that Benghazi was a big deal to independents, and shitlery's callous indifference to the whole thing made it easy for people who really didn't know much about her, to hate her. As an event it didn't just flash in the pan and die down, it was always bouncing around. I think its at least part of the reason why trump was able to win. The democrats underrated how much she was hated, and Benghazi was part of this- for those that didn't already hate her, it provided a lot of fresh meat for the occasion.

-Mike

I think Benghazi was not an indifference or a mistake, I believe it was a deliberste action, a betrayal, if you wish. But I doubt it added much to overall "independent" picture: it was a remote event, well suppressed by the media. And then masked by a heroical movie. I am afraid, independents have hard time associating that with Hillary .
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,732
I think Benghazi was not an indifference or a mistake, I believe it was a deliberste action, a betrayal, if you wish. But I doubt it added much to overall "independent" picture: it was a remote event, well suppressed by the media. And then masked by a heroical movie. I am afraid, independents have hard time associating that with Hillary .

Agree to disagree I guess, I think it was a big deal, and extremely damaging to her. And independents/wonkies pay attention to stuff like that. And her hands were all over it, the whole time- and to anyone paying attention, it made her look completely unsuitable for any kind of a leadership role. She couldn't even be bothered to take responsibility for anything.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,732
The 2016 question you really wish you knew the answer to
is what the secret "internal" polls funded by the campaigns themselves
were saying at the very end.

Years earlier Jay Severin would often point out that published polls were always crap -
slanted to satisfy the organization paying for it.

"Internal" polls (always of "likely voters" - not "registered voters" or "legal residents")
bought by candidates were the good stuff.

It would be interesting, particularly given that Clinton or her people cancelled her fireworks display like a day before the election. So someone quite obviously thought she was going to be riding the failbus, or there was a very
good chance of it.

-Mike
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,344
Likes
24,722
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
I'm also guessing Hildebeest had no freaking clue where she was really polling. Some in her campaign (or DNC) might have had good data, but given her temperament, can you imagine anyone bringing her bad news, and surviving.

Has someone got a sound bite of a spun bearing?
Because I always imagine that's the sound she makes when she's really pissed off.

I bet everything she was (and still is) told was shaded, censored, or completely manufactured.


... Clinton or her people cancelled her fireworks display like a day before the election. So someone quite obviously thought she was going to be riding the failbus, or there was a very good chance of it.
Very, very good point.
 

Jason Flare

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
10,190
Likes
9,823
Location
Berkshires
I don’t know.

Does Hillary know someone on her team cancelled her fireworks before the election?

This reminds me of the people who say that people on Trump’s staff are trying to take his phone away so he stops tweeting. I’m not buying it.

Trump would fire their ass and everyone thought Hillary would win.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
28
Likes
9
The most interesting polling that is available publically shows that Republicans and Democrats respond to the recent Dem nonsense as expected, but the independants, by a huge margin, disapprove of the way the Dems handled the Kavanaugh hearings. Still it's an uphill battle for the Republicans to keep control of the House, although a one seat gain in the Senate was expected even before these hearings. The Dems continue to help the GOP, by talking about impeachment of Kavanaugh and Trump and basically promising kaos at every turn.

I don't see a "blue wave" because such would have to be an overwhelming change in the House and the Senate. The progressives will spin any way they can, because telling lies is their best, and in fact only, skill.

I think Republicans lose the House and pick up three in the Senate. I hope I'm wrong on the former and conservative on the latter.
 

hedgehound

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
911
Likes
1,675
Agree to disagree I guess, I think it was a big deal, and extremely damaging to her. And independents/wonkies pay attention to stuff like that. And her hands were all over it, the whole time- and to anyone paying attention, it made her look completely unsuitable for any kind of a leadership role. She couldn't even be bothered to take responsibility for anything.

-Mike

Yes, Hill's hands and quite likely somebody else's hands were all over the Benghazi events. Here we agree, OK. But the progressives are quite good playing politics, well, with media superiority it is easier. They played the "well, it was the provocative movie" game, "Oh, it was too risky, we don't do risky stuff in America", etc. games. Then the movie came out : aggressive crowd versus Heroes! and nobody else. Savages and heroes, forces of nature, if you wish. That masked the tragedy of betrayal.

So, we disagree on the impact on Joe the independent.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
31,210
Likes
24,371
So many liberals I talk to talk about how Kavanaugh is going to hurt the GOP. So far, with a week's worth of polls, it's the exact opposite. MorninDolt had it right - they may have (massively) overplayed their hand. Good! Time to go, Diane. You too, Chucky. See ya, Liz. Let Bernie be in charge of the party. He's gotten more votes than any of you.
 

hedgehound

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
911
Likes
1,675
So many liberals I talk to talk about how Kavanaugh is going to hurt the GOP. So far, with a week's worth of polls, it's the exact opposite. MorninDolt had it right - they may have (massively) overplayed their hand. Good! Time to go, Diane. You too, Chucky. See ya, Liz. Let Bernie be in charge of the party. He's gotten more votes than any of you.

While this is true, I got the question from one of our very progressive friends: "How can you be OK with the Supreme Court Justice who lied under oath!"

Bizarre picture of the world in the progressive heads... Not the first time....
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
5,963
Likes
16,071
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
Well, let me tell you who is not contributing to a "blue wave"... Taylor Swift.

Not only did Swift earn herself a thank-you-note from Marsha Blackburn (R) for the help in a potential win, but it now also turns out that TayTay is not even registered to vote in TN.

After Taylor Swift Begs Dems To Vote - It Turns Out She's A Total Hypocrite

oljhGya.jpg



:emoji_tiger:
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
31,210
Likes
24,371
While this is true, I got the question from one of our very progressive friends: "How can you be OK with the Supreme Court Justice who lied under oath!"

Bizarre picture of the world in the progressive heads... Not the first time....

No doubt. But they are a vocal but SMALL minority of Democrat voters. For decades, Democrats have just closed ranks and endured the crazies. I think that's on the verge of blowing up. Hell, we might even be in 2 completely different political parties in 20 years. There might even be a new political party in the next 20 years that fills in the "middle". Fiscally conservative, socially "I don't care what you do." Suddenly, a ton of moderates on both parties align with this new no-crazies party. The Democrats are left with the Crazies and the GOP is left with the Religious Right.
 

meh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
2,108
Likes
3,114
Location
Massachusetts
There might even be a new political party in the next 20 years that fills in the "middle". Fiscally conservative, socially "I don't care what you do."

The Libertarian Party is closest to breaking through, but its platform includes repeal of income tax and open borders (!) while at the same time charging the government with responsibility for domestic security and national defense, and infrastructure too, I guess. All of that is ideally paid for "in a voluntary manner". The platform reads like a catechism because that's exactly what it is. I guess what could happen is that the party breaks through the "duopoly" to earn a third spot on the stage but ultimately gets hijacked by fiscally conservative social liberals, transforming from idealistic extremists (albeit more or less harmless ones) to the party of centrists. But so far the utopianisms have kept me out. For one thing, I don't think open borders will make sense even 100 years from now. Today it is only a way to destabilize the country and ultimately to ensure that liberty dies.
 

mibro

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
17,958
Likes
25,757
Location
Mass.
For one thing, I don't think open borders will make sense even 100 years from now. Today it is only a way to destabilize the country and ultimately to ensure that liberty dies.

Yup. I was a Libertarian once. Then I grew up.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,732
The Libertarian Party is closest to breaking through, but its platform includes repeal of income tax and open borders (!) while at the same time charging the government with responsibility for domestic security and national defense, and infrastructure too, I guess. All of that is ideally paid for "in a voluntary manner". The platform reads like a catechism because that's exactly what it is. I guess what could happen is that the party breaks through the "duopoly" to earn a third spot on the stage but ultimately gets hijacked by fiscally conservative social liberals, transforming from idealistic extremists (albeit more or less harmless ones) to the party of centrists. But so far the utopianisms have kept me out. For one thing, I don't think open borders will make sense even 100 years from now. Today it is only a way to destabilize the country and ultimately to ensure that liberty dies.

Part of the problem with LP is there's an obvious huge identity crisis problem in the middle.

For example in LP there are a bunch of window lickers who won't compromise on anything. Then on the other hand you have people like Rand Paul, who "trends libertarian but doesn't live in fantasy land".

Part of the problem is hardcores get pissed at someone like Rand for not being perfect, even though he is literally 1000 times better than most others.

This is why the LP goes nowhere- because of the whole "Perfect is the enemy of the good" problem. LP thinks it can just load conservatives and moderates into a cannon and fire them across a bridge and get them to respect natural rights and such overnight. It doesn't work that way.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom