(01-16-2018 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 12:39 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the obtuse among us. Yes, Hillary was a favorite and predicted to win by almost any measure that was able to be used in the run up to the election. And again, even the trump internal numbers said pretty much the same thing.

538, and other places, can only use the information available to arrive at those percentages. No one has ever claimed this was any sort of exact science.

So yes, trump's chances to win were anywhere from 15% to 40% depending on who you look at. He had a small chance, and he won. I don't see what the issue is. Don't tell me that all of you knew trump was going to win 100%.

Actually, most on the right knew that Trump would win. We kept telling y’all, but y’all kept ignoring us. Can’t help that y’all are ignorant.

Yes, we also knew that Hillary was bull****...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(01-16-2018 11:59 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  The African American delegation? How many Americans from Africa are there in that delegation?
I'll never understand the use of the term "African American."
If there's an American actually from Africa, then absolutely. Anyone else is simply an American who happens to be black. Nothing wrong with that at all.

BTW... A person who immigrants from Africa will be actually recognized by the country they are from; you know, one of those shitholes. Why can’t I Be African-American? What the freak is your problem with me identifying as African-American rather than saying I’m black?

I don't care what you identify yourself as. We've had this discussion several times. My opinion hasn't changed, yours hasn't and nobody cares either way.
Again, I agree with Morgan Freeman's take on the subject.

(01-15-2018 08:58 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 07:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

Blind link to fake news 538

Didn't click, don't care. Blind links are a chumps game.

Yup, why do you want to see an extensive listing of legitimate polls including Rasmussen and Gallup with a composite score based on them all?

Because the topic of the thread is 'racial divide'.... not general population polls. Trump has never polled well, even prior to the election he never had more than around 40% of Republicans.

Welcome to the world where a party elects rather than anoints their candidate.

(01-16-2018 12:04 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Actually on Election Day, it said about 60-65%. More importantly, founder Nate Silver was adamant that Trump had a chance.

Clinton received more votes by a significant margin; so national polls were on the money even if she lost the EC.

Good thing we live in a representative republic.

You can win yards rushing and still lose the game. Rules.

(01-16-2018 12:04 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Actually on Election Day, it said about 60-65%. More importantly, founder Nate Silver was adamant that Trump had a chance.

Clinton received more votes by a significant margin; so national polls were on the money even if she lost the EC.

Actually they didn't. Almost by definition, 538 didn't provide a national poll. They focused on the EC votes and state by state polls.

The fact that the national vote was 'similar' to their outcome is pure coincidence. No polling entity worth a damn was focused on 'national' numbers.

The 'significant number' was based almost entirely on California, which was still getting votes many hours after it appeared Trump had won, hence the massive turnout especially in LA and SF

I was here... I heard all the calls on media foolishly trying to turn the election.

(01-16-2018 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the obtuse among us. Yes, Hillary was a favorite and predicted to win by almost any measure that was able to be used in the run up to the election. And again, even the trump internal numbers said pretty much the same thing.

538, and other places, can only use the information available to arrive at those percentages. No one has ever claimed this was any sort of exact science.

So yes, trump's chances to win were anywhere from 15% to 40% depending on who you look at. He had a small chance, and he won. I don't see what the issue is. Don't tell me that all of you knew trump was going to win 100%.

I did.

But then again, I used assumed an indirect proportion of ramped-up HilLIARy noise to actual declines in HilLIARy's chances of winning.

If everything had been going their way they wouldn't have had to say anything. They started hyping it because they new they were losing and they thought that was the way to turn the tide.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

When growing up there was a kids show where the clown would have games for the participants. After the game he would award the winner the trophy which said "Winner". To the other participants he would give them a trophy where it said, "almost winner".

What I'm trying to say is that if Killery was on that kids show she would definitely have been awarded the "almost winner" trophy and it would have been well deserved.