First Presidential debate thread

They don't call him the dumbest man on the internet for nothing.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-performance-is-helping-her-in-swing-states/

Hoft has a bias, Nate Silver doesn't.

Just for the folks who don't get why Hoft is dumb here - the RCP average is NOT moving towards Trump as TDMotI claimed. See it for yourself here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

As of today Clinton is +3.1 in the average, she's up +4 and +5 in the only two on their list taken entirely after the debate, and she was up 2.3 Monday morning so the movement is towards her not Trump.

Other than the week between the conventions, Trump's best showing was 9/19 when their was a mere 0.9 spread in her favor, it's moved in her direction since. Also, Trump currently sits at 44.4 - he has exceeded 45% exactly ONE day in this entire cycle, July 27.

Moreover, other than the LAT tracking, which is still drawing over half it's sample data from before the debate, not one of the polls RCP lists have shown a Trump lead in two weeks.

Today, I found myself lamenting the fact that Mitt Romney wasn't running. You guys remember the 2012 election, when the GOP candidate was a decent human being? I mean, I don't agree with a number of his stances, but at least he wasn't a giant dumpster fire of an asshole.

Having the sound in the hall go in and out can be devastating to a speaker. That's the sound the speaker hears, and what they hear is part of their feedback loop for forming speech.

Delaying a person's auditory feedback is so devastating that it's called a speech jammer, and it makes people talk like they have brain damage.



No doubt this was just another DNC trick. They probably pulled it on Bernie a few times.

How could Trump both win and lose due to "Democrat tricks"?

The same way Poland could always have been historically part of America.

Like I said to @Kuranes I really hope you are trolling and not that stupid.

Follow the links through the BS Right Wing Blog to the data.

It isn't new polls showing a Trump gain post debate, but a poll aggregate. And the reason Trump rose isn't that polls taken after the debates are lower for Hillary than those taken immediately before, but that the post convention Hillary-up-by-8-points polls are falling off.

Every poll conducted after the debate moves Hillary up. And the general trend is that the more recent the poll (meaning higher ratio of post-debate to pre-debate polling days) the better Hillary does.

Until her rise levels off we won't know if this is just a revision to the mean (Hillary up 4-6) or a return to post-convention 6-8 points up.

Except for the LA Times Daily tracking poll, which shows Trump surging post debate.

I remember people from the "progressive" camp treating him pretty much the same as they're treating Trump now.

You know who else remembers? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Seriously, though, that doesn't change anything about what I posted.

dozens showing Clinton - one poll with an entirely different methodology that's untested in the field until now going in exactly the opposite direction- that's the very definition of an outlier.

But why is it trending? With the same methodology it had Hillary up by 5 after the DNC convention.

Kinda shows how empty your lamentation is. Along with pretty much any other such lamentations about other candidates from this year's cycle not winning the nomination. As if any of the rest of them would have been treated all that differently because Republican = evil to far too many people anyway.

No it doesn't. It just shows that you can't let a statement stand on it's own. This is the year 2016. Join me here, for it is world of tomorrow! I don't cast all Republicans in the same light, nor do I lionize all Democrats. If you thought I did, now you know otherwise. If you were referring to other people who do such things, then that had nothing to do with what I posted. It's pretty simple to grasp.

Holy shit, what's this from 2012?! http://www.wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2405195/

If there's nothing wrong with me... maybe there's something wrong with the universe!

How sad is it that, in the minds of so many, "Democrat" is so much more abhorrent than: racist, bigot, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, cheat, liar, bully, anti-intellectual, authoritarian, traitor, criminal, etc., etc., etc.?

Nah. They're actually pretty synonymous.

Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx?g_source=Election 2016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

It's pretty obvious that the crowd in the room could hear him, because one of the few times Holt had to admonish them to behave was in response to some raucous cheering for one of his zingers.

Not at all. Unless you can demonstrate specifically that John made the same kind of statements about Romney that you say people made, your point is thoroughly meaningless.

Gee, and yet 15 of 17 post-debate polls showed that Trump won the debate.
<voice=Less Nessman> It's almost like journalists are trying to manufacture a narrative!</voice>

Online polls with self-selecting audiences. Anyone with even the slightest amount of intellectual honesty will admit those are useless.

The LA Times tracking poll shows the same thing.

The LA Times poll has been an outlier all year. FiveThirtyEight, whose model of looking at all the polls and analyzing them based on past trends, and whose projections in 2012 were close to perfect, now gives Clinton 67.7% odds of winning.

The LA Times poll uses the same voter pool for each iteration. If the original sample was skewed, the results will consistently be skewed. It is useful for showing direction, but as a predictor of outcome, not so much when so many other polls are consistently showing something else.

Since it's consistently skewed by the same voter pool, how do you explain that it used to have Hillary leading by five?

Because other polls at the time had her leading by 10.

There is more to it, though than skewing. The Times poll also allows people to specify a certainty rate. If a lot of people say they are 60% likely to vote for Clinton, that lowers her standing in the poll. But is it actually valid for them to say such things? On election day, they don't get to abortion the vote, it's all or nothing.

I'm sure that will be the subject of a lot of analysis after Trump loses.

Best autocorrect of the week.