Second presidential debate live blog and discussion

[wmenorr67]

What never ceases to amaze me is why the GOP agrees to having obviously biased for the libtard side "moderators" for the debates.
I'd love to see a debate moderated by Mark Levin and Neal Boortz.

Because the Dems wouldn't approve of them and as we are seeing the GOP has rolled over and died, much like the armadillos you see on the side of those country roads there in Oklahoma.

[Hawkmoon]

... and as we are seeing the GOP has rolled over and died, much like the armadillos you see on the side of those country roads there in Oklahoma.

And Paul Ryan has finally showed his true colors. He needs to be kicked to the curb.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't forget to get a burger from Pete's.

One of the first things we did.

[MechAg94]

What pisses me off is Anderson Cooper at one time didn't seem to take sides.  Always was down the middle for the most part....guess stay around garbage long enough you begin to smell like it.

Some of this widespread bias is why I don't trust the polls.  The polling orgs are tied to the hip with the media and there are a thousand ways to fudge the polls without outright lying (using the DC definition).  I guess that won't be proven or disproven for 30 days.

I do expect a full court press from the media for the next 4 weeks attacking Trump.  We all should expect it and not let it affect us.

[LadySmith]

The first few minutes were tough for Trump, but after that he beat her like a red-headed step child.  No Republican has ever come close to the way Trump speaks to Hillary, giving her all due respect.

I heard on the radio that Trump pulled a rope-a-dope like Ali: let them throw punches until they're tired & then hit them hard.
This really wowed the audience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzJGxHucwFs

[Angel Eyes]

This really wowed the audience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzJGxHucwFs

That just never gets old.

[RoadKingLarry]

Some of this widespread bias is why I don't trust the polls.  The polling orgs are tied to the hip with the media and there are a thousand ways to fudge the polls without outright lying (using the DC definition).  I guess that won't be proven or disproven for 30 days.

I do expect a full court press from the media for the next 4 weeks attacking Trump.  We all should expect it and not let it affect us.

Weren't most of the polls in the GOP primary coming up as someone other than Trump will take it in a landslide and that'll be the end of the Donald? 
Yeah, I trust the MSM polls like I trust a taco Tuesday fart.

[MechAg94]

Weren't most of the polls in the GOP primary coming up as someone other than Trump will take it in a landslide and that'll be the end of the Donald? 
Yeah, I trust the MSM polls like I trust a taco Tuesday fart.

We have to be careful as they were saying that leading up to the election with Romney.  Romney was not well liked and was the opposite of inspiring while Obama still had a lot of support. 

However, this it seems to me that Hillary is in Romney's shoes as far as inspiring support and has little support in minority communities compared to Obama. 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/10/oreilly-least-3-media-orgs-have-ordered-employees-destroy-trump
I also see things like this.  It makes me think the media is not confident of Hillary's chances.

[roo_ster]

As an engineer, scientist, and general data hound I find the published polls to be just about worthless.  Both when they favor My Guy and when they favor The Other Guy.  They are just awful, methodologically speaking.  They could be useful as tools to measure the current state, but instead are used as tools to influence the current state.

This plus the damage done to data by the globular warmists are crimes against science, the scientific method, and against the taxpayers who mostly paid for the data to be collected and analyzed. 

The left/statists/globalists have a lot to answer for and if I had my druthers, many of them and their pseudo-scientific activists would be beaten to death with torque wrenches and their eyes gouged out with slide rules as examples to encourage others who may wish to follow in thier footsteps.

[French G.]

Do your own poll. Keep track of how many of each bumper sticker or yard sign you see. Around here Johnson is second to Trump. I rarely see Hillary stickers, even in Charlottesville, aka Berkeley on the Rivanna.

[Scout26]

Agreed that polls are pretty worthless.  "Push-polling", skewed sampling, "Likely voters", and people just flat out messing with pollsters, and you have the perfect example of GIGO.

I got a call the other day from someone doing a poll on the Senate race here.  From the way the questions were worded, I knew that it was a poll from the Kirk campaign.  Needless to say that she wasn't happy with my "Both Kirk and Duckworth suck Donkey Balls" answers to her questions.



 

Do your own poll. Keep track of how many of each bumper sticker or yard sign you see. Around here Johnson is second to Trump. I rarely see Hillary stickers, even in Charlottesville, aka Berkeley on the Rivanna.

I've seen three Hillary yard signs and zero Trump signs.  Two of the yards with Hillary signs are always filled with Democrat signs.  Especially the one the "Coexist" bumpersticker (among other leftie ones on the back of her Prius.  The other had a Bernie sign during the primary season.

The only Trump signs I've seen were in Indy.  I don't think I saw more than 2 or 3 Hillary signs, but Trump/Pence sings were like dandelions....

[Monkeyleg]

Yard signs are a terrible indicator. A candidate I worked for had the entire district plastered with yard signs. He got creamed. There's been studies done, and there's no correlation in them.

Around here, I don't see any campaign signs. It's as though people don't want to get into arguments (although Democrats are in the minority). I've heard the same from people in other states.

[41magsnub]

I live in liberal town, Montana.  I have seen a couple of Hillary signs, zero Trump signs.  Lots of signs for various local and state candidates and ballot measures.

[AJ Dual]

I can also see how compounded errors can creep into polling with both bias and unintended consequences.

1. Polling samples might be, or are often crap. The increasing lack of landlines. Statistical bias to urban zip-codes because that's where the density is if you try to randomize/buckshot it. Republicans/Productive Class people are at work. Then, at best, when pollsters try to "normalize" the data for oversampling urban vs. rural, Democrats vs. Republicans etc. it's at least one more source of error, at worst, they pick the model that conforms to preconceived notions and selection bias. Plus, if a candidate inspires a bunch of unlikely voters, or first-time voters to come to the polls, are they captured at all?

2. Polled people lying. It's a constant barrage from the costal Leftist MSM elites and Hollywood that voting for Trump, much less being a supporter is "uncool" at best, and you're a redneck racist misogynist hick at worst. Did "Pussygate" really depress Trump's polling numbers that badly, or did it just deepen the percentage of people unwilling to voice Trump support/votes? We know this is real, from Obama's elections always having a few percentage points lower in actual voting returns vs. polling, probably for fear of "looking racist". And we know it was a real thing in the Brexit referendum too.

3. Do the poll-takers ever fudge/lie? Maybe a certain caller pisses them off, and they mark them down as being a Clinton supporter so "their voice isn't heard". I can't imagine this kind of call center work pays well, or is very interesting, and probably comes with a consummate lack of professionalism and rigor too.

While polling often aligns well with electoral returns, I can see error-stacking like this, and a chain of people all thinking they're the only ones "fudging just a bit", when perhaps many or all of them are creating wide swings that just have no bearing on reality.

My hunch is that if you could conduct a real honest and well controlled poll right now, Trump would indeed still be down a few points. However, if you look at who has the most to lose to the "Murphy's Law Factor", it's screaming for a Trump win. If only for the Lulz, and the apoplectic WTF'ery and screaming/crying from all sorts of establishment types, and personally, as a rebuke to Clinton's decades long monomania to become POTUS.

[mellestad]

When you totally lose faith in national polls, go get the data from people who're in this for cash, not politics.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Not a single place has odds showing anything but a Hillary victory. Not to say it's scientific or anything. Still, unless Hillary comes out of the closet as Satan, then eats a baby on live television, this is going to be an absolute route.

That's just for the popular vote--the Electoral College maps looks positively grim. Trump would need to pull of a miracle string if victories to make 270.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

The only reason this election looks like anything but a sure thing for Hillary is that every media outlet (on both sides, including "independent" stuff online) has an enormous vested interest in making it seem like a close race.

[mellestad]

Maybe eating a baby wouldn't be enough. I don't know what she'd have to do, at this point, to make her more distasteful to the moderate vote than Trump.

[AJ Dual]

The only reason this election looks like anything but a sure thing for Hillary is that every media outlet (on both sides, including "independent" stuff online) has an enormous vested interest in making it seem like a close race.

Interesting. I'd think the majority opinion here is that the media has been bending over backwards to do anything but make it look close and downplay Trump's chances. That Trump has been "close" in spite of their efforts, not because of them.

That said, I won't be surprised if Hillary wins.

I won't be surprised if Trump wins either.

While it's a low probability event, I won't be shocked if Trump wins with bigger margins than anyone was "expecting" if only because the media has been trying to create other expectations so hard, and for so long now. And that Trump's nature/persona has been inspiring them to drop what little pretenses of objectivity/neutrality they had left.

[Monkeyleg]

A little more ammo for Trump at the next debate. In a speech to one of her many bank-backers, she gave out classified information about the raid on bin-Laden. The Navy SEAL who wrote a book that disclosed classified information on the raid was tried in court, and was given the choice of prison or a $7 million fine.

[mellestad]

Interesting. I'd think the majority opinion here is that the media has been bending over backwards to do anything but make it look close and downplay Trump's chances.

I think that assumption would only be true if media companies valued their personal desired narrative more than their bottom line. That isn't true, though. The media companies (including the non-msm sources) that show a clear bias only do that because their target audience likes to feel confirmation bias. It's a marketing tool.

Most people don't want to hear unbiased news--it's boring and since it doesn't tell you how to feel, it's also difficult to consume.

So we end up where we are now--with a majority opinion on a site like this that's 180 degrees from the majority opinion of a left-leaning website. It isn't that one user-base is more informed, or has the "true" and objective source of data. The Internet has let us create little islands of curated information and we don't have to leave them unless we want to.

[roo_ster]

I think that assumption would only be true if media companies valued their personal desired narrative more than their bottom line. That isn't true, though. The media companies (including the non-msm sources) that show a clear bias only do that because their target audience likes to feel confirmation bias. It's a marketing tool.

Most people don't want to hear unbiased news--it's boring and since it doesn't tell you how to feel, it's also difficult to consume.

So we end up where we are now--with a majority opinion on a site like this that's 180 degrees from the majority opinion of a left-leaning website. It isn't that one user-base is more informed, or has the "true" and objective source of data. The Internet has let us create little islands of curated information and we don't have to leave them unless we want to.

Uh, generally they do.  That is why so many of them have gone bankrupt.  Or, like the Washington Post, have become the plaything of billionaires who bought them for $1 and eat the losses to keep the doors open.  NYT owned in large part by Carlos Slim/Salim form Mexico/Lebanon, The New Republic bought by yet another tech billionaire for a pittance.

The Narrative is more important than solvency to them.  

================================

Also, regarding the political betting websites:
1. They have a greater incentive to be right as they put their money on the line, but...
2. The input data into their models/calculations (or gut calls) consists in part of the crap poll data. 

Think of it this way:
The world of quantitative political data is a cake, with eggs, milk, flour, sugar and all sorts of cakey goodness.  Sadly, some of the ingredients have been adulterated with a sizable dollop pig manure.  Now, after all those ingredients are mixed and baked at 350degF, what comes out of the oven?  A cake or pig *expletive deleted*it?

[mellestad]

Uh, generally they do.

I think the chaos around the Internet has more to do with money problems then ideology.

Look at it this way--Drudge runs a poll and 70% of respondents think Trump wins a debate. NYTimes runs a poll and 70% of respondents think Hillary winds the same debate. They aren't doctoring those results--it's just a simple web form. The results show the readership is heavily biased more than the news org.

People don't accidentally read the NY Times and become liberal, anymore than someone accidentally stumbles onto Drudge and becomes a conservative. The readership of both seeks something that makes them feel validated, and with the Internet everyone can find a nice safe place where they can be right most of the time.

That's not to say people can't have their opinions shifted by a news org, but primarily blaming the media is putting the cart before the horse.

News is entertainment.

[AJ Dual]

Uh, generally they do.  That is why so many of them have gone bankrupt.  Or, like the Washington Post, have become the plaything of billionaires who bought them for $1 and eat the losses to keep the doors open.  NYT owned in large part by Carlos Slim/Salim form Mexico/Lebanon, The New Republic bought by yet another tech billionaire for a pittance.

The Narrative is more important than solvency to them.  

Very much this.

However, I'll add that while the MSM continues to insult and malign "regular Americans" and/or the Productive class and as such has seen a decline above and beyond what changing technology has brought, there is some rational behavior behind why they stick to the Leftist Narrative too. Namely that the "money men" and owners may be pro-business and have some sense of fiscal conservatism, they still largely come from the same pool of coastal/urban elites and Ivy League schools too.

So while being in the bubble keeps the MSM on the course of alienating middle-America which hurts their ratings, circulation and income, the same money men and financial backers are in the bubble too.

Of course, it's not all that unusual. Just look at the unions who've almost completely driven themselves into an ideological grave. Never once had it occurred to them that a good business climate and a healthy economy with more respect for free enterprise might actually help ensure their survival, and make it so businesses could afford to keep them.

Look at it this way--Drudge runs a poll and 70% of respondents think Trump wins a debate. NYTimes runs a poll and 70% of respondents think Hillary winds the same debate. They aren't doctoring those results--it's just a simple web form. The results show the readership is heavily biased more than the news org.

That's a red-herring. I don't think there's anyone here that believes self-selected Internet polling has anything to do with the conversation. We all know they're just attractions for page impressions and ad-click revenue drivers. We're talking about the "real" polls (as flawed or not as they may be) that get rolled into the Real Clear Politics aggregate etc.

[mellestad]

That's a red-herring. I don't think there's anyone here that believes self-selected Internet polling has anything to do with the conversation. We all know they're just attractions for page impressions and ad-click revenue drivers. We're talking about the "real" polls (as flawed or not as they may be) that get rolled into the Real Clear Politics aggregate etc.

Those polls are definitely part of the real conversation--Trump's Twitter account referred to them directly ("All the polls are showing I won!" with a pic of a bunch of online website polls) after the debates and I've been seeing them all over Facebook.

I agree with you in a general sense (they're worthless at face value) but the online polls are used by both sides and they illustrate my overall point about readership bias.

This is just speculation, but I'd bet if some people aren't willing to tell an anonymous pollster they support Trump, they're far less likely to hit the polls and vote for him. Even with Hillary to run against I think Republican voter turnout will be low. Even on this forum there's very little pride in the idea of supporting Trump. The people who seem to support him are doing it grudgingly. That lack of positive passion is going to hurt him badly, especially as the drumbeat against his flaws ramps up as we close on the election.

...as long as Hillary doesn't eat any babies.

[makattak]

Of course, it's not all that unusual. Just look at the unions who've almost completely driven themselves into an ideological grave. Never once had it occurred to them that a good business climate and a healthy economy with more respect for free enterprise might actually help ensure their survival, and make it so businesses could afford to keep them.

It's also rather interesting that by using the government to force so many work-place safety/hiring rules/firing rules/overtime rules/harassment/(I can go on and on with government regulations about employees ONLY), the reasons for unions grow smaller and smaller.

Unions are more useful the more items over which there can be negotiation (and workers can SEE the difference if, say, Unions insist that hard hats be provided and required or overtime is compensated properly or harassment is ended and properly punished).

Unions can be useful tools. In our overly regulated economy, they provide very little in benefit for their members. (And, far less benefit than the cost, in my estimation, given what happens when workers are allowed to forgo unions in formerly closed shops/states.)

[roo_ster]

Those polls are definitely part of the real conversation--Trump's Twitter account referred to them directly ("All the polls are showing I won!" with a pic of a bunch of online website polls) after the debates and I've been seeing them all over Facebook.

I agree with you in a general sense (they're worthless at face value) but the online polls are used by both sides and they illustrate my overall point about readership bias.

This is just speculation, but I'd bet if some people aren't willing to tell an anonymous pollster they support Trump, they're far less likely to hit the polls and vote for him. Even with Hillary to run against I think Republican voter turnout will be low. Even on this forum there's very little pride in the idea of supporting Trump. The people who seem to support him are doing it grudgingly. That lack of positive passion is going to hurt him badly, especially as the drumbeat against his flaws ramps up as we close on the election.

...as long as Hillary doesn't eat any babies.

I doubt the election betting sites have many participants that give insta-web polls any weight.  Or citations of them by candidates.  

I would suggest that the predilections lie in the other direction.  Nobody trusts anonymous polls to be anonymous.  Not over the phone, not web forms, not those given by your company as "employee satisfaction surveys."  None of them.  OTOH, inside the polling booth is about as securely one can express one's political opinion outside a mountain top in the Andes with only your alpaca(1) to hear your whispered declaration.

Addendum:
The last few elections we have seen the phenomenon of the various polls suddenly tightening up toward the end.  There is speculation that the pollsters get more rigorous/realistic with their methodology near the election so as to preserve their credibility, while feeling more free to influence (rather than measure) the results.
 



(1) Shining Path Alpaca being the exception.