Who won the debate?

[JonC]

I do too. And since he's doubled down on it, I KNOW he meant exactly what he said.



I heard what the rest of America heard and that he has reinforced by saying he will only accept the results if he wins.

Y'all straight crack me up!

Like Sinatra, you heard it youuuurrrr waaaaay.....

The problem is not that what Trump said was taken out of context. The problem is that you (and the media) took what he said and applied your own context to his statement. Trump kinda left it open. And judging from Trump's demeanor (and the audience's reaction), I think it fair to say the "only if I win" statement was not a serious statement of rebellion against the "American way".

I know that you are anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. But if you act the same way, are you really any better?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

By what I gather to be your criteria, that means I should only vote for myself. As I am, the only one I can trust. (which is a form of reducto absurdum) Unless you are suggesting I leave the presidential space blank on my ballot.
I said you haven't given us any alternatives viable or not. The key being the "not". Surely you can come up with a third party candidate from a presidential election in the last 120 years.

An alternative viable for whom? Jesus Christ hasn't changed so there shouldn't be any dilemma about who Christians support.

 

[777]

Ratings are in, third most watched presidential debate ever:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-20-18-01-55

I don't "hate" them, I just don't think they are very good people, and could never vote for them.

I'm a political junkie. I follow local, state, and national elections. I've been doing it for almost 50 years, ever since I went door to door as an 10 year old sticking campaign literature on doorknobs for a candidate for US Congress. When I was in 8th grade a classmate and I "ran" George McGovern's campaign on a computer simulation for a class assignment. (We lost but made it much closer than the actual results.) I've got videotapes I made off the air of a Bush/Dukakis debates; also have the first George W. Bush and Al Gore debate on tape. So, it's kind of a hobby for me to follow campaigns, see where they are spending the money, follow the polls, etc. It's intellectual sport.

So how can you make any sense of any polling this century? Exit polls, internal polls and all the others have been way off, and need to be modified - some of the alphabet network's polls nailed 2012 but most of them missed the MoE.

McGovern, eight grade, must have been born in the late fifties or so. I thought you seemed to know a lot about politics, ever worked in a campaign? I have and won, but that was for a GOP moderate for the House in a swing area, and at even lower state levels, nasty business with Rossi and Gregoire. Protesting abortion clinics and canvassing is a little too "grassroots" for my tastes, not involved at all with Hillary or Trump.

Not wanting either to win is okay as long you can reconcile the fact that you've already lost no matter. BTW, I think the DLC is redundant by now.

 

[Zaac]

By what I gather to be your criteria, that means I should only vote for myself. As I am, the only one I can trust. (which is a form of reducto absurdum) Unless you are suggesting I leave the presidential space blank on my ballot.
I said you haven't given us any alternatives viable or not. The key being the "not". Surely you can come up with a third party candidate from a presidential election in the last 120 years.

You obviously didn't gather my criteria if you deduced it to mean you could only vote for yourself.

And I don't have to give you a viable candidate. What is this grade school? I said who Christians should not be supporting. If you need a viable alternative then do your homework and find one you like. [emoji106]
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

From what I've seen nobody on the California ballot (Rep/American Independent, Dem, Peace and Freedom, Green, and Libertarian) is one I like. And I didn't ask just for a viable alternative. I also asked for a non-viable alternative to include any of the third party candidates. You seemed to have skipped over the latter. And I did not restrict my question to the 2016 election.

If you need a viable alternative then do your homework and find one you like.

 

[Zaac]

From what I've seen nobody on the California ballot (Rep/American Independent, Dem, Peace and Freedom, Green, and Libertarian) is one I like. And I didn't ask just for a viable alternative. I also asked for a non-viable alternative to include any of the third party candidates. You seemed to have skipped over the latter. And I did not restrict my question to the 2016 election.

So all these non viable candidates and evangelicals continue to support them.

If they're all non-viable I'm sure you personally know someone whose name you can write in who honors Christ.[emoji6]

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

So how can you make any sense of any polling this century?

I don't. I go with the simplicity of the RealClearPolitics polling average for starters. Then examine individual polls not included in the average, looking at the methodology. If the methodology is credible I mentally add it to the RCP average and come up with a number in my head. Sounds like you do roughly the same thing.

Exit polls, internal polls and all the others have been way off, and need to be modified - some of the alphabet network's polls nailed 2012 but most of them missed the MoE.

The sometimes significant differences between polls has got to be related to the proprietary weighting factors that each polling company uses.

McGovern, eight grade, must have been born in the late fifties or so

.

Yep, I was born in 1958. My parents were very conservative.

I thought you seemed to know a lot about politics, ever worked in a campaign?

I have not worked on a campaign. I do know a bunch of people that have and I get feedback from them. I have a friend that is a GOP state delegate here in Minnesota. Another friend I've known since childhood is an oppo researcher for GOP campaigns in southern California. A lawyer friend of mine is a GOP city councilman in suburban San Diego and is also a GOP national delegate. So I get a lot of input.

I have and won, but that was for a GOP moderate for the House in a swing area, and at even lower state levels, nasty business with Rossi and Gregoire. Protesting abortion clinics and canvassing is a little too "grassroots" for my tastes, not involved at all with Hillary or Trump.

Good for you on the campaign involvement. I do enjoy reading your posts. Gotta ask though--is there any pollsters that you like? It seems that you believe all of them are flawed.

Not wanting either to win is okay as long you can reconcile the fact that you've already lost no matter.

Yes, I'm resigned to the fact that the country is in deep trouble no matter who wins. I disagree that this is the end of the United States as we know it, something I get from a couple friends of mine that are so virulently anti-Hillary that they make some Hillary bashers on BB look like sympathizers. Ha!

BTW, I think the DLC is redundant by now.

Democratic Leadership Council? If so, I would say they are obsolete. The Dems are going further and further left every election.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Of those I listed, only the Rep\AIP (it's a fusion ticket this election) and the Dems are near to be being viable.
And I didn't say none were viable I said

From what I've seen nobody on the California ballot . . . is one I like.

IOW, I didn't like any of them.
California only accepts write ins which are registered with the state. So, writing in a name is like leaving the space blank. Is that what you are suggesting an abstention from the Presidential race. I know I'll abstain from the US Senate race as the candidates are both liberal Dems, one for NorCal the other from SoCal.

If they're all non-viable I'm sure you personally know someone whose name you can write in who honors Christ.

 

[Zaac]

Of those I listed, only the Rep\AIP (it's a fusion ticket this election) and the Dems are near to be being viable.
And I didn't say none were viable I said IOW, I didn't like any of them.
California only accepts write ins which are registered with the state. So, writing in a name is like leaving the space blank. Is that what you are suggesting an abstention from the Presidential race. I know I'll abstain from the US Senate race as the candidates are both liberal Dems, one for NorCal the other from SoCal.

I'm suggesting that Christians start voting like Christ is Lord.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[777]

I don't. I go with the simplicity of the RealClearPolitics polling average for starters. Then examine individual polls not included in the average, looking at the methodology. If the methodology is credible I mentally add it to the RCP average and come up with a number in my head. Sounds like you do roughly the same thing.

Well, it worked fine for 2008 and 2012, the final RCP average that Obama won by was within the MoE but more on that later.

The sometimes significant differences between polls has got to be related to the proprietary weighting factors that each polling company uses.

Yes - IF they weight it and then adjust. And even if they do, you got to wonder:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/poll-arizona-clinton-beating-trump-229972

58/24/19 in a state where there's 15% more R than D. To their credit, they go with these numbers and try to weight those, but . . .

.

Yep, I was born in 1958. My parents were very conservative.

So you usually go R, even in Minnesota. How is your personal track record? Mine is good on House and Senate races, just atrocious on presidential elections - thought it would be Gore, Kerry, Obama and Romney, lol.

Good for you on the campaign involvement. I do enjoy reading your posts. Gotta ask though--is there any pollsters that you like? It seems that you believe all of them are flawed.

Yes, I complain about all of them but that's because they've been burning me too often - Zogby was wrong in 2004, Ras messed up in 2012, and there was this one tracking poll back in 2012 by WaPo and ABC that just nailed the +6 turnout that year by now they're polling +9 D.

I had thought Nate Silver was THE best pollster. I knew he was being fed Obama's internal polls both times but that at least proved to me that whatever secret polling firm he was using, they were far more accurate than Romney's, which turned out to be totally wrong. Then the midterms, the MD gubernatorial race, the GOP nomination and Brexit happened.

Yes, I'm resigned to the fact that the country is in deep trouble no matter who wins. I disagree that this is the end of the United States as we know it, something I get from a couple friends of mine that are so virulently anti-Hillary that they make some Hillary bashers on BB look like sympathizers. Ha!

There is a polarization factor with both Hillary and Trump. It will not be the end of the country no matter who wins. The last few presidents have been warning signs that the country is in trouble..

 

[InTheLight]

So you usually go R, even in Minnesota. How is your personal track record? Mine is good on House and Senate races, just atrocious on presidential elections - thought it would be Gore, Kerry, Obama and Romney, lol.

President: I had Bush Sr. in 1992. Wrong. Otherwise I've gotten them all correct 1996-2012.

House and Senate: I get most of the Minnesota races correct, but I was wrong on Franken/Coleman. I was wrong on MN 8th district in 2012, I had Stewart Mills over Nolan. In the rematch I'm taking Mills again. This is an intriguing race as the district is made up of blue collar, pro-life union members. Kind of a weird dynamic and makes for a lot of vote splitting.

As to other US House and US Senate, I really can't remember individual races. I do like to predict who will have the majority of seats. This will be especially tough this year.

There is a polarization factor with both Hillary and Trump. It will not be the end of the country no matter who wins. The last few presidents have been warning signs that the country is in trouble..

Yes, which I contend makes a third party more and more viable. It will be interesting to see what remains of the GOP when this is over.