Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Here is snap shots of all post debate polls.

Tump won in a landslide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

Clinton won the CNN Poll.

Lol of course Clinton won the CNN poll. CNN is the same place that when Trump was talking about profiling people they added the word "racial" into his quote to make it seem like he was talking about racial profiling.

Or of course you remember the Milwaukee riots and how the dead thugs sister was shown on CNN telling people to stop the violence. Except of course..CNN didn't show the second half of the clip, which told people to take the violence to the suburbs instead lol. But don't worry it only happened due to time constraints, I mean that extra 2 seconds of the clip was just TOO hard to fit into the broadcast.

They are deceitful little shits and at this point just aren't to be taken seriously anymore. So I find it hilarious that everywhere except on bias CNN Trump came out on top.

That's one of the reason's I don't watch CNN anymore, when I was watching Squawk on the Street this morning, at the beginning they said many in the media think Hillary won, I just busted up laughing! Most of the media really is out there! wtf...

Also its nuts the media is trying to get everyone to vote, sure I'm for well educated people voting if they know what each person's idea's are and what they plan to do, but to have just anyone vote, just basing it on their feelings isn't bright.

What is scary is the way some people defended what CNN did. Essentially saying "well Trump IS racist so it's not wrong to let people know that".

So then by that logic every single story about Hilary should mention all her various lies.

I'm beginning to realize why Jon Stewart hated CNN so f*cking much.

I prefur Fox News.

Hell no, they are bad too.

I love how horrible at basic statistics people are. Hint: if you take online polls seriously, you fall into that group.

Thanks for your helpful hint. But you are correct, personally I take polls with a grain of salt. I do find it amusing most of them apparently show people think Trump won.

We certainly have no reason to have any faith in CNN anymore, but then I find more and more I don't trust the media in general.

CNN's polling uses statistical controls; online polls do not. It's not only CNN, by the way.

I do wish I could take these more seriously, because it would lift my hopes that Trump might win. But right now I still don't feel that way.

Surveys and polls are just another example of how we can be deceived.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
CNN's polling uses statistical controls; online polls do not. It's not only CNN, by the way.

I'm not saying their poll is inaccurate. I'm just saying no poll reflects how most Americans truly feel.

When I say I have no faith in CNN I just mean as a news network.

Then how come models like Silver's, which primarily rely on polling, have such a good track record?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Then how come models like Silver's, which primarily rely on polling, have such a good track record?

Just come out and say what you really are trying to say about stuff like the CNN poll. Are you claiming it represents what a majority of Americans believe?

Wait is your name a reference to the animorphs stuff.

If so

There seems to be something off about Hillary Clinton.

Even my non-US citizen girlfriend thinks something is fishy with Hillary Clinton. She thinks Hillary has some massive corruption and manipulation going on in the background. She doesn't like Trump so it is not as though she has a bias.

When I told her about the 2008 election and how severely she smeared Obama (bordering on indirect racism) and now she's acting like BFFs with Obama, that set my GF off to confirm she thinks there is some collab going on to get Hillary in office. She speculates that it was the time back in 2008 when Hillary conceded and then was given a Cabinet position as Secretary of State. Her logic goes like this:

1. Fierce campaigning against Obama.
2. Negotiation and concession to Obama.
3. Obama promises her a Cabinet position and a chance at the presidency after his two terms.
4. Obama pledges support in the background to make it happen.
5. Hillary agrees to it all.




Anyway, I think Trump lost that debate. At times, Hillary had her ass handed to her. But, overall, Trump lost the debate. Hillary did not win the debate, Trump lost it. Trump with this Trumpiness and stupidness caused him to lose. Here is how Trump lost: getting clearly pissed and agitated while Hillary remained mostly calm and looked like she had poise. She appeared to be the more mature one.

Honestly, Trump made several really good ****ing points. I absolutely loved it when Trump called Hillary out on her hypocritical and backstabby two-facedness when it came to her criticisms of Trump hating on Obama: she did it far far worse when she was running against Obama for president.

It's Ellimist from animorphs, yeah.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just come out and say what you really are trying to say about stuff like the CNN poll. Are you claiming it represents what a majority of Americans believe?

That's what the data suggests, given that a weighted aggregate of the polls predicts outcomes better than any other metric short of maybe betting markets.

It's empirical, I don't see why you're phrasing it so subjectively.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's what the data suggests, given that a weighted aggregate of the polls predicts outcomes better than any other metric short of maybe betting markets.

Educate me on the last part of that statement. I feel ignorant of your point about betting markets because from what I understand, human betting (gambling) outcomes are woefully random when statistically analyzed.

For example, sports betting was analyzed and found to be close to just a random stochastic process (like fliipping a coin):

http://www.football-data.co.uk/blog/pyckio1.gif



I also feel that you're making a legit point and I am just ignorant of that point because of a gap in my understanding or knowledge.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's Ellimist from animorphs, yeah.



That's what the data suggests, given that a weighted aggregate of the polls predicts outcomes better than any other metric short of maybe betting markets.

It's empirical, I don't see why you're phrasing it so subjectively.

Has this Silver person ever made an inaccurate prediction using stats?

I was really hoping when Hillary started to bring up that Trump didn't say Obama was born in the USA topic, I wanted Trump to say 'And you started that remember?". She gives him an open window to say that and he doesn't...

Hillary ranting out how workers should get a share of the profits, when thats not how it works, unless they negotiate it with their bosses, people want wages first mainly. Not understanding business at all smh.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Educate me on the last part of that statement. I feel ignorant of your point about betting markets because from what I understand, human betting (gambling) outcomes are woefully random when statistically analyzed.

For example, sports betting was analyzed and found to be close to just a random stochastic process (like fliipping a coin):

http://www.football-data.co.uk/blog/pyckio1.gif



I also feel that you're making a legit point and I am just ignorant of that point because of a gap in my understanding or knowledge.

It's not about winning or losing bets. It's about how bookies calculate odds and how they are very rarely wrong when they make one outcome longer or shorter odds than another.

At the moment most bookies have Clinton at 4/9 favourite with Trump at 2/1

Not to say that they don't get it wildly wrong on occasion. Almost every bookies had remain to win in the brexit referendum and were all wrong.

Trump won in a landslide. Hillary was scripted, nasty and low.

Trump beat her on specifics, policy, and knowledge of the numbers.

On top of it, Lester interrupted him 70 times and was wrong on all accounts.

He interrupted Clinton 7 times.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Educate me on the last part of that statement. I feel ignorant of your point about betting markets because from what I understand, human betting (gambling) outcomes are woefully random when statistically analyzed.

For example, sports betting was analyzed and found to be close to just a random stochastic process (like fliipping a coin):

http://www.football-data.co.uk/blog/pyckio1.gif



I also feel that you're making a legit point and I am just ignorant of that point because of a gap in my understanding or knowledge.

Here's one study, and from a google search it seems like the finding has been pretty well replicated*.

* Or rather, while there's contention as to whether betting markets beat well designed polling aggregates, they're certainly much better than a coin flip.

I don't know much about sports betting; if I could guess, I'd wager that athletic competitions are far more prone to chance than most political elections, and that maybe more people make frivolous sports bets. I dunno.

Originally posted by Surtur
Has this Silver person ever made an inaccurate prediction using stats?

I'm sure it isn't 100% accurate, so sure.

Lester Holt gets fact checked.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/audio-alan-dershowitz-fact-checks-lester-holts-fact-check-stop-frisk/

Bumping because I think Time-Immemorial's pathetic inability to get anything right is just f*cking hilarious.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Bumping because I think Time-Immemorial's pathetic inability to get anything right is just f*cking hilarious. Trolling and flame baiting another person isn't a reason to bump a thread. If TI is wrong then contribute to the thread with evidence proving contrary to his posts. Otherwise it's best to stop.

Trump still doing well in the polls? I heard he likes tic tacs and sexual assault.