Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Buzz Clik

Buzz Clik's Journal
Buzz Clik's Journal
November 17, 2016

Knuckledraggers rise to the top.

"Now who's smart?"

NOTE: this was the only copy I could find online. I'd been thinking about this skit and it's relevance today. Steve Martin, Gilda Radner, Bill Murray... but I don't agree with the superimposed text: "How the one percent rise to power." It's true for some of the one percenters, but not all. My point in posting this is the incredible entitlement our knuckledragging friends on the right are feeling right now, their empowerment to embrace the xenophobia of their new man crush, and their overwhelming but undeserved smugness in declaring, "Now who's smart?" Stupid people rarely know that they are stupid.
November 8, 2016

I wanted to give this thread a big thumbs up!

FOR TONIGHT: Please, please refrain from posting a new thread for every idle thought


November 5, 2016

About the latest angst from 538...

fivethirtyeight.com came out with this late yesterday:

But those state polls? Not a lot of good news for Clinton. There’s more data showing a tied race in New Hampshire. And Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania is down to about 3 percentage points in our forecast. Polls in Michigan have also been tightening, with an unusually large number of undecided voters. Polling in New Mexico has been tight enough that we’re now considering it a “state to watch,” although that may reflect an abundance of caution. Clinton’s numbers have held up better in Wisconsin and Virginia, while the data has been very mixed in Colorado.


It's been interesting to watch 538's national trend as it hacks into into Hillary's lead every day:

But, we all know that the national poll is meaningless -- it's ONLY the state polls that matter. So, 538's article was disturbing.

As it happens, I decided to kill thirty minutes of my lunch hour yesterday, and I loaded all 538's "predicted margin of victory" data into a spreadsheet (current as of noon Friday EDT). I do this to let me push the numbers around and draw my own conclusions. So, being very familiar with their numbers, I found it quite curious to see all the hand wringing in this morning's article. So. I went back to the spreadsheet and entered all of today's numbers from 538 (as of 3 pm EDT). It was remarkable that, with only 6 exceptions, 538's predictions for every single state ticked toward Trump by at least 0.2% and as much as 2.5%, with an average of about 1%. This makes no sense. Polling data doesn't move like that in 24 hours with absolutely nothing else going on. This swing, by the way, was indeed ground shaking for Clinton. Her "solid" electoral votes (using this 538 data set) dropped by about 10; Florida and Nevada swung from virtual ties into the Trump column.

The only way this trend in 538's predictions could make sense would be if new polling data showed an across-the-board swing toward Trump. So, I checked the polls, and the only new data were from Survey Monkey, who released data for just about every state. There was movement both ways, but Florida and New Hampshire were most interesting. Florida, which 538 had in 24 hours swung from 0.2 for Clinton to 0.2 for Trump, showed no change in Survey Monkey, who continue to show HRC with a 2% lead. Only one poll in Florida during the last week has favored Trump (Remington), while the other seven polls favor Clinton. New Hampshire, according to 538, dropped from a 3% HRC lead to less than 2% overnight, whereas the only new poll (Survey Monkey) gives HRC a 10 point lead.

538 also brought up Michigan as an example of concern: they ticked their projection from 4.2% victory for Clinton to 3.8%. The new Survey Monkey poll was unchanged and a new PPP poll gives MI to HRC by 5%.

I am not buying into 538's pronouncement of a tightening race. It's stable. Clinton's lead is comfortable. If you take the straight polling numbers from pollster.com and add up the electoral votes, you get this:

Electoral votes in states with a lead significantly greater than margin of error:
HRC: 268, Trump 164

Add in those states at the margin of error:
HRC: 301, Trump 170
October 10, 2016

Trump goes third world by threatening Clinton with jail. The Daily Show predicted it:

Oct 3, 2015. Trump as an African dictator.

We should be so proud.

May 8, 2016

In the context of a "contested convention": Sanders's best case scenario moving into Philadelphia

The pollsters have pretty much packed it in for the Democratic primaries because the outcome is apparent to everyone (even those feigning denial). Bernie and some of his die-hard fans are trying to convince us that he will be arriving at the Democratic National Convention with enough delegates to create a contested convention. His logic (sic) is that the superdelegates don't count, except in the denominator when caculating % pledged delegates.

Anyway, let's take a glance at what his delegate numbers might look like as he arrives in Philly under the very best circumstances. Here are the ground rules:

  • Bernie wins every open primary/causus by 82/18: Puerto Rico, Montana, North Dakota
  • Bernie wins every closed primary/caucus by 65/35: Kentucky, Oregon, Virgin Islands, New Mexico, South Dakota
  • West Virginia: The scant number of polls have Sanders up by 4%. We'll give him a blowout: 65/35.
  • California: Polls indicate HRC leads by 9%. We'll assume Bernie flips CA and wins by 9%
  • New Jersey: Polls have HRC ahead by 20%. We'll assume Bernie turns NJ around and wins 52/48
  • District of Columbia: Bernie loses this one 75/25

Under these highly extreme circumstances, Bernie arrives at the Democratic National Convention trailing Clinton by 290 delegates.

No contest.

May 4, 2016

Curious... on my spreadsheet, I gave IN to Sanders 53/47.

Actually, it's meaningless.
April 22, 2016

Jaw-dropping expression of either delusion or a demented attempt at being sinister.

Has anyone else seen something like this?

In a harmless conversation about whether Sanders skipping over to California to campaign was a good idea, I had this exchange:

Me: If things go according to my personal projections that include Sanders winning two of the five primaries next week and cutting deep into HRC's leads in PA, MD, and CT; winning every May and June contest (all by at least 10% and some by 80/20 margins); then, he will need a 66/34 victory in California to beat HRC by 3 delegates.

A Bernie Fan: Evidently you don't understand the entire process leading to convention and the process at convention. There are no real numbers yet. At all.

Me: This is just a big illusion? All the campaigning, voting, debates, and lawsuits are a charade?

A Bernie Fan: Pretty much. As we have been saying. We will use every inch to claim victory so we can change it. Something Hillary won't do.

So, is this pure desperation or some bizzarro plan to turn the convention upside down?
April 18, 2016

For those of you watching at home: The Secret Word is:

[font color="red"][font size="6"]HOT SAUCE[/FONT][/font]

(obsess much?)

April 10, 2016

The insanity from the Sanders crowd is at fever pitch.

The smell of desperation is in the air:

  • Dredging up the Rovain smears on Bill Clinton and assigning them to HRC (e.g., Mark Rich)
  • The Evolution of Hillary's accent
  • The continued distortion that HRC is blaming Sandy Hook on BS
  • HRC is a neocon
  • Kagan has endorsed HRC for president

and on and on and on.

Get a net! Get a lot of nets!

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 22, 2003, 11:13 AM
Number of posts: 38,437
Latest Discussions»Buzz Clik's Journal