Republican candidate 'body-slams' Guardian reporter in Montana

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 03:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Definitely bored, but on your biggest issues, Dershowitz is saying they are full of crap.  Now he may or may not be wrong, but he is in fact saying it's a bunch of nonsense.  He's not talking about his hair or his skin tone.

Nope...nor is he ignoring the issue to talk about someone else talking about where Melania lives.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 03:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Good question.

I may have mistyped that as we don't know yet.  DJT said he was told he was not (3x) but he's the only one to say it.

I asked because you made a declarative statement that he was.  Now you are saying we don't know if he is and that Trump says he isn't.  So which is it, is Trump under investigation, is he not, or do you not know either way?

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 03:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I asked because you made a declarative statement that he was.  Now you are saying we don't know if he is and that Trump says he isn't.  So which is it, is Trump under investigation, is he not, or do you not know either way?

I answered because you were correct that I made a declarative statement that I perhaps should not have as we do not know that he is under investigation.

Sorry if that answer wasn't abundantly clear at first when I said:

(05-26-2017, 03:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Good question.

I may have mistyped that as we don't know yet.  DJT said he was told he was not (3x) but he's the only one to say it.

Do happen to know what time it is?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: I answered because you were correct that I made a declarative statement that I perhaps should not have as we do not know that he is under investigation.

I just wanted you to be clear about the fact that you made an incorrect statement.

Quote:Sorry if that answer wasn't abundantly clear at first.

It wasn't, I'm guessing deliberately on your part.  Here would have been a clear statement, "Yeah, I misspoke" or "Yeah, what I said is incorrect".

Here's what you actually "said".

Quote:I may have mistyped that as we don't know yet

You "may" have mistyped?  That isn't anything close to owning a factually incorrect statement.  I love watching you dissemble.

Quote:Do happen to know what time it is?

Yes.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just wanted you to be clear about the fact that you made an incorrect statement.

Maybe. We don't know. Unless you DO know. Do you?

(05-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It wasn't, I'm guessing deliberately on your part.  Here would have been a clear statement, "Yeah, I misspoke" or "Yeah, what I said is incorrect".

Maybe. We don't know. Unless you DO know. Do you?

(05-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You "may" have mistyped?  That isn't anything close to owning a factually incorrect statement.  I love watching you dissemble.

Maybe. We don't know. Unless you DO know. Do you?

(05-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.

Thanks for answering without screaming.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 03:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe.  We don't know.  Unless you DO know.  Do you?




Maybe.  We don't know.  Unless you DO know.  Do you?




Maybe.  We don't know.  Unless you DO know.  Do you?

Nope.  However, I'm not the one making statements that declare that I do.  You did exactly that, own it.

Quote:Thanks for answering without screaming.

When have I been "screaming"?

[Aquapod770]

With all the obsession over "punching Nazis" recently, I'm not surprised body slamming Commies has become a thing.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 03:58 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: With all the obsession over "punching Nazis" recently, I'm not surprised body slamming Commies has become a thing.  

Only if they are proud Commies!

[Benton]

(05-26-2017, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The polling was tighter than a lot of people realized. Public polls had a wide range of differences, but the margin of error for those was big (sometimes larger than the pollsters themselves admit, but stats nerds can spot). Internals from the GOP, as well as a couple of more public polls, had the race with a Gianforte lead of between 2 and 4 points. And that was before the incident (GOP internals leaked around 22nd, likely to play the expectations game).

Polling has been going downhill slowly for the last 15(ish) years. Opinions on why vary. Mine is that largely polling relies on people answering their phone and being willing to answer questions for 5-15 minutes, combined with the growth of intentionally misleading poll questions.

For example, a conservative leaning polling group might ask "Do you support the conservative candidate for Montana" while a liberal leaning agency might ask "Are you familiar with the conservative candidate who assaults questioners?"

In this case, they both refer to the same person.

Same with exit polling. If you only approach voters in a specific area (say, one inclined to one party) it skews the data.



Having had a little time to think about it, this isn't much of a story. Reporters are threatened, pushed around, spit at, kicked out. It's part of the job. If the reporter was breaking up someone else's interview (as has been described), he was being incredibly rude, both to the candidate and to his peers. 

More importantly, at that point, Gianforte was not an elected official. He didn't owe anyone his time as a candidate. It's not the same as arresting a reporter for asking questions of a government employee in a public hallway. That is troubling. This? This is just part of covering news.

[Benton]

(05-26-2017, 03:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When have I been "screaming"?

I DON'T KNOW. 

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 04:06 PM)Benton Wrote: I DON'T KNOW. 

Oh man...did someone ask you what time it is?!?!

[Bengalzona]

(05-26-2017, 03:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump is under investigation?

No.

Some members of his entourage are, but the Don is not..... at this point.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 04:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No.

Some members of his entourage are, but the Don is not..... at this point.

Do you know for sure?

I mean no one has said he isn't under investigation except DJT himself.

We don't know.

Probably not...maybe not...but not definitively not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 04:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you know for sure?

I mean no one has said he isn't under investigation except DJT himself.

We don't know.

Probably not...maybe not...but not definitively not.

Wait, you're now asking other people if they know for sure after you got called out for making a statement that you knew for sure?

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 04:04 PM)Benton Wrote: Polling has been going downhill slowly for the last 15(ish) years. Opinions on why vary. Mine is that largely polling relies on people answering their phone and being willing to answer questions for 5-15 minutes, combined with the growth of intentionally misleading poll questions.

For example, a conservative leaning polling group might ask "Do you support the conservative candidate for Montana" while a liberal leaning agency might ask "Are you familiar with the conservative candidate who assaults questioners?"

In this case, they both refer to the same person.

Same with exit polling. If you only approach voters in a specific area (say, one inclined to one party) it skews the data.

A lot of people say this about polling, but there are pollsters that work to avoid the question bias and use models to compensate for low response rates. The issue with special elections is that they are tougher to model and so the MoE is often higher. Overall, polling has been fine. The polling wasn't wrong last year, the popular election results were within the MoE of most polls (and the statistical models of political scientists for that matter). The pundits were talking about the data wrong and the EC us hard to predict with models and polls.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 05:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A lot of people say this about polling, but there are pollsters that work to avoid the question bias and use models to compensate for low response rates. The issue with special elections is that they are tougher to model and so the MoE is often higher. Overall, polling has been fine. The polling wasn't wrong last year, the popular election results were within the MoE of most polls (and the statistical models of political scientists for that matter). The pundits were talking about the data wrong and the EC us hard to predict with models and polls.

I think the pols were wrong for the election because many people wouldn't admit they were going to vote for Trump.  In general I'd agree that polling is about as reliable, on most topics, as it has been in the past.

[BengalHawk62]

I like chicks on poles.  Gyrating, dancing with, sliding down, climbing up, stroking, smoking......poles.



Can we have a new thread about that kind of pole? 




 

[Goalpost]

I think the polls were mostly 47-43 Hillary the morning of the vote. But that was nationwide, so it got the popular vote maybe close, but failed badly the electoral college. I don't think anyone thought Trump would rout Hillary there.

[Benton]

(05-26-2017, 05:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A lot of people say this about polling, but there are pollsters that work to avoid the question bias and use models to compensate for low response rates. The issue with special elections is that they are tougher to model and so the MoE is often higher. Overall, polling has been fine. The polling wasn't wrong last year, the popular election results were within the MoE of most polls (and the statistical models of political scientists for that matter). The pundits were talking about the data wrong and the EC us hard to predict with models and polls.

I'd disagree with the bold.

Using Trump and swing states as an example, he outperformed in many of those states far above polling. I've seen his average margin in Utah at +10, but he ended up at +19. Ohio was +2, he was +9. It's less that overall polling was wrong (it was) and more that overall polling failed more noticeably in some aspects. It wasn't like a few of the pollsters missed here and there... the majority of pollsters using a variety of methods were in error. They couldn't account for nonresponse bias on the scale that it keeps growing as more people become join the ranks of uneducated and poor.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 05:51 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I think the polls were mostly 47-43 Hillary the morning of the vote.  But that was nationwide, so it got the popular vote maybe close, but failed badly the electoral college.  I don't think anyone thought Trump would rout Hillary there.

I predicted every swing state he won aside from Wisconsin, which isn't a swing state.  I did not see him winning Wisconsin.