THE SMACKDOWN AT HOFSTRA

[Crackpot]

[RayThom]

And from the right wing, conservative, Wall Street Journal there's this:

Trump’s Losing Debate Strategy
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-losi ... 1475018535
So many Repub pols and organizations are going negative on Drumpf the atmosphere is almost palpable. I'm starting to feel The Donald is becoming (more) unhinged and might drop out blaming everything and everyone for his decision, before he has to own up to his failure. His behavior is no longer abhorrent, it's down right scary.

[Lord Jim]

I'm posting this primarily for wes' edification, since I assume that pretty much everyone else here already knows this:

No, Donald Trump Didn't Win Post-Debate 'Polls'

On Tuesday, after a less-than-stellar debate performance, Donald Trump returned to using one of his favorite measurements to mask his missteps on Monday night — the polls.

Except that the post-debate "polls" the GOP nominee and campaign kept touting that he won on social media, at his rally in Florida and in press releases aren't polls at all. They're essentially unscientific Internet popularity contests, are not weighted as to what the electorate will actually look like, and have no predictive value. In fact, if you're worried about voter fraud, in many of these surveys people can vote multiple times and they can easily be rigged by Internet bots.

Many of the results he cited came from very Trump-friendly sites, such as Breitbart News and the Drudge Report. Some of these polls were shared by Trump supporters on reddit, encouraging people to go vote. These were not selective samples with any merit, and in no way could they accurately measure whether the more than 81 million people who tuned in for the debate thought Trump did better than Hillary Clinton.

Even though Fox News repeatedly touted the same results Trump trumpeted on air and online, [shame on them for doing that] Business Insider reported that the network's polling director, Dana Blanton, warned that such polls "do not meet our editorial standards":

"As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can't be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate. ... Another problem — we know some campaigns/groups of supporters encourage people to vote in online polls and flood the results." [ Rabid Trumpanzees have been flooding the zone in these ersatz polls since the beginning of the primary season.]

Huffington Post polling director Ariel Edwards-Levy explained the vast difference between these polls Trump loves so much and ones that are actually predictive and useful:

"Scientific polls can be conducted by phone, via online panels or some other way, and use a mix of sampling and weighting to make their numbers representative of the larger population whose opinions they're measuring ― whether that's all adult Americans, or just likely voters. Recent changes in technology have complicated that process, but the underlying principle remains basically the same.

"That's why, even if a scientific poll reaches relatively few people, it can accurately depict the opinions of a much larger group.

"In contrast, reader polls, like those Trump cites in the tweet below, make no such attempt to weight their responses or to represent anything beyond the number of people who happen to have clicked on them."

Republican pollster Glen Bolger said it was unfortunate that these post-debate surveys, intended to drive traffic, were even conducted because they muddied the water for legitimate polls.

"It's a disservice by the media outlets that do them, and there's nothing scientific, nothing rigorous about them," Bolger said. "It's whoever goes on the website and wants to take the poll. And obviously a bunch of them are going to be self-selected toward the partisanship of their readership. There's just nothing good in them, there's just no point to them."

In fact, actual scientific polls have shown that Clinton was the clear winner on Monday night. A CNN poll just after the debate showed 62 percent of voters thought Clinton had the best performance, while just 27 percent said Trump did. The sample from the call-back survey did lean a bit too Democratic (the pollster didn't have time with such a quick turnaround to weight the sample), but even a minor adjustment would still equal a clear victory for the Democratic nominee.

A Politico/Morning Consult poll also gave Clinton the win, 49 percent to 26 percent. Another survey, from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, also found Clinton won by 11 points, 51 percent to 40 percent. A two-day poll from Echelon Insights found that 48 percent of registered voters thought Clinton won the debate, while just 22 percent thought Trump did.

It will take several days for the impact of Monday night's debate to be fully shown in polls, Bolger said, and data on Friday morning that survey people over several days would provide the best measurement. But even then, in such a fast-changing campaign, it might only be a brief flashpoint before the next presidential debate on Oct. 9.

But for now, discount these "flash" polls and wait for more reputable numbers to come out. Remember, in 2012 these same flash surveys all found that former Texas Rep. Ron Paul won the GOP debates by wide margins. But, no, there was no President Paul.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/28/495805190 ... bate-polls

[Lord Jim]

Great news for the Clinton campaign:

Trump angry at allies conceding he lost debate

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump is angry that his aides and advisers have conceded to reporters -- largely without attribution -- that the Republican nominee struggled in his first presidential debate.

In a conference call with surrogates Wednesday afternoon, Trump aides made clear the Republican nominee is upset that his allies publicly acknowledged they pushed him to change his preparation and tactics before his next bout with Hillary Clinton. And he wants them to stop it immediately.

The message was "not subtle," a source familiar with the call said.

Trump wants his supporters to make an energetic defense of his performance and refuse to concede that he didn't nail it.

Trump's team told surrogates to say that Trump successfully reinforced his outsider status, contrasting him with Clinton as a status quo candidate, and to zero in on one-liners that they saw as successful -- particularly his repeated line that Clinton has been in public life nearly 30 years with little to show for it.

Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller denied the account.

"The entire description of today's call is completely false and anybody saying otherwise is just making it up," he said.

The pushback comes amid reports that advisers hoped Trump's missteps against Clinton in the first debate would convince the Republican nominee to concentrate on his message and tactics before they debate again. Aides had said Tuesday and earlier Wednesday that they have delivered the message (gingerly, one said) that the first debate didn't go well.

"Yes, he's been made aware," one adviser said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/ ... -reaction/

Damn straight Donald...

Don't listen to these losers! You knocked it out of park dude, just like the Drudge Report and Breitbart online polls said you did.

Don't change a thing for Debate II; you'll kick her ass again...

[Burning Petard]

Hillary wins debate! ! ! Excuse me, but so what?? ? ?

That is exactly like horse trainers at the Kentucky Derby bragging that their horse was first out of the chute.

IT DON"T MATTER ! !

The point of the debates is to drive votes on November 8. As far as I can tell by reading the various experts, pundits, touts, spin doctors,
The debates did not persuade a significant CHANGE among VOTERS. I'm with Her did not change; Make America Grate did not change; Gee, I dunno no, I'm still undecided--for all three groups, the numbers did not shift enuff to matter.

Hillary is still predicted to win the electoral vote, by a narrow margin. All the next president needs is 270. Trump has never been better than about 260.

snailgate

[wesw]

hey, now that I think about it I was (italics) speedballin' too....

pepsi and reefer......

pepsi and reefer.....

[oldr_n_wsr]

Glad I missed it. Had my meeting then a business meeting afterward. Didn't get home til 10:45pm.

From what I see, nothing changed in the voters. Undecided are still undecided. Trump camp and Hillary camp are still in their respective camps.
This will come down to Nov 8, maybe even the 9th or later.

[Burning Petard]

CNN had a story this morning about the Donald and his charity foundation not doing proper paperwork for the state of New York. An individual introduced as a lawyer and an official part of the Trump campaign appeared with his announced purpose to rebut the facts of this story. He then said repeatedly "I have no knowledge of this" and tried to shift the question to the good things this charity has done, including did any of this money for veterans actually come from the Donald?

Beautiful demonstration of the Donald's strategy: ignorance is the first defense. I am beginning to think the Donald's cry of "Lying Hillary" is Psychology 101 textbook example of projection

snailgate.

[Burning Petard]

I heard Hillary say something during the debate that made me ask "did she just say that? what did she mean, did she miss-speak?"

O looked over the printed transcript from two sources. Nope. She said it. I have been paying attention since the debate and this topic has been the hot issue, but. . .

"This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said that women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men."


OK, I think get it, but that last part WOMEN DON'T DESERVE EQUAL PAY UNLESS THEY DO AS GOOD A JOB AS MEN What's wrong with that?

Is 'equal pay for equal work' now a MCP conspiracy? I thought that was the proper, ethical, moral goal for payroll managers everywhere. Even my wife could not explain this to me.

Sorry Guin and other nice people on this board. I guess I must a a male chauvinist pig.

snailgate

[Big RR]

The only objection to your analysis I can see (and perhaps this is what Hillary meant--I don't have the exact quote) is that there has always been a tendency to downplay jobs traditionally seen as "women's jobs" vs men doing similar work. So waiters often get/got paid more than waitresses, or the custodian more than the teachers, or men stocking the shelves more than the women chashiers, because the latter were women's jobs (and not the good or real jobs men do). And this often changes when the positions show an influx of men, making them the "good jobs". it's kind of a clumsy wording, and I'm not sure of the context Trump said it in either, but it's possible. I certainly do not think that Hillary disputes equal pay for equal work. trump? I really don't know.

[Long Run]

I only heard a part of the debate, but I heard the same thing and thought that was odd, and she must have meant something else. BigRR's guess sounds right.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well I'll respectfully disagree with snail here. "The job" should have the same pay scale for all employees regardless of sex, creed, colour and all that.

Persons (whether male or female) who don't perform the job as well as other persons, will eventually find themselves towards the lower end of the pay scale while those (male or female) who perform very well and get a superior rating should be earning more than the poor performers. That's the job of lower management - to monitor how the minions work and then rank them accordingly. Annual reviews, what?

That's how it was when I worked in a corporation (20 years) - jobs had pay grades and a range of compensation. Women did not receive less pay than men as a given. Someone just entering the grade would be at the lower end and as the years rolled by, as long as they were performing well, they'd be pushed up to the top of the scale. At that point, people expect an opportunity for promotion if they deserve it. I worked with women who earned a sight more than I did. Same/similar tasks but they'd been there longer or worked better (fat chance). I worked for women.

Had a sign. "Will work for women". Didn't make a thing. Women were too sensible

As to Big RR's complex explanation - I'll go with "it's insulting to imply that women doing the same job as men are assumed by Trump to not be doing it as well as men". That's what she was after.

Trump could have said "Men shouldn't get equal pay unless they work as well as women" - but of course, he wouldn't ever say that without someone forcing him to do so. He assumes women getting paid less are not working as hard (which could be true in individual cases but he's making a generalization). That's my theory, what it is and it's mine

[Sue U]

Hillary's comment was clumsily phrased, but it referred to an incident where Trump was asked how to remedy the wage gap between sexes. His policy prescription: "Do as good a job [as men]." Yeah, that really addresses the issue.

[MajGenl.Meade]

TKU Sue

[Big RR]

Agreed, thanks Sue.

[Gob]

Organisers of Monday's White House debate have confirmed Donald Trump's roundly mocked complaint that his microphone was defective.

The Commission on Presidential Debates said "there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio".

After the forum in New York, the Republican candidate said his microphone was "terrible" and crackled.

The volume on the device was lower than that of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he said.

Friday's brief statement by the independent commission said the unspecified problems had "affected the sound level in the debate hall".

[Lord Jim]

"affected the sound level in the debate hall".

But not the sound level for the 81 million people watching on TV...

And it didn't somehow create the snorting sounds he was making, as Trump has also claimed...

[BoSoxGal]

I bet his was set lower on account of his reputation for yelling and because he couldn't hear his voice booming back at him he lost his narcissistic edge.

[Joe Guy]

A low volume microphone should be helpful to Trump. The less you can hear from him, the better he sounds.

Cruz and Trump hanging out after Ted's endorsement of Donald....

[Lord Jim]

A low volume microphone should be helpful to Trump. The less you can hear from him, the better he sounds.

In fact he'd have been much better off if the sound for his mic going out to the TV viewing audience had gone off completely...