The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[FullMonte]

The same pollsters who had Hillary winning in a landslide, right up until the moment she didn't?

And....there's another one of those things that keeps getting spouted even though there isn't a shred of truth in it.

No...the pollsters did not have Hillary winning in a landslide. The pollsters predicted (as the election neared) that Hillary would receive somewhere between 2% and 5% more votes than Trump. Those polls were very accurate, as she ended up receiving around 3% more votes than Trump.

 

[Taurus]

And....there's another one of those things that keeps getting spouted even though there isn't a shred of truth in it.

No...the pollsters did not have Hillary winning in a landslide. The pollsters predicted (as the election neared) that Hillary would receive somewhere between 2% and 5% more votes than Trump. Those polls were very accurate, as she ended up receiving around 3% more votes than Trump.

If "the media" were really interested in giving news that matters, they'd never report another nationwide Presidential poll again.
America doesn't matter, only the swing states matter. Those are the only polls worth showing.

 

[Dadsdream]

And....there's another one of those things that keeps getting spouted even though there isn't a shred of truth in it.

No...the pollsters did not have Hillary winning in a landslide. The pollsters predicted (as the election neared) that Hillary would receive somewhere between 2% and 5% more votes than Trump. Those polls were very accurate, as she ended up receiving around 3% more votes than Trump.

Really?

HILLARY CLINTON ON TRACK FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE: POLL
BY REUTERS ON 10/15/16 AT 4:55 PM EDT

Clinton on Track for Electoral College Landslide: Poll

Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project data says Clinton has a 95 percent chance to win the Electoral College by a margin of 118 votes.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/11/the-prospects-for-a-clinton-landslide/

The polls are split between Hillary Clinton winning and … Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide

Trump has had little he can point to as good news lately.

www.vox.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Really?

HILLARY CLINTON ON TRACK FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE: POLL
BY REUTERS ON 10/15/16 AT 4:55 PM EDT

Clinton on Track for Electoral College Landslide: Poll

Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project data says Clinton has a 95 percent chance to win the Electoral College by a margin of 118 votes.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/11/the-prospects-for-a-clinton-landslide/

The polls are split between Hillary Clinton winning and … Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide

Trump has had little he can point to as good news lately.

www.vox.com

Those are from 24-28 days before the election. Do you think that it is possible for things to change in presidential election polling in that time span?

 

[FullMonte]

Really?

HILLARY CLINTON ON TRACK FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE: POLL
BY REUTERS ON 10/15/16 AT 4:55 PM EDT

Clinton on Track for Electoral College Landslide: Poll

Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project data says Clinton has a 95 percent chance to win the Electoral College by a margin of 118 votes.

www.newsweek.com

While they use the word landslide in their headline, and they say the predict she'll win the electoral college bigly, I stand by my original statement. That article says "Clinton now leads Donald Trump in national polling averages by about 7 points, with every recent live interview poll showing her up by between 4 and 12 points."

So, a month out, she was predicted to receive somewhere between 4 and 12% more votes than Trump. On November 8th, Newsweek's numbers had changed, showing Clinton winning with about 6% more votes than Trump.

Saying she'll win the electoral college by a landslide is someone looking at the polling data, and extrapolating it to the states. The actual poll is simply a prediction of the popular vote totals.

 

[MT15]

That seems to me to be a very very weak argument. It is like "Why don't you talk to the police if you are innocent?"

Do you think Obama fighting Congressional subpoenas in the Fast and Furious gun case showed evidence of his guilt in the matter?

I think you misread. That’s not my argument on why the President should be impeached and removed from office. That’s my counter to the ”all we have is hearsay and second hand testimony” talking point. Which is false anyway, as we do have first hand testimony.

The President should be impeached and removed from office for corruption, to wit, soliciting from a foreign government an announcement of an investigation into his main political rival in an effort to boost his chances for reelection. He did this by improperly threatening to withhold military aid that was duly appropriated, and refusing to grant a WH meeting that had been previously promised.

This was a sustained conspiracy involving numerous government officials that by passed normal State Department channels and championed a conspiracy theory with its origins in Russian intelligence.

 

[J-DONK]

All this Hillary talk, here you go:

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election

So why won't the media admit as much?

fivethirtyeight.com

At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

 

[Nebaghead]

The same pollsters who had Hillary winning in a landslide, right up until the moment she didn't?

We should never quote opinion poll statistics as though they are facts, an old professor once told me.

If you want the actual truth, the first thing to do is recognize that poll results are not facts.

If you think a poll is the best indication that we have of the number of people who said they followed hearings, that's fine for you.

That doesn't work for me. My father died at age 72, having never been asked to take part in such polls. I am 62, and I've never been polled like that either. The pollsters don't care what people in the Deep South think.

As my father said long ago, New York Times polls are nothing but New Yorkers asking other New Yorkers what the rest of the country should think.

He had a valid point, I have found, though the decades. It really struck home on election night 2016.

Thank you for taking the time to read my response.

As someone who builds data models and is currently working on their Masters in Data Science, your post make baby jesus cry.

Polls typically lag actual public sentiment. They are usually not tallied and released for days after the interviews stop. There was a sharp downturn in Hillary's support leading up to the election and if you watch the trend, she was sinking, especially in her firewall states. The last couple of polls for the swing states were within the margin of error of the actual results. There were a few outliers giving her a big lead but in aggregate models those didn't impact the trend that much. That is why you shouldn't look at one poll but a collection.

Also as far as how the extrapolate out the polling samples in national polls to match the total population, they get samples from different demographics and use that in conjunction with census data to determine how they would play out in an election. When you say, southern people aren't part of the polling they are, but depending on how many responses they get they will model them out based on that demographic and previous election and census numbers. Whenever a poll is released, you can look at the demographics of the callers reached.

Polls do a great job in predicting the outcomes and sentiment of voters. IMO, the trend is more important than the actual numbers. Right before the election I saw that the gaps were getting smaller in a lot of the swing state polls and this constriction if it kept on the same trend would lead to Hillary losing a couple of the blue firewall states and that is what happened.

When we get closer to the election next year, I'd be happy to explain to you in more detail of what is being seen in the polls besides news agency headlines looking for clicks.

 

[Dadsdream]

I am not sure why you guys want to quibble.

As someone who builds data models and is currently working on their Masters in Data Science, your post make baby jesus cry.

Polls typically lag actual public sentiment. They are usually not tallied and released for days after the interviews stop. There was a sharp downturn in Hillary's support leading up to the election and if you watch the trend, she was sinking, especially in her firewall states. The last couple of polls for the swing states were within the margin of error of the actual results. There were a few outliers giving her a big lead but in aggregate models those didn't impact the trend that much. That is why you shouldn't look at one poll but a collection.

Also as far as how the extrapolate out the polling samples in national polls to match the total population, they get samples from different demographics and use that in conjunction with census data to determine how they would play out in an election. When you say, southern people aren't part of the polling they are, but depending on how many responses they get they will model them out based on that demographic and previous election and census numbers. Whenever a poll is released, you can look at the demographics of the callers reached.

Polls do a great job in predicting the outcomes and sentiment of voters. IMO, the trend is more important than the actual numbers. Right before the election I saw that the gaps were getting smaller in a lot of the swing state polls and this constriction if it kept on the same trend would lead to Hillary losing a couple of the blue firewall states and that is what happened.

When we get closer to the election next year, I'd be happy to explain to you in more detail of what is being seen in the polls besides news agency headlines looking for clicks.

From my perspective, you're quibbling. The term "landslide" was repeatedly used by multiple media outlets, including this one:

Published on Nov 1, 2016
Moody's Analytics has called the presidential election accurately since 1980. This election season, Moody's says Clinton will win by a landslide.


I daresay Moody's Analytics has folks with doctorates in Data Science. They blew it. Completely.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am not sure why you guys want to quibble.


From my perspective, you're quibbling. The term "landslide" was repeatedly used by multiple media outlets, including this one:

Published on Nov 1, 2016
Moody's Analytics has called the presidential election accurately since 1980. This election season, Moody's says Clinton will win by a landslide.

This isn't quibbling. This is someone explaining to you that you are wrong and offering to show you how.

This is also a video where I feel that you only saw the title and didn't actually take 52 seconds out of your day to watch it, because the video says, "Moody's notes that the 2016 election has been quite unusual and that their projection only takes into account economic and political conditions." It then has the following direct quote:

"It is very possible that voters will react to changing economic and political conditions differently than they have in past election cycles."

Why do you refuse to engage with what others are saying, DD? What you are doing right now is the message board equivalent of loudly talking over the other party. It's the old, tired "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance..." routine.

 

[Dadsdream]

But, since this thread is about the Impeachment and about the 2020 election, let's see what Moody's Analytics says about that.

Moody’s Analytics Model Predicts Trump 2020 Landslide Victory

Moodys' analytics Presidential model, which has only been wrong once since 1980, predicts a Trump landslide victory in 2020. The analytics company uses 3 key variables, the stock market, unemployment and what they call the "pocketbook"

theconservativeopinion.com

Oh, here's the actual Moody's report. Enjoy the charts, graphs and stats!

https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2019/president-election-model.pdf

 

[Nebaghead]

I am not sure why you guys want to quibble.


From my perspective, you're quibbling. The term "landslide" was repeatedly used by multiple media outlets, including this one:

Published on Nov 1, 2016
Moody's Analytics has called the presidential election accurately since 1980. This election season, Moody's says Clinton will win by a landslide.


I daresay Moody's Analytics has folks with doctorates in Data Science. They blew it. Completely.

Media outlets are not pollsters. Look at the polls for the Wisconsin, Penn and Michigan. They were all within the margin of error. The Media wants clicks and they are going to have outlandish headlines.

The Moody's model is based on economics more than polling data. They also retooled their model because they were terribly wrong. They are predicting Trump to win with 332 Electoral votes because of economic conditions.

 

[insidejob]

Just. Don't. Engage.

 

[Dadsdream]

Media outlets are not pollsters. Look at the polls for the Wisconsin, Penn and Michigan. They were all within the margin of error. The Media wants clicks and they are going to have outlandish headlines.

The Moody's model is based on economics more than polling data. They also retooled their model because they were terribly wrong. They are predicting Trump to win with 332 Electoral votes because of economic conditions.

Cool. I'll bet they retooled their model!
Yes, I understand that sometimes there's a difference between the pollsters and the media that disseminates the polling data that they publish.
I also understand that sometimes there's not, like when news organizations sponsor polls . . . CBS/NewYorkTimes/Gallup.

 

[Dadsdream]

This isn't quibbling. This is someone explaining to you that you are wrong and offering to show you how.

This is also a video where I feel that you only saw the title and didn't actually take 52 seconds out of your day to watch it, because the video says, "Moody's notes that the 2016 election has been quite unusual and that their projection only takes into account economic and political conditions." It then has the following direct quote:

"It is very possible that voters will react to changing economic and political conditions differently than they have in past election cycles."

Why do you refuse to engage with what others are saying, DD? What you are doing right now is the message board equivalent of loudly talking over the other party. It's the old, tired "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance..." routine.

Now, you're quibbling.
There's no shortage of reports, polls and predictions from October 2016 that said Hillary would win in a landslide. You can find them yourself.
So, I'm done presenting any more of them, because this is turning into a classic game of "go fetch."
I bring something back, it's wrong or inadequate, I go find something else, it's inadequate as well, and on and on.
So, let's not play this silly game.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with the new Moody's poll I posted, saying DJT will win in a landslide.
What are your thoughts about that?

Have a great day, CM!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Now, you're quibbling.
There's no shortage of reports, polls and predictions from October 2016 that said Hillary would win in a landslide. You can find them yourself.
So, I'm done presenting any more of them, because this is turning into a classic game of "go fetch."
I bring something back, it's wrong or inadequate, I go find something else, it's inadequate as well, and on and on.
So, let's not play this silly game.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with the new Moody's poll I posted, saying DJT will win in a landslide.
What are your thoughts about that?

Have a great day, CM!

The only one playing games is you, DD. You again mention polls and predictions from October 2016. Earlier in the thread, you shared two of them. One was from 24 days before the election and the other was from 28 days before the election. I ask again: is it possible for public opinion to significantly shift in a 24-28 day period?

 

[samiam5211]

Perhaps we should be more concerned with the new Moody's poll I posted, saying DJT will win in a landslide.
What are your thoughts about that?

It's not a poll.

 

[Dadsdream]

It's not a poll.

Yeah, it's a Moody's Analytics Model. But, let's not quibble.