On foreign policy, Donald Trump again proves he's the adult - despite the media bias | Mulshin

[Peace&Freedom]

On weighting by party ID, suppose you poll a representative sample and get 28-28 party ID, and apply some weight based on that result. Suppose you poll the same sample the next day and get 30-26, but the raw score for candidates A vs B is the same as the previous day's poll. If the same weight is applied to these results, it wouldn't be reflective of the population.

Change party ID to gender and you don't have this problem, as a person's gender (normally) doesn't change from day to day.

That's the issue, independents are mainly not being polled to begin with, to even be available to be weighed later, let alone to 42%. And recent polls have already been caught oversampling Democrats, without weight adjustments. And most polls to this point are still based on registered voters instead of likely voters, which also skews the poll outcome Democratic (as there are generally more registered Democrats who don't vote than registered Republicans who don't vote).

 

[Cleaner44]

This is the Ron Paul forums, we know all about being untreated fairly by the media. Trump was never forgotten to be put on polls, never not named, or all the other dirty tricks Ron and also Rand suffered.

Trump getting near constant air time for over a year is not being untreated fairly. Trump flip flops and says so much crazy $#@! there is no way to think of him as an adult.

It is true that Trump has flip flopped liked Romney.

It is also true that the media misrepresents him purposefully and that is treating him unfairly.

 

[CPUd]

That's the issue, independents are mainly not being polled to begin with, to even be available to be weighed later, let alone to 42%. And recent polls have already been caught oversampling Democrats, without weight adjustments. And most polls to this point are still based on registered voters instead of likely voters, which also skews the poll outcome Democratic (as there are generally more registered Democrats who don't vote than registered Republicans who don't vote).

How would they know they are "oversampling Democrats" if they are taking a random sample?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How would they know they are "oversampling Democrats" if they are taking a random sample?

If they don't adjust the results from Democrat respondents where they exceed the known party percentages in the population, they will be over sampling. If they rely on screening only for registered voters, they will be over sampling Democrats. Most polling organizations know this. So, if they are oversampling anyway, how do we know they are taking a 'random' sample?

 

[CPUd]

If they don't adjust the results from Democrat respondents where they exceed the known party percentages in the population, they will be over sampling. If they rely on screening only for registered voters, they will be over sampling Democrats. Most polling organizations know this. So, if they are oversampling anyway, how do we know they are taking a 'random' sample?

There are several different methods to do random polling. The polling firm will include it in their published methodology. There's no real way to know the percentage of a population who identifies with a given political party. It could change from one day to the next. That's why they rarely use it to weight the results. Gender, age, location, those are factors that are relatively stable, and easier to determine; those can be used to weigh a sample to a population.

 

[nikcers]

Trump: Rand Paul -- you have to understand -- He's a disaster on military and defense. I'm the opposite.

This is all you need to know about Trumps foreign policy.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There are several different methods to do random polling. The polling firm will include it in their published methodology. There's no real way to know the percentage of a population who identifies with a given political party. It could change from one day to the next. That's why they rarely use it to weight the results. Gender, age, location, those are factors that are relatively stable, and easier to determine; those can be used to weigh a sample to a population.

I worked at the Harris poll. Party identification percentages were one of the factors weighed because it is stable over the short to medium term---it may change over years, but not "from one day to the next":

 

[CPUd]

I worked at the Harris poll. Party identification percentages were one of the factors weighed because it is stable over the short to medium term---it may change over years, but not "from one day to the next":

Look at that other Gallup poll you linked that polls every 2-4 weeks. It is literally different every time they poll.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Look at that other Gallup poll you linked that polls every 2-4 weeks. It is literally different every time they poll.

By a digit or two. The overall average of roughly 28-30/28-30/40-42 has been stable for years. The preponderance of polls do not even partially incorporate the average for independents in the voting population, that's just a fact.

 

[CPUd]

By a digit or two. The overall average of roughly 28-30/28-30/40-42 has been stable for years. The preponderance of polls do not even partially incorporate the average for independents in the voting population, that's just a fact.

This is what they are usually based on:

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This is all you need to know about Trumps foreign policy.

Here's more you need to know about the context of the remarks:

REPORTER: Rand Paul spent three days here in New Hampshire and he spent those days criticizing you.

TRUMP: Well, that's because --

REPORTER: What did you do to tick him off?

TRUMP: Yes. No, Rand Paul -- you have to understand -- is a disaster in the polls. He's a disaster on military and defense. He is getting decimated by everybody. And other than giving him a lot of money for an eye center at his request -- he asked me, could I have money? I said, absolutely. Because I thought it was worthwhile. But I gave him a lot of money for an eye center, which is very hypocritical when you think of it. But other than giving him a tremendous amount of money for his eye center, which I'm happy about, frankly, because I'm sure they do good work, I hope they do good work, he is doing so badly that he figures he has to attack Trump because I'm leading by a lot everywhere.

And I don't mind. I think he's -- he is never going to make it. Never going to make it. Can't make it. Got the wrong message. I mean, this is not a time to be weak on defense. Okay? And I'm the opposite. I want to make our military so strong, so powerful, so great that nobody is going to mess with us. And I want to take care of our vets who are treated like third-class citizens. You know, two weeks ago on Wednesday, our vets, as you know -- you probably reported on it, because you have a big problem here with vets that are not taken care of properly. Our vets had the longest wait in the history of the V.A., waiting for doctors in rooms. They wait four, five, six days. And in one case, they waited five days and the doctor said, sorry, I'm going on vacation now.

So our politicians all talk, no action. They're all the same. Our politicians have let the vets down. Rand Paul has let the vets down....

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1508/14/se.01.html

The remarks are from August of last year, when the two were first campaigning against each other, with Trump responding to Rand's criticism. Notice the transcript shows the comment "he's a disaster on military and defense" was made with reference to how Rand's campaign approach was working for him ("he's being decimated") and how Rand's position was being received (it wasn't making our military strong), not on the substance of the non-intervention position.

Trump was saying Rand's stance or rhetoric was not working to gain him support, was not succeeding in projecting "peace through strength" to mitigate or balance the 'isolationist' image, and gave the impression of being ultimately too aloof, establishment or do-nothing to change anything. Rand may have the better positions, but appeared to lack the urgency to follow-through on them---which led to him not connecting with the anti-establishment dynamic of the cycle.

One of the big tactical lessons learned, specifically from Trump, is that a non or less interventionist policy goes down much better with a spoonful of nationalism, and gestures of being pro-veteran. Trump took that path, and so reached voters our liberty guy should have, while Rand did not, and got decimated.

 

[nikcers]

Trump was saying Rand's stance or rhetoric was not working to gain him support

LOL- since you can decipher what Trump is actually saying then tell me what he meant when he said Ron Paul doesn't even think in terms of Israel? You can slice the cake any way you want it, its still a cake that leads us down a path of more intervention.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It's not a cake, it's a package, hence nothing to slice. Trump has repeatedly stressed he wants to engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of cutting a new deal, not broadening a war. That's less interventionist compared the empire building policy of the neocons.

 

[nikcers]

It's not a cake, it's a package, hence nothing to slice. Trump has repeatedly stressed he wants to engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of cutting a new deal, not broadening a war. That's less interventionist compared the empire building policy of the neocons.

I'm still not seeing how Dick Cheney endorsed the lesser of two evils or the less interventionist candidate.but you might be right, Dick Cheney did in fact run on a platform of no more nation building.

 

[Jan2017]

This is the Ron Paul forums, we know all about being untreated fairly by the media. Trump was never forgotten to be put on polls, never not named, or all the other dirty tricks Ron and also Rand suffered.

Trump getting near constant air time for over a year is not being untreated fairly. Trump flip flops and says so much crazy shit there is no way to think of him as an adult.

Rand was slammed quite a bit . . . as was Ron Paul of course.

Remember this . . .







One thing I'll point out though . . . in some ways IF either RP or Rand had gotten to the general election as Trump has,
then what we are seeing from the GOPe is kinda how they would have been treated - NOT really wanted.


Back to the thread's topic . . .

It's not a cake, it's a package, hence nothing to slice. Trump has repeatedly stressed he wants to engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of cutting a new deal, not broadening a war. That's less interventionist compared the empire building policy of the neocons.

Trump needs to get up to speed quickly on many foreign policy matters . . . he might.

Remember this from the debates . . .



Rand gets it . . . imho.
for example, Katrina Petersen talks about Trump using the nuclear triad . . .
Rand (laughing) : "Now that they know what the nuclear triad is, they want to use it!"



ISIL grows stronger because of the neocons in the GOP . . .

 

[enhanced_deficit]

It is hard to imagine anyone could have a worse Foreign Policy than SWC Hillary-disgraced dronegangsta's masters team.
Two of the most disgraced political slaves in modern history.

In recent years, she was DGP's masters go-to-girl for instigating civil wars bloodshed in mideast.

Obama's $195 Million Aid Package for Al Qaeda-Led Syrian Rebels
Aug 8, 2013

Obama Waives Ban on Arming Terrorists to Aid Syrian Rebels
3 days ago


While You Were Debating Obama’s ‘Selfie,’ U.S. Drones Killed 13+ Yemen Wedding Guests

Poll: Will Neocons-Al Qaeda alliance end well?