Robert Reich: Republicans Considering Impeachment of Trump

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: StunPrix

Here's the thing, unless we can bring minimum incomes up enough, and we don't seem to have any interest in doing that. Then even if everyone weren't losers, as you put it, the bottom 30% of wage earners would still be the bottom 30% of wage earners and bringing in just as much money as they do now. Should they simply accept their place in life, die 15-20 years earlier, and suffer from treatable illnesses?

You answered your own question. You know why there's no interest in raising min wage? Same reason doctors and hospitals don't work for free. The well being of your perpetually poor is not worth the majority's time money. We know there are safety nets for the disabled and opportunities abound for all others.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Gryphon66

polls were wrong then...they prolly are now too.

Prolly not.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: StunPrix

Lol, look at that, I've just spotted a Russian stooge who's getting paid to stir # up. Hope the rubles are worth it comrade!

There's a reason our president was elected after campaigning on repealing obamacsre.

a reply to: StunPrix

The majority are poor though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wayfarer

By the "approval rating" of those who voted for him, it was never higher than 46%.

theres been a few time sn history you would had hated popular voted in people I am sure. Pop votes ar enot fair because th ecountry is too spread out and the numbers are bigger in cities.

Varying population density has nothing to do with the total number of votes across the country as a whole.

Trump got 46% of that vote, which would indicate that 46% of Americans approved of him as President at that point.

My contention is borne out by the fact that his measured approval rating started out around 46% and has been steadily falling ever since. Five Thirty Eight

They also said Hillary was going to win in a landslide

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Funny, when they are asked to back their claims with proof or any kind of evidence they just run away.

Golden.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
They also said Hillary was going to win in a landslide

Literally not true, at all.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
They also said Hillary was going to win in a landslide

Literally not true, at all.

Yes "the polls" did. That's what I meant. As far as the point you are trying to make, not sure on the accuracy precisely but in general I agree with you. Trumps approval rating has gone down since he was elected.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm not the one you were talking to.

The point I was making was that the polls didn't say 'Hillary would win in a landslide.' Especially the 538 polls.

They've still got the forecast from November 8th up: projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

The aggregate of polling for the time gave Clinton a 71.4% chance of winning the election with an average of 48.5% of the popular vote. Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning the election with an average of 44.9% of the popular vote.

Hillary Clinton lost with 48.2% of the vote (a difference of -0.3 from average projections) and Donald Trump won with 46.1% of the vote (a difference of +1.2 from average projections). It was, really, Gary Johnson who underperformed with a difference of nearly -1.8 from the 5% average he was likely to get.

The polls weren't wrong so much as the interpretation of the polls was. That's the fundamental issue with reporting on polling and statistics; taking the numbers to mean that this is exactly how the results are going to be.

I could go on and on and on about this but there are reasons why, when you see a poll or a statistic, you should look for the (+/-) at the end of the number shown. If you're seeing a poll showing a candidate winning with 54%(+/-10) then that's not a great poll to pay attention to. It's a good baseline but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm not the one you were talking to.

The point I was making was that the polls didn't say 'Hillary would win in a landslide.' Especially the 538 polls.

They've still got the forecast from November 8th up: projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

The aggregate of polling for the time gave Clinton a 71.4% chance of winning the election with an average of 48.5% of the popular vote. Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning the election with an average of 44.9% of the popular vote.

Hillary Clinton lost with 48.2% of the vote (a difference of -0.3 from average projections) and Donald Trump won with 46.1% of the vote (a difference of +1.2 from average projections). It was, really, Gary Johnson who underperformed with a difference of nearly -1.8 from the 5% average he was likely to get.

The polls weren't wrong so much as the interpretation of the polls was. That's the fundamental issue with reporting on polling and statistics; taking the numbers to mean that this is exactly how the results are going to be.

I could go on and on and on about this but there are reasons why, when you see a poll or a statistic, you should look for the (+/-) at the end of the number shown. If you're seeing a poll showing a candidate winning with 54%(+/-10) then that's not a great poll to pay attention to. It's a good baseline but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

So 71% versus 28% isn't a landslide?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
So 71% versus 28% isn't a landslide?

Landslide doesn't refer to the chance to win, only the degree of the win.

a reply to: Subsonic


Fake news at least from Reich Marshal Reich and frankly just another tactic to weaken Trump politically in the minds of americans. And like his supporters cant see through that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
So 71% versus 28% isn't a landslide?

Landslide doesn't refer to the chance to win, only the degree of the win.

A 70 to 30 percent win is a Mandate Landslide. Everyone was predicting a Clinton Landslide.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
So 71% versus 28% isn't a landslide?

Landslide doesn't refer to the chance to win, only the degree of the win.

A 70 to 30 percent win is a Mandate Landslide. Everyone was predicting a Clinton Landslide.

The article the 70-30 comes from was chance to win, not expected voter outcome.

Most notably, this paragraph is the one to pay attention to

The aggregate of polling for the time gave Clinton a 71.4% chance of winning the election with an average of 48.5% of the popular vote. Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning the election with an average of 44.9% of the popular vote.

And no, not everyone was expecting a Clinton landslide. She was favored in the chance to win, but that doesn't mean she's guaranteed to win. The final vote predicted was very close to accurate.

originally posted by: StunPrix

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: StunPrix

Lol, look at that, I've just spotted a Russian stooge who's getting paid to stir # up. Hope the rubles are worth it comrade!

There's a reason our president was elected after campaigning on repealing obamacsre.

The only way your response could have been more perfect/proven my point better is if you spelled 'Obamacare' in Cyrillic.

a reply to: Aazadan

If you want to believe that and cherry pick sources. Most had her down as a shoo-in to win and win rather big if not outright landslide. You could win or even slightly lose the popular vote and have a huge EC win. Hell I didn't even give him much of a shot on Election Day. Trump even came close in a few other States that were considered locks for Clinton.

To say she wasn't highly favored and would win easily is to not look at the record of the overall media predictions that were put out.

And remember this was the most qualified candidate the Democrats EVER put out losing to a Reality Star Political Novice. Someone grossly misjudged things this election.

a reply to: pavil

It depends, I remember the sources same as you who came out saying Hillary had a 95% chance to win. That's just as cherry picked, but more importantly the public reaction shows a fundamental lack of understanding in the general public in being able to understand polls. What those polls were referring to was the chance to win, not the margin of the win. Most polls did not give Hillary a huge win, they simply gave her a win. A landslide has some fairly agreed upon definitions of more than 15% in the popular (43-57 or better) or 375 electoral votes. Trump had neither, and Hillary was projected to get neither.

And, all of that ignores one of the basic prinicples of statistics which is that low percentage outcomes still happen sometimes. That doesn't mean anything is wrong, instead it means it's working as it should. Lots of people will round 95% up to 100% even though 95% still means there's a 1 in 20 chance that things won't go as they should.

And finally, on top of all of that, few papers report percentages correctly. What polls identify is a percentage chance of an outcome within a certain margin. For example... there's an 80% chance that Hillary Clinton will win the election with 50% to 56% of the vote. That's more nuanced than mass media allows for reporting though, so that gets rephased as Hillary likely to win with 53% of the vote.

a reply to: Aazadan

As you are saying, statistical analysis measures trends ... it does not and cannot predict the future.

a reply to: Aazadan

Let alone the whole stacking of polls one way or the other by over sampling one particular side.

You almost think they were using the polls to influence you rather than finding out true trends.......hmmmmm