Gyroscopic Investing

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:29 am "But, Joe Biden’s problems are not simply because many Republicans believe the election was stolen. It’s true that the poll showed a significant partisan divide on this issue: 75 percent of Republicans believe it is very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (14 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump. But, according to the poll, while 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all likely (61 percent) or not very likely (8 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump, 30 percent of Democrats believe it is very likely (20 percent) or somewhat likely (10 percent) that it was.

Let me repeat, nearly a third of Democrats believe it is likely that the election was stolen from President Trump. That’s a remarkable number. Huge, in fact."

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... p-n1160882

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

Criticism
FiveThirtyEight
In 2010, Silver wrote an article entitled "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?" in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[89] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from those of other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[90] He went on to explore other factors that may have explained the effect, such as the use of a likely voter model,[91] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[92]

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[79] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 722 polls analyzed.[93]

Bias in questions
Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[94] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. He cited an example[95] in which Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was actually whether to limit the amount of salt only in pre-processed food.

Other
The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[96] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[97]

In 2009 Time magazine described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[98] John Zogby said in 2010 that Scott Rasmussen had a "conservative constituency."[99] In 2012 The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[100]

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[101][102] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[103] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[102]

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[54] A New York Times article claims Rasmussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[104] Rasmussen has also been criticized for only polling Likely Voters which, according to Politico, "potentially weeds out younger and minority voters".[105]

A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[106]

A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points—an error of nearly 10 points.[107]

The Associated Press has also addressed Rasmussen's methodology. In 2018, AP journalists noted that Rasmussen's telephone methodology systematically omits adults, many of them young people, without landlines. The AP also noted that Rasmussen does not provide details regarding its online-panel methodology.[108]

In an article for The Hill titled "Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias," panelist discussed Rasmussen's practice of adjusting results by party identification. In addition to providing professional criticism from Ipsos, the article cited methodological concerns from Frank Newport of Gallup.[2]

I see the problem, Techno. Your news diet has the nutritional equivalence of microwave pizza, Pepsi and vienna sausages...absolute garbage.

I'm confused.

The non-GOP leaning (i.e. Dem-leaning) pollsters got it spectacularly wrong in both 2016 and 2020 - and they did worse in 2020, which is especially unforgiveable because it was likely for the same reasons that they failed in 2016.

So Rasmussen, which was more accurate in their 2020 predictions than those other "non-GOP" polls, is the one that's unreliable? Right, got it.

My takeaway from Vinny's post: the term "GOP-leaning" is now an epithet that is capable of labeling a person or entity as unworthy of consideration, regardless of actual facts.

My takeaway from doodle's post: Disagree with me and I'll lash out at you with no justification whatsoever.

Wow, what's happened to this forum? It used to be a place filled with intelligent, well thought out discussions on a wide range of topics. Now it's an echo chamber where the crazies reign supreme.

sophie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:14 am I'm confused.

The non-GOP leaning (i.e. Dem-leaning) pollsters got it spectacularly wrong in both 2016 and 2020 - and they did worse in 2020, which is especially unforgiveable because it was likely for the same reasons that they failed in 2016.

So Rasmussen, which was more accurate in their 2020 predictions than those other "non-GOP" polls, is the one that's unreliable? Right, got it.

My takeaway from Vinny's post: the term "GOP-leaning" is now an epithet that is capable of labeling a person or entity as unworthy of consideration, regardless of actual facts.

My takeaway from doodle's post: Disagree with me and I'll lash out at you with no justification whatsoever.

Wow, what's happened to this forum? It used to be a place filled with intelligent, well thought out discussions on a wide range of topics. Now it's an echo chamber where the crazies reign supreme.

Just block the lunatics and it will look as it did before.

sophie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:14 am Wow, what's happened to this forum? It used to be a place filled with intelligent, well thought out discussions on a wide range of topics. Now it's an echo chamber where the crazies reign supreme.

I've gotten the same impression, and honestly stopped reading here for the past few weeks. The folks engaging in diatribes and personal attacks seem to be drowning out the rest.

You have a president who is attempting to overthrow our centuries old democracy and we are the loonies? Lol...you guys fell off the apple cart a long time ago.

Simonjester wrote:

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:25 am

sophie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:14 am Wow, what's happened to this forum? It used to be a place filled with intelligent, well thought out discussions on a wide range of topics. Now it's an echo chamber where the crazies reign supreme.

I've gotten the same impression, and honestly stopped reading here for the past few weeks. The folks engaging in diatribes and personal attacks seem to be drowning out the rest.

ditto..

i keep getting sucked in to trying to make sound philosophical replies to the echo chamber posts, but the ability to debate intelligently has been largely overrun by a total shut down of ability to hear anything except that which is already believed..

and thank you again doodle for proving the point...

You want to discuss issues, fine. We can talk about healthcare or education or the economy or immigration. In fact, we'd probably agree on many of those topics. You want to discuss politics and look for understanding when it comes to Trump? Not gonna happen.

Sorry, you're on the wrong side of history when it comes to this man and his team of nitwits. I'm not going to submit to the label of loony when you still have people like this running around attempting to undermine our democracy

Doodle, I guess you still haven’t realized that anyone who’s in front of countless cameras for countless hours is eventually going to have countless freeze-frames from the footage that makes them look weird, crazy, or just plain disgusting.

Offering a ridiculous looking freeze-frame as an argument of some sort is such a childish variant of the ad hominem.

Come on, doodle, you don’t have to stoop to such a low level. I thought you were smarter and more thoughtful than that when properly medicated.

Getting back to the original post here which started this topic....

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... p-n1160882

Vinny






False claims[edit]
In August 2018, PJ Media published an article by then supervising editor Paula Bolyard,[19] claiming that Google was manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump.[20] Bolyard acknowledged that her study was "not scientific", although she did conclude that "the results suggest a pattern of bias against right-leaning content." Fact checkers at PolitiFact rated this claim false.[21]

In January 2019, PJ Media published a column by their senior editor Tyler O'Neil[22] in which he insinuated in his article that a Muslim community patrol in New York City might be enforcing Sharia Law and might be linked to the NYPD.[23] This group, the Muslim Community Patrol Service (MCPS)[24] was a certified volunteer Neighborhood watch in Brooklyn, a NYC CERT[25] along with other community patrols such as the Brooklyn Asian Safety Patrol[26] and the Guardian Angels. PJ Media offered nothing that demonstrated the MCPS could, or planned to, "enforce Sharia law", beyond engaging in the speculative hypothetical that the MCPS might somehow "apply [...] Sharia in its community monitoring." Fact-checkers at Snopes rated this claim false.[27]

In February 2019, PJ Media published a column by one of their writers John Hawkins,[28] also creator of Rightwingnews, in which he stated in an article titled "The Six Most Bizarre Proposals from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal",[29] making five out of six claims such as "getting rid of airplanes" or "getting rid of cows", aim to "get rid of gas-powered cars in a decade", call for eliminating carbon emissions in ten years "without the use of nuclear power", or "promise 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'". Fact checkers at NewsGuard rated these five claims false[30] which can be further verified by the official government resolution H.Res.109 Green New Deal[31] proposed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In January 2020, PJ Media published a column by one of their writers,[32] Robert B. Spencer, also founder and director of the anti-Muslim conspiracy blog Jihad Watch, in which he stated that congresswoman Ilhan Omar had given Iran military advice by suggesting it could target Trump hotels, and thus committed treason.[33] Fact-checkers at Snopes rated this claim false.[34]

In February 2020, PJ Media published a column by Victoria Taft, one of their writers[35] and a conservative talk show host,[36] in which she stated that President Barack Obama waited until millions were infected and 1000 dead in the U.S. before he declared the Pandemic H1N1/09 virus an emergency.[37] Fact-checkers at Snopes rated this claim false.[38]

According to NewsGuard,[39] articles on PJMedia.com have frequently included distorted or misleading claims,[40] including about the COVID-19 pandemic. A now deleted July 2020 article written by Matt Margolis headlined "COVID-19 May Soon Lose Status as an 'Epidemic' Under CDC Guidelines",[41] promoted a misleading claim originally published by JustTheNews.com. Many other websites reported this story by PJ Media.[42][43] After the fact, PJ Media never issued a correction to their original story, but only an update with changes and a new headline "COVID-19 Will Not Soon Lose Status as an 'Epidemic' Under the CDC".[44]

In August, 2020, PJ Media published an article by their Chicago editor Rick Moran,[45] claiming Democrats were urging presidential candidate Joe Biden not to debate with President Trump because they were concerned with the former vice presidents mental stamina.[46] The source for this claim cited on the PJ Media article was from Newsweek, but the article states that the former vice president was advised not to debate Trump, citing "publicity stunts and disregard for the rules in 2016" as well as cancelling debates over concerns of the COVID-19 pandemic.[47] Furthermore, the Newsweek article cited by PJ Media makes no mention about any mental stamina. According to CNN, Biden spokesman TJ Ducklo stated that presidential candidate Biden has already agreed to three debates with President Trump in Fall 2020.[48]

A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed on Saturday night a lawsuit by the Trump campaign that had claimed there were widespread improprieties with mail-in ballots in the state, ending the last major effort to delay the certification of Pennsylvania’s vote results, which is scheduled to take place on Monday.

In a scathing order, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that President Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.

But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/us/p ... e=Homepage

I'd give Biden less than a 10% chance of taking office. The fraud is so obvious, i don't think the Republican state legislatures in these battleground states will direct the electors to vote for him. I think it's more likely this doesn't even get to the Supreme court.

Sidney Powell is a beast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFjh8lBB6T4

SomeDude wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:54 am I'd give Biden less than a 10% chance of taking office. The fraud is so obvious, i don't think the Republican state legislatures in these battleground will not direct the electors to vote for him. I think it's more likely this doesn't even get to the Supreme court.

Sidney Powell is a beast.

I remember giving long bond yields about the same chance of going down further when they hit 4%....It was pretty obvious to me that we had massive inflation coming due to Ben Bernankes helicopter money. I'm still waiting for that...12 years later.

Tucker doesn't seem so certain about Powell's evidence...

"After four years this might be the single most open-minded show on television,” said Carlson. “We literally do UFO segments. Not because we’re crazy. Or even a bit interested in the subject. But because there is evidence that UFOs are real and everyone lies about it. There’s evidence that a lot of things responsible people used to dismiss out of hand as ridiculous are in fact real.”

But not Sidney Powell’s claims apparently.

“We invited Sidney Powell on the show, we would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually. … But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

“She never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”

Quote of the day...

“Right now Trump is throwing rocks through windows, he is the political equivalent of a street rioter,” John Bolton

SomeDude wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:54 am I'd give Biden less than a 10% chance of taking office. The fraud is so obvious, i don't think the Republican state legislatures in these battleground will not direct the electors to vote for him. I think it's more likely this doesn't even get to the Supreme court.

Sidney Powell is a beast.

Maybe she's a beast, but what exactly is her role?

Statement from the Trump campaign:

“Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.”

- Rudy Giuliani, Attorney for President Trump, and Jenna Ellis, Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser and Attorney for President Trump

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trum ... egal-team/

Apparently Sidney Powell says that this week she will be bringing forward a lawsuit in Georgia that she promises to be "biblical". But if she doesn't represent the Trump campaign or Trump himself, then I do not understand on whose behalf she would be bringing the lawsuit. Maybe biblical means it will be a Hail Mary.

She's a pretty respected former Fed prosecutor and private litigator. And she's made very inflammatory claims about Dominion, which interestingly they have not tried to rebut. If she doesn't have proof, I would think she will be ruined by them and their supporters.

It should be a compelling week. I don't think it would be hard to find a plaintiff or class, if the accusations are solid. I'm sure she has that covered.

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:06 pm She's a pretty respected former Fed prosecutor and private litigator. And she's made very inflammatory claims about Dominion, which interestingly they have not tried to rebut. If she doesn't have proof, I would think she will be ruined by them and their supporters.

It should be a compelling week. I don't think it would be hard to find a plaintiff or class, if the accusations are solid. I'm sure she has that covered.

And I'm sure when this falls flat we are going to move on, or will trumpsters take this fraud thing to the grave?

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:06 pm She's a pretty respected former Fed prosecutor and private litigator. And she's made very inflammatory claims about Dominion, which interestingly they have not tried to rebut. If she doesn't have proof, I would think she will be ruined by them and their supporters.

It should be a compelling week. I don't think it would be hard to find a plaintiff or class, if the accusations are solid. I'm sure she has that covered.

Given what you're saying her credentials, I wonder why the Trump campaign would be distancing itself from her. Maybe it has to do with the overvote fiasco where it was revealed that she was erroneously comparing Minnesota voter registrations to Michigan votes cast?

If she has the smoking gun she claims, then let's see it. If she does not, then I will be among those who say it's time for her and the rest of the fraud allegation drama to go away because we all have more important things to do.

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:40 pm

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:06 pm She's a pretty respected former Fed prosecutor and private litigator. And she's made very inflammatory claims about Dominion, which interestingly they have not tried to rebut. If she doesn't have proof, I would think she will be ruined by them and their supporters.

It should be a compelling week. I don't think it would be hard to find a plaintiff or class, if the accusations are solid. I'm sure she has that covered.

Given what you're saying her credentials, I wonder why the Trump campaign would be distancing itself from her. Maybe it has to do with the overvote fiasco where it was revealed that she was erroneously comparing Minnesota voter registrations to Michigan votes cast?

If she has the smoking gun she claims, then let's see it. If she does not, then I will be among those who say it's time for her and the rest of the fraud allegation drama to go away because we all have more important things to do.

She's hardcore QAnon...maybe her lawsuit will simultaneously uncover the globalist deepstate lizard cabal of child blood drinking pedophiliacs!

I think this video provides something of a blueprint for understanding the allegations. Yeah, it's 50 minutes long. Only because he shows several examples of the same highly suspicious pattern. You can watch the first 15 minutes and then skip ahead. One interesting note is the lack of prime numbers in the individual vote count lines. When do you not get primes? When your numbers are the results of some multiplication instead of being counts of votes. Anyway, the skeptics should spend a few minutes here before deciding whether or not something big happened in the vote tabulations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOKFZeZ ... e=emb_logo

I'll watch it but, but my hunch is she is going to get tossed out of court. From what I've seen she has allegations...no evidence. She claims, the computers could have been hacked...okay, but again has no evidence. The lady believes in democratic child sex slave blood drinking lizard people. Just like Giuliani, I think she is suffering from some late life delusions.

There is an unbelievable amount of bovine fertilizer coming from the fever swamps of the internet. I have no interest in any of it. What I am interested in is what transpires in court. That is where the rubber will meet the road. So far Trump and his surrogates have been almost invariably laughed out of court. Last night was an exception. The judge was not laughing. This judge, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, all but accused Trump's lawyers of lying to the court and attempting to disenfranchise an entire state. His opinion has been described as scathing.

Holy shit...I tried watching the first ten minutes. I couldn't....so I did some fact checking from AP. The video implicates Dominion....however Dominion not even involved in Philly elections. Horseshit again it seems.

"CLAIM: Video provides data-supported evidence that the election technology firm Dominion Voting Systems committed election fraud by transferring vote ratios between precincts in Philadelphia.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Dominion technology isn’t used in Philadelphia’s elections, so the company had no part in tabulating votes there. Despite a flurry of false claims about election results in battleground states like Pennsylvania, there’s no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election.

THE FACTS: A video claiming to be a “smoking gun” exposing Dominion’s election fraud in Philadelphia is easily debunked: Pennsylvania’s largest city doesn’t even use Dominion software in its elections.

Yes, Christie is calling it a national embarrassment....yet the believers still believing. Its religious at this point.