Job Discussion Forums

[MI6agent]

The Donald won’t be getting any satisfaction from the Rolling Stones’ recent comments.

The British rockers have told the Republican’s presumptive presidential nominee to stop using their music at his campaign rallies across the U.S.
“The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and have requested that they cease all use immediately,” a spokesperson for the Stones told the BBC this week.

Over the last year Trump and his team have been making heavy use of the Stones’ 1981 hit Start Me Up at campaign stops during his efforts to secure the GOP nomination, now all but in the bag. The rather aptly titled You Can’t Always Get What You Want has been another oft-used track.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/t-always-want-rolling-stones-014418790.html

[Phil_K]

And? So this is another 'let's bash Trump with anything we can' post? It's all pretty pathetic - but predictable.

[johnslat]

All depends on one's POV, doesn't it?

What you see as "pathetic and pointless" may seem to others quite different.

I see thie following numbers as pathetic and pointless, at least from Trump's POV. The most recent poll, May 4th: "At the starting gate: Clinton leads Trump by double-digits, 54% to 41%.

Quite a bashing.

Sanders does even better.

Regards,
John

[RedLightning]

[steki47]

[wangdaning]

I doubt the Rolling Stones are in a position to demand anything as they probably do not own the rights to the song. They most likely sold that away long ago.

[GF]

[johnslat]

Rasmussan - What a joke.

"The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.

Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research. (Both sets of surveys used an essentially identical methodology.) Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias."

Ever hear of Nate Silver?: FiveThirrtyEight: "With so many political polls coming out, it's hard to evaluate which are most accurate and how much weight we should give them in predicting winners, which is why so many people turn to Nate Silver for his polling analysis. He's a statistician who's famous for founding the website FiveThirtyEight, which analyzes polls based on accuracy and methodology, aggregates polls and forecasts outcomes. In 2008, he correctly called all 35 Senate races and the winners of the presidential contests in 49 of 50 states."

"According to the election data site Election Graphs, which compiles polling data on a state-by-state basis as well as using data on past elections and other tendencies, even in a worst-case scenario for Clinton, she would still win a narrow victory over Trump, with 279 electoral votes to 259 for the Republican.

That worst-case scenario means that Donald Trump would win every one of the states that are now leaning “weakly” toward Clinton, that is, in which she has only a narrow polling advantage.

Those states include the important swing states of Florida and Ohio, where the most recent polling shows Hillary Clinton with leads over Donald Trump of 3.7 percentage points and 3.8 points, respectively."

Regards,
John

[johnslat]

But please don't misunderstand. I LOVE it that Trump is virtually certain to be the Republican nominee.


"Trump’s unexpected ascension has forced Republican lawmakers across the country — most of whom, like Blunt, have pledged to support their party’s eventual nominee — into verbal contortions as they try to distance themselves from Trump’s divisive antics without alienating the millions of GOP voters who nominated him.

That dynamic — now certain to play out for another six months — has Democrats increasingly confident about their chances to win back the Senate majority in 2017.

Because of Trump’s candidacy, national Democrats believe they can expand their Senate map beyond the battleground states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire to win the five seats they need. Key forecasters now think Republican incumbents in states like Arizona, North Carolina and Missouri, considered safe a year ago, are now vulnerable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/09/missouri-gop-senator-faces-tough-post-trump-reality-no-seat-is-safe/

Regards,
John

[grahamb]

[Knedliki]

[johnslat]

Why, thank you - that's why the quotation marks are there.

Regards,
John

[asiannationmc]

China has handed Mr. Trump a primary campaign advantage and 1hella issue by subsidizing failed corporations leading to seven new “dumping” investigations. Watch for this to enter the dialogue

[GF]

[johnslat]

If you think Mr. Trump will win . . . .

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/05/why-donald-trump-will-lose-the-election/

Regards,
John