New poll shows Hillary Clinton more unpopular than Trump, even less favorable after election loss

[fskimospy]

This is trivially untrue as the previous major shifts on welfare reform, "defense" hawkishness, healthcare reform, and so on demonstrate.

Wrong again! Empirical research shows the opposite.

Here, enjoy another paper from Poole about precisely that subject.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532.5197&rep=rep1&type=pdf This paper cites large amounts of other research into the topic that shows similar results if you're looking for more diversity.

Why is your response to someone informing you that you don't understand an issue to talk about more things you don't understand?

It *can be* applied to those question given assumptions about behavioral continuity hold, which they obviously don't.

So amusing that you've basically admitted everything I've said about how the stats work is correct, but keep on repeating yourself as if fundamental ignorance of the underlying math/mechanism is inconsequential. No doubt you've seen this behavior from many conservatives you've argued with; well, this is how it feels to be on the other side.

So basically you made up another false claim to try and escape your original stupid argument. Again, empirical research shows positions are stable over time and it shows that Democrats have become more liberal over time. If you think otherwise, provide empirical research to the contrary. If not, thanks for showcasing your stupidity again. lol. Again, only one of us here actually knows what he's talking about and it sure isn't you.

You're exactly like the conservatives you claim to hate so much. Just as ignorant and stupid, and just as sure you aren't. lol. I absolutely love meeting poseurs like you because you will keep digging deeper and deeper and it just gets funnier and funnier.

 

[agent00f]

Wrong again! Empirical research shows the opposite.

Here, enjoy another paper from Poole about precisely that subject.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532.5197&rep=rep1&type=pdf This paper cites large amounts of other research into the topic that shows similar results if you're looking for more diversity.

Why is your response to someone informing you that you don't understand an issue to talk about more things you don't understand?

It's cute you try to use that paper as any sort of evidence for absolute positions, given its focus is on relative partisanship as NOMINATE & such were mathematically designed for.

I don't think you're that stupid, but just in case: NOMINATE makes no distinction between RomneyCare/ACA vs. single payer, so long as the same people vote for or against. So it will produce the same result as if the democrat voted for single payer, which everyone can see in reality that they didn't. It can't be more obvious that its math is blind to the D centrists compromising while R's don't.

So basically you made up another false claim to try and escape your original stupid argument. Again, empirical research shows positions are stable over time and it shows that Democrats have become more liberal over time. If you think otherwise, provide empirical research to the contrary. If not, thanks for showcasing your stupidity again. lol. Again, only one of us here actually knows what he's talking about and it sure isn't you.

You're exactly like the conservatives you claim to hate so much. Just as ignorant and stupid, and just as sure you aren't. lol. I absolutely love meeting poseurs like you because you will keep digging deeper and deeper and it just gets funnier and funnier.

No, it's simple unimpeachable fact that centrist democrats compromise, moving ever rightward, and NOMINATE math is blind to this. Poole knows how the math works and thus only makes claims about partisanship, and you'll perpetually play too dumb to even understand his papers.

 

[chucky2]

Jesus, my two favorite posters in the same thread, where is that popcorn emoji...

 

[fskimospy]

It's cute you try to use that paper as any sort of evidence for absolute positions, given its focus is on relative partisanship as NOMINATE & such were mathematically designed for.

I don't think you're that stupid, but just in case: NOMINATE makes no distinction between RomneyCare/ACA vs. single payer, so long as the same people vote for or against. So it will produce the same result as if the democrat voted for single payer, which everyone can see in reality that they didn't. It can't be more obvious that its math is blind to the D centrists compromising while R's don't.

No, it's simple unimpeachable fact that centrist democrats compromise, moving ever rightward, and NOMINATE math is blind to this. Poole knows how the math works and thus only makes claims about partisanship, and you'll perpetually play too dumb to even understand his papers.

From a post Poole co-authored that I already quoted to you. I have bolded in case your reading comprehension is as bad this time as it was the first time.

With the use of overlapping cohorts, we can make the over-time comparisons needed to analyze polarization. A good example is Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), who, after his primary defeat last week, will have served in the Senate between 1977 and 2013. As David Karol points out, Lugar himself did not change very much over time: he was a reliable conservative who moved only somewhat towards the center during a 30-plus year career (from a DW-NOMINATE first dimension score of 0.348 to 0.241). DW-NOMINATE scores range (with slight simplification) from minus 1 to 1 or a band of two units. So in 30 years, Senator Lugar moved just five percent on the liberal-conservative dimension.1

For Lugar, what is more dramatic is the change in his ideological position relative to the Senate Republican Caucus. In his first term in Congress, Senator Lugar was the 23rd most moderate Republican in the Senate; in the most recent term (through 2011), he was the fifth most moderate. Even if he had maintained his freshman score of 0.341, he would still have been the 12th most moderate Republican in the 112th Congress. This repositioning occurred because almost every new cohort of Republican Senators has been more conservative than Senator Lugar. That fact is the basis for our claim that the Republican party has moved to the right.

Oops! lol.

We have Poole explicitly making the claim that you said he doesn't make. Now that we both agree he knows how the math works you just shot yourself in the foot again. Like I said earlier, this is why I love people like you. You're too proud to admit you're stupid and so you will just keep doing more stupid things to avoid admitting it. Please keep going!

 

[agent00f]

From a post Poole co-authored that I already quoted to you. I have bolded in case your reading comprehension is as bad this time as it was the first time.

Oops! lol.

We have Poole explicitly making the claim that you said he doesn't make. Now that we both agree he knows how the math works you just shot yourself in the foot again. Like I said earlier, this is why I love people like you. You're too proud to admit you're stupid and so you will just keep doing more stupid things to avoid admitting it. Please keep going!

Poole is literally just using NOMINATE to show that other conservatives moved to the *relative* right of Lugar as measured by NOMINATE vote patterns.

It's just basic reality you'll forever pretend to play far too dumb to understand the difference between this and the simple fact that NOMINATE doesn't distinguish between voting for single payer vs romneycare. A rather important distinction to make if the topic is whether the voter has become more conservative.

 

[chucky2]

Can I get an ETA when does Nickie starts carrying water for the chucky/degen types?

 

[fskimospy]

Poole is literally just using NOMINATE to show that other conservatives moved to the *relative* right of Lugar as measured by NOMINATE vote patterns.

Since you apparently don't read anything that isn't bolded:

As David Karol points out, Lugar himself did not change very much over time: he was a reliable conservative who moved only somewhat towards the center during a 30-plus year career (from a DW-NOMINATE first dimension score of 0.348 to 0.241). DW-NOMINATE scores range (with slight simplification) from minus 1 to 1 or a band of two units. So in 30 years, Senator Lugar moved just five percent on the liberal-conservative dimension.1

If Lugar didn't move and other conservatives became further to his relative right, that means they moved. ie: Republicans became more conservative during his tenure in office.

This is not complicated logic, lol. Let me know if you need me to draw you a picture.

It's just basic reality you'll forever pretend to play far too dumb to understand the difference between this and the simple fact that NOMINATE doesn't distinguish between voting for single payer vs romneycare. A rather important distinction to make if the topic is whether the voter has become more conservative.

I don't think you're playing dumb, I think you are genuinely dumb. Again, to quote Poole:

This repositioning occurred because almost every new cohort of Republican Senators has been more conservative than Senator Lugar. That fact is the basis for our claim that the Republican party has moved to the right.

That is him explicitly saying the thing you claimed he doesn't say. If you're an honest person you will admit you are wrong.

 

[agent00f]

Since you apparently don't read anything that isn't bolded:



If Lugar didn't move and other conservatives became further to his relative right, that means they moved. ie: Republicans became more conservative during his tenure in office.

This is not complicated logic, lol. Let me know if you need me to draw you a picture.

I don't think you're playing dumb, I think you are genuinely dumb. Again, to quote Poole:

That is him explicitly saying the thing you claimed he doesn't say. If you're an honest person you will admit you are wrong.

He claims that not by assuming NOMINATE assumptions, but by referring to external empirical claims/measures of Lugar by Karol, as your quote rather explicitly mentions. The same sort of external claims/measures which show the centrist democrats moving rightwards on welfare, healthcare, defense, and any number of areas.

 

[fskimospy]

He claims that not by assuming NOMINATE assumptions, but by referring to external empirical claims/measures of Lugar by David Karol, as your quote rather explicitly mentions. The same external claims/measures which show the democrats moving rightwards on welfare, healthcare, defense, and any number of areas.

Both Karol and Poole are referencing Lugar's position using his DW-NOMINATE scores, which you would know if you read either post. So yes, he is absolutely claiming it through DW-NOMINATE. Color me shocked that you won't admit you're wrong even when the evidence is staring you in the face.

You need to calm down and learn something about this before posting more because you're flailing. This is what happens when you suddenly realize you might not be as smart as you always thought you were.

 

[agent00f]

Both Karol and Poole are referencing Lugar's position using his DW-NOMINATE scores, which you would know if you read either post. So yes, he is absolutely claiming it through DW-NOMINATE. Color me shocked that you won't admit you're wrong even when the evidence is staring you in the face.

You need to calm down and learn something about this before posting more because you're flailing. This is what happens when you suddenly realize you might not be as smart as you always thought you were.

No, Karol's post literally references Luger's record against external reality to verify that it's unchanged in order to ground the relative NOMINATE numbers, just as I reference the centrist democrats' record against external reality to verify that it's very much changed. Karol/Poole aren't so stupid as to think NOMINATE distinguishes between single payer and the ACA.

Speaking of flailing, I'm not the one who'll public demonstrate incompetence not only at math but basic academic literacy just to fellate their favorite poli-sci metric.

 

[agent00f]

Can I get an ETA when does Nickie starts carrying water for the chucky/degen types?

Liberals can disagree with each other unlike how degenerates will always agree with you.

 

[fskimospy]

No, Karol's post literally references Luger's record against external reality to verify that it's unchanged in order to ground the relative NOMINATE numbers, just as I reference the centrist democrats' record against external reality to verify that it's very much changed. Karol/Poole aren't so stupid as to think NOMINATE distinguishes between single payer and the ACA.

lol no. He's talking about those other points in order to make his article more readable, he is not using them as the basis for validation of DW-NOMINATE's central assumption that legislator ideology remains constant over time. That part is backed up by large quantities of empirical research that I already provided you and that you of course conveniently ignored. (how's that empirical research refuting my point coming, by the way? )

This is because he understands the empirical evidence and you don't.

Speaking of flailing, I'm not the one who'll public demonstrate incompetence not only at math but basic academic literacy just to fellate their favorite poli-sci metric.

Uhmm, you've already demonstrated both of those things in this thread, haha. I'm not the guy who claims Keith Poole doesn't claim DW-NOMINATE can be used to measure changes in ideology despite him being quoted saying exactly that.

Keep on flailing! I'm sure I'm not the only person enjoying your meltdown.

 

[chucky2]

Liberals can disagree with each other unlike how degenerates will always agree with you.

OMG Degenerates!

 

[agent00f]

lol no. He's talking about those other points in order to make his article more readable, he is not using them as the basis for validation of DW-NOMINATE's central assumption that legislator ideology remains constant over time. That part is backed up by large quantities of empirical research that I already provided you and that you of course conveniently ignored. (how's that empirical research refuting my point coming, by the way? )

This is because he understands the empirical evidence and you don't.

No, it's a matter of simple reading comprehension that he externally verifies Lugar's consistent stances in order to argue that other conservatives moved relative to him.

It's a matter of factual reality the republicans have moved somewhat rightward, and more importantly centrist democrats have followed even more rightward to compromise. And all that even as the country in general has liberalized. That's why there's consensus support from the public for single payer, yet the democrats are celebrating their passage of romneycare.

Uhmm, you've already demonstrated both of those things in this thread, haha. I'm not the guy who claims Keith Poole doesn't claim DW-NOMINATE can be used to measure changes in ideology despite him being quoted saying exactly that.

Keep on flailing! I'm sure I'm not the only person enjoying your meltdown.

No, flailing is where you backtrack with vague rhetoric about what Poole claims. Worth noting that I also claimed above that NOMINATE *can be* used for this if assumptions about behavioral continuity empirically hold. They can in some cases like Lugar as Karol tries to show, and cannot with compromising democrats who moved from single player to celebrating romneycare.

OMG Degenerates!

Yes, there are a lot of people who'd politically align with the klan for their votes.

 

[chucky2]

snip

Yes, there are a lot of people who'd politically align with the klan for their votes.

Yes. there are a lot of people who'd politically promise shit to the Blacks for their votes, fully aware it'll never happen, all the while throwing some scraps for placation. Oh Fail...

 

[agent00f]

Yes. there are a lot of people who'd politically promise shit to the Blacks for their votes, fully aware it'll never happen, all the while throwing some scraps for placation. Oh Fail...

Sure, shit like civil rights and not aligning with people like you.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's a matter of simple reading comprehension that he externally verifies Lugar's consistent stances in order to argue that other conservatives moved relative to him.

It's a matter of factual reality the republicans have moved somewhat rightward, and more importantly centrist democrats have followed even more rightward to compromise. And all that even as the country in general has liberalized. That's why there's consensus support from the public for single payer, yet the democrats are celebrating their passage of romneycare.

The empirical research on the topic disagrees with you. Instead of just proclaiming things as facts provide empirical, peer-reviewed research that supports your position like I have. I'm eagerly awaiting it!

No, flailing is where you backtrack with vague rhetoric about what Poole claims.

I've done zero backtracking. You made a claim about what Poole thinks, I showed you that was wrong. I think your argument is hilarious by the way, considering I took several classes of his in undergrad where he talked about measuring changing party ideology using DW-NOMINATE all the time. I imagine he would be baffled that you somehow thought he thought otherwise.

Worth noting that I also claimed above that NOMINATE *can be* used for this if assumptions about behavioral continuity empirically hold. They can in some cases like Lugar as Karol tries to show, and cannot with compromising democrats who moved from single player to celebrating romneycare.

Actual empirical research into the topic says you're wrong and that it holds generally. I'm going to stick with empirical research. You should try it sometime instead of just emulating how some of the shittier conservatives on here argue. You do realize you're no better than they are, right?

 

[chucky2]

Sure, shit like civil rights and not aligning with people like you.

LOL, civil rights...hahaha....

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly, we don't need a bash Hillary thread - she's last year's news - unless you Trumpies just need this to take out your stress/anger about how terrible he's doing.

They were still chanting "Lock her up!" at Trump's latest rally. The mere mention of Hillary sets them off in a very irrational way, just the way Trump & the Repub leadership want them to be.

 

[hal2kilo]

The median Democrat is a centrist and it's not a coincidence. That's what the clintons made the party into to compete with the capitalist-racist alliance, a tent for basically everyone else.

For once, I agree enough with you, to make a comment. All that SLC BS. But it's how we got our foot back in the door to continue to exist.

After the idiots in this country elected someone who was obviously not qualified to be president, I'm literally clueless as what the people of this country want or care about anymore.

 

[agent00f]

The empirical research on the topic disagrees with you. Instead of just proclaiming things as facts provide empirical, peer-reviewed research that supports your position like I have. I'm eagerly awaiting it!

First, it's incumbent upon you to produce evidence that NOMINATE says what you claim, and it's noteworthy that the one thing you managed to produce literally agrees with me about the need to ground NOMINATE in order to make sense of its relative measurement.

I've done zero backtracking. You made a claim about what Poole thinks, I showed you that was wrong. I think your argument is hilarious by the way, considering I took several classes of his in undergrad where he talked about measuring changing party ideology using DW-NOMINATE all the time. I imagine he would be baffled that you somehow thought he thought otherwise.

I made a claim that Poole understands the relative nature of NOMINATE, which is why he sources external verification for any results it might suggest. It's how he can accurately claim the other conservatives moved relative to lugar and not the other way around, and it's how I can accurately claim that democrats kept moving right to compromise on so many key issues. If you took his classes and still don't understand that basic reality, what does it say about you?

Actual empirical research into the topic says you're wrong and that it holds generally. I'm going to stick with empirical research. You should try it sometime instead of just emulating how some of the shittier conservatives on here argue. You do realize you're no better than they are, right?

It's doesn't help your case if you can't understand what the research is saying.

LOL, civil rights...hahaha....

Yes, it's why black people don't vote for the party pandering to you.

 

[agent00f]

For once, I agree enough with you, to make a comment. All that SLC BS. But it's how we got our foot back in the door to continue to exist.

After the idiots in this country elected someone who was obviously not qualified to be president, I'm literally clueless as what the people of this country want or care about anymore.

People mostly care about their own interests, such as capitalists getting the votes and support of racists in an election system where numbers matter, and racists getting a platform to promote their caste system. The competence of trump is secondary to those main interests.

Liberals are taught to see the world as they want to make it in terms of ethics a la categorical imperatives, not how the world was before such lofty ideals.

 

[fskimospy]

First, it's incumbent upon you to produce evidence that NOMINATE says what you claim, and it's noteworthy that the one thing you managed to produce literally agrees with me about the need to ground NOMINATE in order to make sense of its relative measurement.

I already have, from the creators of the tool no less.

You are now just making up what they actually said in order to avoid admitting you didn't know what you're talking about. Aren't you embarrassed at least a little?

I made a claim that Poole understands the relative nature of NOMINATE, which is why he sources external verification for any results it might suggest. If you took his classes and still don't understand that basic reality, what does it say about you?

Haha, I know what it says about you when you're so unable to admit you're wrong that you're arguing someone doesn't think the things I've personally heard him say. Does this bullshit work on other people or something?

I will quote you his statement one final time, retaining the bolding:

This repositioning occurred because almost every new cohort of Republican Senators has been more conservative than Senator Lugar. That fact is the basis for our claim that the Republican party has moved to the right.

This estimation is based entirely in their DW-NOMINATE scores. There is nothing in that post which relies on external verification for validity. This is basic reading comprehension.

It's doesn't help your case if you can't understand what the research is saying.

I have already provided you with empirical research that says legislator preferences remain stable over time. If you didn't understand this research and need it explained to you, I can do that. If you think other empirical research says legislator preferences are NOT stable over time, provide it. This is simple. Unlike other people you might disagree with I prefer actual evidence instead of bullshit. Either start providing it or admit you can't. (my guess is you will do neither)

It's always interesting to me to see how far people with twist themselves into knots in order to avoid admitting fault. Keep going!

 

[agent00f]

I already have, from the creators of the tool no less.

You are now just making up what they actually said in order to avoid admitting you didn't know what you're talking about. Aren't you embarrassed at least a little?

I'm not at all embarrassed to point out you don't understand the nature of their math, nor admit to the basis of their papers, and never will in order to provide cover for centrist democrats moving rightward to compromise against hardliners.

It's exactly the same political interests that drive chucky types to protect russian puppets.

Haha, I know what it says about you when you're so unable to admit you're wrong that you're arguing someone doesn't think the things I've personally heard him say. Does this bullshit work on other people or something?

I will quote you his statement one final time, retaining the bolding:

This estimation is based entirely in their DW-NOMINATE scores. There is nothing in that post which relies on external verification for validity. This is basic reading comprehension.

It can't be more obvious that Poole references Karol to provide external verification that it was others who moved relative to Lugar in literally the first remark of your own quote.

I have already provided you with empirical research that says legislator preferences remain stable over time. If you didn't understand this research and need it explained to you, I can do that. If you think other empirical research says legislator preferences are NOT stable over time, provide it. This is simple. Unlike other people you might disagree with I prefer actual evidence instead of bullshit. Either start providing it or admit you can't. (my guess is you will do neither)

It's always interesting to me to see how far people with twist themselves into knots in order to avoid admitting fault. Keep going!

Also pretty obvious I've already provide plain empirical evidence of their routine rightward compromises, which you'll continue to ignore because it's inconvenient to the "clinton is as liberal as they come" narrative designed to hold the left wing of the party.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not at all embarrassed to point out you don't understand the nature of their math, nor admit to the basis of their papers, and never will in order to provide cover for centrist democrats moving rightward to compromise against hardliners.

Haha, clearly. Everything I've said is backed up by the political science literature, which is why I've cited it. I also imagine it's why you've stubbornly refused to cite any of the literature to back up your points. It's because you can't.

Just like a conservative you think that blindly repeating the same thing will eventually make it true.

It can't be more obvious that Poole references Karol to provide external verification that it was others who moved relative to Lugar in literally the first remark of your own quote.

I don't know what to say other than I am baffled by your total lack of reading comprehension.

Also pretty obvious I've already provide plain empirical evidence of their routine rightward compromises, which you'll continue to ignore because it's inconvenient to the "clinton is as liberal as they come" narrative designed to hold the left wing of the party.

lol, called it.

If you're not going to provide real research to back up what you're saying, just say so. In fact, until you provide some research to back up what you're saying I won't be responding. Sad that you're no better than buckshot when it comes to things like this.