Quinnipiac has Trump approval rating down to 34%

Whoops that's job approval not overall

there's a difference? never knew there was more than one.

What else would we care about his robe game

The close of the hearing was good. Where the chairman, a Republican, admonish them for not coming to converse with answers, and reminding them that it is the oversight responsibility and duty of Congress to investigate and that they need to have answers when they're called. Dan Coats especially came off smelling like a poop emoji, because he knows with this is all about and knows what his responsibilities are. By trying to slide to the close session, these two dingbats will go back to the legal counsel at the White House and we might see in invocation of executive privilege. What a fucking shit show.

They said, and by they I mean the people being on the sticky end of the stick, but they had no legal reason cannot answer. It would be, and could be interesting to see them and in contempt of Congress. That said, it might be a better place then on the lunatic side of Trump.

No idea what happens tomorrow but I'm having a good lol if may loses seats.

thephan wrote:The close of the hearing was good. Where the chairman, a Republican, admonish them for not coming to converse with answers, and reminding them that it is the oversight responsibility and duty of Congress to investigate and that they need to have answers when they're called. Dan Coats especially came off smelling like a poop emoji, because he knows with this is all about and knows what his responsibilities are. By trying to slide to the close session, these two dingbats will go back to the legal counsel at the White House and we might see in invocation of executive privilege. What a #$!&@ #$!&@ show.

They said, and by they I mean the people being on the sticky end of the stick, but they had no legal reason cannot answer. It would be, and could be interesting to see them and in contempt of Congress. That said, it might be a better place then on the lunatic side of Trump.

coats asked about what his legal basis was for not answering the committees questions and he answers "I don't really have one" lol wtf?

Seems like Trump had a good day? Comey confirms he himself was not under investigation

Well the Donald thinks that's a good showing. He saw loyalty from his troops refusing to answer questions about his meddling, his loyalty oath, his asking for special treatment, or really anything that was done the treads into the territory of abuse of power. So it's good that he thinks that he is doing great, and that he's been vindicated, but he's really just getting started with the clinic of abuse of power and overreach by the executive branch. Who the heck knows where this thing goes. Moreover, he might not of been under investigation at one point, but you have to think that he's under investigation now.

The Republican candidate in Georgia's special House election on Tuesday said she does not support a livable wage.

“This is the difference between being a liberal and a conservative. I do not support a livable wage," Karen Handel said during a debate with Democrat Jon Ossoff.

“What I support is making sure that we have an economy that is robust with low taxes and less regulation,” she added.

Lest we ignore GA6, there was a debate last night. The fat white lady went on to say that by imposing needless requirements for pay, more businesses could not do what they do best, which is providing good paying jobs. Logic is a lot loopy, because if they can afford good paying jobs, why are they worried about a livable wage being set as a minimum wage?

I think they wanted trump to sort of maybe think he had a good day

Continue to build all their cases, slowly open the kimono

Drip drip drip

Who is they?

Republican Senators finally seemed to care when the panel would not answer them. Rubio asked actual questions about Trump, not just leakers. Don't know if it is finally shifting, but there is a glimmer.

So neither Coats nor Rogers has stopped beating his wife, correct? Trying to follow from St Petersburg

CalvinBall wrote:Who is they?

Republican Senators finally seemed to care when the panel would not answer them. Rubio asked actual questions about Trump, not just leakers. Don't know if it is finally shifting, but there is a glimmer.

But he had dinner with Trump

JUburton wrote:No idea what happens tomorrow but I'm having a good lol if may loses seats.

Is very odd. Basically every projection I've read - and I've been avidly following for a while and immersing myself in this all week - is calling for an expanded Tory majority. Except for YouGov who are very smart people and are predicting a hung parliament.

Think I'm going to be too busy at work tomorrow to write a 3000 word essay on how fucking weird the UK polls are, but a few quick bullet points.

-In the US we have voter lists. We can order sample to call registered voters rather than randomly dialing numbers. All campaigns do this, while most media polls rely on random dialing. This goes further in ensuring you're talking to actual voters when conducting interviews. And on that sample we know what elections you have voted in in the past. So if we want to create a likely voter model we can combine a voter's self reported likelihood of voting with their actual demonstrated likelihood of voting based on past behavior. This is obviously not perfect, but it is two massive massive advantages over UK pollsters.

-The UK election is of 650 constituencies, but basically no polling is done at the constituency level. And very little polling is even done at the regional/national (in the case of Wales/Scotland) level. It's like if 90% of polls in the US were nationwide, with even the subnational polls conducted at the regional rather than state level. It seems from things I've read the Tory vote allocation is going to be more efficient this go around than 2015. Boundaries as drawn currently actually favoured Labour at least through 2010, so not talking gerrymandering. But if marginal seats in the Midlands and the North of England experience larger Tory swings than the national average due to UKIP switchers or people hating Corbyn or whatever while Labour make gains in London seats they already hold and Southern seats which were less Leave friendly they can't flip, can see how losing by 7% this time might be worse than losing by 7% last time. And this is just utterly not being looked at by national polling. Of course, this is relying on party canvassing, which anecdotal and flawed in its own way.

-Almost all UK polls are conducted via panels online. This creates a number of problems insofar as you need to be online and often need to care enough to join the panel to be contacted. Weighting is used by pollsters to correct for this, but if the average 22 year old voter who is a member of an online panel is politically different than the average 22 year old voter who is not a member of an online panel, there's really limited options to fix that. At work I'm kind of an online polling evangelist, but if the sole method in tracking a horse race it still comes with serious liabilities.

-The generational gap between those 34 and younger and those 55+ is fucking insane. And determining what share of the electorate these groups will make up is mostly hocus pocus guesswork, and is the determining factor differentiating most of these polls. Younger people are SAYING they will vote in proportion similar to older people. This is getting Labour within a few points of the Tories in the polls where they're going by self reported vote likelihood. History shows this is very unlikely to happen. The polls with modeled turnout based on past turnout show a historic landslide.

-The polls allocate undecided voters by a variety of methods. Past voting history, demographics, etc. But they're making guesses. We, generally speaking, don't do that. I mean, we might model out the whole electorate internally, but public polling isn't so presumptuous. Report undecided figures. As 538 demonstrated so well this year higher levels of undecideds and 3rd party vote share = higher uncertainty. The way UK polls are reported, I have no fucking idea what that number is and how I should feel about the election.

Basically UK polls make a shitton of assumptions US pollsters don't have to, and US pollsters miss badly enough as it is. And so it's probably about as likely that May gets a 100 seat majority tomorrow as she loses seats, but the tails are very, very long so you may get to laugh. But I hope you don't because he's a dirty commie.

Bucky wrote:there's a difference? never knew there was more than one.

There's only the one mainly. Sometimes you see favorable/unfavorable ratings, but job approval is more common for presidents.

CalvinBall wrote:Who is they?

Republican Senators finally seemed to care when the panel would not answer them. Rubio asked actual questions about Trump, not just leakers. Don't know if it is finally shifting, but there is a glimmer.

It's easy to ask tough questions when you know the individual won't answer. It's a win for both - Republicans can say they are being "tough" and are "taking this seriously" while not directly hurting their POTUS.

Someone threw an explosive device onto US embassy grounds in Kiev

No one hirt

The pre-spin is crazy. Need to get to the bottom of Lynch-Clinton! Why wasn't that memorialized? People want to know and they deserve to know! Trump wanted the Russian probe to continue to vindicate him like it has. <there are claims that this is in the memos.... but where?> Even Comey said Flynn was a good guy <boom bitch>!! Comey is the bad guy here.

I am going to try to ignore what is happening until the actual testimony.

"Of course Trump should expect loyalty from Comey and also what about LORETTA LYNCH?!?!?!?!"

"This is fake news and also who cares anyway!"

"Liberals are just trying to hide their big electoral loss!"

"Trump is a political novice, unlike the swamp people like Comey and the Democrats. We should expect a bumpy start. GIVE HIM A CHANCE."

just cut and paste these taeks if you want to converse with your friends