FL: Opinion Savvy- Clinton +4

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

ABSOLUTELY TREMENDOUS NEWS!!!

Let the Trumpist dog sweat flow!

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's right there, folks.  Republican Cubans are swinging to Clinton.  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Regardless of the candidate each one of us support, the reactions of democratic hacks are strange.
A good pollster (in terms of record) that shows good results for Trump is a "junk poll", a C- pollster like OpinionSavvy is a "tremendous poll", "great news".

What makes you think I care what sweaty dog and confirmed Republican hack Nate Silver grades a pollster?  I know ARG sucks because I've watched ARG suck for almost 20 years, not because he gave them a C+.  

And it's obvious that Cubans are swinging hard to Clinton.  These are not difficult concepts and you should get your doggy shampoo ready for Tuesday.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's right there, folks.  Republican Cubans are swinging to Clinton.  

So....You make fun of the A- WMUR poll, but the C- Opinion Savvy poll must be right....right?

I don't care what dopey hack Nate Silver has to say about pollsters and their quality.  I've got far too much experience to be swayed by whatever nonsense models he is coming up with to get clicks.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's right there, folks.  Republican Cubans are swinging to Clinton.  

So....You make fun of the A- WMUR poll, but the C- Opinion Savvy poll must be right....right?

I don't care what dopey hack Nate Silver has to say about pollsters and their quality.  I've got far too much experience to be swayed by whatever nonsense models he is coming up with to get clicks.

You sound like a Romney 2012 supporter....

How?  All he did was average polls in 2012.  Now he's playing around with unskewing them and other nonsense and assigning house effects based on almost nothing.  He's clearly jumped the shark.  I've moved onto Nate Cohn for anaylsis who clearly has a clue.

And it's not like I'm claiming a clearly losing candidate is actually winning because of Party ID and other fluid factors.  I'm just looking at the demographics. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's right there, folks.  Republican Cubans are swinging to Clinton.  

So....You make fun of the A- WMUR poll, but the C- Opinion Savvy poll must be right....right?

I don't care what dopey hack Nate Silver has to say about pollsters and their quality.  I've got far too much experience to be swayed by whatever nonsense models he is coming up with to get clicks.

You sound like a Romney 2012 supporter....

How?  All he did was average polls in 2012.  Now he's playing around with unskewing them and other nonsense and assigning house effects based on almost nothing.  He's clearly jumped the shark.  I've moved onto Nate Cohn who clearly has a clue.

Romney 2012 supporters (including myself, hate to admit) dismissed Silver in 2012 for showing an "unrealistic" outcome and thought the race was much closer, in this case I assume you think Clinton leads by a lot more than 538 does

Yes, because he's pissing around with the polls WAY too much.  He wasn't doing this nearly as much in 2012.  And, not to say you did this personally, the general GOP unskew in 2012 had everything to do with Party ID and making broad assumptions that Democrats HAVE to be over-sampled.  Well, that's a fluid number.  If you asked me in April what I was I would've said Independent.  Today, I'd ID as a Dem.  Demographics are not fluid, and I still think they point to Clinton leading by 5-6 and winning by 8-9 in the end.