Is it that crazy? Hillary certainly had no qualms about subverting the democratic process during the primaries.Originally Posted by ItalAussie
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study...discrepancies/
Is it that crazy? Hillary certainly had no qualms about subverting the democratic process during the primaries.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study...discrepancies/
Why would you post an article that methodically discredits the 'study' you're trying to cite?
It doesn't discredit, it qualifies. I thought it would be more honest that just posting the study.
"their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny."
Well that's me convinced.
I do like the idea that it's all the dishonest biased media as if Trump Campaigns CEO isn't the owner of Breitbart (they've still got that 'Black Crime' tab but they're not racists, no) and Roger Ailes is in the room at all times. I guess they'd know a thing or two about being dishonest.
One of the 538 team made an interesting point on their most recent podcast - there's essentially a 35-38% portion of the electorate that are so partisan to the Republicans that there's nothing a candidate can do to lose them. And Trump has currently lost everyone else. Pretty remarkable.
If Clinton wasn't so flawed she could consistently be 15 points up, but I guess a win is a win.
If anything, this election will prove that the gerrymandering of House Congressional seats has fundamentally broken US Politics. So that's nice.
Got my ballot today. Democracy
This is amazing.
Doesn't work in the UK
It's from last night's show, which I think is on Sky Atlantic in half an hour's time.Doesn't work in the UK
Despite being left leaning myself, I think the only people who come out of this election looking good are the republican Never Trumpers. Our politics are so polarized that it is difficult for a presidential candidate to get less than 45%. It is a myth that Trump is popular with Republicans - he only polls in the 60's with them in terms of favorability and most are voting for him due to lack of choice. I get it. I thought Gore was worthless and voted for him. I think Bernie is even more worthless and would have voted for him too. I'm sure there are millions who justifiably feel the same about Clinton. It really takes some utterly shit grievance monger like Trump or Al Sharpton to get people to vote for the other side.
This is a pretty good summary of the end of the race by one of Jeb's! people.
https://theringer.com/donald-trump-i...af4#.mnytgiayl
He was hilarious on Keepin' It 1600.
Lots of the Republican Never Trump campaign managers on Twitter are great. Mike Murphy, Stuart Stevens, and John Weaver are all fairly funny. I added Murphy's podcast to my running playlist.
This election
Putting volume control on its videos is the best thing Twitter has ever done.
Do these things really need to last 18 months?
But 60% of voters said that the debate was important to them!
There have been some good political ads this season, but this may just be my new favorite.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qLzBkDieMS4
Nope. The six-week British version is far better.
Get rid of the primaries and it wouldn't be too bad.
This has been somewhat ruined by the Lib Dems' constitutional bastardisation of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, whereby everybody fucking knows when the next election is going to be and thus acts accordingly. When the PM could call a snap election, it was much better because you had quick turnarounds. The EU referendum campaign was four and a bit months and was a fucking nightmare.
Have to agree with GS. Not sure how you get the parties to not cheat on times when the election schedules are known. And candidates like Bernie or even Obama would never get a sniff without primaries. It takes time to overcome gaps in name recognition and funding.
The difference here is campaign regulation, our candidates have a budget of about £65 and a packet of biscuits with which to conduct their campaigns. Trump and Clinton have each raised hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed to pump the TV full of absolutely whatever they choose.
The state vs federal dynamics are different as well, and change the scale. There are 53 elections in the primaries and 51 in the general. I'm not sure how even a Reagan wins that as a non-Beltway politician without some function of time.
It would be interesting to see what happened here without the current regulations. I think the newspapers would be too ready with a monstering for the lol corruption that runs through their system to be too obvious, but the attack adverts would be quite something.
'I'm Tim Farron, me, and I approve this message.'
To give Tromp his due, term limiting members of Congress isn't necessarily a bad idea.
Trump is bringing Obamas half-brother as well as the mother of Ben Ghazi as guests to the next debate.
Hilary should invite a Mexican rapist.
Can't argue with that.
I heard some 11 year olds talking about this on the train this morning. What is going on? You don't hear them talking about Brexit, just fantasy football and Pokemon Go.Trump is bringing Obamas half-brother as well as the mother of Ben Ghazi as guests to the next debate.
'Statto is a paedo fam.'
Just finished arranging a babysitter for tonight so we can watch the presidential debate with friends because Trump has made them something you can't watch with young kids. And some pundits, and others, will think he wins the debate. But that is why he likely loses the debate in the polls no matter what is said.
Lol at getting together to watch a debate. Will you wear your democrats jersey and one of those giant blue hands with one finger pointing up?
Hil-ary! Hil-ary! Hil-ary!
Rock solid GOP states are in play at the minute, which is laughable. The main race is surely over - the real question is whether he drags down the rest of the ticket.
Ev-an! Ev-an! Ev-an!
"Family values".
Hopefully we can retire the term altogether now. The right has totally ceded their feigned moral high ground in this election cycle, which could lead to some very interesting developments down the track. At the very least, "Donald Trump" will become a standard response every time they try to moralize elections in the future.
They don't care providing they can direct the Supreme Court through a pro-life President. Everything else seems to be secondary to these people.
Lol at how much of a pawn you are in the eyes of the establishment and media elites:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ton-nationally
Trump up 1 nationally. Pollster rated A- by Nate Silver.
Is 788 people considered a worthwhile sample size?
Clinton has prepped for this debate like a maniac. She and her advisors have clearly workshopped every question that could come out them, because she is covering them with a degree of concision that can only come with planning. She's had several quotes to hand, and has rapidly explained the context of her quotes that have come up in questions.
She's not going too much on the offensive; it's been pretty restrained so far. The puppet line is the best sound-byte to come out, and it seemed like it landed where it needed to. She got him on nukes as well, but that's a bad topic for him, so it's not a surprise.
Trump is getting a great chance to win back his base though. Supreme Court and abortion are always going to drag back any evangelicals he's lost. I'm not convinced that he hasn't gone too hard on abortion though, because the middle largely want it "rare but legal", so you have to be careful about demonizing it too much.
Wait. Trump claimed to be a fan of NATO? That's a total pivot. Interesting tack.
Clinton is right to defend economic decisions made under Obama, but it's not going to win her any votes either. Even though Trump's tax plan is ludicrous, it's made for sound-bytes and pays lip service to Americans who are struggling financially (who it will screw, of course, but lip service wins votes).
We're going to hear the Celebrity Apprentice/Bin Laden comparison in the aftermath of this, I suspect. It landed well and hits Trump in a couple of different ways.
Trump has not come off too terribly so far but he has seemed lightweight, even compared to himself the last debate, let alone Clinton. The fact that she's clearly prepared meticulously hasn't helped him in this regard.
Ooof. The audience actually laughed and had to be quietened by the moderator when Trump said he respects women. That's got to hurt.
Trump and his team have clearly settled upon using the emails as a distractor if a question comes up he doesn't want to answer. It's a smart strategy, given that it's one of the few points that has given him much traction of late. But he's doing it so obviously that it is coming across as blatantly dodging the question. He needs to be slicker about it, but I don't know that he has that level of rhetorical subtlety at his disposal.
Trump shaking his head and mumbling "no, no, I didn't happen. That's a lie" when everybody saw him mock a disabled reported, and saw him say that he wouldn't assault a women because she wasn't hot enough. How stupid does he thinks the viewers are?
Yeah. In particular, the one about not assaulting a woman because she's not attractive enough has been in the news so much and so recently that every single person watching immediately knew it was a blatant 100% lie.
The Trump camp are playing a dangerous game by repeatedly bringing up that Clinton was a senator. Trump has to fight the impression that he's unprepared for the job, and reminding people that Clinton has much more experience than him - while it certainly plays well to the anti-establishment core of his support - doesn't go well to counter that idea. I'm not sure whether he can afford to sacrifice wavering voters to appeal to his base at this stage.
To his credit, Trump interjecting specifically to note that the Emmys being rigged was a decent piece of levity.
However, the whole issue of rigged election is one that hurts him badly, because it makes him look like he's expecting to lose and that he's sore about it. Even though it might be satisfying, it positions him pre-emptively as a loser. You can't bank on that.
Five Thirty-Eight picked up something that I missed:
Even if it's a lie, Trump should have denied the claim. Nobody can ever prove him wrong, but by not arguing, he's tacitly introduced new information that wasn't previously available. If he was thinking on his feet, he could have pointed out that the claim was beyond anything that had been proven so far (and should have, irrespective of whether it's true or not). But he didn't, and that could cause him some problems.There was an interesting tidbit in that exchange over Trump’s taxes. Clinton said Trump hasn’t “paid a penny” in federal income taxes. That goes beyond the evidence that’s been publicly uncovered; tax documents obtained by The New York Times suggested Trump might have been able to avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. But Trump didn’t deny Clinton’s claim. Is it possible Trump isn’t paying taxes even now?
God, Trump is openly trying to shout her down on Middle Eastern stuff. He needs to collect himself. It's not presenting him well.
Trump: "Bernie Sanders said you have bad judgment. I agree with both.”
Clinton: “You should ask Bernie Sanders who he’s supporting for president... he has said you’re the most dangerous person in the modern history to have run for president. I think he’s right.”
That landed hard. She was clearly waiting for him to bring up Sanders (as he was going to, to try and erode her support from the left - probably a sensible tactic), to shoot out that exact line.
Yeah, his foreign policy stuff is just mumbling of a madman. There is coherent plan going forward from him. This is embarrassing.
Reply With Quote
