U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

[mugbull]

They wouldn't, unfortunately. The military establishment is naturally very hawkish (by virtue of their organizational structure). They're usually quite bonkers themselves - I read a good paper on organization systems theory that detailed the plans of action proposed by each of like 3 or 4 sectors of govt in response to the Bay of Pigs crisis, and the army generals consistently suggested the most bellicose approaches. They love to escalate, so they would probably take to Trump in a heartbeat. Which is pretty demoralizing.

[Lewis]

If that was the case (which it wouldn't be), it probably wouldn't even go that far. He would need the Secretary of Defense to agree to any nuclear orders, and, assuming he has to have at least a few competent people around him, there is scope within the Constitution for mental Presidents to be declared unfit to command if a majority of the Cabinet thinks they've lost it.

[Shindig]

Assuming that a Trump inauguration goes off without somebody capping him.

[Bernanke]

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/08/03/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-10-points-both-seen-as-flawed/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-3/images/image.img.jpg/880/558/1470254754722.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Darn liberal media.

[mikem]

The authoritarian fears are all overblown. The real danger is that he is temperamentally unsuited to be head of state. I would imagine Twitter wars with generals, Congress, or the Supreme Court. His interviews and press conferences are all extemporaneous and it is odd what he remembers. He flubs what could be a good attack on Ukraine by messing up details and ruins it. He remembers four to five sentences of what Ryan said verbatim because it was a personal affront.

There will be a mass shooting, terrorist attack, police involved violence, political gridlock, or even a natural disaster. He has never displayed an attempt at anything other than blaming, bragging, dominance, or delagitimizing. His response to that is the worry.

[ItalAussie]

Nice to see that they finally turned on Brownback in Kansas.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell


By June of 2014, the results of Brownback’s economic reforms began to come in, and they weren’t pretty. During the first fiscal year that his plan was in operation, which ended in June, the tax cuts had produced a staggering loss in revenue—$687.9 million, or 10.84 percent. According to the nonpartisan Kansas Legislative Research Department, the state risks running deficits through fiscal year 2019. Moody’s downgraded the state’s credit rating from AA1 to AA2; Standard & Poor’s followed suit, which will increase the state’s borrowing costs and further enlarge its deficit.

Brownback had also promised that his tax cuts would vault Kansas ahead of its higher-taxed neighbors in job growth, but that, too, failed to happen. In Kansas, jobs increased by 1.1 percent over the last year, compared with 3.3 percent in neighboring Colorado and 1.5 percent in Missouri. From November to May, Kansas had actually lost jobs, and the labor participation rate was lower than when Brownback took office. The cuts did not necessarily slow job growth, but they clearly did not accelerate it. And the effects of Brownback’s education cuts were also glaring—larger class sizes, rising fees for kindergarten, the elimination of arts programs, and laid-off janitors and librarians.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-kansas-conservative-brownback-economic-disaster-zorn-perspec-0518-jm-20160517-column.html


The Congressional Joint Economic Committee reported earlier this year that Kansas had just 9,400 new private-sector jobs in 2015 (out of 2.6 million nationwide). U.S. Department of Commerce data show that, prior to Brownback's tax cuts, Kansas ranked 12th in the nation in personal income growth; after the tax cuts it fell to 41st.


Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. Turns out that when you slice $630 million out of the budget, you can't afford to pay for things like schools. Who knew.

Somehow this will be spun into a successful trickle-down conservative utopia, but it's going to really take some solid blinkering to make it happen.

[ItalAussie]

When would you advocate their use, Ital?

Never ever first. I honestly can't think of a situation where I would be alright with being the first party in a conflict to drop a nuclear weapon.

I think there can be reasonable disagreement on this. I don't think that someone with a cavalier attitude who doesn't appreciate the gravity of the discussion should be permitted to get within state lines of the launch codes. Even if you think there are situations where a nuclear first strike is the correct course of action, you shouldn't ever see it as an easy decision.



If that was the case (which it wouldn't be), it probably wouldn't even go that far. He would need the Secretary of Defense to agree to any nuclear orders, and, assuming he has to have at least a few competent people around him, there is scope within the Constitution for mental Presidents to be declared unfit to command if a majority of the Cabinet thinks they've lost it.
If the best argument is "maybe someone smarter will do something drastically unprecedented in order to stop me from doing something stupid hopefully", it doesn't instil much in the way of courage.

[ItalAussie]

Trump refused to endorse Ryan or McCain.

Civil War :drool:

[Shindig]

He's going to have some serious bother getting together a cabinet at this rate.

[John]

Trump's spokeswoman reckons the Khan boy was killed because of military changes made by Obama.

[niko_cee]

Dig up!

[phonics]

Trump's spokeswoman reckons the Khan boy was killed because of military changes made by Obama.

Considering he died in 2004, and those changes didn't come into effect until 2006.

That's a mighty powerful President

[Jimmy Floyd]

Obama was still Senator for Change in 2006.

[phonics]

I'd say it's unlike me to get my dates wrong but that's quite evidently not true.

[randomlegend]

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html

Murica :cool:

[Magic]

Tempted to get 'Trump 16' on my new LUFC home shirt.

[phonics]

http://imgur.com/RObl0Uk.png
http://imgur.com/0MwMUyJ.png

GOSH DARN LIBERAL MEDIA LIARS

[Lewis]

It was always a bit hit 'n' miss, but Breitbart is a full-going embarrassment these days. I blame 'Milo'.

[Lewis]

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/dont-know-much-about-history/492746/?utm_source=atltw) is an interesting idea, although you would probably have to limit it to people over seventy to stop 'active' historians using every crisis to validate whatever shite they write about (plus lol Niall Ferguson mate as if they would invite you you Scottish meathead).

[phonics]

761543400667709440

I loled.

[John]

Odds on every single one of those being other white property billionaires?

[Boydy]

At least a few are Jewish.

[niko_cee]

Harold Ham, Howard Lobster, Steven Munching? He was probably just hungry when that team was assembled.

[mikem]

And it includes a guy named Barrak so back off the poor Donald.

This election is insane. The good Dr. Jill Stein is pandering to anti-vaxxers to get 2%. The former Counter Punch enthusiast Sanders is a New Deal Democrat. The Democrats are left leaning Rockefeller Republicans. The Reagan Republicans are either stunned, screaming "I fucking told you so", or are holding their nose while pretending the Trumpkins are not actually the Dixiecrats.

Nothing in my life has prepared me for a day when state polls come out in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina with not simply a Democrat but Hillary in front. It can't hold up but I never thought I'd see a single poll like that.

A former Acting Director of the CIA has an op-Ed in the NYT basically saying Trump is so stupid that he is essentially a co-opted Putin asset.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?referer=https://t.co/3gp7CiaqTf

[Bartholomert]

If you believe any of those polls and take anything published in the NYT in 2016 seriously, then I feel sorry for you.

North Carolina was almost entirely a Democrat dominated state until like 2008, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

[John]

Two Democratic winners since 1968.

Remember, people. Always fact check what Mert has to say.

[Pepe]

Or just ignore it.

[mikem]

It was a list of things that make me think "What?"

[Byron]

If you believe any of those polls and take anything published in the NYT in 2016 seriously, then I feel sorry for you.

North Carolina was almost entirely a Democrat dominated state until like 2008, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm genuinely worried you'll end up topping yourself when Trump loses, you're setting yourself up for the most monumental of falls.

[Shindig]

He won't off himself. He'll just do some crunches in the basement whilst crying. "Mert, you can come out. That Alpha Female has our best interests at heart."

[Boydy]

He'll pretend he didn't even like him that much anyway.

[Kikó]

The pussy liberal media won't let Trump win anyway.

[ItalAussie]

Mert was similarly bullish before 2012. Properly on board the poll-unskewing lunacy that infected the Republicans that time around. He spun out on election night, but picked himself up and dusted himself off for 2016. He'll be fine.

I'm more curious about what Trump will do if he loses. If Clinton goes down, she'll go quietly. But Trump just can't let any slight pass, let alone the biggest, most ego-bruising rejection he'll have ever experienced. He'll at least put out a call to civil war and/or secession.

[Bartholomert]

Two Democratic winners since 1968.

Remember, people. Always fact check what Mert has to say.

Look at state offices buddy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111304276.html

"Republicans hold the North Carolina Senate for the first time since 1870 and the Minnesota Senate for the first time ever."

[Pepe]

I'm more curious about what Trump will do if he loses.

Probably the same thing mert will do:

'Just trolling lulz.'

[Disco]

Ask Sebo if he has a spare room.

[Bernanke]

I'm more curious about what Trump will do if he loses. If Clinton goes down, she'll go quietly. But Trump just can't let any slight pass, let alone the biggest, most ego-bruising rejection he'll have ever experienced. He'll at least put out a call to civil war and/or secession.

He has already laid the groundwork for being able to call foul play on the election. I actually think that that's his dream scenario. Lose by 0.5% and claim that the powers that be rigged it. Hard to do if he gets "BTFO" by 7% though.

Great new visualization by 538:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/177208645065506817/211249699154296832/Capture.PNG

[ItalAussie]

He has already laid the groundwork for being able to call foul play on the election. I actually think that that's his dream scenario. Lose by 0.5% and claim that the powers that be rigged it. Hard to do if he gets "BTFO" by 7% though.

Great new visualization by 538:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/177208645065506817/211249699154296832/Capture.PNG

Apparently both the Republicans and Democrats are reducing their operations in Colorado and Virginia, as they're seen as pretty close to safe. The picture suggests that all the Democrats need to get is Pennsylvania and Nevada, while the Republicans pretty much need to run the table of swing states.

Lots of time left to go, but it's always instructive to watch where the campaigns are sending the money.

[niko_cee]

I actually think that that's his dream scenario. Lose by 0.5% and claim that the powers that be rigged it.


We call this the Boris Johnson Gambit.

[phonics]

It was always a bit hit 'n' miss, but Breitbart is a full-going embarrassment these days. I blame 'Milo'.

Have you seen this? https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.2a93vmfd8

I immediately thought of it when I saw this post but couldn't remember what it was called.

[Lewis]

Yeah. I thought it covered that lot quite well, although he probably deserves more credit for exploiting that gamer shit and 'Daddy' how he has (even if none of it seems particularly sustainable).

[Boydy]

Is that Laurie Penny article any good or is it just her usual shit?

[Spoonsky]

It pins down Mert pretty well too.

[GS]

I see Trump has had a MASSIVE go at Japan, not apparently recognising it's quite an important alliance for the Americans.

You have to laugh.

[GS]

Is that Laurie Penny article any good or is it just her usual shit?

That reminds of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw

[Lewis]

I would love to marry her and spend the rest of my life showing her up.

[Shindig]

Its the marriage all of us want. Bollocks to some Victoria Coren-inflicted intellectual pit.

[GS]

The level of smugness in the Coren Mitchell household would be so potent that the building would evaporate the second you lit a match.

[Lewis]

'Can we not have one dinner party without you having to "guess the benders"?'
'Was I right?'
'.....'
'Who holds a fork like that?'
'.....'
'Seriously. You should blog about it.'

[Boydy]

She's definitely shameful lustage. Although I'm not even all that ashamed.

[Magic]

Nothing shameful at all. I'd go all day on those tits.

[Bartholomert]

Polls are still close despite what the dishonest media would have you believe, taking into account the Shy Tory effect Trump would probably win an election if it was held today:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/06/despite-all-the-headlines-reutersipsos-poll-has-the-race-nearly-tied/

[GS]

No, he wouldn't.

[Disco]

That reminds of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw

No-one does pointing quite like that.

[ItalAussie]

Polls are still close despite what the dishonest media would have you believe, taking into account the Shy Tory effect Trump would probably win an election if it was held today:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/06/despite-all-the-headlines-reutersipsos-poll-has-the-race-nearly-tied/

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Picking the one poll you like the most in a pool of contradictory ones is not sound statistical methodology. That said, the polls are going to narrow massively before the election, and it looks like the party has brought him to heel slightly, managing to get endorsements out of him.

[Bartholomert]

Registered voters vs Likely voters; that's why the race is also nearly tied in the LA Times tracking poll.

How mad are you going to be when he wins?

[ItalAussie]

I don't live there. It's kind of not my problem. My only real investment is the actual risk of an honest-to-god nuclear war, but as long as they hide the nuclear codes from him, it won't really affect me all that much.

How mad are you going to be if he loses? Walk through the fallout with us.

[Bartholomert]

Hillary is a closet moderate, it wouldn't be that bad tbh, if it wasn't for the SCOTUS nominees and if she would commit fully to free trade I would give it serious consideration.

[GS]

What's your concern with her likely SCOTUS nominations? Second amendment and Roe v Wade?

[niko_cee]

I don't know if I asked this or not, but I meant to either way - is Barry's supreme court nomination still on the table or has that been fully dismissed? Wasn't he fairly mainstream? The grand old wankers might want to think about him for fear of losing all arms of the government in the next 4 years and ending up with multiple young lesbian ethnics ruining their judicial dreams for the forever..

[GS]

The Senate have so far refused to hold confirmation hearings. He was quite middle of the road too, so if Clinton wins and Trump takes half the down ticket races with him they could end up completely shafting themselves.

It's probably personal where it's Obama, mind you. The Republicans in Congress are complete wankers.

[Bartholomert]

What's your concern with her likely SCOTUS nominations? Second amendment and Roe v Wade?

Pretty much everything. Democrats don't believe in the Constitution as meaningfully restricting their actions, it would be the end of federalism / civil liberties as we know it.

[phonics]

Hahahahaha

[GS]

Pretty much everything. Democrats don't believe in the Constitution as meaningfully restricting their actions, it would be the end of federalism / civil liberties as we know it.

This seems like bollocks. Expand.

[elth]

Oh God why would you encourage him

[GS]

It's fine when he's keeping it to one thread, plus it's genuinely interesting to see a real-life Trump voter. It's like visiting a zoo.

[Shindig]

Is he a Trump voter or is he just never going to vote Democrat?

[GS]

Both. There's a third party conservative candidate now, alongside 50 Republican security officials who've released an open letter which effectively calls him dangerous and not fit for office.

[mugbull]

He's metastasized to other threads recently

[Byron]

r/thedonald is a good laugh though.

[ItalAussie]

Pretty much everything. Democrats don't believe in the Constitution as meaningfully restricting their actions, it would be the end of federalism / civil liberties as we know it.Donald Trump wants to expand libel laws to encourage public officials to sue the media. He wants to use religion as a restricting measure for immigration (a far greater threat to religious liberty than any wedding cake). He has come out explicitly in favour of methods known to be cruel and unusual punishment. You can absolutely agree with those stances, but all three of them clearly contravene the US constitution as it stands.

Trump clearly has no understanding of, nor regard for, the US constitution.

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vs-the-constitution-a-guide-amendments-us-politics/
http://time.com/4320105/donald-trump-u-s-constitution/

[Bernanke]

darice fisher ‏@daricefisher 1h1 hour ago
#ManyPeopleAreSaying he's just standing, nothing to say. maybe wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpYa-bVUEAA1X8s.jpg

:D

[phonics]

This is one sentence

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpbSlYPXgAArNvx.jpg

If this guy becomes President, language is dead.

[niko_cee]

Doesn't that very much depend on how you choose to punctuate what is presumably a spoken answer?

It is just rambling nonsense, mind.

[phonics]

Hence the en-dashes? It's still not a sentence.

[Boydy]

You could probably punctuate that differently and throw some full stops in. It's his inability to keep his mind on one topic for more than ten seconds that's far more worrying than his sentence structure.

[Bernanke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4

This is pretty fucking horrible, even for him.

[phonics]

Don't worry about it, dude. Ignore the fact that he implied that someone would/could/should assassinate her for appointing people she is both mandated and obligated to. It's the DISHONEST MEDIA.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpcXjWiXEAAgmAG.jpg

By the way '2nd amendment people' is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

[GS]

:D (at the video)

He'd be great value if he wasn't terrifying, like the harbinger of the end of days.

[Bernanke]

But that campaign statement is factually wrong since he talked about it after the fact that she's won. It's an actual comment on assassinating either Hillary or the SC nominees.

[niko_cee]

That's what the 2nd amendment is all about though.

[GS]

But that campaign statement is factually wrong since he talked about it after the fact that she's won. It's an actual comment on assassinating either Hillary or the SC nominees.

I would agree, until you consider that his advisors are trying to spin an implication that second amendment advocates may wish to assassinate his opponent.

I think we can cut them a little slack here. There's not much they can do.

[mikem]

Living in Arizona and watching the Olympics it is wall to wall Hillary commercials like:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U8qUhXzr43o

And

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA

I don't even know what Trump's ads look like. He is not even really pretending to run a proper campaign. It is such an odd election.

[GS]

The second ad would be much better if it didn't have Hillary speaking at the end of it, but it's still quite effective I would imagine.

[Bernanke]

@jefftiedrich
Republicans should be forced to carry their candidates to term. Even when the life of the party is in danger.

:D

[niko_cee]

You'd probably see his ads if you watched the nascar.

[GS]

@jefftiedrich
Republicans should be forced to carry their candidates to term. Even when the life of the party is in danger.

:D

Very good. The Republican position on abortion is nuts, really.

I assume a clear majority of Americans are in favour of Roe v Wade.

[mikem]

You are right. There is a shortened version of that which fits in the 45 second spot that is much more effective. Our campaign rules are so utterly insane that some require the candidate to speak to differentiate them from dark money ads.

[Spoonsky]

I don't know, abortion to me is a lot more ambiguous than most issues. If it's legal to get an abortion after a certain amount of time and illegal after that, an arbitrary line has been drawn (I don't think that science has really figured out exactly when the foetus becomes 'human') and I don't like arbitrary lines being drawn. At the same time, people are going to get abortions anyways so you might as well have it out in the open where it's safer.

[GS]

Well, you need an arbitrary line in this case. There's a point at which, medically, the foetus can't survive outside the womb even with the best medical care. I assume science can pin this down within a fortnight or so (22-24 weeks, presumably). Just take the lower part, cut a month off and say that after, say, 18 weeks you're down to your standard caveats like rape, incest, risk to life of the mother.

The above strikes me as a sensible way of compromising on the issue, but of course any suggestion that the cut off point should be looked at would be anathema to the women's rights groups.

I believe life begins at conception, by the way - but far be it from me to impose my view of that on everybody else.

[Lewis]

I thought it was a good joke. Still, the OUTRAGE gets that Orlando bloke off the news cycle.

[GS]

Ital, mate, we've seen the video. We're briefed.

[ItalAussie]

Yep. I'd hung around on the page too long and hadn't seen the update. Deleted. :nodd:

Seriously though, it was a suggestion at assassination. It's beyond the pale. I want to hear his supporters (mert?) justify the statement. Preferably with something less obviously desperate than the official release.

[mikem]

Lewis That was clearly a joke but he is not running for Jon Stewart's old job. I think I would be equally offended with Boris if he were running here. It is not really a policy issue. I don't want some silly spoiled brat who feels like playing at government 2 days a month. Being a liberal Southerner and hearing someone sound like George Wallace pre-conversion doesn't help either.

GS I'm not sure about Roe v. Wade in the US. It is nearly impossible to untangle because the pro-life camp is very loud and a significant portion of pro-choice people find abortion deeply troubling.

@nico I'm from Louisiana; there is no the in NASCAR. Unlike DC exburg wannabe's I know proper political debate covers whether you dunk or crumble your cornbread into your potlikker, whether crowder peas or zipper beans make the best field peas, and that if you go to either a crawfish boil in St Charles or an oyster bake in Charleston the proper beverage is beer, in a can. Joking aside, the NeverTrumpers on Twitter have a massive Republican campaign consultant base who delight in bashing not just what he says but how the campaign is run. According to them his campaign is disastrously run. No clue how accurate they are but they are hilarious.

[GS]

Yep. I'd hung around on the page too long and hadn't seen the update. Deleted. :nodd:

Seriously though, it was a suggestion at assassination. It's beyond the pale. I want to hear his supporters (mert?) justify the statement. Preferably with something less obviously desperate than the official release.

It's a disgraceful comment, but his numbers are going to bottom out soon in the sense that there's a core of voters who will vote for him regardless. Maybe it's Lewis' 30% rule, but he's starting to tank across the board.

Barring some sort of outside event, he doesn't have a hope of winning.



GS I'm not sure about Roe v. Wade in the US. It is nearly impossible to untangle because the pro-life camp is very loud and a significant portion of pro-choice people find abortion deeply troubling.

I find it deeply troubling and deeply uncomfortable, but I'm still pro-choice in the context of the legal framework for it.

I can't imagine there is much appetite for actually over-turning it, outside the evangelical vote.

[ItalAussie]

The polls will almost certainly narrow before the election, mind. They always do.

Although this election has defied political wisdom so far, so who knows?


EDIT: The smartest thing Trump could have done would have been to shut his mouth during the Olympics and let his bad last week be eaten by the new cycle. Saying stupid stuff in the Olympic buffer zone is a bad plan.

[GS]

This isn't a conventional election. He can't get through a week without doing something that would ruin any other candidate. In the absence of a wide field to bury his stupidity in, he's just going to be continually exposed as not up to it. The media will be relentless, and he'll continue lashing out.

There's some discussion he may not turn up to the debates. It might be for the best, given the disaster that could unfold if he did turn up.

[mikem]

I'm were you are but I think at the polls it would be close because our side would have a depressed turnout and they would have an enthusiastic one.

[GS]

Democrats will surely have solid turnout - not only for the presidency (stopping Trump at a minimum) but also given the congressional elections are on the same day.

Capitalising on Trump's negatives downticket might see them make a serious indent in the Republican majorities in the Senate / House, although you suspect they'd struggle to overturn them. Still, it's their best opportunity since 2008 to do so, and you'd expect their ground game to be quite good if they're ripping off the Obama model that worked so well in 2008 and 2012.

If anything, I'd expect Republicans (of the sane variety) to be less enthused about going to the polls as they'll want to vote for neither Trump nor Clinton.

[mikem]

My comment was a response to you on abortion. Same metric you are applying to the race but I think magnified on a single issue basis.

Personally, I think there won't be that much movement in Congress unless Trump continues to commit suicide and Republicans don't disavow him. They need to do it sooner rather than later.

[mugbull]

ItalAussie Trump sucks but that clearly wasn't a suggestion of assassination, he was just telling "Second Amendment People" that voting for him could avoid the tragic abolition of rights etc etc. I actually think it's insane that anybody has construed his words to mean that he suggested assassination. Don't want to play down to the level of his mindless devotees, but that's really grasping at straws.
Spoonsky I totally agree. I'm in favor of right to choice only because it's the safer option in the long run, but there are serious issues with it. I personally find abortion reprehensible and for good reason, imo

[ItalAussie]

The context of that line in his speech is that they need to make sure Trump wins, because once Clinton is elected, there's nothing they can do to stop her. Except the second amendment types.

That's clearly not just a reference to their devoted character.

I don't think is campaigning for Clinton's assassination, though. I just think he says whatever idiot thing pops into his head. I mean, he's not wrong. That would indeed be a (reprehensible) way to stop Clinton once she was elected. It's just not an idea that should be encouraged.

[mugbull]

Oh yeah it doesn't put him in a good light, but it shouldn't be cause for consternation other than "he can't give a real speech".

[mikem]

It is exactly what disqualifies him. He is applying for a job where your words matter. How about an offhand joke during a financial crisis? Any possible consequence? Or next time we have a police involved shooting? Or .... Every word he says has the potential to matter if elected.

[ItalAussie]

Trump vocalises whatever half-assed idea flits into his mind. He's giving us an unfiltered view into his scatty and ill-considered thought processes.

But then he says it out loud it and it has to become policy, because it's that or back down. I mean, that's clearly how we wound up with the whole "we're gonna build a wall" thing. In no planet is that anything other than a silly idea suggested by someone who thought about situation for all of seven seconds. But then he said it, and because he's never backed down from something in his life, it had to stick.

[Byron]

I think Mert has gone into hiding. Come on mate, you said Trump was needed to stop the rot in Western society and that he is the Truth. You must have an easy answer for Trump's video.

[ItalAussie]

In fairness, mert does have a job which I imagine can be quite demanding at times.

[Shindig]

Losing weight?

[ItalAussie]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/trump-writes-some-his-own-tweets-and-we-know-which-ones/

I know it's weird to be citing cracked.com as a source of political journalism, but they struck upon an interesting trend in Trump's tweets. It's speculation, of course, and they don't present it as anything otherwise.

The theory is that if it came from an Android, it's Trump, while if it came from an iPhone, it's a campaign stooge. It's very interesting what they dug out of that. Tweets in the two different classes seem to be markedly different in character and lucidity.

[phonics]

Cracked just stole this guys work and made it less comprehensive

https://www.r-bloggers.com/text-analysis-of-trumps-tweets-confirms-he-writes-only-the-angrier-android-half/

[John]

Cracked just stole this guys work and made it less comprehensive

https://www.r-bloggers.com/text-analysis-of-trumps-tweets-confirms-he-writes-only-the-angrier-android-half/

That article quotes one printed two days before it with exactly the same theory, so that guy's work is also 'stolen' if that's the line.

[elth]

The "polls are skewed" narrative being wheeled out by desperate Trump fans is pretty hilarious, although it's making 538 super annoyed.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Can I get a bet on Trump to carry no states at all?

Sounds impossible but Walter Mondale almost managed it.

[Bernanke]

Can I get a bet on Trump to carry no states at all?

Sounds impossible but Walter Mondale almost managed it.

It would require a third candidate to siphon votes from him in places like Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Idaho. The Republicans could run Clint Eastwoods chair in those states and Hillary still wouldn't win head to head.

[niko_cee]

Sturdy, dependable, unbending.

I'd vote for the chair.

[mikem]

Clinton is not Reagan and it is not really a national race. Trump will win at least 15 - 20 states. Better long odds bet would be Trump dropping out.

[Shindig]

I'd favour that as well. He's got his pride but, at some point he'll say something impossible to come back from.

[Bernanke]

My bet is that he'll call her a cunt during one of the debates.

[Bernanke]

Oh, and she's 52/37 among likely voters in Wisconsin. I don't understand how Donald hopes to turn this around.

A few swing-districts with the last election to compare with:

CA-10: Clinton+6 (Obama+3)
CA-25: Clinton+25 (Romney+2)
CO-6: Clinton+14 (Obama+3)
FL-7: Clinton+14 (tied)
FL-26: Clinton+24 (Obama+11)
IL-10: Clinton+31 (Obama+16)
MN-3: Clinton+24 (Obama+1)

[GS]

Again, this was always going to happen. There's nowhere for him to hide, and the media are going after him relentlessly. There's no way to avoid it in the heat of a presidential campaign when you're the party nominee - everything comes out.

He needs to avoid the debates, because he doesn't have the message discipline not to say something inflammatory and / or be outright misogynistic.

[GS]

763409133408284672

2%, lads.

[Lewis]

Isn't that basically the margin of error?

[GS]

It's a shit sample size, but 2% for fuck sake.

He's also starting to lose white republican women - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-gop-women.html

He's basically going to be reliant on the angry white man vote. He's not going to do a Mondale, but the electoral college / popular vote could look quite unpleasant.

[Shindig]

It'll be great if one of his kid's defects.

[Bernanke]

Ivanka's speech could've just as easily been held at the DNC. She's well-spoken and looks good, so if she stays in the background during all of this I could see her being politically successful in the future if she wants to.

[randomlegend]

Trump saying Obama literally founded ISIS. :D

[GS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

Alright, mate.

[niko_cee]

He has such an unnervingly small, bitey mouth.

[ItalAussie]

Reports are that the Republicans are seriously considering giving him up as a bad job, and focusing on downticket races instead. They won't (they're cowards), but with things like this, you can see why they'd consider it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291244-trump-i-dont-know-that-we-need-to-get-out-the-vote

The Democrats have a particularly effective operation in place to get voters to the polls on voting day. Apparently this isn't something that Trump considers to be of value. I assume that will be out of Trump's hands in the end, but still. Bit crazy.

[Bernanke]

Yesterday he "bragged" that he only has 80 staffers compared to Hillarys 1000.

He really doesn't understand how elections and turnout works.

[Gray Fox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoXDe8HxHBA

That's enough internet for today...

[Shindig]

Yesterday he "bragged" that he only has 80 staffers compared to Hillarys 1000.

He really doesn't understand how elections and turnout works.

Underdog Billionaire,

[GS]

764933590626873345

[elth]

Trump is going to absolutely whomp Clinton in votes per dollar spent so really he's the moral victor.

[Bernanke]

So, Manafort is being paid by the Russians, and Ivanka is vacationing in Europe with Putin's girlfriend.

Is this real life?

[bruhnaldo]

Trump saying Obama literally founded ISIS. :D

The worst part is in theory this is a good shout.. considering power vacuum blah blah blah... but the idiot kept repeating "no literally. i literally mean he is the founder." and the guy says "No, you mean figuratively, surely?" and THE DON is all "No no, LITERALLY he founded ISIS."

He doesn't want to win, the cunt.

[mikem]

I almost feel sorry for erstwhile Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson. Her job description seems to be "say something so stupid we forget what Trump just said." Upon reflection, while that takes some doing, she seems up for the task.

Now she is being attacked for her incorrect use of literally. A mistake that virtually every American makes. Hopefully, a huge amount of the $62 million Trump spent on neither campaign ads or offices last month go to her because she has to be unemployable after this campaign.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/765201634074955776/video/1

[mikem]

Trump spending campaign funds on push polls because the media polls are too biased. The poll simply attacks the media. He is not even really attacking Clinton anymore and is just lashing out at whoever criticizes him, which is currently the media. I wonder if the Clinton camp is at all confused at what to do when your opponent does not campaign. Here are the questions:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JSwiftTWS/status/765204721602879488

[Bernanke]

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/765254440085577728

Rudy ffs, you were mayor of NYC on 9/11. :face:

[GS]

Noun verb 9/11.

[ItalAussie]

I wonder if mert's given up on the cause.

[mikem]

Trump underperforming Romney more in red states than blue states.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bcburden/status/765218345989746688

[ItalAussie]

For all that it seems amusingly one-sided at the moment, it's worth remembering that the polls will definitely narrow as the election nears.

[mikem]

Clinton is constrained by her unfavorables; all that traffic could just go to Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. Trump's lack of a campaign may mean he wins at worst 15-20 states instead of 20-25. We have only had three terms once in about 75 years, I can't imagine it is a blowout.

[GS]

It would be the first Democratic three-termer since FDR (which extended into a five-termer with FDR / Truman), although the Republicans have only had Reagan / Bush 41 as a three-termer since the war.

I can't see anyway Clinton doesn't win barring "events" outside both candidates' control prompting a massive shift. Another 9/11, for example, where security becomes the only thing people are prepared to vote on.

[Lewis]

Trump underperforming Romney more in red states than blue states.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bcburden/status/765218345989746688

lol at the decent, God-fearing, 'Middle America' conservatives wanting nothing to do with him.

[Bernanke]

It would be the first Democratic three-termer since FDR (which extended into a five-termer with FDR / Truman), although the Republicans have only had Reagan / Bush 41 as a three-termer since the war.

I can't see anyway Clinton doesn't win barring "events" outside both candidates' control prompting a massive shift. Another 9/11, for example, where security becomes the only thing people are prepared to vote on.

But even then, do you have poll numbers that he has significantly higher favorables on security?

[GS]

No, but you would expect 'Murica would swing more behind the Republicans if security became the overwhelming 'swing' criterion.

[Spoonsky]

Trump underperforming Romney more in red states than blue states.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bcburden/status/765218345989746688

Utah loving the Mormon Romney and hating the vulgar Trump probably skews that somewhat. If Utah goes blue :drool:

[mikem]

lol at the decent, God-fearing, 'Middle America' conservatives wanting nothing to do with him.

Soccer moms. Never ever fuck with soccer moms. How does a grown man in America not know this?


Utah loving the Mormon Romney and hating the vulgar Trump probably skews that somewhat. If Utah goes blue :drool:

Utah has to be the one at the far end. AZ must be close for the same reason. That is built on 538's polls only data which only uses state polls as well. The sample size for everything from Idaho to the Dakotas always appears to be 4 people in eastern Oregon.

[ItalAussie]

No, but you would expect 'Murica would swing more behind the Republicans if security became the overwhelming 'swing' criterion.

Normally yes. Maybe not with these two candidates specifically though?

[Jimmy Floyd]

The only way it's swinging behind Trump is if tasteless golf hotels become the main campaign issue.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqB7s6JUIAAITGJ.jpg

[Shindig]

He's just switched his campaign team around again.

[elth]

He's hired Breitbart to run his campaign. Wonder if mert's put his hand up.

[phonics]

Did you see that Breitbart started their own polling to counter THE BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA polls only to find Clinton up by 5 points?

[Bernanke]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqEHGVmWgAA9SzR.jpg

Holy fuck. :|

[Lewis]

Those two speeches [by 'The Donald] were the two most substantive, I would say historic, speeches that any presidential candidate has made in a very long time... I think this is the best speech that any Republican at the least has ever given.

This is why Ted Cruz will be the main man once these lot get humped.

[Shindig]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

$100 says he's offered Ivanka to him at some point.

[GS]

Normally yes. Maybe not with these two candidates specifically though?

Probably not, but it's difficult to envisage any scenario where you would expect a material swing to Trump.

[Bernanke]

PublicPolicyPolling
‏@ppppolls
We'll release rest of our TX poll this PM but here's a preview. 50% support building a wall with Mexico, 7% support building one w/ Oklahoma

:D

[Bernanke]

Dishonest media are pretty funny at least.

766021223415439361

766029727081586689

[Bartholomert]

Trump down .6 in online LA Times poll while trailing in traditional polls:

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Lol if you buy into the dishonest media at this point after they've been exposed time and time again.

[phonics]

Lol if you buy into the dishonest media at this point after they've been exposed time and time again.

http://imgur.com/UmkUPQO.png

[phonics]

766246213079498752

...?

[Pepe]

I don't know but please more talk about polls.

[Bartholomert]

http://imgur.com/UmkUPQO.png

Polls conducted over the phone underrepresent his support by 4-10 points, this is nothing outside the norm.

[ItalAussie]

Historical bias in polling:

http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/silver-pollsterratings16-3.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1

It's actually quite interesting.

[ItalAussie]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291700-trump-before-intelligence-briefing-i-dont-trust-intelligence


“Very easy to use them, but I won't use them, because they’ve made such bad decisions,”

Trump doesn't want to use US intelligence agencies. Presumably he'll rely on the Russians or something. He's teetering on the deep end now.

Hopefully this change of campaign management (you know, because it's going so super well that Trump was getting bored) frees him up to be the unmitigated lunatic asshole he clearly wants to be.

[Bartholomert]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291700-trump-before-intelligence-briefing-i-dont-trust-intelligence



Trump doesn't want to use US intelligence agencies. Presumably he'll rely on the Russians or something. He's teetering on the deep end now.

Hopefully this change of campaign management (you know, because it's going so super well that Trump was getting bored) frees him up to be the unmitigated lunatic asshole he clearly wants to be.

Dude you're supposed to be smart, I would hope you were above click bait meaningless headlines that confirm your biases.

Guess not.

[Pepe]

What are the polls saying?

[mikem]

Best part of election season has happened. If you like older documentaries PBS has started replaying their American president series. Probably much more rah rah cheerleading than I remember but they've got from Kennedy to Clinton online.

[ItalAussie]

Dude you're supposed to be smart, I would hope you were above click bait meaningless headlines that confirm your biases.

Guess not.

I just enjoy when Trump runs his mouth and winds up saying something mind-bendingly stupid. I know nothing he says is thought-through policy. It's just fascinating to see how his mind works. He's basically what would happen if a twelve-year-old ran for office. 100% id.

I'm hoping the campaign shake-up drops whatever limited public filter he's been able to maintain. Just for kicks, really.

[Bartholomert]

I just enjoy when Trump runs his mouth and winds up saying something mind-bendingly stupid. I know nothing he says is thought-through policy. It's just fascinating to see how his mind works. He's basically what would happen if a twelve-year-old ran for office. 100% id.

I'm hoping the campaign shake-up drops whatever limited public filter he's been able to maintain. Just for kicks, really.

Do you like it more or less than when Hillary commits felonies or engages in shocking acts of corruption?

[ItalAussie]

Do you like it more or less than when Hillary commits felonies or engages in shocking acts of corruption?
That's obviously begging the question, but I'd trust the Republican version of Evil MechaHilary with the nuclear codes before I'd let Trump within the same postcode of the war room.

"I had some bad Chinese food last night. So bad. So sad. Nuke China."

[Lewis]

To be fair, 'Hillary' has said she'll be less corrupt if she wins.

[Bartholomert]

That's obviously begging the question, but I'd trust Evil Republican MechaHilary with the nuclear codes before I'd let Trump within the same postcode of the war room.

"I had some bad Thai food last night. So bad. So sad. Nuke Beijing."

Same Hillary who approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium production capacity to the Russians in return for a fat cheque to the Clinton Foundation and 500k in speaking fees for Bill Clinton the month after? You trust HER to act in the best interest of American national security?

Do you even care about her corruption? Honestly, does it bother you, or do you just dismiss it as a giant "right wing conspiracy" despite their being emails directly referring to a "pay for play" system connecting Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department?

[ItalAussie]

You don't get to high horse anyone else about "dismissing" things. :D

[Bartholomert]

You don't get to high horse anyone else about "dismissing" things. :D

Yes or no:

1. Are you aware of the scandals I'm referring to, involving "Pay for Play" schemes linking the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
2. Do you care?

[ItalAussie]

So yes or no?

1. Are you aware of the scandals I'm referring to, involving "Pay for Play" schemes linking the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
2. Do you care?

Mert, if I wanted to engage with fleck-laden right-wing talking points, I'd directly read whatever Breitbart story you've credulously eaten up, rather than getting it second-hand.

I'm content to snicker at Trump from afar. This is a case where the election is between an actual grown-up, and a man-child with the emotional maturity of a slighted twelve-year-old. It's such a non-starter. And now, fingers crossed, he's going to tell us what he really thinks.

[Bartholomert]

Mert, if I wanted to engage with fleck-laden right-wing talking points, I'd directly read whatever Breitbart story you've credulously eaten up, rather than getting it second-hand.

I'm content to snicker at Trump from afar. This is a case where the election is between an actual grown-up, and a man-child with the emotional maturity of a slighted twelve-year-old. It's such a non-starter. And now, fingers crossed, he's going to tell us what he really thinks.

Yes or no:

1. Are you aware of the scandals I'm referring to, involving "Pay for Play" schemes linking the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
2. Do you care?

[mugbull]

One significant divide I've noticed between Republicans and Democrats - at least the politicians of the respective parties - is that Republicans have no shame in coming off as foolish and stupid, whereas Democrats are generally averse to public displays of idiocy. Both sides might well be equally intelligent, but the Republicans make no attempt to appear that way. This can probably be traced to when the Republicans picked up all the evangelist, anti-knowledge retards in the post-LBJ era. In any case there are probably political advantages to being this way, but it is pretty shameful on the whole.

[ItalAussie]

That's a trend all over politics at the moment. It's basically a point against your credibility to be an actual non-political expert.

Politicians have spent a decade trashing the idea of expertise in general (experts aren't really a great source of campaign funds, after all, and tend to get inconveniently in the way of people who are), so now anyone capable of correcting political narratives with actual fact is deemed suspicious by default.

[Pepe]

Rand (:cool:) does not come off as foolish.

[Lewis]

I don't know. Doing all those eye operations for free gives him a bit of a mug vibe.

[John]

It remains amazing to me that Mert bothers agitating for whatever 'equal time' nonsense he wants here, as though we're a news outlet with some bearing on the election.

Hillary Clinton could be the single most corrupt individual in the history of politics and instinctively she'd still seem more suited to that office than a grinning ballsack with no barrier between mind and mouth. That there is so much corruption surrounding her is the only reason anyone is still entertaining the idea of President Trump.

[Pepe]

The hair makes up for it.

[elth]

Tbh I'd vote for Trump's hairpiece before Trump himself.

[mikem]

Hillary is so tough that Putin pays up AFTER he got what wanted. Trump can't get a roofer from Sarasota to finish a project on time and under budget without suing.

[Bartholomert]

Hillary is so tough that Putin pays up AFTER he got what wanted. Trump can't get a roofer from Sarasota to finish a project on time and under budget without suing.

What are you talking about?

[mikem]

You said she sold the uranium and Bill got paid for his speech a month later. If you are doing illegal work you get paid up front unless you are the most dangerous thing around because you have no recourse. Putin is clearly afraid of getting Fostered if he crosses her. Trump meanwhile has to sue thousands of subcontractors because he can't get them to do the agreed upon work (or he is just shafting people). He is so weak and his management team's ability so poor that he can't handle a contractor?

Hillary is strong and Trump is weak. I thought I would try some of your bizarro logic and wow - it is fun. Why try applying real thought to your original claim which is simply post hoc ergo proptor hoc? The only real answer to absurdity is absurdity.

[ItalAussie]

I kind of have a soft sport for the mythical super villain Hillary, who can intimidate Putin, scare the media into doing her bidding, strong-arm the justice system and the opposition establishment into line, manipulate polling, and usher in a communist dystopia if left unchecked. She sounds really on top of things. Very competent, and you'd have to think incredibly well-organised. You know she'd get bills through the senate.

[Shindig]

I'd like to see Trump get in on the basis that the CIA investigate the shit out of his finances because he won't let them do proper work. "Yeah, you're in the pocket of Russia, Mr. President. 40 years ago, that'd be treason."

[Disco]

Posting West Wing episode titles, is that on purpose?

[Bartholomert]

You said she sold the uranium and Bill got paid for his speech a month later. If you are doing illegal work you get paid up front unless you are the most dangerous thing around because you have no recourse. Putin is clearly afraid of getting Fostered if he crosses her. Trump meanwhile has to sue thousands of subcontractors because he can't get them to do the agreed upon work (or he is just shafting people). He is so weak and his management team's ability so poor that he can't handle a contractor?

Hillary is strong and Trump is weak. I thought I would try some of your bizarro logic and wow - it is fun. Why try applying real thought to your original claim which is simply post hoc ergo proptor hoc? The only real answer to absurdity is absurdity.

Are you retarded, she yielded a huge amount of a strategic national resource in return for pennies, it's a shocking deal. That's not compliance, it's lol'ing indifference; like selling your wife into sex slavery and getting a few coins indifferently tossed your way after she gets gang banged in your bedroom. You're still a cuck.

If Putin gave a shit about Hillary or had any fear or respect whatsoever for the US, why has he completely disregarded 'the reset' between the two countries, by invading Crimea and humiliating the US in the Middle East?

[Bartholomert]

I kind of have a soft sport for the mythical super villain Hillary, who can intimidate Putin, scare the media into doing her bidding, strong-arm the justice system and the opposition establishment into line, manipulate polling, and usher in a communist dystopia if left unchecked. She sounds really on top of things. Very competent, and you'd have to think incredibly well-organised. You know she'd get bills through the senate.

No. She is a spineless vassal for the larger ambitions of people more powerful than her. She has absolutely no power, and is simply a slave to the dictates of the globalists who will profit from her presidency, in terms of competence, literally everything she has ever touched has been transformed into utter failure. Please find one, ONE, achievement of note to her name in her entire history of public service.

[ItalAussie]

On an entirely different topic, I find it very interesting that the Republican candidate campaign is now essentially being run by the minds behind Breitbart and Fox News.

If it wasn't apparent before, it's certainly clear now who's the tail and who's the dog on the right.

[mikem]

Posting West Wing episode titles, is that on purpose?

Just a snide L1 joke.

[Bernanke]

Manafort resigned. :lol:

[Bartholomert]

Manafort resigned. :lol:

It was 100% the right move for the campaign.

[mugbull]

It's like if the Democratic Party fell to pieces and Ariana Huffington became the cherub face of the campaign

[Boydy]

This is pretty interesting - Eight real US electoral college maps that now look like science fiction (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/eight-real-us-electoral-college-maps-now-look-science-fiction).

[mikem]

Never been the world's biggest Bernie fan but stories like this are why I've never really found the Glenn Greenwald style of journalism all that compelling. It just seems gotcha for no apparent reason. Who cares that he bought a house? Or if he personally lost money on the campaign?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/17/20074/how-bernie-sanders-beat-clock-and-avoided-disclosure

[Bartholomert]

Never been the world's biggest Bernie fan but stories like this are why I've never really found the Glenn Greenwald style of journalism all that compelling. It just seems gotcha for no apparent reason. Who cares that he bought a house? Or if he personally lost money on the campaign?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/17/20074/how-bernie-sanders-beat-clock-and-avoided-disclosure

Because Clinton paid for it.

[mikem]

#clintoncrimefamily

[GS]

Never been the world's biggest Bernie fan but stories like this are why I've never really found the Glenn Greenwald style of journalism all that compelling. It just seems gotcha for no apparent reason. Who cares that he bought a house? Or if he personally lost money on the campaign?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/17/20074/how-bernie-sanders-beat-clock-and-avoided-disclosure

It matters when you're citing other people's finances as a campaign strategy and when you describe yourself as a 'socialist'. Holding considerable wealth and / or 'exploiting capitalism' to maximise your own financial position could be considered quite hypocritical. A perennial problem for the socialists, unfortunately.

[Shindig]

I'm going to see if "What have you got to lose?" washes with any other minorities.

[Bartholomert]

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Trump now leading in the LA Times poll, African American support has increased 600% in the last week. I've said it since last August, he is going to win, anyone who feels otherwise is simply out of touch with the average American.

[Lewis]

So will you be out of touch if he loses?

[John Arne]

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Trump now leading in the LA Times poll, African American support has increased 600% in the last week. I've said it since last August, he is going to win, anyone who feels otherwise is simply out of touch with the average American.

So are all the other polls wrong? Genuine question - every poll I've seen (even Fox polls) have him well behind.

[Bartholomert]

So will you be out of touch if he loses?

Yes. It will be my perception of America is skewed...but still perhaps closer to the Truth than the coastal urbanites who never saw it coming. If it wasn't for the complicity and desperate propaganda efforts of the Establishment, it wouldn't even be close.

[Bartholomert]

So are all the other polls wrong? Genuine question - every poll I've seen (even Fox polls) have him well behind.

They are traditional telephone polls, this one is based on anonymous internet responses. It comes closer to capturing the 'hidden' Trump vote.

[John Arne]

So, all the polls are wrong, except the one that backs up your prediction/hope. Interesting.

[mikem]

@ John_Arne

The LA Times poll (http://cesrusc.org/election/) is interesting in that it is pretty much the only one doing what it does, as per their site:

The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll represents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans' opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000 respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is updated just after midnight every day of the week.

Decide on your own if giving your contact information so that you can be regularly polled is in fact "anonymous".

[mikem]

It matters when you're citing other people's finances as a campaign strategy and when you describe yourself as a 'socialist'. Holding considerable wealth and / or 'exploiting capitalism' to maximise your own financial position could be considered quite hypocritical. A perennial problem for the socialists, unfortunately.

I think Sander's critique is largely overblown and misses the forest for the trees, but this is pantomime villain stuff. His critique is using your wealth to 'exploit government' to maximise your own financial position. Owning a third home (particularly if your job demands you have two residences) is a sign of nothing, nor is whether you have lost money during a campaign. We know where his campaign money came from and that clears him from charges of hypocrisy against taking money from special interests in exchange for policy. And I voted against him because I think his approach to creating policy is hopelessly naïve and his focus is myopic.

[mikem]

I'm going to see if "What have you got to lose?" washes with any other minorities.

This is not actually a pitch at minorities. This is a pitch at the non-racist suburban white Republican that says everything they want to hear about race.

[Bartholomert]

This is not actually a pitch at minorities. This is a pitch at the non-racist suburban white Republican that says everything they want to hear about race.

One speech increased his support among African Americans by 600%. Maybe it is the pitch they want to hear, you're just too racist and prejudiced to see that.

[Bartholomert]

So, all the polls are wrong, except the one that backs up your prediction/hope. Interesting.

All of them are wrong. He is probably up 5-10 points right now.

[GS]

All of them, you say?

[Byron]

One speech increased his support among African Americans by 600%. Maybe it is the pitch they want to hear, you're just too racist and prejudiced to see that.

So what is his support running at now? Ignore the 'increased by 600%' what is his support at among African-Americans and Hispanics?

[Shindig]

They're up to six black guys.

[Bartholomert]

So what is his support running at now? Ignore the 'increased by 600%' what is his support at among African-Americans and Hispanics?

About 15% and 30%, compared to about 5% and 30% for Romney.

But it's still early and there's a large hidden vote component for Trump magnified particularly within those communities.

[ItalAussie]

I'm honestly curious as to what sort of numbers it would take to convince you that Trump was behind? Because if the answer is "nothing", you're not really providing much information content in your posts. Not even a dig - I just would like to know.

[Bartholomert]

I'm honestly curious as to what sort of numbers it would take to convince you that Trump was behind? Because if the answer is "nothing", you're not really providing much information content in your posts. Not even a dig - I just would like to know.

I mean it's pretty well known that there is a 4-10 'hidden' Trump vote captured when the polling is done anonymously combined with a bump that will follow as the polls shift from Registered voters to Likely voters.

To pretend otherwise is sheer irrationality, which would be about par for the course for you...

And that's assuming the polls aren't otherwise manipulated, such as through targeting known Democrat households or asking to speak to the youngest member of the household (with circumstantial evidence suggesting that this has been occurring).

[ItalAussie]

So you're saying if polls reliably had Trump down by more than 10 points, you'd accept that he wasn't secretly winning? If not 10, then how many points would it take?

[Bartholomert]

So you're saying if polls reliably had Trump down by more than 10 points, you'd accept that he wasn't secretly winning? If not 10, then how many points would it take?

If he's down 10 he's losing, if he's down 5 probably a toss up, below he's probably ahead.

[ItalAussie]

If he's down 10 he's losing, if he's down 5 probably a toss up, below he's probably ahead.

Cool. Just wanted to know where you think the line is.

That said, you saw the stats on previous polls that I posted, right? There's no shy Tory effect in the US. In fact, polling averages have overestimated Republican vote in the last four Presidential elections to the tune of between one and two points. I realise that this election is a touch different, but claiming a systematic polling bias against Republicans does rather fly in the face of recent historical polling results.

[Bartholomert]

Yeah but it's different this time and has been empirically proven as much, you haven't shown anything except your own ignorance:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/campaign-stops/how-many-people-support-trump-but-dont-want-to-admit-it.html

How does it feel to just be completely wrong? Embarrassing? Must hurt to have your 'credibility' constantly undermined, your laughably misplaced condescending tone of academic authority exposed as the farce it is.

Stick to math.

[Lewis]

'What have you got to lose?' is such a good pitch. Or it would be with somebody else.

[mikem]

How is 4.8 to 14.1 a 600% increase? How does that math work?

[ItalAussie]

Yeah but it's different this time and has been empirically proven as much, you haven't shown anything except your own ignorance:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/campaign-stops/how-many-people-support-trump-but-dont-want-to-admit-it.html

How does it feel to just be completely wrong? Embarrassing? Must hurt to have your 'credibility' constantly undermined, your laughably misplaced condescending tone of academic authority exposed as the farce it is.

Stick to math.

Literally all I did in the last few posts was to ask what your numerical baseline is (to establish where you're working from), and to point out that there's no history of polling bias in President elections favouring the Democratic candidate (while explicitly allowing that this election might be different).

I think you should probably just chill a little bit.

[elth]

Mert's raging :groove:

[mugbull]

Harold, Chinny, Mert...they're all the same really.

[GS]

768190196298887170

[Kikó]

Reuters are using a biased sample.

I had a Jewish bloke apologise to me about Trump in a bar in NY last night. It was like talking to John Stewart for a night.

No, we didn't exchange numbers.

[Pepe]

But what did he say about the polls? That is all that matters.

[Bartholomert]

lol at citing Reuters:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

[John Arne]

In all seriousness, Mert - I just want to thank you for making me aware that all these polls are incorrect - and alerting me to that one somewhat obscure phone poll that was the best measure. On the back of this great tip, I've placed $300 on Trump. Thanks again, mate.

[Spoonsky]

lol at citing Reuters:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

Slightly off-topic but the other day I saw a big story about Carlos Slim in the New York Times which painted him as somewhat of a supervillain. Thought it was interesting.

[ItalAussie]

Reuters commissioned the study through Ipsos, a polling company. Ipsos gets an A- rating with a historical bias of 0.1 points toward Democrats, which is comfortably within the statistical error margin:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

They don't do phone polls either, which is the big "skewed polls" objection. The fact that it's commissioned by Reuters isn't really important, as they went with a respectable polling outlet that has a strong track record. It's unlikely that they'd sabotage the main selling point of their organisation (polling accuracy) in the service of a short-term scheme three months out from an election.

[elth]

Yeah, but they donated money to save the lives of kids with HIV in Africa mate, they're obviously in the can for Hillary.

To balance that slightly, there were a couple of polls last week that showed small national movements back to Trump, so it's not all Clinton at the moment. The only available recent swing state polling has strongly favoured Clinton, although it's not frequent enough to draw any firm conclusions from at this point.

[mikem]

You are all aware that it is not a national race. If you want to obsess over polls, obsess over state ones.

And by all means, let's denigrate people who donate to the Clinton Foundation, like maybe this guy (http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/133/133404773/133404773_200912_990PF.pdf) (check out the last entry on page 18). Proof of a Clinton plant? Some people say it is.

The worst part of Trump really isn't him; it is that all the assholes like David Duke have started coming out of the woodwork again. Sadly, both the national and the Louisiana Republican party were the two biggest forces trying to kill him off the last time which makes this video horribly depressing. For the uniformed to properly understand his last statement look up the Southern agricultural policy toward the boll weevil since the 1970s. It is not simply Democrats who think that Trump is pushing a racist agenda, the KKK do as well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSMaC28bmQE

[Jimmy Floyd]

There has never been a skewed poll in history. Nobody understands political polling. Political polling makes no money for the companies, in fact it makes a big loss, but it's important for them to be as accurate as possible because it's a good shop window for them to get their name out there and attract business to the more profitable sectors (notably corporate and brand research).

No polling company has ever skewed a poll in the history of polling to favour any party or candidate, and nor will it ever happen.

[Bartholomert]

Reuters commissioned the study through Ipsos, a polling company. Ipsos gets an A- rating with a historical bias of 0.1 points toward Democrats, which is comfortably within the statistical error margin:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

They don't do phone polls either, which is the big "skewed polls" objection. The fact that it's commissioned by Reuters isn't really important, as they went with a respectable polling outlet that has a strong track record. It's unlikely that they'd sabotage the main selling point of their organisation (polling accuracy) in the service of a short-term scheme three months out from an election.

You mean the same Reuters who changed its methodology the day after their poll showed Trump winning? Wake up.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/exclusive-pat-caddell-blasts-reuters-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

[ItalAussie]

Yeah, but they donated money to save the lives of kids with HIV in Africa mate, they're obviously in the can for Hillary.

To balance that slightly, there were a couple of polls last week that showed small national movements back to Trump, so it's not all Clinton at the moment. The only available recent swing state polling has strongly favoured Clinton, although it's not frequent enough to draw any firm conclusions from at this point.

The polls will definitely narrow as the election gets nearer. That's basically a given.

There's still so much narrative to happen between now and the election.

[Pepe]

Will the narrative include polls? I hope it does.

[Kikó]

The narrative is skewed by the liberal media. Everyone knows there is a shy Trump narrative of about 4-5pts.

[Byron]

Only the unbiased ones showing the true state of play; i.e. God Emperor Trump in the lead.

[GS]

Yeah, but they donated money to save the lives of kids with HIV in Africa mate, they're obviously in the can for Hillary.

To balance that slightly, there were a couple of polls last week that showed small national movements back to Trump, so it's not all Clinton at the moment. The only available recent swing state polling has strongly favoured Clinton, although it's not frequent enough to draw any firm conclusions from at this point.

The swing state polls are key, but a heavy national lead for Clinton will certainly shape the media narrative, and thus how the campaigns react, over the next couple of months.

You want to be in a position where the Democrats can take out the Republicans further down the ticket as well, which you would hope is more likely to happen if Clinton can start thumping Trump across the country.

[bruhnaldo]

but a heavy national lead for Clinton will certainly shape the media narrative

The media narrative has been shaped for quite awhile now. Trump is Satan and Clinton "isn't that bad guys, we promise!!"