May 23, 2016

The long and the short view of the Trump vs. Hillary trend in the polls.

I'm seeing things like "For the first time, Trump now leads the average of national polls," complete with this view of the trend line at Real Clear Politics:



That's displaying the last 3 months. But if you back up and take the longest view, going back to last July, you can see that this is the 4th time Trump (more or less) caught up to Hillary:



Trump making up a lot of ground is not a new phenomenon. And the long view shows Hillary repeatedly reestablishing a lead. The graph exaggerates the range, showing us only what's happening in percentage points in the 40s. The 2 keep meeting at a point in the mid-40s, where neither has a majority, and Hillary breaks away and ends up above him. But don't lose your bearings: Since last August, she's barely ever emerged above 50% — on a couple days there in late March.

It is true that Trump is leading in the average for the first time, but only by 0.2, and he got very close to her at 3 other points. If I knew nothing other than this long term trend, I'd predict that Hillary would bounce back up again, that every time President Trump starts to look like a real possibility, Hillary is able to draw off enough people to push him back into the World of Dreams. From that retreat, he builds excitement again.

But I do know something more than that trend line. I know that Trump has the nomination sewn up and Hillary does not, and I think it's likely that the GOP convention will be a wonderful pro-Trump show and the Democratic convention will be a collision of conventional, boring efforts to plump up Hillary and pro-Bernie disruption. That makes me picture Trump's line ascending while Hillary's sinks.

Yet even if that happens, don't you think that over the long course of August, September, and October, she will crawl her way back, cross his line, and emerge the victor? From the down position, she'll be the scrappy fighter, who's fought so damned long for this prize.

And yet, if Trump rises high enough and maintains that position, the central argument against him — This isn't real! He's not normal! — will become unintelligible.

124 comments:

Ann Althouse said...

Typo found in the original post: "The graph exaggerates the rage..."

hawkeyedjb said...

In the end, yes, she will emerge the victor because she wants this so badly. Hillary Clinton's dream - her only real motivation - is to have power over the lives of her fellow citizens. I doubt she cares a whit about anything else, but she wants that so very, very much. Donald Trump can take the presidency or leave it. It was all a lark for him anyway. Hillary can see the serfs trembling before her, and that is what makes life good.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

From the down position, she'll be the scrappy fighter, who's fought so damned long for this prize.

Scrappy fighter is not what I picture when I think about Hillary. But I'm not a Hillary fan or undecided.

Michael K said...

"I think it's likely that the GOP convention will be a wonderful pro-Trump show "

Inside the convention hall but outside will be the left's rage in full view of America, just as in 1968.

I don;t think they can control themselves, especially the black radicals who threaten race war.

"Donald Trump can take the presidency or leave it"

I agree. What struck me in 2000 was the manner of Bush who was relaxed in the debates and who had a life if he lost. Gore had no other life and has proved it by going crazy after he lost. Tipper left him and he got to be fat and looked like a looney.

Amadeus 48 said...

Althouse, this post belongs in the "out on a limb" category in James Taranto's Best of the Web on Opinionjournal Online. In other words, it is a masterpiece of Cruel Neutrality. Who will win and how will they do it? Who knows? Let's speculate!

Ann Althouse said...

"I doubt she cares a whit about anything else, but she wants that so very, very much. Donald Trump can take the presidency or leave it."

But that is why he could win. If we believe — really believe — that she wants it for her personal achievement and not for America and he doesn't need this but (after many years of staying OUT of politics) he felt drawn into it because he perceived a way to do something for America that no one else saw and had the nerve to do, we may decide it's worth the risk — Maybe he does have the vision and judgment.

campy said...

"Yet even if that happens, don't you think that over the long course of August, September, and October, she will crawl her way back, cross his line, and emerge the victor?"

It's a certainty.

By Any Means Necessary.

tim in vermont said...

Cruz wanted it pretty bad too. But this is definitely a kind of peak for Trump having sewn it up and a trough for Hillary as many, but not all of Bernie supporters come back after she finished pegging Bernie.

The thing is that those Bernie supporters are about the only large tranche of votes that Hillary has to draw from. Everybody else has decided against her and are deciding whether or not to even vote.

Bay Area Guy said...

I've always thought Hillary would be a formidable candidate for the simple reason that, institutionally, the Democrat party can get at least 48% of the vote with unions, government employees, leftists, college professors and students, enviros and activists.

They are also good at running up the score in the big cities with dead and/or illegal voters.

However, I'm pleasantly surprised that she has been dinged up by Bernie in the primary, and that Trump has shown some staying power.

Trump has his flaws, but he's eminently preferable to Hillary.

Brando said...

What keeps this race close is that as odious as most voters find each of these candidates, the alternative is also unappealing. This isn't exactly news, so of course it'll remain a relatively close race--partisans will get back in line, and the usual split will reassert itself.

If Hillary were a decent politician, she could have taken that and held a solid if not overwhelming lead all the way through. But she's not that, and every time someone recoils from Trump they have to look at her and say "sheesh, forget that!" It might keep some voters home, but I suspect a lot of conservatives will vote grudgingly for Trump when it's over.

Hillary still has demographic and electoral advantages, but she might yet just be a bad enough politician to squander them. The next couple months into convention season will be telling.

traditionalguy said...

Ah ha. Hillary's support is a crooked line.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Overall I would agree with your analysis. However, Hillary's numbers have broken through their previous level of resistance to reach new lows. Previously, every time she hit about 44% she bounced back up. Not this time. It could be a onetime occurrence or signal a change in the trend. We will see.

BDNYC said...

Trump's going to win. People's opinions of him are far more malleable. I was stridently opposed to him, but I've softened and am starting to see him as a positive, disruptive force in politics and culture. He's unscripted and entertaining. He's unpredictable and not an ideologue. And as others have noted, he is rich enough that he can take it or leave it. He's not a power-hungry crook like Hillary who needs to keep her family's political machine up and running in order to have a livelihood (and to stay out of jail).

There's much about him I dislike but at least he isn't Hillary. Many people will be pushed to that same conclusion in November.

tim in vermont said...

Can you imagine Trump glued to a Teleprompter, or mindlessly repeating her personal campaign goals as if they should be America's goals?

We have to make Trump seem not normal...

Do we, Hillary?

JPS said...

Prof. Althouse,

"don't you think that over the long course of August, September, and October, she will crawl her way back, cross his line, and emerge the victor?" You make a good case but my gut says no.

If I try to rationalize that feeling: Both bases will largely reconcile themselves to supporting their party's candidate. There will be more holdouts than usual - NeverTrumpers and die-hard Sanders voters - but these will be similar in number. I know more Sanders people who'd give Trump a shot than NeverTrump conservative purists who'd vote for Hillary. Not a decisive factor, but it's not that Trump has this huge problem with a purist base where Hillary wouldn't.

Then there's that 20% in the middle. I just don't see them breaking for a candidate who epitomizes the establishment, in a year where a large majority of the country thinks we're on the wrong track - and has largely held off blaming the current president. The one running on an extensive resume of government experience would have to be a very, very skilled candidate. She isn't.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think this could very well be fun. Hillary doesn't do defense very well - she is too slow and rigid. She has little flexibility, and doesn't change direction very quickly. Very methodical. Her strength is in amassing overwhelming advantage, then using it to move inexorably to her goal. This would probably work against a traditional Republican foe, grinding them down over the months until November, but not, I think, against Trump, who is so much more agile and flexible than she is. And yes, thanks to him, she has lost control of the national dialog, which her minions and sycophants in the MSM were supposed to control for her.

damikesc said...

Yet even if that happens, don't you think that over the long course of August, September, and October, she will crawl her way back, cross his line, and emerge the victor? From the down position, she'll be the scrappy fighter, who's fought so damned long for this prize.

It still ignores that she is a brutally terrible candidate. The more people see her, the less they like her. The media cannot give her a friendly ignoring of everything during a general. She's been helped by weak opposition (if Giuliani didn't have to drop out due to health, she'd have never made the Senate in the first place)...still is, to be honest. Sanders is a laughably horrible candidate.

She'd best pray that Reese Witherspoon doesn't come out to support her. Tracy Flick comparisons would not be good for her.

Peter said...

Given the reluctance of many to publicly declare for Trump (even as the lesser of two evils), I'm inclined to think Trump's poll numbers underestimate his strength while Clinton's at best may be approximately accurate.

tim in vermont said...

We are offered the choice of lesser fascism, If Trump keeps his word on the SCOTUS, it's temporary, unlike with Hillary.

traditionalguy said...

Seriously, Hillary is making all of the wrong moves and seems clueless as to how little people like her. The more she campaigns, the more she reminds people of how little she has to offer them.

There is also a strong analogy between Brexit and Trump. Both movements have sprung up to support Nationalism and resist years of slowly crafted submission under self appointed international organizations.

Sydney said...

I've always thought Hillary would be a formidable candidate for the simple reason that, institutionally, the Democrat party can get at least 48% of the vote with unions, government employees, leftists, college professors and students, enviros and activists.

They are also good at running up the score in the big cities with dead and/or illegal voters.


I agree, and if Hillary wins, this is why. But- she is not liked by her own party, that's for sure. She only wins in the cities where the party machines vote for her. I'm betting some of those union guys and students will break for Trump in the general election.

Brando said...

The election may come down to whether anti-Trump conservatives or anti-Hillary liberals (aka, Sanders fans) are more likely to get back in line. So far, the former seem to be doing so, though for the latter the primaries aren't over yet. A halfway decent politician would be able to get Sanders and his people on board in time for the convention, but then this is Hillary we're talking about. She might just create enough of a rift to keep a lot of them home, or voting third party. It certainly doesn't help that she has world-class moron Debbie Schultz shilling for her in such a hamhanded way that it looks like the Dem contest is rigged.

My question--who on earth decided to keep DWS in charge of the DNC after the Dems got pummeled in 2014? Usually they replace chairs after four years (she was in charge in the 2012 cycle too if I recall correctly) and she has been a joke of a spokesman. And to top it off, she's such an obvious Hillary partisan that it can't help but look unfair for her to have any role in the nomination process. And in Clintonite fashion, it's not even necessary to rig the nomination--Hillary is leading Bernie even by proportional delegate counts (if only by a relatively narrow margin). Who cheats when they're winning? People who cheat just to cheat, that's who.

I'd noted before that Trump could beat Hillary if major events (recession, terror attack) take place, but need to add to that the sheer incompetence of Hillary's team, that may actually split their party in a way that leaves them hobbled for the fall.

Brando said...

"I'm inclined to think Trump's poll numbers underestimate his strength while Clinton's at best may be approximately accurate."

That can be verified--has he overperformed his polls in the primaries?

jacksonjay said...

Numbers don't matter at this point. As soon as the Democrats settle on a candidate, they will recruit Chris Rock and Amy Schumer to work their magic on Trump. He'll be toast! Mockery works!

campy said...

"I'm betting some of those union guys and students will break for Trump in the general election."

Even if they do, their votes will still be tallied in the Hillary! column.

Bill Peschel said...

Again, it's going to be the media that's going to decide this. If The New York Times devoted half the effort they've expended on Trump's past as on Hillary's, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

They're going to drag her across the finish line just like they did for Obama, and they'll dredge up every smear attempt they could to do it (remember the Times bringing up Bush's alleged affair and ancient DUI in the week before the election?)

They are truly vile creatures.

Michael K said...

"institutionally, the Democrat party can get at least 48% of the vote with unions,"

I'm not sure that applies to the non-government unions anymore.

Obama is another candidate whose numbers get better when he is NOT in public but he has the black thing working for him. The bathroom wars will probably dilute the black enthusiasm. The anti-gay marriage initiative in California was passed by black churches.

M Jordan said...

The standard interpretation of Trump is that he's crazy, unserious, dangerously dumb. People give way too little credit to the view that Trump is crazy like a fox. This is the Scott Adams' view and he's absolutely right. Consider the idea, expressed above by one commenter, that Trump can take or leave the presidency, that he's in it on a lark. Evidence? None that I can see. He's spent a lot of his own money, traveled many miles, done a million interviews, put his kids out there as advocates ... this isn't a man fooling around.

More telling, in 2012 right after Romney lost to Obama, Trump trademarked the slogan "Make America Great Again." This man has a goal and is willing to pay a high social price to accomplish it.

One might say, "Okay, he isn't just dinking around, but he sure isn't smart." Really? The man who utterly carved up a field of 16 supposedly uber-qualified candidates and who has now, against all punditry expectations taken the lead over Hillary? The same man who helped rescue New York City from its seedy malaise in the 70s and 80s at the ripe old age of 30?

Trump has a goal, he understands persuasion, and he is shrewdly going about achieving his goal. It's time to make that the narrative.

MadisonMan said...

That can be verified--has he overperformed his polls in the primaries?

Has Hillary underperformed would be another way to ask that. I'm thinking yes: Michigan. Stupendous fail on Hillary's part.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Politico is going with the old "Trump is mobbed up" line.

What I find amazing is they put this in the article:

Salerno and Castellano and other mob families controlled both the concrete business and the unions involved in delivering and pouring it. The risks this created became clear from testimony later by Irving Fischer, the general contractor who built Trump Tower. Fischer said concrete union “goons” once stormed his offices, holding a knife to throat of his switchboard operator to drive home the seriousness of their demands, which included no-show jobs during construction of Trump Tower.

But with Cohn as his lawyer, Trump apparently had no reason to personally fear Salerno or Castellano—at least, not once he agreed to pay inflated concrete prices. What Trump appeared to receive in return was union peace. That meant the project would never face costly construction or delivery delays.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910#ixzz49UIfId4q

Wouldn't that make Trump the victim of an extortion racket?

Just wondering.

M Jordan said...

This election isn't really even about Trump v. Hillary. It's Trump v. Obama. Obama famously said, "You didn't build that." Trump's response: "Oh yes I did." It's two worldviews right there. Hillary, to her sorrow, is going to find that her siding with Obama's (and Bernie's which is the same "You didn't build that" philosophy plus "Gimme your money") has given her no rebuttal to Trump. None.

And thus she will lose big because Americans are interested now in exploring the "Oh yes I did build that" view once again.

Bob Boyd said...

Each one of Hillary's lows was a little bit lower, both on the the graph and in life.

Bob Boyd said...

When Bernie throws in the towel or dies suddenly, Hillary will benefit.

Paul said...

You know what hasn't happened before when Clinton bounced back?

Trump and Clinton head to head in the 24 hour news cycle and debates. Trump is going to chew her up and spit her out. There will be no media blackouts or media protection for her. He will expose her ugliness and venality like never before and her clumsy attempts at defense will just make her look weak and incompetent.

Plus the electorate simply doesn't want more of the same this time. Everything is aligned for a Trump landslide.

Of course she could she could wind up not being the candidate, or he could wind up dead. Then everything will need to be recalculated.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

This is from an article in nypost.com

While she was becoming politically aware at Wellesley, he was studying business at Fordham and Penn and then going building to building in his suit and tie collecting rent from straggling tenants in his father’s buildings in Brooklyn and Queens.

That shows a real toughness. I invite anyone who laughs at Trump to get a job collecting rent money (or any other debt) door to door.

H said...

Trump has bounced back from the last couple months, but is still basically where he has been since last September. What is driving this is the steep decline in Clinton. Maybe it's people feeling the Bern, but I believe it is more and more people thinking seriously for the first time about a Hillary CLinton presidency and rejecting it.

Big Mike said...

Yet even if that happens, don't you think that over the long course of August, September, and October, she will crawl her way back, cross his line, and emerge the victor?

Gosh, for the sake of the country I certainly hope not.

From the down position, she'll be the scrappy fighter, who's fought so damned long for this prize.

But why? Because the opportunities for graft are so much greater as president? This is a singularly corrupt individual and it strains the imagination to picture her suddenly caring about the impact of her policies on ordinary men and women. This is a woman who just doesn't care who she hurts or why.

MikeR said...

"The election may come down to whether anti-Trump conservatives or anti-Hillary liberals (aka, Sanders fans) are more likely to get back in line." As I've pointed out earlier, these are very different issues. If Trump starts to act halfway normal and moderate, the conservatives will settle down and get back in line. They already knew that he wasn't conservative, but he is certainly more conservative than Clinton. Their problem with him was that he's _awful_; if he tones that down a little, they'll settle down. And Independents will like that he's acting moderate.
Clinton, on the other hand, is pulled in two directions. If she tacks to the middle, she's going to infuriate her Sanders supporters, who are already furious with her. If she does things to pacify the Sanders supporters, she will lose the whole middle.

Henry said...

@Ron Winkleheimer - your two quotes remind me of Back to School, particularly this clip:

Oh you left out a bunch of stuff....First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts.

It turns out that Trump is Rodney Dangerfield. Earlier in the clip, Dangerfield's character drops a racial slur, so there you have it.

mccullough said...

Hillary is playing not to lose. Never a good strategy, especially early in a national campaign. She is terrible at adjustments and Trump is all about adjustments and flexibility.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

If she tacks to the middle, she's going to infuriate her Sanders supporters, who are already furious with her. If she does things to pacify the Sanders supporters, she will lose the whole middle.

A large section of the Democrat base appears to have gone full socialist.

This is a problem for the Democrat party, at least for the short term, because a lot of people have not yet been indoctrinated into the socialist mind set, yet.

A sufficient number of people old enough to remember when socialism was a bad thing still exist to prevent full socialism from being instituted, for now.

The GOPe issue is that its base has finally found someone who will actually represent their interests, or at least talks as if he will.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Henry

Yeah, I love that movie.

Phil 3:14 said...

"The election may come down to whether anti-Trump conservatives or anti-Hillary liberals (aka, Sanders fans) are more likely to get back in line"

Is this like the line outside the Apple Store waiting to buy the new iPhone or like the one at the DMV?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Though I must admit, I would have preferred it if Sally Kellerman was the cheating eventual ex-spouse and Adrienne Barbeau had been the sexy college professor. Worst case of miscasting ever in my opinion.

Paul said...

Listening to Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer enthuse over Trump's economic platform makes me think the NeverTrump camp will shrink down to a tiny and insignificant lunatic fringe. You can even see it in the commenters here as the more rational have accepted Trump and many are actually warming to him, while a very few emotionally unhinged individuals remain incorrigible and run by demonic levels of hatred.

Meanwhile Hillary can be expected to generate no enthusiasm at all and consequently a very low turnout.

Gusty Winds said...

The trend line is showing us that Trump is doing what pundits, except a few, said he couldn't do. Looks like he is doing exactly what Scott Adams predicted.

In March, Milwaukee Radio was a broken record with #nevertrump general election blowout predictions. Now even that douchebag Bill Kristol tweets "I underestimated your skill as a demagogue, and the credulity of some of the Amercan Public".

What a dick. Credulity. Wasn't Kristol part of the gang that said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq?

Trump still represents the same thing he did in Sept '15.

The end of the credibility of a lot of people who need their empty credibility ended.

And he will gain support with each of their hyperventilated breaths.

Richard Dolan said...

Conventional analysis hasn't worked out well this cycle, either for the Dems or the Reps. No reason to expect it will work any better for the rest of the cycle.

Hillary! seems determined to go with the approach that's worked in the past, but has flopped in this cycle. Her pitch is all about making the other candidate unacceptable -- he's too far out there, so you've got to stick with the safer, tried-and-true. If that was going to work, Sanders would have long since been dispatched to has-been territory, and the Reps would be well on their way to nominating Rubio.

On both sides, there has been a revolt from below against the team in charge. Some of that has to do with the team currently in the White House -- the Choom gang, the cool kids who sneered at the geeks and jocks and just about everyone else. Whatever the voters may think about the Cool Kid In Chief, they've pretty much had it with that crowd. Hillary! comes across as the perennial kid who really, really wants to be president of the student council, but is so pathetically craven and desperate that most of the other kids can't stand her. Trump is the odd-ball frat-boy with the rich daddy. Not all that popular either, but at least he is occasionally entertaining.

That's what this cycle has served up. Go help America. But don't expect it will play out conventionally.

Gusty Winds said...

President Trump parody account on Twitter:

Hillary's poll numbers are dropping faster than Bills trousers in an Arkansas trailer park.

Nonapod said...

There's not much I can add to this discussion that hasn't already been said above me other than to keep in mind that when you look at this stuff and you're trying to infer an outcome, you should really try to avoid projecting your own desires. Being truly objective is difficult.

Despite the fact that Hillary is horrible at campaigning, if you'd like to see Trump win, you should really try to keep in mind a few things:

1) Never underestimate the Democrat machine. This can not be overstated.

2) (corollary to the first point) Any GOP candidate has to surpass the margin of fraud in the critical swing states. That's no easy task.

3) Unforeseeable events (so called "Black Swans"). The assumption that some future crisis would only benefit Trump and conversely only hurt Hillary might not be true in every case. In some cases the deciding factor might not be the event itself but each candidates immediate responses to the event. Trump has a habit of reacting to things quickly and bombastically, blurting out inflammatory and/or provocative statements. This could in turn elicit a counter response by Hillary that could be perceived as more level headed. Don't dismiss the power of that.

Johnathan Birks said...

It's really a shame only one of them can lose.

Writ Small said...

A divided opposition has always been there for Trump. It's as if enough people on the other side don't take him seriously enough to join forces.

One thing I would like to see added to that graph is a tracking of "undecideds," both R- and D-leaning. I imagine lots of R-leaners have run out of options and are climbing aboard the Trump missile while the D-leaners can still nurture Bernie-inspired purism.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Every day when I turn on the news in the morning and hear my first bit of the current "Trump is running for POTUS and is a viable candidate" news I still get the feeling that I have somehow wandered into a parallel universe.

Tommy Duncan said...

...the Democratic convention will be a collision of conventional, boring efforts to plump up Hillary...

"plump up Hillary"?

She'll need a larger tent-jacket for her pants suit.

Perhaps Ann meant "pump up Hillary", which also conjures up a disturbing visual.

Brando said...

"Has Hillary underperformed would be another way to ask that. I'm thinking yes: Michigan. Stupendous fail on Hillary's part."

I mean for the specific question of whether Trump voters are not telling pollsters they plan to vote for him--if that's the case, we'd likely see him overperforming the polls.

"Is this like the line outside the Apple Store waiting to buy the new iPhone or like the one at the DMV?"

I'm thinking the line for toilet paper in the USSR.

"Clinton, on the other hand, is pulled in two directions. If she tacks to the middle, she's going to infuriate her Sanders supporters, who are already furious with her. If she does things to pacify the Sanders supporters, she will lose the whole middle."

She's counting on the Sanders people realizing she's the only thing stopping Trump from being president, and getting over their distaste for her. The opposite is happening on the GOP side--hatreds from the primaries get overshadowed when the real threat emerges.

Trump may try and come at her from her left--at least on trade and Wall Street--but I don't know if he can go full socialist in the way that would get the actual Bernie demographic to vote for him (or at least be at peace with him as president), not without bleeding off Republicans. More likely he sticks with a coalition of the right and the right-leaning center, and tries to make Hillary odious enough that moderates leave her or stay home.

My hunch, anyway--he's malleable enough to really try anything. Hillary is the more predictable one.

Kristian Holvoet said...

But isn't the key problem the more Jillary is the center of attention, the more that people really don't like her? How is that going to get better? Even a full media press against Trump may not work the way it did again 'Maverick' McCain and Romney. At some point, the Dem candidate can be so freaking bad (Gore, Kerry, Coakley), that even the water carriers can't get them over the line.

JPS said...

Paul, 9:51:

"the more rational have accepted Trump and many are actually warming to him"

I for one haven't and am not. Do I have to be irrational? Isn't it possible I just rationally don't like several aspects of his candidacy?

"while a very few emotionally unhinged individuals"

I am entirely hinged. I'm actually kind of amused to be taking a breather this year, as I've cared a great deal about every election since and including 1984. This time, I can finally see why those independents feel so annoyingly self-congratulatory and above it all. In fact, if you were to call me smug and falsely superior, you might have a point. But unhinged? Naah.

"remain incorrigible"

So becoming a Trump supporter would mean I've been "corrected"? The last person to "correct" me was a noncommissioned officer. I've mostly sworn off corrigibility since then.

"and run by demonic levels of hatred."

Here you're just getting overwrought, and you make the mistake of assuming all the people you oppose are correctly represented by the worst of the people you oppose. I would warn any Trump supporter against going down that road: The more rational of us can easily see you and raise you.

buwaya puti said...

Nonapod is right.

rcocean said...

People need to remember there are a big block of idiots who don't start to think about politics until Labor Day.

They usually decide the POTUS elections. Of course, this election might be different, since Trump and Hillary have been in the news for months.

Another difference is that the MSM and the Republican Cucks have been throwing mud at Trump ever since August. I can't think of any nominee that's been trashed for so long and yet keeps a base of support. As a result, I don't see Trump wilting under a negative campaign by Hillary.

Michael K said...

"Trump has a habit of reacting to things quickly and bombastically, blurting out inflammatory and/or provocative statements. This could in turn elicit a counter response by Hillary that could be perceived as more level headed. Don't dismiss the power of that."

Yes but he has been right on so much that he has a cushion. Everyone but Hillary believes the Egyptair plane was terrorism. Even the Egyptians.

The anti-Trump crowd on both sides is paralyzed by PC.

We will see riots outside the GOP convention this summer and riots inside the Dims convention unless they figure out a way to pacify the Bernie supporters.

Michael K said...

Oh, and the air is leaking out of the tires of the BLM movement.

Baltimore Police Officer Edward Nero was found not guilty on Monday for his alleged role in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray a year ago.

Nero, 30, was facing misdemeanor charges of second-degree assault and two counts of misconduct in office for his part in Gray’s arrest. He was also charged with reckless endangerment for shackling Gray and placing him in a police van without buckling his seatbelt. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Nero is the second of six officers to stand trial in connection to the death of Gray, a black man who sustained a fatal spinal cord injury in police custody on April 12, 2015. Gray died from his injuries a week later, on April 19, sparking citywide protests against police brutality. After his funeral on April 27, the unrest intensified — residents looted stores and set fires, and protesters threw rocks and other items at police lines.

Baltimore Police Officer William Porter was the first to stand trial, in December, but the jury could not reach a verdict. Unlike Porter, Nero opted for a bench trial.


The second guy was smarter. Juries in Baltimore are as stupid as the rioters.

BrianE said...

National polls are irrelevant. There are 50 elections for president.
There are probably six states of the 50 that will decide the next president.

YoungHegelian said...

@Michael K

and riots inside the Dims convention unless they figure out a way to pacify the Bernie supporters.

We could always help calm the waters by opening up a stand outside the Democratic Convention that sells the severed heads of Kulaks. That way the rioters wouldn't have to go find their own.

Henry said...

@JPS. Well stated.

boycat said...

If you haven't "accepted" Trump yet, get over it. Jeb's not coming back.

Lance said...

Clinton's numbers go up when she's out of the news. Otherwise they go down. Whenever there's a break in her email server debacle, the news covers it for a couple days and her numbers go down. Then Trump says something outrageous and we go back to 100% Trump coverage and her numbers go back up. Rinse repeat.

Trump's very good at dominating the news cycle. In the head-to-head with Clinton, that may not be an asset.

mockturtle said...

and the Democratic convention will be a collision of conventional, boring efforts to plump up Hillary and pro-Bernie disruption.

I see something akin to the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Great for the media, painful for everyone else.

Michael K said...

"a stand outside the Democratic Convention that sells the severed heads of Kulaks."

You should read Fred Siegel's book, The Revolt Against the Masses.

Bay Area Guy said...

I do think, eventually, Hillary gets the nomination. Too much power and prestige at stake for Dems to let young socialist rabble rousers get a title shot for their underemployed Vermont hero, the aged- ex hippie, Mr. Bernie.

Also, I don't think Hillary will be indicted by lackey Loretta Lynch.

So, Hillary gets the nomination. And starts with California and NY in the bag.

Can Trump pick up blue states like Mich and Penn? Possibly, by hammering trade agreements and focusing on coal counties in Penn.

Since they left office, Hillary and Bill made $153 Million, not producing anything, mind you, but by leveraging their political contacts and Hillary's power at State, via their Clinton Foundation.

It's a good gig if you can get it. It's fun to be a One Percenter, I reckon.

Can Trump peel off Bernie voters or convince them to not vote or vote Green? Possibly, particularly if he hammers Hillary on her greed, her support of wars, her bond with Goldman Sachs, and Bill's rapist past.

It will be exciting and close, but I'm starting to think that Trump can pull it off.

J. D. said...

I'm curious to see polls with third party candidates included. I keep hearing how unpopular Trump and Clinton are, so why aren't more polls including other candidates? The only one I've heard of had Gary Johnson at 11% which is a 500% improvement over his performance as the Libertarian candidate in '12, and within striking distance of having to be included in the debates. In theory, all the right third party candidate would need to do is prevent either candidate from reaching 270 to have a shot at being elected by a Republican controlled house that doesn't want to back Trump.

Fabi said...

These polls are incorrect. The NeverTrumpers stated emphatically that no one could ever come back after trailing by double-digits.

MikeR said...

"She's counting on the Sanders people realizing she's the only thing stopping Trump from being president". Yeah. But some of them don't actually _mind_ Trump that much. They aren't just leftists, they're leftists who hate the establishment. And Trump is the other anti-establishment candidate, who blew up his side just as Sanders blew up his side.
I don't know if many of them will actually vote for Trump, but a lot of them might say, "I'm sure Clinton thinks he's dangerous, but I don't know if I do. Maybe he's more dangerous to her and her cronies than to me."

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cubanbob said...

JPS said...
Paul, 9:51:

"the more rational have accepted Trump and many are actually warming to him"

I for one haven't and am not. Do I have to be irrational? Isn't it possible I just rationally don't like several aspects of his candidacy?

"while a very few emotionally unhinged individuals"

I am entirely hinged. I'm actually kind of amused to be taking a breather this year, as I've cared a great deal about every election since and including 1984. This time, I can finally see why those independents feel so annoyingly self-congratulatory and above it all. In fact, if you were to call me smug and falsely superior, you might have a point. But unhinged? Naah."

Unhinged? Most definitely. Smug and falsely superior? Without a doubt. Let us be clear; Clinton is a criminal and a traitor, there is no dispute in that. Her actions speak for themselves. So between the carnival barker and the felonious traitor there is a real difference and sitting it out is voting for the criminal.

jr565 said...

Madison Man wrote:
That can be verified--has he overperformed his polls in the primaries?

Has Hillary underperformed would be another way to ask that. I'm thinking yes: Michigan. Stupendous fail on Hillary's part.

But this is because Hillary is still facing Bernie Sanders, and he is very popular. But once he's out of the way (FINALLY, at least from Hillary's perspective) how many people are going to be Never Hillary types?
I just don't see a lot of 3rd party supporters on the dem side, except for some extremists like Susan Sarandon. But she learned her lesson when the third party was Ralph nader. She is not going to stick to her guns and vote against party.
Most dems/libs are not that committed to principle, where they'd let a Trump win over Hillary, as much as they might hate her personally.
The Never Trumpers need to have the same attitude. If he's actually pulling even with her,then for god sakes, dont pull out the rug from under your own sides feet. Help him win, and once in office THEN hold him accountable for his governance.

Brando said...

"I for one haven't and am not. Do I have to be irrational? Isn't it possible I just rationally don't like several aspects of his candidacy?"

Some Trump fans make the same mistake as the people they mock--they cannot fathom that anyone thinks differently than they do, so those people have to be stupid or crazy.

I don't think I could ever get on board the Trump train, but can see that among his fans there's a range from crazed hero-worshippers to bigoted know-nothings to sane, intelligent people who simply see him through a different lens than we Trump critics do (e.g., where we see unreliability, they see flexibility). But to some of the more intemperate Trump fans, anyone who has not been enlightened by the glory of Trump can only be on the GOPe payroll, or incredibly stupid or crazy, because the possibility of honest disagreement is too far out there.

Brando said...

"Yeah. But some of them don't actually _mind_ Trump that much. They aren't just leftists, they're leftists who hate the establishment. And Trump is the other anti-establishment candidate, who blew up his side just as Sanders blew up his side."

That'll depend a lot on whether Trump gets viewed as simply "populist outsider" or "right wing outsider"--which is where his conservative critics may do him a favor by making the point that he's no real conservative. But the Sanders fans are knowingly backing a self-described socialist--these are the OWSers, the marchers and college kids who don't like Hillary because she's too tainted by big money. Trump would have to pull off a real big maneuver to appeal to those people (without losing his more conservative backers).

tim in vermont said...

The idea that he can't win that people like Chuck are pushing is out the window, but I guess they were just throwing stuff against the proverbial wall.

Michael K said...

But to some of the more intemperate Trump fans, anyone who has not been enlightened by the glory of Trump can only be on the GOPe payroll, or incredibly stupid or crazy, because the possibility of honest disagreement is too far out there.

I agree but I have warmed to him over the past year, partly due to the enemies he has made.

If another GOP candidate with a more conventional history had adopted his positions on illegal and Muslim immigration, the real positions, not the NY Times versions, Trump would not be a factor.

This is about the issues, not Trump's celebrity. Nobody else adopted them and they all recoiled in horror. Ex-Senator Bob Bennet is all over the news because he apologized to Muslims as he was dying.

You just cannot parody people this sincere in their delusions.

New York Jews are horrified at Trump's treatment of Muslims while Britain's Jews are seeing the surge in anti-Semitism imported with Muslims. France's Jews are leaving for Israel.

Illegals from Mexico are spreading diseases, especially TB.

Nobody but Trump is talking about this.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Nobody but Trump is talking about this.

I think the revolt against the establishment is fueled by the establishment's absolute refusal, whether out of ideology or fear or whatever, to discuss the actual issues that actual people want to actually discuss.

The establishment on both sides see our current situation as normal and right.

They believe in a technocratic model of governance, but a lot of people have come to the conclusion that the government is being ran for the benefit of the technocrats, not them.

And of course they are correct.

Technocratic government was always going to be government by and for the technocrats.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Thus you have Obama dictating restroom usage rules for all schools in the US. The idea that such matters are outside his pervue would never have occurred to him. If anyone suggested it he most likely dismissed that as outmoded thinking.

After all, we are in an historical moment and needed to be on the right side of history.

Wonder if he compared himself to Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase?

More likely Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation.

I hearby state Ron Winkleheimer's law, "If someone pronounces something to be on the right or wrong side of history that person is an idiot and their opinion can be discounted as both uninformed and uneducated."

CStanley said...

Agree with Nonapod. Between the electoral map and fraud, it will be amazing if the GOP ever takes the White House back.

I keep looking for silver linings in the Trump candidacy. I don't think he can win (though I'm less certain about that than I once was) but maybe if he loses he makes it his mission to expose the vote fraud.

Ann Althouse said...

"Plump up" was intended. It's the action done, say, to a pillow to make it appear big.

"Pump up" would be wrong. You pump up the team, get it excited about something. That's not what I am picturing happening to the audience, and the convention wouldn't do that TO the candidate.

Szoszolo said...

It's not just that Hillary wants it; she thinks she's entitled to it. She's been the presumptive nominee since Obama won his second term.

She's got her years of experience, she's luring voters with the idea of making a second historic change -- first a (half) black president and now a woman president. It all smacks of inevitability and a script being played out.

I don't think her desires and her entitled attitude will work in her favor in the general election. I have a very negative reaction to it. It's not the main reason I'm not voting for her, but I think it may make undecided voters uneasy, and Sanders is going to keep capitalizing on it.

TheThinMan said...

Considering Marco's taunting in the primaries and Hillary's record of defending rapists, as both wife and lawyer, it's fitting that the long-term chart you show makes the shape of a penis. Trump's? Bill's? The one Hillary straps on? (Well, at least metaphorically, as she's been screwing us for decades).

FullMoon said...

Michael K said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"institutionally, the Democrat party can get at least 48% of the vote with unions,"

I'm not sure that applies to the non-government unions anymore.

Obama is another candidate whose numbers get better when he is NOT in public but he has the black thing working for him. The bathroom wars will probably dilute the black enthusiasm. The anti-gay marriage initiative in California was passed by black churches.

Umm, that was pro traditional marriage. Passed resoundingly, overturned by gay judge.
BTW, my friends and I are voting Sanders in Ca primary, just for fun

Paul said...

Well JPS there are always exceptions to the rule but you just have to look at Chuck, Simon, and a few others to validate my claims of emotional unhinged-ness and demonic hatred.

Now you haven't stated that you are a "NeverTrumper" just that you don't like him, correct? If you are actually going to vote Hillary or a third party then I challenge your claim of rationality. If you just don't like Trump because of his style that's fine. I can understand that. Rational people can disagree, but anyone who claims to be "conservative" but will vote for Hillary in protest against Trump is truly unhinged. Sorry.

Brando said...

"Agree with Nonapod. Between the electoral map and fraud, it will be amazing if the GOP ever takes the White House back."

Yeah, it's been an uphill battle since the '90s. Demographics and shifts of white suburbanites have put the GOP nominees in the position of needing almost every swing state to go their way, while the Dems just have to win a few of them.

FullMoon said...

Ron Winkleheimer said... [hush]​[hide comment]

This is from an article in nypost.com

While she was becoming politically aware at Wellesley, he was studying business at Fordham and Penn and then going building to building in his suit and tie collecting rent from straggling tenants in his father’s buildings in Brooklyn and Queens.

That shows a real toughness. I invite anyone who laughs at Trump to get a job collecting rent money (or any other debt) door to door.


Young white guy in suit and tie with pockets full of rent cash ? Yep, takes some guts.

Michael K said...

"Umm, that was pro traditional marriage. Passed resoundingly, overturned by gay judge. "

Yeah. Poor phrasing.

Overturned by gay judge who then "married" his gay partner.

Sammy Finkelman said...

In Ohio, Clinton has a larger lead, over Trump than in Florida.

How does this make sense? Isn't Florida a more Democratic state than Ohio?

I think this is may be caused by the fact that Ohio does not have voter registration by party and Florida does. So if you try to get the sample to have the right number of people in each party, the Ohio poll will overcorrect, because people who do not intend to vote for Hillary Clinton will tend not to declare themselves Democrats, so you are left with only people who intend to vote for Hillary, but you still assume the same percentage as in the last poll are Democrats..

Freder Frederson said...

Young white guy in suit and tie with pockets full of rent cash ? Yep, takes some guts.

Why is him being white of any significance at all? Especially considering that Trump's father avoided renting to minorities and as late as 1973 was sued by the Feds for violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump's discriminatory practices apparently continued well into the 1980's.

Freder Frederson said...

Between the electoral map and fraud, it will be amazing if the GOP ever takes the White House back.

Please provide any evidence of significant voter fraud over the last several election cycles.

You can't

Brando said...

"Why is him being white of any significance at all? Especially considering that Trump's father avoided renting to minorities and as late as 1973 was sued by the Feds for violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump's discriminatory practices apparently continued well into the 1980's."

Yes, but some of those overcharged old ladies could be quite nasty.

Michael K said...

"Please provide any evidence of significant voter fraud over the last several election cycles.

You can't"

Freder, are you also Ritmo ?

We went through this yesterday. I posted a half dozen links.

FullMoon said...

Freder Frederson said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Young white guy in suit and tie with pockets full of rent cash ? Yep, takes some guts.

Why is him being white of any significance at all? Especially considering that Trump's father avoided renting to minorities and as late as 1973 was sued by the Feds for violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump's discriminatory practices apparently continued well into the 1980's.


Being white is significant to people like you, who assume minorities are dangerous, as evidenced by your comment.
My mistake is the assumption that personally collecting rent means dealing with scofflaws. Lesson learned from being involved with property management business'.

Anecdotally, I learned at twelve years old that collecting for my paper route early Sunday morning was best way to avoid being chased by teen-age punks hoping to make a "collection" of their own.

Freder Frederson said...

Being white is significant to people like you

Being white is apparently significant to you. We all know Trump is white, why did you feel a need to mention it?

Freder, are you also Ritmo ?

I am not Ritmo.

Why would I post under two different names?

And if I were and you had provided some bullshit examples of isolated incidents of somebody fraudulently voting in the recent past or messed up voter roles (which are not evidence of fraud), I would have addressed your "evidence" then (and I use the scare quotes, because I have seen the websites you rely on for information) instead of bringing it up anew the next day.

Michael K said...

"instead of bringing it up anew the next day."

Freder, it's obvious you don't read previous posts. Vote fraud is an old technique of Democrats which is hard to prosecute because the most fraud occurs in cities run by Democrats. I'm sure you would not notice anything. You are a member of the far left which likes vote fraud when is helps your guys and you c]scream about "voter suppression" when someone tries to get voter ID, like they have in every other country in the world, enforced here.

Freder Frederson said...

Freder, it's obvious you don't read previous posts.

Guilty as charged. I don't have the time to read every post on this blog.

Yes, this country has a long and inglorious history of vote fraud, and yes the heavily Democratic industrial cities were indeed particularly egregious offenders in the 20th century. But past performance is not indicative of the current situation, notwithstanding your bias.

If you can point me to the post where this was discussed I will tear your links apart with real facts.

StephenFearby said...

Given the flaws of human nature, I've never voted FOR someone to be President.

It always boiled down to voting against the greater of the two presented evils.

That's why the independent vote will decide the election.

Michael K said...

Freder, life is too short to get into circular debates with looney people. I would rather discuss airplane safety or China's coming crash or any number of other topics, like genetics, for example.

You keep thinking there was no vote fraud in Milwaukee or Philadelphia and the adults will go on to other topics.

FullMoon said...

Freder Frederson said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Being white is significant to people like you

Being white is apparently significant to you. We all know Trump is white, why did you feel a need to mention it?


Umm, because I am a poorly educated, bigoted racist, obviously.... and from personal experience as a white guy being chased by "Los Bandidos" and their younger auxiliary the "Top Hats" as well as various independent ner do wells.

Now, why did you assume minorities are dangerous?

hawkeyedjb said...

The best evidence of vote fraud is the screaming of the Party of Fraud every time even the smallest attempt to stop such fraud is proposed. I can't think of any civilized nation that allows such wide-open and obvious invitations to phony votes as the USA does.

Maybe the fraud-enablers really do believe that their welfare pets are so incompetent at minimal civic tasks that they can't possibly get to a government office to acquire an ID card. That objection is belied by the obvious evidence of all the other government-supplied stuff people somehow manage to avail themselves of.

buwaya said...

"If you can point me to the post where this was discussed I will tear your links apart with real facts."

There are no "real facts" in this, because the argument is circular -

Few election fraud cases are prosecuted. Few cases are prosecuted because few cases are brought. Few cases are brought because there are few violations noticed by the authorities.
The authorities don't notice fraud because they aren't looking for it (according to some, deliberately so). There are few audits or other controls to detect fraud in the first place.

Democrats conclude - Hence there is too little fraud to be concerned about. Hence no audits or controls are needed.

Republicans conclude - Hence there is fraud that Democrats are actively hiding. Hence audits and controls are needed to reveal the fraud.

In the rest of the world, where election fraud has less partisan identity (i.e., its believed that any side could engage in fraud, given the opportunity) anti-fraud provisions are standard, and in fact there are standard NGO and UN guidelines on fraud prevention. All European countries that I know of, for instance, require secure national ID's for voting. Even most third world countries require this, Mexico for instance.

buwaya said...

"messed up voter roles (which are not evidence of fraud)"

Yes they are -

http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/Voter%20registration.pdf

This is just one NGO working on issues of electoral reform.
Well-maintained electoral registers are essential to maintain credibility of the democratic process.

"Voter registration is crucial for political participation
in a democratic context. There
must be a guarantee that the right to vote
in elections is universal, equal, direct and
secret. The franchise is the means through
which the governed agree to delegate their
authority to those who govern. It is the link
between the legitimacy of political governance
and the liberty of human beings."

These guys audit and certify voting practices in places like Peru and Nepal.
Why shouldn't the same standards apply in Los Angeles?

John said...

I saw Hillary! speaking on the tube a few minutes ago. She was surrounded by SEIU members in their T shirts.

Has Hilary ever been in a union? I rather doubt it.

Has any Dem president, vp or candidate been in a union in the past century? Not that I can tell, though I may have missed someone.

Yet the unions tend to support Demmies.

Even though the Repos have had at least 3 union members or former union members elected or in contention.

Cheney
Reagan
Trump

Which is the party of unions again?

John Henry

John said...

Re voter fraud:

Voter fraud, or the suspicion of voter fraud, is so prevalent in much of the upper 50 that people routinely make disgusting jokes about it:

"Vote early and often"

"A whole slew of jokes revolving around votes and cemeteries"

Vote fraud is rampant in many parts of the country to the point where jokes about it don't even make people uncomfortable

We have plenty (as in most of them) corrupt pols here in PR. Tamper resistant voter ID cards, paper ballots, stiff restrictions on absentee voting, almost no early voting, lots and lots of poll watchers, finger inking and other measures assure that we get them honestly.

I've been here in PR for every election, referendum and plebiscite since 1972. Voted in every one since 1976. With a few minor exceptions we have never had even accusations of fraud.

If I ever move north again, I doubt I would register. The election process in most of the US is so flawed and open to fraud that I would not dirty my hands by participating. How much fraud actually occurs is a subject for debate though it seems like a lot does. The real problem is that the system, for the most part, is not trustworthy.


John Henry

Dude1394 said...

I haven't seen Beldar around lately. I kind of miss him, I hope he hasn't harmed himself somehow. :)

Michael K said...

"Hence there is fraud that Democrats are actively hiding."

If there is no voter fraud, as Freder and Ritmo insist, why is voter ID such a toxic subject ?

For Christ's sake, India has it and many voters are illiterate !

Guildofcannonballs said...

What is the Kraut's opinion?

Without Mondale's employer in 1984 to tell us what the deal is, we are all frankly lost. Just look how much he gets paid to pontificate and compare it to what you spend: then you'll know.

Sure sure Kraut can become conservative, it's a very natural transition factory of matter, but we won't allow Trump this, by the way.

We decide. We have the Power! We are He-Men walkin', not no damn Trump.

Guildofcannonballs said...

So the iPad spellcheckers win again. Think/write how they like, or they change it (convenience shows concern on my part for sustainable conservation of Internet letters such as this follow up comment has to WASTE.

THE WORD I used, and corrected twice, yet still ended up fucked by blogger and IPad and probably damn Century Linl too, you don't know even if you are head engineer what goes on considering the synergistic evil latent to most but terrifying to some of us, was factly.

Factly factly factly.
Factly of matter.

Guildofcannonballs said...

What is lost in using "long view" to describe a bunch of months, not everlasting eons great minds can start to contemplate if the decision toward the effort required warrants?

Is the brain collectively as described about the varying majorities abounding currently dumber because of the lack of infinite considerations on the concept of infinite?

Guildofcannonballs said...

Dude I had employee not employer. And I celebrate my typos as giving access to the small, small-minded
ego obessed potential wisdom if they can only see me as not 100% only 'not them.''

buwaya said...

Just a bit of comparative information -

The US has a remarkably low voter turnout. This is THE problem those opposed to anti-fraud controls are concerned about, that there are onerous burdens to registration, IDs, and all the other methods not implemented, would tend to suppress the vote of the poor, disadvantaged, etc. The US Presidential election turnout in:
2008 - 62.3%
2012 - 57.5%

OK. The Philippines just had a Presidential election. The Philippines is a poor country, with plenty of people who have fewer resources, massively fewer, than the poor in the US.
If you think the US has poor people, well, "you know nothing Jon Snow".
Heck, the Philippine middle class, entirely, would count in the bottom two quintiles of US median income. That poor country also has every electoral control that seem so terrible to the US including aggressively policed registration, voter IDs, very strict absentee voting, even purple fingers. And, unlike some places, like Australia, there is no legal obligation to vote.

The Philippines voter turnout in 2016 - 81.6%

There is NO excuse for failing to fully implement controls against fraud.
If the Philippines can do this, there is no valid, honest reason why the US can't.

mockturtle said...

If, as in California and several other states, drivers license applicants are automatically registered to vote, what's to prevent illegals from voting, since they do get drivers licenses?

Michael K said...

"what's to prevent illegals from voting, since they do get drivers licenses?"

That's the idea. Don't be naive

mockturtle said...

That's the idea. Don't be naive

I'm not naive and know that is part of the political agenda but why is no one protesting this obvious gateway to voting fraud?

buwaya puti said...

Because it's California.
The State runs on fraud, corruption, and criminal conspiracies.
Kamala Harris, Willie Browns old girlfriend, is Attorney General.
That should tell you everything.

Andrew Pardue said...

Ann, I think the issue here is that in those previous periods most voters hadn't started to pay attention to this campaign. Now he is even just when the least interested voters are starting to perk up and take notice. Scott Adam's instincts are right I think and Trump will win unless he just implodes. Adams is working on instincts, all of this "powers of persuasion" is a red herring, more fittingly something the "pointy haired boss" would say. The last panel would have dilbert looking on in disbelief as the results came in and the PHB was right.

Guildofcannonballs said...

If government power allows for good, discipline is all that is needed.

Once lost the must me fun, as it will last decades,

Without fun is a cold sheep.

This is looking away from our God.

Guildofcannonballs said...

It is malpractice to reference long view without consideration of the future.

Thanks teach.

Guildofcannonballs said...

My only option at this point is to play genius.

Fuck is that a quote?

Easy E bitch Easy E.

'64.

cruising down the street in my 64 eazy e


http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eazye/boyznthehoodremix.html


Guildofcannonballs said...

Look I do not comprehend what laconic nor lackadaisical convey to folks.

But I know it conveys sumpin.

John said...

Buwaya,

I did not know that about the Philipines.

Puerto Rico also has very high voter turnout, typically in the high 70's low 80s.

This in spite of the fact that:

1) You need a govt issued Voter ID card. Not a drivers license or something else. The State election commission issued card.

2) With few exceptions, you must vote in person on election day.

3) Polls are only open from about 10AM to 2PM

Trivia fact: Up through the 76 election, the procedure was that you went to the school where you were supposed to vote. Everyone was assigned to a classroom by precinct. Voter ID card, address and that you were listed on the rolls were checked as you entered.

At 2PM the classroom doors were closed and nobody was allowed to leave until all voting was finished. I think it was all voting island wide but it might have just been in the school.

My classroom was 6th grade and what I remember most about that election was spending several hours crammed into a very little desk.

John Henry

mikee said...

Why should Hillary even campaign in the last three months before November? She is liked less every time she opens her mouth and makes sounds come out.

Hillary has the Democrat fraudulent votes sewn up, so she has that going for her, which is nice. Trump will be hard pressed to beat her actual votes, let alone her ability to generate extra votes as needed, so my money is on the lying corrupt and completely disgusting Hillary Clinton for the win.