September 27, 2016

Michael Moore mocks "pro-Hillary gloaters."

113 comments:

Curious George said...

This is:

1) Get out the vote scam
2) An effort to get the other half of America to hate you

rehajm said...

Yah, definitely a get out the vote scam. What else could he mean? Welcome our new orange overlord?

tim in vermont said...

Give it up Michael. One thing you must deliver to your supporters if you are a Democrat is the sense they they can gloat about something.

CStanley said...

Yep, get out the vote. I think Moore has done this in previous elections, trying to scare complacent Democrats to make sure they don't stay home.

mesquito said...

I imagine the Obama years have devastated the hysterical and tendentious lefty film biz.

traditionalguy said...

Nobody likes Hillary Monster. They want 4 years slandering Trump instead of four more years lying to cover her tracks.

Hagar said...

Off topic.
Professor, the FBI does not have the power to grant anyone (f. ex., Cheryl Mills) immunity against prosecution, do they? Doesn't that take one of the DoJ's legal divisions?

tim in vermont said...

I think that Moore sees Trump's appeal to working men and women too. Something most Democrat elites are blind to.

tim in vermont said...

Doesn't that take one of the DoJ's legal divisions?

LOL, yeah, that would be a REAL problem for them, given that Obama is implicated now and they needed to shut the whole thing down. Now they will have a hell of a time prosecuting Cheryl Mills, for example.

holdfast said...

As much as Moore is a socialist turd, I think he has a better ear for what will play in the rust belt than the MFM/Dem Operatives.

Objectively, a Trump presidency would be gold for Moore's brand.

Rick said...

As much as Moore is a socialist turd, I think he has a better ear for what will play in the rust belt than the MFM/Dem Operatives.

Or he's arrogant enough to think his voice will motivate others. I'm going with arrogant.

rehajm said...

As much as Moore is a socialist turd, I think he has a better ear for what will play in the rust belt than the MFM/Dem Operatives.

Recall too, the first Clinton presidency capitalized on the intellectual elitism of white Democrats.

The income inequality meme is dead.

tim in vermont said...

"She told the truth. So what." - MM

He's delusional, as well.

Big Mike said...

For a yuuuge change, he's right.

David said...

He much have been watching CNN. Last night it was mostly gloating, spiced with deploring and being disgusted.

Nonapod said...

I'll give him credit for at least being distantly aware or reality in this one instance.

But this guy typically represents the thing that I hate most about certain ideologues: their single minded, one dimensional way of viewing the world. Political ideologues tend to view their opponents as simple cartoon characters. It's identical to the Pure Fan of a sports team. Pure fans and pure ideologues are incapable of seeing their opponents as anything but the enemy. They can't or won't ascribe any kind of nuance or thought to their enemies motivations. And they aren't really capable of honest objective analysis of their sides failings. For them, it's war. Exaggerating and lying is OK. Dismissing, ignoring, or minimizing inconvenient facts is fair game. The enemy is the enemy. They must be destroyed at all costs.

David Begley said...

I am still urging Althouse and Meade to drive over to that rally in Waukesa; assuming she doesn't have a night class.

Althouse will see with her own eyes why Trump is such a hit with regular people and why he will carry WI.

David Begley said...

Tim in Vermont

Andy McCarthy at NRO has the whole story on the FBI. The FBI went through the motions. Once Obama's secret email was uncovered the investigation had to be shut down as the first black president could not be indicted.

John said...

No, I think he is serious. As I said in another thread, I didn't think Trump did that well last night. I thought, perhaps, Crooked Hilary won. Or perhaps a draw.

What do I know.

Looking at a roundup of overnight polls, it looks like Trump beat her like a rented red-headed mule. Not just be a little bit. By a lot in almost all of the polls the Daily Mail showed. Some, like Drudge, you expect. Others, like Slate (54-45 Trump), Time Magazine (58-43) that are surprising.

Check it out and then tell me if MM is just bullshitting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

John Henry

Ignorance is Bliss said...

U MUST get it in your head TRUMP IS GONNA WIN and act accordingly

Beat the rush. Move to Canada NOW.

Jonathan Graehl said...

confirms what was already pretty obvious about his 'trump will win' messaging in the past. gotv scam.

Jonathan Graehl said...

online polls confirm there are plenty of internet-engaged people who don't trust gop/dem pros who appear on TV panels

when we see who won and who voted nov, we'll then draw some conclusions about internet-engaged people. do they vote or they don't they? what about the apathetic TV-only crowd. do *they* vote?

this is a first. never been such a disconnect between old-press and new-press/grass-roots sentiment

Jonathan Graehl said...

i should really capitalize - GOTV as in get out the vote. gotv seems like a typo for govt.

mikee said...

If Trump is gonna win, per Mr. Moore, would acting "accordingly" include letting their heads explode now be included in the repertoire?

Hagar said...

This is strange.
Looking around on the commentary, it looks like all the pundits think Hillary! won the "debate" hands down, and the polls indicate the people think the exact opposite.
Wat gifs?

Curious George said...

"David Begley said...
I am still urging Althouse and Meade to drive over to that rally in Waukesa; assuming she doesn't have a night class."

I have a ticket, but I am having hip replacement surgery next week so we'll see if I'm up to going.

eric said...

I think Moore probably knows people who have been solid Democrats for years and he considers them to be weather vanes, showing which way the wind is blowing.

Several polls I've seen have trump getting 8 to 10 percent of the Democrat vote while Hillary gets 4 or 5 percent of the Republican vote.

This worries him.

As for me, I've got no clue. I don't trust the polls because they hide their data. Show us the weighted and unweighted data.

khesanh0802 said...

@ John Henry 2:17pm I looked up your link and your eyes are not deceiving you. Those polls are from all over the country as well. Amazing!

Limited blogger said...

MSM is falling all over them selves declaring her the winner, but no voters care. They heard her warmed over talking points and are rejecting them. The Donald is the change agent, and that's what the voters actually want.

khesanh0802 said...

Interesting piece in the WSJ about Ford "fighting back" on Trump's call out of their Mexico plan. The head of UAW agrees with Trump on redoing NAFTA. About Ford he says "Ford’s decision is “frustrating” because the union signed a contract with Ford last year “that can make them money.”

khesanh0802 said...

To finish the above thought: When Trump said Big Bad Bill signed NAFTA he must have hit home with someone.

Carol said...

Check it out and then tell me if MM is just bullshitting.

LOL...Didn't snap polls have Ron Paul winning by a landslide? Snap polls are just clickbait.

grimson said...

John said @ 2:17

Looking at a roundup of overnight polls, it looks like Trump beat her like a rented red-headed mule. Not just be a little bit. By a lot in almost all of the polls the Daily Mail showed. Some, like Drudge, you expect. Others, like Slate (54-45 Trump), Time Magazine (58-43) that are surprising.

Anything that Drudge has links to will be skewed by Drudge readers. (I know to discount comments in any article he links to, as well as what comments are Most Liked.)

Drudge currently has a link to the Time poll. Although he often links to the Daily Mail, I don't currently see one regarding the debate.


Ann Althouse said...

"I am still urging Althouse and Meade to drive over to that rally in Waukesa; assuming she doesn't have a night class.

Althouse will see with her own eyes why Trump is such a hit with regular people and why he will carry WI."

We considered it, but it is an hour drive each way. And we thought you would have to get there early and wait in line to get in and not be in the overflow area.

I teach until 335 on Tuesday, so it would not be easy.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"I teach until 335 on Tuesday, so it would not be easy."

Take the class with you!

AprilApple said...

David Harsanyi says:

"On Monday night, America witnessed one of the most worthless, and certainly one of the most infantile, presidential debates in its history. After listening to Donald Trump’s meta-fictions and Hillary Clinton’s manicured obfuscations, the voter is left with one question: do you prefer an idiocracy or a kleptocracy?"

Idiocracy!

AprilApple said...

best part... "Holt never asked Hillary about advocating war (without congressional approval) in Libya. There was not a word on what happened in Benghazi. (I guess enough left-wing pundits and journalists have mockingly tweeted “BENGHAZI” in all-caps and vertical to make it a non-issue.) As others have mentioned, Hillary hasn’t met a war she didn’t like since Vietnam. This might be a worthwhile consequential enough topic for a future debate. You know, once we’ve exhausted all our discussions about Trump’s 1970s lawsuits."

AprilApple said...

One more... sorry

When the question of her stamina came up, Hillary offered a canned line about how sitting through long congressional hearings proved her mettle. Instead of countering with “Well, Hillary, if you stopped doing corrupt stuff, you wouldn’t have to sit in front of Congress all the time,” Trump decided to re-litigate the Rosie O’Donnell incident.

If Trump would have said ... “Well, Hillary, if you stopped doing corrupt stuff, you wouldn’t have to sit in front of Congress all the time,”

The election would be over.

David Begley said...

Trump in Iowa at 2:30. Surprise visit. I will attend and submit report to Power Line. If Scott Johnson publishes it, AA can deconstruct it. Thinking of Dylan references now.

PB said...

Michael Moore? I thought he was dead. At least his relevancy.

Michael K said...

Trump did what he had to do last night. He showed that he does not have two heads and is not a madman.

That was what was necessary.

HuffPo still is running around after its head was chopped off.

As the most bigoted campaign in modern memory stumbles toward a close, it’s perfectly fitting that two immigrants ― a woman from Venezuela and a man from Pakistan ― may have delivered the fatal blows to Donald Trump.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Isn't all the second guessing about this or that tactic that could have made DJT destroy HRC silly?

The whole reason people spend time prepping for participation in a debate is because such effort is required to succeed.

I don't get why folks think they are actually making important contributions by, from the comfort of their keyboards, jabbering in text.

If you're so smart and witty w/ debate tips, why are you oblivious to the fact that you're engaged in futility?

Bob Boyd said...

@ PBandJ_Ombudsman

Trump reads Althouse comments as part of his debate prep. So does Hillary. You didn't know that?

Joe said...

How is Moore wrong? You don't act like you've won anything until you've actually won.

Curious George said...

"Joe said...
How is Moore wrong? You don't act like you've won anything until you've actually won."

Is that what you think he said?

exiledonmainstreet said...

If Trump would have said ... “Well, Hillary, if you stopped doing corrupt stuff, you wouldn’t have to sit in front of Congress all the time,”

The election would be over.

9/27/16, 4:44 PM

That would have been perfect. Yes, Trump had quite a few balls thrown straight down the middle of the plate that he could have hit out of the park and instead he fouled them back or whiffed.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If Trump would have said ... “Well, Hillary, if you stopped doing corrupt stuff, you wouldn’t have to sit in front of Congress all the time,”

The election would be over.


If Trump has enough sense to analyze all these instances of staircase wit from last night, he might well do it. But he has to figure it out. I guess last night was just to get a feel for things. Learn what to anticipate. Get to know how his opponent operates in the heat of the moment.

But he needs to be calm. If he stops getting flustered, and just delivers deadly witty lines in a confident, deadpan way, (like on his stupid tv show), he might be able to do it.

But I'm not buying that he was the one who got the boost out of this. Sure, I believe he can win. But no, I don't see how he won it - with all that flustering and meandering. Good lines have to be delivered with precision, and concision. And calmly, confidently. He did none of that. But you could tell he was fishing around for a few good lines - on the spot even, perhaps. Came close, but no bites. Just a few tugs.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Ann,

I teach until 335 on Tuesday, so it would not be easy.
9/27/16, 4:11 PM

So what's easy? You never mind making things harder for soldiers and policemen. You have tenure and you're retiring. You can probably skip out 5 minutes early. Field trip idea wasn't a bad one.


PBJ,

If you're so smart and witty w/ debate tips, why are you oblivious to the fact that you're engaged in futility?

You're right, Althouse should retire tomorrow, fold the blog, and drink drain cleaner. Pity no one came along before you to tell her so. Or did you mean all the Republican mouzhiks who don't crave the Clinton knout? Guess we could do likewise and leave you no one to lord over or to turn society's wheels...

Cool story bro!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Limited blogger said...
MSM is falling all over them selves declaring her the winner, but no voters care."

Perhaps it's because the MSM has been falling all over themselves for months bashing Trump - every single day it's something else, ranging from from his tax returns to skittles to white supremacist cartoon frogs. Serious and legitimate questions about Trump are mixed in with silly and transparent attacks into one big heavy anti-Trump cake that nobody outside of True Believers like Unknown have the stomach to eat.

David Begley said...

Bad LT

I've got Iowa covered. Trump will probably repeat in WI what he says in IA. And Althouse deconstructing me - if she so chooses - will be entertaining. I've got two Dylan references already lined up.

Joe said...

""Joe said...
How is Moore wrong? You don't act like you've won anything until you've actually won."

Is that what you think he said?"

Why read into what it otherwise plain. (Moore isn't exactly a clever speaker.)

David Begley said...

Bob Boyd:

I know Cruz, Rubio and others read my reports on Power Line. Rush Limbaugh reads Althouse and Power Line. I would not be surprised if Trump people read Althouse.

Mr Wibble said...

I teach until 335 on Tuesday, so it would not be easy.

Just do what every other teacher does: throw in a Spanish copy of The Lion King and slip out the back door.

Bob Boyd said...

@ David Begley

If he doesn't, he should.
I'm going to look for you at Power Line.....this better be good:)

David Begley said...

BB

All of my Power Line stuff was outstanding; way better than the NYT and WaPo.

Meeeea said...

This Moore creep is up to something.

Fabi said...

You know that Holt was awful when NRO calls him out in Trump's defense.

Bob Boyd said...

@ David

Ahhh, but is it better than nothing?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

For the first time, going back to 1890, AZ Republic endorses a POTUS from a particular party. Are they D's going R for the first time?

Anywho, does HRC have a special guest in VA tomorrow?

chickelit said...

"I teach until 335 on Tuesday, so it would not be easy."

Trump should hold a rally on Bascom Hill like Obama did.

More seriously, if Wisconsin starts to lean Trump, wouldn't it make sense for Hillary to come to Madison?

Fabi said...

I'm stumped -- who would a Gannett newspaper endorse for president?

Curious George said...

"chickelit said...
"I teach until 335 on Tuesday, so it would not be easy."

Trump should hold a rally on Bascom Hill like Obama did.

More seriously, if Wisconsin starts to lean Trump, wouldn't it make sense for Hillary to come to Madison?"

Madison would be GOTV effort, I bet a lot smelly hippie types that felt the Beern

More likely Milwaukee and Racine.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, I never thought to ask. How bad was your hangover after drunk-blogging last night's debate?

Jon Ericson said...

No, the extremely long list of memes she collected beforehand was just a very, very good joke.
Our hostess would never lower herself.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Totally off topic, but today I saw a Bernie 2016 yard sign repurposed as a garage sale sign holder. I'm sure there's some deep political symbolism in that, but I'm too indifferent to divine it. I bet Moore could come up with something.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Totally off topic, but did folks see that the fat chick beauty gal may have been part of a murder scheme?

The Cracker Emcee said...

Love the Daily Mail photo of WJC with the fat chick beauty gal. A leopard can't change it's spots.

David said...

The overnight "polls" are completely unreliable. The sampling is entirely self selecting. Only people who choose to vote in an online poll. No way to tell how representative of voters they are.

The "winner" will best be evidenced by how the more scientific polls move in the next 7 days.

Jon Ericson said...

Peanut, You're not supposed to say "fat chick" in 2016.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

My bad. should say "nourishment enhanced beauty gal"

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

The Daily Caller says Ms. big bones was being boned...professionally...on camera.

Jon Ericson said...

"Bangs" seems to draw fire. (from the management).

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Taking off my peanut hat, and stepping into my official role as the Atlhouse ombudsman: I'd like to note that Mikey was admonishing his fellow libs, not mocking them.

Carry on.

Jon Ericson said...

I could learn a lot from you.
Like how to not annoy Althouse.
I'll be watch, bro.

Jon Ericson said...

watching that is.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Actually the cool kids in my hood always shorten that to 'watch.' When they mean to say 'watch' they say 'wat' when the mean to say 'what' they say 'watching.'

We keep it real.

Comanche Voter said...

So a fat clown wants to lead a circus parade. Ho hum.

Jon Ericson said...

It's good being the baron in the balcony. Right?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Considering that she's close to summiting the hill, that gal of generous quantity does seem to be holding it together pretty well. Of course, she isn't holding up w/ Chris Jansing skill, who's half way down the other side.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I'm a little surprised to see that Althouse passed up an opportunity to justify fat shaming.

OTOH, it may not be as much fun w/o Trooper getting all riled up in these threads.

And, I suppose tomorrow is another day, another opportunity for noting the benefits of fat shaming.

Maybe the problem is that fat shaming of a gal who is and was (at least as it looked when DJT invited media folks to video tape the fatty working off her lard by jumping rope) thinner than one's self involves too much dissonance to jump on the bandwagon.

I dunno.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Btw, in the years when DJT paid zero federal taxes, how many folks here paid more federal taxes than DJT?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

What are the odds that HRC's folks are printing up stickers or something that says: "I paid more taxes that Donald Trump"?

Anywho, I want no part of that. But, I'm excitedly waiting for my HRC in prison clothes bobble head to arrive from the DJT campaign. Still no update since the email that said the things were 1-2 weeks out because of high demand.

Jon Ericson said...

Words. heh, heh.

Jon Ericson said...

Peanut, I really appreciate what you're doing here to keep America under the thumb of your pals, the Clintons,
What's your cut?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Soros pays best.

Anne said...

traditionalguy said...

..... They want 4 years slandering Trump instead of four more years lying to cover her tracks.


^This ^...Moore has hated Hillary for 25 years. Nothing has changed

Jon Ericson said...

Damn! I gotta renegotiate my contract!

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"I gotta renegotiate my contract!"

Just follow DJT and keep all the money that you're currently sending to the federal government. It's like getting a pay increase. Be smart. Believe me.

Jon Ericson said...

Hmm. sounds risky!

Jon Ericson said...

HANDS DOWN!
SHOOT BACK!

Sounds good.

Jon Ericson said...

Good thing "Lurch" isn't here to erase my graffiti.
Soon though.

Jon Ericson said...

Soon, the Queen Bee will be here to erase me from your consciousness.
Revel in the truths revealed here before obliteration occurs.
Kissy Kissy Bang, Bang.
Good Night and Good luck!

Yancey Ward said...

Hagar asked what gives:

"Looking around on the commentary, it looks like all the pundits think Hillary! won the "debate" hands down, and the polls indicate the people think the exact opposite.

Pundits are largely familiar with the debate competitions; probably many of them participated in them in school, and that is how most of them view them. Having been a judge in such competitions at a HS level, I can tell you this- they are right, Clinton won the debate hands down on points- it was a rout in that respect. I didn't keep a running tally since I had other things I was paying attention to, but if it were a football game, the score would have been 48-3, or thereabouts.

I think I have written it here before, but I have watched every presidential debate since 1980- all of them. In my judgment, the Democrat won every single one of them on points, except for the first debate between Romney and Obama. For whatever reason, it just appears to me that Democrats are institutionally geared to debate preparation that focuses on winning points just like one would do in a typical debate competition. So pundits are like debate competition judges, and that is why they thought Clinton not only won, but won with ease.

However, presidential debates aren't really about points. The judges that really count are the people watching it on television; and like it or not, 95% of that audience doesn't give a shit about debate points- they are only looking in to either confirm their decision to vote for a guy (most of the viewers), and the rest are looking in to help them make a decision, and they don't count debate points either. It really is just the case that if the debate helps you make a decision, the decision will usually be for the one you liked the best, and it will have little to do with statements of fact or policy positions.

That was the problem I think Clinton was unable to solve last night. I found Trump's meandering frustrating, but it is Clinton's smug attitude that was the most noticeable thing to me, and I think all but her most ardent supporters saw that. People are going forgive someone who seems to talk faster than his brain can apparently think- they won't dislike him for it, and it is probably something they can directly relate to in their own lives. However, Clinton's attitude is just going to reinforce the dislike for her many of them have, and all those debate points mean squat in that regard.

That is what the online polls captured, I think. I visited many of those polls last before Drudge linked to them, and Trump was already ahead on all of them by about the same margin he was when I checked them just a few minutes before I wrote this comment. After the debate, Trump's supporters were just more motivated to offer an opinion, and Clinton's supporters were less motivated to do so. This is indicative of Clinton's entire campaign to date- a good part of her base is unmotivated to do anything for her, even vote in online polls on sites they regularly visit. I bet, if you could find a way to prove it, you would find that of the 84 million people who bothered to watch last night, 60% or more already supported Trump- that is the difference in enthusiasm, and it probably shows up everywhere.

Mick said...

Hillary Clinton rallies can't fill a high school gym. Trump rallies are rock concerts that fill arenas. The polls are a lie. Trump will win in a LANDSLIDE.

There is no way to equivocate the death and destruction that the Crooked Old Lady has helped unleash on the world. She has set Northern Africa, Syria and Eastern Europe on fire, and created ISIS by arming them as "friendly anti Assad factions". She let our ambassador be killed in Libya because he knew of the gun running through Libya to those "friendly factions". She created the refugee crisis that now infests Europe and the US with third world men who will never assimilate. And she wants to bring more infestation here. To elect this Crooked Old Lady is to invite WW3 with Russia, who she vilifies and prods, while Trump talks of PEACE with Russia.

Her entire tenure as SOS was an illegal violation of the Emoluments Clause (her tenure in the Senate saw a raise in pay to the SOS), just as the Usurper Hussein Obama illegally served as POTUS, though not a natural born Citizen. There is no law, because the executor of the laws is an illegal entity---- It is all around you.

Moneyrunner said...

In unrelated news,

A report released by the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s “Hate Response Team” shows that more than 10 percent of reported hate incidents were determined to be fake or frivolous.

In fact, the report notes that 28 of 192 reports were found to be either completely fake or “not a bias/hate incident,” accounting for 14 percent of all incidents reported.

A Crucifix was reported for representing “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community.”

Meanwhile, of the reports that were legitimate, students complained about everything from images of the crucifix to a blog post about life on campus as a white student.

According to The La Crosse Tribune, one student reported feeling unsafe when discovering a Campus Crusade for Christ poster on campus, claiming that the cross represents “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community.”

Two other students turned in one of their peers for publishing a blog post about life as a white student, calling his post offensive to students of color, and even saying that the proximity of the author’s off-campus residence made them feel unsafe living on campus.

After the infamous “chalkening” had spread to UW La Crosse’s campus, several students reported the incident to the Hate Response Team, whose report shows a drastic increase in activity over the few days it occurred—18 reports in just three days.

The school had initially responded to the chalkening with a Facebook post that called it “contradictory to our mission as a university,” but later deleted the post after facing national criticism.

Why is the University of Wisconsin such a hotbed of lies, bigotry, racism and hate?

Brando said...

Moore has a point. Even if Hillary gets a ten point bounce out of this, the polls will adjust back to a close election and Nov. 8 will be a tossup.

One thing the debate showed is that the discipline Trump showed over the past few weeks (where he stuck to teleprompted speeches, and let his advisers manage his twitter account--and as a result pulled the polls to a virtual tie) can be easily undone when Hillary needles him in a debate. This man has to take the bait. If he cannot control himself in such a setting, he may be better off avoiding future debates.

The other danger about the debates is on the other side of the ledger--Hillary hitting at him, and even if it doesn't land any blows it fires up her own side enough to pull in the third party voters and nonvoters that she needs. What's helped Trump is that Hillary can't seem to get past the mid-40s in the polls. If she rises higher than that he could be in trouble.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Yancey is right. Crooked won on debate points, but lost based on her shrill, know-it-all, voice. A lot of pundits have said that Trump's goal was not to win on debate points, but prove that he doesn't have two heads, and is the more likeable of the two. The latter was going to happen if he could accomplish the first, because he apparently really is a lot more likeable than she is. A number of undecided people were interviewed right after the debate who had been trending towards Clinton, and had switched to Trump. And, it apparently mostly was about her, and not him. She is basically a loathsome human being, and that was on full display.

Of course, it won't be all Trump's way in the next major polls. Plenty of people still trust the MSM, or feel that winning on debate points is what is important. If Trump though improves even a little bit in the next polls, the election could be over. Doesn't have to be major swing, just a little, because that says that the public was unimpressed with debate points and the MSM scoring, and was impressed that Trump doesn't have two heads, but Clinton figuratively has at least two, maybe more, mouths that she speaks out of simultaneously. And, no amount of debate prep is going to help her there.

Eric said...

Aside from people on her campaign payroll and the media are there any "pro-Hillary gloaters"? I live among people who will vote for her, but nobody is excited about the prospect.

Curious George said...

"Eric said...
Aside from people on her campaign payroll and the media are there any "pro-Hillary gloaters"? I live among people who will vote for her, but nobody is excited about the prospect."

Sure are. Mostly older women. Usually fat. Maybe lesbian.

tim in vermont said...

I have to admit that in the back of my mind is the thought of who I am going to have to look at on TV for four years. That's why I am voting for Jill Stein.

AllenS said...

tim, the possibility of you looking at your TV for the next four years, and seeing Jill Stein is zero.

Curious George said...

"tim in vermont said...
I have to admit that in the back of my mind is the thought of who I am going to have to look at on TV for four years. That's why I am voting for Jill Stein."

You think that if you vote for Jill Stein you will see her on TV for the next four years? Then you're a fucking idiot.

On the other hand if you vote for Trump, it increases the chance of seeing Melania and Ivanka and not Hillary and Chelsea.

Curious George said...

"tim in vermont said...
I have to admit that in the back of my mind is the thought of who I am going to have to look at on TV for four years. That's why I am voting for Jill Stein."

And really? What are you, 90?

tim in vermont said...

She's nice to look at, numb as a hake, as they say in New England, but nice to look at. Plus, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get matching funds, I heard somewhere. Maybe this will move the Democrats away from being the war mongers that they seem to be now. Even PB&J will do a little war dance in defense of Hillary.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I feel we should leave Tim alone. He will thrash about and ultimately realize his least worst option is Trump. He will also reflect this through the lens of his home life where he has to judge a) what his wife will do, b) whether he cares, c) how it will affect his vote - remember the ballot is secret Tim!

But in any case if he needs to go through denial on his way to acceptance, sure, let him imagine the pretty Dr. Jill on his TV...then replace the image with that of Hillary Clinton... I think he will know what to do.

Mac McConnell said...

Jill Sein is an attractive woman, she looks fine on TV. The problem is when she opens her mouth, she's a loon. I'm the Professor's age, but I don't date women over 50.

Todd said...

Curious George said...
"Eric said...
Aside from people on her campaign payroll and the media are there any "pro-Hillary gloaters"? I live among people who will vote for her, but nobody is excited about the prospect."

Sure are. Mostly older women. Usually fat. Maybe lesbian.

9/28/16, 7:13 AM


Don't forget the cats, they have lots of cats...

jr565 said...

If trump didn't pay federal taxes, and it was a crime, the IRS would have thrown him in jail. But how many people go to H&R Block every year to find ways to pay less in taxes? are they paying their fair share if they lower their tax load? I don't want to hear any kvetching about Trump not paying a lot im taxes, so long as he did so legally.
If Dems want to make people pay their fair share and not resort to using tax loopholes maybe they should adopt a flat tax model for taxes. OR vote to close all tax loopholes. OTheriwse, SHUT UP.

jr565 said...

"I have to admit that in the back of my mind is the thought of who I am going to have to look at on TV for four years. That's why I am voting for Jill Stein."
If that were a good reason for voting I'd vote for Kate Upton. Kate Upton has about as much a chance of winning the presidency as Jill Stein does. And she does have nice D cups. And she will probably be on tv more than Jill stein in four years.

Brando said...

"If that were a good reason for voting I'd vote for Kate Upton. Kate Upton has about as much a chance of winning the presidency as Jill Stein does. And she does have nice D cups. And she will probably be on tv more than Jill stein in four years."

Not to go too far off subject, but going by looks alone, which congresswomen (or -men, for the ladies), Senators, Governors or mayors would we most like to look at for the next four years?

I mean, we've given up on qualifications, so let's at least get that.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"Not to go too far off subject, but going by looks alone..."

If you include staffers, the smart money should start by looking for LDS folks. It seems like Utah folks do well when the Hill ranks hot people in DC.

EMD said...

That's why I am voting for Jill Stein.

I'll admit that Dr. Jill is an attractive older woman.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Bruce Hayden said...



Of course, it won't be all Trump's way in the next major polls. Plenty of people still trust the MSM, or feel that winning on debate points is what is important. If Trump though improves even a little bit in the next polls, the election could be over.



That's why it won't happen. The polls have swing in them with the weighting, sampling and so forth. Part of the reason Trump's numbers ran up before was to give them room to bring the numbers down after the debate to ensure her perceived victory. You would have had to smash her to get an uptick. I doubt he will. If he does I'll be extremely happy.