How is it possible? Last night, I was wondering why Clinton isn't ahead by 50 points, considering the way the press has been reporting lately. But the press is skewed, trying to shape what we do, and we're only entering the last phase when reputations are on the line and media risk looking like fools if something happens that seems to blindside them.
A mere 7 days ago, Bloomberg Politics had Clinton with a 9 point lead. And pollster J. Ann Selzer was saying: "This poll shows movement toward Clinton with all the right groups it takes to win—including men and those without a college degree. Their alignment with Clinton is a formidable change in the algebra."
Is Bloomberg Politics a screwy polling operation? I found an article by Nate Silver from last August, "Election Update: When One Poll Makes A Big Difference" — the one poll that made a big difference was Bloomberg Politics and it made a big difference because Silver's model weights the different polls based on their quality, and Bloomberg Politics is one of his high-quality polls:
By “high quality,” I mostly mean a poll with a high pollster rating — which are based on a pollster’s past accuracy and methodology — since the trend line adjustment puts more weight on better-rated polls. Selzer & Company (which also conducts the prestigious Des Moines Register Poll) more than qualifies: It’s one of just six polling firms with an A-plus rating from FiveThirtyEight.Silver added:
There’s another, more subtle dimension to this also, which is that Selzer hasn’t polled the general election very often this year. (Just the three national polls so far.) The trend-line adjustment is therefore designed to give a lot of weight to a Selzer poll whenever it weighs in. By contrast, it gives less weight to any given poll from a pollster that surveys the race frequently, such as by conducting a national tracking poll.Well, Selzer weighed in today, and the trend line is wild — an 11-point change in one week. [ADDED: Again, as noted above, I think I misread the text at Politico.]
पोस्ट्स
१२४ टिप्पण्या:
What if they gave a poll, and nobody answered?
Go on vote for Hillary, not me.
* “Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, page 139.
* “If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page 259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat arose.
* “Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton. “F*** off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/american-roulette.php
Trump has an 87% chance to win says this professor.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/10/24/professor-with-remarkable-record-of-predicting-elections-says-trump-will-win-n2236279
"an 11-point change in one week."
Hillary is sunk.
Remember Brexit!
This is the point where the pollsters need to be concerned about predicting actual outcome.
A possibility: they went far out of whack to give credence to the 'Hillary has already won' narrative, and now have to drastically reverse course to get in line with the provable result of the election.
The polls at the end are the only ones most people remember, and it is how their success will be evaluated.
A possibility among many, but there you go.
I am Laslo.
This professor says there are other professors who think Trump is going to win but they want to keep a low profile, wonder why.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/10/24/professor-with-remarkable-record-of-predicting-elections-says-trump-will-win-n2236279
Trump's hue turnouts at rallies is very impressive. There are two ways to look at it:
It's like a NFL football game in most cities: 50,000 people in the stadium in a stadium that sits 50,000, 100,000 or more fans at home, watching on TV.
It's like a MLS soccer game in a city where soccer is hip :40,000 people in the stadium in a stadium that sits 50,000, 10,000 fans at home, watching on TV.
It's the ones who are watching on TV for where the real votes are.
I am Laslo.
Watch the miss beautiful lightweight instruct Newt Gingrich to go deal with his anger issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGy5wpY3kMI
In 1980 a mid October poll had Reagan losing by six. He won by ten.
Laslo makes two key points above--my takeaway is the race is narrowing slightly due to our usual polarization. Which sort of supports the old notion that after the conventions, people tend to gravitate back towards their parties, and any movement after Labor Day won't change the fact that the vote preferences have hardened. Clinton maintains a slight lead, but no landslide in store.
That's the popular vote, anyway. Electoral vote could be pretty wide, considering Trump hasn't much of a turnout operation and the Dems have been registering voters like there's no tomorrow. That can be worth a point in each swing state, and in a close race that's the ball game.
The other question is whether these polls are way off. They have to try and calculate for the people they don't reach, and determine how many of those will vote and how they'll vote. There could be some surprises November 9th.
which has Trump edging out Clinton by 2 points in Florida and by 2 points nationally
I read it a few times and don't see national numbers in the article. Just Florida. Am I missing something?
On the one hand, most want to do whatever they can to ensure a Clinton win.
On the other hand, they want to maintain interest in the race by making it look close.
On the third hand, they want to their final numbers to be as close as possible to the actual results.
Balancing all three is such a delimma. What's a good pollster to do?
"In 1980 a mid October poll had Reagan losing by six. He won by ten."
Which poll was this? His polling average had him ahead slightly at the time of the one debate (a couple weeks before the election) and he ended up winning by 9.
With Clinton as the inevitable nominee, this was such a winnable race for any good Republican. It makes me want to weep, with the damage she'll do to the Supreme Court. Along with the possibility that Trump's negative coattails might cost us a Senate majority. (My hope and in fact my prediction is that Republicans come away with 52 seats; but the possibility of losing that, and seeing Clinton nominees for the Circuit Courts of Appeal getting all confirmed on one- or two-vote majorities if the Dems win, say, 51 or 52 seats, is just awful.)
Right now the mainstream media is still acting confident that Hillary is way ahead, hopefully it will stay that way. Whenever Trump looks to be breaking out, they release another hit-piece on him that all the media focuses on. And his numbers, temporarily, tumble.
On the other hand, they may release the final dirt on Trump anyway, since--why not?
In the meantime, even as the press tries to ignore it: Obamacare, which Hillary will keep, is in free-fall, the FBI investigation into Hillary's server increasingly looks like a sham and the world looks chaotic.
Laslo Spatula said...
Trump's hue turnouts at rallies is very impressive.
I'm not sure that you can accurately predict voter turnout for the two candidates based on turnout to their rallies. It's really hard to get the dead to show up for your rallies.
It will be a great thing for this country if the voting results are wildly different from both Polls.
Look, I'd like to see Hill lose as much as anybody. But this is all beside the point.
This year is somewhat unusual, so maybe polls based on past experience could be a little off.
The pollsters' gut instincts may fail them, since they all wish Hillary! will win, or at least that Trump will lose.
So, let us wait and see what it looks like on November 9th.
It isn't extraordinary to see funky data like the apparent 11 point swing from one pollster. It is noise until it's confirmed or refuted by additional data. Nate Silver warns about this all the time...
It's certainly true there's a disconnect between what the polling data is showing and what the media is reporting. Watching CNN or Megyn Kelley last night one could have concluded not only does Hillary have this in the bag the GOP has lost the Senate and they are hemorrhaging in the House. A quick look at RCP and 538 and this is easily rejected. RCP average has the Clinton national average dropping, and swing state polls from the last week suggest momentum is swinging back to Trump. PA is within margin of error. Clearly and decisively the polls are showing a close race. Senate average still show GOP holding though losing 3-4 seats...
I wonder if there's any underreported news in the last week or 10 days that might explain a momentum shift back to Trump?
They blew their load early with the "Grab 'em by the pussy" October surprise. Sure, that was put out to cover over something, I can't even remember anymore. But now their are two weeks left until the election and they've got nothing. The latest recharge of the Trump sexism issue is weak tea. "He crassly propositioned a porn star who voluntarily went with him to his hotel suite and when she turned him down...he let her leave." Oh my stars! He's a terrible human being!!!
Meanwhile, the Clinton stories coming out of the Podesta emails are just getting worse and worse. And the Obamacare prices for 2017 are coming out now, and they're terrible. People are realizing we are at war in 5 different Muslim countries right now. And people's hours and pay rates are being messed with in preparation for the new overtime rules that start in December.
I think I'm going to agree with and amplify Michael Moore. Trump is a lit Molotov Cocktail and Clinton is the giant Wickerman of everything that is wrong with Washington D.C.
Hillary's cynical ploy--to bus in illegal voters from abroad--is finally coming to light. Even though this may not be her doing--history will show us --she deserves the blame for not denouncing it.
With Clinton as the inevitable nominee, this was such a winnable race for any good Republican. It makes me want to weep, with the damage she'll do to the Supreme Court. Along with the possibility that Trump's negative coattails might cost us a Senate majority. (My hope and in fact my prediction is that Republicans come away with 52 seats; but the possibility of losing that, and seeing Clinton nominees for the Circuit Courts of Appeal getting all confirmed on one- or two-vote majorities if the Dems win, say, 51 or 52 seats, is just awful.)
I would think the same, but then I think: How has electing Republicans changed a damn thing in the last 30 years? It hasn't. Losing the Supreme Court will hurt, but only regarding the speed in which the nation will be transformed. Knowing that electing one of Trump's primary opponents wouldn't have made a difference helps me avoid depression.
Wait!! I was assured that Obama beat Romney in a landslide!!
The NeverTrumpers can never explain how a good Republican could have won against Hillary, but couldn't beat Trump in the primary. Lulz
Truthfully, I no longer know what to believe about the polls. All I know is that the pollsters never call me. Maybe they are putting out a valid product, maybe they are pulling jiggery-pokery by oversampling some groups and undersampling others to try to suppress some voters by telling them that the election is already over. No matter what, you should get out there and vote your conscience and values. If you like criminality (or have no objections to it), vote for Hillary. If you don't, vote for Trump.
It's that simple.
Chuck said...
With Clinton as the inevitable nominee, this was such a winnable race for any good Republican.
Bullshit, Chuck. The Repubs had a lot of candidates running, and they all LOST to Trump.
Has there really been that much swinging in the actual numbers? I don't think so. Ask yourself, what was behind that big jump for Crooked Hillary right after their convention? Any great speeches? A great VP pick? A potentially beautiful First Family? Nothing that I could see was that exciting. And, Trump sucked a lot of the oxygen out the first couple of days. Why the big bump? Since then, sure, the big October "October Surprises" of Trump saying something questionable about women, and then a bunch of women, some obviously Dem operatives, coming out of the woodwork saying that he inappropriately touched them (and ignoring that Bill Clinton very likely actually raped women, and his wife defended a rapist, and then laughed about getting him off).
And, we now know how the polls are intentionally biased by the MSM, thanks to WikiLeaks, etc. They oversample Dems (in one, they were sampling almost double digits more Dems than Reps), and they oversample certain demographics that are more highly anti-Trump, such as Blacks and some Hispanics. And, we know that they do it to create false momentum, exciting their Dem base, and demoralizing the Republicans. But, as always, they need to start coming back into reality as we get close to the election, because polls that off in the ozone by election day, tend to be greatly discounted four years later. Of course, this may not be in play this year, since the MSM is burning through a lot of their chips, a lot of their credibility, to put Crooked Hillary back in the White House. My theory is that their corporate masters see it as a business decision, sacrificing their news operations long term for the corporate giveaways that they expect under a new Clinton Administration. We shall see. Maybe the Crooked Hillary commercial showing a spastic Trump is having an effect, and they have already won the election. But, the cognitive dissonance there is that last weekend Trump was still filling venues with enthusiastic crowds, while Clinton's running mate Pain had 30 at an event in Florida.
Fabi, with the faster fingers, beat me to it.
Chuck said...
"With Clinton as the inevitable nominee, this was such a winnable race for any good Republican."
Chuck, some of us don't agree with your theory that the only good Republican is a Democrat.
Fabi said...
"The NeverTrumpers can never explain how a good Republican could have won against Hillary, but couldn't beat Trump in the primary."
It's not hard to explain. Hillary's natural consistency is the recently dead, and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. But on the critical issues, nominal Republicans like Jeb! and Marco? are essentially indistinguishable from Democrats. Think of them as kinder, gentler Democrats. So, the theory is, they could easily put together an unholy coalition of Democrats with a pulse and Republicans without a choice. If only there were no choice.
I disagree with Chuck that a bunch of the other Republican candidates would be doing better. Maybe. Maybe not. The war would have been waged over very different terrain. It would have most likely been fought by traditional paid advertising and GOTV efforts, both places where the Dems excel. For one thing, the Dems are much more willing to cheat to raise money, whether through allied PACs, turning off credit card verification so that foreign contributions can be accepted (Obama), or even double billing old ladies (Clinton). And, they find ways to pay for their ground game - some of their ground troops this time are essentially being funded by the federal govt.
Some of the Republicans might have taken the fight to her, as Trump has done, but others, like JEB, likely would not have. Too gentlemanly. Another Romney, too nice to say mean things about the girl they would have been running against. Never mind that she should have been in prison, not out on the campaign trail (when she has the energy and health to do so, which seems rarer and rarer as we get close to the election). I think somewhat maybe like the 2012 election, with Hispanics being traded for Blacks as the more enthused Dem voting block. So, I see going into the election with most of the potential Rep candidates significantly behind on campaign funds, ground troops, and ground organization. Trump, of course, is probably even further behind, but has made up for some of it by his ability to be the news.
The danger of recent Donk triumphalism is that it doesn't motivate LIVs to turn out and vote for Hillary. If she has it in the bag, why bother? LIV's on both sides of the ideological divide are very susceptible to this line of reasoning. Even if I was positive I was up by 20 points, I would have nothing to lose and much to gain, in money and votes, by encouraging people to believe it was a horse race.
I do believe the Donks aren't finished with their surprises, though. They're experts at this and I'm sure they have more dirt to influence the weak-minded and retired law professors.
"Some of the Republicans might have taken the fight to her, as Trump has done, but others, like JEB, likely would not have."
Bruce, let's not fall for the fiction that Trump has "taken the fight" to Clinton. If anything, he has bailed her out of controversy over and over again--making some new irrelevant bit of noise to help the media distract from almost every Clinton scandal to come up (we really didn't need a week on Judge Curiel, for example--just in time for a Clinton e-mail dump). The best we get from Trump in the debates was a pivot to Putin right when the questions could have honed in on her uncomfortable two-faced statements in Brazil. Or calling her a "nasty woman" when she was promising to raise Social Security taxes--something he might have been able to hammer her on.
Let's not mistake his flailing nonsense for actual "fighting". I'd love to have seen a GOP fighter this year. We didn't get that, no matter what Trump's apologists have said.
Or calling her a "nasty woman" when she was promising to raise Social Security taxes--something he might have been able to hammer her on.
He could hardly do that when he has promised not to touch Social Security and Medicare . . .
But what am I thinking. Of course he could have. He can contradict himself with two separate lies in the same sentence and you think he is brilliant
"But what am I thinking. Of course he could have. He can contradict himself with two separate lies in the same sentence and you think he is brilliant"
Who you calling "you"? I always thought Trump was a turkey.
The media has done an effective job in tearing down Trump, but they have not succeeded in generating any enthusiasm for Hillary. I wonder if the one sided coverage is counter productive. I feel manipulated and resentful towards the media. Maybe a significant amount of other people feel the same way.
Bruce Hayden: "...My theory is that their corporate masters see it as a business decision, sacrificing their news operations long term for the corporate giveaways that they expect under a new Clinton Administration..."
Bingo. The media companies are going through hell as their business model collapses, they cut muscle, and sycophancy and backstabbing dictate survival. They are trying to transition to the Full Crony economy and obviously Hillary represents the least bad choice.
It is unlikely to turn out well for them. They have little leverage today, other than political contributions in kind, which destroy their remaining claims to objectivity. So they are burning their brands in helping her win, and hoping she will reward them. Won't happen. Why? As the good book says, "Put not your faith in princes." Post-election, a victorious Hillary will have to honor far too many chits, so mathematically many suitors must lose. And, second, even your average deadbeat prince cannot compare with Hillary. The Clintons' path is littered with betrayals, due to their "vast carelessness," or perhaps to some ineradicable spitefulness.
IMHO.
". . . the trend line adjustment puts more weight on better-rated polls. Selzer & Company (which also conducts the prestigious Des Moines Register Poll) more than qualifies."
Really?
Final Iowa poll by Selzer
. . .Trump 28%
. . .Cruz 23%
. . .Rubio 15%
Iowa Caucus Results
. . .Cruz 28%
. . .Trump 24%
. . .Rubio 23%
Bullshit, you Trumpkins.
It's on you, if Hillary is the next President.
And for the record, I am voting for the shit head Trump. If only by reference. I am voting a straight Republican ticket. Don't blame me if he gets schlonged.
If Hillary wins, it's because she got the most votes. Something that she would have accomplished, with an even bigger margin had she faced off against the Repubs that Trump beat, and beat handily.
The coup de grace on Trump was supposed to be the long planned revelation of Trump as Sexual Predator who goes around grabbing women's genitals, with 10 more gals seeking fame as the chorus, all followed by carefully preset oversampled polls moving on cue 15 points.
Megyn Kelly played her part last night, but she was not subtle and only exposed the game.
Rather than dispiriting Trump's voters and encouraging celebration by Hillary's voters, she has finally exposed the Corruption Queen and all her men's tricks.
The real polls must now play defensive truth telling because they know Trump's landslide is coming round the bend.
"too nice to say mean things about the girl they would have been running against. "
No, they would have been afraid to touch her. The traditional GOP politicians are dependent on the donor class and fearful of the media.
"Year of the Woman" would have been the theme and they would have fallen in line.
Joan of Arc might have been crazy to think she could lead the French and thrown the English out.
Trump may just be that crazy. I think he is going to win the election and I have no idea what he will do than.
I voted for him.
Then not "than."
All this trashtalk about how Trump is going to win. Not just win, but win in a landslide.
Yet nobody wants to put their money on it.
It's on you, if Hillary is the next President.
How would the U.S. be different if Al Gore became president rather than GW Bush?
No significant difference.
I hate Trump the person but love the movement he somehow generated. Many people believe it's our last chance to save the country. Warm Milk Republicans have no sense of urgency. No sense that their party will be demographically irrelevant.
Americans love an underdog
"All this trashtalk about how Trump is going to win. Not just win, but win in a landslide.
Yet nobody wants to put their money on it."
Do you want to place a wager?
It's not that I'm thrilled with Trump - but the idea of Hillary losing, send tingles up my leg.
CJinPA said...
It's on you, if Hillary is the next President.
How would the U.S. be different if Al Gore became president rather than GW Bush?
No significant difference.
Horse shit.
Start with John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Then 62 judges of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. And then about 260 District Court judges.
My name goes here. said...
"All this trashtalk about how Trump is going to win. Not just win, but win in a landslide.
Yet nobody wants to put their money on it."
Do you want to place a wager?
You're goddamn right I do. On a Trump "landslide." On Trump's "98%" likelihood of winning.
Trump in a landslide?
It would be fun to watch the meltdowns but it's not going to happen.
The polls are shifting back and forth because the samples are small, and the demographic models used to weight them are inaccurate this year. So minor sampling variations produce wild swings in results. You would probably have to do a poll of 20-45 thousand to get anything accurate right now, and no one's going to spend the money to do that.
We're only going to find out on election day.
I'm just confused here. Which Republican would do better against Hillary? Trump's been bashed relentlessly on Pussy. But what if it were Walker? Probably not the pussy stuff, but he would be eating children alive because he has ruined unions in Wisconsin. It didn't work there (despite great efforts) but that's because Wisconsin voters knew better. People in, say, North Carolina would be just as affected. I like Walker, he was my second choice. Cruz was my first, and he was the only one who really competed against Trump. What if it were Cruz (and I think he would have hit Hillary hard; anyone else remember his Hillary ad Office Space parody about Hillary destroying the servers ?)
Cruz would literally have horns and be the Spanish Inquisition, coming to burn everyone as a witch. Plus, he's (sadly) not charismatic. He couldn't have held off the all out blitz the media is.
No, the only one who could have done it was Romney. And only because everyone knows who he was from 2012; and they already have an opinion on him that the media couldn't move. People would prefer Romney over Hillary. The contrast between decent and Hill's corruption would be too great.
But Romney didn't run because Jeb came to Utah and threatened him somehow, and Mitt agreed to stand aside. So Jeb's really to blame for all of this mess. He thought it was "His turn" and took out the only person with a real chance to defeat the MSM/Hillary Axis.
Only Trump of the remaining crew has had a punchers chance against the media, because that's really what this election is: Trump versus the Media, not against Hillary. And none of the rest of the GOP would be doing any better than Trump is (save Romney).
--Vance
"I'm just confused here. Which Republican would do better against Hillary? Trump's been bashed relentlessly on Pussy. But what if it were Walker? Probably not the pussy stuff, but he would be eating children alive because he has ruined unions in Wisconsin. It didn't work there (despite great efforts) but that's because Wisconsin voters knew better. People in, say, North Carolina would be just as affected. I like Walker, he was my second choice. Cruz was my first, and he was the only one who really competed against Trump. What if it were Cruz (and I think he would have hit Hillary hard; anyone else remember his Hillary ad Office Space parody about Hillary destroying the servers ?)"
I'm under no illusion that any of the other candidates didn't have their own downsides, and that the Clinton machine would pull out all stops to vilify whoever they were running against. We could do a rundown on each of them and predict how that would have gone.
But one thing a lot of those candidates had was discipline and organization, which would have meant a fundraising operation and ground game, and likely staying on message despite distractions. Most "traditional" candidates can do this, and we're talking about starting with an advantage--a wounded, wooden candidate like Hillary to go against. The "Republicans are extremist!" trope would certainly be used against Cruz, Perry, JEB!, Rubio, and Walker, but that attack is an old one with far less bite than it used to have. And a smart campaign--not saying any of them would have had one, but usually the GOP has at least a semi-competent one by the general election--could have kept the focus on Hillary. If this election is about Hillary, she loses--that's all there is to it.
Trump is unique in that he cannot let anything not be about him. So Hillary was given a rare gift in her opponent.
We can't know for sure one of the other candidates would have been better, but it's hard to imagine any of them making the mistakes Trump is making. If Hillary wins, it's not because she's good at this--it's because of what she was able to run against.
Curiel is a hack, his wife was a big booster back in 2014, he was just putting him on notice, khan was a salafist booster, whose business was directly impacted by trump's policy proposals,
So, wonder if Hillary isn't about to discover what the Republicans in 1998 found: sex scandals don't really move the voters, but overplaying them does kinda piss them off. Sometimes, irony is so...ironic.
Start with John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Then 62 judges of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. And then about 260 District Court judges.
No need for potty mouth. I addressed court picks earlier. They are important, but only in that they delay the inevitable.
Which brings me back to my question to you: How would the U.S. be different if Al Gore became president rather than GW Bush?
How is it possible? Last night, I was wondering why Clinton isn't ahead by 50 points, considering the way the press has been reporting lately. But the press is skewed, trying to shape what we do, and we're only entering the last phase when reputations are on the line and media risk looking like fools if something happens that seems to blindside them."
They already have done their jobs. In FL about 40% of the votes have been already cast. Early voting needs to be abolished except for those who can demonstrate they will be away or are either handicapped or ill and can't vote in person.
Chuck why don't you enlighten us and tell us which Republican would have beaten Hillary Clinton like a rented mule? I might be wrong but I read somewhere the bookies overseas where such betting is allowed show Trump winning.
On Trump's "98%" likelihood of winning.
I'm not sure how you could bet on that particular fact, because how can it be proven/disproven? If he wins, well 98% is close to 100%. If he loses, well 98% isn't 100%.
I'm 100% certain it will rain today in Madison.
There are good polls and bad ones, for sure, but there is also inherent variability in polling. Silver's approach is to weight polls based on past performance and methodological rigor, but it is also not to get too hung up on any single poll. It's a weighted average, after all. Given that that the margin of error is 4-5 points in most polls, swings of 10% are unusual but not necessarily statistically significant. I see a lot of people on this site pointing out the couple of polls that show a much tighter race than the consensus averages of 6-7% for Clinton (or the outliers on the other side showing landslide leads for her). If Clinton's lead was in the 5-8% range, we would fully expect a number of polls to show the race as a dead heat and some to show her with a 12 point lead. That is, in fact, exactly what we see. To cherry pick a single outlier poll, no matter the respectability of the polling organization, is treading close to self-deception.
They always have the same narrative. The Democrat is winning. Then suddenly, polls tighten. And it's an excuse that the polls always tighten right before the election.
Really? How long are we going to go on believing this?
ERGO the mass media polling under- samples Independents, and over- samples Democrats.
Brando 10:05.
Stated.
I agree with Vance, et al that claims any other Republican could have beaten Hillary easily are way over blown. That's not to say that Trump was the only one with a chance, or is necessarily doing a good job now. Look at W's DUI charge in 2000, Rathergate in 2004, the whispering campaign against McCain in 2008 (accusations of affairs, questions about health before he imploded), Rick Perry and 'the racist rock', or the Crowley-Obama tag team on Romney in 2012. Talking points would have been found, attacks would have been made, Hillary's issues would have still been ignored or minimized. Thinking that things would have been different for a nicer nominee is part of what got us the lame efforts of McCain and Romney.
In 2012, Romney had two rallies in suburban Denver about a week apart that were jam packed. I thought for sure that if he was getting that kind of open, enthusiastic support the polls were understating his support. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Silver has his bias, but he owns it.
Chuck, I'll take your bet. Email me at bet.chuckremes.com (replace first period with @). I use throw away accounts when posting in public forums.
We'll work out the details in email.
But Romney didn't run because Jeb came to Utah and threatened him somehow, and Mitt agreed to stand aside.
I don't know that he was "threatened." I think JEB just said he had all this money and Romney had failed.
I maxed out on contributions to Romney, something I never do. This, however, was not his year. A lot of GOP voters are still mad that he lost and seemed weak. I was unhappy that he could not bring himself to slam Obamacare. I have a degree in health policy from Dartmouth, the place that really designed Hillarycare, and I knew it could not work.
Socialism never works. Except in hunter-gatherer societies. We may be headed there if the greenies get their way.
Trump is going to win. God help us.
Where is this national poll, btw?
Did Ann read it wrong? All I'm seeing is the Florida poll. Is there a national poll?
Chip said
"burning their brand down"
Never heard that phrase before but I think it sums up what is unique about this election.
No matter who wins the depth of media bias and the loss of journalistic standards is irrevocably exposed. Hollywood hatred of America - on display and noted. In response TV Network viewership is already down even for NFL games. The big execs are stunned so concussion has been transferred from the playing field to corporate offices.
No matter who wins, the polls have been useless ending their domination. They are all over the place being uncertain how to weight the dead voters (Clinton) vs. the shadow voters who won't answer polls (Trump).
No matter who wins, the Democrats nominated a candidate who was given millions by big banks and hedge traders.
No matter who wins, Obamacare is burning down.
No matter who wins, the big cities are exposed as failing. The body count in Chicago exceeds Iraq. The public schools only work in white or Asian areas. The pensions are not funded. Mayors are entirely hostile to job creation and entirely receptive to leaders of mobs and to filth spouting rappers.
No matter who wins, being chicken has come home to roost. US foreign policy is exposed as a turkey at Thanksgiving time. Foreign leaders openly give us the bird in China and the Philippines. Clinton would like to call them racist but as it happens...
And so it goes. Like the Sixties - only now it's brands burning (unexpectedly!), not cities.
Should we keep on and vote for more of the same?
Brando - Romney in 2012 ran about as tight a campaign as you can imagine. What did it get him?
The 47% solution
Binders full of women
Magic Underwear
Dog on a roof
ERGO the mass media polling under- samples Independents, and over- samples Democrats.
Which we have known for awhile, but the interesting thing is that they also oversample Blacks and Hispanics, urban over suburban and rural. Not all registered Dems are alike, esp. this election, which is why they have been oversampling Dem constituencies that seem to be stronger for Crooked Hillary than others, like blue collar whites.
quiet, don't let the facts get in the way of the meme,
I am not as worried about the big banks and tech companies giving all that money to Crooked Hillary. They do that all the time, esp. to Dems, to buy favorable policy, either from Congress, or the current Administration through regulations and the like. The bigger worry for me is that she has taken a lot of money from foreigners and sold American foreign policy to the highest bidders. The Russians ended up with 1/5 of our uranium supply. Worse, though, is that the middle east is aflame, and her siding with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, and the Sunnis in Syria, are a big part of it. Esp. the latter, which arguably could be a result of all the Gulf Coast money she accepted. And, we have a massive immigration problem around the world as a result. Maybe a coincidence, but for the other two, I wonder if the pushing those other two was at least partially a result of having her closest aid, the one who supposedly sleeps in her room at times, have family who continue, to this day, to be closely allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Maybe the Clintons have plucked the low hanging fruit already, when it comes to selling American foreign policy and the like. But, I can't help worrying that things could get worse, much worse, as the stakes increase, if she gets the ultimate power, the Presidency.
@Birches -- Romney had a few well-attended rallies in October. Trump has been holding yugely and bigly attended rallies in damn near every state for at least the last nine months. That's the difference.
"Who you calling "you"? "
Freder has a binary view of the world. If you're not with him, you are The Other.
Where is this national poll, btw? Did Ann read it wrong? All I'm seeing is the Florida poll. Is there a national poll?
eric, the Bloomberg national poll is referenced at RealClearPolitics but when you click through it links back to the article...
Romney's abject failure to defend himself against the second-rate smear efforts of the Obama team made him demonstrably unfit to withstand what would have been an onslaught of smears for the top-notch Clinton Slime Machine. Yes Trump's been getting smeared 24/7 but it's less important because personal character isn't part of the package he's selling. We all know he's not a particularly good or nice person - he's trying to sell us his services as CEO/Attack Dog, not spiritual guide, mentor, father figure etc.
"I'm 100% certain it will rain today in Madison."
I can "predict" that from 9,200 miles away. ;-)
he's trying to sell us his services as CEO/Attack Dog, not spiritual guide, mentor, father figure etc.
Exactly, I'm not looking to hire a pastor for my church, I want someone who will be an advocate for my interests and can do so successfully. Personally, I find it pretty remarkable that the country is in a state were I agree with Michael Moore.
"Brando - Romney in 2012 ran about as tight a campaign as you can imagine. What did it get him?"
It wasn't a perfect campaign--as you noted, he slipped up with the 47% remark and his latter debates could have been better, and I think more importantly his ground game was good but not as good as Obama's--but Romney was running against a tougher opponent in a tougher year than what we have now. Getting as close as he did was to Romney's credit.
And yes, the Left doesn't give anyone a pass--they did what they could to make Romney unpopular with swing voters and the Dem base (with an assist from Newt and Rick in the primaries, where their scorched earth campaign left Romney with then-record low ratings for a new nominee, before Obama even launched a single attack on him). I've seen it happen repeatedly--remember "Dole-Gingrich" in '96? (When Dole and Newt were hardly friendly, but the Clinton ads made it out like they were running mates) I'm sure they would have done the same to, say, Rubio.
And look at how, regardless of everything, Trump has kept it somewhat close. Can you really justify him throwing wild punches at targets not named Hillary, or having no ground game, or taking days off in the final weeks to talk up his hotel in that notorious swing state of D.C., or not prepping for any of his debates, or getting off message regularly? I've seen some Trumpists say "that stuff doesn't really matter" and in a blowout it doesn't, but this year it may come down to several states within a point or two.
Blogger rehajm said...
Where is this national poll, btw? Did Ann read it wrong? All I'm seeing is the Florida poll. Is there a national poll?
eric, the Bloomberg national poll is referenced at RealClearPolitics but when you click through it links back to the article...
I'm still not seeing it. Maybe my browser is funky. All I'm seeing is the Florida poll.
"Freder has a binary view of the world. If you're not with him, you are The Other."
Yeah, we are all Trumpists now in the eyes of some.
@Brando - Trump definitely prepared for the debates. He tried to pretend like he didn't, to keep expectations low, but he would have been even worse had he not prepped.
I'm still not seeing it. Maybe my browser is funky. All I'm seeing is the Florida poll.
No you're correct. I'm not seeing it there now, either...
"@Brando - Trump definitely prepared for the debates. He tried to pretend like he didn't, to keep expectations low, but he would have been even worse had he not prepped."
Geez--for his sake, I hope that's not true.
Blogger rehajm said...
I'm still not seeing it. Maybe my browser is funky. All I'm seeing is the Florida poll.
No you're correct. I'm not seeing it there now, either...
If you and Althouse saw it before, that's a very curious turn of events. There is a way to recover stuff that was posted on the internet and then taken down, but that's beyond my abilities.
This was a Florida poll only. It was not also a National poll. Seltzer & Co has not yet released their recent national poll. Also note that the Survey USA poll for Florida came out today and has Clinton up by 3. Survey USA has been given an A rating by Nate Silver. So let's say Florida is a toss up. But nationally Clinton still leads.
"This was a Florida poll only. It was not also a National poll. Seltzer & Co has not yet released their recent national poll. Also note that the Survey USA poll for Florida came out today and has Clinton up by 3. Survey USA has been given an A rating by Nate Silver. So let's say Florida is a toss up. But nationally Clinton still leads."
The way I see it Florida is a "nice to have" for Hillary but a "must have" for Trump, because Florida generally trends a point or two for the Republican compared to the national average. So it's very unlikely Trump can lose Florida while winning say Pennsylvania. And if Trump loses Florida, he needs a near perfect run up of smaller swing states (CO, NV, VA, NC) to make up for that many electoral votes.
Two stats don't look good for him there--Dems have done better than in 2012 with absentee ballots, and Hispanic voter registration has gone way up in the state. He'll need a stronger than usual election day swing to make up for it.
MadisonMan said... [hush][hide comment]
It will be a great thing for this country if the voting results are wildly different from both Polls.
10/26/16, 8:09 AM
Unfortunately I think you are right. Trump could snag every last legal voter and Hillary will still win. You can't out do a) felons, b) illegals, c) multi-voters, and e) the dead.
The DNC is pulling out all the stops with this one. I fully expect to see a massive repeat of ObamaTime whereas a number of counties reported over 100% turn-out as well a number of districts reporting 100% for Obama. We will have such massive voter fraud this time out that this could be the last election we hold, there will just not be any point any longer. Watch the Veritas videos. They sicken the soul.
If you and Althouse saw it before, that's a very curious turn of events.
RCP posted the Bloomberg FL 4-way result and also a FL Senate race result. Certainly possible I could have attributed the 2-way result Bloomberg cites in the article as a national posting at RCP.
RCP could have screwed up too...
but this year it may come down to several states within a point or two.
If it were close Trump would lose because cheating can win a close race and the Democrats will definitely cheat.
But not to worry. Trump will win in a landslide. They can’t cheat themselves out of a landslide.
In 1980 a mid October poll had Reagan losing by six. He won by ten.
It’s known as a self-fulfilling prophecy, one of the MSM’s favorite techniques. If you say shit often enough to enough low-info people … But not this cycle, apparently. Trump and Reagan – Teflon Presidents?
Yet nobody wants to put their money on it.
I seem to remember someone in authority warning folks about illegal betting on this blog. Chuck, why don’t you buy some of those “shares” at PredictShit.org? It’s about the same as a bet, isn’t it? Don’t fight the beast – ride the beast.
So, wonder if Hillary isn't about to discover what the Republicans in 1998 found: sex scandals don't really move the voters, but overplaying them does kinda piss them off.
BINGO! Give this commentor a brand new GE toaster!
grackle said...If it were close Trump would lose because cheating can win a close race and the Democrats will definitely cheat.
Holy shit can you imagine the #NeverTrump people if Trump loses narrowly--like by 1 or 2 points in battleground states? Jonah Goldberg et al. have to be praying for a big Trump loss or a small Trump win. A slim Trump loss that could plausibly be blamed on #NeverTrump Repubs/conservatives would be the end of Goldberg, and Kristol, and all those guys, right?
"Holy shit can you imagine the #NeverTrump people if Trump loses narrowly--like by 1 or 2 points in battleground states? Jonah Goldberg et al. have to be praying for a big Trump loss or a small Trump win. A slim Trump loss that could plausibly be blamed on #NeverTrump Repubs/conservatives would be the end of Goldberg, and Kristol, and all those guys, right?"
Regardless of the outcome--and I'm on record saying it won't be a landslide in either direction, I'm guessing victory will be within a 5% margin--one thing I'm absolutely certain of is no one will accept any blame no matter what happens. If Trump loses, no way a Trumpist will say "geez, maybe that guy wasn't what we assumed he'd be and he flopped" nor will a NeverTrump conservative say "maybe I should have gotten on board" and if Trump wins no way a Clintonite will say "geez, maybe we should have nominated someone better than Hillary" nor will a Sandersite say "maybe we shouldn't have primaried her".
It'll always be someone else's fault. No one can fail, they can only be failed.
It's quite clear that NeverTrump has been a large drag on Trump. To say they are insignificant would be a lie.
But, it doesn't matter. They have destroyed what the trump supporters never could. Their own credibility.
If Trump wins, this would be the best outcome for them. Then they can complain endlessly about trump and say, "See, we told you!"
But if Hillary wins, guess what will happen in 4 years and in 8 years and in 12 years.
Yep. A counter never campaign. If they get Jeb, or Rubio, or kasich, or whoever their favorite candidate is, the Never campaign will be twice as large and they'll have no argument to stop it.
Basically, they stepped on their own dick.
Brando
"The way I see it Florida is a "nice to have" for Hillary but a "must have" for Trump"
Yes, on election night if Florida is called for Clinton then the election is most likely over. Florida is the really the only path Trump has to win. And yet if he wins it he still has a long way to go. Hillary can lose Florida and Ohio and still win.
Two stats don't look good for him there--Dems have done better than in 2012 with absentee ballots,
Where have Dems done better in 2016 absentee ballots than in 2012?
I'm not overly concerned at this point. The collectivists always cull their own side first. Watch for that after Hillary (likely) wins.
One can already observe it happening on college campuses.
robother said...So, wonder if Hillary isn't about to discover what the Republicans in 1998 found: sex scandals don't really move the voters, but overplaying them does kinda piss them off. Sometimes, irony is so...ironic.
No. That'd be nice, that'd be fair, that'd be fitting. But we don't live in a just world, robother.
Bill Clinton is accused of rape and multiple sexual assault--he repeatedly lied about a sexual relationship he carried out with a junior employee at work (for his taxpayer salary) and settled an $800k sexual harassment lawsuit. How is he described in the Media? What is his image w/the nation--what's his approval rating TODAY? Yeah, America mostly loves Clinton.
Ask Professor Althouse! You respect her opinion. Is nice Prof. Althouse offended by rapist Bill Clinton prominently campaigning for Hillary? Does nice Prof. Althouse hold Hillary's actions to smear Bill's many accusers against Hillary, to the point that she'd campaign against Hillary? No. Professor Althouse is more consistent in calling out the anti-feminist treatment of Bill Clinton, and has condemned Clinton's actions while in office more, than any of her fellow liberal law Professors, I'm certain. She's a nice person and actually cares about women's issues/feminist ideals, but even she isn't outraged by Clinton (either of 'em) nor the fact that Bill is still seen as a decent dude by most of the nation.
Trump, on the other hand? Well, Trump's basically a monster and that's gonna stick. Prof. Althouse has pointed out bad Dem. arguments and egregious Media bias--again to a degree far greater than any of her liberal friends I'd bet--but there's no way she'll vote for Trump. Neither will any of the people to her left...nor a solid % of the people to her right.
The Left shouldn't win these battles, but they do, and they will continue to win them.
"Where have Dems done better in 2016 absentee ballots than in 2012?"
I recall an article in the Hill saying it was FL and NC.
Brando said... If Trump loses, no way a Trumpist will say "geez, maybe that guy wasn't what we assumed he'd be and he flopped" nor will a NeverTrump conservative say "maybe I should have gotten on board"
Well...a Trumpist MIGHT say "gee his personal scandal stuff hurt him more than we thought it would, he could have done a better job of handling that/combating Media unfairness" or something. The NeverTrump people, though, won't ever say they should have gotten on board--they're going to say theirs was a principled stand, win or lose, so the question isn't whether they'll admit they should have voted or advocated differently. If Trump's loss is close they wont' be able to say "well our efforts aren't what cost him the election anyway" though, and that's a big deal once we're living under Pres. Hillary's designer footwear.
Just got an email appeal from Donald Trump that starts this way:
"Every day I wake up determined to deliver a better life for the people all across this nation that have been ignored, neglected and abandoned."
But today when he woke up--he went to a ribbon-cutting for his newest luxury hotel in Washington DC. Go figure.
"Well...a Trumpist MIGHT say "gee his personal scandal stuff hurt him more than we thought it would, he could have done a better job of handling that/combating Media unfairness" or something."
You really think a Trumpist would say that? Already just about every Trumpist comment I've seen here has blamed media bias, DNC rigging and traitorous Republicans (which strangely include a lot of GOP officeholders who have publicly endorsed Trump). I haven't seen one yet saying "what the hell is our guy doing???" unless it comes from someone like Chuck or April (who are reluctant Trump voters, not Trumpists).
"The NeverTrump people, though, won't ever say they should have gotten on board--they're going to say theirs was a principled stand, win or lose, so the question isn't whether they'll admit they should have voted or advocated differently."
Oh, I don't doubt that. They think they're sending the message that maybe next time the party should nominate someone they approve of, who is sufficiently conservative.
"If Trump's loss is close they wont' be able to say "well our efforts aren't what cost him the election anyway" though, and that's a big deal once we're living under Pres. Hillary's designer footwear."
They'll still say it though--they'll say it was Trump's fault for not getting them on his side.
The only question is how it'll affect things going forward. There'll be a lot of bad blood to clean up, at a time when the Dems will be trying to get as much passed as they can before the mid-terms.
The never Trump folks could never be won over. That's why they called themselves never Trump. They decided during the primary campaign that Trump was not qualified to be president, regardless of his ideology (which many of them discounted based on his history of being on both sides of every conceivable issue). But most of them aren't voting for Clinton (with some exceptions along the thinking of Will, Boot, Kaplan--national security types).
Gary Johnson lost four points and Jill Stein one point sometime between the two polls. Apparently their supporters went to Trump. Either that or Clinton really took a bath.
Hillary wins the unfavorable ratings sweepstakes. Followed closely by Trump and, somewhat surprising, her husband. Everybody loves Michelle, though. Rubio is doing quite well even though a plurality of voters think he's only in it to maintain a national profile.
I wouldn't have the patience to sit through all those questions, particularly the personal ones. I'd probably lie through my teeth just for something to do.
Election coverage 1980 (h/t Rush Limbaugh):
BRINKLEY: I'd like to ask a question of you folks. We have here what I think reasonably could be called a landslide or certainly something approaching a landslide. Where did it come from? Nobody anticipated it. No polls predicted it. No one saw it coming. How did that happen? I don't want to knock the polls, because I believe in them, and they generally do very good work. One thing I wondered. Have a lot of people -- did a lot of people decide to vote for Reagan, but didn't want to say so?
BROKAW: Well, that's always been a factor. He's an actor, after all. A lot of people have made fun of him, and maybe I ought not be publicly in favor of him.
BRINKLEY: Again, don't want to pick on the polls, but there was none of this insight.
-----------------------------------------
Egad. Faulty polls.
One other thing. If registered Dems are voting absentee (or early) in large numbers, it doesn't necessarily mean they are voting Clinton. There's a lot of anger out there in the segment citizens abandoned by Obama and Hillary during the last eight years. That they voted in primaries four year ago and registered as Dems then does not matter now, when they're house values are underwater, their health insurance has become a joke, and their futures (and those of their children) look bleak.
segment of citizens
But today when he woke up--he went to a ribbon-cutting for his newest luxury hotel in Washington DC. Go figure.
Oh, I dunno. Building things seems a worthwhile endeavor. Employing people to build things and then operate them once they're built seems worthwhile. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has spent a lifetime talking about all the work she's done on behalf of women and children, but we're hard pressed to find any evidence that her efforts have amounted to anything in particular. A completed building is an actual accomplishment. Talk is just talk.
"Oh, I dunno. Building things seems a worthwhile endeavor. Employing people to build things and then operate them once they're built seems worthwhile."
So is writing the great American novel. But if I'm out there donating money and knocking on doors to support a candidate and find out he's off spending critical final days of the campaign doing something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the campaign, it doesn't make me want to put in any more effort. If just for morale for supporters, you don't want to be doing that without a compelling reason (such as a sick wife to tend to).
"One other thing. If registered Dems are voting absentee (or early) in large numbers, it doesn't necessarily mean they are voting Clinton."
This is true--we have no way of knowing yet how those people voted.
Also, it's possible that it just means Dems are voting more early, not that they're voting more period. We won't know any of this for sure until the aftermath.
The polls are swinging wildly because Trumpers are unwilling to tell anyone who they're voting for.
I learned this lesson recently. A few months ago, I mentioned to my Mom that I was considering voting for Trump, and she went completely nuts and started shrieking at me. (The irony here is that my grandmother shrieked at HER for voting Nixon in 1972, something that always bothered her ... but somehow she's completely forgotten about that when it comes to Trump.)
So I'm not telling anyone else about my voting plans, and I'm certainly not responding to polls. Also dropping out of Facebook until after the election is over; I'm just not interested in reading the howling screeds of my leftie friends.
If I was retired and no longer doing music gigs, I'd feel free to share my opinions. But we live in a time now when people are punished for having "the Wrong opinions", and I don't want to lose work over my ThoughtCrimes.
As far as I know, people weren't having their cars vandalized, nor were they having their houses trashed for supporting Brexit. And yet the polls were consistently wrong about that result as well. People were just keeping that to themselves, because they didn't trust the pollsters. Something like that might be happening right now.
All opinions are created equal, but some opinions are more equal than others.
"I think more importantly his ground game was good but not as good as Obama's"
Romney's GOTV campaign collapsed on election day.
I'm still not sure why. I thought there'd be a book about it by now.
gerry said...
"1980 election"
A couple notes on that election. The polling actually had Reagan up in the last three months of polling. This site did a great job of showing that Reagan was ahead in polling and according to the media.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2016/10/04/lets-face-rush-limbaugh-retarded/
The poll most often cited in 1980 was the Gallup poll which did show Carter ahead by 6 or 7 points right before the ONE debate they had. That one debate they had was held ONE week before the election and it solidified Reagan's lead to a wide victory. So what some in the media didn't see was a landslide but that debate helped. This election is different. The debates did not help Trump. So in context the 1980 election is nothing like this election in 2016.
Just for giggles (and because I've been feeling deja vu-ish lately, like haven't we been here before??), I dove deep into the Althouse archives to read some posts and comments from late October 2012, or, the last time around.
The big issues were the bad economy and Benghazi. Ann was running regular posts on the Rasmussen tracking polls, which had Romney either even or slightly ahead. Other polls showed the swing states were very close. Ann told us that she was giving Iowa, Colorado, and Florida to Romney. Oops! Obama won all three.
But things were looking so close that Romney announced he had started transition planning. Everyone was noting how many more Romney yard signs there were, and almost none for Obama. Instapundit kept reminding us "don't get cocky."
Nate Silver told us, two weeks out, that things were beginning to break Obama's way. He was ridiculed.
There was not as much criticism of the media last time around (I didn't go back to the Crowley debate)...Bob Schieffer moderated the last of three in 2012 and he was considered, for the most part, to have done an OK job.
I don't know what all that means...probably not much. Every election is different, right?
"I don't know what all that means...probably not much. Every election is different, right?"
Indeed. Last time around Rasmussen and Gallup got it wrong--assumed too much for Romney--and a lot of Republicans were genuinely shocked that the other polls had it right all along. One side will be left sputtering again this year--they all want to believe they're really ahead.
Not that it does much good to be rosy about your side. If you're behind, you want to know that while there's time to do something about it.
Chill, Brando. It's just the am. He has two campaign events in NC later today.
Matt, David Brinkley said "Again, don't want to pick on the polls, but there was none of this insight." So, was Brinkley being ignorant, or was he right, that there was no insight into what was happening?
I was in Phoenix that night and was watching, happily three hours behind the East coast, when the nets called the election for Reagan. I was prepared for an evening of fascinating election coverage only to be disappointed at 5:15 P.M. that it was already over!
You may say "The polling actually had Reagan up in the last three months of polling. This site did a great job of showing that Reagan was ahead in polling and according to the media", but then please explain how both Brinkley and Brokaw were flummoxed by the results? Weren't they part of the media?
Brokaw said the very thing that may make this election like 1980: "He's an actor, after all. A lot of people have made fun of him, and maybe I ought not be publicly in favor of him." The way the MSM has demonized Trump, I think the same shaming forces are in play.
A slim Trump loss that could plausibly be blamed on #NeverTrump Repubs/conservatives would be the end of Goldberg, and Kristol, and all those guys, right?
I’m afraid not. The fact is that most of the major eGOP pundits are intelligent, talented writers who were simply caught completely at a loss when confronted with Trump. Trump was totally outside the scope of their long-stunted political imaginations. They’ll recover. Someone will have to explain how Trump’s landslide happened in a way that will be palatable to the eGOP faithful like Chuck. I cannot wait to see their apologia(as George Will might say).
But it is true that they’ve lost me and I believe have lost many other readers who used to devour every word. At a certain point during this campaign they should have snapped to what was happening; they should have abstained from the Trump Derangement Syndrome, from the distortions, hyperbole and outright lies drummed up by the anti-Trumpers, the Clintons and the silly-ass talking heads. I groaned when Krauthammer translated Trump’s statements about equitable trade agreements to mean Trump was for a “trade war.” All that wonderful intellect and what did Krauthammer do? He drank the fucking Kool-Aid, that’s what he did.
Already just about every Trumpist comment I've seen here has blamed media bias, DNC rigging and traitorous Republicans (which strangely include a lot of GOP officeholders who have publicly endorsed Trump).
Just for grins … mind telling us who the “GOP officeholders” are? Just for the sake of accuracy and the edification of the readers. We’ll be waiting …
#NeverDownBallot
But if I'm out there donating money and knocking on doors to support a candidate and find out he's off spending critical final days of the campaign doing something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the campaign, it doesn't make me want to put in any more effort.
Some friendly advice to us Trump supporters. WOW! He’s RIGHT! That goddamn Trump! I’m gonna stop all my support!!!
Just kidding.
#NeverDownBallot
Just wanted to point out that I offered to take Chuck up on his offer of a bet and even gave him my email address to contact me. I've seen him commenting in several other threads but he hasn't been back to this one since early this morning.
C'mon, Chuck. Let's do this. Email me at bet.chuckremes.com (replace first period with @) and we'll work out the details.
they should have abstained from the Trump Derangement Syndrome, from the distortions, hyperbole and outright lies drummed up by the anti-Trumpers, the Clintons and the silly-ass talking heads. I groaned when Krauthammer translated Trump’s statements about equitable trade agreements to mean Trump was for a “trade war.”
If Trump wins, it will take years to recover their reputations. If ever.
It's interesting to see how they fall out. I assume many NeverTrumpers are in thrall to the donor class or work for some of them.
The uproar is going to be huge and violent.
Already just about every Trumpist comment I've seen here has blamed media bias, DNC rigging and traitorous Republicans (which strangely include a lot of GOP officeholders who have publicly endorsed Trump).
Brando, we are still waiting for a list of “GOP officeholders” who have publicly endorsed Trump that us Trump supporters have blamed for anything.
It’s gonna be a long wait, readers. Why? Because the commentor has nothing but pure bullshit to offer. This is what happens when the mouth fails to engage the brain.
The weak-willed and timid shall be swept away.
#NeverDownBallot
Lot's of disinformation and mystification going on. This is an election where the term gaslighting has gained prominence.
In addition to some of the omens outlined here by Althouse, this one jumped out at me.
Remington Pennsylvania poll where Trump gets 29% of the African American vote.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा