To win in the Electoral College, Trump needs all the battleground states and at least one of the so-called "firewall" states. Both New Hampshire and Colorado are firewall states. Here's what Nate Silver said about that 2 days ago:
This time around, we haven’t seen too many of those polls in Clinton’s firewall states, such as Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. But that’s misleading, because we haven’t seen many high-quality polls from those states, period!AND: Here's Ronald Brownstein, writing yesterday in The Atlantic:
[T]he question looming over her campaign is whether she has left herself open to a flanking maneuver from Trump in any of the seemingly safe Democratic states that he is now targeting—key among them Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin....
Posts
93 comments:
Johnson 10% in New Hampshire? Wow. Those are squishy voters who don't know who they dislike the most. They may decide they need to take a stand come election day. Up for grabs.
The Clinton supporters keep talking about the polls in cross-section. In other words, today she would win if the election was held today. But the supporters don't look at trajectory - would she win if the drop in the polls continues at today's rate? She would not as far as I can tell. I think the Obamacare hikes plus the FBI director's statement will continue to push her down. In Minnesota for instance, the whole Obamacare sytem has collapsed and people are facing massive hikes. Yet Minnesota is presented as a "firewall" state, as a Hillary lock because it went for Obama and supported the Obamacare law. But look what that has gotten the Minnesota voters. Look how Hillary is ignoring them and courting illegals in Arizona. Why would Minnesota be a Hillary firewall when it could burn her down as she is doing to them?
I suspect Trump is having to overcome his promise to build a Border Wall that will end the cheap Opium the New Hampshire folks love so much. Addiction is a strong force.
Wait until we see a lot more polls before we start deciding this is a trend. If you look at all the polls over the past few months, they swing quite a lot--the crawl on "The Hill" has "Trump up 2!" followed by "No, Hillary up Four!" back and forth all the time. It's the averages that matter.
It'll be close, I still think, but about New Hampshire--let's just say if Trump wins New Hampshire he won't really need it because he'll have won every other swing state at that point.
Yeah, 538 does not seem to look much at momentum. Maybe they are right not to, maybe they are wrong.
At this point, my bet is that if Trump can avoid drawing attention to himself, and leave the focus on Clinton, he will win.
Of course, either side might still have a November surprise or two up their sleeves.
Keep hope alive, right Shiloh?
Anecdotal evidence from Colorado. The hippy mailman, seeing a Trump Pence sticker that had been dropped off in my mail box, broke into a big smile, and said "ABC--Anyone But Clinton!"
Ah yes, Nate Silver 420 hedging their bets now after giving trump .001% chance of winning.
Sorry, fellow GOPers, the firewall is the one wall that will work in this election.
It's a double-whammy- WikiLeaks plus the Weiner computer. The Clinton campaign is collapsing, and the Clintons look to be in a serious legal jam. Best and most reliable source on TV that I know of is Brett Bair on FNC. He's a straight up news guy and he loves to follow a story.
Hillary's and her supporters' ads are mostly anti-Trump now. They went big last night in the World Series with Trump's pussy comment.
They accept she's unlikeable and know the election turns on who is hated more.
I am persuaded that the worst effects of Trump's governance will be stopped by both houses of Congress because neither party supports him, by the entrenched bureaucracy that opposes him, and by the media.
I am not persuaded that the worst effects of Hillary's governance will be stopped by anyone other than Congressional R's. The others support her or are indifferent as long as they get continue to get their slice.
So I am still Johnson but Trump-persuadable.I sense that the polls are reflecting some others who have made the switch.
Brando said...
Wait until we see a lot more polls before we start deciding this is a trend.
We have seen plenty of polls to determine that this is a trend. They have been moving this way fairly consistently for ten days. What we don't know is if the trend will continue long enough and sharply enough for Trump to take the lead, including overcoming early voting and the margin of fraud.
"At this point, my bet is that if Trump can avoid drawing attention to himself, and leave the focus on Clinton, he will win."
Or at least keep it a tossup. Just a few days left--if voters are thinking of Clinton, he's got a chance. If they're thinking of him, he's toast.
"Of course, either side might still have a November surprise or two up their sleeves."
We now sort of expect something to drop tomorrow. It could be anything, but something definitely will drop.
Maybe something will drop from each side. Like Trump and Hillary tag teaming an unconscious Mattress Girl or something. Sort of a Mutually Assured Destruction Oppo Dump.
"We have seen plenty of polls to determine that this is a trend. They have been moving this way fairly consistently for ten days. What we don't know is if the trend will continue long enough and sharply enough for Trump to take the lead, including overcoming early voting and the margin of fraud."
I meant in NH in particular--I think this is one of the first recent polls from there. But generally yes, most indications (with a few outliers) show a very close race. My guess is there's isn't enough time left for pollsters to pick up any late breaking trends away from that, so any new surprises in vote totals will be on election day.
Deus ex Machina XXXX
QUEEN OFFERS TO RESTORE BRITISH RULE OVER UNITED STATES
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—In an unexpected televised address on Saturday, Queen Elizabeth II offered to restore British rule over the United States of America.
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
Elizabeth acknowledged that, in the wake of Brexit, Americans might justifiably be alarmed about being governed by the British parliamentary system, but she reassured them, “Parliament would play no role in this deal. This would be an old-school monarchy. Just me, and then, assuming you’d rather not have Charles, we could go straight to William and those children of his who have mesmerized you so.”
Using the closing moments of her speech to tout her credentials, the Queen made it clear that she has never used e-mail and has only had sex with one person “very occasionally.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states
Political polling is a science. There's good science and bad science. Nate has CO at 72% and NH at 65% for Hillary.
Regardless, keep hope alive!
You know who is really going to be sad on the 9th?
The GOPe and the neocons.
You know why? Because Trump is going to outperm Romney in every metric and demographic except men who wear shorts and have chicks legs. He will do better with Black voters and working class white voters in particular.
Momentum is a thing. I am leaning much more heavily to voting for Trump, with reservations that would have disqualified me from voting for any candidate previously, simply based on the fact that he might actually win this thing, and the corruption that we have been seeing from the Clinton machine, and the DNC, and the FBI, the IRS, the FEC, all the whole mess says that they need a kick in the teeth.
Not to mention the media silence on her wars and their consequences, all unintended, of course.
Oh look, here comes Shilo. The parrot comes home to roost.
"Trump is going to outperm Romney"
Hey, nobody can outperm Willard as his perm is impeccable!
Calm down Achilles and try to take deep breaths occasionally.
Hillary is still running commercials about what a terrible person Trump is. That's is a big time mistake. Trump's warts, boils and pimples are no surprise to anyone. Emphasizing them does not add to information about Trump, and reminds people that in her own smarmy way she is no better. Yet there is Hillary, a person of disreputable character, making character the issue.
She should be talking positively about what she would do and how she would do it. Take the issue from character to performance. She is making a big mistake.
Enough of a mistake to lose the election? If the New Hampshire polls are accurate, she has a problem. NH voters are of the white demographic most likely to deflect to Clinton. If she has trouble with them, she has trouble with a lot of people.
That said, I still expect her to win.
"Hillary is still running commercials about what a terrible person Trump is. That's is a big time mistake."
I've seen a few of them and thought they make no sense, but then figured I'm not really the target audience. She's going for people already pro-Hillary and trying to make them more motivated to vote. It's like a dog whistle we can't hear.
My favorite Hillary ad is "The Children are Watching" all the while thousands of state department emails are on the laptop of notorious pervert and accused pedophile. Her husband is still dicking bimbos, and he will get an office in the White House. She has zero self-awareness.
From what we're seeing on Boston TV, I'd have to say that Trump's got the better ads up in New Hampshire. Donald's running a smiling and admiring Ivanka while Hillary is running an add about what a terrible example he is to children, without seeming to realize that her ad inflicts the very harm on children that the ad decries.
I thought we agreed that "The Dicking Bimbos" was a small cover band that plays pubs and other venues in Westchester County?
It's the averages that matter.
No, it's the fraud that matters.
By Any Means Necessary. It's not just a slogan, it's a way of life.
The break in the press/poll perception or misconception. It's been an unusually hard, bitter campaign for the fourth estate.
Hillary is still running commercials about what a terrible person Trump is. That's is a big time mistake. Trump's warts, boils and pimples are no surprise to anyone.
Hillary needs white middle class women to come out and actually vote for her. Trump needs that same group to stay home, as most of them will never vote for him under any circumstance. This is why Hillary is trying to emphasize how horrible Trump is regarding women. I have no idea if it'll work or not, but that's the Hillary camp's thinking at any rate.
Polling is only part science. The composition used to arrive at topline figures is guesswork. There is good guesswork, bad guesswork, biased guesswork, wishcasting guesswork. I wouldn't put much store by Mr. Cohn.
I fully expect to see a false sense of optimism by the anti-Hillary people. The media uses that to motivate the GOTV crowd with the idea that a non democrat could win.
I am disinclined to trust any polling/analysis these days. There is an agenda, and neutral honesty, is not involved. That said there is a lot of different angles in play this year so nothing can be ruled out.
Still within cheating distance.
"WikiLeaks plus the Weiner "
AKA the Weiner Leaks
"I've seen a few of them and thought they make no sense, but then figured I'm not really the target audience."
I live in Texas and have seen a lot of ads tying Rep Hurd to Trump. The ads are saying Hurd votes with "Trump and Republicans" all the time. Well, Trump hasn't been in office, so I'm not sure about that. If he votes with the Republicans, that's an argument to make I suppose, but then those votes probably aren't representative of what Trump supports.
An earlier argument about the Democrats being in lockstep with Clinton, while many Republicans wouldn't be so beholden to Trump makes perfect sense, especially with Democrats asking Obama to issue executive orders to get around Congress. Probably only reason I could support Trump (already voted - for Johnson).
The Break in the Clinton Firewall:
"The hole in the dike" probably has bad visuals.
Nigel Tufnel said...
I am persuaded that the worst effects of Trump's governance will be stopped by both houses of Congress because neither party supports him, by the entrenched bureaucracy that opposes him, and by the media.
I am not persuaded that the worst effects of Hillary's governance will be stopped by anyone other than Congressional R's. The others support her or are indifferent as long as they get continue to get their slice.
Based on their lack of performance against Obama, I have no faith that Republicans in Congress would do anything serious to oppose Hillary. Just as any opposition to Obama was automatically labeled racist, any opposition to Hillary is sexist. Call the Republicans a bad name and they cave.
Should Trump win, he'll be opposed by the press, by the bureaucracy, and by most of Congress. All of those members of the political class will do everything they can to hurt him. They have a lot of lose, starting with their phoney-baloney jobs.
Dan Truitt said...
It's a double-whammy- WikiLeaks plus the Weiner computer. The Clinton campaign is collapsing, and the Clintons look to be in a serious legal jam.
11/3/16, 11:27 AM
Never underestimate crooks. There are still plenty of illegals that vote, plenty of felons, can't ignore the dead, and lots and lots of gullible lefties.
As the PV videos have shown, the DNC/Camp Clinton will stop at nothing to win. I expect fraud to be wide-spread and frequent. I would not be surprised after election night to find out that 175% of the population (not just eligible voters) turned out to vote.
Sebastian said...
Sorry, fellow GOPers, the firewall is the one wall that will work in this election.
11/3/16, 11:27 AM
Just shut up and vote for him, "fellow GOPer." Then you can talk.
Nigel Tufnel said...
So I am still Johnson but Trump-persuadable.I sense that the polls are reflecting some others who have made the switch.
You can do it Spinal Tapper! Strike a blow for freedom! Get her off our necks!
Nigel Tufnel: Bad Lieutenant...nobody has ever done this before.
BL: I know. That's why it's going to work.
Hillary's blue firewall is lined with the red GOPe. see, e.g. Utah and Virginia
great job GOPe
If you look at fivethirtyeight.com and every state that is any red shade at all and give it to Trump it gets him to 265 electoral votes. Not enough. Even picking up New Hampshire would take him to 269 (and a tie!). Of course there are several pink states that are not really red.
The good news for Trump is that this map was way more blue 5 days ago. If he had momentum he can win.
Being in CO I seriously doubt that Trump can win the state. Too many in Denver greater area, Boulder, CO Springs and Ft. Collins vote Dem. Maybe the burning of the Trump poster will help bring out the Trump voters. I sure hope so.
Anyone who is paying attention and votes for a third party is basically letting Clinton get away with and enabling future Clinton and generalized government corruption.
Hold your nose and vote Trump, he won't have a ton of power, but he will pull the plug on the Federal agency swamp and strike fear into other "public servants" operating like thugs. Clinton will be a massive glut of government corruption.
My name goes here. said...
If you look at fivethirtyeight.com and every state that is any red shade at all and give it to Trump it gets him to 265 electoral votes. Not enough. Even picking up New Hampshire would take him to 269 (and a tie!).
Check again, particularly looking at the snake graphic. New Hampshire going to Trump clearly gets him to 270. Realistically he not only needs to move NH by 2.8 points, but he needs a bit more margin of error in the light pink states. ( Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada are each under 51% likely for Trump to win. So while he is favored in each, he is far more likely to win two and lose one than he is to win all three. Assuming the polls are accurate. )
"Johnson 10% in New Hampshire? Wow. Those are squishy voters who don't know who they dislike the most. They may decide they need to take a stand come election day. Up for grabs."
New Hampshire is the home of the Free State Project, which is very Libertarian in nature. So, not squishy.
My name goes here. said...
If you look at fivethirtyeight.com and every state that is any red shade at all and give it to Trump it gets him to 265 electoral votes.
I think you are missing the fact that Maine, which is blue, divides its four EC votes, and one of those is likely going to Trump.
The attempt to label any of this momentum is ill-conceived. The press has done heavy lifting all along. But the votes either have been and are, or never were, for Trump.
All this talk of momentum is CYA for the press.
==========( Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada are each under 51% likely for Trump to win. So while he is favored in each, he is far more likely to win two and lose one than he is to win all three. Assuming the polls are accurate. )
==========
Pulling out my statistics textbook ... whether or not what you say is true depends on the correlation between one state's vote and another. If they're highly correlated, then the three states are likely to go all one way or all the other.
EVERYBODY SHUT UP!
Let's hear what AMERICA'S POLITICO has to say.
Poll averages:
There is nothing at all wrong with averaging polls taken contemporaneously, especially if you can combine the raw data. However, the real problem is averaging polls taken at different times, which is a large part of what 538 does. I know Silver tries to account for this in some respect by weighting more recent polls more highly, and less recent ones less, but I think even this is badly flawed conceptually, and largely explains his lack of marginal success in the mid-terms, the two most recent of which showed great momentum towards Republicans in the month before the actual election.
Remember, when you poll a sample, national or state, all you are getting is a snapshot of what the electorate might do at that moment you asked them the question. There is a conceptual reason we don't average the actual vote total with the polls taken a month prior to the election, and why we don't change the result based on polls a month after- the election itself is the clearest snapshot you get, and it doesn't matter what a poll in early October or late September predicted.
In other words, all else being equal, the only conceptually reliable predictor of the election outcome is going to be the polls taken closest to the election, not the averages of the polls taken over the previous six weeks. And that is only true if the polls aren't run by total cretins or knaves.
With that out of the way, there is no denying the momentum is yuuuugely in Trump's favor, but he needs to crack through Virginia in my opinion. If he does win New Hampshire or Colorado, it will be irrelevant because he didn't need them in the first place.
Shiloh - The Althouse alternative to rationaity.
PackerBronco wrote:
"Pulling out my statistics textbook ... whether or not what you say is true depends on the correlation between one state's vote and another. If they're highly correlated, then the three states are likely to go all one way or all the other."
There is high correlation. You can give me the vote totals for Ohio, for example, and I can tell you how the rest of the states voted with 99% accuracy by simply looking at the most recent two elections.
One of the reasons I put no faith in some of the state polls is that they appear to provide nonsense results. When state polls show Trump up 5% in Ohio, but down 7% in Virginia, I know one or both of those polls have to be badly wrong, or taken at greatly different times (on the order of a month or more).
If Trump is really ahead right now in New Hampshire, then he is ahead in VA, NC, FL, OH, and probably even in CO. Now, Trump is a different kind of Republican candidate, but not enough to change partisan affiliations more than a percent or two. All I would predict is that he is likely to run better in states like PA, MI, IA, and WI (IL, too, as well for MN) than Romney or Bush did, and maybe a little worse in deep red states of the South. The problem for Clinton, however, is that she is also going to run worse with certain demographics in the states Obama won, like FL, VA, and NC for one election.
The new state polls are encouraging for Trump, no doubting that.
Neither here nor there, but the conservative fool who started the skewed poll nonsense (4) years ago thinks Hillary will win.
He's a big reason Althouse made her foolish prediction.
Fond memories ...
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, whatever shilo may think. But you don't need to vote shilo, your corrupt hero has it in the bag.
So I am assuming shilo, that you are posting from the recruiting office. Ready to fight in any and all of Hillary's wars. Or are you a chicken-hawk, who thinks other people should go and die in the wars you voted for.
Clinton is the only Democrat Trump could beat and I suspect that Trump is the only Republican Hillary could beat. We've had quite the race to the bottom.
PB&J, too. He allows as to how the US was right to go into Libya and remove their sovereign government and leave the country in a shambles now half controlled by ISIS, because Qadaffi was a "bad man."
You know who else was a "bad man"? Saddam. I thought we had an election about staying out of other people's business.
But troll away for the warmonger. You are not getting me to not vote against her.
On the side of the church, beneath the blackened windows and roof, the words “Vote Trump” have been spray painted.
First they send thugs to disrupt and create violence at Trump rallies. Now they are burning churches to scare blacks to the polls and hold their nose and vote for Hillary. Un fucking believable. Brownshirts.
Maybe shilo and PB&J should read about how Hitler came to power and the tactics he used before throwing their support so wholeheartedly to the Clinton machine.
The knowledge of Hillary's scandals are growing so fast it's producing a red shift.
t in v
Mailed my absentee ballot (3) wks ago. No muss, no fuss.
And cons ~ feel free to whine and moan about delusional voter fraud, election cheating, etc. etc. even before the final votes are counted as that is what Althouse trumpian fools do best.
Indeed, diehard Republicans feel they should win every presidential election regardless. The Dems winning (3) in a row may force many off the deep end.
And so it goes ...
Clinton and the DNC will do anything to win!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/03/500496061/fbi-investigating-burning-of-black-church-painted-with-vote-trump
And yes, I fully believe that this was likely done by a Hillary supporter. If BLM will burn down their own areas as the result of a thug getting shot by the police, why would they not burn down a black church to help get Hillary elected?
tim in vermont, Todd-
Is there evidence that was done by the DNC side? While I'm certainly suspicious of that, there are actually racist assholes out there ( such as Dylann Roof ) who think that if they commit some grand act, others will flock to their cause.
In any case, whomever did this deserves to rot in hell.
Agreed! I have just read about too many hate crimes that turn out to be "false flag" operations.
If you are for Trump and/or against Hillary, you would need to be pretty stupid to think that burning a black church and spraying "vote Trump" on the side is any sort of winning strategy but it is JUST the sort of thing that a Hillary supporter would think that people would believe a "racist Trump supporter" would do.
Weekly I have been driving from SE MN to North Central MN during the month of October. As I have mentioned before I have been doing a sign count of Trump and Clinton. The last time I reported it was 12 to 2 Trump. As the month progressed there were a few more Trump signs so that the count got to 16 to 2. Yesterday I made the drive for the last time. I did not count, but the Trump signs have multiplied both north and south of the Cities. Coming into the northern 'burbs of the Cities there is a Trump illuminated billboard (!) with a picture of Trump and the question "What will Clinton do in the White House?"; the answer: "NOTHING". I was astounded. Heading south out of the Cities was another illuminated billboard(!) that had the Trump/Pence logo sign on it. All along Rt. 52 to Rochester were R party signs that included Trump. Someone has been doing their homework in a state that most concede to Clinton.
I got the woman who owns the place I stay talking about Obamacare. (She's a nurse.) She said that her small town hospital has been getting paid okay, but many other rural hospitals are not being paid on time. She then got onto the effect of Obamacare on her three kids who are in their early twenties. She wondered how they could possibly afford health care coverage that looks like it is going to eat up half a pay check before long. Her message was that "things have to change". She said she could see why the kids were rebellious and attracted by Bernie's socialist program. The youngest was excitedly headed to the Trump rally at Eau Clair, WI that day.
That's all the news from MN.
Hillary Clinton is a corpse the pollsters keep measuring for a pulse. They find a million different ways to interpret nil as something.
It's over. Trump will do exactly as Reagan did winning by 10.
So then shilo, I take it you are not volunteering to fight in any of the wars Hillary has cooked up? That would be a big fat no, I am sure.
We agreed that if she gets a significant primary challenger, we need to consider changing course and getting NY, NJ, and maybe others to move their dates earlier to give her hefty early wins.
Jeff is going to put together action items for each state that we will review. We may need allies to help in this process but we're going to look at each state one step at a time, limiting as much as possible the perception of direct intervention by the principals.
-HRC's campaign manager on the best way to rig the primaries.
But it's all "delusion". I remember when shiloh lied and said he was a Bernie supporter, now he licks the boot that crushed his dream, I guess.
"Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp. We can't start believing our own primary bullshit!" - Wikileaks.
"Rah rah rah" - shilo
@Bad L: "Sebastian said...
Sorry, fellow GOPers, the firewall is the one wall that will work in this election. 11/3/16, 11:27 AM Just shut up and vote for him, "fellow GOPer." Then you can talk."
You new around here? Of course I will. It's ABC and #NeverNeverTrump for me. But I don't like wishful thinking and self-delusion.
Polling has statistics as its basis, which is mathematics which is clearly a science. The problem is if you ever take a Statistics 101 class, the issues of coming up with a random sample, margins of errors, confidence levels, etc. come up very quickly. If you cannot get a good random sample, then the results are garbage. If you can come up with a good random sample, there is always the chance that the sample is still not representative of the general population, which is why there are margins of errors (the number say 60% but it could be anywhere between 57% and 63%) and confidence levels (95% of the time this result will be within the margin of error and the other 5% of the time it is not). Statistics is mathematics with hedging. It's a tool, not a guarantee.
Perhaps the averaging reduces the error significantly, but even so there is always error. See the 2014 mid-terms and Brexit for recent examples.
The polls are in place to mess with heads and fix it all for the corruptocrats.
"I take it you are not volunteering to fight in any of the wars Hillary has cooked up?"
Let the record show t in v has already conceded Hillary will win ie reality.
>
And t in v, please ask Ritmo if I was ever a Bernie supporter. Although I like Bernie personally.
>
"Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp. We can't start believing our own primary bullshit!"
t in v, turd blossom will tell you presidential politics ain't beanbag.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! ~ Leave the gun, take the cannoli ...
Memo to my #NeverTrumper friends on the right:
A lot of people think Trump is an inexperienced, coarse, bloviating, a-hole.
So stipulated, as my lawyer pals say.
But, the Leftwing POLICIES and factions and mobs supported by Hillary and the Dems are designed to make the country worse. More taxes, more big government solutions, more Obamacare, more gun restrictions, more racial grievances, more shooting at cops, more illegals, more terroristic attacks deemed "workplace violence," more politically correct madness at the universities where all straight, white males are deemed future rapists, etc, etc. I could go on and on.
Also, think about how much joy you will experience Tuesday night watching the CNN and MSNBC media weasels having to report an "unexpected" Trump victory. That one fleeting moment is worth a Trump vote.
No sane person thinks Trump is going to magically solve the problems. He will not. However, Hillary will actively create more problems, and get even richer in the process.
Think of it as a vote against Hillary, rather than a vote for Trump.
Vote Trump-Pence in 2016
Sebastian,
But I don't like wishful thinking and self-delusion.
11/3/16, 4:55 PM
1. I think that Donald Trump is going to be elected President on November 8. Plenty of struggle and hard work to come, clearly, and it's not in the bag, but I feel better about it than I did a week ago.
2. I think it will help him if the defeatist mentality is avoided. Think of yourself as not merely a vote, but a vote-getter.
@Bay Area Guy, I agree. I'd rather have had Cruz but not enough Republicans agreed with me. I note in passing that if Hillary Clinton's policies were any good she'd be pitching them to us, and if Trump's policies were bad she'd be pointing that out.
@StephenFearby, tell her majesty that we accept, providing that Kate Middleton is seen more often in a bikini.
I might add that I am starting to see Trump's path to over 300. Hard to believe. I wonder whether the Democrats have concocted a "November surprise" to stem the looming disaster?
I'd rather have had Cruz but not enough Republicans agreed with me.
More importantly, the Republican Party Establishment hated and feared him worse than Trump or Hillary.
Cruz was my second choice after John Bolton.
"Think of yourself as not merely a vote, but a vote-getter."
If you can't be an athlete be an athletic supporter.
Ideally, I want Nate Silver to come out Sunday and say, in effect, "Holy shit, the numbers suggest a Trump victory." That will generate 17 frantic op-ed pieces in the NY Times, but it will be too late.
Go Trump
Shiloh's terror is palpable.
RCP giving Fla to HRC
There was supposed to be news out yesterday that was going to destroy Trump. I'm still waiting for it.
Meanwhile, wikileaks continues it's drip, drip, drip, of documents damning to Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, alcoholic enabler of her sexual predator husband. And has promised the really bad stuff is coming out soon. And let's not forget whatever is going on in NY with Wiener's computer. If what I'm seeing is right, if the FBI doesn't make public what's been found before Tuesday, someone in the NYPD will. Speculation is running rampant.
I read elsewhere today that Bernie has stopped speaking out for her. Hasn't condemned her- yet. But is no longer pushing.
RCP showing Florida as "Tossup".
shilo doesn't care whose kids fight in Hillary's wars, let the record show.
I am making no predictions, BTW. This is close enough that it can go either way. Oh yeah, here is the latest shoe to drop on Clinton:
In an email released by the State Department on Thursday, Hillary Clinton asked senior aide Huma Abedin whether a trusted staff member working for Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner, could deliver a secure cell phone to Clinton.
LOL. This woman has a chance to be president of the United States!
"If you can't be an athlete be an athletic supporter."
Shiloh, why would you need an athletic supporter ?
Shiloh might need Depends Tuesday night, not an athletic supporter, if this is accurate:
Rasmussen: 88% of voters say they are now certain how they will vote. Among these, Trump has a 10-point lead over Clinton 53% to 43%.
Exiled, against this there is some clack about absentee/early voting going the other way, though every case they elaborate seems not so bad for Trump.
Quaere: Zuckerberg of FB, I am told, stood up for Trump, to the extent that some of his people wanted to censor T, but Z refused. Wonder what big data told him about the election and when?
For all you fence-sitters, nevertrumpers and "safe-state principle-is-cheap" voters, look at Hillary throwing away millions in Arizona. That's what happens to the enemy when you fight for every vote. Never think you don't matter. The Ds know how to do this. It's not even Hillary. It's the D. It's the Democratic machine. You gotta beat the D.
Like Stalin said: Not one step back!
You need to win. You need your opponents to lose. Vote for Trump to win. Vote for Hillary to lose.
One of the surveys today that showed Trump with a slight lead had 15% undecided OR refused to say. 15%. That's huge. The refusals I'm going to guess are the most part trump voters. Undecideds? Really? They're going to break for Trump. As they usually break away from incumbent, especially one with an approval rating below 50%, and for all p[ractical purposes, she's the incumbent.
Win win. Either Trump becomes President or Hitlery is impeached early next year. Democrats are feeling suicidal about now.
The press should just ask Obama if he will blanket pardon Hillary, yes or no.
I'm stunned seeing people like Andre Napolitano being incensed that Comey revealed the re-opening of the investigation so close to the election. As commenters at Reason mentioned, how many other jobs does a job interview preclude a criminal investigation?
And yes, I fully believe that this was likely done by a Hillary supporter. If BLM will burn down their own areas as the result of a thug getting shot by the police, why would they not burn down a black church to help get Hillary elected?
If they ADMIT to paying people to instigate violence at rallies, I don't see any reason to assume they wouldn't burn a church down to get blacks to vote when they are terrified of low turn-out.
Of course they did, what else could it be? Follow the money, find the videos, do the tire tracks, all the forensics, and when you trace the cash in Mook's hand to the service station where they bought the gas, everybody will shrug.
I wonder if it would cost the Ds a single black vote if they admitted it on the record.
Post a Comment