Yes, Hillary Clinton is still winning. And yes, the media is lying to you.

[naf140230]

I found this article that may be interesting. Here is the URL: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/yes-...you/26054/

Here is the article:

Quote:It wouldn’t be an election cycle if Democrats weren’t panicking, fretting, and pessimistically wringing their hands at the slightest bit of real or imaginary bad news – even as Republicans remain confident in their chances even if they’re behind the eight ball. But you can’t blame Hillary Clinton’s supporters entirely for the fact that they’ve become paralyzed this month and suddenly turned into Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh, even though their candidate remains in a fantastic position. After all, the media has essentially resorted to reporting a fictional version of the election lately.

The trouble with September is that there’s really nothing that’s going to happen that’s going to change the minds of any voters. Those who have been following the election closely all along have already made up their minds during the course of the conventions and the resulting fallout. Those who weren’t able to make up their minds by August are going to remain undecided until they’ve gotten a look at the two candidates on the debate stage. But stagnant stretches are terrible for ratings, so the media bends over backward to try to manufacture interest in the election during these stretches.

The easiest way to do that is to pretend it’s a closer election than it really is. Three weeks ago, the polling averages said that Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump nationally by around four points. That’s not a race-deciding margin, but it’s the kind of position you want to be in at this stage of the calendar. But headlines like “It’s still the same four point race it was last month” don’t exactly keep people tuned in.

So we’ve seen most major news outlets, cable news in particular, begin describing the race as “tightening” in the hope of retaining enough public interest in the race to keep ratings from falling into a lull. The trouble: the race hasn’t actually been tightening. So CNN decided to change the methodology of its in-house polling to oversample registered republicans, and voila, it had a headline grabbing poll which said Trump was ahead by two points. Suddenly every other major news outlet was reporting the shocking CNN poll as if it were the only poll, even going so far as to ignore their own in-house polling if that’s what it took to get in on the ratings grab of the stunning story about Trump somehow supposedly having taken the lead for no reason.

But the reality is that if you eliminate the illegitimate CNN poll, and if you also discard the consistently inaccurate outlier poll from the LA Times, the national polling averages show that Hillary Clinton is still leading Donald Trump by around four points. In other words, nothing has changed about this race since last month.

So what about all the shocking movement in the swing state polls? Well, for the most part, that isn’t real either. Of the last six polls conducted in Florida, only two of them show Trump leading the state. One is the CNN poll, which at this point is discardable. The other is the obscure JMC Analytics poll, which has been a consistent outlier. Beyond that, Hillary is still winning Florida, according to the polls that aren’t statistically invalid. But the two Florida polls claiming Trump is in the lead are the only two you’ll hear reported right now.

And remember just last month, when every cable news outlet claimed that whoever won Pennsylvania was going to win the White House? That narrative has been abandoned entirely. You know why? Because Hillary is leading big in Pennsylvania. There isn’t even one outlier poll that the media can grab onto in order to falsely paint Pennsylvania as being close, so instead the media has simply decided that the state no longer matters – and indeed no longer exists.

The people who get caught in the middle of all these hijinks are those whose job is to analyze the polls. You have fully legitimate outlets like FiveThirtyEight which try to average the polls in a meaningful way. But what happens when we all know that some of the polls are being rigged by the media outlets conducting them to begin with? These polling analysis sites are between a rock and a hard place. If they start throwing out polls they know are crap, where do they draw the line? At what point do they cease being statistical analysts and start being mere commentators? Their percentages and predictive models go to crap during these times, but it’s not their fault.

For the sake of the sanctity of the election process, the good news is that none of this blatantly misleading and false reporting from the media appears to have any impact on the outcome of elections. Undecided voters don’t sit around watching political news all day anyway, because if they’re the type who are still undecided at this point, it means they’re the type who don’t think the stakes of this elections are too high to begin with. So they won’t be casting their votes based on which way CNN and MSNBC pretend the election momentum is shifting on any given day.

But it’s enough to drive the dedicated supporters of the leading candidate crazy. When nearly every major media outlet spends all month screaming in unison that the race is “tightening” in the desperate hope of keeping their ratings intact during an otherwise superficial stretch of the election, and when some of those news outlets go so far as to produce comically invalid poll numbers to try to “prove” their claims, it can lull anyone into believing that the race actually is tightening.

But if this race really had been “tightening” and if Donald Trump really had been “closing the gap” for as long as the media has been claiming as much, then he’d have to be ahead by twenty points by now. The movement just isn’t there this month. And would there be? This is not a stretch of the election where minds are made up or changed. That’ll come once the debates start. In the mean time, this is still the same race is was three weeks ago. And unless one of these candidates decides to kidnap the Lindbergh baby and join ISIS next week, it’ll still be the same race between now and at least the first debate. Nothing is changing, other than the way it’s being reported. And even that ultimately has no impact.

[Eric the Green]

Trouble is, I wouldn't put anything stupid past the American people. They elected George W Bush twice. They gave Congress and statehouses to the Republicans for at least 6 years. I have my astrological methods to buttress my confidence in Hillary (or in the case of George W Bush, to have made me even more anxious).

One thing I notice, is that the web site I follow polls on (Real Clear Politics) is notoriously right wing and includes very conservative polls that rely on old methods (e.g. LA Times, Emerson and of course Rasmussen).

One thing is certain: those who want Democrats and Hillary to win can take nothing at all for granted.

[Eric the Green]

Could Millennials Cost Clinton the Presidency?
Liberal young people were supposed to be part of her winning coalition, but they’re moving to third-party candidates in remarkably high numbers.

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik (I couldn't copy and paste this, but this picture is well worth a look. Young people are holding up signs saying "Whitewater, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, Vincent Foster, Don't Trust Clinton" and "Monica L is better than you" perhaps showing just how fully the lies have affected millennials).
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/641949...epage-free
Josh Kraushaar
Sept. 16, 2016, 6 a.m.

One of the most sur­pris­ing ele­ments of this pres­id­en­tial cam­paign is the lack of en­gage­ment from Pres­id­ent Obama’s di­verse base of mil­len­ni­als and non­white voters—des­pite the pres­ence of the deeply-di­vis­ive Don­ald Trump in the race. Polling sug­gests the race is highly com­pet­it­ive, driv­en by Trump’s sup­port­ers say­ing they’re more likely to show up at the polls than Hil­lary Clin­ton’s. And the main reas­on Clin­ton finds her­self in trouble is that she doesn’t ap­peal to many of the same voters who flocked to back Obama in 2008 and 2012.

The mostly lib­er­al mil­len­ni­als were ex­pec­ted to be a crit­ic­al part of Clin­ton’s win­ning co­ali­tion, but it turns out they hold a dim view of her can­did­acy. In the Demo­crat­ic primar­ies, she won less than 30 per­cent of their sup­port against Bernie Sanders. A re­mark­able 77 per­cent don’t think she’s hon­est, ac­cord­ing to a new Quin­nipi­ac na­tion­al sur­vey. A slew of polls re­leased this week show these voters are mov­ing to third-party can­did­ates in re­mark­ably high num­bers. Liber­tari­an nom­in­ee Gary John­son and Green Party can­did­ate Jill Stein tal­lied a whop­ping 44 per­cent of the vote among mil­len­ni­als, ac­cord­ing to the Quin­nipi­ac poll—three times their sup­port among all voters. It’s not an out­lier: A CBS/New York Times sur­vey re­leased Thursday shows the two win­ning 36 per­cent of the same con­stitu­ency.

That’s the dif­fer­ence between a nar­row Clin­ton lead and a dead-even race. In a two-way con­test, Clin­ton leads by 5 (Quin­nipi­ac) and 2 (CBS/NYT). In a four-way race, Clin­ton’s lead shrinks to 2 (Quin­nipi­ac) or dis­ap­pears en­tirely (CBS/NYT). Without John­son and Stein in the field, Clin­ton holds a sub­stan­tial lead over Trump with mil­len­ni­als. But her 21-point ad­vant­age over Trump among mil­len­ni­als shrinks to just 5 points when John­son and Stein are on the bal­lot.

The Clin­ton cam­paign knows it has a prob­lem with young voters and is pro­mot­ing five events in Ohio with Bernie Sanders and Eliza­beth War­ren this week­end as ones that “lay out the stakes for mil­len­ni­al voters.” It’s pos­sible that as the elec­tion draws closer, lib­er­al young­er voters will re­luct­antly rally be­hind Clin­ton rather than risk giv­ing the elec­tion to Trump. But it’s also very plaus­ible that apathet­ic young voters will simply stay home.

Equally prob­lem­at­ic for Team Clin­ton is His­pan­ic voter apathy. Giv­en Trump’s rhet­or­ic on im­mig­ra­tion, it was easy to as­sume Lati­nos would re­gister and turn out at his­tor­ic levels. But in a poll of Flor­ida His­pan­ic voters con­duc­ted for Uni­vi­sion, Clin­ton is win­ning only 53 per­cent of the His­pan­ic vote in the state—7 points shy of Obama’s per­form­ance in 2012. A sur­pris­ingly high num­ber of His­pan­ic voters are un­de­cided. It’s not that they tol­er­ate Trump; it’s that they have very neg­at­ive views to­wards Clin­ton as well. Trump is also lead­ing in new Nevada polling, des­pite his low stand­ing with His­pan­ic voters in the state. Turn­ing them out will be crit­ic­al for Clin­ton to win.

The good news for Clin­ton is that it should be easi­er for her to win back Obama’s base than it will be for Trump to make in­roads where he’s un­der­per­form­ing (with col­lege-edu­cated white wo­men, in par­tic­u­lar). Demo­crat­ic op­er­at­ives are con­fid­ent that these core Demo­crat­ic voters will re­turn to the fold come Novem­ber. The bad news? The elec­tion is less than two months away, and Clin­ton still hasn’t closed the deal with what should be her party’s most pas­sion­ate sup­port­ers.


TRAIL MIX

1. An­oth­er deeply Demo­crat­ic con­stitu­ency where Clin­ton is un­der­per­form­ing is the Jew­ish vote. A newly re­leased sur­vey com­mis­sioned by the Amer­ic­an Jew­ish Com­mit­tee found that she is win­ning just 61 per­cent of the Jew­ish vote to Trump’s 19 per­cent. When un­de­cided voters are pressed to choose, Clin­ton’s num­ber inches up to 66 per­cent. That would be the low­est share of the Jew­ish vote any Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee re­ceived since Mi­chael Duka­kis in 1988 (64 per­cent). It’s pos­sible she won’t do any bet­ter than Obama, who re­ceived 69 per­cent in 2012.

It’s a sign that Pres­id­ent Obama’s con­tro­ver­sial nuc­le­ar deal with Ir­an (which Clin­ton sup­ports) and his chilly re­la­tion­ship with Is­raeli Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Net­an­yahu are hav­ing an im­pact on Jew­ish voters’ long­time iden­ti­fic­a­tion with the Demo­crat­ic Party. Giv­en Trump’s own deep un­pop­ular­ity with Jew­ish voters, it’s un­likely to make a dif­fer­ence in this elec­tion—un­less Flor­ida ends up go­ing down to the wire. But the trend may have im­plic­a­tions for the fu­ture.

2. Even if Trump loses the pres­id­en­tial race, there’s a grow­ing pos­sib­il­ity he may end up with the most GOP elect­or­al votes since George W. Bush’s win­ning cam­paign of 2004. Trump’s strength with white work­ing-class voters has put him ahead in Iowa and Ohio, ac­cord­ing to polls re­leased this week. But he’s in danger of los­ing North Car­o­lina, which Mitt Rom­ney won in 2012. Still, if he traded North Car­o­lina for Ohio, it would be a net gain. And with new statewide polls show­ing him lead­ing in Flor­ida and Nevada, he’s got a lot of wiggle room to out­per­form Rom­ney.

[Eric the Green]

So, what's wrong with Hillary?

1. She is not as charismatic as Obama or Trump.

So, is the presidency really just about show business?

2. She is dishonest and corrupt.

No, that's a lot of baloney and Republican propaganda, except that she withholds too much for the comfort of the pundits; understandable, given the pundits' and the right-wing conspiracy's constant attacks. The Foundation does excellent work, does not personally benefit Hillary, and there was no pay to play, despite all the smoke. She kept the emails safe. She is trusted by all who have worked with her. Investigations could not get anything on her with regard to Benghazi, and other administrations suffered far worse regarding embassies.

3. She's a neo-con.

Yes, she voted for the Iraq war, but keep in mind that was just an authorization vote designed to put pressure on Saddam to open up to inspections, which he didn't want to do in order to scare Iran. He should have been more scared of Bush. Libya? On balance, it was the right decision, despite the fact that it was a given that it would not turn out very well. The alternative was another Syria. On balance, the fact is that a president who is slightly more hawkish than Obama is actually what we need right now. But she is a woman and a grandmother, and was against the Vietnam War. She was also an effective diplomat, not a soldier. She knows how to make peace.

4. She's a neo-lib.

She was First Lady under the neo-lib Bill Clinton. But she didn't make his decisions. She has voted against most trade deals and has come out against TPP. She was for the tough on crime bill against "predators," but that's understandable given the crime problem in the early 1990s. So, is she really a neo-liberal if she has campaigned on a similar platform as Bernie's and adopted many of his goals? Is she a neo-lib if she has dedicated her life to helping people who are disadvantaged? Young people are just not too well-informed on what she stands for, it appears.

5. She takes a lot of big money from corporations and Wall Street.

So, she didn't have the courage to run as Bernie did. But with young people not flocking to her, she didn't think she could win by opting out of the game. Neither do most politicians. But as for which party's presidents are for reforming the game, the Citizens United decision answers all questions. So if millennials don't know about that, whose fault is that? The Supreme Court is on the ballot, not just the presidency and the Congress. Your vote will decide if reform is possible in your lifetime.

Hillary is not trusted, but if you really look at the facts, there's not that much to distrust, compared to most other candidates. She's not Bernie. So, get over it.

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton may not be perfect, but Donald Trump is perfectly horrible.

[Mikebert]

The initial article is wrong.  All the poll aggregators I follow show tightening.  So do RealCleear politics and Huffpost.  The aggregators I follow have been at this for a while, some as long as long 12 years. Their base models have been correct in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014. There is no reason to believe that somehow they are going to be wrong now.

The first article sounds a like like the certainty that the "Blogging Caesar" had that the GOP would retain Congress in 2006 (despite the results of his own empirical analysis) or that Brian Rush had than the Dems would retain the House in 2010 despite the empirical analysis by the poll aggregators.  As Nate Silver says, its too early to panic now, but if the polls look like this in a week then Dems should start panicking. 

So far it is entirely possible that Donald Trump will once again seize defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his mouth.  Overall Clinton has been ahead and she is still likely to win.  If the margin of victory is small I'd rather see a Trump victory than a Clinton one. I believe Republicans have the power to destroy a Democratic president and her party if they continue to hold  their current level of political power.  I do not belief that Democrats have the reverse ability, not matter how much power they may hold.  That is the terrain is biased in favor of conservatives and it has always been this way.

[Eric the Green]

You have it right, even though I'd rather not see a Trump victory under any circumstances, because try as they might to destroy Democratic administrations, and as much as they succeed at rendering them powerless in congress, a president still has enough power to stop them from destroying the country and the world, and they can never destroy the Democrats fully enough so the Democrats can't still win.

[Bob Butler 54]

Kinser back in his Marxist phase endorsed Trump as he was the candidate most likely to trigger a Marxist revolution.  I'm less likely to see support for Marx than he was, but I do note that the presidents leading up to the transformative presidents...  Buchanan and Hoover...  were pretty (expletive deleted) bad.  If there is room in The Theory to suggest that transformation to a new set of values has to be preceded by the utter and complete failure of the old, it might follow that if we're going to get our regeneracy, we need and absolute disaster of a president.

I'm not thrilled by this approach.  Bush 43 was very very bad.  If he wasn't enough to show the People a need for change, it would take a really botched up president to kick things off.

Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....

[Galen]

(09-19-2016, 12:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....

Scott Adams seems to think otherwise and so far his prediction for a Trump win seems to be coming true.  From what I have seen even now Trump's persuasion game is far better than Hillary's.

[Eric the Green]

(09-19-2016, 12:31 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....

Scott Adams seems to think otherwise and so far his prediction for a Trump win seems to be coming true.  From what I have seen even now Trump's persuasion game is far better than Hillary's.

The thrust of Bob's post it seems to me is that since Trump has botched his campaign, he would botch up his presidency. The former seems to be happening, and if Trump has the chance to actually win, due to his entertainment (i.e. "persuasive") skills, then he would get his chance to be the disaster we need for a regeneracy to follow him. Which is the most we can expect from him.

[Galen]

(09-19-2016, 02:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:31 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....

Scott Adams seems to think otherwise and so far his prediction for a Trump win seems to be coming true.  From what I have seen even now Trump's persuasion game is far better than Hillary's.

The thrust of Bob's post it seems to me is that since Trump has botched his campaign, he would botch up his presidency. The former seems to be happening, and if Trump has the chance to actually win, due to his entertainment (i.e. "persuasive") skills, then he would get his chance to be the disaster we need for a regeneracy to follow him. Which is the most we can expect from him.

Scot Adams would again disagree with you because there are many features of his behavior that suggest he is actually pretty good at managing risk.  In fact, it looks like Trump has done pretty well with his unorthodox campaign tactics.  Adams' thesis at this time is that Trump's risk profile looks like that of an entrepreneur which wouldn't bother most Xers much.  When you are already screwed then it is time to start taking chances.  A surprising number of my Xer acquaintances have decided that Trump may not be the answer but it is a certainty that Hillary isn't.

As it is Hillary has trouble getting people to show up for her events.  This is not a good sign for here campaign.  Trump fills stadium and Hillary events have empty seats.  The social media data also indicate that she is not doing well.  This has been going on since before the convention.

Looking at the data I have to conclude that Trump will most likely win the election.  In this I believe that Scott Adams is correct.

[Mikebert]

(09-19-2016, 02:56 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 02:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:31 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....

Scott Adams seems to think otherwise and so far his prediction for a Trump win seems to be coming true.  From what I have seen even now Trump's persuasion game is far better than Hillary's.

The thrust of Bob's post it seems to me is that since Trump has botched his campaign, he would botch up his presidency. The former seems to be happening, and if Trump has the chance to actually win, due to his entertainment (i.e. "persuasive") skills, then he would get his chance to be the disaster we need for a regeneracy to follow him. Which is the most we can expect from him.

Scot Adams would again disagree with you because there are many features of his behavior that suggest he is actually pretty good at managing risk.  In fact, it looks like Trump has done pretty well with his unorthodox campaign tactics....Looking at the data I have to conclude that Trump will most likely win the election.  In this I believe that Scott Adams is correct.

I don't see how one can conclude this. Fundamentals-based election models suggested that a generic Republican would be more likely to beat a generic Democrat.  Hillary Clinton is a conventional Democratic canidate.  She is, however, the most unpopular conventional major-party canidate since polling began (I think this would be true of any female Democrat).  You yourself have pointed this out:

Quote:As it is Hillary has trouble getting people to show up for her events.  This is not a good sign for her campaign.  Trump fills stadium and Hillary events have empty seats.  The social media data also indicate that she is not doing well.  This has been going on since before the convention.

Had Clinton been running against a conventional Republican the Republican would have averaged 3 points more than Trump has, and would currently be leading in the polls right now by about the same margin as Clinton is behind.  Why is this?  It is because Trump is NOT a conventional Republican candidate.  Somehow he has managed to frequently poll as less popular than even Clinton. 

He is a white man and has no excuse other than his incompetence as a general election candidate.  He may still win.  Clinton is still largely hated by non-liberal white men, and even liberal white men often are not that keen on her.

[playwrite]

(09-18-2016, 07:24 AM)Mikebert Wrote: The initial article is wrong.  All the poll aggregators I follow show tightening.  So do RealCleear politics and Huffpost.  The aggregators I follow have been at this for a while, some as long as long 12 years. Their base models have been correct in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014. There is no reason to believe that somehow they are going to be wrong now.

The first article sounds a like like the certainty that the "Blogging Caesar" had that the GOP would retain Congress in 2006 (despite the results of his own empirical analysis) or that Brian Rush had than the Dems would retain the House in 2010 despite the empirical analysis by the poll aggregators.  As Nate Silver says, its too early to panic now, but if the polls look like this in a week then Dems should start panicking. 

So far it is entirely possible that Donald Trump will once again seize defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his mouth.  Overall Clinton has been ahead and she is still likely to win.  If the margin of victory is small I'd rather see a Trump victory than a Clinton one. I believe Republicans have the power to destroy a Democratic president and her party if they continue to hold  their current level of political power.  I do not belief that Democrats have the reverse ability, not matter how much power they may hold.  That is the terrain is biased in favor of conservatives and it has always been this way.

I can understand that sense of going ahead with a Trump victory - there is something to the notion that the country is on a cycle were it has to go through a GOP Administration once a decade to see just how badly they can F us. One also gets tired of being an apologist for a Dem Administration, even though their sins are always so much less that what the GOP can wrought.

George W Bush cured me of this notion.  His big three - ignoring 9/11 warnings; invading Iraq based on bullshXt; and laissez-faire driven 2008 financial meltdown - should have cured anyone of this notion.

Moreover, Trump will likely make W's F-ups seldom mentioned footnotes in the history books concerning our time.

But the real death keel to being sanguine to a Trump Presidency is the SCOTUS - your kids and grandkids are going to be living with the monstrosity that The Donald puts in charge of our Constitution for years if not decades to come.

[pbrower2a]

(09-19-2016, 02:56 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 02:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:31 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 12:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....

Scott Adams seems to think otherwise and so far his prediction for a Trump win seems to be coming true.  From what I have seen even now Trump's persuasion game is far better than Hillary's.

The thrust of Bob's post it seems to me is that since Trump has botched his campaign, he would botch up his presidency. The former seems to be happening, and if Trump has the chance to actually win, due to his entertainment (i.e. "persuasive") skills, then he would get his chance to be the disaster we need for a regeneracy to follow him. Which is the most we can expect from him.

Scot Adams would again disagree with you because there are many features of his behavior that suggest he is actually pretty good at managing risk.  In fact, it looks like Trump has done pretty well with his unorthodox campaign tactics.  Adams' thesis at this time is that Trump's risk profile looks like that of an entrepreneur which wouldn't bother most Xers much.  When you are already screwed then it is time to start taking chances.  A surprising number of my Xer acquaintances have decided that Trump may not be the answer but it is a certainty that Hillary isn't.

As it is Hillary has trouble getting people to show up for her events.  This is not a good sign for here campaign.  Trump fills stadium and Hillary events have empty seats.  The social media data also indicate that she is not doing well.  This has been going on since before the convention.

Looking at the data I have to conclude that Trump will most likely win the election.  In this I believe that Scott Adams is correct.

This Presidential election violates all the norms of 'conventional wisdom'. Ordinarily, both Presidential nominees have significant experience in elected politics. Donald Trump has none, and Hillary Clinton has a short career as an elected official. Being First Lady of a State and of the United States may give one considerable perspective on executive office, but it is not executive office. Donald Trump has experience in politics, largely in schmoozing with public officials for zoning variance and tax breaks. What that has to do with making votes based upon (ideally) wise judgment and making deals with elected officials is beyond me.

So the lead changes back and forth based upon events that in the grand scheme mean nothing unless they expose the character of a politician. OK -- were Mitt Romney the Republican nominee, then Hillary Clinton would be going down in a 40-state landslide.

Of course it is not enough for me to say that Donald Trump is awful. Yes, he would be a disaster -- but America did elect James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and George W. Bush as president. So simply because he is horribly unqualified to be President in accordance with precedent doesn't mean that he can't be elected. I'd want to be out of the investment markets, and indeed I might want to be in another country.

So I don't have to discuss that Donald Trump has been kissing up to dictators, that he has belittled the legitimate authority and credibility about women and minorities in office and the media, that he has called for political violence, and that his business dealings are often shady, and that he has said whatever was convenient at the moment with reckless disregard for the truthfulness of what he says. I may think all those traits all warning signs of someone who will be very troublesome if given the powers of the Presidency -- and some think those 'refreshing differences'. Some people find gold-plated bathroom fixtures impressive, and some people admire a masterful liar as I might admire the playing of a virtuoso pianist. Of course I will shun the liar and take delight in hearing the virtuoso pianist. But that is I.


The polls have been bouncing around. Two released this weekend showed Hillary Clinton up 9 in Pennsylvania, which is somewhere between where Obama was in 2008 and where he was in 2012. A Florida poll shows Hillary Clinton up 1%, insignificant in itself, but showing that Hillary is close enough in Florida to make the state iffy. That's how Florida was throughout 2012, in a year in which the 29 electoral votes of Florida did not swing the election.  Polls for Hillary Clinton collapsed as her health faltered. She seems honest enough about the situation. Sure, there's nothing shameful about declining health unless one did things to put oneself in that plight, so her health seems like something that she can be little hurt by by full disclosure.

[Eric the Green]

No doubt that as far as entertainment is concerned, Trump can fill seats better than Hillary. Hey, I might even go to see him too. Everyone likes a spectacle; explosions and fireworks are fun. I can only hope that Galen is wrong and the people will make their choice on another basis besides that. Hillary is definitely whom we need, and Trump is definitely not. As Bernie says, I hope people will come to see that. Because yes, we desperately need a change!

[Marypoza]

Bernie was the change. The assholes @ the DNC f-ed him over

[playwrite]

(09-19-2016, 01:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Bernie was the change. The assholes @ the DNC f-ed him over

At this point, it should be clear to anyone that you are nothing but a Trump troll.

You should work on your apology to your kids and grandkids for what he will do to them.

[Eric the Green]

(09-19-2016, 01:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Bernie was the change. The assholes @ the DNC f-ed him over

There were a few incidents reported, and Wasserman-Schultz expressed some feelings in some emails. That was about it. Bernie's side also did some wrong things. None of that made any difference. Hillary won the primary fair and square. I would have voted for Bernie, but I am registered Green in CA and did not want to change. Bernie was great. But Hillary is good. Perfect is not what we get in Amerika. Amerika is full of deceived and ignorant people. A moderately-liberal Democrat is the best that Amerika is going to elect. "It's the people, stupid!" Don't blame the Democrats. They are just playing the game that the people have set up. So the choice is between pretty good and horrible; between the change we need and the same old shit that Trump would give us. It is obvious what I meant. I have said so over and over. Republicans are the status quo. They rule. If we want any "change," they must be voted out. Only then can we go from there. There is no exception to this rule. How many times do I need to state the obvious?

[pbrower2a]

Just a reminder: the best Roman Emperors at entertaining the masses were Nero, Caligula, and Commodus. Those three are now widely seen as three of the worst.

[Eric the Green]

That's a good point. And our times are often compared to those of the early Roman Empire.