Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

everyone agrees that the involvement of "foreign bad actors" is a scary thing. but trump has nothing to do with that. Clinton, on the other hand, taking payments from middle eastern leaders is a direct link of foreign nations having influence and control over Hillary. Hillary has consistently tried to tie trump to Russia directly, which I believe has been a mistake. that "criticism" stands out more than any other, while Trump has so many factual "things" to pound him about that would be far more effective.

How do you know that Trump has nothing to do with it?  I mean...did the guy not ASK the Russians to hack Hillary's emails? You have the soudbite right there.

The FBI is currently investigating Trump ties to Russia. He has said, over and over, things praising Putin.  He refuses to outright condemn Russia's potential cyberintrusions (or even acknowledge they are Russian, all evidence to the contrary).

How is that any different than the FBI currently investigating HRCs emails?

Answer: It's really not.

In terms of effectiveness...meh. I worry less about how heavy the blows that are landing are vs how concerning, and how factual, the actual charge is.

There's been enough "stuff" unearthed about Trumps potential business ties to Russia (which he denies, but which have been documented in a few different articles) to make you wonder.  Apparently the FBI agreed.

[pilferk]

the biggest thing trump supporters like about him is immigration. that is what his whole campaign has been based on, and it's what has carried him to this point. and the majority of the country wants tougher immigration laws.

And his plans for immigration, as stated, are logistically, financially, and realistically impossible.  Promise vs reality. Again, they're being promised a bill of goods he can't deliver.  He either knows that, and is pandering, or he doesn't...which might be worse.

the 2nd big item is trade.

And his plans to "renegotiate all the trade deals" is outside the powers of the presidency.  Again, he is promising things that would require him to circumvent the separation of the branches of government. If he does that, he would be impeached...or have to institute a facist state.

TPP is terrible, that's true, and should never be adopted. Nafta is too (incidentally, Clinton did NOT sign or negotiate that deal..that was Bush I...Clinton just implemented it), and needs a look (which Obama promised to do...and didn't).

But all Trump can do is ASK congress to try to renegotiate those deals and then either sign or not sign what's presented to him.  They don't have to listen....and there's no assurances what we get out of that process will be any better.

Again...he either knows that and is pandering...or he doesn't, which might be worse.

3rd is the first amendment. it's the political correctness issue and the progressive's goal of limiting a free sharing of ideas.   

I disagree.

Its about being able to talk without taking responsibility for one's words.  That's Trumps SOP, and his reason for bringing it up is selfish. It's so he doesn't have to try to reign himself in and he can spout nonsense with impunity.  And many of his supporters gravitate toward that because their social agenda is out of whack with where the country has moved over the past decade or so. And they want to be able to say things about that, and those they find offensive, with impunity.

The first amendment is super clear. It has nothing to do with PC, and never did.  A certain segment has tried to warp its meaning to be something other than it is. But since the SC came into existence, they have linked the first with responsibility. For example, you can't say things that could potentially put others at risk...aka "Scream fire in a theater when there isn't one".

What Trump wants is for outlets like inforwars and Breitbart to be able to tell outright lies without bearing any responsibility for them.  To be able to push things like birtherism without being marginalized.  To be able to engage in the discussion of crazy conspiracy theories that besmirch, or preach discriminiation, against people, and not have to pay a price.  THATS what Trump wants. I'm not sure if his supporters have really thought it all through..they just know they want to be able to vent THEIR frustrations without consequence.  But what they're essentially supporting is the first step to state controlled propaganda, and facism.

Just remember...this is a slippery slope.  When you're the social agenda being marginalized, and you want to be able to say things that hurt the other agenda with impunity....eventually you're the ones that are going to need protecting. Eventually that vocal minority gets shouted over, and potentially beaten down, by the majority.  All that "non-PC" speech they're so hot to get can just as easily be directed back at them...times about a million.

yes, trump does better than Hillary with people that do not have a college degree (about 44-36 for trump). those people that feel like they have the smallest stake in this country, don't have a fighting chance, and are at the mercy of the big banks. I think it's obvious why those people would not want to support Hillary, which is basically a vote for Goldman Sachs.

As I said: White males with no college degree (aka less educated): 56-25, Trump...and there was polling in mid september actually pegged it at 79-21. That's come back to earth through mid october...but I would expect might be widening out again.

Again, that's the manufacturing demo....who are depending on Trumps promises to bring back an economy he can't possibly actually bring back. That's the group who, by and large, have watched their social agenda get swept aside by the progressive agenda over the past decade. And it's the demo that the government has been hardest pressed to help over the past 8 years.

Hillary does better than Trump with people that have college degrees (about a 10-point advantage, approx. 45-35 for Hillary).

White women with a college degree: 57-27, HRC. 

That's your gap, right there, and both candidates pillars in a nutshell.

but that's still millions of uneducated voting for Hillary, and millions of educated voting for Trump. it's no where near the divide we have based on race, or even male/female.

It's a pretty substantial gap.  Is it the 80% lead in the Black vote, or the 75% lead in the Latino vote? No.

But, in a nutshell, that's his base.  That's who he's counting on voting for him, and who his stump caters to.  And it's largely why he needed HRC to have something akin to the email letter last week to actually have a chance at winning. Because the demo that is his pillar is too narrow (and shrinking rapidly) to win a national election for him.  He needs the HRC-centric demos to second guess their vote, and either switch to a 3rd party...or just stay home (because I don't think, on the majority, those demos are likely to vote for Trump in any circumstance). 

He obviously didn't coordinate the Comey letter.....I'm not some conspiracy nut!  But absent that...we'd still be talking about Texas potentially flipping and a landslide on Tuesday.

Now...now it's ALMOST too late for anything else to have much effect.  SO much early voting has already occurred, it would be hard to drop something big enough, on either side, to effect the voting blocks.  It would have to drop today, or be such a huge bombshell (footage of Trump doing blow off HRC's ass, as Melania gives Bill a blowie while he's wearing a blue dress, while they all collude to work together to bring back Cthulhu) as to instantly disqualify a candidate.

We'll see if that happens.  Been sorta quiet so far today.

speaking of race....what the hell happened to Black Lives Matter? I guess Hillary realized they were not good for her and gave the MSM the memo.   

No police shootings (well, the crazy white wackadoo's shooting of two officers not withstanding..though I don't think Trump commented on that one), so it slipped from the public view I think. You don't hear Trump talking as much about "Law and Order" and chaos in the streets, either.  That issue has fallen back, in terms of polling, so it's not making prime time in the stump speeches.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

everyone agrees that the involvement of "foreign bad actors" is a scary thing. but trump has nothing to do with that. Clinton, on the other hand, taking payments from middle eastern leaders is a direct link of foreign nations having influence and control over Hillary. Hillary has consistently tried to tie trump to Russia directly, which I believe has been a mistake. that "criticism" stands out more than any other, while Trump has so many factual "things" to pound him about that would be far more effective.

How do you know that Trump has nothing to do with it?  I mean...did the guy not ASK the Russians to hack Hillary's emails? You have the soudbite right there.

The FBI is currently investigating Trump ties to Russia. He has said, over and over, things praising Putin.  He refuses to outright condemn Russia's potential cyberintrusions (or even acknowledge they are Russian, all evidence to the contrary).

How is that any different than the FBI currently investigating HRCs emails?

Answer: It's really not.

In terms of effectiveness...meh. I worry less about how heavy the blows that are landing are vs how concerning, and how factual, the actual charge is.

There's been enough "stuff" unearthed about Trumps potential business ties to Russia (which he denies, but which have been documented in a few different articles) to make you wonder.  Apparently the FBI agreed.

Dont think there anything there. Especially if it is the NY Times saying that.


Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

[pilferk]

everyone agrees that the involvement of "foreign bad actors" is a scary thing. but trump has nothing to do with that. Clinton, on the other hand, taking payments from middle eastern leaders is a direct link of foreign nations having influence and control over Hillary. Hillary has consistently tried to tie trump to Russia directly, which I believe has been a mistake. that "criticism" stands out more than any other, while Trump has so many factual "things" to pound him about that would be far more effective.

How do you know that Trump has nothing to do with it?  I mean...did the guy not ASK the Russians to hack Hillary's emails? You have the soudbite right there.

The FBI is currently investigating Trump ties to Russia. He has said, over and over, things praising Putin.  He refuses to outright condemn Russia's potential cyberintrusions (or even acknowledge they are Russian, all evidence to the contrary).

How is that any different than the FBI currently investigating HRCs emails?

Answer: It's really not.

In terms of effectiveness...meh. I worry less about how heavy the blows that are landing are vs how concerning, and how factual, the actual charge is.

There's been enough "stuff" unearthed about Trumps potential business ties to Russia (which he denies, but which have been documented in a few different articles) to make you wonder.  Apparently the FBI agreed.

Dont think there anything there. Especially if it is the NY Times saying that.


Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Similar reports, from other media outlets, have said that according to sources the new HRC emails are unlikely to change the FBI's recommendation concerning charges, etc.

Why is one article based on unnamed sources an indication there is nothing there....and the other ones are not?

My stance is, in both cases, until the FBI comments on the record...one way or the other....there are things to be concerned about in BOTH cases.  The fact is: They are both under FBI investigations (there's also a probe into the Trump foundation from the NYC AG which apparently has FBI involvement now, too, since some of the inappropriate actions may have crossed state lines).

I typically stay away from kos...because, well....it's kos. But in googling, I found this, which is interesting (and certainly partisan):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/1/1589659/-Someone-fed-the-NYT-information-to-quickly-kill-emerging-Trump-Russia-stories-was-it-Comey

And while we're going deep, deep, deep down the rabbit hole!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

And no, I don't expect either of those to be taken seriously.  But I"m trying to demonstrate the widely different material you'll get when depending on "unnamed sources" or "an unnamed source" for categoric proof of something.

[pilferk]

Some interesting developments 5 days out from Election Day. This is why I can not vote for her and why I think she is a horrible choice for POTUS. If she gets elected she will be mired in investigation and an ineffective leader with having to run the country and battle these scandals. .



Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date November 2, 2016


Back to Videos
Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"
34k Shares
Posted By Tim Hains
On Date November 2, 2016

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html
<iframe src="http://content.jwplatform.com/players/d6bBL96S-EAYoNgFe.html" width="320" height="260" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto"></iframe>

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

 

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

Just to follow up on this one:

Baier was forced to essentially issue a retraction and apology for the contents of that report. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/04/fox-news-report-of-likely-indictment-in-clinton-case-just-wont-die/

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Yes, I did hear the Brett Baier retraction story on the radio today. He jumped the gun on the likely indictment and the 5 foreign intelligence agencies hacking into the server. 

But some of what he said appears to be accurate,CBS News reported that the Emails were not duplicates and were related to Hillary's tenure at State Dept.





 

[sandman]

the biggest thing trump supporters like about him is immigration. that is what his whole campaign has been based on, and it's what has carried him to this point. and the majority of the country wants tougher immigration laws.

And his plans for immigration, as stated, are logistically, financially, and realistically impossible.  Promise vs reality. Again, they're being promised a bill of goods he can't deliver.  He either knows that, and is pandering, or he doesn't...which might be worse.

the 2nd big item is trade.

And his plans to "renegotiate all the trade deals" is outside the powers of the presidency.  Again, he is promising things that would require him to circumvent the separation of the branches of government. If he does that, he would be impeached...or have to institute a facist state.

TPP is terrible, that's true, and should never be adopted. Nafta is too (incidentally, Clinton did NOT sign or negotiate that deal..that was Bush I...Clinton just implemented it), and needs a look (which Obama promised to do...and didn't).

But all Trump can do is ASK congress to try to renegotiate those deals and then either sign or not sign what's presented to him.  They don't have to listen....and there's no assurances what we get out of that process will be any better.

Again...he either knows that and is pandering...or he doesn't, which might be worse.

3rd is the first amendment. it's the political correctness issue and the progressive's goal of limiting a free sharing of ideas.   

I disagree.

Its about being able to talk without taking responsibility for one's words.  That's Trumps SOP, and his reason for bringing it up is selfish. It's so he doesn't have to try to reign himself in and he can spout nonsense with impunity.  And many of his supporters gravitate toward that because their social agenda is out of whack with where the country has moved over the past decade or so. And they want to be able to say things about that, and those they find offensive, with impunity.

The first amendment is super clear. It has nothing to do with PC, and never did.  A certain segment has tried to warp its meaning to be something other than it is. But since the SC came into existence, they have linked the first with responsibility. For example, you can't say things that could potentially put others at risk...aka "Scream fire in a theater when there isn't one".

What Trump wants is for outlets like inforwars and Breitbart to be able to tell outright lies without bearing any responsibility for them.  To be able to push things like birtherism without being marginalized.  To be able to engage in the discussion of crazy conspiracy theories that besmirch, or preach discriminiation, against people, and not have to pay a price.  THATS what Trump wants. I'm not sure if his supporters have really thought it all through..they just know they want to be able to vent THEIR frustrations without consequence.  But what they're essentially supporting is the first step to state controlled propaganda, and facism.

Just remember...this is a slippery slope.  When you're the social agenda being marginalized, and you want to be able to say things that hurt the other agenda with impunity....eventually you're the ones that are going to need protecting. Eventually that vocal minority gets shouted over, and potentially beaten down, by the majority.  All that "non-PC" speech they're so hot to get can just as easily be directed back at them...times about a million.

yes, trump does better than Hillary with people that do not have a college degree (about 44-36 for trump). those people that feel like they have the smallest stake in this country, don't have a fighting chance, and are at the mercy of the big banks. I think it's obvious why those people would not want to support Hillary, which is basically a vote for Goldman Sachs.

As I said: White males with no college degree (aka less educated): 56-25, Trump...and there was polling in mid september actually pegged it at 79-21. That's come back to earth through mid october...but I would expect might be widening out again.

Again, that's the manufacturing demo....who are depending on Trumps promises to bring back an economy he can't possibly actually bring back. That's the group who, by and large, have watched their social agenda get swept aside by the progressive agenda over the past decade. And it's the demo that the government has been hardest pressed to help over the past 8 years.

Hillary does better than Trump with people that have college degrees (about a 10-point advantage, approx. 45-35 for Hillary).

White women with a college degree: 57-27, HRC. 

That's your gap, right there, and both candidates pillars in a nutshell.

but that's still millions of uneducated voting for Hillary, and millions of educated voting for Trump. it's no where near the divide we have based on race, or even male/female.

It's a pretty substantial gap.  Is it the 80% lead in the Black vote, or the 75% lead in the Latino vote? No.

But, in a nutshell, that's his base.  That's who he's counting on voting for him, and who his stump caters to.  And it's largely why he needed HRC to have something akin to the email letter last week to actually have a chance at winning. Because the demo that is his pillar is too narrow (and shrinking rapidly) to win a national election for him.  He needs the HRC-centric demos to second guess their vote, and either switch to a 3rd party...or just stay home (because I don't think, on the majority, those demos are likely to vote for Trump in any circumstance). 

He obviously didn't coordinate the Comey letter.....I'm not some conspiracy nut!  But absent that...we'd still be talking about Texas potentially flipping and a landslide on Tuesday.

Now...now it's ALMOST too late for anything else to have much effect.  SO much early voting has already occurred, it would be hard to drop something big enough, on either side, to effect the voting blocks.  It would have to drop today, or be such a huge bombshell (footage of Trump doing blow off HRC's ass, as Melania gives Bill a blowie while he's wearing a blue dress, while they all collude to work together to bring back Cthulhu) as to instantly disqualify a candidate.

We'll see if that happens.  Been sorta quiet so far today.

speaking of race....what the hell happened to Black Lives Matter? I guess Hillary realized they were not good for her and gave the MSM the memo.   

No police shootings (well, the crazy white wackadoo's shooting of two officers not withstanding..though I don't think Trump commented on that one), so it slipped from the public view I think. You don't hear Trump talking as much about "Law and Order" and chaos in the streets, either.  That issue has fallen back, in terms of polling, so it's not making prime time in the stump speeches.

I didnt say trump's policies r good or that he can deliver. Just pointed out what the top issues r among his supporters. Everyone is concerned about terrorism and the economy, but immigration is why trump is here.

[pilferk]

Yes, I did hear the Brett Baier retraction story on the radio today. He jumped the gun on the likely indictment and the 5 foreign intelligence agencies hacking into the server. 

But some of what he said appears to be accurate,CBS News reported that the Emails were not duplicates and were related to Hillary's tenure at State Dept.

Other sources have said "related" is a mischaracterization. "Sent while she was sec state" is more accurate.  And not "the emails were not duplicates", but "some of the emails were not duplicates" (aka...not all 650k are clnton-huma emails, but some subset of a subset are clinton-huma emails sent while clinton was sec state). How big that subset is..we dont know. Could be 3. Could be 33k.

I dont think thats a surprise, nor was it the breaking news in Baiers report. If the agents going through the laptop hadnt found at least some evidence or indication that some number of those were there, there wouldnt have been a letter last Friday. And there wouldn't have been a subpeona Sunday.

Whether they contain any classified info is really the only part that matters...along with any intent on display.  Because that, in turn, shows that at least some of the deleted emails were pertinent to the fbi subpeona, initially. And they couldnt really look closer til the subpeona came out, or it would become fruit of the poison tree.

OR, if they all turn out to be personal emails.....which is what the Clinton campaign says they erased....that pretty much backs up their claim...no?

And we likely wont know the answer to that for a few weeks,depending on how many emails they whittled down to. We'll see.

[pilferk]

the biggest thing trump supporters like about him is immigration. that is what his whole campaign has been based on, and it's what has carried him to this point. and the majority of the country wants tougher immigration laws.

And his plans for immigration, as stated, are logistically, financially, and realistically impossible.  Promise vs reality. Again, they're being promised a bill of goods he can't deliver.  He either knows that, and is pandering, or he doesn't...which might be worse.

the 2nd big item is trade.

And his plans to "renegotiate all the trade deals" is outside the powers of the presidency.  Again, he is promising things that would require him to circumvent the separation of the branches of government. If he does that, he would be impeached...or have to institute a facist state.

TPP is terrible, that's true, and should never be adopted. Nafta is too (incidentally, Clinton did NOT sign or negotiate that deal..that was Bush I...Clinton just implemented it), and needs a look (which Obama promised to do...and didn't).

But all Trump can do is ASK congress to try to renegotiate those deals and then either sign or not sign what's presented to him.  They don't have to listen....and there's no assurances what we get out of that process will be any better.

Again...he either knows that and is pandering...or he doesn't, which might be worse.

3rd is the first amendment. it's the political correctness issue and the progressive's goal of limiting a free sharing of ideas.   

I disagree.

Its about being able to talk without taking responsibility for one's words.  That's Trumps SOP, and his reason for bringing it up is selfish. It's so he doesn't have to try to reign himself in and he can spout nonsense with impunity.  And many of his supporters gravitate toward that because their social agenda is out of whack with where the country has moved over the past decade or so. And they want to be able to say things about that, and those they find offensive, with impunity.

The first amendment is super clear. It has nothing to do with PC, and never did.  A certain segment has tried to warp its meaning to be something other than it is. But since the SC came into existence, they have linked the first with responsibility. For example, you can't say things that could potentially put others at risk...aka "Scream fire in a theater when there isn't one".

What Trump wants is for outlets like inforwars and Breitbart to be able to tell outright lies without bearing any responsibility for them.  To be able to push things like birtherism without being marginalized.  To be able to engage in the discussion of crazy conspiracy theories that besmirch, or preach discriminiation, against people, and not have to pay a price.  THATS what Trump wants. I'm not sure if his supporters have really thought it all through..they just know they want to be able to vent THEIR frustrations without consequence.  But what they're essentially supporting is the first step to state controlled propaganda, and facism.

Just remember...this is a slippery slope.  When you're the social agenda being marginalized, and you want to be able to say things that hurt the other agenda with impunity....eventually you're the ones that are going to need protecting. Eventually that vocal minority gets shouted over, and potentially beaten down, by the majority.  All that "non-PC" speech they're so hot to get can just as easily be directed back at them...times about a million.

yes, trump does better than Hillary with people that do not have a college degree (about 44-36 for trump). those people that feel like they have the smallest stake in this country, don't have a fighting chance, and are at the mercy of the big banks. I think it's obvious why those people would not want to support Hillary, which is basically a vote for Goldman Sachs.

As I said: White males with no college degree (aka less educated): 56-25, Trump...and there was polling in mid september actually pegged it at 79-21. That's come back to earth through mid october...but I would expect might be widening out again.

Again, that's the manufacturing demo....who are depending on Trumps promises to bring back an economy he can't possibly actually bring back. That's the group who, by and large, have watched their social agenda get swept aside by the progressive agenda over the past decade. And it's the demo that the government has been hardest pressed to help over the past 8 years.

Hillary does better than Trump with people that have college degrees (about a 10-point advantage, approx. 45-35 for Hillary).

White women with a college degree: 57-27, HRC. 

That's your gap, right there, and both candidates pillars in a nutshell.

but that's still millions of uneducated voting for Hillary, and millions of educated voting for Trump. it's no where near the divide we have based on race, or even male/female.

It's a pretty substantial gap.  Is it the 80% lead in the Black vote, or the 75% lead in the Latino vote? No.

But, in a nutshell, that's his base.  That's who he's counting on voting for him, and who his stump caters to.  And it's largely why he needed HRC to have something akin to the email letter last week to actually have a chance at winning. Because the demo that is his pillar is too narrow (and shrinking rapidly) to win a national election for him.  He needs the HRC-centric demos to second guess their vote, and either switch to a 3rd party...or just stay home (because I don't think, on the majority, those demos are likely to vote for Trump in any circumstance). 

He obviously didn't coordinate the Comey letter.....I'm not some conspiracy nut!  But absent that...we'd still be talking about Texas potentially flipping and a landslide on Tuesday.

Now...now it's ALMOST too late for anything else to have much effect.  SO much early voting has already occurred, it would be hard to drop something big enough, on either side, to effect the voting blocks.  It would have to drop today, or be such a huge bombshell (footage of Trump doing blow off HRC's ass, as Melania gives Bill a blowie while he's wearing a blue dress, while they all collude to work together to bring back Cthulhu) as to instantly disqualify a candidate.

We'll see if that happens.  Been sorta quiet so far today.

speaking of race....what the hell happened to Black Lives Matter? I guess Hillary realized they were not good for her and gave the MSM the memo.   

No police shootings (well, the crazy white wackadoo's shooting of two officers not withstanding..though I don't think Trump commented on that one), so it slipped from the public view I think. You don't hear Trump talking as much about "Law and Order" and chaos in the streets, either.  That issue has fallen back, in terms of polling, so it's not making prime time in the stump speeches.

I didnt say trump's policies r good or that he can deliver. Just pointed out what the top issues r among his supporters. Everyone is concerned about terrorism and the economy, but immigration is why trump is here.

I agree its what started his campaign.

I don't think its the primary tentpole now.

[GeorgeSteele]

I didnt say trump's policies r good or that he can deliver. Just pointed out what the top issues r among his supporters. Everyone is concerned about terrorism and the economy, but immigration is why trump is here.

I agree its what started his campaign.

I don't think its the primary tentpole now.

I think Michael Moore said it best.  Many Trump supporters don't like him or his policies, but they see him as a "human Molotov cocktail".  Why that's a good thing, I'm not quite sure, but there you have it. 

[sandman]

I didnt say trump's policies r good or that he can deliver. Just pointed out what the top issues r among his supporters. Everyone is concerned about terrorism and the economy, but immigration is why trump is here.

I agree its what started his campaign.

I don't think its the primary tentpole now.

I think Michael Moore said it best.  Many Trump supporters don't like him or his policies, but they see him as a "human Molotov cocktail".  Why that's a good thing, I'm not quite sure, but there you have it. 

Bingo!

[tim_m]

Today's polls stabilized even more for Hillary. So unless something monumental happens by Tuesday i fully expect her to be president elect.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I dont think you can rely on these polls to know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Hillary is up by 2 points Nationally, and that is within the margin of error.

Some polls which shows they are tied some key states ( I posted links since if some one just told me PA and MI were tied, I wouldn't believe them) 

CO - http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-in-colorado-new-poll-sho

MI - http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

NH - https://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE-NH-GENERAL-20161103_tcm18-264691.pdf

PA - http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

Couple of weeks ago I was convinced the race was over and Hillary was going to be the next President.

At this point I think its anyone's race. Hillary has the organizational and financial advantage, but her negatives are now higher than Trump's. And many establishment type GOP voters seem to be begrudgingly backing Trump now. Either way, we get the most disliked President Elect in history.

[pilferk]

I dont think you can rely on these polls to know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Hillary is up by 2 points Nationally, and that is within the margin of error.

Some polls which shows they are tied some key states ( I posted links since if some one just told me PA and MI were tied, I wouldn't believe them) 

CO - http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-in-colorado-new-poll-sho

MI - http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

NH - https://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE-NH-GENERAL-20161103_tcm18-264691.pdf

PA - http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

Couple of weeks ago I was convinced the race was over and Hillary was going to be the next President.

At this point I think its anyone's race. Hillary has the organizational and financial advantage, but her negatives are now higher than Trump's. And many establishment type GOP voters seem to be begrudgingly backing Trump now. Either way, we get the most disliked President Elect in history.

And thats why single, oddball polls are generally bunk..and you should stick with aggregators like rcp and 538. You can sort the wheat from the chaffe, easier. Chances are....like in nc...when you see all polls showing one candidate with a slim lead, and another showing the other candidate with a HUGE lead...that outlier is a low confidence poll. Not always....but again, nc is a great example. It IS a low confidence poll taking the aggregate from Clinton +2.5 to Trump +.08. Both depctba close race, for sure....but one of those polls is prett glaring in conparison. I would be hard pressed to hang my hat on that. Though it probably gives the dems some ulcers (and maybe spurs the to vote?)

Rcp says pa is Clinton +2.5....and 3 of the last 5 polls used to figure her average are low confidence one offs all showing +2. Graves went from a plus 3 to a plus 2 since last Friday.....and quinnipiac went from a plus 7 to a plus 5. you can argue margin of error, but the trend favors Hrc holding on.  Think right around 3-4 pts is probably about right.

Co has 3 recent polls, all who have confirmed methodoligies that oversample repubs and under sample latinos showing ties or clinton +1...and 5 recent polls with higher confidence ratings with clinton +5.

This is echoed a bunch of spots, and one of my big issues with aggregators in the run ups to election day. The high confidence, regular, respected polls we have had for mnths get drowned out by every tom, dick, and harry low confidence poll who wants in on the action. And they always turn out...in every election i can remember...to be wrong, one way or the other.
Pthe only state you mention that i think might have actually flipped is new hampshire. We will have to see if those 4 electorals are a start of a path for him.

I'm not saying things havent narrowed....i'm sure they have..but (like the Melania reports last night) some if it is just badly put together noise. I find myself having to click through the states on rcp now and look at complete poll history and trending to try to get a better idea.

I found i had to do the same thing last election....and heard some of the same polls mentioned by the Romney camp as proving they were going to win, the weekend before.

[tim_m]

I dont think you can rely on these polls to know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Hillary is up by 2 points Nationally, and that is within the margin of error.

Some polls which shows they are tied some key states ( I posted links since if some one just told me PA and MI were tied, I wouldn't believe them) 

CO - http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-in-colorado-new-poll-sho

MI - http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

NH - https://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE-NH-GENERAL-20161103_tcm18-264691.pdf

PA - http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

Couple of weeks ago I was convinced the race was over and Hillary was going to be the next President.

At this point I think its anyone's race. Hillary has the organizational and financial advantage, but her negatives are now higher than Trump's. And many establishment type GOP voters seem to be begrudgingly backing Trump now. Either way, we get the most disliked President Elect in history.

And thats why single, oddball polls are generally bunk..and you should stick with aggregators like rcp and 538. You can sort the wheat from the chaffe, easier. Chances are....like in nc...when you see all polls showing one candidate with a slim lead, and another showing the other candidate with a HUGE lead...that outlier is a low confidence poll. Not always....but again, nc is a great example. It IS a low confidence poll taking the aggregate from Clinton +2.5 to Trump +.08. Both depctba close race, for sure....but one of those polls is prett glaring in conparison. I would be hard pressed to hang my hat on that. Though it probably gives the dems some ulcers (and maybe spurs the to vote?)

Rcp says pa is Clinton +2.5....and 3 of the last 5 polls used to figure her average are low confidence one offs all showing +2. Graves went from a plus 3 to a plus 2 since last Friday.....and quinnipiac went from a plus 7 to a plus 5. you can argue margin of error, but the trend favors Hrc holding on.  Think right around 3-4 pts is probably about right.

Co has 3 recent polls, all who have confirmed methodoligies that oversample repubs and under sample latinos showing ties or clinton +1...and 5 recent polls with higher confidence ratings with clinton +5.

This is echoed a bunch of spots, and one of my big issues with aggregators in the run ups to election day. The high confidence, regular, respected polls we have had for mnths get drowned out by every tom, dick, and harry low confidence poll who wants in on the action. And they always turn out...in every election i can remember...to be wrong, one way or the other.
Pthe only state you mention that i think might have actually flipped is new hampshire. We will have to see if those 4 electorals are a start of a path for him.

I'm not saying things havent narrowed....i'm sure they have..but (like the Melania reports last night) some if it is just badly put together noise. I find myself having to click through the states on rcp now and look at complete poll history and trending to try to get a better idea.

I found i had to do the same thing last election....and heard some of the same polls mentioned by the Romney camp as proving they were going to win, the weekend before.

And today's polls show more the same. Ipsos has her up 4. IBD has her up 3 in 2 way tied in 4 way and the ridiculous USC one still has Trump by 5. PA is 2-4 for HRC. Loras has HRC by 1 in Iowa. Not sure about the accuracy there. Gravis has Colorado as a tie and Washington is firm HRC. I still contend that if nothing earth shattering happens by Tuesday HRC is president elect. Could it go Trump's way? Certainly but recent polls suggest otherwise.

[tim_m]

I dont think you can rely on these polls to know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Hillary is up by 2 points Nationally, and that is within the margin of error.

Some polls which shows they are tied some key states ( I posted links since if some one just told me PA and MI were tied, I wouldn't believe them) 

CO - http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-in-colorado-new-poll-sho

MI - http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

NH - https://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE-NH-GENERAL-20161103_tcm18-264691.pdf

PA - http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

Couple of weeks ago I was convinced the race was over and Hillary was going to be the next President.

At this point I think its anyone's race. Hillary has the organizational and financial advantage, but her negatives are now higher than Trump's. And many establishment type GOP voters seem to be begrudgingly backing Trump now. Either way, we get the most disliked President Elect in history.

I have to respectfully disagree that her negatives are higher at this point. Lets list the Trump negatives. Possible ties to the Russian hacking and wikileaks to try and influence the election. Multiple allegations by women that he sexually assaulted them. Allegations that he raped his ex wife and possibly a 13 year old girl. Caught on tape boasting about sexually assaulting women. Caught on tape saying about a 10 year old girl he'd be dating her in 10 years. Tell me, you're a father right? Do you have a daughter? Tell me if you didn't hear a man say something like that about your underage daughter that you couldn't get your phone out of your pocket and dial 911 fast enough? I'm not saying Hillary's negatives are insignificant or that they should be dismissed but worse then Trump's at this point? I don't think so, not when we're talking about him allegedly violating Women's bodies.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I dont think you can rely on these polls to know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Hillary is up by 2 points Nationally, and that is within the margin of error.

Some polls which shows they are tied some key states ( I posted links since if some one just told me PA and MI were tied, I wouldn't believe them) 

CO - http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-in-colorado-new-poll-sho

MI - http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

NH - https://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE-NH-GENERAL-20161103_tcm18-264691.pdf

PA - http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

Couple of weeks ago I was convinced the race was over and Hillary was going to be the next President.

At this point I think its anyone's race. Hillary has the organizational and financial advantage, but her negatives are now higher than Trump's. And many establishment type GOP voters seem to be begrudgingly backing Trump now. Either way, we get the most disliked President Elect in history.

I have to respectfully disagree that her negatives are higher at this point. Lets list the Trump negatives. Possible ties to the Russian hacking and wikileaks to try and influence the election. Multiple allegations by women that he sexually assaulted them. Allegations that he raped his ex wife and possibly a 13 year old girl. Caught on tape boasting about sexually assaulting women. Caught on tape saying about a 10 year old girl he'd be dating her in 10 years. Tell me, you're a father right? Do you have a daughter? Tell me if you didn't hear a man say something like that about your underage daughter that you couldn't get your phone out of your pocket and dial 911 fast enough? I'm not saying Hillary's negatives are insignificant or that they should be dismissed but worse then Trump's at this point? I don't think so, not when we're talking about him allegedly violating Women's bodies.

This is what I read that prompted me to say her negatives were higher than his. Yeah, it is by 1 point but 1st time I have seen it that way.

"Clinton's negative rating is 13 points ? 43 favorable vs. 56 unfavorable, 5 points worse than last week. Trump's negative rating is 12 points ? 43 percent favorable vs. 55 percent unfavorable, an improvement of a a point from last week." http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/donald_trump_vs_hillary_clinto_48.html

I do have an 8 year old daughter and I'm not going to defend what Trump has said about women. He has said some crass things.

But it is worse to lie, cheat and steal your way to the highest office as Hillary is doing. That is also a very bad example for my kid.

Like I've said before we have a bad choice and a worse choice. At least with Trump we have a shot of reigning in Government corruption instead of perpetuating it with Hillary.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I think the whole point of Hillary having the private server when she became Sec of State was to hide the pay for play setup between her while at state dept and the Clinton Foundation. FBI has been investigating that for awhile now and just recently was acknowledged that the investigation existed.

If she does win she will not be an effective President.

Endless scandal is a given if Hillary wins the White House


If, that is, they?re not quashed by higher-ups at the Justice Department.

The foundation probe, it turns out, has been under way for a year. On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that four FBI field offices have been reviewing possible influence-peddling via the foundation.

But the Journal also noted that top Justice Department and FBI officials have tried to rein in that probe ? notably by nixing any subpoenas. Some agents say they were told flatly to ?stand down.?

Clinton sympathizers will argue that it?s the lower-level agents who are out of line ? and no regular citizen can really know who?s right. Maybe the field agents aren?t seeing the forest for the trees.

Or maybe the Obama Justice Department has become as partisan as the Obama IRS.

It sure looks bad in light of Attorney General Loretta Lynch?s ?tarmac t?te-?-t?te? with Bill Clinton ? and President Obama?s various pronouncements that probes of Hillary will never find anything bad.

This atop FBI chief James Comey?s stunner last week about newly unearthed emails ?that appear to be pertinent? to his other Clinton probe. Baier?s sources say some emails ?are not duplicates? of ones seen before and ?could potentially be classified in nature.?

At a minimum, it all guarantees that Congress will be probing Justice?s conduct ? and demanding some sort of special prosecutor take over the case(s) should Clinton win the White House.

D?j? vu: The ?90s Clinton scandals were relentless. The worst ended with the Senate declining to remove Bill Clinton from office after the House impeached him.

Now, even before Election Day, Hillary is facing two more serious probes. Americans already distrust her ? and it seems those worries will only grow if she?s elected.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/03/endless-scandal-is-a-given-if-hillary-wins-the-white-house/

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Saturday was the last day of early voting here in FL. My wife and I  decided to vote today so we could take the kids with us to show them the process.   I spent an hour researching the local judges and school board members as well as some of the local amendments I wasn't sure about before I went to my polling place... 

We have a good system here in Brevard County, FL. You have to show ID and they give you a paper ballot that is matched up to your name so you cant go vote again on Tuesday. Fill in the circle with a pen and the machine scans it. No hanging chads, no malfunctioning touch screen and you have to prove who you say you are.

I will never understand how some can call that disenfranchising or racist for asking a person for an ID before a ballot is given out.

Consider the things you need and ID for. Voting should be one of them in all cases. Otherwise, what is to stop me from saying for example that I am my neighbor and vote for him, then later cast my own vote, essentially voting twice. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I need to go to bed, so I leave you with this....