Political Roundtable Part X

[closg00]

Trump is done unless Assange has emails of Hillary with kiddie porn in them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/trump-cratering-latest-polls

Yes and No. Trump has worn out his welcome and he has negative traction. I'm thinking barring a bombshell release by Assange, Trump could be done. However, something else is bubbling beneath the surface, something I thought was just wingnut babble- HRC's health, she has some kind of seizures. Trump loves this kind of stuff and it may gain traction. Check it out.

Watch on YouTube

[nate33]

Despite a disastrous week for Trump amplified by an all-out assault by the media, the daily tracking polls show only a minor drop for Trump and he seems to be recovering. At this point, even I don't quite understand it. Teflon Don.





He's down more in some of the other polls that are taken monthly or every couple of weeks, but I'm not sure how consistent their methodology is. I know in a recent Public Policy Polling poll (which had Clinton up +5), their sampling incorporated 52% people who voted Obama, 41% McCain, and 7% "don't remember". Why on Earth would they use that as a sample when in the actual election, we know it was 51-47 Obama over McCain? Basically, all of those points favoring Hillary were due to a sampling that was 7% heavier weighted in Democrats than Republicans than in the last election. (It's actually more likely that Democrats will be slightly less enthusiastic in turnout because there is no Obama on the ticket.)

[bsilver]

Despite a disastrous week for Trump amplified by an all-out assault by the media, the daily tracking polls show only a minor drop for Trump and he seems to be recovering. At this point, even I don't quite understand it. Teflon Don.





He's down more in some of the other polls that are taken monthly or every couple of weeks, but I'm not sure how consistent their methodology is. I know in a recent Public Policy Polling poll (which had Clinton up +5), their sampling incorporated 52% people who voted Obama, 41% McCain, and 7% "don't remember". Why on Earth would they use that as a sample when in the actual election, we know it was 51-47 Obama over McCain? Basically, all of those points favoring Hillary were due to a sampling that was 7% heavier weighted in Democrats than Republicans than in the last election. (It's actually more likely that Democrats will be slightly less enthusiastic in turnout because there is no Obama on the ticket.)

RealClearPolitics has Clinton up by 6.9%. It's an average of 10 polls. What's your poll?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[closg00]

The media has been covering Trumps self-inflicted, disastrous week so it may look like an assault to Repubs.
As-of today, Trump has a very narrow path to victory if these pols are correct. I also believe the Russians will try to hack the voting machines to help Trump, a Trump Presidency is a wet dream to Putin.

[DCZards]

Uh-oh...even Trump's base of non-college white voters seems to be abandoning him...and saying "I'm with her!"

Clinton has improved her standing among white voters. In the previous McClatchy-Marist Poll, Trump was ahead of Clinton by 15 points among this group, 49% to 34%. Currently, Trump and Clinton are competitive, 41% for Trump to 39% for Clinton.

Interestingly, Clinton has made gains among both college and non-college white voters. Last time, Clinton led Trump by 4 points among white voters with a college degree. Clinton is now ahead of Trump among this group by 12 points, 48% for Clinton to 36% for Trump. Clinton has also cut into Trump’s advantage among white voters without a college education. Last month, Trump outdistanced Clinton by 28 points among these voters. Now, his lead is only 15 points, 46% for Trump to 31% for Clinton.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/tag/election-2016/

[tontoz]

Ivanka taking a shot at her dad;

In a recent interview with USA Today, Republican nominee Donald Trump claimed if his daughter, Ivanka Trump, were being sexually harassed at work, he "would like to think she would find another career or find another company." The backlash to the sexist and victim-blaming comment was swift, but even in follow-up interviews, Donald Trump has only seemed to double down on the sentiment.

While Ivanka Trump has mostly stayed quiet on the matter since the interview first came out last weekend, when asked her thoughts on the whole thing during an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Tuesday night, she was quick to take a stand.

"I think harassment in general, regardless [if] sexual or otherwise, is totally inexcusable," she said. "And if it transpires, it needs to be reported and it needs to be dealt with on a company level."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-fires-back-her-160733453.html

[JWizmentality]

Trump is done unless Assange has emails of Hillary with kiddie porn in them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/trump-cratering-latest-polls

Yes and No. Trump has worn out his welcome and he has negative traction. I'm thinking barring a bombshell release by Assange, Trump could be done. However, something else is bubbling beneath the surface, something I thought was just wingnut babble- HRC's health, she has some kind of seizures. Trump loves this kind of stuff and it may gain traction. Check it out.

Watch on YouTube

It would have been better if you posted the edited version which was already discussed a couple pages back. The clean vid is normal.

[nate33]

RealClearPolitics has Clinton up by 6.9%. It's an average of 10 polls. What's your poll?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm aware that the RCP average heavily favors Clinton. As I said, those polls are taken sporadically and I don't know how consistent their poll methodology has been. (As I said in my post, a recent PPP poll absurdly took a sample that was 52% Obama voters and 41% McCain voters.)

I posted the Reuters daily poll and the USC/LA Times daily poll. Whether their right or wrong, I don't really know. But being a daily poll, I assume they're at least somewhat consistent in methodology. They show a recent Trump dip of a few points and then a bit of a recovery.

At this point, I think the polls can only tell us about trend shifts. They can't really tell us the actual disparity between the two candidates because no polling organization has any idea of what the turnout is going to look like. This election is wildly different from past elections. There are rabid pro-Trump supporters from the white working class who will probably show up in greater numbers than usual. I also think the black vote won't be as enthusiastically pro-Clinton as they were pro-Obama. The Hispanic turnout may be greater this year and probably more anti-Trump than they were anti-Romney (though some polls show that this may not be the case). There are lot of college-educated democrats who are really afraid of Trump and may turn out in greater numbers, but on the other hand, there's a lot of college-educated independents who really don't like either candidate and may just stay home or vote third party. And we still don't know what the TruCons are going to do. Will they "vote their conscience" and go Libertarian, or will they eventually resign themselves to Trump because of the Supreme Court. The true NeoCons might actually vote Hillary, but they're not really a voter base, they're just a handful of pundits and donors.

[Wizardspride]

Click to read the rest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/07/top-nazi-leader-trump-will-be-a-real-opportunity-for-white-nationalists/?utm_term=.5e409bd71294

Top Nazi leader: Trump will be a ‘real opportunity’ for white nationalists


The effort to plant the seeds of white nationalism in the political mainstream, where they might blossom into pro-white political coalitions that appeal to a broader swath of Caucasian voters, will not be easy, according to the chairman of the American Nazi Party.

But Rocky Suhayda thinks there is one political figure who presents a “real opportunity” to lessen the load.

Who is it? Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.

“Now, if Trump does win, okay, it’s going to be a real opportunity for people like white nationalists, acting intelligently to build upon that, and to go and start — you know how you have the black political caucus and what not in Congress and everything — to start building on something like that,” Suhayda declared on his radio program last month.

Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a white-nationalist magazine and website based in Northern Virginia, told the New Yorker magazine that Trump may be in denial about the makeup of his base.

“I’m sure he would repudiate any association with people like me,” Taylor told the magazine, “but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.”

[Kanyewest]

RealClearPolitics has Clinton up by 6.9%. It's an average of 10 polls. What's your poll?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I'm aware that the RCP average heavily favors Clinton. As I said, those polls are taken sporadically and I don't know how consistent their poll methodology has been. (As I said in my post, a recent PPP poll absurdly took a sample that was 52% Obama voters and 41% McCain voters.)

I posted the Reuters daily poll and the USC/LA Times daily poll. Whether their right or wrong, I don't really know. But being a daily poll, I assume they're at least somewhat consistent in methodology. They show a recent Trump dip of a few points and then a bit of a recovery.

At this point, I think the polls can only tell us about trend shifts. They can't really tell us the actual disparity between the two candidates because no polling organization has any idea of what the turnout is going to look like. This election is wildly different from past elections. There are rabid pro-Trump supporters from the white working class who will probably show up in greater numbers than usual. I also think the black vote won't be as enthusiastically pro-Clinton as they were pro-Obama. The Hispanic turnout may be greater this year and probably more anti-Trump than they were anti-Romney (though some polls show that this may not be the case). There are lot of college-educated democrats who are really afraid of Trump and may turn out in greater numbers, but on the other hand, there's a lot of college-educated independents who really don't like either candidate and may just stay home or vote third party. And we still don't know what the TruCons are going to do. Will they "vote their conscience" and go Libertarian, or will they eventually resign themselves to Trump because of the Supreme Court. The true NeoCons might actually vote Hillary, but they're not really a voter base, they're just a handful of pundits and donors.

It looks like there isn't much of a swing in the Reuters poll although in the USC one it looks like Trump has lost a 6 to 7 point lead. All else being equal, I still think it's better to take more polls into account like RCP and 538 does and it is probably more important to pay attention to state polls rather than national ones. BTW, those polls you mention don't mention 3rd party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

I agree that it's far from over especially if the democrats get complacent. Especially because there are a high number undecided and 3rd party voters. Jill Stein could siphon a large portion of Bernie Sanders supporters (although Trump's gaffes have made it easier among the pro Bernie Republican voters that I know to support Hillary Clinton instead).

I agree that the support of neo-cons is minimal. Even if the neocons publically support Hillary Clinton, it could turn off some to vote for 3rd party candidate or not at all.

Still, Trump is also facing a growing Hispanic population that is growing at a faster aggregate rate than non-Hispanic whites. I would also imagine that voter turnout among Hispanics will be growing at historical high because Trump hasn't pivoted away strongly against his anti-immigration stand.

A lot can still play out. A terrorist attack, economic crisis, or another leak about Hillary Clinton could change the perspective of voters. Still, Trump had a pretty bad week if you look at the majority of polls where Hillary has either extended her lead or overcame Trump's lead. Time will also tell if voter turnout will be higher among those groups that you see. Let's see what happens.

[payitforward]

...in a recent Public Policy Polling poll (which had Clinton up +5), their sampling incorporated 52% people who voted Obama, 41% McCain, and 7% "don't remember". Why on Earth would they use that as a sample when in the actual election, we know it was 51-47 Obama over McCain? Basically, all of those points favoring Hillary were due to a sampling that was 7% heavier weighted in Democrats than Republicans than in the last election. (It's actually more likely that Democrats will be slightly less enthusiastic in turnout because there is no Obama on the ticket.)

I love the "7% don't remember!" Funny....

I don't think the 2d bolded point can be concluded as you do. To my knowledge, people run polls because they need real information -- the best they can get. Hence this was certainly a randomized poll, not a weighted sample chosen by the pollster. I presume that, in addition to getting an answer on the respondant's preference in the coming election, the poll also asked whether the person voted, and who for, in '08.

People's answers to a question like this are not always reliable -- not just the 7%, some of whom may very well remember who they voted for but don't want to say for one reason or another. Or didn't vote at all. And some of those who say they voted for Obama may actually have voted for McCain. Or vice versa. Or stayed home for that matter.

It's my understanding that, given a poll has been randomized in a professional manner, the rest of the factors (including that randomization itself surely can't be 100%) go into making up the margin of error. Which is considerable.

As it happens, I know a techie high up in a company that does big data analysis for organizations along one of the two big vectors (progressive - conservative). He says that everyone in the industry, whoever they do this kind of work for, is kind of freaked out about polls these days. Why? Because no one answers their landlines any more! I've had two calls I didn't answer while writing this post!

IOW, who the f#@k knows what's going on?!?! Weird times, that's for sure.

[dckingsfan]

Speaking of weird times the progressive elite in their piece - "The Rage Against Trade" are going the free trade route and the conservative elite are now hedging their bets - "The Case for Free Trade Is Weaker Than You Think"

Both the conservative elite in their piece - "The Isolationist Temptation" and Hillary Clinton are advocating to not bail off the world stage.

It is kind of scrambling the lines, no?

Edit: There you go... now you have the Bush Rs agreeing with the Ds. "TrumpGets It Wrong: Trade is a Winner for Americans"

Lines are blurring.

[nate33]

Here's an interesting analysis of Hillary's health issues from some blog. His credibility is not exactly up there with the New York Times, but he posts all of his evidence for you to judge for yourself.

http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/

The TLDR version:

* A "special agent" follows Hillary closely wherever she goes and he's always on the ready to inject her with a syringe of Diazepam. This is documented with photos.

* The "special agent" wears an ID badge. This is not normal for secret service agents.

* Diazepam is a medication for anxiety disorder. It may be prescribed for patients who experience recurring seizures after a stroke.

* During one of those "seizures", her eyes crossed, which is a sure indication that there's a mental issue, it wasn't her just being overly expressive.

* There's was a bizarre incident during one her recent speeches. A protester interrupted the speech and Hillary looked a little confused and discombobulated, the "special agent" approached Hillary at the podium and can be heard on video advising her, saying "you're alright, keep talking". It may be nothing - just a security professional reminding her that the best way to defuse a potential security situation is to keep everyone else in the room distracted; but you would think that a political veteran like Clinton would already know this. The "special agent" then urgently instructed all of the other secret service agents to move away from Clinton.

[dckingsfan]

And wouldn't that be so Hillary, her plans derailed by seizures. And so Trump, dodging a bullet of stupid comments due to his opponent having health issues.

[daSwami]

Trump is done unless Assange has emails of Hillary with kiddie porn in them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/trump-cratering-latest-polls

Yes and No. Trump has worn out his welcome and he has negative traction. I'm thinking barring a bombshell release by Assange, Trump could be done. However, something else is bubbling beneath the surface, something I thought was just wingnut babble- HRC's health, she has some kind of seizures. Trump loves this kind of stuff and it may gain traction. Check it out.

Watch on YouTube

As someone who has actually had a stroke and grand mal seizure, this infuriates me. It's more than mere "wingnut babble," but rather hateful rhetoric designed to "otherize" and broadly cast doubt upon the qualifications of the disabled. Unless Trump has access to her medical records, there's no way he or anyone advising him (unless he has a highly unethical neurologist on his staff) could possibly know what's going on with her neurologically speaking.

[daSwami]

Here's an interesting analysis of Hillary's health issues from some blog. His credibility is not exactly up there with the New York Times, but he posts all of his evidence for you to judge for yourself.

http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/

The TLDR version:

* A "special agent" follows Hillary closely wherever she goes and he's always on the ready to inject her with a syringe of Diazepam. This is documented with photos.

* The "special agent" wears an ID badge. This is not normal for secret service agents.

* Diazepam is a medication for anxiety disorder. It may be prescribed for patients who experience recurring seizures after a stroke.

* During one of those "seizures", her eyes crossed, which is a sure indication that there's a mental issue, it wasn't her just being overly expressive.

* There's was a bizarre incident during one her recent speeches. A protester interrupted the speech and Hillary looked a little confused and discombobulated, the "special agent" approached Hillary at the podium and can be heard on video advising her, saying "you're alright, keep talking". It may be nothing - just a security professional reminding her that the best way to defuse a potential security situation is to keep everyone else in the room distracted; but you would think that a political veteran like Clinton would already know this. The "special agent" then urgently instructed all of the other secret service agents to move away from Clinton.

Utter bull. All of it.

[Induveca]

Here's an interesting analysis of Hillary's health issues from some blog. His credibility is not exactly up there with the New York Times, but he posts all of his evidence for you to judge for yourself.

http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/

The TLDR version:

* A "special agent" follows Hillary closely wherever she goes and he's always on the ready to inject her with a syringe of Diazepam. This is documented with photos.

* The "special agent" wears an ID badge. This is not normal for secret service agents.

* Diazepam is a medication for anxiety disorder. It may be prescribed for patients who experience recurring seizures after a stroke.

* During one of those "seizures", her eyes crossed, which is a sure indication that there's a mental issue, it wasn't her just being overly expressive.

* There's was a bizarre incident during one her recent speeches. A protester interrupted the speech and Hillary looked a little confused and discombobulated, the "special agent" approached Hillary at the podium and can be heard on video advising her, saying "you're alright, keep talking". It may be nothing - just a security professional reminding her that the best way to defuse a potential security situation is to keep everyone else in the room distracted; but you would think that a political veteran like Clinton would already know this. The "special agent" then urgently instructed all of the other secret service agents to move away from Clinton.

Utter bull. All of it.

Agreed completely. This kind of idiocy will lose Trump his fringe supporters.

[montestewart]

Here's an interesting analysis of Hillary's health issues from some blog. His credibility is not exactly up there with the New York Times, but he posts all of his evidence for you to judge for yourself.

http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/

The TLDR version:

* A "special agent" follows Hillary closely wherever she goes and he's always on the ready to inject her with a syringe of Diazepam. This is documented with photos.

* The "special agent" wears an ID badge. This is not normal for secret service agents.

* Diazepam is a medication for anxiety disorder. It may be prescribed for patients who experience recurring seizures after a stroke.

* During one of those "seizures", her eyes crossed, which is a sure indication that there's a mental issue, it wasn't her just being overly expressive.

* There's was a bizarre incident during one her recent speeches. A protester interrupted the speech and Hillary looked a little confused and discombobulated, the "special agent" approached Hillary at the podium and can be heard on video advising her, saying "you're alright, keep talking". It may be nothing - just a security professional reminding her that the best way to defuse a potential security situation is to keep everyone else in the room distracted; but you would think that a political veteran like Clinton would already know this. The "special agent" then urgently instructed all of the other secret service agents to move away from Clinton.

Utter bull. All of it.

Agreed completely. This kind of idiocy will lose Trump his fringe supporters.

First thing I thought of was Trump's 5th grade clownishness making fun of that reporter who had a disability. Actions like that can even lose core supporters if they hit close to home.

[nate33]

Here's an interesting analysis of Hillary's health issues from some blog. His credibility is not exactly up there with the New York Times, but he posts all of his evidence for you to judge for yourself.

http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/

The TLDR version:

* A "special agent" follows Hillary closely wherever she goes and he's always on the ready to inject her with a syringe of Diazepam. This is documented with photos.

* The "special agent" wears an ID badge. This is not normal for secret service agents.

* Diazepam is a medication for anxiety disorder. It may be prescribed for patients who experience recurring seizures after a stroke.

* During one of those "seizures", her eyes crossed, which is a sure indication that there's a mental issue, it wasn't her just being overly expressive.

* There's was a bizarre incident during one her recent speeches. A protester interrupted the speech and Hillary looked a little confused and discombobulated, the "special agent" approached Hillary at the podium and can be heard on video advising her, saying "you're alright, keep talking". It may be nothing - just a security professional reminding her that the best way to defuse a potential security situation is to keep everyone else in the room distracted; but you would think that a political veteran like Clinton would already know this. The "special agent" then urgently instructed all of the other secret service agents to move away from Clinton.

Utter bull. All of it.

What is bull?

The agent who accompanies Clinton while carrying a syringe of Diazepam does in fact exist. The Diazepam does exist. Clinton has had at least two rather bizarre "spells" that one could characterize as a seizure; and in one of them, her eyes crossed. (I'm not a medical professional so I wouldn't go so far as to conclude that they are seizures, that's why I put the word in scare quotes.)

These aren't really opinions, they are observations of fact.

It may be that these "spells" are a side effect of her head injury a year or so ago and that they are reasonably common and harmless, and they will recede in time. I don't know. But I think there's enough there to be a little concerned, and I think it's reasonable to expect the media to ask some questions about it.

[AFM]

I already covered this a few pages back. anyone with a background in engineering is able to identify signs of a failing motherboard pretty easily. Looks to me like her hard drive has a few faulty blocks. This probably happened when her Reptilian council decided to upload a new kernel upgrade to her core, without resolving prior dependencies.