Political Roundtable Part X

[closg00]

Still,I'll take an occasionally "short-circuiting" Clinton over the **** crazy Trump any time. Clinton continues to rack-up Republican endorsements.

[nate33]

Still,I'll take an occasionally "short-circuiting" Clinton over the **** crazy Trump any time. Clinton continues to rack-up Republican endorsements.

Fair enough.

I'm not even saying that Hillary even has a serious medical issue. I just think she has some kind of health issue that may or may not be something to worry about. I'd like to know more.

[fishercob]

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

People actually think that the "cold chai" is Hillary having a seizure? Calling that a seizure is either so stupid that it makes me sad, or it's the type of dishonest fear-mongering that right wing conspiracists use to get their rocks off.

I shouldn't even waste the pixels, but here is the obvious and reasonable explanation of that video.

1. Hillary is feeling good, comfortable. She just got Obama's endorsement and she's in a non-confrontational media scrum. You can detect hints of admiration/respect on the faces of the reporters, particularly the curly haired woman.

2. After she finishes an answer, there's a brief pause and then three or four people all try to ask follow-up questions at the same time. Hillary -- the calculating robot that she is -- has some fun with everyone talking over each other. and hams it up a bit. If she was in a different mood with a different setting/audience, she'd react differently. But she reacts the way a school teacher might in front of their students "whooooooa, guys I can't hear any of you when you all talk over each other."

3. They laugh, so she does it again for a second. No one is alarmed. She answers a question and walks off.

Anyone who thinks is the video contains clues about anything beyond the above is a liar or an idiot.

Cheers!

[DCZards]

Whatever is wrong with Hillary healthwise is still less of a risk to the country than the mental health issues that Trump clearly suffers from, imo.

[AFM]

What if she has a spaz attack and her arm flies out and hits the "prime nuke" button?

[bsilver]

...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 eveone 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.

If I were a Trump supporter I'd worry about the Monmoth and Marist polls which show Clinton up 13 and 15%, Rather than PPP which has her up 5%. Nate Silver rates PPP at B+ based on past performance. I like PPP because they asked if Clinton has ties to Lucifer. 7% of previous O'Bama voters said yes, and 31% of Romney voters said yes. Looks like some Bernie's supporters haven't been won over yet.
I also wonder who answers the telephone these days, and if that skews the polls in one direction.
The LA Times poll which most favors Trump has an unusually methodology. It continually uses the same pool of 3000 people. To me, that greatly increases the margin of error.

[payitforward]

I'm starting to wonder whether people who support Donald Trump have any limit at all to their willingness to float nonsense about Clinton. Attaching "I don't know if this is true" to it doesn't help a bit, as we are all aware of what happens to information as it floats from person to person in the ether: the details, qualifications, accompanying questions, etc. all fall away. You just get the meme itself -- presumably that's the "factual" source behind the so-called guy w/ the syringe who is "always with Hillary."

Indeed this is one of Trump's own rhetorical ways: "I've heard that..." -- he says that often. Someone else gets to attach conviction and a truth claim to it, whereupon he can just cite it without having to be saddled with it.

OTOH, discussing something as an empirical or intellectual question seems off limit. E.g. I questioned Nate's claim that a poll was biased in some way because it turned out that the responding group wasn't distributed identically to the Dem - Repub voting spread of '08. To that there was no response -- I'm not saying Nate needed to make one, only pointing out what is and isn't of interest to supporters of Trump.

There's nothing in the world wrong with being a conservative. On economic issues especially, it's an entirely supportable position, something you have to argue with seriously even if you don't share it or only share it partially. But that's not Donald Trump. He's not a classic English "liberal," ala the Economist.

Donald Trump is a demagogue, or he'd like to be. His base of support isn't with people who's core set of issues is focussed on economic policy. His position is the classic demagogue - tyrant position. It's based on the assertion of his personal ability to do things others cannot do, a classic "strong man leader" claim. The closest parallel I can think of right off is Mussolini -- though, don't get me wrong, I'm not asserting it's a *close* parallel; Trump hasn't had enough success to allow for that, and if he did have more success he might not continue developing along the lines of Il Duce.

Another partial parallel is Joe McCarthy -- I have been wondering why no one points to McCarthy as a precursor in American politics. Maybe William Jennings Bryan as well?

All this, btw, is separate from the fact that Donald Trump is a scumbag. He'd be a scumbag whatever he was saying in politics these days. He was always a scumbag. He's known for being one. I think he even sort of glories in being one! Scumbag that he is....

[dckingsfan]

There's nothing in the world wrong with being a conservative. On economic issues especially, it's an entirely supportable position, something you have to argue with seriously even if you don't share it or only share it partially.

It is really too bad that conservative is a label for both social and fiscal issues.

I think that most social liberals would be fiscal conservatives if they thought about the concept.

I wish it was social conservative and "fiscal deliberates" where the two were not intertwined.

The definition of a "fiscal deliberate" would be one that advocated sustainable spending policies.

Sigh...

[dckingsfan]

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

People actually think that the "cold chai" is Hillary having a seizure? Calling that a seizure is either so stupid that it makes me sad, or it's the type of dishonest fear-mongering that right wing conspiracists use to get their rocks off.

I shouldn't even waste the pixels, but here is the obvious and reasonable explanation of that video.

1. Hillary is feeling good, comfortable. She just got Obama's endorsement and she's in a non-confrontational media scrum. You can detect hints of admiration/respect on the faces of the reporters, particularly the curly haired woman.

2. After she finishes an answer, there's a brief pause and then three or four people all try to ask follow-up questions at the same time. Hillary -- the calculating robot that she is -- has some fun with everyone talking over each other. and hams it up a bit. If she was in a different mood with a different setting/audience, she'd react differently. But she reacts the way a school teacher might in front of their students "whooooooa, guys I can't hear any of you when you all talk over each other."

3. They laugh, so she does it again for a second. No one is alarmed. She answers a question and walks off.

Anyone who thinks is the video contains clues about anything beyond the above is a liar or an idiot.

Cheers!

Fish, donate here:
http://tinyurl.com/zxe7s4c

[keynote]

Former GOP national security officials: Trump would be ‘most reckless’ American president in history

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/group-of-50-former-gop-national-security-officials-trump-would-be-most-reckless-president-in-american-history/2016/08/08/6715042c-5d9f-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html

A group of 50 former national security officials, all of whom have served Republican presidents from Richard M. Nixon to George W. Bush, have signed an open letter calling Donald Trump unqualified to be president and warning that, if elected, “he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

The letter offers a withering critique of the GOP nominee, saying he “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president. The signatories declare their conviction that he would be dangerous “and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

They state flatly that none of them intend to vote for Trump in November. Some have decided to vote for Hillary Clinton, while others intend to sit out the election or write in another name, said John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice and the writer of the letter’s first draft.

“We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us,” the letter says. “But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

Although no former secretaries of state signed, the letter carries the signatures of Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, former secretaries of homeland security; Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency; John Negroponte, a former director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state; Robert Zoellick, who also was a deputy secretary of state, and president of the World Bank and the U.S. trade representative under George W. Bush; Carla Hills, the U.S. trade representative under George H.W. Bush; and William H. Taft IV, a former deputy secretary of defense and ambassador to NATO under the elder Bush.

[pineappleheadindc]

I'm starting to wonder whether people who support Donald Trump have any limit at all to their willingness to float nonsense about Clinton. Attaching "I don't know if this is true" to it doesn't help a bit, as we are all aware of what happens to information as it floats from person to person in the ether: the details, qualifications, accompanying questions, etc. all fall away. You just get the meme itself -- presumably that's the "factual" source behind the so-called guy w/ the syringe who is "always with Hillary."

Indeed this is one of Trump's own rhetorical ways: "I've heard that..." -- he says that often. Someone else gets to attach conviction and a truth claim to it, whereupon he can just cite it without having to be saddled with it.

OTOH, discussing something as an empirical or intellectual question seems off limit. E.g. I questioned Nate's claim that a poll was biased in some way because it turned out that the responding group wasn't distributed identically to the Dem - Repub voting spread of '08. To that there was no response -- I'm not saying Nate needed to make one, only pointing out what is and isn't of interest to supporters of Trump.

There's nothing in the world wrong with being a conservative. On economic issues especially, it's an entirely supportable position, something you have to argue with seriously even if you don't share it or only share it partially. But that's not Donald Trump. He's not a classic English "liberal," ala the Economist.

Donald Trump is a demagogue, or he'd like to be. His base of support isn't with people who's core set of issues is focussed on economic policy. His position is the classic demagogue - tyrant position. It's based on the assertion of his personal ability to do things others cannot do, a classic "strong man leader" claim. The closest parallel I can think of right off is Mussolini -- though, don't get me wrong, I'm not asserting it's a *close* parallel; Trump hasn't had enough success to allow for that, and if he did have more success he might not continue developing along the lines of Il Duce.

Another partial parallel is Joe McCarthy -- I have been wondering why no one points to McCarthy as a precursor in American politics. Maybe William Jennings Bryan as well?

All this, btw, is separate from the fact that Donald Trump is a scumbag. He'd be a scumbag whatever he was saying in politics these days. He was always a scumbag. He's known for being one. I think he even sort of glories in being one! Scumbag that he is....

I'm still waiting for Trump to reveal what "interesting" things his private investigators found in Hawai'i when looking for Obama's birth certificate. (snorf)

(CNN) – Possibly-serious Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is giving few details about the investigation he claims to have launched in Hawaii to get to the bottom of where President Obama was born, but the business mogul told CNN Thursday Americans will be "very surprised" by what he has found.

"We're looking into it very, very strongly. At a certain point in time I'll be revealing some interesting things," Trump said on CNN's American Morning.

Trump first claimed earlier this month he had sent investigators to Obama's home state in an effort to find out if the president was indeed born there, as he says he was and several media organization's independent investigations have confirmed.

"I have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding," Trump told NBC then.

But Trump has since offered few details about the on-the-ground investigation and, in the interview with CNN Thursday, wouldn't specifically say if it had uncovered new details.

Read the rest by clicking here.

Trump is a clown. Anyone supporting him is valuing party over country.

[keynote]

GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-senator-why-i-cannot-support-trump/2016/08/08/821095be-5d7e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html

I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.

When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.

Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.

[dckingsfan]

Trump is a clown. Anyone supporting him is valuing party over country.

Pine - I think you are missing it - his supporters are largely NOT the Rs. They are folks that weren't voting before... just saying.

[montestewart]

Trump is a clown. Anyone supporting him is valuing party over country.

Pine - I think you are missing it - his supporters are largely NOT the Rs. They are folks that weren't voting before... just saying.

Is that what the polls say? The people I know that support(ed) Trump have largely been past Republican voters.

[Kanyewest]

The 538 podcast attempts to give its perspective on the 2016 election (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-conversation-about-skewed-polls-is-back/?ex_cid=2016-forecast)

538 says that polls are not biased even if they sample more Democrats than Republicans. The target of polls is not to get voters based on party identification but on demographics (age/sex/race). Also, historically there have been more Democratic voters than Republicans in polls since 1952.

Romney supporters attempted to "unskewer" the polls in October of 2012, attempting to explain that Romney would win the 2012 election. However, those attempts were less accurate than the actual polls.

One of the writers also suggests that Trump may not get a new influx of voters. While most of the Republican turnout was higher in the primary, most of them were voters who participate in general elections. Also, Trump has not been outperforming polls in the Republican primaries according to 538, so it remains unclear how Trump will outperform polls in general elections.

Still they are leaving the door open for Trump. Even in the poll where Hillary is winning by 13 points, her approval rating is only 37%.

Sent from my LG-D851 using RealGM mobile app

[DCZards]

Trump is a clown. Anyone supporting him is valuing party over country.

Pine - I think you are missing it - his supporters are largely NOT the Rs. They are folks that weren't voting before... just saying.

Is that what the polls say? The people I know that support(ed) Trump have largely been past Republican voters.

I think you're both right. A lot of Trump supporters are people who probably weren't voting regularly....but they are largely Republicans.

[Wizardspride]

Click to read the rest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/

Donald Trump needs a miracle to win


Three months from now, with the 2016 presidential election in the rear-view mirror, we will look back and agree that the presidential election was over on Aug. 9th.

Of course, it is politically incorrect to say that the die is cast.

Journalistic neutrality allegedly forces us to say that the race isn’t over until November, and most media organizations prefer to hype the presidential contest to generate viewers and readers rather than explain why a photo finish is unlikely.

But a dispassionate examination of the data, combined with a cold-blooded look at the candidates, the campaigns and presidential elections, produces only one possible conclusion: Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump in November, and the margin isn’t likely to be as close as Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney.

First, the polling numbers are stunning.

Pre-convention polls showed the race competitive but with Clinton ahead by at least a few points in most cases. Post-convention polls show Clinton leading the race much more comfortably. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll puts Clinton’s margin at 9 points, while Fox News shows it at 10 and the Washington Post/ABC News survey finds the margin at 8 points.

These numbers could close a few points or jump around depending on the individual survey, but the race is already well-defined

[DCZards]

I'm still waiting for Trump to reveal what "interesting" things his private investigators found in Hawai'i when looking for Obama's birth certificate.

Trump tells lies…lots of lies. And this was one of the many.

Trump has continued to tell lies as a presidential candidate. My favorite is his claim a couple of weeks ago that the NFL "sent him a letter" complaining about the debates competing with Sunday and Monday night football. Of course, the NFL quickly responded by saying that it never sent such a letter to Trump or his campaign.

The ease with which Trump tells lies shows just how shallow and dishonest he is at his core.

[fishercob]

538 right now is astonishing. You have to figure that there will be some tightening in the coming weeks, but:

Polls-plus: 79% chance Hillary wins, 324 electoral votes
Polls only: 88% chance Hillary wins, 366 electoral votes
Now-cast: 96% chance Hillary wins, 382 electoral votes

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-election

As scary Trump is, he is going to turn out to be a gift to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. I don't think HIllary would have beaten Marco Rubio. OTOH, the GOP coalition is so weak right now that Rubio was never close to the nomination. A great many of Trump's uneducated white supporters wouldn't vote for the son immigrants named Marco.

[tontoz]

It is kind of funny how Trumps popularity has fallen off a cliff immediately after winning the Republican nomination. Can't remember seeing anything like this before.