If he finishes only 4.9 points above his current weighted 538.com averages, Clinton will still win VA, WI, NH, PA, and CO. That leaves Trump holding little Donald even having come from behind in FL, OH, NV, and (yes) NC.
Where are the 5 points going to come from? Spittle about Bill’s women in a less-watched debate this Sunday? Julian Assange?
How many times have I heard from leftinesses over the previous 13 or 14 months that Trump is “finished”?
Let me count the times.
1…2…4…8…16…32…
Oh.
Sorry.
I can’t spare the time to count that high, even using shortcuts.
I’ll believe it when the results of the coming (
s)election are no longer being publicly opposed.Until then?
It’s all up for grabs as far as I can see.
I’m rooting for HRC, myself.
Why?
Because I think it will take her longer to fuck the whole system up.
With time comes…possibilities.
Trump would do it within a year. It’d be on us like a tiger on a lamb.
Watch.
AG
34 days < 13 months
Yes, it does.
So what?
Shit happens.
No one ever flew a plane into a skyscraper on purpose…let alone two…during the whole 100+ year history of flight.
Then someone did.
Shit happens.
I am betting that Assange…if he actually manages to get the HRC info out and he times the release(s) correctly…will have a profound effect on this election.
At that point “34 days < 13 months” means nothing.
AG
You only heard “Trump is finished” by those that didn’t deal with the data and put the data within the context of the opposition.
However, right now the data is supporting the context. HRC remains weak but DJT is weaker than he was three weeks ago and he’s not displayed any ability to recover. Trump is flaying much like many other nominees in the past have done at this point. Other than Gore none of them came from behind to win.
No one has ever come from this far back this close to win since Harry Truman.
There are examples of races closing by more than the size of this lead:
1968 – Humphrey made up a point a day in the last 10 days.
1976 – but Ford closes most of the gap post first debate
1980
1988 – this is forgotten, but after the second debate Bush lead by 17. He won by 7.
1992 – Clinton lead by double digits after the first debate and won by 5
2000 – Gore led by 6 going into the first debate and the race was tied after it.
’92 closed because of Perot. In ’88 Bush’s lead was artificial, and reversed to the state of the race before the first debate. ’80 and ’76 we permenant changes in the race.
1968 was a product of a speech on Vietnam.
This race is now where we were in late August, before Clinton’s illness.
There is a lot of volatility in this election – more than usual.
But this race looks to me to have broken – in my number Clinton is now up 7. Her approval numbers in the State numbers are getting better as well.
I think it is more likely she wins by 12 than she wins by 2.
Obamacare premium rate increases for the individual market are announce just before election day. Is why Dems are scrambling to bank early voters?
I very much dislike early voting. Voters should all go to the polls with full access to the same information.
Imagine if half the votes had been cast in ’80 before election day and then a day before the election, Iran released the hostages.
In Sweden if you vote early and change your mind, the election day vote trumps the early vote.
You can’t do that in the US?
Surely you jest. Getting to cast one ballot in a US election is considered a privilege. Getting that one ballot counted dicey.
another idea to work towards, thanks!
We use a really simple system based on two envelopes. In the inner unmarked envelope you put your ballot. The outer envelope has your name and polling station on it. This is handed in and delivered to the polling stations.
Then come voting day, you vote at your polling station or you don’t. If you vote it is noted on the list of who has voted. Then when everybody has voted the election officials go through the box of outer envelopes and checks who has voted on the voting day, those early votes are discarded. For the others, the outer envelope is opened and the inner envelopes go into the ballot box. After that you can open the ballot box and start counting.
Counting is done by hand and if you have nothing better to do you can go to your polling station and watch the count. Results are reported in to the election administration and the results – polling station by polling station – goes up on the election administrations web site. And then in the days after the election all ballots are counted again by civil servants, hand-written votes are evaluated to see if the intention is clear and so on.
Mistakes happens, one of the local elections in 2014 had to be re-done because the election officials screwed up the count in one district and it would have changed the make-up of the local assembly. It is not perfect, but it works.
Counting by hand would take forever in the states.
In a general election most people are voting for at at least 10 races (national, state, local).
US results come in very fast – most people don’t get this – but in relative terms the result in most races is within 2 hours of the close.
Counting by hand would take forever in the states.
Why? Can’t Americans count as fast and competently as Canadian and Swedish election count workers?
They count for ONE election and they take between 4 and 7 hours.
Most US precincts are done with 15 races in 45 minutes.
○ Elections In Sweden
Good system. Much too simple and straightforward for Americans. Then there would be efforts at the local level to hire precinct workers that knew from the name how the person voted and would toss those ballots in the garbage.
nice, especially that ppl can watch the count at their place
“Voters should all go to the polls with full access to the same information. “
Yea – you wouldn’t say that if you had stood in a 2 hour line.
The wait times are a measure of the election official’s expertise. Two hour or more wait times, except for the most extraordinary of circumstances beyond the official’s control, and she/he is fired.
However, the voting period need not be limited to one day. It’s long past the time when Tuesday as voting day was practical for most Americans it’s been impractical for some time. (Is early voting in federal election Constitutional?) Friday-Sunday (to avoid anyone claiming religious discrimination) with a total cessation of campaigning and political news blackout during the voting period. Minimum hourly local media public service announcements reminding people its a voting day and the number to call for those with question. (Withdrawal time for political junkies but a welcome respite from all the noise for others.)
This is common in every urban area in a battleground state.
Early voting is necessary and useful.
“Common” doesn’t make it acceptable.
People should have the maximum flexibility in the exercise of THEIR right.
THEIR right. Not yours. THEIRS. That means THEY should decide when to exercise that right, and the state should maximize the opportunity for its exercise.
As a 10 year veteran of the voter protection wars in Florida, I think your plan would be a disaster.
Weird — you’re simultaneously screaming about “their right” and accept two hour voting wait times because it’s “common.”
Why limit early voting (with ever-changing rules and hours) to only a few days and only a few weeks before an election? 24 hours after nominations are secured is long enough to put the names on those lines of the electronic ballots (since you don’t want hand-counted paper ballots). Better still allow people to cast a permanent general election ballot since at least half of voters always vote either Democratic or Republican. Then they wouldn’t have to bother with a general election in any way shape or form.
The right to vote in federal elections has always been proscribed in the Constitution and changed by amendment. Federal general elections are to take place on the second Tuesday in November. Everybody votes on the same day. Why do you support not complying with the Constitution? I’m at least suggesting a change that would preserve the original intent of the Constitution (same info available to all voters when they go to the polls) and making it more practical for people today. Include a provision for when who and when absentee ballots are allowed (with the voter certifying that it was completed on an election day). Same day registration available at all polling stations.
Nationally we may not be able to do all that much about state, local. and primary elections, but we sure as hell can make federal general elections more uniform across the country. That would reduce the amount of misinformation people would get and have to deal with on election days and make them better informed as to their rights and expectations.
Or we could keep doing it your way and have with the same old problems (disenfranchisement, voter suppression, “ballot box stuffing” and ballot box thefts, wait lines of more than fifteen minutes, etc) in election after election and that never get resolved and are quickly forgotten a day or so after the election.
Oh for fuck’s sake! Nowhere in fladem’s posts was it said that two hour waits were acceptable. Saying to something is common is to acknowledge that it is what is typically occurring. I doubt fladem thinks two-hour waits are acceptable nor do I see any evidence to suggest that fladem thinks two hour waits are acceptable. I’m with fladem on this one: voters need and should have maximum flexibility to exercise their right to vote. On a personal note, early voting has been quite beneficial to us given my work schedule and given my spouse’s disability would preclude waiting two hours to vote. Besides, our early voting site is staffed with people who understand our state’s Constitution with regard to voter ID, and we receive almost no hassles. Plus it is disabled-person friendly. Besides, in my case I already know who I am voting for for every race down to city council, plus the ballot initiatives. Why wait if I don’t have to? Just to satisfy your sense of purity? Forget it.
Given all your personal impediments to voting, why not use an absentee ballot?
I do find it bizarre that so many think that information that surfaces in the last four weeks before election day is completely irrelevant to voting. And anyone that thinks that information may be important and all voters should have access to as much information as possible is now some sort of “purity” freak?
We have early voting. We know the setup and we like it as it is. It’s convenient. My spouse does not want to do absentee ballots. I respect my spouse’s decision. We do early voting. You don’t like it? That’s just hunky dory. We’ll keep doing early voting.
It was challenged, and found constitutional, in 1999. Appealed to the SCOTUS, who refused to hear the case.
Voting Integrity Project vs Elton Bonner
The stupid burns hotter than the sun around here.
.
Thanks for the case law contribution. Interesting that the Appeal court chose to define election day as the time when the votes are counted. Maybe in Texas they do manage to get the votes counted on that election day.
Is it now stupid to discuss one’s thoughts etc.? Why do you spend so much time sneering at and denigrating others for what they choose to discuss?
No need to be so hostile.
Your spouse is telling you that the process of showing up and voting is important. I too think that it is. I would just like to shorten the time window for doing it and accommodating all those with special needs as well or better than early voting currently does for those that are provided that service. A service that can be changed or dropped at any time.
Then why this urge to take away from us something that works and that is clearly important to us? I realize we have this annoying habit of “voting the wrong way” on a regular basis (my spouse and I have somewhat different leanings – oddly enough I am a lefty who married a centrist – but still tend to be against the grain types in our region). Making voting less convenient might prevent at least a subset of us who “vote the wrong way” from showing up. Maybe not my spouse and I, simply because we are stubborn and proud of it. But perhaps a somewhat different “basket of deplorables” from those mentioned by HRC a while back might be prevented from showing up who would ordinarily show up for early voting. I wonder who might benefit from that? I bet folks like Trump have some ideas.
We seem to have several things in common. I’m a lefty that married a centrist (not so centrist now though, the Clinton impeachment fixed that), she is disabled and cannot stand in line or easily walk up stairs. However, I prefer voting in person. But it’s a 5 minute wait at my polling place, so it’s easy.
And it seems neither of us suffers fools.
.
I often say jokingly that my spouse and I sort of “corrupted” each other a bit. My spouse would still vote for relatively liberal Republicans when we first dated. By the time we met, my activist days were behind me, but I would vote Peace & Freedom and later whatever third party organizations could get on a ballot in whatever state we lived in at the time. Over the years, we’ve talked a lot (which is what one would want), and my spouse convinced me to lighten up on Obama which I eventually did. My spouse was Hillary all the way this primary season and Sanders was my preference, but we’re both on the same page when it comes to Trump. Plenty of discussion, reading, and more discussion lead us to where we are.
In the process, I have learned a great deal about the hurdles faced by persons with disabilities. The ADA was a great first step, but it really needs some teeth in it. I have learned to dread that term “pre-existing condition” when the subject of insurance comes up, and am grateful that Obamacare, warts and all, swept that awful concept into the dustbin of history. I know what it looks like to see someone I love treated poorly – either in the form of being patronized or openly mocked, and am relieved that I have a spouse who can and will dish it right back. My spouse’s disability was until recently mild. An injury that led to a joint replacement, which led to some complications (i.e., mild stroke) has made some activities that were once possible much more difficult. So yeah, standing in line for two hours for anything is a nonstarter. There has been a (hopefully) temporary loss of a lot of independence. Recovery has been slow, although we both expected that. Maintaining or regaining as much of that independence as possible is the name of the game right now. Dignity matters, even if it is something as mundane as standing in line for a couple minutes at a local courthouse for early voting, instead of going through the process of doing absentee ballots. That dignity will be pried away from our cold dead fingers.
Both of us have a very low tolerance level for bullshit and the older we get, the lower that tolerance level seems to go.
Dignity Matters.
That could be the foundation that all progressive thought is based on.
.
is “early” voting.
Here, at least, absentee ballots must be received by election day to be counted.
Please cite where I said a two wait was acceptable.
Early Voting does not violate the Constitution. Please cite case law that suggests it does if you want to argue otherwise.
I have worked personally quite hard vindicating people’s right to vote.
I take it damn seriously.
Early voting is an indispensable tool in enabling people to vote.
I think early voting is awesome.
I have no idea why anyone would want to vote at a polling station when you can cast the very same ballot sitting on your own couch, listening to music, and sipping a glass of wine.
No snark here.
That is exactly how I vote. Of course, being in California I will have done extensive homework on the thousands of “initiatives” we are forced to endure.
There’s more to being a citizen than doing one’s homework. What’s wrong with a few minutes at the polls a couple of times a year and seeing your neighbors in the flesh? It’s a low level of civic/civil engagement, but it’s better than nothing as so many people seem to think would be superior.
Our early voting is done in person. It’s held in each county’s courthouse. We may or may not see our next door neighbors in the flesh, but we do see other community members. So if it is interpersonal interaction that concerns you, thanks for your concern, but it is already taken care of in our state.
Don,
It’s important to realize all of that is
right wing talking points
Question the constitutionality and claim no existing case law..check
Make a case to ‘standardize’ all voting…check
Throw in an unsubstantiated mention of election fraud….check
It all could have come right out of the mouth of Paul Ryan, in fact it almost certainly has. ‘Standardizing’ voting is a long held desire of republicans in congress. Because guess who gets ‘standardized’ right out of being able to vote? POC.
It’s exactly what North Carolina tried. To ‘standardize’ their voting.
.
That’s what it is seeming like to me as well. This in some ways reminds me of the PUMAs of 2008. Change the talking points, but it ends up being the same ole same ole. The argument being made currently would guarantee a permanent GOP control of my state and I suspect many others. But as long as a Clinton can never set foot in the White House again, I suppose that is the price that must be paid.
What is absolutely fascinating is that anyone would ever think they could convince me to trade in a system that is convenient and works well for one that would be considerably less convenient all because we might not “have enough information” a few days ahead of Election Day. And ironically enough, for my spouse to do an absentee ballot, we would have to request one, and then that would be completed and mailed prior to election day – thus completely defeating the purpose of “having all the information.”
Besides, we have such a lovely historical building for a County Courthouse in an historical part of town, and it would be such a shame to miss out on soaking in its rich beauty as we go to cast our ballots early.
Oh well, so much for that particular marketing campaign. I can hardly wait to find out what the next anti-Clinton talking point will be. I am sure it will be a delight to read about.
And rest assured, there will be another marketing campaign.
The idea is a drip, drip, drip of doubt.
.
Remember that one of this contentious community members’ cynical allies here has also written in support of voter ID laws.
All this as the two deign to lecture people here and hold themselves up as having superior progressive values.
ridiculousness has not been pleasant to observe.
Wanna know “What’s [worse than!] a few minutes at the polls a couple of times a year and seeing your neighbors in the flesh?”
Not managing to exercise your franchise at all as a result of impediments arbitrarily (no, that’s wrong: actually quite intentionally and purposefully) placed in your way.
wrt two or more hour wait times, you responded “This is common in every urban area in a battleground state.” followed that with that’s why early voting is necessary.
As if the problem — unacceptable wait times to vote — is correctly analyzed and defined and when done so will have but one solution: voting for up to several weeks before the official election day. Oregon’s all mail-in ballot eliminates all wait times and makes it more difficult to suppress the vote and disenfranchise people. Seems a far superior solution to early voting. And you’ve offered nothing to refute that a three day voting period would be inferior to early voting.
Surprised an attorney would make such a claim. Before Obergefell, same sex marriage prohibitions were not in violation of the Constitution. Etc. As states are in charge of elections within their jurisdictions, Congress does as little in this area as possible, even when it meant depriving people of their right to vote for a hundred years.
Why have you taken the position that I’m trying to deny anyone the right to vote? I am coming at that from a different perspective than you — from a systems design view. The more standardized the voting process and systems, the more difficult it is to rig the voting/counting process and disenfranchise people. A problem with early voting is that states and local officials can and do change it from one election to the next. There’s no US Constitutional guarantee for an early voting provision. That on/off along with all the other changes from one election to the next that public officials make, increases the complexity and confusion for voters and those like you that work on their behalf.
Nobody (with standing) has bothered to challenge early voting on a Constitutional basis. Perhaps Democrats and Republicans both believe they gain with early voting or state legislatures look at the results and the majority shuts it down when it disfavors them.
But rigging elections and disenfranchising voters is an American way and it works for some, some are employed to fight it on a piecemeal basis, and it in the aggregate, decade after decade, US elections don’t seem to be improving. So, I’ll shut up.
Generally, in a two-candidate election, that would be a correct read of the polling. Yet, in 2012 when the RCP polling averages at this point had it tied or Romney a point or two ahead, I didn’t waiver from my much earlier call that Obama had it because the state polling gave Obama more than enough EC votes to win and there wouldn’t be any interference in those results.
The two-candidate polling this time may be artificial in that it assumes come election day, 95% or more will default to HRC or DJT. (And the RCP average difference is 3.9% and not 4.9%.) As a rule of thumb that is what happens. Except when it doesn’t.
I’m not projecting that Trump can win. He can’t (not at the ballot box). But assuming that HRC can’t turn around FL, OH, NV, or NC, voters going rogue in one state could deprive her of a win as well. Then the “fun” would really begin.
Only she doesn’t need to “turn around” FL, OH, NV, or NC. She’s leading the 538 average in all those states. (RCP has her ahead in all except OH.)
Perhaps most telling, in NC – a Romney state – she’s led every RCP-included poll for 2 weeks now, with both the RCP and 538 averages showing her up 1.3.
Is that stable and four-way polling?
What are your analytical operating assumptions for why Clinton is trailing in IA by five to eight points (throw out Loras bc its track record is horrible) (Obama +5.86) and OH (Obama +2.69)? And why she should be leading in NC (O -2.04) FL (O +0.88). Or why NV is even close (O +6.69)?
Not being conservative in reading polling is what led Romney and his supporters to project a win. DJT is such a dreadful candidate that he shouldn’t be ahead or very close in any state that went blue in 2012 or 2008. Why did Romney win NC and lose FL (where his polling numbers were technically strong)?
The changes from 2012 are driven by significant changes in support among whites. Clinton has substantially more support among college-educated whites but substantially less among non-college educated whites. So she’s doing well in better-educated states like North Carolina but worse in less-educated states like Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio.
Trump’s relatively high numbers reflect only the insane partisanship in Republicans. He’s only one point further behind against Obama. Sadly Democrats are still swayable and our Senate candidate are doing much worse than earlier predicted.
Post debate numbers in Florida:
+7, -1, +5, +1, +4
4 way
+3, -1, +5, +1, +4
Post debate in NC
+2 (4 way), +6.5 (three way), +1 (both 3 way and 2 way)
NV
+3 (2 way and 4 way), tied (Emerson, has leaned right)
Right now Trump has no real path.
Too close to call. Clinton is doing in the polls poorer compared to the 2012 election results of Obama in many states. The number of toss-up states is much greater than four years ago. Clinton will be elected by default … never seen a worse candidate than DJT.
I fear the demographis of the people who will actually cast a vote. For populist candidates, many persons of adult age will vote for the very first time just to vote for Donald J. Trump.
The enthusiasm gap on both sides is massive. Wish I could recall if I had a similar sense in 2000. My support for Gore might have clouded my perception that year or perhaps that very late breaking enthusiasm for Gore replaced my original sense. Or perhaps the turnout for 1988 and 1996 elections made low turnout seem normal.
Will be interesting to see if fear and loathing outweighs disgust at the whole charade. Voter turnout 56/+% or 50%. Or the two balance out each other and voter turnout is 53-54%.
Neither of the two third party candidates are sufficiently appealing to bother voting FOR. Democrats/liberals/lefties don’t much want the grief they’d get in voting for the GRN agenda. So, the bulk of the protest votes will go to Johnson even though the authentic libertarian base vote is low single digits.
Fairleigh Dickinson (538.com grade: A) found that in a hypothetical Clinton-Pence matchup, he won 18-to-29 year olds by 8 points.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2016/10/young-people-hate-hillary-clinton-so.html
Now that is an enthusiasm gap.
Hypotheticals based on one well-known candidate against a little known candidate aren’t worth much.
In June 2015 Hillary was at 75% and Sanders 15% among Democrats.
I only managed to get through two minutes of the VP debate somewhere around thirty minutes into it. Yet somehow that two minutes captured perceptions of those that watched the whole thing. Specifically that Kaine was aggressive and rude and Pence’ demeanor and control were adult. Kaine must have gone to the John Edwards VP debate school instead of the Biden debate school.
Biden laughed out loud (and appropriately so!) in Ryan’s face at the stupid shit he was spewing.
It’s one of the things that I did this summer when the 2016 POTUS campaign news has distressed me. I watched the Biden/Ryan debate a number of times, in order to remind myself that the modern conservative ideology does not hold up to the scrutiny brought by a high-stakes debate by a skilled and willful Democrat. It secured my knowledge that the debates would be helpful to our campaign.
Biden made Ryan look like the callow sociopath he is. Kaine made Pence look like the extraordinarily untruthful and hypocritical moral scold that he is. Each succeeded in their missions.
I think 2016 is very different from 2000. In 2000, the popular perception was of an idiot you’d like to have a beer with vs. an uninspiring fake. Yes, there was a lack of enthusiasm, but most didn’t see either candidate as fundamentally harmful to the future.
But this time is more an ardent dislike of both candidates. Its the grifter who says whatever pops into his head and lacks the temperament to be president vs the corrupt person who says whatever is needed to win. Nobody wants to have a beer with either, and nobody believes a word at least one of the candidates says.
In short, 2000 was about lack of enthusiasm, 2016 is about who you hate more.
So, you’re going with high turnout in a “who you hate more” election?
It doesn’t necessarily follow that a ‘who you hate more’ election results in a high turnout. Greatly oversimplifying, there are 7 types:
D1 liberals
D2 minorities
I1 D leaners
I2 ind
I3 R leaners
R1 R populists (eg tea party)
R2 R leaders (eg business)
Right now, there is zero enthusiasm in D1 and lots in R1. Major parts of D2 might have enthusiasm due to Trump hatred. Now its Hillary’s job to convince some of R2 (who always vote) to vote for her and get the 3 Is (who often don’t vote) to hate Trump enough to avoid the couch option. Turnout depends on whether she succeeds.
Shouldn’t your list include a D3, the partisan counterpart to R2? That’s where the enthusiasm is for HRC. In ’72 it was nearly like R2 this year.
The couch option for I2, I3, and R2 is as good for HRC and seems easier than getting them to show up and vote for her. R2 may speak as if they are reasonable and open to voting for a Democrats, but only a very few can bring themselves to do so. They’ll vote, but more plausible that they’ll split for Trump, Johnson, and blank.
Seems to me that turnout is higher when a vote FOR option is stronger than when it’s a higher vote AGAINST election. But Trump may be unique in how scary he is because he’s intemperate, a bully, and rather stupid.
I should add that in 2000 a majority of the public was satisfied with the general state of the US economy, but a majority wasn’t convinced or could see that it was the result of WJC administration policies. Republicans and more than half of the ’92 Perot voters considered that the economy wouldn’t have rebounded with four more years of do-nothing GHWB. Democrats and the other portion of Perot voters gave WJC the credit. If I were forced to choose between those two positions, I’d have to say that the Republican voters were more right than the Democratic voters, but only if Congressional Democrats had continued to reject NAFTA and a capital gains tax cut.
The drivers in the US economy in the ’90s were 1) Detroit — SUVs – the “Yuppie Exemption” and low oil prices. 2) PCs and the internet kicked into the general economy 3) wireless communications went mainstream 4) (probably a smaller factor) more willingness on the part of the public to accept faster obsolescence in home entertainment equipment.
formulation which (or both, or neither) of these is . . . ya know . . . true, valid, etc.?
Gore and Bush’s favorables were both well above 50.
People liked both.
Did the Villagers (Village Idiots?) of the Worse-than-Useless Corporate Media “like” both?
Not so much!
Nobody seemed interested in my “voters going rogue in one state” comment, and while implausible, it’s one of the most interesting what ifs I’ve seen for a while and not fully explored in 538 – Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico
By comparison, 538 has his chance of winning California – which would also give him an Electoral College victory – at a likelier 0.2 percent.
Wonder what the odds were in 2000 of the SC deciding the election? Probably zero because no such legal authority exists in the Constitution, laws, or precedent.
I posted this as an extremely unlikely possibility that has never happened or been a possibility in any prior election (a single state that throws the election to the House — not even in the much disputed 1876 election). Plenty of elections with third party candidates and few of whom won EC votes.
If you aren’t interested in playing with the possible outcomes in such a scenario, just say so. No need to hide behind the low probability of the scenario to dismiss it. If find it interesting enough to speculate as the possible outcomes if the election were thrown to the House.
I apologize if I offended you. You’re actually my favorite commenter here.
No apology needed. I wasn’t offended. I’m always a bit disappointed that others here seem not to be interested in some fun. It’s difficult to engage others here in anything beyond a narrow perspective of US politics. As if everything else is completely irrelevant to what happens in US politics.
For all his eccentric posts, AG was way ahead of the curve compared to the VSPs here on Trump’s appeal to the general public. I disagreed with much of his rationale on that, but understanding US sociology, psychology, entertainment, culture, (without ever having seen a single episode of The Apprentice and at most five episodes in total of all reality shows) I too could see his appeal from the first GOP debate. Even as I personally found him repulsive (a view that continues to this day), it wasn’t difficult to see that he could get the GOP nomination.
I could be wrong be you seem to be new to reading political polls. Even if one has some education/experience in statistics (which is very helpful), the numbers are never the complete story. It’s only a go for me when the numbers and “the art” are in sync. The 2014 election reminded me not to force “the art.” Or maybe I got lazy because “the art” and the numbers had been in sync from 2002 through 2012 that I took for granted that they would be in sync in 2014 as well.
Timing is also a variable that’s not so easy to nail down. If you saw “The Big Short,” those guys struggled with that along with other such as Billmon and me that had no difficulty seeing the the fundamentals in the housing market were so far off that it had to crash. When was the question and it continued for longer than the short-sellers and others expected. Something very serious is roiling in the US electorate and has been since 2005. When the crashes come, neither will be pretty.
I had a kind of interesting discussion last week along these lines.
Let’s say you try to form a left wing party that tries to win only a few very blue states. There are Vermonters who are going to write in Bernie. He has disavowed it, but I saw a BLUE bernie sticker last weekend in Vermont.
So play it out: Bernie wins Vermont, and as a result neither Clinton or Trump get a majority.
What you would get is a negotiation for Bernie’s 3 EV votes – because the electors aren’t bound.
It can’t go to the House – Trump wins.
You would be in a situation not unlike a minority government in the UK or Canada. And maybe the left wing gets to name a cabinet post.
it is actually quite a rational way for an ideological group to expand influence. And it avoids the nader problem – because you would’t compete in purple states.
very nice
I can’t get a plausible EC map with VT going I that throws the election to the House. Plus it’s a scenario of no consequence because VT I electors would fold like cheap suits and wouldn’t get a clothes hook for doing so.
That’s not the proposed “what if” and that’s not how NM Johnson voters are likely to behave. (Of course everybody has his or her price, but I’m also not including faithless electors in this “what if.”)
It hits the House after:
HRC 267
DJT 266
Johnson 5
So what are the possible outcomes from the House? Not enough state House delegations with Democrats in the majority for HRC to get 26 votes. Are there 26 states where the GOP majority is controlled by crazies/loons? A whole lot of elite Republicans hate Trump. So, what can and do they do?
You are being too literal – I was suggesting it as an overall strategy
Anyway if Clinton carries one NE CD, VA, PA and Co but loses NH it is 268 to 267.
Actually you’re saying that you don’t like the parameters of a possible scenario that I thought was interesting enough to discuss; so, you’re changing them to create a scenario that is a) less plausible (changes the expected electoral outcome in two states and one CD) and b) one from which the left could gain something if played right. b) assumes that team Clinton are honest and fair-dealers and VT delegates would be willing to let it go to the House if they don’t get their price. Neither are robust assumptions.
(I believe you meant HRC gets NE CD, all ME EV, VA, PA, CO, and NM for 267 EV and with Trump getting NH for 268 EV and VT going rogue for Bernie.)
So would the House republicans elect Johnson or Trump?
Or would they split and what happens if no one gets the majority?
(In VEEP it lead to the VP elected by the senate becoming president, but I don’t really trust VEEP on constitutional law)
They keep voting until somebody wins. I’m pretty sure VEEP is correct, although that would only happen if the Republicans deliberately decided to hang the House vote and refuse to elected anybody President. The Republican caucus will not split over this, and they have time for dozens of ballots. It’s possible the VP might just become acting President but functionally it’s the same.
Highly doubtful that they would choose Johnson. However, based on their words and proposal sketches, he’s as much in sync with GOP policies as Trump is, but both deviate from it in a couple of major and different ways. Neither is really acceptable to a majority of the House GOP caucus. However, formally it wouldn’t be the House GOP caucus that’s voting but the House delegation from each state settling on one candidate. Not sure how many of states have an equal number of D and R Reps and how they’d decide.
Don’t know that Republicans in Congress have the same horse trading sense and skills that politicians once had. Behind the scenes maneuvering could get complex, but would hinge on the Senate election outcome. If Democrats gain a net of four seats, the GOP options are reduced down to Trump, Johnson, and Clinton. And the Senate could still choose Kaine for VP (on the basis that he did get more actual and EC votes — but also some payback).
Change the Senate outcome to 51 GOP seats. Then a single senator could have the power to decide that whole election.
So much wanking.
Hillary is going to crush Trump, because we’re going to turn out our vote, despite your strident efforts here to depress Clinton turnout. All your intricate suppositions and parsing of the rules are for naught.
This is demonstrably not true.
Clinton runs better than Obama’s margin in:
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Colorado (she leads by 9, he trailed)
Virginia (she leads by more than 6, he led by less that 1
Florida (she leads by more than 3, he led by .17)
North Carolina (she leads by 3.5, he trailed by 3.5)
Arizona (she leads, he trailed)
Post debate he ran 1 point better in Nevada than she did, and 3 points better in Ohio, but int he last Ohio poll she led by 2, almost the same margin.
She is in a demonstrably stronger position than her was at this time.
Period.
We need a countdown clock. If Hillary beats him she will have earned my gratitude, at least.
When she loses to Tom Cotton, Cruz, or Pence in 2020, who will then have FDR-level majorities, I hope you will remember that the person you are grateful for will also be also directly responsible for enabling these freaks with her warhawkery, economic centrism, and 1% influence peddling.
You’ve become a parody of a troll.
You look at the viable Presidential choices before us, and you behave like this.
You have no idea what will happen between now and 2020. None of us do. Yet you persist in claiming you do.
And doing it in an aggressively nasty, insulting manner.
Really, it’s a head-scratcher that no one ever seems won over by such persuasiveness!
The polite, disguised gaslighting is more irritating.
.
. . . gaslighting” as distinct from the “declaring dubious propositions as fact” in nastily aggressive fashion form of gaslighting, right?
Cuz the latter is gaslighting, too.
Yes.
.
Are you familiar with Trump’s brief 2000 presidential campaign?
Recall that Trump didn’t jump on the birther bandwagon until Feb 2011. Way late to the party. The timing is curious. Qui bono? It’s even weaker than if in 1995 a fringe political player had jumped on WJC’s draft avoidance.
I’m still worried the Johnson vote is muddying up the polling. We have six, eight, ten percent tied up with a third-party candidacy in key states. How are you supposed to read these polls?
This is the worry. It gets close, and the Johnson vote collapses.
But Johnson’s vote is actually more likely to move to Clinton than Trump.
Is it? I sure hope so; every time I get into the cross-tabs on the Johnson cohort it gets contradictory and confusing. Not to mention the impact of a third-party on the sample selection, it that’s a thing.
How are you supposed to read these polls?
Cautiously and considering all the components of that protest vote.
fladem claims that it will collapse by election and benefit HRC. But that is Democratic election CW with no actual evidence. It is, however, good cover for Democrats denying that those voters/non-voters have legitimate grievances that neither party is addressing. Easier to blame Nader voters for the 2000 tie than acknowledge that they were ahead of the curves as far as being knowledgeable about the legislation supported by and passed under WJC (who btw in 2000 was furious with Gore for going “populist” even if it was only in speech).
In over a hundred years, and with many third party candidates, the only outcome that it probably changed was 1912.
Did you notice who was the director of the exploratory committee back in 2000? Yep, Roger Stone.
Are Orthodox Jews considered right-wing and staunch Republican supporters – see Jewish mogul Sheldon Adelson.
○ Israel Backer, Billionaire Adelson Is In
○ HRC and AIPAC Pandering … Disgusting!
The results from the polling aggregators continue to be favorable toward a Clinton Victory. For example:
Sam Wang
Nathan Silver
Huffington Post
Optimism is warranted. Complacency is not. Still a way to go before November 8th rolls around.
In order to avoid the embarrassing, deadly, immoral, unmitigated disaster of a Trump Presidency, we should all work to turn out the vote for Clinton, the candidate who presents a far superior set of policy plans.
Right, Oui?
People who know me for a matter of weeks even,
surely from my past blogging since 2004,
need never to ask for a confirmation. 😉
I’m so green as most frogs in this pond.
Btw, during the German occupation and evening curfew, sentry posts would snarl: “Ausweis zeigen Bitte.”