2016 Presidential election campaign 3

NorthReport wrote:

Trump the Chump's Day of Reckoning is rapidly approaching

You can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but Trump the Chump will never ever fool the majority of the people come the evening of November 8th. 

Donald Trump's favorite pollsters

A closer look at the three tracking polls Trump loves the most.

USC/LATimes

Rasmussen Reports

Investors Business Daily/Techometrica

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-tracking-polls-230293

How does this in any way suggest that Trump will "never ever fool the majority of the people come November 8th"?

While the bulk of other polling shows Clinton building a significant advantage, the three polls reflect a vastly different race — one where Trump is frequently ahead....

That panel is weighted to the self-reported 2012 vote choice...

As of Wednesday morning, Trump was ahead by 1 point in the new model. It has been, by far, the friendliest poll for Trump, even showing him ahead of Clinton in the two weeks following the first debate last month, when Clinton began to pull away in other polls....

Both Investor’s Business Daily and TIPP claim their survey has been the “most accurate presidential poll in America” — a tenuous boast based on their assessment of combined performance from the past three presidential elections. Like most polls in 2012, they underestimated the incumbent's margin of victory. Their final poll in 2012 showed Obama leading by 1 point; he won by nearly 4 points. Their results were closer to the mark in 2008 and 2004....

...

If the wide variance between the two kinds of poll results holds, that sets up an unpredictable final two weeks of the campaign. Clinton could continue to hold a commanding lead in most conventional polls, but a wide spread between those surveys and the high-volume polls cited by Trump could create a second reality, creating uncertainty about the true state of the race.

“The average is kind of misleading,” said Murray, the Monmouth pollster, pointing to tracking polls this week ranging from Clinton’s 12-point lead in the first ABC News tracking poll over the weekend to Trump’s 2-point advantage in previous iterations of the Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP polls. “That’s a 14-point variance. If I look back at four years ago, it was only about 4 points then.”

So, the article is saying that some of the most accurate polls over the last 12 years (always within 3 points, according to the article) have Clinton and Trump in a dead heat, at odds with corporate polls pushed by the corporate media (which hates Trump) which are disagreeing by as many as 14 points?

I ask again, how does this in any way suggest Trump can't win in November? To me it just suggests that one set of polls or the other is way off, and there's some plausible arguments in the very article that it could be the corporate polls that are off.

Go Cody Go!  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-foreca...

Cody87 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Trump the Chump's Day of Reckoning is rapidly approaching

You can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but Trump the Chump will never ever fool the majority of the people come the evening of November 8th. 

Donald Trump's favorite pollsters

A closer look at the three tracking polls Trump loves the most.

USC/LATimes

Rasmussen Reports

Investors Business Daily/Techometrica

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-tracking-polls-230293

How does this in any way suggest that Trump will "never ever fool the majority of the people come November 8th"?

While the bulk of other polling shows Clinton building a significant advantage, the three polls reflect a vastly different race — one where Trump is frequently ahead....

That panel is weighted to the self-reported 2012 vote choice...

As of Wednesday morning, Trump was ahead by 1 point in the new model. It has been, by far, the friendliest poll for Trump, even showing him ahead of Clinton in the two weeks following the first debate last month, when Clinton began to pull away in other polls....

Both Investor’s Business Daily and TIPP claim their survey has been the “most accurate presidential poll in America” — a tenuous boast based on their assessment of combined performance from the past three presidential elections. Like most polls in 2012, they underestimated the incumbent's margin of victory. Their final poll in 2012 showed Obama leading by 1 point; he won by nearly 4 points. Their results were closer to the mark in 2008 and 2004....

...

If the wide variance between the two kinds of poll results holds, that sets up an unpredictable final two weeks of the campaign. Clinton could continue to hold a commanding lead in most conventional polls, but a wide spread between those surveys and the high-volume polls cited by Trump could create a second reality, creating uncertainty about the true state of the race.

“The average is kind of misleading,” said Murray, the Monmouth pollster, pointing to tracking polls this week ranging from Clinton’s 12-point lead in the first ABC News tracking poll over the weekend to Trump’s 2-point advantage in previous iterations of the Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP polls. “That’s a 14-point variance. If I look back at four years ago, it was only about 4 points then.”

So, the article is saying that some of the most accurate polls over the last 12 years (always within 3 points, according to the article) have Clinton and Trump in a dead heat, at odds with corporate polls pushed by the corporate media (which hates Trump) which are disagreeing by as many as 14 points?

I ask again, how does this in any way suggest Trump can't win in November? To me it just suggests that one set of polls or the other is way off, and there's some plausible arguments in the very article that it could be the corporate polls that are off.

NorthReport wrote:

Go Cody Go!  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-foreca...

Right, Trump also had a 2% chance to win the Republican nomination at one time.

You posted an article that seriously questioned the credibility of this year's polls (14 point variance) and then immediately after cite an article that makes a prediction based on the questionable polls.

All of the same dynamics in the Brexit vote are present in the current presidential race. The betting markets wildly favour Clinton but the number of small bets actually favour Trump (same with Remain and Leave respectively). Tim Kaine can't get more than 50 people to show up to a rally while Mike Pence and even Rudy Guiliani draw hundreds. Every poll shows Trump winning Independents, with Trump and Clinton winning roughly the same proportion of their respective parties. The only reason Clinton wins these polls is because there are more Democrats polled than Republicans by a large enough margin to offset Trump's Independant advantage. It remains to be seen if this weighting (by "likely voters") is accurate or not.

And, going back to Brexit, the campaign tactics of Remain against Leave are very similar to those of Clinton against Trump - call those that disagree racists and xenophobes. It didn't work to stop the Leave voters, but it did cause the Leave voters to get quiet and lie to pollsters. If the United Kingdom voted for the "racist xenophobic" side despite all the Leave-shaming, what makes you think America won't despite the Trump-shaming?

Oh right, ABC launched a "tracking" poll 2 weeks before the election and it says Clinton is up by 12. Nevermind, ignore the mountains of empirical evidence - from rallies to merchandise to primary turnout to historical patterns - ABC says Clinton's got this locked up so it must be the case.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Do you take your "Make America Great Again" hat off at bedtime, or do you sometimes sleep in it Cody?

Depends on whether I spent my evening disagreeing with Trump supporters or Clinton supporters on that particular day.

Actually Cody the article clearly states everyone is out of step except Trump the Chump's chances of winning doesn't it! 

What part of the phrase "TRUMP THE CHUMP IS GOING TO GET POLITICALLY MASSACRED ON NOV 8" do you not comprehend?

Cody87 wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

So, the article is saying that some of the most accurate polls over the last 12 years (always within 3 points, according to the article) have Clinton and Trump in a dead heat, at odds with corporate polls pushed by the corporate media (which hates Trump) which are disagreeing by as many as 14 points?

USC/LA Times is polling for the first time, 2012 was a fiasco for Rasmussen. As for who was most accurate...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_electi...

That's fine, but I was strictly going by what was in the article. NorthReport read an article that basically said this year's polling is all over the map and (according to the article) the most consisent poll over the last 12 years shows a close race - and somehow translated that into Trump can't possibly win.

I simply pointed out that his analysis of what was in the article was deeply flawed.

Hey Cody - I suppose you like car wrecks, eh! You might want to spend a bit of time reflecting on the complete article here as it may provide you with a few political insights that might not have occured to you. Just sayin'

Donald Trump Leaves a Car Wreck Behind

Re­pub­lic­ans will now have four years to think about what they did to them­selves this year, plenty of time to con­tem­plate the con­sequences of hand­ing over their party’s car keys to the tea-party move­ment and watch­ing as the quint­es­sen­tial tea parti­er, Don­ald Trump, drove the car over a cliff. If Re­pub­lic­ans are really, really lucky, their cur­rent 54-46 Sen­ate ma­jor­ity will only be cut back to 51-49. Los­ing the Sen­ate is at least an even bet, and some ana­lysts think the GOP’s chances are much worse than that. If the Re­pub­lic­ans are really for­tu­nate, they can keep their House losses down to 15 seats or so, half of their cur­rent mar­gin. Then there are the 12 gubernat­ori­al races, where Re­pub­lic­ans once hoped to pick up three to four seats. Also in play are 5,920 of the na­tion’s 7,383 state le­gis­lat­ive seats, 80.2 per­cent of the total, ac­cord­ing to Bal­lot­pe­dia. State le­gis­lat­ive seats are a party’s fu­ture, their seed corn. Demo­crats can tell you what hav­ing dev­ast­at­ing midterm elec­tions can do, as it happened to them in 2010 and 2014. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Where are you disagreeing with Trump supporters, other than "clearly not at babble"?

You glowingly posted a YT video entitled "Donald Trump: A Chance For Peace".  Is that you, holding Trump supporters' feet to the fire?

http://rabble.ca/comment/1585751#comment-1585751

Relevant, feel free to ignore the second half which is pro-Trump (starting at 2:30)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfnhbsCyKuM&feature=youtu.be

You call THAT glowing? I literally told people to skip the second half which is propaganda.

I would disagree with Trump supporters on Babble too, if there were any who were active.

Go McMullin Go! 

Polls May Be Underestimating Evan McMullin’s Chances In Utah

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-may-be-underestimating-evan-mc...

Quote:

You call THAT glowing? I literally told people to skip the second half which is propaganda.

Why didn't you tell them to also skip the first part, for the same reason?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

You call THAT glowing? I literally told people to skip the second half which is propaganda.

Why didn't you tell them to also skip the first part, for the same reason?

Because the first half was relevant to the discussion being had about whether or not Clinton was agitating for war.

The meme being not how good Hillary is perhaps but just how bad the Chump is.

The Dark Days of Donald Trump

Do you think Clinton thinks she’s a shoo-in? Publicly, she’s not talking that way. And there’s no reason to get overconfident. Florida seems to be tightening. There’s no telling what might happen, given the fact that we live in a country where Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president.

But you’d definitely rather be the campaign with Barack and Michelle Obama rallying the troops than the one that has to rely on Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich. The men who give a whole new frightening image of the Three Amigos.

Of the trio, Newt is clearly the winner. Having come into the campaign as political wreckage, he’s the only one who doesn’t cause people to shake their heads and say, “My God, what happened to him?”

This week Newt was in the news once again when he got into a vigorous tussle with Megyn Kelly on Fox, about whether the media was devoting too much time to the Trump groping issue. Gingrich accused Kelly of being “fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

At the end Kelly suggested Gingrich “take your anger issues and spend some time working on them.” And the whole world cheered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinion/the-dark-days-of-donald-trump....

Who will win the presidency?

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

I wonder how many voters will hold their noses and vote for Trump simply because he is 'none of the above' in respect to political insiders. Trump the odious individual subsumed into the perfect foil for cocking a snook at the political establishment. The equally odious and reprehensible Clinton machine may be in line for a Brexit moment on Nov 8.

Politics & Polls #18: The Religious Right

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/29/politics-polls-18-the-religious...

A Test of the Polarization Hypothesis

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/30/a-test-of-the-polarization-hypo...

79% vs 21%

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

Comey Gets a Warrant, But it Costs Him His Reputation

"If you got a warrant, I guess you got to come in"

A law enforcement source tells the AP the FBI now has a warrant for Huma Abedin's emails on a computer seized in her husband's sexting investigation.

There are differing accounts in every major news publication about why the FBI wants to look at Huma's emails. None are reliable, all are anonymous leaks.

What is clear is that FBI director James Comey has torpedoed his legacy and the reputation of the F.B.I. See this article by former Deputy Attorney Generals Jamie Gorelick (under Clinton) and Larry Thompson (under Bush) opining Comey has damaged our democracy:[More...]

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

...First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.

They conclude:

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

Eric Holder and dozens of prosecutors have also written a letter blasting Comey. Two ethics complaints have been filed. The person who filed one of them has this oped in the NY Times on his decision to file it.

Weiner's computer was reportedly seized a while ago, and there are unconfirmed reports FBI agents have known for weeks that it contained some of Huma's emails. Comey says he was only told Thursday. I assume there is no federal grand jury investigating Weiner because otherwise someone would point out Comey should be in deep doo-doo for violating grand jury secrecy rules by discussing any evidence seized in the Weiner investigation. (That's not to say a Weiner Indictment isn't imminent -- if it is, maybe Comey believed details about Huma's emails on a computer seized in the Weiner investigation were going to be leaked before the election, so he decided to get in front of it to save his reputation.)

It seems the new search warrant was obtained in the Southern District of New York, which reportedly has taken control of the Weiner case over the Western District of North Carolina and the local New York authorities. The Western District of North Carolina (where the 15 year old whom Weiner sexted with resides) at one point confirmed it had launched an investigation. There are reports it has since yielded to the Southern District of New York.

Also of note: In the Clinton email probe, the Eastern District of Virginia was the only federal District to have a prosecutor present during Huma Abedin's FBI debriefing -- see the FBI's 302 report of her interview.

Huma testified in her Judicial Watch deposition that she gave two of her laptops and a Blackberry to her lawyers who searched for and turned over relevant emails to the State Department, which was conducting a review of whether all work-related emails from Hillary's SOS days had been returned to the State Department.

The investigation of Hillary's emails on her private server pertains to the time she served as Secretary of State. She left in 2012. Any emails sent or received after Hillary left office would have no relevance to the investigation of Hillary's use of a private server or email chains discussing possible classified matter while Secretary of State. (Comey testified no classified documents were downloaded from anywhere -- the whole investigation is about whether there was a discussion of classified material among a chain of people.)

The timeline is curious. For Huma's emails from SOS days to be on Weiner's computer, he has to have had the computer since 2012 or earlier. Was this laptop no longer in use and stashed in a closet in the apartment? Who uses a 4 year old laptop? Yes, I know Donald Trump's doctor still uses Windows XP but that has to be an unusual case. I doubt very many people whose jobs are as highly computer-dependent as those who work as a chief logistical aide to a cabinet member or for a national political campaign or who are themselves running for a prominent elected office are using 4 year old laptops. It's not like Weiner or Huma were electricians during the day and only got online at night to check their email or stream a video. Surely they would have a newer laptop. And if this was an old laptop not used for a few years, what relevance does it have to Weiner's 2016 sexting allegation?

Huma told the FBI (see the 11 page FBI 302 of her April, 2016 interview or the final 347 page FBI report) that until Hillary changed email systems after leaving the State Department, she (Huma) only accessed her email via a web portal -- she did not have Outlook or any means of downloading emails sent to and from Hillary's private server onto her own computer. After 2012, she couldn't access emails on the server at all.

Also, contrary to some news reports, Huma did tell the FBI that she also had an email account with her husband's campaign. From the FBI 302 of her interview:

ABEDIN provided that she was issued an official DoS email account, [email protected], which she used for DoS related work. She also had an email account that was provided by CLINTON, [email protected], which she used for matters related to CLINTON's personal affairs and to communicate with CLINTON's personal staff and friends. ABEDIN also had a personal Yahoo email account. ABEDIN could access her clintonemail.com account and her Yahoo account via the internet on the unclassified DoS computer system. She would use these accounts if her DoS account was down or if she needed to print an email or document. ABEDIN further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print. ABEDIN also had another email account that she had previously used to support her husband's campaign activities.

If Huma opened an email she sent to herself from Hillary's server email or state department email, it could still be on the computer she used during those days, since she didn't delete them. But it's likely the FBI already has them, since her lawyers turned over all work related emails on her two laptops and Blackberry, as did other Clinton aides. And if the laptop was acquired after 2012, there shouldn't be any emails on it from Hillary's SOS days.

In any event, Comey is a disgrace. He should resign. The only more disgraceful person is Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is delusional if he thinks he can win the Presidency because of James Comey's bizarre announcement. The net effect ofo Comey's actions (other than tarnishing the reputation of the FBI and Justice Department) will be to ensure that every Democrat, and every person who shudders at the thought of a Trump win, will take nothing for granted and turn out to vote on Nov. 8. With one ill-advised letter that was devoid of facts and seems to have been motivated by ego and self-aggrandizement, Comey has single-handedly erased complacency among voters.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2016/10/30/233951/91/Colo_News/Comey-Gets-...

Nate Silver is good but Sam Wang, although not as flashy, is much better

US election 2016: statistician Nate Silver's big Donald Trump mistake

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/us-election-2016-statistician-na...

http://election.princeton.edu/

NorthReport wrote:

Sorry Cody, seeking a politcal home, NDPP but....... 

A Hillary Clinton secret: lots of voters really like her

U.S. presidential nominee has an overlooked but large base of devoted admirers. Her greatest strength is Democratic women 50 and older.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/30/a-hillary-clinton-secret-l...

While i think national numbers for trump will propably show him leading at end if their no surprises. I must admit the state numbers look dodgy for trump.  Both sides seem to have solidifed their bases, will you can agrue demograhic groups will be key.  My presecpitive i am looking how the indepentents break, if independents break in a sgnificant way for trump then he wins.  If the indepentents go half and half then trump loses.  I can also address the whole idea of the bais that trump talks about the silent majority.  i dont recall the name of the effect but people have a bais to look good in the eyes of people around them, its just one those bias that exist in frame of a social science polling.  Since people think that trump is cad then will not admit to the pollsters that will not vote trump in the polls but will vote for trump in polling booth.  This effect event is maybe worth a point, but i am doubtful because no polling has effectively showed no proof of silnet mafority.

In Feb in the made the following prediction on rabble.

Hilliary will beat sanders   check

Trump will become the rep canadiate.   check

Trump beats hillary   ??????

iam 2 for 3 at the moment

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Sorry Cody, seeking a politcal home, NDPP but....... 

A Hillary Clinton secret: lots of voters really like her

U.S. presidential nominee has an overlooked but large base of devoted admirers. Her greatest strength is Democratic women 50 and older.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/30/a-hillary-clinton-secret-l...

While i think national numbers for trump will propably show him leading at end if their no surprises. I must admit the state numbers look dodgy for trump.  Both sides seem to have solidifed their bases, will you can agrue demograhic groups will be key.  My presecpitive i am looking how the indepentents break, if independents break in a sgnificant way for trump then he wins.  If the indepentents go half and half then trump loses.  I can also address the whole idea of the bais that trump talks about the silent majority.  i dont recall the name of the effect but people have a bais to look good in the eyes of people around them, its just one those bias that exist in frame of a social science polling.  Since people think that trump is cad then will not admit to the pollsters that will not vote trump in the polls but will vote for trump in polling booth.  This effect event is maybe worth a point, but i am doubtful because no polling has effectively showed no proof of silnet mafority.

In Feb in the made the following prediction on rabble.

Hilliary will beat sanders   check

Trump will become the rep canadiate.   check

Trump beats hillary   ??????

iam 2 for 3 at the moment

It's called the shy Tory effect. Most recently seen in Brexit.

Also, remember that polls are weighting their samples so there is about 7 percentage points more democrats voting than republicans (same as Obama in 2008). If this assumption is wrong, (say the population actually only has 3 percentage points more democrats like in 2012), then this means the polls are off by roughly that amount.

To make this clearer:

Say that after weighting you poll 100 people.

35 democrats

28 republicans

37 independants

For simplicity, assume the dems go straight clinton and repubs straight trump. Assume independants slightly favour trump (so 20 for trump 17 for clinton).

That's 52-48 in favour of clinton. But if it's actually 33 dem 30 rep 37 independant then we're now 50-50.

If Trump pulls lots of new voters (like in the primaries) which are ignored by most, but not all, likely voter models, then this could have a big impact even ignoring the shy tory effect.

Consider that 8% more democrats than republicans voted in 2008 primaries. In 2016 primaries, 1% more republicans voted. Lots of evidence that independents decide this election.

Where did he say that?

If it is the year-old article I am thinking about perhaps you should read what he actually said, because he has been proven right.

No, it was not an endorsement. And if it had been he should have resigned immediately as ambassador, because it would have completely compromised his position.

Perhaps this is the Gary Doer reference?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republican-house-better-for-canada-former-ambassador-says-1.3136632

Seems to be from QP yesterday.

Cheerleading a Republican house is equal to a Trump endorsement. Quite honestly,I don't know how anyone who identifies with the NDP,much less be a member,would cheerlead a Republican rule. I think he's an idiot. Others may disagree. I may not know the details so I can be corrected.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

He did not say that a Trump presidency would be better for Canada. Can you read?

And no it is not "equal to a Trump endorsement".

If you are going to make shit up at least post the links you are mis-reading. Others may disagree? Yeah, just like we disagree that the sun comes up in the west. The amount of outright lies being slung around in this election is way over the top.

Quote:

Former ambassador Gary Doer says a Republican-controlled House would be better for Canadian trade, despite the anti-trade politics of the party's presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

Speaking to Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, Doer predicted Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is more likely to win the White House, and that whichever party takes the presidency will also win the Senate. Doer, who served as Canadian ambassador to the U.S. from 2009 until earlier this year, also predicted Republican House Leader Paul Ryan will win the House.

And he doesn't say it is his personal preference; he says he thinks it will be better for Canadian trade. And just in case anyone is inclined to make false assumptions, he pointed out he was NOT talking about Trump.

Besides, Republican control of the house was probably the most sure race from day one. So it doesn't matter what he thinks. But in fact, if the Democrats take the presidency and the senate it actually is a not a bad thing if the Republicans keep the house.

 

Smith,I think you should relax. No need to attack me. Thanks for correcting me. Having said that,he does not sound like someone who should have ever bveen associated with the NDP. He sounds like a Conservative.

There is nothing good about a Republican House. Ask sane Americans how that works out. I still think he's an idiot.

Ok now, let's sort out this mess. Smith is right that Gary Doer was not speaking out in favour of Trump. Gary Doer was commenting on a well established pattern that Democratic governments tend to be more protectionist against Canada than Republican ones. Also, Republicans tend to be more supportive of Canadian pipelines and oil imports from Canada than the Democrats are. And Alan's opinion that Gary Doer is an idiot and a disgrace to the NDP is a very common and well founded one, IMO.