reds8n wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/beloved-cat-fired-job-local-public-library/story?id=40200707


.... seems a bit harsh, unlike many officials -- world over -- least he he was popular and good at his job.

 sebster wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
New poll- Trump and Clinton neck and neck.

There are polls almost daily. The thing you have to remember is that most have a natural bias, and all of them have significant margins of error. As such if you just look at isolated polls here and there you'll find some really exciting results, as well as polls giving a neck and neck result there's also been polls showing Clinton with a double digits lead.

This is why it's important to look at poll aggregates. Until 538 gets their model up and running we have to make do with things like real clear politics. The aggregate there is showing Clinton up by an average of 6 points. It's hardly a decisive lead (bigger leads at this point in the campaign have been lost plenty of times in past elections), but what's also telling is the trend - polls were genuinely neck and neck a month ago, and since then it's been trending to Clinton very strongly.


EDIT - and sure enough the 538 model is up as of today. It gives Trump 20%, and shows Clinton up in an aggregate of national polls by 7%. The 20% chance is basically because we're a long way from the election which gives Trump a chance of improving his polling position.

 reds8n wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/beloved-cat-fired-job-local-public-library/story?id=40200707


.... seems a bit harsh, unlike many officials -- world over -- least he he was popular and good at his job.

 reds8n wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/beloved-cat-fired-job-local-public-library/story?id=40200707


.... seems a bit harsh, unlike many officials -- world over -- least he he was popular and good at his job.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Finally - got my Trump MAGA hat in the mail

Now I can unhinge the Clinton voters in my office (a solid 90%+)

 Easy E wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Finally - got my Trump MAGA hat in the mail

Now I can unhinge the Clinton voters in my office (a solid 90%+)

I never recommend anyone advertising their politics in the workplace.

 feeder wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Finally - got my Trump MAGA hat in the mail

Now I can unhinge the Clinton voters in my office (a solid 90%+)

I never recommend anyone advertising their politics in the workplace.

Unless you're a misanthrope who confuses confrontation with genuine human interaction.

Is it an official Trump MAGA hat, or a Amazon knock-off?

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.

I'm calling bs on that.

Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.

I'm calling bs on that.

Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.

If news of a secret meeting behind closed doors between them had come out, then yes, it would look suspicious, no matter if it were a Dem or GOP. However, a public greeting at an airport with numerous eyewitnesses, does not a scandal make.

 Breotan wrote:
Don't get caught up in polls right now. Things will tighten up once we get past both conventions. That's when you really need to start paying attention.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.

I'm calling bs on that.

Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.

I'm calling bs on that.

Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.

It's a little telling that this is a huge scandal to you, but that this didn't even merit posting.

 jmurph wrote:
Ah but where's the fun in that? Hard to sell a horse race is one of the horses (the orange one) keeps slipping on the crap it is constantly spewing out. I was actually far more interested in the individual issue polling, which showed some interesting (terrifying?) numbers on where people see each candidate. I also can't help but feel that support is probably pretty even, with a lot on the Trump side being factors other than Trump. However, that is not to say that I am buying that the voting numbers put trump anywhere close to Clinton. My guess is he gets soundly thrashed by losing swing states. His numbers with women alone pretty much show him to be unelectable.

It is just kind of sad he has as much support as he does with the things he says and that people back him despite knowing he's basically a snake oil salesman. Because HRC is obviously a murderer/liar/corrupt/Benghazi/etc.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Correct. The predictive value of polls right now isn't that great. As the general election gets closer the state wide polls will increase in predicitive value and we'll get a better idea of how competitive some of the key states will be.

Trump fundraising emails overseas prompt complaints here and abroad

Spoiler:

Sir Roger Gale was puzzled when a string of emails from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign landed in his inbox. As a Briton and a member of Parliament, Gale is barred by U.S. law from giving Trump money, much less voting for him.

“I’ve gotten rid of most of that rubbish,” Gale said in an interview.

The emails to Gale were among a wave of fundraising pleas inexplicably sent by the Trump campaign in recent days to lawmakers in the United Kingdom, Iceland, Australia and elsewhere. The solicitations prompted watchdog groups in Washington to file two separate complaints Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Trump campaign was violating federal law by soliciting funds from foreign nationals.

“The scale and scope of this does seem somewhat unprecedented,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, which joined Democracy 21 in one of the complaints.

The episode is only the latest fundraising stumble by Trump’s presidential campaign, which entered June with $1.3 million and has been scrambling to put together a financial operation to take on the well-funded campaign of likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Trump dispatched his first official fundraising email, casting a wide digital net for small donations that he hopes will infuse his cash-strapped campaign and the Republican Party’s coffers at a time when Clinton is lapping him in the money chase.

So far, his effort has both shown promise and hit speed bumps. His campaign said it raised $2 million in less than 12 hours after blasting out its first email. But the emails to foreign nationals have caused a distraction, at best, and some experts have raised questions about whether his initial appeals landed in supporters’ spam folders at a higher rate than normal.

Whether the snags prove to be growing pains for a campaign that until recently eschewed traditional fundraising or a sign of more serious stumbles to come is a key question facing Trump and the Republican Party as the general election comes into focus.

Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the complaints to the FEC or questions about why emails were sent to foreign lawmakers.

The emails were sent both before and after Trump’s trip to Scotland last weekend to visit two of his golf courses, and their message focused on the “Brexit” vote in Britain to leave the European Union.

The mogul is trying to build out his once-lean campaign operation with experienced hands. As a part of that process, Trump recently enlisted the help of the Prosper Group, an Indiana-based digital strategy firm, to help with online fundraising.

Gale, a Conservative who has served in the House of Commons for more than three decades, said the hostile tone of the Trump emails he received was off-putting. One from this week that he shared with The Washington Post was signed by Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr.

“We’ve set another Trump-sized goal to raise another $10 million by Thursday at midnight. Please chip in what you can to help make Donald J. Trump the next President of the United States,” said the email, which was sent to Gale’s official parliamentary account.

Another fundraising pitch sent to the same account last week was signed by the candidate himself. “Hillary Clinton is a world-class liar,” it said.

“I don’t know if someone at Team Trump was stupid enough to think that all Conservative Party MPs would consider themselves Republicans,” Gale said. “But I asked around, and it seems that most others did get these emails, too.”

In reaching out to British MPs in particular, Trump’s team isn’t courting a particularly sympathetic audience. Members of Parliament from all major parties spent more than three hours debating Trump in January, ostensibly to consider banning his entry into the United Kingdom. Words such as “fool” and “buffoon” were used to describe Trump. Not one MP stood to speak in his defense.

In Iceland, Katrin Jakobsdottir, the chairwoman of the Left-Green Movement, a democratic socialist party that focuses on feminist and environmental issues, said she unexpectedly received a Trump campaign email and has “no idea” how she got on his list.

“I am a Left-Green politician and would not support his campaign,” she wrote in an email to The Post.

There have been other complications with Trump’s online fundraising.

Tom Sather, senior director of research at Return Path, a data firm that performs email studies and works with the Republican National Committee, said he noticed that Trump’s campaign switched domain names when he sent his first email out, causing many email services to flag it as spam and not recognize that it was coming from a familiar source.

Sather said he and his company also noticed a big jump in the size of Trump’s distribution list on June 21, signaling that the campaign may have added another list or lists to its existing file.

Renting email lists from former candidates is common practice in politics, and there is evidence suggesting Trump is doing that now. A Trump fundraising email sent out Wednesday afternoon came from “info@chrischristie.com.” Christie, a former presidential candidate and the Republican governor of New Jersey, supports Trump.

In last week’s fundraising email, Trump vowed to match the $2 million raised with his personal funds. Trump is also holding in-person fundraisers across the country more often.

But he will need to keep up an intense pace if he wants to catch up to Clinton. Compared with Trump’s $1.3 million, campaign finance filings showed Clinton had $42 million at the start of this month.

Trump is still adjusting to a more traditional fundraising structure after spending the primary relying heavily on his own money and on earned television media through countless interviews — as opposed to pricey paid TV ads that lesser-known candidates are often forced to purchase.

Trump often points out that he is raising money in part to help the rest of the GOP through a joint fundraising agreement he recently finalized with the RNC.

At a campaign rally Wednesday in Bangor, Maine, Trump suggested that he does not need to haul in much cash to help himself.

“First of all, I don’t even know why I need so much money,” he said. “You know, I go around, I make speeches. I talk to reporters. I don’t even need commercials, if you want to know the truth. Why do I need these commercials?”

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Correct. The predictive value of polls right now isn't that great. As the general election gets closer the state wide polls will increase in predicitive value and we'll get a better idea of how competitive some of the key states will be.

It's interesting to look at the 2012 aggregated polling from RCP. On 1st July in that race they had Obama winning by 3.6%. He ended up winning by 3.9%. However, between July 1st and election day there was a large surge to put Obama up by more than 5%, before Romney dragged it back to a statistical tie, before Obama dragged it out again, only for Romney to again bring things back to a statistical tie, before Obama moved out again to finish with an expected advantage of less than 1% (which he then beat on election day, as it turns out many pollsters had estimated turn out based on 2014 mid-term results, and thereby understated the Democratic vote).

So, uh yeah, a lead in July doesn't necessarily mean that much. Looking back at past elections at July polling... Obama lead in July in both elections and won. Bush trailed Kerry in 2004, but led Gore in 2000. Clinton led Gore in 1996 but trailed Bush 1992 in July. Dukakis 1988 lead over Bush was famous, because of how gakky things went from there. Reagan led from start to finish in 1984, but in 1980 in July he'd just taken a lead that he would later surrender and only regain in October with an incredible surge.

So there's kind of two patterns. There's one where a candidate never gives up a lead, their opponent may close the difference and even draw even, but ultimately the polls show a consistent advantage that is realised on election day. That's the two Obama results, or Clinton in 1996, or Reagan in 1984.

Then there's results where things did genuinely swing back and forth between the two candidates. One candidate might lead by a few points at one stage, only for the other to take the lead later on. Kerry and Bush in 2004, or Reagan and Carter in 1980. In those cases then the lead in July is meaningless as it will likely shift a few times between then and November.

As to which kind of campaign we're following, well it's a judgement call. So far Clinton has lead pretty consistently, Trump has managed to draw level in polling twice, only for Clinton to pull away to large leads each time. But of course it's only July, and so there's still time for things to change. But if the current pattern persists...

Major themes and findings
◾Think probabilistically. Our probabilities are based on the historical accuracy of election polls since 1972. When we say a candidate has a 30 percent chance of winning despite being down in the polls, we’re not just covering our butts. Those estimates reflect the historical uncertainty in polling.
◾State polls > national polls. All versions of our models gain more information from state polls than from national polls.
◾Errors are correlated. But while the election is contested at the state level, the error is correlated from state to state. If a candidate beats his polls to win Ohio, there’s a good chance he’ll also do so in Pennsylvania.
◾Be conservative early and aggressive late. Fluctuations in the polls in the summer are often statistical noise or short-term bounces. The model is trained to be conservative in reacting to them. Fluctuations late in the race are more meaningful, and the model will be more aggressive.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't disagree with your assessment of the value of poll numbers in July, but I was trying to make the point that intrastate polls will be of more predictive value than national polls. As we get closer to November the state polls will give us a stronger indication of who will win each state, which may or may not be consistent with who's leading the national polls.

Essentially, I wanted to note that if Trump somehow keeps things close in key states like Florida and Ohio in five months from now we'll have an interesting election night even if Clinton consistently leads in national polls. I'm not trying to say that the RCP average has no value, just that it doesn't tell the whole story because it glosses over the subplots happening on the state level.

 feeder wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Finally - got my Trump MAGA hat in the mail

Now I can unhinge the Clinton voters in my office (a solid 90%+)

I never recommend anyone advertising their politics in the workplace.

Unless you're a misanthrope who confuses confrontation with genuine human interaction.

Is it an official Trump MAGA hat, or a Amazon knock-off?

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't disagree with your assessment of the value of poll numbers in July, but I was trying to make the point that intrastate polls will be of more predictive value than national polls. As we get closer to November the state polls will give us a stronger indication of who will win each state, which may or may not be consistent with who's leading the national polls.

Definitely. One part of Clinton's 7% lead is that states like Texas are showing very little enthusiasm for Trump. This shows how weak he is as a general election candidate but in pure maths doesn't actually hurt his November chances, as whether he wins Texas by recent average of around 15% or Trump's current lead of around 5%, Trump will still take every electoral vote in the state.

I was only using the RCP national average as a proxy until 538 got their model up and going, which has fortunately just happened, giving us political junkies some real substance, instead of just national polling averages.

Essentially, I wanted to note that if Trump somehow keeps things close in key states like Florida and Ohio in five months from now we'll have an interesting election night even if Clinton consistently leads in national polls. I'm not trying to say that the RCP average has no value, just that it doesn't tell the whole story because it glosses over the subplots happening on the state level.

Absolutely. But then we also have to recognise the other possibility, that Trump might claw back some or all of the 7% lead, but make no dent in the electoral college. Trump has spent little time and no money in the key swing states, while Clinton has focused there intensely.

But of course, the big thing right now is that it's still very early in the race.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.

I'm calling bs on that.

Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.

If news of a secret meeting behind closed doors between them had come out, then yes, it would look suspicious, no matter if it were a Dem or GOP. However, a public greeting at an airport with numerous eyewitnesses, does not a scandal make.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is another very good column by Michael Goldfarb, following up on his "40 year hurt" theme that helps explain the Trump phenomenon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35653619

TL/DR:

He goes back to Ripley, Ohio which he visited briefly 23 years ago and finds it changed from a thriving mixed economy to a depressed shell of its former self.