Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Probably because a lot of voters have no idea about those things either.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

I still have spider sense tingling about him winning. Brexit showed the Polls mean nothing. There are still too many variables, which, if they swing the wrong way, could allow this walking dung heap a victory.
The one point he's resonating on is taxes and the economy. That's a very powerful message and has swept in POTUS candidates before.

I don't buy it... he'll max out at 40% of the EV.

After reading transcripts this morning and some of the clips... his biggest moment is when he ding'ed her for her email scandal imo.

Both candidate had some serious WTF over Foreign Policy / Syria.

Clinton contradicted herself on the Coal question...

Trump is just fething too cozy with Russia...

Clinton is just bad at debating... there were moments served up on a silver platter for her to knock Trump out, and she simply wiff'ed.

Trump's tax situation just illustrates how generations of politicians have built a tax code custom built for the 1%.

Clinton will not change that.

She should be in jail for her bs too.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

I still have spider sense tingling about him winning. Brexit showed the Polls mean nothing.

Brexit showed there existed at least one event for when polls predicted one outcome was more likely than another, that the less likely outcome occurred. If I tell you that there is a 95% chance thing A will happen and a 5% chance B thing will happen, thing B occurring doesn't I can't make useful predictions, it doesn't even mean that particular prediction was inaccurate. It just means that given the information at hand the thing that appeared to be less likely happened.

There is no sensible way to look at single event that turned against the predicted odds and conclude that otherwise consistently meaningful metrics are suddenly worthless.

So, the Politico fact check has 2 lies for HRC, 13 for Trump, and zero people swayed at this point in the campaign.

Mitochondria wrote:
Trump's tax situation just illustrates how generations of politicians have built a tax code custom built for the 1%.

Clinton will not change that.

She should be in jail for her bs too.

You're funny.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well John Adams would be a hypocrite then, as the first of America's political drama queens

That may be, but no John Adams, no USA IMO, and I stand by that assertion.

The same John Adams that signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. Don't think he'd be too upset at the prospect of locking up political rivals.

 Chongara wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

I still have spider sense tingling about him winning. Brexit showed the Polls mean nothing.

Brexit showed there existed at least one event for when polls predicted one outcome was more likely than another, that the less likely outcome occurred. If I tell you that there is a 95% chance thing A will happen and a 5% chance B thing will happen, thing B occurring doesn't I can't make useful predictions, it doesn't even mean that particular prediction was inaccurate. It just means that given the information at hand the thing that appeared to be less likely happened.

There is no sensible way to look at single event that turned against the predicted odds and conclude that otherwise consistently meaningful metrics are suddenly worthless.

I should have clarified this for the more literal in the crowd, polls...with still a month to go...mean nothing. As far as my Brexit comment, it shows that some times, even on the eve of said poll measured event, they still can mean nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

I still have spider sense tingling about him winning. Brexit showed the Polls mean nothing. There are still too many variables, which, if they swing the wrong way, could allow this walking dung heap a victory.
The one point he's resonating on is taxes and the economy. That's a very powerful message and has swept in POTUS candidates before.

I don't buy it... he'll max out at 40% of the EV.

After reading transcripts this morning and some of the clips... his biggest moment is when he ding'ed her for her email scandal imo.

Both candidate had some serious WTF over Foreign Policy / Syria.

Clinton contradicted herself on the Coal question...

Trump is just fething too cozy with Russia...

Clinton is just bad at debating... there were moments served up on a silver platter for her to knock Trump out, and she simply wiff'ed.

I'll disagree on the biggest moment. The email scandal is only still being carried around by the false equivalency parrots.
His biggest moment was when he threw Bill's philandering in HRC's face.

 Chongara wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

I still have spider sense tingling about him winning. Brexit showed the Polls mean nothing.

Brexit showed there existed at least one event for when polls predicted one outcome was more likely than another, that the less likely outcome occurred. If I tell you that there is a 95% chance thing A will happen and a 5% chance B thing will happen, thing B occurring doesn't I can't make useful predictions, it doesn't even mean that particular prediction was inaccurate. It just means that given the information at hand the thing that appeared to be less likely happened.

There is no sensible way to look at single event that turned against the predicted odds and conclude that otherwise consistently meaningful metrics are suddenly worthless.

That would be true if the underlying cause didnt apply to the US election. Brexit wasn't the first unlikely win, there have been a few elections/referenda that have gone to the british people where a conservative or right wing vote was underreported by earlier sampling. They just didn't expect a firm Tory majority after the last election but it happened, people warned of underreporting prior to Brexit but many assumed a narrow win for remain. Questions have been raised over approaches to polling as there is a pattern forming.

If there's a strong shy vote for Trump, he could just swing it. It depends on how reliable the methodology is for the polling and how strong the effect of the shy voter is, the US and UK are culturally different, so it may not be a thing. If the more obnoxious the candidate, the more shy people are about declaring support, Trump could have a hidden swell of support come Election Day.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well John Adams would be a hypocrite then, as the first of America's political drama queens

That may be, but no John Adams, no USA IMO, and I stand by that assertion.

The same John Adams that signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. Don't think he'd be too upset at the prospect of locking up political rivals.

There is a great HBO series about John Adams (adequately called John Adams ) that really covers his personality and outlook very well, that personality and outlook being very childish and self-indulgent. Though the series probably doesn't give him full credit for his contributions to early America.

 d-usa wrote:
This might actually be the most interesting thing that happened tonight:

https://www.yahoo.com/style/social-media-finds-deep-inner-meaning-in-melania-trumps-hot-pink-debate-outfit-021436411.html

Mrs. Trump showing up in a pussy-bow pants suit.

the dress was also made in china, like the steel he used in his building

sirlynchmob wrote:

the dress was also made in china, like the steel he used in his building

I can't believe Trump had the audacity to bring up steel manufacturing in the debate when it was so recently outed that he's gone to China for his, and the USW denounced him for it.

Wait, no. I can believe it.

He's toast!

...and he'll likely DRAG down the down ballot big time!

New natl NBC/WSJ poll (conducted after Fri news but before debate)
HRC 46
Trump 35
Johnson 9
Stein 2

Was Clinton +6 in Sept
(Oct 8-9, LVs)

— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) October 10, 2016

It looks like Paul Ryan is pulling away from Trump now as well. Not quite as aggressively as other GOP members, but certainly gives off the vibe that he want's nothing to do with Trump.

 whembly wrote:
...and he'll likely DRAG down the down ballot big time!

I have a feeling this is his intent. My theory for a good while now is that getting elected isn't his primary goal, causing chaos across the board for the Republican party is.

For a very long time both the Republicans and Democrats have been concerned more about their own power and goals, the voters be damned. I say push Trump down their collective throats and tell them to suck his dangly bits. In four years Clinton will be too old to be viable even for party loyalists so both parties will likely put forth better candidates that actually have a chance in hell of getting people to vote for them. Bah, who am I kidding? They'll both put forth party hacks again just like they usually do. Now I understand how Democrat voters felt when they had Michael Dukakis as their nominee.

I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to. Who knows, maybe Trump will decide early on that he doesn't like being President and give us Pence/Ryan for four years. And maybe Fox will renew Firefly and Almost Human for multiple seasons.

Princess Leia confirms Trump is a cocaine addict.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-debate-sniffing-cocaine-related-says-stars-wars-actress-carrie-fisher-2428867

Fisher has admitted to having been a heavy cocaine user in the 1980s. Sniffling, like the kind heard from Trump Sunday night, can be symptomatic of the damage done by frequent use of cocaine via snorting and inhalation through the nose.

Who in their right mind could trust a coke head with the keys to nuclear weapons?

... I don't really think it likely that he'd be doing lines of coke before a TV debate.

... I know how crazy this election has been but doesn't strike me as being that plausible.

 reds8n wrote:
... I don't really think it likely that he'd be doing lines of coke before a TV debate.

... I know how crazy this election has been but doesn't strike me as being that plausible.

Maybe not right before the debate, but as the article says, "sniffling, like the kind heard from Trump Sunday night, can be symptomatic of the damage done by frequent use of cocaine via snorting and inhalation through the nose."

Sure, let's go with unsubstantiated allegations. I mean it's not like he's given us enough actual reasons to despise him, right?

I've got a better question for you. Who in their right mind could trust a coke head (Fisher) to give sound advice on what sniffles means during flu season?

And here I thought the Clinton cough (death rattle) stuff was stupid...

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well John Adams would be a hypocrite then, as the first of America's political drama queens

That may be, but no John Adams, no USA IMO, and I stand by that assertion.

The same John Adams that signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. Don't think he'd be too upset at the prospect of locking up political rivals.

There is a great HBO series about John Adams (adequately called John Adams ) that really covers his personality and outlook very well, that personality and outlook being very childish and self-indulgent. Though the series probably doesn't give him full credit for his contributions to early America.

I like the TV series, but it doesn;t give him the credit that his biographers give him.

When his fellow founding fathers were wavering about breaking away from Britain, Adams gave them steel. Time and time again he put his life on the line for his country.

He is a giant of American politics. Trump is not even in the same league. It's like comparing a bow and arrow to a nuclear weapon. Very few American Presidents of yesteryear compare to Adams...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well John Adams would be a hypocrite then, as the first of America's political drama queens

That may be, but no John Adams, no USA IMO, and I stand by that assertion.

The same John Adams that signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. Don't think he'd be too upset at the prospect of locking up political rivals.

An extraordinary decision for extraordinary times, very much in the style of Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus during the civil war to stop Maryland from becoming Confederate, and thus surrounding the capitol with Confederate territory...

It's not a decision I agree with, and a stain against Adams, but at least there was a rational behind it. The same could not be said about anything Trump says or does.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and he'll likely DRAG down the down ballot big time!

I have a feeling this is his intent. My theory for a good while now is that getting elected isn't his primary goal, causing chaos across the board for the Republican party is.

For a very long time both the Republicans and Democrats have been concerned more about their own power and goals, the voters be damned. I say push Trump down their collective throats and tell them to suck his dangly bits. In four years Clinton will be too old to be viable even for party loyalists so both parties will likely put forth better candidates that actually have a chance in hell of getting people to vote for them. Bah, who am I kidding? They'll both put forth party hacks again just like they usually do. Now I understand how Democrat voters felt when they had Michael Dukakis as their nominee.

I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to. Who knows, maybe Trump will decide early on that he doesn't like being President and give us Pence/Ryan for four years. And maybe Fox will renew Firefly and Almost Human for multiple seasons.

What I'm hoping comes from this goatfeth of an election year is just the opposite. I hope the discord allows some of the young, less tarnished and less beholding talent to rise from within the party ranks, or maybe go Independent and break from party ranks altogether. The knee-jerk "grab the old fart that has been waiting in line the longest" approach to party POTUS candidacy...McCain 2008...should be thrown out with the waste.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

What I'm hoping comes from this goatfeth of an election year is just the opposite. I hope the discord allows some of the young, less tarnished and less beholding talent to rise from within the party ranks. The knee-jerk "grab the old fart that has been waiting in line the longest" approach to party POTUS candidacy...McCain 2008...should be thrown out with the waste.

On the other hand, at least McCain was a decent human being, unlike the winner and runner up of the GOP selection process this year.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

What I'm hoping comes from this goatfeth of an election year is just the opposite. I hope the discord allows some of the young, less tarnished and less beholding talent to rise from within the party ranks. The knee-jerk "grab the old fart that has been waiting in line the longest" approach to party POTUS candidacy...McCain 2008...should be thrown out with the waste.

On the other hand, at least McCain was a decent human being, unlike the winner and runner up of the GOP selection process this year.

True, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making.

 Breotan wrote:
Sure, let's go with unsubstantiated allegations. I mean it's not like he's given us enough actual reasons to despise him, right?

I've got a better question for you. Who in their right mind could trust a coke head (Fisher) to give sound advice on what sniffles means during flu season?

And here I thought the Clinton cough (death rattle) stuff was stupid...

sure it must be a cold that's lasting over 2 weeks now, I guess not even trump is rich enough to afford a trip to the doctors.

A "rich" white man doing the drug of choice for rich white men? unheard of, that never happens.

It's not just Fisher, others have opined that as well, and when mr sniffsalot makes his 3rd debate appearance it will be all but confirmed.

What an absolute weasel...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-distancing-himself-from-trump-pence-goes-back-to-defending-him/ar-BBxferb?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

 Breotan wrote:
Sure, let's go with unsubstantiated allegations. I mean it's not like he's given us enough actual reasons to despise him, right?

I've got a better question for you. Who in their right mind could trust a coke head (Fisher) to give sound advice on what sniffles means during flu season?

And here I thought the Clinton cough (death rattle) stuff was stupid...

Unsubstantiated allegations are par for the course; that's what's been done to Clinton for quite a while. It may be dirty but it's hardly worth any anger, unless you were up in arms about all the unsubstantiated accusations against Clinton too.

Oh, America, you live down to everything any native nation has ever said about you.



Cthulhu/Putin in 2020. Vote for the Greater Evilulz.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Sure, let's go with unsubstantiated allegations. I mean it's not like he's given us enough actual reasons to despise him, right?

I've got a better question for you. Who in their right mind could trust a coke head (Fisher) to give sound advice on what sniffles means during flu season?

And here I thought the Clinton cough (death rattle) stuff was stupid...

Unsubstantiated allegations are par for the course; that's what's been done to Clinton for quite a while. It may be dirty but it's hardly worth any anger, unless you were up in arms about all the unsubstantiated accusations against Clinton too.

Being realistic, well substantiated accusations haven't shaken the faith of the faithful Trumpeteers in their hero.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The knee-jerk "grab the old fart that has been waiting in line the longest" approach to party POTUS candidacy...McCain 2008...should be thrown out with the waste.

McCain, Dole, Clinton, etc. We need to amend the Constitution to prevent Senators from being elected President.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, well substantiated accusations haven't shaken the faith of the faithful Trumpeteers in their hero.

Can't argue with that.

Spetulhu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Part of it is culture, US politics has always placed a strong emphasis on being civil. The second part is Clinton herself, she's made a decision that she won't get too bogged down in attacks on Trump directly.
The last part is that while a person might look very clever if they take on another clever person and win a point on some technical detail, it would be very hard to challenge the idiocy that comes out of Trump's mouth and not look like an idiot.

All good points. A last one might be that Hillary doesn't need to strike Trump down verbally because he's doing a perfectly good job of hanging himself. If she went on the attack over his blunt comments she'd look like the schoolyard bully pushing poor slow Donnie into a ditch.

Who was it, that while talking about an enemy general, said 'we can't kill him, they might replace him with somebody competent!'

Also, with a month to go to the election, there's no 'knock out punch.' It's over when the votes are counted. So you get your opponent to do the worst thing possible - be mediocre. He achieved nothing more than ingratiating himself in deeper with the people already voting for him, which as the polls show is a losing strategy.

Clinton might not have done anything breath taking, but why take risks when you're ahead, and your opponent continues to shoot himself in the foot?