It is unfortunate that "all the pundits" are now saying that Clinton will now win no matter what, and that Trump will likely suffer more scandal before the end of the process.
This is unfortunate because a weak get out the vote effort is probably worth a couple of points on election day. It is unfortunate because some Trump scandals increase, rather than decrease, his numbers. He could suddenly gain a couple of points if he says or does just the wright/wrong things. It is unfortunate because, for whatever reason, Hillary "My Middle Name is Target" Clinton has turned into the Teflon Candidate for now, but that won't stick, as it were, for more than a day or two. Then Wikileaks, weak as it is, or some other issue, will come into play and knock two points off of her numbers.
It is unfortunate because the difference between Clinton and Trump is now between about 5 and 7 points, and 2 + 2 + 2 = 6.
Do the math. This race is not over.
In order to give some idea of the magnitude of things like the post-sexual-assault-revelations Trump Slump, or the conventions, or a given debate, in relation to the overall shifts of numbers across this race, I mad this chart, using RCP's national polling averages, and adding in some key moments from the campaign:
While Clinton has always been ahead, on average, she has not always been that far ahead, and was, in fact, father ahead at various points in the past than she is now. In other words, for all the talk about BusTapeGate and debate performances, Clinton has not pulled out ahead of Trump father than she has been in the past. If you look at this graph, you do not see a clear breakout. And, if you look at the MOST current version from RCP, as I write this, the blue line on top is dropping (those data came in while I was drawing this graphic, and I did not adjust). See that earlier peak in September for Clinton? The current peak is starting to look like that.
So, no, this is not over, and it is not wise to insist that it is.
"Couple of points"??? More than that...
I prefer "GropeGate." It feels better to me. ;)
So.... when Trump asked people to murder Clinton, his approval rating increased....
Desertphile: Yes, it does seem that happened or at least, they did not go down suddenly because of an outrageous thing he said.
Trump says he is going to have the mother of one man killed in Benghazi in the audience tonight, as well as some other "surprises" for Hillary. It seems he has given up even the pretense of debating. I hate to think how bad it could get, and hope my imagination presents things worse than what will actually occur.
I'm not going to watch. I have an online session with some students in my Data Science class tonight, and after that I will probably sit back with my dog, a scotch (a double, at least), my favorite fountain pen and boys's journals to make entries, and the Cubs on tv, wondering how the hell we ever got to this place politically and socially.
I'm torn on this. On one hand you're doing what Democrats do in general (I don't know if you consider that a Democrat, but this aspect fits) of worrying incessantly even when you're winning. And we worry for good reasons, but we don't have the blind-to-reality machismo certainty projected by Republicans.
On the other hand I agree that, even if there's factual basis to say so, it's dangerous to be saying "it's all over" when it's not all over and we need every vote to count. No one should rest easy right now.
Trump says he is going to have the mother of one man killed in Benghazi
I wouldn't be surprised. But I doubt he has them sent to Benghazi. Jersey, maybe.
Erik! He didn't say “it’s all over” -- he said (twice) "it's not over".
It's not. Vote. VOTE. VOTE!
I wouldn’t be surprised. But I doubt he has them sent to Benghazi. Jersey, maybe.
That catch made me chuckle Brainstorms. Thanks.
The Hillary organizers I've been hanging out with are emphasizing that Democrats need to GOTV not just for Her but for the House and Senate (not a problem this year in MI) and the rest of the down ballot. . I think this is a common focus of the campaign so hopefully that will result in a good turnout.
Dean, you sounded like you needed a pick-me-up. Glad to help out there...
I would think that Mrs. Clinton could make a great step forward in becoming the first female President of the USA by presenting herself as the best President for all Americans, with an emphasis on 'all'. In the Dutch quality paper NRC of 19 October 2016 the connection between Mr. Trump and alt-right and all 'its racial implications of promoting the delusion of 'white supremacy' as the upper truth' has been analyzed in depth. It would be a good deed of Mrs. Clinton to expose this. Trump is the best guarantee of transforming the USA into a failed society and collapsed world-leader in the present future. If Mr. Trump becomes President the world will turn into more turmoil. Wisdom is required. Laren NH, Thursday 20th. October 2016, 0.34 AM Dutch time.
1. Ecuador has cut Assange's internet connection.
2. The Democrats have a well-organized turnout operation. Trump doesn't.
3. The polls flutter a lot, but the trend has been in Clinton's favor.
4. But yes, no matter how good the polls look, vote. Considering climate change and the Supreme Court, the bigger the Democratic victory, the better.
We really, really NEED the Senate, too. Hillary will be hamstrung (as Obama is now) without it.
Best if we can gain back the House, too, but that's almost pie-in-the-sky now.
But if Trump the Destroyer of Hope keeps "burning the lifeboats" over the next two weeks, who knows?
VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.
If Clinton loses, which I'm confident will not happen, but if she does...
It will be because she ran a campaign of "not Trump" rather than running on something. If I were there, I'd likely stay home, or vote for a 3rd party, even if that was in a close state, because there's no way I could bring myself to vote for Hillary.
I'm sure there's a lot of people like me down there, and that could be the difference in one or two close races.
Only because of the state of the supreme court down there do I hope Hillary wins. That's guaranteed lasting damage if Trump gets in. Otherwise, I think a Trump victory would actually be good for the democrats and country long term by making them face the fact that they actually have to stand for something their base can vote for.
That's odd, because if you watched last night's debate, Trump offered nothing of substance on every question - only complaints mixed with endless accusations and conspiracy theories aimed at himself.
Clinton, on the other hand, answered almost every question, providing thoughtful responses that indicated a depth of understanding, ownership of responsibility, and outlines of plans to tackle the various problems and issues we're facing as a nation now.
It was anything but a campaign of "not Trump".
According to a segment on Danmarks Radio's morning news show, both candidates spoke for an equal amount of time, but Clinton's answers were longer and more substantive.
In the Times David Leonhardt called the absence of questions on climate change "a failure of journalism."
But yes, no matter how good the polls look, vote. Considering climate change and the Supreme Court, the bigger the Democratic victory, the better.
I'll paraphrase Conan's answer to the question of what the best thing in life is: To crush the Republicans, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their campaign staff.
I'll take "hearing the lamentations of defeated Republican congress members." Please. Vote.
"So…. when Trump asked people to murder Clinton, his approval rating increased…."
Though Trump supporters here insist that the only incitement to violence is from Hilary Clinton, and for some reason they don't think this a reason to vote for her...
"1. Ecuador has cut Assange’s internet connection."
That's an assumption.
What's necessary is that his accounts for email, FB, twitter and so on are blocked, so that he can't verifiably converse via the internet.
And all that requires is strong-arming the corporations that control access.
"So…. when Trump asked people to murder Clinton, his approval rating increased…."
He DID NOT ask people to murder Clinton anymore than Clinton asked people to murder Obama in 2008 (twice).
"He DID NOT ask people to murder Clinton anymore than Clinton asked people to murder Obama in 2008 (twice)."
Kevin, were you just afraid people would forget what an idiot you are? Is that why you posted that?
That’s an assumption.
No it isn't. Ecuador has officially admitted that they have cut off Assange's access to the internet via their London embassy's internal network.
He may still have access from a smartphone, if he has one with a paid-up account and he can get a signal in the embassy. No guarantee that all three of those things are true. Wikileaks is also free to operate without Assange, if they choose.
There was a report that Assange was allegedly grooming an underage girl online, but that appears to have been based on a single source and not confirmed.
"" That’s an assumption."
No it isn’t. Ecuador has officially admitted"
Fair enough, last I heard, and that was only yesterday, it was unstated who did it, but lots were going "Gaaah, Assange is just an ASSHAT!!! HOW can it be POSSIBLY true??!?!?".
Blocking email/twitter/fb/blahblah was not considered because these people KNOW that Assange is making shit up, and they just want to see evidence that they're right.
"Kevin, were you just afraid people would forget what an idiot you are? Is that why you posted that?"
After Obama had a large lead, but had yet to clinch the nomination, Hillary was asked why she was still running. She responded;
well, its a long campaign, remember Bobby Kennedy.
When it was pointed out that that comment sounded like she was advocating the killing of Obama, she shrugged it off. 2 weeks later, she was asked the same question, and again gave the same answer.
How is that not the same thing Trump sis?
@Kevin: There is a difference between pointing out the theoretical possibility that something could happen, and actually encouraging that thing to happen.
The former was what Clinton did: she correctly pointed out that RFK, then a leading contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination, was assassinated in June 1968. The Secret Service is supposed to prevent things like that from happening, but they are not always successful: there were two assassination attempts against Ford (both shooters missed) and one against Reagan (who was injured), and that's just incidents I can name without resorting to Google. Granted that no such incident occurred with Obama during the 2008 primary campaign, but that's hindsight.
Donald Trump advocated "second amendment solutions" to prevent Hillary's judicial nominees from taking office. There are ways to interpret that as other than advocating Hillary's assassination, but they imply a call for assassinating somebody, whether it's Hillary's voters or Hillary's nominees. It's a direct call to violent action of some kind.
Thanks for answering my question about you.
Hillary's comment was, essentially, "don't count your chickens before they're hatched, remember what happened when..."
without suggesting any positive benefit or further urging.
Trump's comment went past that, based on the (100% false) accusation that Hillary wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment and saying that perhaps there is something the 2nd amendment supporters can do.
Do try to keep up.
I'm not one of those "they are equally as bad" people. No question how horrible Trump is. So when I say long term good, I also imply short term harm. (Which is why the Supreme Court is such a problem... it lasts a long time)
Clinton is an experienced leader that has done a lot, and yes, she has some answers but they aren't really that great. If there was a capable opponent that republicans could get behind she'd be getting her rear end kicked.
Sure, she answers questions better than Trump, but that doesn't make her answers good, let alone good for the country.
What is her stand on Fracking? On fixing inequality? On cleaning up problems with Wall Street? Her private stand on the TPP? On prison reform? When she has to choose between bailing out a million people or bailing out a few billionaires, who do you think she'll pick?
She is not a good candidate for 99% of Americans.
Steve, you're confusing Hillary with someone like Mitch McConnell... Best read up on who these people actually are, not who their enemies claim them to be.
The third television debate (being held on 19 October 2016) between both running candidates for the presidential office proved Trump being a narcist, uncapable of becoming a suited President of the USA. In July, August this year my wife and I traveled in Ontario, (Toronto, Ottawa, Sault St. Marie and so on). The journey brought us into contact with many Canadians on diverse meetings, whom we met at random. All of them concerned people of various spectres of life. What they taught us is a well based concern of USA´s and world´s future with Trump as President. Some Canadians uttered a sertious thought of getting tens of thousands of new Canadian, namely former US citizens applying for Canadian citizenship after Trump supposedly having become President of the USA. With some distance looking at the present conditions of the USA, compared to those of Canada, I would not be surprised if (in the far?) future some northern states of the USA would leave the US-Union and become provinces of Canada. The souls of USA and Canada compared: Canada is much more civilized and has a better safety and caring policy for the common good of the multitude and wellbeing of all, compared to these basic 'raisons d'etat' of the USA. Compared with dogs, the USA is more a wild, hungry pittbul, and Canada is a vigilant Pyrenean Bergdog. Under Trump the unsound dog, being today´s USA would become bezark, under Clinton the USA could get more and more the characteristics of a very balanced Pyrenean bergdog. Needless to say what kind of dog most people prefer. Laren NH, Friday 21 October 2016
You have a severe bias problem if you think that Hillary will go progressive on any of the items I mentioned. The only one there that might not go corporate america's way is TPP, and that's only because she was forced into publicly opposing it to prevent losing the primary to Sanders. There will be a push to get that passed before she can be confirmed though.
Recall that Obama also came in 8 years ago as a progressive, and has since accomplished the following:
increased surveillance/police state
passed a formerly Republican health care plan that has enriched insurance companies (though to be fair, has increased coverage)
allowed wall street execs to go completely unpunished for almost taking down the world economy
made GWB tax cuts for wealthy individuals permanent
allowed too big to fail banks to get larger
allowed drug companies to set prices higher in the US than anywhere else in the world
and a significant part of this occurred while democrats also held a majority in the senate.
I look forward to the excuses in 4 years.
You have a severe bias problem if you think that Hillary will go progressive on any of the items I mentioned.
No where on any of these blog posts did say that, or even imply that. Please make your political assertions without involving me.
Similarly, you do not see me making excuses for the Obama administration. I actually agree with you on some of your criticisms...
And while you may be a cynic, I, for one, do NOT look forward to any excuses in 4 years.
God knows we've gotten more than 4 years' worth of excuses regarding Trump in just the last several months.