I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

they've definitely called Trump a liar fwiw

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/opinion/mr-trumps-applause-lies.html?_r=0

i'm talking news stories, not op pieces

Justin Peters mentioned this example: Mr. Trump twice denigrated America’s generals; suggested he would fire the country’s current military leadership; and insinuated—vaguely, unverifiably and without evidence—that the intelligence officials who recently gave him a classified briefing about threats to the United States had said that the president had flouted their advice.”

so trump released medical records.. of his exam last week by that fucking lunatic doctor bornstein

During the hour-long sit-down with Oz airing Thursday, the show said in a press release that Trump discussed his physical performed last week by physician Dr. Harold Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. Bornstein penned Trump's only medical note last December, declaring his test results "astonishingly excellent."

that is a long sentence for such a short reply

adverbs

Bornstein penned Trump's only medical note last December, declaring only that "This guy fucks."

I wonder how many doctors Trump cycled through until he found one that would just write whatever he told him to write. In addition to the whole prescribing him methamphetamines thing, obv.

I would accept that, I think

xp

David Plouffe:

In essence, Plouffe stated flatly that he thinks Clinton is already very close to winning, because (in his view) Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania are already out of reach for Trump. As Plouffe puts it, this would require Trump to pull off a miraculous string of victories in many battlegrounds — including Ohio and Florida, but also in many others — to win. As Plouffe notes, given all of this, Trump would need historically high Republican turnout and historically low Democratic turnout — and to do better than he currently is among moderates — to win. “I don’t see any evidence of that happening,” Plouffe said. “This comes down to, where is Trump going to pick up ground?”

Then Plouffe said:

“The biggest challenge she’s gonna have is turnout. I think they’ll get there. I really do. But if you look at swing voters — there’s a few more than there are normally — Trump’s not offering them much. He’s got to pull a bunch of people who voted for Obama twice. I think there’s going to be very few of those people around the country.”

Asked what Clinton should be doing to energize African Americans and Latinos, Plouffe expanded on the above point this way:

“Polling is very flawed. Obviously the campaign doesn’t have polling. It’s got massive data samples that then you model. When you allocate out 100 percent of the people who are going to vote, what matters is, how’s the whole electorate going to be allocated. Traditionally Democrats break a little bit later. We certainly saw that in our race. So if you allocate the entire African American and Latino and younger vote, as it’s likely to perform, she’s in better shape. She’s got to make a passionate case, and I think she will.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/14/is-clinton-in-trouble-the-architect-of-the-obama-coalition-explains-why-its-still-hers-to-lose/?utm_term=.657d60dc7c96

Have there been general turnout/interest polls/estimates? I'd have to think this would be an exceptionally low-turnout election given the level of hate there is for both candidates.

Dem turnout is gonna be p high

Polling is very flawed.

Nice to hear this said by an expert political organizer.

Polling is now a staple of media coverage because it appeals to our curiosity about who's ahead, but it is reported as a set of hard numbers with a margin of error when it ought to be reported as a range. iow, where the media now says "the latest polls show X leads Y with 48% to 45%, with 7% undecided and a margin of error of plus or minus 3%", it would be more accurate to say "the latest polls show support for X falls within the range of 45% to 51%, while support for Y falls in the range of 42% to 48%, with as many as 10% or as few as 4% of voters still undecided". But then people would soon learn to tune it out, so they won't go there.

hillary's analytics/big data team seems really sharp to me.. I think they'll see some results there with GOTV. then again I'm a 30something white guy who likes baseball so Im all about data over 'guts' any day.

it would be more accurate to say "the latest polls show support for X falls within the range of 45% to 51%, while support for Y falls in the range of 42% to 48%, with as many as 10% or as few as 4% of voters still undecided"

the fluctuations between the margin of error is the only thing that makes the horse race narrative work right now

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4m4 minutes ago
I need to justify my continued existence and hedge against the outside possibility of looking stupid again.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:58 PM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha it does feel like silver has been doing this constantly

For Obama v. Romney the slick data / microtargeting / organized GOTV stuff was a pretty stark disparity. The result can be read as encouraging, because Obama won comfortably.

On the other hand, you can regard it as discouraging: because Obama's margin of victory was just about precisely in line with the average of public polls, one could reasonably ask whether that stuff made a significant difference.

In any case, rather than concluding they need to bring more ground game or initiate a Nerd Surge, RNC/Trump have apparently concluded that ground game is no longer relevant in the new Age of Orange. Because Twitter; because rallies.

If Clinton's downward slide in national poll averages continues, I don't want to be counting solely on ground game / data to be the decisive factor.

Feel like the Oz thing is overshadowing the Newsweek story about how incredibly fucked Trumps financial entanglements are

The Newsweek story wasn't going to matter anyway, pretty much none of Trump's voters care about this kind of thing

it's amazing, truly nothing matters when it comes to Trump. apparently a few days ago he mentioned he was willing to start a war if someone made a rude gesture towards one of our military ships and the media decided to spend all their time whining that Hillary wasn't completely forthcoming with her health. this country fucking deserves him.

even if the Newsweek story ultimately had no smoking gun we all know that if it was Clinton the media would spent fucking weeks on this

countdown to Trump dissing Powell...

none of Trump's voters care

True. New stories that credibly paint Trump as hip deep in corrupt finances won't change voters who see Trump as 'their guy'. Those stories can affect the undecideds and the highly reluctant moderates whose support is very lukewarm.

even if the Newsweek story ultimately had no smoking gun we all know that if it was Clinton the media would spent fucking weeks on this

― frogbs, Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:01 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And meanwhile in this alternate universe, Trump sees an almost imperceptible dip in his numbers after beheading all of his children onstage and doing a puppet show with their skulls.

I know it's been pointed out in various ways already, but Trump has proven to be a pretty good barometer of a segment of the republican voting population who could give one iota of a fuck about the republican platform. Because they're hateful nihilists who are basically only interested in spectacle and loud noises.

this country fucking deserves him.
yeah i totally give up even stressing about it anymore. Trump is the hero we deserve

'Barometer' is not quite what I mean. 'Radioactive marker' maybe.

Geiger counter.

he did some interview with Pence (CNN?) where he straight up said it was okay for Pence to support the Iraq war since everyone makes mistakes, just that it wasn't okay for Hillary. it's straight up hypocrisy and the media's willingness to let it slide is maddening. practically every time he brings up Clinton he straight up projects his own weaknesses onto her. he's saying "Hillary doesn't have a plan for maternity leave and she never will!" even though her plan has been on her website for months. it's just so strange. I've been convinced for weeks that Hillary would mop the floor with him in a debate, but now I realize, how the hell do you beat this guy?

but Trump has proven to be a pretty good barometer of a segment of the republican voting population who could give one iota of a fuck about the republican platform.

yea it's been funny to see all the people mocking Bernie nonstop cuz "Who's gonna pay for all that??" are now supporting a candidate who wants to spend billions and billions on dumb projects with no benefit. they truly don't give a shit about any of it.

it's even more mind boggling since Trump has a history of dicking over basically everyone who ever trusted in him. he is a proven grifter and scam artist who has somehow been given a pass to say he's donating "tens of millions" to charity despite absolutely zero evidence to back him up. he won't even release the audit letter that he claims is preventing him from showing his returns.

I guess if you're a deeply unhappy person who takes comfort in expressing rage, it makes sense to vote for the candidate whose presidency is most likely to stoke that rage.

how the hell do you beat this guy?

by revealing him as a weak, petulant man-baby

probably yeah. that Atlantic article about it was really good and I'm sure her debate team is doing the best they can. she'll probably do well I'm just afraid she's gonna start coughing and the MSM talks about nothing but that for the rest of the week

the handwringing on this thread is outta control

"If you're elected president, how would you solve X??"

"X wouldn't be an issue anymore if I win, believe me"

"Okay, moving on..."

that's not how the debates are structured

Trump has never been in a one-on-one debate where he has to speak for large chunks of time, he's going to get destroyed

so that will be what sinks him?

Just among voters who don't actively wish to see the extinction of the human race within their lifetime.

no one thing is going to "sink" Trump

his chances for winning are already super-shitty, the debates will make them shittier

the hands i wring are the best hands, amazing hands

yeah he has no ideas and if she riles him up he's gonna explode

like I get that everyone wants to somehow be reassured that there is absolutely positively no way he can win - but that is not a thing that can happen prior to election day. Until votes are cast there will always be some small chance, some bizarre confluence of circumstances, that could produce a Trump victory, which is apparently panic-inducing.

xxp

pretty much any reasonable projection i've seen gives him about a 1 in 3 shot at winning. that's kind of scary tbh

I have almost no faith that the debates are going to expose him in a way that significantly affects his support, not after that Commander in Chief forum, which unequivocally demonstrated his complete inability to form and express a coherent thought about ANYTHING, and yet it was pretty much spun (and received) as a draw.

the 1 in 3 chance is tot down to

1) terror attacks / other disasters btwn now and Nov 8

2) Clinton's fucking unforced errors / transparent phoniness

not after that Commander in Chief forum

nobody watched this. the debates will have a bigger audience. they won't be a nail-in-the-coffin thing (they never are) but they won't be good for him.

pretty much any reasonable projection i've seen gives him about a 1 in 3 shot at winning. that's kind of scary tbh

lol waht this isn't accurate at all given the electoral map and state polls

as noted upthread - what states is he gonna flip from Obama in '12 (hint: none)

1) terror attacks / other disasters btwn now and Nov 8

can't think of any of these that would break in trump's favour rather than hilary's