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

probably also the whole talking down to people shtick that Clinton which you just demonstrated.

that Clinton uses and which you just demonstrated

David Fahrenthold ‏@Fahrenthold 38s38 seconds ago
Sorry for the delay. Editors up in NY. Takes longer for the words to go back and forth.

In what world don't people like Adam and Morbs talk down to people?

Adam, you kind of have this shtick where you act like no one is addressing something you find important, even though they are, and then go completely over the top to (??) prove your point? like I can't decipher some of your posts sometimes because I can't tell from which direction you're being hyperbolic

hey man we are all criticizing each other's speech what a great discussion

like I'm sure part of it is me missing something crucial, but it sometimes feels like an argument against not just a straw man, but a straw man that never showed up

what are you talking about? i am not arguing w anyone. i stated my opinion. i don't think it's better than yours. you can have your opinion too. if that opinion is that my opinion is not valid, then why should i care about your opinion?

the word opinion looks weird now

Clinton getting called out for talking down to people is fair! But half the time it's sarcasm, which is fine in moderation as long as your audience isn't too dumb to get it -- and by using it, you're implying they will get it, so you're treating them as equals or at least people capable of getting it

I'm skeptical of potential impact of fahrenholt's "bombshell". I mean what could possibly damage Trump at this point.

honestly the only thing that could damage him at this point would have to involve pedophilia

hey man we are all criticizing each other's speech what a great discussion

are you just here to make Morbs look good?

i think if there were a few things that got consistent national press attention it would have an effect, it just feels like there are so many threads wrt trump's shittiness that it's just all diffused

the clinton email thing was hammered away at by numerous media outlets where as trump scandals have a little bit here, a little bit there, some more there, but there are so many things to cover that it doesn't have a huge effect

e.g. if the ivana trump testimony in court from that trump raped her and ripped her hair out got consistent national press attention then i think that would affect his standing, haven't really seen anyone but TPM mention that testimony

honestly the only thing that could damage him at this point would have to involve pedophilia

― serge thoroughgoods (will), Monday, September 26, 2016 3:00 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and that story is being circulated in some fringe media circles tbf

xp
Is Ivana still standing by the story? If not, or even if she's "no comment" about it I don't think it'll have an impact.

This is depressing: https://t.co/lx9KjsrkDA 65% of American voters thinks it's unfair to - accurately - portray Trump voters as racist and sexist.

I don't get the "what could damage trump" thing tbh. As far as I can tell, Trump is losing badly, to about the extent one might have guessed for a candidate likely to push nationwide PVI a few points in the +D direction vs 2012.

How is he losing badly?

Clinton’s eyes filled with tears and she said, “It really says I had sex with a collie?”

http://i.imgur.com/QlaiOd2.gifHillary Can't Even Remember if She Had Sex With a Dog - "...I has sex with a collie?" - Disgusting Habit At Least 20 Years Oldhttp://i.imgur.com/QlaiOd2.gif

Ivana can't say shit because her divorce settlement, after all that testimony, was basically a big NDA

those sirens were larger than i anticipated, sorry
xpost

As far as I can tell, Trump is losing badly

um

Come on. Republicans who are going to win the election aren't facing down D spending in states like Georgia, haven't spent the last month and a half on the bad side of every poll aggregator, and have actual campaign organizations.

I am no way a political wonk, but I trust the expertise of Plouffe and it seems that he is losing badly.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

Come on. Republicans who are going to win the election aren't facing down D spending in states like Georgia, haven't spent the last month and a half on the bad side of every poll aggregator, and have actual campaign organizations.

― slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Monday, September 26, 2016 3:15 PM (five minutes ago)

huh

I'm holding out a microsmidgen of hope that there really are people who haven't been paying attention all this time, and are only just tuning in. Or that there are genuinely undecided voters who are genuinely undecided, not simply voting their tribal affiliation.

Low-info voters may have heard that Trump sometimes says mean things. They may have heard his views are controversial. But they may not be aware of his inability to utter coherent English sentences. His lack of mastery of basic facts may also be new news to some. These are things that a debate may demonstrate for people who did not yet know them.

People may not care, of course, but again I'm holding onto a bit of hope.

idk we can hold out hope that he literally poops his pants or something

Trump is "tough on pants", his bowels "tell it like it is"

Trump's shitting schedule "Depends on nothing"

i will shit in my pants and make my pants pay for it

i'm just struggling to reason how people who genuinely love trump aren't total cunts, and essentially unredeemable at this point?

I am no way a political wonk, but I trust the expertise of Plouffe and it seems that he is losing badly.

― Van Horn Street, Monday, September 26, 2016 7:16 PM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I assume the dem's data operation has a much large sample than the 800-650 people these registered and likely voter sample polls are. It seems like such a small sample size but maybe its not? But if it is I can see why the numbers fluctuate so much.

So has anybody come out and accused Silver et al. of actually designing the nowcast models to be overly volatile for the sake of clicks

i will shit in my pants and make my pants pay for it

I would assume that to be part and parcel of shitting your pants and therefore redundant

I guess the better analogy is to shit in someone else's pants and ask them to pay for it

some discussion here: https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/780399287129825281 xxp

shall I post an image

not if it's Trump shitting in Clinton's pants

'Parcel'

The outreach continues: 'Trump Ally Roger Stone Lectures Black Voters: “Trading Your Vote For A Welfare Check, Yes, That Is A Form Of Slavery”'

that there are genuinely undecided voters

this election I suspect that a fairish chunk of voters are still very conflicted about their usual tribal allegiance. there's a lot of queasiness out there, with more of it centered on trump than clinton, but it applies to both of them. while this is different than being genuinely undecided, it makes those voters volatile and hard to predict.

some discussion here: https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/780399287129825281 xxp

― Mordy, Monday, September 26, 2016 3:37 PM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea interesting thread, though im still not clear on why the other prediction markets are hovering around 70% clinton while 538 is (right now) around 53-54% clinton

Clinton's in trouble in the polls because white men are "coming home" to Trump and the GOP in droves. It was bound to happen, but it looks worse after Clinton's convention bump.

A good friend of mine who is a political science professor has pointed out multiple times among various conversations about this election that analysis of election data shows that most people will vote whatever party they've registered as regardless of who the nominee is, to the tune of something like 90% certainty; in his view, the key factor here isn't Clinton wooing undecided voters as much as it is Trump depressing turnout among voters who would normally vote Republican. Going by this and the generally strong foothold Democrats have in the electoral college in several key battleground states, I'm not overly concerned that Trump will actually win the Presidency. What I am concerned about, namely that a Trump candidacy will legitimize a particularly virulent strain of racist thought as acceptable and mainstream to polite conversation, has already happened; my main hope for a Clinton victory is that some effort is put into damage control on that.

wtf is with all these old white people who think all black voters receive government assistance

my friends who volunteered to do door-knocking for the local democrats a few years ago were disappointed when their entire list was registered democrats. their job was to make sure people knew when the vote was, how to get to the polls, absentee ballots, etc

I think they thought they were going to get a list of undecided or unregistered voters and get to do missionary work?

DJP's professor friend otm - this is all gonna be about turnout, Trump is going to depress GOP turnout + aggressive Dem GOTV campaign + favorable electoral map = Clinton wins

xp