I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BOTTOM IS • US presidential elections part VIII

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/08/16/why-arent-americans-more-infuriated/

hooray for html tag/font abuse

And for bad analogies.

If there was actually a thorough investigation of the contest, the allegations in that post would fall apart. Laurits makes sure to write - in bold - that the mails are from January to May, to make it seem as if the DNC were cheating from the beginning, but every mail in the Snopes article linked is from April at the earliest, that is, after it was pretty obvious that Sanders was losing, and after Sanders had begun claiming DNC and Hillary were colluding. As a matter of fact, the very first incriminating email is from Debbie Wasserman Schultz writing an email about Sanders conceding, sent after the New York primary and the ACELA primaries, where really, he had not a chance in hell.

Also, the mails are from the period where Sanders had already declared war on the DNC. For instance, some are from when the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party were receiving death threats over lies which Sanders then went public and repeated. I'm not surprised that people in the DNC would try and discredit what the Sanders camp were saying in that situation, and that does not mean they were pro-Hillary.

For anyone wanting daily reassurance from the polls, Princeton Electoral Consortium have now decided to switch to a low-variability model, as this election cycle looks just as partisan and stable as any since the mid-'90s. This has the effect of narrowing their banding, so now a Clinton win is at 91% (random drift) / 95% (Bayesian). EV estimate at 341-197.

The consensus seems to be that the national polls are narrowing a bit, but the state-level polling isn't shifting.

Meantime in randomness

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/anti-trump-operatives-targeted-in-online-catfishing-scheme-227288

here's where Trump's $100,000 donation to the flooding victims went:

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/donald-trumps-donation-to-louisiana-flood-victims-actually-went-to-an-anti-gay-hate-group/25798/

An anti gay-hate group?

no you guys don't get it, "an anti-gay hate group" is the name of his dog. typical MSM distortion, sad!

Oh...my god. That's amazing, and I hope it gets widely reported. The takeaway is either that a) Trump is pretty much a piece of shit or b) Trump is a complete fuck-up (or...possibly both?). I don't see any other way to spin that.

it's not proven yet - that website is not exactly reputable. may have happened but let's wait until someone that isn't Occupy Democrats or CoolLiberalOpinionz4U runs it: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-donated-100k-la/

It's pretty amazing to me how he can't seem to do anything right - he goes to the floodsite despite explicitly being asked not to, spends less than a minute handing out something they don't need, and has his entire donation go to ONE GUY who happens to be rich already. But at least he's not GOLFING!!!

All about the optics. It's what you look like you're doing and the volume at which you say things that matter.

Yeah, I don't want to smear the name of the good people at, ah, dailynewsbin, but the evidence seems to be the the "group called the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church" is actually a church, made of baptists, based in oh you get the idea.

Feels before reals though

My stepmother, who knows Louisiana far better than I do, claims Livingston Parish (where most flooding occurred) is the spiritual home of the modern KKK in Louisiana. So it doesn't surprise me at all that Trump's money went to a hate group.

joe biden is having sex with hillary clinton

that's what's in the emails

pictures please

it's an open secret in washington

Not that Hilary Clinton, though. The other one. The one you're not supposed to know about.

"Hay baby,

Sry for concussion last night (thought my Ford Focus had more room).

Love

J-Biddy"

My former neighbor was from just outside Livingston Parish. She and her even more elderly mother were wonderful people, every single one of their relatives I met was a casual racist and homophobe in a way that I'd never encountered in real life.

lol trump going to dp just like Obama only more bigly ??

“The first thing we’re gonna do, if and when I win, is we’re gonna get rid of all the bad ones. We have gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country…they’re gonna be out of this country so fast your head will spin. We have existing laws that allow you to do that. As far as everybody else, we’re going to go through the process. What people don’t know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country. Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I’m going to do the same thing.”

but i thought he was going to have a whole task force and shit. Seems like the current policies are working pretty fucking well

Indication 842 that Trump has no desire to be president: 'if and when I win'.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/8/21/donald-trump-makes-flood-relief-donation-tony-perkinss-church

Perkins was directly affected by the floods as well, as his home in the area was severely damaged

well I guess there's some justice in the world

fornication is a sin? how'd they all get here then

Basters, presumably.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/01/flowchart/4385fa530.png

A former student wrote this thing: http://www.refinery29.com/2016/08/120425/young-republican-woman-latina-undecided-voter-essay

Lakoff takes a swing at deconstructing Trump's particular style.

don't feel very sorry for that former student of yours.

it's like she just stayed in her own room all the time and never looked to see who she was roommates with

I love how she dropped "Benghazi" and we were all supposed to go "Yep."

i hope you gave her terrible grades

i hope she earned terrible grades through her own choices and a fair assessment of the quality of her work

like Hillary

I just saw (heard) the Hillary clip where she sarcastically says "We've already released 30,000 e-mails, what's a few more?" (one of the late-night talk shows, I assume). No matter whether you think there's nothing there, or how exasperated she may feel, she's not doing herself any favors creating soundbites like that--sounded awful.

there's no bigotry of low expectations for her anymore, kids

I don't know, I'm sure that's calculated -- she's playing to the people who are sick of hearing about it or never cared much about the email thing to begin with.

how could anyone not be sick of hearing it? you've gotta be really committed to hating her to keep up yr adrenaline about emails + servers for months + months

gotta say it's been amusing watching the entire alt-right become experts on email servers overnight

(xposts) I don't disagree, but even the little bit of Foundation stuff that's leaked out, it's a little bit unseemly. Some percentage of her support is soft (5-10%?), and I'm guessing such voters are turned off by such answers. They won't vote for Trump, but maybe there's a point where they'll stay home.

btw, is there a thread for how bad FiveThirtyEight is fading? So disappointing

is it?

even the little bit of Foundation stuff that's leaked out, it's a little bit unseemly

LOL

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/how-your-anti-clinton-sausage-gets-made

This WaPo headline is truly a masterpiece of bullshit:

Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.

If you actually read the story, it shows is that Clinton Foundation donors would email Huma Abedin asking to meet with Hillary Clinton to ask for favors. They mostly didn’t get meetings and never got the favors — in other words, there’s not only not a scandal there’s not even a story. But since Hillary Clinton’s “close aide” did answer some emails and I suppose you could call that “access,” the headline is technically accurate. In conclusion, Donald Trump’s campaign is a massive grift operation and people email Hillary Clinton’s assistants so Both Sides Do It.

Wouldn't change a word. The fact that they "mostly didn’t get meetings" means that occasionally they got meetings. And I think that will strike some people as a little bit unseemly. Maybe, as most of you seem to be convinced of, some people means a percentage of voters so insignificant that sarcasm is a wise and effective strategy. I don't think it is.

among fringe voters i think she probably benefits from downplaying it tbh

"We've already released 30,000 e-mails, what's a few more?" (one of the late-night talk shows, I assume).