The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[Q99]

My view on Hillary's Hawkishness/Dovishness- She is obviously no Dove, and leans closer to hawk than not, but 'warhawk' is a big stretch. Some.... bird in between those two, like a Swan- a Swan will mess you up, but it doesn't have a need to hunt.

[K. A. Pital]

A more appropriate term for both candidates and their rich buddies would be vultures.

Devourers of the dead.

[Lost Soal]

Just a stray thought: There's been a lot of rhetoric from Trump's camp about how the the election is illegitimate, egged on by Trump himself declaring he'd accept the results if he won (with converse left unsaid). But if Trump wins, will Clinton supporters accept his victory as a legitimate, given Russian interference and now Comey's inconvenient timing?

I won't accept a Donnie Douchebag presidency because Rape, tax evasion, and inciting violence are all high crimes. Not to mention his being Putins taint-licker. He's clearly an Oligarch who wants to turn America into an Oligarchy.

Considering how many times he's already stiffed vendors and now he's refusing to pay one of his former pollsters, just how many times does he have to do this before it stops being a civil matter through claims court and becomes a deliberate pattern of fraud and a criminal matter?

[The Romulan Republic]

Its amazing that Trump hasn't landed in prison yet.

Well, unless you're cynical enough to just accept that rich people are generally above the law.

[Tribun]

I'm starting to lose all hope.

Seeing how Trump's absurd power boost goes further with each day (I still honestly have no idea what the hell is going on) and he's only a little short of 270 now at 538, I simply can't find anything to see the positives. New Hampsire is down to 3.0 and the uncertaincy in that state about the numbers is absurdly high. Even formerly safe states become weaker.

Is the US really that sick, or just plain masochistic? Or are most of the pollsters simply not that good? (I ask, because demoscopy is really good in my country)

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm starting to lose all hope.

Seeing how Trump's absurd power boost goes further with each day (I still honestly have no idea what the hell is going on) and he's only a little short of 270 now at 538, I simply can't find anything to see the positives. New Hampsire is down to 3.0 and the uncertaincy in that state about the numbers is absurdly high. Even formerly safe states become weaker.

Is the US really that sick, or just plain masochistic? Or are most of the pollsters simply not that good? (I ask, because demoscopy is really good in my country)

As someone who has often been accused of being alarmist, let me tell you:

You are being ridiculous.

Is it possible that Trump could win? Yes. Is that cause for concern and disgust? Yes.

Is it time to write off the election? Hell no. Most polls and projections still seem to favour Clinton. You're looking at fivethirtyeight? Okay. Even if we give Trump every single state that is leaning even slightly red in any of their models (Nevada is still leaning blue in Polls-only, and Nevada, Florida, and NC are all very close), then Trump is still only at 265 Electoral College votes. He needs 270.

Nothing else is really close to flipping. The closest seems to be New Hampshire, and that's at 68.6% chance to go Democrat in Polls-only.

By no means should we assume a Clinton victory. But their is a difference between taking it seriously, and the kind of defeatism that could demoralize Democrats, drive down turnout, and potentially become a self-fulfilling prophecy if it happens on a large scale.

Ultimately, their are four states that are basically tossups in fivethirtyeight's projections. Trump would have to win Every. Single. One. To get an Electoral College tie.

Edit: This is also assuming that the polls and projections are not underestimating Clinton due to the Democrats' superior get out the vote organization, although their's mixed information on weather high turnout is favouring Democrats or Republicans.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you're concerned, then I suggest that you make sure to vote if you haven't yet, and if you have, do everything you can to encourage your friends, family, coworkers, etc. to vote.

[Tribun]

If you're concerned, then I suggest that you make sure to vote if you haven't yet, and if you have, do everything you can to encourage your friends, family, coworkers, etc. to vote.

Since I'm watching the whole thing as a foreigner from the outside, I'm left with hoping for the best.

It's not that I'm thinking all is decided, but the constant flow of bad news is starting to take its toll on me.

[Iroscato]

If you're concerned, then I suggest that you make sure to vote if you haven't yet, and if you have, do everything you can to encourage your friends, family, coworkers, etc. to vote.

Since I watching the whole thing as a foreigner, I'm left with hoping for the best.

It's not that I'm thinking all is decided, but the constant flow of bad news is starting to take its toll on me.

Stop listening to the news as much then.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you're concerned, then I suggest that you make sure to vote if you haven't yet, and if you have, do everything you can to encourage your friends, family, coworkers, etc. to vote.

Since I'm watching the whole thing as a foreigner from the outside, I'm left with hoping for the best.

It's not that I'm thinking all is decided, but the constant flow of bad news is starting to take its toll on me.

Fair enough.

Its horrible that its close. And given how much Clinton's numbers have slipped in the past several days, I can understand worrying that five more days will be enough to give Trump a clear lead.

But the fact is, he isn't likely to flip that last state or two that he needs to win, at least if you go by fivethirtyeight, and some states where he is or may be leading are very, very close. And Clinton already pulled in quite a few votes in early voting before the recent string of bad news, so that's something as well.

My biggest concern is not Trump having more support, but that it'll be close enough for Trump/Russia to engage in voter fraud successfully, or for voter suppression/intimidation to decide the result. Or, if not that, for Trump to spend months leaving the result in limbo due to court challenges and recounts (like Florida 2000).

[The Romulan Republic]

Although I will reiterate that it is entirely possible that polls are underestimating Clinton's turnout.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting piece from Nate Silver on Clinton's chances, which seems to boil down to "She has a better chance than Trump, but we really don't know."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/el ... -election/

Hillary Clinton, like President Obama four years ago, has spent a lot of time with a chance of winning the election that is somewhere between 60 and 80 percent in our forecast. Right now, she’s squarely in the middle of that range, with a 68 percent chance according to our polls-only model and 67 percent according to polls-plus.

I’ve found that probabilities in the 70 percent range can be especially difficult to write about, because there’s the possibility of a misinterpretation in either direction. On the one hand, in a 70-30 race, you can usually cherry-pick your way to calling the race a tossup without that much effort, even when it really isn’t. We often saw that occur in 2012, when reporters and commentators consistently characterized the election as too close to call despite a fairly steady lead for Obama in swing-state polls.

On the other hand, a 70-30 race indicates that the bulk of the evidence lines up on one side of the case — in this case, that Clinton rather than Donald Trump will probably be elected president. But people can get carried away, dismiss contradictory evidence, and take a 70 percent chance to be far more of a sure thing than it really is. This year, we’ve spent a lot more time pushing back against people who seem to think Clinton has the race in the bag than we did with Obama in 2012, even though the chances of both have been similar. For most of the election, our model has seen the race as being more uncertain than in 2012, and has therefore given a better chance to the underdog (Trump) than other statistical models have. I suspect we’ve also been more bullish on Trump’s chances than the conventional wisdom has — or at least the conventional wisdom in the BosNYWash corridor — although that’s harder to quantify.1
Wednesday was one of those glass-half-empty, glass-half-full days, where the same data — and there was a lot of it, with dozens of new swing-state polls — could be looked at in very different ways. On the one hand, if you thought the race was a toss-up (as some national tracking polls have it) the data convincingly argued otherwise, with Clinton holding onto leads in her “firewall” states, which are sufficient to win the Electoral College. On the other hand, Clinton’s leads are narrower than they were a few weeks ago, and any further tightening — or a modest polling error in Trump’s favor — could put her campaign in jeopardy. Furthermore, there’s a lot of disagreement in the polls, which speaks to the uncertainty in the race.

Here’s all the data — every swing-state poll we’ve added since yesterday’s Election Update — in handy chart form. It includes the latest editions of the state tracking polls from SurveyMonkey and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (which are conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, an affiliate of Rasmussen Reports).

silver-election-update-1102-micah
The good news for Clinton jumps out in the chart. She led in seven of eight live-caller polls — and 22 of 23 polls overall — in the states within her firewall.

But some of her leads are tenuous, especially in Pennsylvania and — although the polls wildly disagree there — Michigan. And now and then a poll will crop up showing Trump competitive or even leading in a state Clinton thought she’d put to rest: There was one such poll today in Virginia, for example. That’s not to say Trump is likely to win Pennsylvania or (especially) Virginia. But he only needs to break through in one state to broach Clinton’s firewall, whether in Pennsylvania or Michigan or New Hampshire or Colorado.

Outside her firewall, meanwhile, Clinton isn’t assured of much of anything. She got a bad set of polls in Nevada today, for example, and Florida and North Carolina are so close that Florida was split exactly 50-50 in a set of 10,000 simulations we ran at one point today. (There’s an 8 percent chance of a recount in Florida or another decisive state, incidentally.2) So if Clinton were to fail in any of her firewall states, she doesn’t have particularly reassuring backup options.

Overall, the swing-state polls were about in line with what the model expected. Clinton’s win probability fell slightly on the day, in fact, although it was as a result of her continuously mediocre numbers in national tracking polls. The state polls were a wash in our model.

What’s harder to tell is whether Trump is still gaining ground, the race has stabilized, or if Clinton has even begun to rebound slightly. After several very good days of polling for Trump, today’s numbers were more equivocal. And remember that there’s a lag between a news event, when a state is polled, and when those polls hit our forecast. For example, if Clinton got especially bad numbers on Friday and Saturday after the FBI story broke, but has since recovered, we might not discover it until this weekend.

[Q99]

A more appropriate term for both candidates and their rich buddies would be vultures.

Devourers of the dead.

Trump yes, Hillary heck no. She doesn't get credit for all that she does.

Primary supplier of HIV medicine to poor people in developing country? Clinton Foundation.

The amount of lives saved is *considerable*.

[FireNexus]

The press conference yesterday got cancelled due to death threats. I've seen suggestions that the circumstances surrounding this suit lower its credibility. The "will they or won't they" nature of the going public makes me frustrated, though.

I understand it's hard. I've had a similar "you're not the only one on the line" conversation with a personal relation whose experience with abuse went unreported and potentially put others at risk of abuse from the perpetrator. The conversation went poorly. I can't imagine adding death threats to the list is going to make it any easier. And those I buy regardless of the veracity of the accusations.

It just bugs me. Lots of people could be endangered if this man gets what he wants. You speaking out could stop him. Even if you were certain you'd die immediately, there does exist at least some obligation to do it. Am I just being selfish? I don't know. That was a hard discussion, the personal one, for me too. And this whole situation brings it back.

[Tsyroc]

Since some Republicans have already come out about the possibility of impeaching Clinton over the server/email stuff if she wins. I would expect that Trump should expect to be impeached if his Trump U and other legal troubles continue and he becomes President.

Out and out fraud seems like it would be a more difficult thing to weasel out from under than violating national security because while trying to preemptively cover your ass from endless bullshit.

So how do we feel about either VP candidate becoming the next president fairly early in the term?

[FireNexus]

Trump will not be impeached. Paul Ryan already has a tenuous grip on power and a demonstrated moral cowardice. He'll ride that baby all the way home, Ttump grabbing him by the pussy the whole time. Same goes for most other Republicans. They won't accelerate the demise of their party for morals or rational self-interest. If they would, an actual Never Trump revolt would have materialized.

They're exactly the kind of opportunistic, amoral cowards they have successfully painted Clinton as in the mind of the general public. Even the people who see it in them have been convinced of it, if only by her association with them. Clinton will be impeached, Trump won't. Doing it to her will go down in history as one of the dumbest things they've ever done. But they'll do it.

[FireNexus]

Though I should say i'd be happy with Kaine becoming president by means other than impeachment. I honestly believe he'd be a very difficult incumbent for a 2020 GOP challenger to dethrone. Where he shares Clintonian weaknesses, they're at a reduced intensity. He has a public image as honest and kind that Clinton would kill for. He has a position on abortion that even evangelicals could grudgingly get behind.

If something (heaven forbid) were to happen to Clinton, I could see him having a Teddy Roosevelt moment and breaking out as a political rockstar nationwide. If she was impeached and removed, he would be an empty suit, though.

[Q99]

The press conference yesterday got cancelled due to death threats. I've seen suggestions that the circumstances surrounding this suit lower its credibility. The "will they or won't they" nature of the going public makes me frustrated, though.

I understand it's hard. I've had a similar "you're not the only one on the line" conversation with a personal relation whose experience with abuse went unreported and potentially put others at risk of abuse from the perpetrator. The conversation went poorly. I can't imagine adding death threats to the list is going to make it any easier. And those I buy regardless of the veracity of the accusations.

It just bugs me. Lots of people could be endangered if this man gets what he wants. You speaking out could stop him. Even if you were certain you'd die immediately, there does exist at least some obligation to do it. Am I just being selfish? I don't know. That was a hard discussion, the personal one, for me too. And this whole situation brings it back.

This is someone facing prior lasting trauma. This is *very hard* even without the death threats.

I want it to happen, there's no blow as great that any of us could strike, but I understand why and it is very much her call.

Though I also want to say, "If you do this, I would step forward and be your bodyguard for life," (lack of bodyguard training notwithstanding)

[Ralin]

Trump yes, Hillary heck no. She doesn't get credit for all that she does.

Primary supplier of HIV medicine to poor people in developing country? Clinton Foundation.

The amount of lives saved is *considerable*.

Bear in mind that Stas is basically opposed to anything that helps the poor or makes people's lives better if it undermines his "Hate capitalism and rich people!" shtick.

[The Romulan Republic]

And people ask why victims do not come forward, and say they must be lying because they waited to speak up.

It must be hard enough to face coming forward about being abused under any circumstances. But to attempt to expose a man who is not only a narcissistic, vindictive bully with a habit of suing his critics, but has vast wealth and influence, legions of often violent followers, and may be a week away from being elected the most powerful man on Earth?

How many of us would ever have the courage to face that?

[K. A. Pital]

Trump yes, Hillary heck no. She doesn't get credit for all that she does.

Primary supplier of HIV medicine to poor people in developing country? Clinton Foundation.

The amount of lives saved is *considerable*.

Bear in mind that Stas is basically opposed to anything that helps the poor or makes people's lives better if it undermines his "Hate capitalism and rich people!" shtick.

I am sure the Goldman Sachs folks are so laughing at the gullible now.

[Flagg]

The press conference yesterday got cancelled due to death threats. I've seen suggestions that the circumstances surrounding this suit lower its credibility. The "will they or won't they" nature of the going public makes me frustrated, though.

I understand it's hard. I've had a similar "you're not the only one on the line" conversation with a personal relation whose experience with abuse went unreported and potentially put others at risk of abuse from the perpetrator. The conversation went poorly. I can't imagine adding death threats to the list is going to make it any easier. And those I buy regardless of the veracity of the accusations.

It just bugs me. Lots of people could be endangered if this man gets what he wants. You speaking out could stop him. Even if you were certain you'd die immediately, there does exist at least some obligation to do it. Am I just being selfish? I don't know. That was a hard discussion, the personal one, for me too. And this whole situation brings it back.

This is someone facing prior lasting trauma. This is *very hard* even without the death threats.

I want it to happen, there's no blow as great that any of us could strike, but I understand why and it is very much her call.

Though I also want to say, "If you do this, I would step forward and be your bodyguard for life," (lack of bodyguard training notwithstanding)

And Iiiiiiiiiiiiii E-Iiiiiiiii will always love yooooouuuuuuu...

But seriously, I wonder if the gamergate fucksticks are the same people supporting Rapist Donnie Douchebag and engaging in death threats.

[FireNexus]

This is someone facing prior lasting trauma. This is *very hard* even without the death threats.

I want it to happen, there's no blow as great that any of us could strike, but I understand why and it is very much her call.

Though I also want to say, "If you do this, I would step forward and be your bodyguard for life," (lack of bodyguard training notwithstanding)

Think we can generate enough money from a gofundme to hire her permanent security in exchange for coming out before the election? I know it is very hard. I don't know how hard because I've never been in that circumstance. But the personal relation in question couldn't be persuaded to budge. And the at risk parties were not so abstract as one's fellow Americans in that case.

I feel bad for her, but I hope she overcomes her fear. Someone on record on camera accusing him might be just what we need to make sure he never gets near a nuclear football.

[FireNexus]

Actually, given the nature of this allegation, there seems to be at least some chance that this woman doesn't even exist. I get people are reluctant to come forward, but this whole thing is to a comical extent. All the reality TV producer BS just makes it weird.

[Patroklos]

And people ask why victims do not come forward, and say they must be lying because they waited to speak up.

It must be hard enough to face coming forward about being abused under any circumstances. But to attempt to expose a man who is not only a narcissistic, vindictive bully with a habit of suing his critics, but has vast wealth and influence, legions of often violent followers, and may be a week away from being elected the most powerful man on Earth?

How many of us would ever have the courage to face that?

Yes, life for Brodrick under the long Clinton shadow has been and will be hard, no doubt.