General Election 2016: Clinton -vs- Trump

[Opti]

Sept 30, 2016 14:55:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I did here today that Clinton was "pulling out of" Ohio.  This was the ever (in)accurate Rush Limbo so I really have no idea what that means, and I just saw that she is going to be in Ohio on Monday.

The manufactured drama machine is busy churning out shit. The initial whine I saw was around Sept. 23 that she was giving up on Ohio simply because she wouldn't be there in the rest of September. I figure it comes from the same stream of OMG press conferences are so important, etc.

[Tennesseer]

Shouldn't Hillary be dead by now?  

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 17:20:39 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Shouldn't Hillary be dead by now?  

She has the plague...probably dropped dead as I typed this.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 30, 2016 18:03:50 GMT -5 @joey said:

Sept 30, 2016 17:20:39 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Shouldn't Hillary be dead by now?  

She has the plague...probably dropped dead as I typed this.

Well no wonder Hillary is pulling out of Ohio.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2016 14:55:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I did here today that Clinton was "pulling out of" Ohio.  This was the ever (in)accurate Rush Limbo so I really have no idea what that means, and I just saw that she is going to be in Ohio on Monday.

what it means is that she didn't have any Ohio visits on her calendar at the time that was posted- which was TRUE.

it is also meaningless.  visiting schedules change BY THE DAY at this time of year.

[steff]

Well Trump said to go look for the porn and they found it.  Unfortunately for him, it's his appearance in a 90's Playboy soft porn video that they found.       Thankfully he's fully dressed thru the entire thing, but he's definitely in the video. 

[dondub]

Couldn't reveal the tiny penis.

[tallguy]

Isn't there a new poll out of Nevada that shows Clinton up six, 44-38?  Or more precisely, that Trump is now down six?  The story I saw was that the previous poll they had done was a 44-42 Clinton lead, so while her support remained steady, his dropped four points.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 4:43:57 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Proof of that is readily available. They nominated Hillary and you can see she's as equally supported by her party as Trump is by his.

As I explained in the same post, Hillary is NOT in the same..... basket.

Agreed... she's in her own basket with her own weighty issues keeping the balloon from rising. (or was that a "handbasket"? Either way she's in one of her own on the same path as Donald.)

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 6:02:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Seriously starting to piss me off how Trump and Hillary are considered 'the same'. It's patently ridiculous. And while I'm not a great fan of Hillary in many ways, this insistance that she's the same as Trump is actually making me support her more vehimently than I ever might have otherwise. 

It is a good thing I'm so preoccupied with house stuff, I'd be losing so many friends with this one. 

The two are definitely different... problem is "different" doesn't necessarily mean "better". This is one of those cases.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 9:12:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 30, 2016 6:02:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Seriously starting to piss me off how Trump and Hillary are considered 'the same'. It's patently ridiculous. And while I'm not a great fan of Hillary in many ways, this insistance that she's the same as Trump is actually making me support her more vehimently than I ever might have otherwise. 

It is a good thing I'm so preoccupied with house stuff, I'd be losing so many friends with this one. 

True.  To consider the two of them in any way the same reflects a SERIOUS lack of perspective.  It is short-sighted to the point of blindness.  Or delusional to the point of pathological.   
That is why there is a long list of major Republican figures who are endorsing, working, or voting for Clinton, and a growing list of conservative newspapers who are endorsing her after never endorsing a Democrat in many years if ever.  

Wonder how you would explain the Democrats that are jumping ship to do the exact same thing for Trump then...

[Deleted]

Can you point out the know democrats, newspapers, etc. who are abandoning the Dems for Trump? 

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 20:29:20 GMT -5 oped said:

Can you point out the know democrats, newspapers, etc. who are abandoning the Dems for Trump? 

Here's a few links for you:


insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/27/new-york-democrat-andrew-stein-supporting-trump-pro-growth-tax-cuts-hillary-clinton-libya

thefederalist.com/2016/09/19/lifelong-democrats-pennsylvania-voting-donald-trump/



If you want more, google them.

[Deleted]

So one then? 

Are you suggesting that the defections are equal in number and caliber? 

[djAdvocate]

we had a THIRD poll today that showed Clinton +6% from the last one: FOX. 

i am upping my estimate of how much Clinton benefitted from her performance from between 1 and 4% to between 2 and 4%.  if that is correct, she will end up at +5% +/-1% over Trump, which would put her back near where she was in the first part of August.

i will have another update tomorrow before i leave for a wedding that includes some state updates.  goodnight.

[Gardening Grandma]

Sept 30, 2016 22:32:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 30, 2016 20:29:20 GMT -5 oped said:

Can you point out the know democrats, newspapers, etc. who are abandoning the Dems for Trump? 

Here's a few links for you:


insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/27/new-york-democrat-andrew-stein-supporting-trump-pro-growth-tax-cuts-hillary-clinton-libya

thefederalist.com/2016/09/19/lifelong-democrats-pennsylvania-voting-donald-trump/



If you want more, google them.

Not surprised that a convivted tax evader like Andrew Stein would support Trump.
The Federalist is hardly a Dem leaning publication. 

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 22:43:05 GMT -5 oped said:

So one then? 

Are you suggesting that the defections are equal in number and caliber? 

I see the problem: I post two links and you count ONE. You only see what you WANT to see.

[Deleted]

The second link listed no specific people, certainly no known democrats or newspapers. 

You seem to be projecting. You WANT prominent Dems to be going for Trump. On the other hand there are long lists of prominent repopublicans abandoning him.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2016 5:32:01 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Sept 30, 2016 22:32:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Here's a few links for you:


insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/27/new-york-democrat-andrew-stein-supporting-trump-pro-growth-tax-cuts-hillary-clinton-libya

thefederalist.com/2016/09/19/lifelong-democrats-pennsylvania-voting-donald-trump/



If you want more, google them.

Not surprised that a convivted tax evader like Andrew Stein would support Trump.
The Federalist is hardly a Dem leaning publication. 

Where did I say that they were? The link was to a STORY about Democrats defecting.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2016 8:14:31 GMT -5 oped said:

The second link listed no specific people, certainly no known democrats or newspapers. 

You seem to be projecting. You WANT prominent Dems to be going for Trump. On the other hand there are long lists of prominent repopublicans abandoning him.

I'm guessing that you didn't listen to the audio clip.

[Gardening Grandma]

Oct 1, 2016 8:15:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 1, 2016 5:32:01 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Not surprised that a convivted tax evader like Andrew Stein would support Trump.
The Federalist is hardly a Dem leaning publication. 

Where did I say that they were? The link was to a STORY about Democrats defecting.

Please NAME prominent, influential Dems defecting.....not a link to a conservative publcation making statements

[tallguy]

Oct 1, 2016 8:15:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 1, 2016 5:32:01 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Not surprised that a convivted tax evader like Andrew Stein would support Trump.
The Federalist is hardly a Dem leaning publication. 

Where did I say that they were? The link was to a STORY about Democrats defecting.

Irrelevant.  The discussion was not about random voters defecting.  It was about prominent Republicans defecting.  Those who have held office or been parts of Republican administrations.  It is not newsworthy if a random voter here and there defects to the other side.  It IS newsworthy if people who have previously dedicated themselves to a party and worked as part of it do.  If you do a search for Republican endorsements of Hillary Clinton you get links to long lists of Republican notables supporting Hillary Clinton.  If you do a search for Democratic endorsements of Donald Trump you get links to Republicans endorsing Donald Trump.  See the difference?  There are few if any notable Democrats who are switching sides to support him.

And last I heard the count of long-time conservative newspapers who have endorsed Clinton or Johnson rather than Trump is up to six.  Some of those have never endorsed a Democrat in their history...until now. Their comments about Trump are telling, as is their willingness to risk cancellations of subscriptions to NOT support Donald Trump.  While newspapers may not hold the sway over public opinion that they once did, integrity still counts for something, and they know it.  

[djAdvocate]

i have to leave in 6 mins, but here is the quick rundown:

i am changing my criteria to leans = 57.5-65% chance of winning, and solid to 65%+ this morning.  it is going to get harder from this point out to make up the difference.  by this standard:

leaning Trump: IA, OH
leaning Clinton: NONE (see below)
tossup: FL, NV

so, all of the ones that were leaning Clinton are now solidly Clinton by this standard.  Trump has to win all of the above states and pry at least one of the states that is strongly Clinton first back to lean, then to tossup. 

i jumped the gun expecting more polls than i got yesterday to show improvement, so i am lowering Clintons odds back to 5:3 from 2:1.

6 weeks to go......

have a great day, everyone.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2016 9:47:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 1, 2016 8:15:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Where did I say that they were? The link was to a STORY about Democrats defecting.

Irrelevant.  The discussion was not about random voters defecting.  It was about prominent Republicans defecting.  Those who have held office or been parts of Republican administrations.  It is not newsworthy if a random voter here and there defects to the other side.  It IS newsworthy if people who have previously dedicated themselves to a party and worked as part of it do.  If you do a search for Republican endorsements of Hillary Clinton you get links to long lists of Republican notables supporting Hillary Clinton.  If you do a search for Democratic endorsements of Donald Trump you get links to Republicans endorsing Donald Trump.  See the difference?  There are few if any notable Democrats who are switching sides to support him.

And last I heard the count of long-time conservative newspapers who have endorsed Clinton or Johnson rather than Trump is up to six.  Some of those have never endorsed a Democrat in their history...until now. Their comments about Trump are telling, as is their willingness to risk cancellations of subscriptions to NOT support Donald Trump.  While newspapers may not hold the sway over public opinion that they once did, integrity still counts for something, and they know it.  

i think it is fascinating that literally ZERO newspapers have endorsed him thusfar.

[tallguy]

Oct 1, 2016 11:31:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 1, 2016 9:47:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Irrelevant.  The discussion was not about random voters defecting.  It was about prominent Republicans defecting.  Those who have held office or been parts of Republican administrations.  It is not newsworthy if a random voter here and there defects to the other side.  It IS newsworthy if people who have previously dedicated themselves to a party and worked as part of it do.  If you do a search for Republican endorsements of Hillary Clinton you get links to long lists of Republican notables supporting Hillary Clinton.  If you do a search for Democratic endorsements of Donald Trump you get links to Republicans endorsing Donald Trump.  See the difference?  There are few if any notable Democrats who are switching sides to support him.

And last I heard the count of long-time conservative newspapers who have endorsed Clinton or Johnson rather than Trump is up to six.  Some of those have never endorsed a Democrat in their history...until now. Their comments about Trump are telling, as is their willingness to risk cancellations of subscriptions to NOT support Donald Trump.  While newspapers may not hold the sway over public opinion that they once did, integrity still counts for something, and they know it.  

i think it is fascinating that literally ZERO newspapers have endorsed him thusfar.

It's not zero.  His son-in-law's paper has endorsed him.  As has The National Enquirer.  Can you get more respectable than that?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2016 12:03:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 1, 2016 11:31:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it is fascinating that literally ZERO newspapers have endorsed him thusfar.

It's not zero.  His son-in-law's paper has endorsed him.  As has The National Enquirer.  Can you get more respectable than that?

i guess i should have said MAJOR newspapers, eh?

[tallguy]

Why?  They're all the same, right?  Tabloid news is just as important, if not more so, than "real" news to a person motivated by celebrity who is in this more to build his brand than to lead a nation. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2016 13:32:53 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Why?  They're all the same, right?  Tabloid news is just as important, if not more so, than "real" news to a person motivated by celebrity who is in this more to build his brand than to lead a nation. 

that's right.  i keep forgetting.  feelings are the new facts.

[djAdvocate]

man, this is a sexy graph!:


data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2016 11:31:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 1, 2016 9:47:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Irrelevant.  The discussion was not about random voters defecting.  It was about prominent Republicans defecting.  Those who have held office or been parts of Republican administrations.  It is not newsworthy if a random voter here and there defects to the other side.  It IS newsworthy if people who have previously dedicated themselves to a party and worked as part of it do.  If you do a search for Republican endorsements of Hillary Clinton you get links to long lists of Republican notables supporting Hillary Clinton.  If you do a search for Democratic endorsements of Donald Trump you get links to Republicans endorsing Donald Trump.  See the difference?  There are few if any notable Democrats who are switching sides to support him.

And last I heard the count of long-time conservative newspapers who have endorsed Clinton or Johnson rather than Trump is up to six.  Some of those have never endorsed a Democrat in their history...until now. Their comments about Trump are telling, as is their willingness to risk cancellations of subscriptions to NOT support Donald Trump.  While newspapers may not hold the sway over public opinion that they once did, integrity still counts for something, and they know it.  

i think it is fascinating that literally ZERO newspapers have endorsed him thusfar.

I think it just proves the media bias that any have endorsed her (or in the case of USA Today which didn't "technically" "endorse" her... devoted editorials to how bad Trump would be without mentioning how bad Hillary would be).