^ after more reading his twitter a lot of people are saying this is a prank of sorts. They point out Adams book where he basically says he loves playing pranks, sometimes over years, and you should never take a comic seriously. Im going to say this is some sort of ill timed joke (maybe) and he doesn't mean what he's saying literally.

9/28/2016 12:05:03 AM

Quote :

"what arrogance is there in saying that there is no legitimate argument to be made in support of Trump? "

There's no logically consistent argument that doesn't involve isolationism or racism.

The main reason I see is people just hate Hillary, and think she's a crook and should be in jail. I can accept this, but trump is less scrupulous than Hillary, so how these same people can overlook this doesn't make sense.

9/28/2016 12:10:54 AM

Unless all of his blog posts (seriously, who puts fucking blog posts in the middle of a syndicated comic strip, what the actual fuck?) are the prank, lol.

^ It's probably the same way that people who support Trump ignore how practically all of their complaints about Obama's supposed lack of qualifications in 2008 are *actually true* about Trump.

[Edited on September 28, 2016 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

9/28/2016 12:10:59 AM

There's a huge post being shared on Facebook and it's the most compelling trump argument yet.

It's a side by side tax plan comparison for a middle income person. the monthly taxes come out to about a 300 dollar differebce per month. he multiplies that by 8 years and puts it into a mutual fund and ends up with 2 million dollars extra after 30 years.

That's a huge difference but at this point I'd rather keep my dignity and not vote for a president who says hateful things that are damaging the social fabric of our country. if you can get past that, it's probably a no Brainer.

ideally, I'd rather spend the money AND solve the important problems we face but stein is only at 2%.

Johnsons tax plan probably comes out even cheaper and you don't have to deal with the hatred so I can't for the life of me understand why these tax people aren't all over Johnson.

9/28/2016 11:40:45 AM

Except the sources he references don't match the numbers he gives and his calculations are wrong. It is a Facebook post though so not sure what I expected from it.

Also Trump is full of shit anyway so anything from his website is most likely all bullshit.

9/28/2016 11:52:26 AM

Earl up in here making policy recommendations from a FB post. Good stuff.

So has anyone decided which one of the Trump campaign tax-plans is the real one? He and each advisor say different things each day it seems.

9/28/2016 12:13:42 PM

Which one do you like? That's totally the real one.

9/28/2016 12:17:41 PM

I personally, like the tremendous one. I feel like it would be great for my bank account. I'll see huge increases there. It will be wonderful.

9/28/2016 12:24:10 PM

^^^ it doesn't matter what the source is or if it's credible. 165k have already reshared the single post I'm referring to. That's Yuge.

9/28/2016 2:21:48 PM

Quote :

" after more reading his twitter a lot of people are saying this is a prank of sorts"

Many said the same about Trump's candidacy, and I'm still hoping it turns out that way.

9/28/2016 2:33:03 PM

Quote :

"165k have already reshared the single post I'm referring to. That's Yuge. "

No, it really isn't. Over 30 MILLION people have watched the Between Two Ferns clip with Clinton, but that doesn't mean anything either.

9/28/2016 7:30:05 PM

so are you saying the election is rigged?

9/28/2016 7:31:27 PM

No. I'm saying a Facebook post with 165k shares doesn't mean shit one way or the other.

9/28/2016 7:38:13 PM

well you haven't elaborated on what you're saying at all. Why do you think posts being spread on social media don't matter?

9/28/2016 8:16:23 PM

Holy shit. Do I really need to spell this out for you?

9/28/2016 8:38:22 PM

it's more about you showing your cards and clearly stating what you mean. I have a good idea what it might be but you could always just switch after I refute it because you haven't really said anything at all yet.

9/28/2016 9:16:10 PM

Quote :

"First three fully post-debate national polls have Clinton +5, +4, +3. So I'll daringly assert she might settle into a 3-5 point nat'l lead."

9/28/2016 9:46:24 PM

.

[Edited on September 28, 2016 at 11:02 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

9/28/2016 10:59:51 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think posts being spread on social media don't matter?"

As others have pointed out, the facts of that post are wrong. People spread misinformation all the time and in large numbers because it requires minimal effort to share something on social media. I don't think people sharing this post is indicative of anything other than Trump supporters believing whatever Trump says. You're essentially insinuating this viral post (I call that a huge stretch btw) marks some gigantic shift in voters' perception of Trump. It's too small of a sample size and it's just noise. Hillary clearly won that debate, and unless you believe the poll skews that happened due to 4chan and Reddit (which are well documented btw), I have nothing else to say to you. You're trolling though, so GG.

9/28/2016 11:08:04 PM

Because who doesn't like Frontline?

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365848966/

9/28/2016 11:45:09 PM

Quote :

"The main reason I see is people just hate Hillary, and think she's a crook and should be in jail. I can accept this, but trump is less scrupulous than Hillary, so how these same people can overlook this doesn't make sense."

Right, I think she's a crook. She should very likely be in jail, and at a bare minimum should never, ever be entrusted with...pretty much anything, but definitely not state secrets. I think she has a deep-seated sense that the rules don't apply to her.

...but barring some bolt of lightning from the sky where Johnson seriously takes hold, I sincerely hope that Clinton--a person that I personally have disdain for and share fairly little common ground with in policy--gets elected. Trump is a national catastrophe waiting to happen, and already an embarrassment .

9/28/2016 11:47:03 PM

https://twitter.com/FloridaGOP/status/773932254246629377

Quote :

"Was @HillaryClinton wearing an earpiece during last night’s presidential forum? Check it out: http://www.infowars.com/was-hillary-wearing-an-earpiece-during-last-nights-presidential-forum/ … #sayfie"

Fl GOP tweeting out info wars, this is the true damage of Donald Trump.

The bar has been moved waaaayyy down.

9/29/2016 12:03:37 AM

The sad thing is that the picture in that link isn't even from the debates. And it's incredibly easy to verify that fact.

Sorry, have to update. Other sites are linking to that picture and saying it was from the debates.

[Edited on September 29, 2016 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ]

9/29/2016 12:14:49 AM

No credible group should be linking to infowars for anything, ever, but if you want to discuss the picture, it's clear it's just a reflection from her oily ear in the video. The still pic looks like someone photoshopping the ear by enhancing the saturation in a drawn-in selection.

9/29/2016 12:22:31 AM

Quote :

"Right, I think she's a crook. She should very likely be in jail, and at a bare minimum should never, ever be entrusted with...pretty much anything, but definitely not state secrets. I think she has a deep-seated sense that the rules don't apply to her. ...but barring some bolt of lightning from the sky where Johnson seriously takes hold, I sincerely hope that Clinton--a person that I personally have disdain for and share fairly little common ground with in policy--gets elected. Trump is a national catastrophe waiting to happen, and already an embarrassment ."

Yeah this pretty much

9/29/2016 9:30:16 AM

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

Recent and post debate polls show Clinton drift, flipped Nevada, NC, and Florida to lean Hillary

9/29/2016 4:36:39 PM

Wow.

Clicked on it was 65/35

2 minutes later 72/28

[Edited on September 29, 2016 at 4:43 PM. Reason : gdf]

9/29/2016 4:41:21 PM

Funny how quickly things have changed. Trump better fucking prepare for the next debate or hope for another "health scare", because those are really all he can do to stop the bleeding.

9/29/2016 4:44:06 PM

I've honestly lost a lot of respect for Nate/538 during this election cycle. No well designed statistical model should be showing such wild swings on a week by week, and sometimes a daily basis. That's not prediction, that's just showing a snapshot of what the polls are telling us. It's no better than a straight up aggregate. There was never any reason to believe this race was anywhere close to 50/50, and even 70/30 feels too high for Trump.

His path to victory always included winning every coin flip state plus at least one safely blue state. He's underperforming Mitt Romney (a loser) with every single demographic except uneducated white men. Hillary's led or tied in almost every single national poll taken since the summer. She's consistently led in enough states to get 273+ EVs, never once dropping below that number even at her polling nadir. There's just no world where that's a close race.

9/29/2016 4:51:15 PM

Quote :

"No well designed statistical model should be showing such wild swings on a week by week"

This election has been an absolute shit show from the start and wild swings seem pretty reasonable given the level of discourse about each of the candidates.

9/29/2016 4:54:30 PM

^^ you are focusing on the now cast, the 2 other models are more stable.

Nate's work has been good, his math is fine. The only poll that matters is election day, and Trump has been beating expectations.

9/29/2016 5:00:21 PM

Meh, even his Polls-plus model, supposedly the most stable one has shown wild swings of 10% or more from one day to the next. I'm not an expert on statistics, but frankly I don't think Nate is either. To apply it to my own career, it's the difference between someone with a degree in computer science and a someone who just read a book on Java and started writing programs. Nate is the latter. He's also not the only one doing election forecasts,

http://election.princeton.edu/

This guy actually has studied statistics at an academic level and his model has never shown Hillary's chances dropping below 70% or so. Also Nate completely bombed the primaries, claiming (like many of us) that Trump never had a shot even after he was the clear frontrunner.

[Edited on September 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2016 5:10:05 PM

He was right about almost every single state during the primaries and last election he got all the electoral votes right, but one. I find his methodology to be pretty scientific and trustworthy. Again, this election cycle is a fucking joke. It's like a middle school election which is a popularity (or in this case unpopularity) content and it comes down to whoever has the coolest poster or gives out the most cookies before election day.

[Edited on September 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2016 5:12:48 PM

lol Shrike

9/29/2016 5:21:19 PM

^^This election has been a shit show, and I think it's led to some pretty unreliable polling, especially compared to previous elections. You could see this when pollsters switched from RVs to LVs in their poll results. They've had a very hard time figuring out what the electorate is going to look like on November 8. NYT did an interesting experiment, where they gave their raw respondent data to 4 different pollsters, and (un)surprisingly, each one produced different results.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/20/upshot/the-error-the-polling-world-rarely-talks-about.html?_r=0

9/29/2016 5:29:06 PM

Quote :

"http://election.princeton.edu/ This guy actually has studied statistics at an academic level and his model has never shown Hillary's chances dropping below 70% or so. Also Nate completely bombed the primaries, claiming (like many of us) that Trump never had a shot even after he was the clear frontrunner."

Something doesn't seem right with that, there has def. been a point where trump was up nationally and state-level, but his graph doesn't reflect that.

The polls are close enough now that it's foolish to think Clinton has this in the bag.

9/29/2016 9:20:45 PM

If Clinton was ahead as much as you say she is ahead I guarantee you she wouldn't be spending nearly as much money on advertising as she is. I am hearing ads railing on Trump constantly and surprisingly not all that many from Trump, other than asking me to donate on facebook along with all of his kids haha.

9/30/2016 8:16:07 AM

^she needs to win the senate

9/30/2016 8:50:16 AM

^^^That's the point, he's predicting who's going to get to 270 EVs on November 8th, not reflecting a daily snapshot of polling. The entire point of statistical modeling is to filter out volatility and noise. The fundamental problem for Trump in this race hasn't changed: he's not competitive in enough states to win the Presidency. In any case, this is all about to become moot in the aftermath of the debate. Even Nate's model is going to have her above 80% chance to win by the end of the weekend.

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

9/30/2016 8:52:12 AM

Shrike reminds me of that guy who didn't believe the polls and was absolutely convinced Romney was going to win

9/30/2016 9:30:03 AM

Except that guy was an idiot who based his predictions on a gross misunderstanding of how party ID was used to weigh poll results. I'm basing mine on exactly what the polls have been saying since the summer: Hillary's path to 270 is far more viable than Trump's. But hey, disagree with me at your own risk.

9/30/2016 9:54:26 AM

^^ so you just like his model more is what you're saying, but this is perilous.

There was lots of very compelling logical reasons early on to think trump was a bubble, specifically using number of endorsements, and this feel apart. Nate silver admitted his folly was dismissing the raw data, which is what you're doing now. You're putting one specific model above the data. Human perceptions don't follow the laws of physics a regression of a poll like this doesn't give you more information than a newer poll.

The fact of the matter is Trump is doing well, despite his low ad spending, despite his atrociously run campaign, despite his constant Palin-esque gaffes, despite being embroiled in scandals and corruption.

It's puzzling to any intelligent person but this is the double edge of democracy. If you can't figure out how to understand what the angry mobs want then the mob will just steamroll you.

It seems like you're trying to further justify dismissing the mob, but they a progressive leader that knows how to embrace them, Hillary hasn't don't a good job with this yet.

9/30/2016 9:58:49 AM

Look, if you want to believe this is a tight race because of two weeks of polling in September that followed Hillary dying on video, be my guest. All I know is that "close enough", "doing well", or "beating expectations" doesn't make you President. The only thing that makes you President is getting 270+ EVs on November 8th, and there hasn't been a moment since the summer where the polling favored Trump crossing that threshold.

9/30/2016 11:52:09 AM

Quote :

"since the summer"

yesterday was the first day of Fall

9/30/2016 12:30:38 PM

*beginning of the summer. I short-circuited

9/30/2016 12:34:30 PM

San Diego Union-Tribune joins the club: "This paper has not endorsed a Dem for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton"

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-hillary-clinton-endorsement-for-president-20160929-story.html

9/30/2016 3:54:45 PM

Also interesting, despite early conventional wisdom, these 2 bit attacks by self radicalized Islamists, and black lives matter protests don't seem to obviously help Trump in the polls.

9/30/2016 4:16:09 PM

my question is what happens with the trump supporters after the election? where do they go with their anger? what do they do? who do they support in 2020?

the easiest answer seems to be a new brand of trump republicans running for Congress after 2 years of Clinton. it will be her more extreme version of the tea party movement that neutralized obama.


[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 5:32 PM. Reason : y]

9/30/2016 5:30:53 PM

Quote :

"On phone, @patrickhealynyt asked Trump if he'd do 2nd debate, “I want to do the next debate, but everybody is talking about the mic.”"

Also:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/donald-trump-appeared-in-a-2000-playboy-softcore-porn?utm_term=.ra9Lg0zPk

This was around the time trump ran for reform party candidate.

Also, isn't porn a public health crisis on the GOP platform?


"I'm not sure anyone's more qualified to be POTUS than Hillary Clinton." -Bill Weld to @chucktodd just now.

Ha so Gary Johnsons VP pick just endorsed Hillary? I haven't seen the full context of the quote yet.

[Edited on September 30, 2016 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2016 7:40:34 PM

And here i was thinking Trump had finally found an attack that couldn't be immediately turned around and applied to him.

9/30/2016 10:58:11 PM