Facts do not support your claim
Accidents per capita. Massachusetts and Connecticut are some of the best states. Jersey and New York are both better than average.
Daily Beast has them more ordered
Well look, you can't block people from merging into your lane unless you are paying careful attention to the road at all times.
In our comedy segment, Donald Trump has accused Hillary Clinton of being mentally unstable - an interesting accusation for someone who's usually described as a textbook narcissist.
On the statistical side, Clinton seems to be pulling ahead to about an 8-point lead, though these numbers change a lot and will almost certainly continue to do so. XD Case in point, another poll thinks it's closed to about 3 points. Of course, polls always have something of a margin of error, so let's split the difference and call it, say, 5.5 points in Clinton's favor. Roughly. XD
What is interesting to me is how people worry so much about the national polls instead of the state by state polls.
If you follow the actual state by state polls you can see that by the electoral college Donald Trump has exceptionally low chances of winning.
I mean it really didn't look good for republicans in general to begin with honestly. The Democrats have a bit of a built in lead for the presidency for some of the same reasons the republicans have been able to keep the house and senate.
Anywho, The nowcast is giving Hillary an 83.4% chance of winning with about 351 electoral votes to Donald's scant 185 (~ish for both numbers).
|
What is interesting to me is how people worry so much about the national polls instead of the state by state polls.
If you follow the actual state by state polls you can see that by the electoral college Donald Trump has exceptionally low chances of winning.
Indeed. In the brief window between the GOP and Dem conventions Trump pulled roughly even with Clinton in the national polls. However, looking at the state polls there were really only six states in contention;
Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire
Of those, Trump needed to win Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and EITHER Iowa OR New Hampshire to win the presidency. If Clinton won Iowa AND New Hampshire OR any one of the four larger states then Trump had no chance.
With the polls NOW, none of those six states are in contention. Clinton has solid leads in all of them, and there are only two 'battleground' states... Arizona and Georgia. Neither of which Clinton needs to win.
The polls will likely settle back a bit as Clinton's 'convention bounce' fades, but Trump is in deep deep trouble. Even at the 'best case' point in the polling for him he had virtually no chance of winning the electoral college. Thus, he needs to get back to where he was just prior to the Dem convention... and then somehow do even BETTER than that. Possible, but not likely.
Actually Arizona and Georgia were in contention before the conventions. While Clinton's lead has increased the polls they indicated almost what they do now, it just solidified more so.
The polls will likely settle back a bit as Clinton's 'convention bounce' fades, but Trump is in deep deep trouble. Even at the 'best case' point in the polling for him he had virtually no chance of winning the electoral college. Thus, he needs to get back to where he was just prior to the Dem convention... and then somehow do even BETTER than that. Possible, but not likely.
I kind of wonder how much of difference actually is Hillary's convention bump versus the really really dumb things Trump said at the beginning of last week. Nothing I have seen indicates that Trump is at all doing anything beyond appealing the same base he rallied in the primary. And the comments about the purple heart, Russia stuff, and feud with the Khan family all seem to be things that would impact a Republican voter moreso than a democrat one, who already wasn't going to vote for Trump.
|
|
I kind of wonder how much of difference actually is Hillary's convention bump versus the really really dumb things Trump said at the beginning of last week. Nothing I have seen indicates that Trump is at all doing anything beyond appealing the same base he rallied in the primary. And the comments about the purple heart, Russia stuff, and feud with the Khan family all seem to be things that would impact a Republican voter moreso than a democrat one, who already wasn't going to vote for Trump.
It's both.
Trump has certainly lost support, but Clinton also solidified her support amongst Democrats. After the convention, more than 90% of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Clinton in the general election. Before the convention it was only 55%.
Basically, since the conventions the Democrats and liberal leaning independents have been migrating to Clinton while Trump has been driving away some Republicans and conservative leaning independents... such that only 79% say they will vote for him now. You know you are in trouble when 1 in 5 of 'your own side' doesn't support you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 months to go, gentlecritters. There's plenty of time for things to go sideways. ;)
well for Trump they are already sideways, so I guess this would be more correcting the course :P
Clinton's support is no guarantee come Election Day. Her approval rating is abysmal, only Trump's is worse. They both come in a good distance behind the decades-long black hole of Congress' approval ratings...
For the first time I can remember since Ross Perot the two best-known "3rd party" candidates are starting to garner steady media attention. It's not the deluge of blather that seems to be most of the majority parties' coverage, but it's there nonetheless.
Actually trending Hillary's approval ratings over the years is interesting. She is currently trending as an analysis of those ratinngs would indicate. I believe she is actually well beyond fundamentally strong at this point and barring any major stupdity on her part just has to carry forward.
There is literally nothing Donald could say or do at this point to fix his campaign, and replacing him would blow the GOP apart.
Not replacing him may do the same thing. Rock, meet hard place.
Edit: Gotta love The Onion.
I'm not sure I have seen Stein/Green Party really benefit. Maybe some brief flirtations from bernie supporters, but most of those have gone Clinton.
The libertarians are benefiting, if only because at least a few western politicians have switched their alleigance from the Republicans to the Libertarians, mostly for fear of Trump hurting there own chance at election. Johnson MAY get into a national presidential debates, but not sure where all of that will go in the long term.
The libertarians are benefiting, if only because at least a few western politicians have switched their alleigance from the Republicans to the Libertarians, mostly for fear of Trump hurting there own chance at election. Johnson MAY get into a national presidential debates, but not sure where all of that will go in the long term.
In the long run -- which may well be another several presidential election cycles -- validating the Libertarians as a "real" party at the expense of Republican party unity and discipline might hasten the replacement of the Republicans as one of the two major parties in the US system. The post-Reagan Republican coalition has been showing signs of wear for the past cycle or two; the culture wars have largely been lost, evangelical vote is decreasing, and the small-government conservatives (e.g., the small-l libertarians) have largely been displaced in policy discussions by a combination of increasingly theocratic social policies combined with large corporate giveaways.
Whether Trump wins or loses, his power base is largely angry while males, and he's losing among Millenials, which means long-term demographics are not on his side. Similarly, long-term demographics point out to a more pluralistic society, which suggests that appeals to white racism are going to be less and less effective.
The Democrats have already managed to establish themselves as a business-friendly party; in this cycle, more business-friendly than the Republicans. If the Large-L Libertarians can establish themselves as a legitimate party, they may be able to steal a huge fraction of the remaining Republican supporters. This process could, of course, be helped immensely if the Republicans try to double-down on their failed demographics, for example, by nominating a (racist) member of the Christian right (e.g, Pat Robinson, Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee) or continue to push policy-for-the-plutocracy. Or it could be prevented if the Republicans can actually adapt to their loss and adjust plans and tactics accordingly. (As they tried and failed to do after the 2012 loss.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in today's commentary section, former national security officials say Trump would be the most reckless President in history. The list is generally Republican, and includes people who've held positions like Secretary of Homeland Security, director of the CIA and NSA, Director of National Intelligence, Deputy Secretary of State, and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Pretty high up there. XD None intend to vote for Trump. Their letter also noted, and I quote, "He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood," and "He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."
Trump gave a speech today outlining his economic policy (which of course mostly only benefits the rich...but hey...Republicans). I thought this description from the Wall Street Journal was interesting though
"Mr. Trump’s hourlong speech, delivered from a teleprompter, was less freewheeling than his usual style; though he was interrupted repeatedly by protesters, he paused quietly until they were removed."
Someone maybe has finally convinced Trump that keeping to a vetted script during speaking engagements is a good idea? Because any time he is allowed to speak freely, he seems to say or do something guaranteed to rub a large number of voters the wrong way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's tried it before, it usually doesn't last long. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe they found the off switch to his ego, Jawa.
The libertarians are benefiting, if only because at least a few western politicians have switched their alleigance from the Republicans to the Libertarians, mostly for fear of Trump hurting there own chance at election. Johnson MAY get into a national presidential debates, but not sure where all of that will go in the long term.In the long run -- which may well be another several presidential election cycles -- validating the Libertarians as a "real" party at the expense of Republican party unity and discipline might hasten the replacement of the Republicans as one of the two major parties in the US system. The post-Reagan Republican coalition has been showing signs of wear for the past cycle or two; the culture wars have largely been lost, evangelical vote is decreasing, and the small-government conservatives (e.g., the small-l libertarians) have largely been displaced in policy discussions by a combination of increasingly theocratic social policies combined with large corporate giveaways.
Whether Trump wins or loses, his power base is largely angry while males, and he's losing among Millenials, which means long-term demographics are not on his side. Similarly, long-term demographics point out to a more pluralistic society, which suggests that appeals to white racism are going to be less and less effective.
The Democrats have already managed to establish themselves as a business-friendly party; in this cycle, more business-friendly than the Republicans. If the Large-L Libertarians can establish themselves as a legitimate party, they may be able to steal a huge fraction of the remaining Republican supporters.
Having lived out west for 7 years, my anecdotal experience is conservatives/republicans in this area are mostly concerned with government regulation, and not exactly all that motivated by a lot of the more evangelical leanings of the current Republican party. They basically want small government which won't tell them how to ranch and farm, and simply don't care about the cultural wars. So seeing western republicans switch affiliations isn't that shocking. Certainly if anywhere was going to show a rise in the libertarian party, it would be the Rocky Mountain/Plains states.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
You can't be serious Thomas. :-)
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
You can't be serious Thomas. :-)
Well not COMPLETELY no. But I keep hoping someone does, howse that captain?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't, keep it full blast, let the people see him for the racist chauvinistic elitist spiteful con man piece of s@@% he really is.
...mmmm... In the words of Spencer Crittendon, Master GM "These are all valid points."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be frank, if people haven't already seen what Trump is like, they're probably not going to. The Backfire Effect is an observed thing, after all.
Red,
Maybe but I think if he starts another public feud with a dead serviceman's family or hell, a disabled one, he's in a for rough few months...
..."If"?
Well I mean...he can't start one with EVERY soldier's family right?
....Right?
Give him time.
Me or Trump Hitdice?
Cause honestly I'm not sure I'm disillusioned enough....
I meant Trump, but given the way things a shaping up, no reason it can't be both. ;)
K. Not sure I should say thanks but I will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't think he's insulted pretty much every single soldier's family by showing such disrespect to a Gold Star one? ...You are more optimistic about this than I am. XD I think it's certain there will be more feuding with military members, past and/or present.
...
Which reaaaaaally isn't a good sign in a potential Commander-in-Chief, who holds not just your job but your life in his hands.
Trump gave a speech today outlining his economic policy (which of course mostly only benefits the rich...but hey...Republicans). I thought this description from the Wall Street Journal was interesting though
"Mr. Trump’s hourlong speech, delivered from a teleprompter, was less freewheeling than his usual style; though he was interrupted repeatedly by protesters, he paused quietly until they were removed."
Someone maybe has finally convinced Trump that keeping to a vetted script during speaking engagements is a good idea? Because any time he is allowed to speak freely, he seems to say or do something guaranteed to rub a large number of voters the wrong way.
I watched most of it, coming across it part way through the livestream. He comported himself well. I didn't see any hecklers removed. The assessment to many is not going to be perceived as benefiting only the rich.
Who knows, maybe he's taking Obama's advice to start acting Presidential. ;)
Rednal,
If he did, I think more military people would have stood up to him and told the GOP that "If they want their wars, we want respect. DO NOT KEEP HIM as a candidate!"
Rednal,
If he did, I think more military people would have stood up to him and told the GOP that "If they want their wars, we want respect. DO NOT KEEP HIM as a candidate!"
Military members are generally well aware of how they are perceived and work hard to not rock the political boat especially when the president is involved.
The military is supposed to serve the citizenry and not tell the citizenry what to do.
Hence most active military keep their mouths shut on this beyond simple statements such as "Gold star family members deserve respect for the sacrifice their family has made".
Right well. I hope they remember that when he sends them off to fight in a nuclear holocaust he created...
He's tried it before, it usually doesn't last long. :-)
Yeah, I was gonna say...
Trump isn't actually that good at pivoting. He spins like a top. He has no platform to adjust, aside from anger—which is something I actually could see him trying to pivot from.
Trump remains a significant threat. We should not take for granted that Clinton would win. That said, it's a fairly safe bet.
Nothing about this election is a safe bet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right well. I hope they remember that when he sends them off to fight in a nuclear holocaust he created...
I had this whole big post about death or what not but at the end of the day it does worry me, however all I can do is what is right and hope things go well.
Right well. I hope they remember that when he sends them off to fight in a nuclear holocaust he created...
You've never watched Strangelove, or the considerably more serious "Failsafe", I imagine. If a President gives the order... the bombings will commence. Those crews are trained and disciplined, and maybe even conditioned to obey those orders if they are sent.
Actually, I have heard talk about members of the military seriously considering disobeying orders if Trump gives them an order they don't feel they can follow. You have to keep in mind just how much contempt Trump is held in by those who remotely know what they're doing, and these people have to consider their futures: Specifically, what happens if they have to lean on the "just following orders" excuse later? It's not even just about morals, or about how Trump has been an ass to the military. It's about the practical concern of jail time for doing what he says.
Don't take for granted that Trump will be able to push the military into action. Our laws are only as certain as the people who fight for them.
Actually, I have heard talk about members of the military seriously considering disobeying orders if Trump gives them an order they don't feel they can follow. You have to keep in mind just how much contempt Trump is held in by those who remotely know what they're doing, and these people have to consider their futures: Specifically, what happens if they have to lean on the "just following orders" excuse later? It's not even just about morals, or about how Trump has been an ass to the military. It's about the practical concern of jail time for doing what he says.
Don't take for granted that Trump will be able to push the military into action. Our laws are only as certain as the people who fight for them.
Not any more than I would take it for granted that he'd actually order one. Trump may be a narcisist, a cheat, a liar, and a blowhard, but I really don't think he's that psychotic.
Considering the blow back when there was serious talk about 'boots on the ground' in Syria, I doubt either Trump or Clinton would fare any better.
Considering the blow back when there was serious talk about 'boots on the ground' in Syria, I doubt either Trump or Clinton would fare any better.
Clinton is considerably more likely to be a warhawk than Trump, not that I think that she'd push the Button on a whim.
During a briefing with his national security advisors he repeatedly asked why America doesn't use our nukes.Not any more than I would take it for granted that he'd actually order one. Trump may be a narcisist, a cheat, a liar, and a blowhard, but I really don't think he's that psychotic.Actually, I have heard talk about members of the military seriously considering disobeying orders if Trump gives them an order they don't feel they can follow. You have to keep in mind just how much contempt Trump is held in by those who remotely know what they're doing, and these people have to consider their futures: Specifically, what happens if they have to lean on the "just following orders" excuse later? It's not even just about morals, or about how Trump has been an ass to the military. It's about the practical concern of jail time for doing what he says.
Don't take for granted that Trump will be able to push the military into action. Our laws are only as certain as the people who fight for them.
Most likely because he knew that it would generate the headline attention he craves. The entire Trump campaign is a study in deliberate outrage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yyyyyup. The problem with someone who's always crying wolf, though, is that you can never tell when they're actually being serious. That's... not a good trait to have on a matter as serious as Nuclear MAD.