The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by deep

Amazing, that both real clear Politics and Nate Silver 538 have it only four electorial votes for Clinton, that comes down to one state, New Hampshire, or any other state

Yep, he shot up from a 30% average in their three trackers to 35% in one day thanks to polls showing him tied in both Colorado and New Hampshire. This race is officially a toss-up at this point and I would not be shocked if his trend line got him as high as 45% by election day.

This will be the closest election in recent history on the day of, according to polling, other than 2000 and 2004. Who would have thought Trump was actually capable? My idea is that it's a combination of two things:

1) The weakness of Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

2) Trump brings into the fold enough non-regular voters (i.e. the people that supported him in the primary) to make up for the many Republicans refusing to vote for him, thus coming out about even and with nationwide support in line with Romney and McCain.

[deep]

I know I have posted at least twice in here that I would not be surprised if Obama gave Hillary a blanket pardon, that is looking more and more likely now. win or lose

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

This will be the closest election in recent history on the day of, according to polling, other than 2000 and 2004. Who would have thought Trump was actually capable?

Have you ever considered working within sensationalist media? "This will be the closest in recent history [...] except for half of recent history."

Instead of barking at people to learn reading comprehension, I suggest you learn how to write.

[BigMacPhisto]

Or because there was only one other close one from the 70s, 80s and 90s...I'm pointing out that the three this century are the exception rather than the rule in history.

But it was worth pointing out the surprise of it all. It's a shame that Democratic party members have essentially brought Armageddon upon the country. They can stay home the next time we make a choice rather than rush to Corporate Booker because he has all the financial backing, and, you know.

[LemonMelon]

2012 was down to less than a percentage point day of in the polls and we saw how that turned out.

[BEAL]

Can it be November 9th yet?

[BigMacPhisto]

No, it was not. The overall polling was off by one percent in favor of Romney. That's it. It was not that close the day of the election. Romney's chances were about 10% on FiveThirtyEight while McCain's were essentially zero. Trump is in new territory.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Can it be November 9th yet?

I'm over it just like everyone else. Can't wait to actually have a substantive discussion on President Hillary Clinton without "but Trump" or "but all politicians" showing up in every other post. I've seen all of one supporter of hers in here actually say their positions on things like the TPP...I guess the rest will wait and see what Hillary Clinton tells them to do. I bet their will be a lot of from them when she signs some new fracking legislation or entangles us in costly foreign interventions. After all, if it has a (D) next to its name, it's innocent.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

It's a shame that Democratic party members have essentially brought Armageddon upon the country. They can stay home the next time we make a choice rather than rush to Corporate Booker because he has all the financial backing, and, you know.

Well if there is Armageddon(there's not an emoticon with a big enough eyeroll), then there won't be a next time.

[deep]

do any of the Clinton supporters want to weigh in on the possibility of an Obama pardon for Hillary?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

One would have to believe that she would need one first

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Clinton Foundation FBI probe likely to yield indictments: report - Washington Times

More outlets are beginning to pick up this story.

that the FBI is now politicized?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...bi-fanboy.html

The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.

Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”

“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”

Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents 13,000 former and current agents. The group, born in the New York office in the early ’80s, was headed until Monday by Rey Tariche, an agent still working in that office. Tariche’s resignation letter from the bureau mentioned the Clinton probe, noting that “we find our work—our integrity questioned” because of it, adding “we will not be used for political gains.”

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

One would have to believe that she would need one first

.

[BigMacPhisto]

Eh. On the one hand the FBI and right are overtly politicized about the issue. On the other hand, the Clintonistas would literally need her to be declared guilty in a courtroom before they'd even consider her capable of any wrongdoing. Until then, it's just a partisan smear.

[womanfish]

I've taken a break for a bit, but just read through quite a bit and noticing a lot of "the polls show it neck and neck now" talk.

while polling has gotten tighter, there are several things to keep in mind:

1. Early voting was happening in many swing states when the polls were heavily toward Clinton.
2. NC is still in Clinton's camp, except for one outlying poll. And her early voting numbers are looking good for her there. There really is only one path for Trump to win without NC, and it would mean winning PA and FL. Not likely.
3. John Ralston, the king of NV polling has pretty much said that, Trump would need to win election day voting by incredible margins to make up the strength that Clinton already has in early voting.
4. Iowa is actually looking winnable by Clinton. I had written it off, but it looks like it could be much closer than I had thought previously.
5. Clinton is still hitting AZ pretty hard, which means their internal numbers must be telling them that AZ is looking better than the national media polls.
6. Everyone that I've heard on the ground in FL, seems to feel quite good about Clinton's position there.
7. Ground operations. Clinton has them, Trump does not. So whatever the polls say, it could be shifted quite a bit by the ground-game and who actually gets to the polls to vote.

8. and most important and intriguing... The media cling to any outlying poll to spin it into a 50/50 horse race, so they get their ratings. I can live with that. But the most interesting piece of data that came out this week (and was mentioned a few dozen posts back) was the info gathered by TargetSmart. Actual phone conversations with people who have already voted in Florida, and 28% of registered republicans going for Clinton.
That has the potential to make for an absolutely stunning election night.
I don't expect that the percentage would extrapolate over all states. I don't think it would be near that high in "redder" states. But imagine it being even half that across the entire electorate. You could see AZ, GA, MO, OH, UT, IA, AK, etc... being swept into Clinton's column.

Now I've got to go, Melania is speaking. painful stuff.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Eh. On the one hand the FBI and right are overtly politicized about the issue. On the other hand, the Clintonistas would literally need her to be declared guilty in a courtroom before they'd even consider her capable of any wrongdoing. Until then, it's just a partisan smear.

I'd need an actual indictment to believe that she'll be indicted.

Cause they've been talking about one for months, years even... yet here we are.

[BigMacPhisto]

In response to womanfish:

1. Sure. But they're asking registered and likely voters in the polls who they support which includes those that already vote. Early voting has historically been slanted towards Democrats, so there isn't much new there although I will agree with you that Trump was in a terrible position once it began. However, most of the people that vote early are hyper-partisan and therefore had already made up their minds months earlier. FiveThirtyEight recently found that 80% of voters fall along those lines.

2. Completely untrue regarding NC when you take into account the fundamentals of the state (with 538 having it in Trump's favor most of the time lately) and the fact that Clinton only lead by 2 points in the most recent polling where she's ahead.

3. Perhaps.

4. No way in hell does she have a prayer in Iowa. Polls will tell you otherwise and they've spent no time or money there.

5. Hubris on her part and she'll regret it if Colorado or New Hampshire or someplace else ends up swinging the other way. Arizona is not going to happen and has fallen back in line as a comfortable red state. Polls within campaigns are always heavily slanted and unreliable, so they can waste their own time and money if they please.

6. Absolutely meaningless. So a handful of people that you know (and likely share your beliefs) somehow can tell you the result for tens of millions of Floridian voters? Come on.

7. Black turnout has already fallen way off from this point in 2012 although they could turn things around. I think the ground game is important and more so than needless television ads (something Trump has wisely avoided spending money on throughout for the most part), but I doubt it's going to make as big a difference as you'd expect.

8. There is no way in hell that number is correct. It's just some weird anomaly. If that were the case, the rest of the polls would show Trump losing Florida by a very wide margin already. People really try to act like Florida is some cosmopolitan area with a lot of different races interacting and a sizable Hispanic population, etc. but the reality is that half the state is made up of the same angry white rednecks that hold a majority in the rest of the South and do next to no interacting with the rest of the populace. While I agree that the demographics are rapidly shifting in favor of the Democrats, Republicans can still easily win big in Florida whenever turnout is down (Governor, Rubio or even President this year).

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

On the other hand, the Clintonistas would literally need her to be declared guilty in a courtroom before they'd even consider her capable of any wrongdoing.

you'd almost be fooled into thinking that something called "due process" is the entire basis of the legal system in america.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I'd need an actual indictment to believe that she'll be indicted.

Cause they've been talking about one for months, years even... yet here we are.

Agreed. It's always been conjecture and probably still is. I doubt it will happen.

Where do you stand on the issue of pay-for-play with the Clinton Fund? Do you think it's likely or unlikely that it happened?

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by DaveC

you'd almost be fooled into thinking that something called "due process" is the entire basis of the legal system in america.

Not guilty until she's declared guilty by law.

But we all know O.J. did it, so...