Trump to win?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Of all the "little statesmen" I've encoutered in my years, you resemble it best, Santa. So very small, you seem.

Enjoy your certitude and btw, were you quoting Yoda at the end? Made me laugh anyway.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

+1. I seem to find great US coverage about the presidential race (and politics in general, and also crime) in the UK publications, along with RT.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

+1

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Years ago, when I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union, a Russian friend explained how he got his news.

"For news about Russia, Radio Liberty," he said. "For news about America, Soviet newspapers." He smiled. "Countries lie about themselves, tell truth about others."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-shill-w434484

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Clinton and Trump In A Statistical Tie:


http://zogbyanalytics.com/news/756-c...er-millennials

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm with her.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

A phrase turned as deftly as The Donald himself. I shall await your indignation when someone asks you why you're an anarchist and you tell them you never said you were.

I said in response to an earlier post that "this year I am a political nihilist" and if anarchy brings this rotten and undemocratic party system to collapse, let it come.

The primary goal is the destruction of the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upending of the political status quo. The secondary goal is ending the political viability of HRC. Trump is the instrument that can accomplish these. Nothing else matters at this point for me and all things follow from it. This year I am a political nihilist (as it seems is everyone else) and an anarchist in the mold of Gramsci.

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

My favorite of the Transcendentalists remains Ralph Waldo Emerson and your behavior reminds me of one of his best lines. As a liberal Democrat, you probably never heard of "Self Reliance" but in it he wrote:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers divine."

Of all the "little statesmen" I've encoutered in my years, you resemble it best, Santa. So very small, you seem.

Emerson meant much to me as a young man and now that I am facing my end, I'm grateful that it was he instead of Thoreau that made the stronger impression. I've lived my life by Emerson's themes of individual authority, the gift of solitude, and most important to me personally, the discipline of nonconformity. Of that discipline, Emerson wrote:

"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist."

So it seems we two are of a type and Ralph Waldo had our number down before either of us were born.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

That's pretty good for mid-August, if you ask any political anarchist.

A phrase turned as deftly as The Donald himself. I shall await your indignation when someone asks you why you're an anarchist and you tell them you never said you were.

But if I were to "ask any political anarchist", they might see themselves in this quote by Thoreau, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root...". I assume this anarchist believes he's striking at the root, but an anarchist, (not that you are one), cannot follow a fascist and hope to peacefully transform a system they see as evil. If this anarchist's intent is to break the system by whatever means necessary, fascism will serve them well unless they succeed at which point they will have to live with the greater evil they've created.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

i am hesitant to believe the probabilities being generated by 538 and the nytimes. they are based on polling and i think there is a hidden-trump effect similar to the hidden-racist effect noted in elections with african-american candidates: they always garner 5% less than the polls would indicate, because of the number of people who won't admit they are voting against the black guy. otoh, i don't think there was this skew in either of obama's elections, so perhaps the hidden-racist vote is disappearing. nonethelss, my expectation is that trump wins roughly 5% more votes than the polls would predict. hillary is currently running 8-9% up nationally, so current numbers would still indicate a victory for her, but not the landslide some people are beginning to write about.

It's wouldn't surprise me if there's a female effect similar to that which happens to black candidates, especially for the first woman to run for president. But we could be misreading the effect as it may be Trump voters unwilling to tell anyone they're voting for him. On the surface, that makes more sense to me. I think her campaign reads it the same way. When they're up 10% like Pennsylvania, they start planning to work other areas and slow down the spending. If it drops to 5%, they'll step it up again.

I'm doing the same thing. I've stopped lending as much support in my home state which is strongly leaning toward HRC, and I'm currently focusing efforts and donations in AZ, (sorry shiny! I know you don't support that). I spend about 1/3 of my time in Arizona working with plenty of time in the evenings to volunteer. Current focus is registering Latino voters in Southern Arizona. Latinos should make up 20% of the voting public in Arizona in 2016, up from 9% 10 years ago.

For Obama, the 2nd term was likely less about race as people had gotten to know him so 'closet' racists were less likely to fear him.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i am hesitant to believe the probabilities being generated by 538 and the nytimes. they are based on polling and i think there is a hidden-trump effect similar to the hidden-racist effect noted in elections with african-american candidates: they always garner 5% less than the polls would indicate, because of the number of people who won't admit they are voting against the black guy. otoh, i don't think there was this skew in either of obama's elections, so perhaps the hidden-racist vote is disappearing. nonethelss, my expectation is that trump wins roughly 5% more votes than the polls would predict. hillary is currently running 8-9% up nationally, so current numbers would still indicate a victory for her, but not the landslide some people are beginning to write about.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Australia has mandatory voting. In Thailand it's illegal to take a selfie in the voting booth. Many countries like the UK have “election silence.”

Silver is interesting...

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...te-silver.html

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

With 84 days left I thought I'd check in with that "discredited" 538 web site. Apparently it's not going well in Trumpland.

You are enjoying this, aren't you Santa? Schadenfreude becomes you.

It looks grim, but who gives a damn? Silver was running the same dodge in the primaries. I look forward to hearing his next explanation of "how we got it wrong" and his impending return to calling baseball games.

Still, if I let myself get philosophical about it, it's hard not to wonder where the Trumpsters would be in September without the GOP running with Clinton and Clinton running as a GOP candidate, with the media participating in the AM conference calls as a full-fledged member of the team. Oh yeah, and this.



And as far as Woodsman is concerned, half the strategery is going swimmingly.

First things first. Upend the status quo in whatever way possible, then defeat Clinton. From there all things flow. I made that choice in spite of my personal policy preferences and in full knowledge of Trump's many defects. It's my little strategery, you see.

So look where we are. We have the GOP irreparably split, the metastasizing of the Democratic Party into a union of neoconservative and neoliberal war criminals, and the outing of the media as a cheap john working the rough trade of the DC/NY/LA glory holes. That's pretty good for mid-August, if you ask any political anarchist.

But do enjoy your moment, Santa. I've had many like it in the day and I'm betting I still might get one more. And should it turn out instead to be one more disappointing election night, I had a few of those too and lived to tell the tale. Campaigns and elections are so fun they ought to be illegal, and funny enough, it turns out they usually are!

Full speed ahead. I have a suspicion we might actually see an inversion, and who knows? If that happens I bet you won't be able to find a soul the next morning who would admit they voted for Trump.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

With 84 days left I thought I'd check in with that "discredited" 538 web site. Apparently it's not going well in Trumpland.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Jill Stein goes on the attack of Hillary:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/15/politi...ils/index.html

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

There is no "blinding rage" on our side. We're concerned. We see Trump supporters as angry children. It's not easy to understand but we're responsible adults and when our children are making friends with people like The Donald and the NRA we will voice our opinion and we will not condone your tantrums. The rage is yours, now go to your room and when you can own it we'll talk.

the Trumpster Fire will not win New Mexico. We only have 5 votes, but your guy is not getting them. This is not the election of 1800 or 1860 but to my mind it's close. No disrespect personally but I hope we crush your side. I don't want to win, I want to destroy your candidate.

Well you're right about one thing: It's not easy to understand that you're responsible adults