2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Manach

Clinton, in what appears to be a bid to engage with Mr. Saunder's proposal, has released a revised estate tax plan with a graduated level of taxes up to 65%. Trump on the other hand does not seem support such.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-65-tax-on-largest-estates-1474559914 [FYI Unsure if a paywall or not]

This hopefully at least provides an opportunity to bring policy instead of personality into the discussion.

oik

Clinton, in what appears to be a bid to engage with Mr. Saunder's proposal, has released a revised estate tax plan with a graduated level of taxes up to 65%. Trump on the other hand does not seem support such.


This hopefully at least provides an opportunity to bring policy instead of personality into the discussion.

She must be counting on no one except the most naive millenials believing her, because there's no chance of the anti-Trump GOP she's trying to appeal to going for that.

Black Swan

From the list of national polls provided by RCP today, it appears that Hillary Clinton continues to lead in most, but the earlier gap between Clinton and Trump has been narrowing as 8 November draws nearer, some of the polls with a small Clinton lead or Trump lead falling within the margin of error and consequently not significant (e.g., may be due to random variability occurring within the confidence interval). Four years ago we saw many of the national polls do the same thing as the presidential election drew near between Obama and Romney, so no surprises here, along with some national polls showing Romney leading Obama, and Rassmussen suggesting a Romney win. The LA Times/USC poll continues to suggest a Trump win, but it is new this year, has a different sampling frame, model, and other methods not found in the other national polls, so it will be interesting to see how close it comes to vote count percentages following 8 November 2016.

Of course, cautions should be exercised when viewing any polls, given that they are descriptive and not inferential, and different polls should not be averaged like RCP does with all the methodological differences, samples, and time frames between polling organisations.

oik

From the list of national polls provided by RCP today, it appears that Hillary Clinton continues to lead in most, but the earlier gap between Clinton and Trump has been narrowing as 8 November draws nearer, some of the polls with a small Clinton lead or Trump lead falling within the margin of error and consequently not significant (e.g., may be due to random variability occurring within the confidence interval). Four years ago we saw many of the national polls do the same thing as the presidential election drew near between Obama and Romney, so no surprises here, along with some national polls showing Romney leading Obama, and Rassmussen suggesting a Romney win. The LA Times/USC poll continues to suggest a Trump win, but it is new this year, has a different sampling frame, model, and other methods not found in the other national polls, so it will be interesting to see how close it comes to vote count percentages following 8 November 2016.

Of course, cautions should be exercised when viewing any polls, given that they are descriptive and not inferential, and different polls should not be averaged like RCP does with all the methodological differences, samples, and time frames between polling organisations.

No campaign team pays attention to national polls. The current state polls have Trump about 5-10 electoral college votes off 270. Many swing states have been consistently for Trump for a while now and some like Colorado have just come into play.

RCP's no toss up map has it at 272-266 in favour of Clinton. If shy Trump voters are a thing, and it's bound to be a thing it's approaching landslide territory.

Black Swan

oik wrote: »

No campaign team pays attention to national polls.

According to whom?

oik wrote: »

The current state polls have Trump about 5-10 electoral college votes off 270.

According to whom?

oik wrote: »

Many swing states have been consistently for Trump for a while now and some like Colorado have just come into play.

Specifically which swing states, and which state polls and percentages?

oik

According to whom?


.
According to whom?


Specifically which swing states, and which state polls and percentages?

According to the campaigns themselves. You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll. It's basically like a football team taking comfort from the possession stats while the match is a draw.

According to the polls. You know, the ones on the website you posted here just a second ago.

Seriously just browse the website you just posted all the info is there.

Christy42

oik wrote: »

If shy Trump voters are a thing, and it's bound to be a thing it's approaching landslide territory.

It isn't a thing. We have been through this repeatedly. You would expect to see evidence of this in online polls and in the primaries if it was true. There is no such evidence but it gets claimed every few pages. Trump supporters are then called on it and it is forgotten for a few more pages till it is brought up again.

This is just want Trump supporters tell themselves forgetting of course that they are no where near silent enough to be the silent majority.

Black Swan

oik wrote: »

The current state polls have Trump about 5-10 electoral college votes off 270.

Making inferences from today's descriptive state percentage polls to future November's EC state votes represents a conceptual error (e.g., comparing apples with oranges). Sure, they are both fruit using the same metaphor, but still very different. To explain why they are different indepth goes beyond the purview of this presidential election thread, but we could discuss such conceptual differences and how that affects associated poll and EC methodologies in our Researcher forum on this site (provided there is a serious interest).

oik

It isn't a thing. We have been through this repeatedly. You would expect to see evidence of this in online polls and in the primaries if it was true. There is no such evidence but it gets claimed every few pages. Trump supporters are then called on it and it is forgotten for a few more pages till it is brought up again.

This is just want Trump supporters tell themselves forgetting of course that they are no where near silent enough to be the silent majority.

How do you know it isn't a thing? The theory about there being no shy Trump voter phenomenon rests on data from the primary season, but since it was early in the campaign season, new dirt was being dug up and polls never reached any sort of equilibrium it's impossible to say whether it was shy supporters or just a general rise in support. Voters were primarily choosing between Trump and Cruz desperately trying to emulate Trump for most of it, and since all or most of those polled were Republicans anyway they'd obviously be less shy about supporting a Republican candidate.

Independents? Not so much.

Neither of us knows for certain until election day, but I think you're projecting when you say that Trump supporters are just telling themselves this. That might well be the case, but I think you seek comfort in the opposite belief just the same as them.

Also, the online poll theory doesn't stack up because young people don't answer the phone and old people don't browse online. Polling companies are all in limbo now because of the big generational gap in polling methods.

oik

Making inferences from today's descriptive state percentage polls to future November's EC state votes represents a conceptual error (e.g., comparing apples with oranges). Sure, they are both fruit using the same metaphor, but still very different. To explain why they are different indepth goes beyond the purview of this presidential election thread, but we could discuss such conceptual differences and how that affects associated poll and EC methodologies in our Researcher forum on this site (provided there is a serious interest).

I call bull****. You can't bring up polls in one post and then claim making inferences from them "represents a conceptual error" in the next.

Using rare words is a fairly transparent attempt to appear intelligent without actually saying anything, especially when using them to weasel out of a discussion. "Sorry guys I'd love to explain my theory but it's not within the purview of this thread". Thanks for bringing it up then genius.

Black Swan

oik wrote: »

According to the campaigns themselves.

During the GOP primaries it was reported that Donald Trump would comment upon those "high respected" polls that showed him ahead of his Republican rivals.

"WHAT'S TRUE: Donald Trump said during an October 2015 appearance on Meet the Press that if polls indicated he wasn't going to win the Republican presidential nomination, he would drop out of the race."

oik wrote: »

You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll.

You "use your own brain" comment was anecdotal and without substantive support to suggest that it has any merit. Recommend that you provide links that suggest support for your position with specific and credible named persons with a similar view, not generic (e.g., look for yourself comments), otherwise it's just armchair opinion by you and nothing more.

Sofa Spud

Check out Nate Silver's site fivethirtyeight.com

This guy has a strong record of reliable analysis of existing polls, using some scientific jiggery pokery to weed out poll bias or demographic anomalies to give consistently accurate predictions - called the last election just about as accurate as possible....

oik

During the GOP primaries it was reported that Donald Trump would comment upon those "high respected" polls that showed him ahead of his Republican rivals.

"WHAT'S TRUE: Donald Trump said during an October 2015 appearance on Meet the Press that if polls indicated he wasn't going to win the Republican presidential nomination, he would drop out of the race."


You "use your own brain" comment was anecdotal and without substantive support to suggest that it has any merit. Recommend that you provide links that suggest support for your position with specific and credible named persons with a similar view, not generic (e.g., look for yourself comments), otherwise it's just armchair opinion by you and nothing more.

For god sake man. There's a difference between what Donald Trump himself says to reporters to create the positive impression that he's winning and what campaigns focus on behind the scenes. You would think you had no social intelligence at all.

"You "use your own brain" comment was anecdotal and without substantive sup..." There you go again. I don't know who you think you're impressing.

You know I can't post links due to the number of posts. As soon as I have enough posts I'll post a video in which a Clinton campaign spox and a CNN or NBC reporter agree that national polls do not concern the campaign teams.

Black Swan

oik wrote: »

According to the campaigns themselves. You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll.

It would seem that Donald Trump, who was "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" did in fact "take any comfort from a national poll" when he replied to Chuck Todd during Meet the Press, 19 August 2015, 4:30 pm ET (transcript):

CHUCK TODD:

"Because it resonated with you."

DONALD TRUMP:

"Look, my life has been an interesting life. I've had a lot of fun. I'm leading in the polls."

oik

It would seem that Donald Trump, who was "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" did in fact "take any comfort from a national poll" when he replied to Chuck Todd during Meet the Press, 19 August 2015, 4:30 pm ET (transcript):

CHUCK TODD:

"Because it resonated with you."

DONALD TRUMP:

"Look, my life has been an interesting life. I've had a lot of fun. I'm leading in the polls."

Did he say national polls?

Do you also understand that in August 19th 2015 the first primaries were about 6 months away and state by state polls probably hadn't started.

Your desperate nitpicking has washed out the thin veneer of intelligence you were trying to project by using overly flowery language.

You're also missing the fact that relying on national polls with 45 or so days until the election is a bit different than 15 months out.

K-9

oik wrote: »

Your desperate nitpicking has washed out the thin veneer of intelligence you were trying to project by using overly flowery language.

Mod:

Cut out these type of posts please, there has been a few recently. There's no need for them.

Christy42

oik wrote: »

How do you know it isn't a thing? The theory about there being no shy Trump voter phenomenon rests on data from the primary season, but since it was early in the campaign season, new dirt was being dug up and polls never reached any sort of equilibrium it's impossible to say whether it was shy supporters or just a general rise in support. Voters were primarily choosing between Trump and Cruz desperately trying to emulate Trump for most of it, and since all or most of those polled were Republicans anyway they'd obviously be less shy about supporting a Republican candidate.

Independents? Not so much.

Neither of us knows for certain until election day, but I think you're projecting when you say that Trump supporters are just telling themselves this. That might well be the case, but I think you seek comfort in the opposite belief just the same as them.

Also, the online poll theory doesn't stack up because young people don't answer the phone and old people don't browse online. Polling companies are all in limbo now because of the big generational gap in polling methods.

The burden of proof is on you here.

Or shall we talk about the landslide for Hillary once all her silent voters come out in November:p.

Also you should see it in the online polls vs other polls for young people (face to face for instance). Sure it is a possibility but it can't be assumed without evidence. Mine (no silent voters for either side is the natural prior without further evidence).

oik

The burden of proof is on you here.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just stated my opinion that the shy Trump voter exists and I base this, quite credibly, on his connection to racism and other things most Americans don't want to associate themselves with publicly.

People going to Trump rallies still have to walk a gauntlet of protesters to get in and out.

You're the one who said it had been shown not to exist, which is a positive claim which requires evidence.

I don't base my prediction of a Trump victory on polls, although they are a good indicator, I base it off his own skills as a politician. For Hillary attack has been the best form of defence against him but he hasn't been on defence or attack this last month or so. He has been going straight to the people to make his case. He has from now until the election to convince the remaining swing voters that he is capable of being presidential and is not a threat to theirs or anyone else's safety. That's all he has to do to win. For Clinton to win, there's nothing she can do, all she can do his hope he doesn't succeed in changing his public perception.

Black Swan

oik wrote: »

According to the campaigns themselves. You could also use your own brain to figure out why anyone seriously seeking the presidency wouldn't take any comfort from a national poll.

oik wrote: »

Did he say national polls?

Do you also understand that in August 19th 2015 the first primaries were about 6 months away and state by state polls probably hadn't started.

It does appear that Donald Trump is "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" and does "take any comfort from a national poll:"

Transcript from the Fox News 2016 hosted Republican primary debates:

TRUMP: Very nice words, but happens to be wrong. CNN just came out with a poll two days ago that...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... That national poll -- excuse me...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... The national poll -- a national poll where he's at 15, he's at 14...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)...
TRUMP: ... And, I'm at 49, so when he says 75 percent, that would mean that 80 percent of the people don't dig you, and I'm back down to 50...

oik

It does appear that Donald Trump is "anyone seriously seeking the presidency" and does "take any comfort from a national poll:"

Transcript from the Fox News 2016 hosted Republican primary debates:

TRUMP: Very nice words, but happens to be wrong. CNN just came out with a poll two days ago that...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... That national poll -- excuse me...
RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: ... The national poll -- a national poll where he's at 15, he's at 14... RUBIO: ... (INAUDIBLE)...
TRUMP: ... And, I'm at 49, so when he says 75 percent, that would mean that 80 percent of the people don't dig you, and I'm back down to 50...

Take a step back and think about what you've managed to prove here. With all your effort.

ancapailldorcha

oik wrote: »

Take a step back and think about what you've managed to prove here. With all your effort.

Either post constructively or not at all.

oik

Okay, let me try again. You're being overly pedantic and not really proving anything of worth. Yeah, Trump mentions polls a lot. That doesn't mean that his campaign team (or Clinton's) is concerned about their standing in national polls. National polls don't matter. Would you like me to revisit the football analogy? Possession doesn't win games, goals do.

K-9

National polls do matter as a guage of how well a candidate is doing, momentum in the campaign, stuff like that.

Electorally though, it comes down to 6 or 7 states or whatever the number of swing states are.

Calina

oik wrote: »

Okay, let me try again. You're being overly pedantic and not really proving anything of worth. Yeah, Trump mentions polls a lot. That doesn't mean that his campaign team (or Clinton's) is concerned about their standing in national polls. National polls don't matter. Would you like me to revisit the football analogy? Possession doesn't win games, goals do.

Goals don't happen without possession for the most part apart from the odd own goal. Check with the Mayo football team. They're familiar with this.

In the meantime, Trump seems to spend a lot of time focusing on stuff which apparently doesn't matter to his backroom team. This is not a good optic. If he doesn't care about national polls he shouldn't be talking about them.

oik

Goals don't happen without possession for the most part apart from the odd own goal. Check with the Mayo football team. They're familiar with this.

In the meantime, Trump seems to spend a lot of time focusing on stuff which apparently doesn't matter to his backroom team. This is not a good optic. If he doesn't care about national polls he shouldn't be talking about them.

I was thinking in terms of premier league football where the team with the most possession wins about 50-55% of the time.

I've already explained why I think, and why most people seem to think, he brings up the polls. It's to remind people of how well he's doing. If he were to say "look at the polls, I'm not doing so well right now" it would sink his campaign. He's saying "look at me, I'm clearly the best candidate because I've got the most support". It surely helped his momentum in the primaries because the frontrunner generally enjoys an advantage. In fact it's generally a trend in primaries that when people's favourite candidates drop out they default to the front runner.

But in terms of election strategy, national polls aren't useful at all because the national result won't get you elected.

Christy42

oik wrote: »

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just stated my opinion that the shy Trump voter exists and I base this, quite credibly, on his connection to racism and other things most Americans don't want to associate themselves with publicly.

People going to Trump rallies still have to walk a gauntlet of protesters to get in and out.

You're the one who said it had been shown not to exist, which is a positive claim which requires evidence.

I don't base my prediction of a Trump victory on polls, although they are a good indicator, I base it off his own skills as a politician. For Hillary attack has been the best form of defence against him but he hasn't been on defence or attack this last month or so. He has been going straight to the people to make his case. He has from now until the election to convince the remaining swing voters that he is capable of being presidential and is not a threat to theirs or anyone else's safety. That's all he has to do to win. For Clinton to win, there's nothing she can do, all she can do his hope he doesn't succeed in changing his public perception.

Great you have an opinion. All you are doing is trying to bring it into the discussion without having to back anything you say up in the slightest. Rallies are irrelevant for polls so that is irrelevant. The claim of the silent voter was made in the primaries for similar reasons and was wrong it was shown not to exist there and nothing major has changed. You can do it for any candidate you want. Hillary is connected to a lot of scandals and you might be worried about going against so many Trump supporters therefore I am of the opinion that there is a silent majority for Clinton. Also as I have phrased this as an opinion I apparently don't have to back up anything at all.

You tried a similar trick with your "here are the benefits of the war crimes my candidate is endorsing but I don't support them at all stick".

ebbsy

Tomorrow night if I was Trump I would let Hillary do a fair amount of the talking. She is a real turn off when she opens her mouth.

This might not be as explosive as people expect. They both know each other really well and will know the skeletons in the closet.

Both are likely to take a wait and see approach in my opinion. Although whether the Donald can keep his powder clean is another story.

bekosam

When is the debate gonna be on here in Ireland? Is is tonight (in a few hours around 2AM) or tomorrow night (around 2am)? I'm confused by the date and timezones.

Jimbob1977

bekosam wrote: »

When is the debate gonna be on here in Ireland? Is is tonight (in a few hours around 2AM) or tomorrow night (around 2am)? I'm confused by the date and timezones.

Tuesday early hours 2am.... Monday night effectively

oik

Great you have an opinion. All you are doing is trying to bring it into the discussion without having to back anything you say up in the slightest. Rallies are irrelevant for polls so that is irrelevant. The claim of the silent voter was made in the primaries for similar reasons and was wrong it was shown not to exist there and nothing major has changed. You can do it for any candidate you want. Hillary is connected to a lot of scandals and you might be worried about going against so many Trump supporters therefore I am of the opinion that there is a silent majority for Clinton. Also as I have phrased this as an opinion I apparently don't have to back up anything at all.

You tried a similar trick with your "here are the benefits of the war crimes my candidate is endorsing but I don't support them at all stick".

If you're not here to share your opinion then why on earth are you here? What's this bull**** about having to back up my opinion with fact?

It's my opinion that Trump will get more votes than expected in this election. Do I have to back that up with facts in order to post it? Don't be ridiculous.

oik

Tomorrow night if I was Trump I would let Hillary do a fair amount of the talking. She is a real turn off when she opens her mouth.

This might not be as explosive as people expect. They both know each other really well and will know the skeletons in the closet.

Both are likely to take a wait and see approach in my opinion. Although whether the Donald can keep his powder clean is another story.

I think Clinton will come out over-prepared. Her campaign apparently has her reading a lot of policy briefs and rumour has it having mock debates against Trump lookalikes. This election isn't about policy it's a referendum on the direction of the country.

If Trump tries to go after her on foreign policy it could be his undoing. Simply because hitting her on that involves successfully making the case that she is a habitual interventionist but in doing so he risks coming across as strident like he did in the South Carolina debates against Jeb.

Rather than going after her he should outline his own vision of "peace and stability" and challenge her to do the same. She won't be able to do so effectively because she'll be expecting Iraq, Syria and Libya to be the counterpunch.

ancapailldorcha

oik wrote: »

If you're not here to share your opinion then why on earth are you here? What's this bull**** about having to back up my opinion with fact?

It's my opinion that Trump will get more votes than expected in this election. Do I have to back that up with facts in order to post it? Don't be ridiculous.

This is your final warning. Next time you post in this manner, you will receive a ban. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to back it up. Opinions are exempt for obvious reasons.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

I think Clinton will come out over-prepared. Her campaign apparently has her reading a lot of policy briefs and rumour has it having mock debates against Trump lookalikes. This election isn't about policy it's a referendum on the direction of the country.

If Trump tries to go after her on foreign policy it could be his undoing. Simply because hitting her on that involves successfully making the case that she is a habitual interventionist but in doing so he risks coming across as strident like he did in the South Carolina debates against Jeb.

Rather than going after her he should outline his own vision of "peace and stability" and challenge her to do the same. She won't be able to do so effectively because she'll be expecting Iraq, Syria and Libya to be the counterpunch.

Then he will need to hope she doesn't suddenly forget that he said he will bomb the **** out of oil fields, steal resources, and take out terrorist families. Nothing says peace and stability like sending forces overseas to kill women and children.

"For example, he said that bombing Libya was “a disaster”, but he then questioned why we aren’t still bombing Libya right now. He claimed that “unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” Yet he’s bragged in the recent past about wanting to bring back waterboarding, or “much worse”, killing terrorists’ entire families, and would not be opposed to using nuclear bombs, even in Europe. He remarked that there’s “too much destruction out there – too many destructive weapons,” but just five minutes earlier in the speech, he said the US’s nuclear arsenal was in dire need of “renewal”."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/27/no-anti-war-candidate-presidential-election-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

oik

Then he will need to hope she doesn't suddenly forget that he said he will bomb the **** out of oil fields, steal resources, and take out terrorist families. Nothing says peace and stability like sending forces overseas to kill women and children.

"For example, he said that bombing Libya was “a disaster”, but he then questioned why we aren’t still bombing Libya right now. He claimed that “unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” Yet he’s bragged in the recent past about wanting to bring back waterboarding, or “much worse”, killing terrorists’ entire families, and would not be opposed to using nuclear bombs, even in Europe. He remarked that there’s “too much destruction out there – too many destructive weapons,” but just five minutes earlier in the speech, he said the US’s nuclear arsenal was in dire need of “renewal”."

I hope for Trump's sake that Hillary thinks pointing those things out will help her. It won't.

Most of it is too extreme for people to even compute. The cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias of both sets of supporters means that that is either dismissed out of hand or used to reaffirm the views of people who will never vote for him.

She only has a limited amount of scorn to dish out in the debate before the headlines begin to read "Scornful Hillary Trumped by calm Donald". She needs to be tactful about how she plays that card.

Trump can easily weasel out of any suggestion he made before about Syria or Libya by saying that the situation on the ground has evolved and there's no longer a need for it.

Most also understand that to have peace and stability you have to first win the war, so they will judge Trump's foreign policy on its likelihood of bringing a speedy conclusion.

They will have to judge Hillary on her likelihood of intervening in another region too.



None of the things you have pointed out as being contradictions are contradictory. They're not comparable in any way.

There's a difference between bombing Libya when Gaddafi was in power and bombing ISIS affiliates in Libya now. Radically different scenarios.

There's a difference between intervening to topple a dictator in an act of aggression against another country and waterboarding terrorists. They are two concepts that share basically nothing in common.

I see nothing wrong with being prepared to use nuclear weapons. That's what they are there for. It is more dangerous to have them if you are not prepared to use them. The majority of white middle class voters probably realise that.

There is a very significant conceptual difference between lamenting the amount of destructive weapons (which could mean anything) "out there" and believing that the USA should have a strong nuclear deterrent. Again, literally nothing contradictory about it.



I see now that it was lifted straight from a Guardian article. Not surprising really. This is what passes for journalism these days. Easily refutable sophistry.

oik

CNN reporting that Clinton has removed Ohio from her schedule entirely. Hasn't been there since Labor Day and won't be coming back. She has effectively conceded Ohio to Trump and it's no longer in play.

Suryavarman

Clinton has already won the debate. When it was announced that she had invited Mark Cuban to the debate Trump took the bait and said he would invite Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Clinton has shown that she can get under his skin with a simple tweet. Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate.

oik

Clinton has already won the debate. When it was announced that she had invited Mark Cuban to the debate Trump took the bait and said he would invite Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Clinton has shown that she can get under his skin with a simple tweet. Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate.

Are you really sure that got under his skin? You know he does have a sense of humour, don't you? He probably thought it was really funny. Just like everyone else in the country thought it was funny.

alastair

oik wrote: »

I didn't kill him with my car. I just failed to push the brakes.

Nope, she's still not responsible for anyone dying in Benghazi.

Black Swan

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton has already won the debate. When it was announced that she had invited Mark Cuban to the debate Trump took the bait and said he would invite Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Clinton has shown that she can get under his skin with a simple tweet. Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate.

The ultimate weapon for Hillary Clinton to invite would be Seth Meyers, who roasted Donald Trump about 4 years ago during an annual press dinner, and Trump was pictured red-faced-mad in the audience while everyone else laughed. Ever since leaving SNL Seth Meyers has made fun of Donald Trump in his Closer Looks, and I doubt that Trump laughs at them either. By comparison, Seth Meyers gave a scorching roast of Obama during a recent press conference dinner, and both Seph and Obama were laughing throughout. Methinks that Donald Trump's Achilles' heel is for someone to make continuous fun of him and his behaviour.

A few examples:
Trump University
Why Trump's Fake Publicist Charade Matters
Trump Lies about his Birther Past
Trump Transforms for the National Election

oik

The ultimate weapon for Hillary Clinton to invite would be Seth Meyers, who roasted Donald Trump about 4 years ago during an annual press dinner, and Trump was pictured red-faced-mad in the audience while everyone else laughed. Ever since leaving SNL Seth Meyers has made fun of Donald Trump in his Closer Looks, and I doubt that Trump laughs at them either. By comparison, Seth Meyers gave a scorching roast of Obama during a recent press conference dinner, and both Seph and Obama were laughing throughout. Methinks that Donald Trump's Achilles' heel is for someone to make continuous fun of him and his behaviour.

Yes, it would only be right that Hillary sinks to Trump's level at this stage in the game.

"Have you seen his hands?" Always ends well.



I also just re-watched the correspondents dinner and Trump wasn't laughing but didn't look red faced or mad. Hair jokes, hmm something tells me he's tougher than that. The only word to describe his demeanour at that moment would be determined, which in hindsight makes a lot of sense. If Trump really was as thin-skinned as people claim he is he wouldn't be running for president.

oik

Nope, she's still not responsible for anyone dying in Benghazi.

You're right. The Democrats investigated themselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing. That was only a minority report, thankfully.

The actual report is still pending though so we'll reserve judgement until then.

These are the same Democrats by the way who just voted against revoking the immunity of Hillary's IT guy whose Reddit profile was recently found with a post history asking how to tamper with email evidence (for a "VVIP"/"you definitely know this person") from the day the subpoena for her emails was first issued. Reddit has been subpoenaed to recover the deleted posts after people tweeted screenshots to the Republicans on the investigation committee. Imagine that. A guy is caught red handed tampering with evidence and the Democrats vote against revoking his immunity. It's almost as if the Democrats have a disregard for the rule of law. Thank god they were in the minority.

Christy42

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/

Good analysis of what is going on and the main issues for both candidates right now.

The point that a Trump win would be possible without the polls being badly wrong is worrying.
Hillary is certainly still the favourite but a 42%chance of a Trump win is worrying from my point of view.

alastair

oik wrote: »

You're right. The Democrats investigated themselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing. That was only a minority report, thankfully.

The actual report is still pending though so we'll reserve judgement until then.

The 'actual report' whose findings you dismiss as being a Democrat investigation was undertaken by a body with a majority of Republicans; the Select Committee on Intelligence.

cowboyBuilder

I wonder what will happen first, Clinton collapses or Trump making an ass of himself?

Brian?

Christy42 wrote: »

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/

Good analysis of what is going on and the main issues for both candidates right now.

The point that a Trump win would be possible without the polls being badly wrong is worrying.
Hillary is certainly still the favourite but a 42%chance of a Trump win is worrying from my point of view.

I've settled into the acceptance phase. Trump is going to win. He'll have a friendly congress for 2 years. The US will take a leap backwards in social reform.

My only hope is the GOP are wiped out in the mid terms.

alastair

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I wonder what will happen first, Clinton collapses or Trump making an ass of himself?

If we've learned anything, it's that Trump is reliably swift to make an ass of himself. Clinton will do better out of the debates than Trump. The only real question is whether that will be sufficient to carry her all the way to Election Day, which is still a long ways off.

oscarBravo

Brian? wrote: »

I've settled into the acceptance phase. Trump is going to win. He'll have a friendly congress for 2 years. The US will take a leap backwards in social reform.

My only hope is the GOP are wiped out in the mid terms.

I could (just) live with the idea of four years of Trump as president; it might at least show people who want to "shake things up" that being shaken up isn't inherently a good thing.

The problem with a Trump presidency is the list of candidates he's proposed for the Supreme Court. There's only so much damage he can do in the White House, but he could destroy the Court for a generation.

FA Hayek

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton has already won the debate. When it was announced that she had invited Mark Cuban to the debate Trump took the bait and said he would invite Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Clinton has shown that she can get under his skin with a simple tweet. Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate.

Not necessarily. That was a very good put down in my opinion by Trump. He is the master of them. People have been trying to enage him in his own game time and again and he has always come out on top. People were talking more about Gennifer Flowers then Mark Cuban, certainly on social media. Just look at the trending stats for each name.

https://www.google.com.au/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=%2Fm%2F01yq7d,%2Fm%2F024t0y
You can see who the clear winner is here.

That is the problem for Hillary, if she is going to take him on in the debate, then she has to thread carefully as he could come out with a one liner that will be the talking point of the debate. That in of itself will have won the debate for Trump because that is what people will be talking about.

Jeb, Rubio and Cruz and have all tried this game, and they all failed. Clinton does not want to become another Jeb.

FA Hayek

Brian? wrote: »

I've settled into the acceptance phase. Trump is going to win. He'll have a friendly congress for 2 years. The US will take a leap backwards in social reform.

My only hope is the GOP are wiped out in the mid terms.

Social reform? Trump is actually the most moderate Republican for decades. The only standout for him here is immigration, which is probably more inlined with the general public then the political and corporate elite. People make him out to be some right wing christian ideologue like Cruz, he isn't, he is far far off it and when push comes to shove him and Clinton would actually have much in common.

Peist2007

oik wrote: »

She only has a limited amount of scorn to dish out in the debate before the headlines begin to read "Scornful Hillary Trumped by calm Donald". She needs to be tactful about how she plays that card.

No chance. Whatever happens tonight will be reported as a Hillary win.