2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Sofa Spud · 19-10-2016 9:28pm

Anyone think that Bill's past indiscretions and Trump's current spate of accusations means they almost cancel each other out, leave both candidates vulnerable (regardless of how accurate or credible the smears are for both) and therefore they may both avoid going too heavy on each other in bringing up sleaze in the debate tonight?

ebbsy · 19-10-2016 9:30pm

It's hard to believe there are actually people out there who think he is going to build a wall.

Jan_de_Bakker · 19-10-2016 9:30pm

Sofa Spud wrote: »

It's a cliche at this point, but he's just a narcissist that never thought he'd get this far, never wanted to govern - as illustrated by Kasich leaking that Trump jr approached him about the VP job, saying he would have control over the administration while Trump just focused on the 'making America great again' stuff -and now that he's losing, he had to make it look like he's being cheated to protect his fragile ego. The scary bit is that a lot of people will believe him and will feel cheated when he looses, so Hill will inherit a nation that is more divided than ever before, and Trump does not care. Worse than that, it looks like he's not even self aware of the damage he's doing. He seems incapable of understanding the impact he's having. Who would like to bet that he'll give a gracious and unequivocal concession speech?

I think he will, he'll get the digs in on Twitter after tho ..

Still hope he wins...

ancapailldorcha · 19-10-2016 9:32pm

Ebbsy banned for 2 days.

Sofa Spud · 19-10-2016 9:33pm

ebbsy wrote: »

It's hard to believe there are actually people out there who think he is going to build a wall.

Anyone notice that he's not mentioning the wall as much lately?

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 9:33pm

Black Swan wrote: »

21 minutes ago FiveThirtyEight's forecast shows Clinton's chance of winning 86.7% and Trump's 13.3%. These are updated daily, sometimes more frequently given the course of events occurring during the remaining 3 weeks before the presidential election. The forecast will more than likely be updated again hours following tonight's 3rd and last presidential debate. It's still possible that Trump could win, but the odds are very unfavourable this close to the 8 November 2016 election.

Of course, if you are a Trump supporter, you may wish to discount FiveThirtyEight's forecasts, because they do not favour your candidate, and if you have absolute and total faith in every word that comes out of Donald Trump's MOUTH, FiveThirtyEight might be considered a member of some Trump rumoured worldwide group that has been working collectively to rig or fix the election in each of the individual 50 states, DC, and territories so that he loses (through absolutely no fault of his own).

They get updated every time a new poll is published. Before the latest adjustment it was 86% based on a TIPP poll and before that it was 88.1%. A Quinnpac poll that gave Clinton a 7 point lead has led to the latest adjustment.

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-10-2016 9:35pm

Wouldn't over rely on Poll data, as it didn't fair too well for some folks during the Brexit recently, nor the UK general elections before that.

Only around 4hrs for the entertainment show to start, predict i) DT will sniffle a fair bit, and ii) HC will sit down a fair bit.

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 9:35pm

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Anyone notice that he's not mentioning the wall as much lately?

I presume it's still on his website. I haven't looked because I just had a shower, but it would be some turnabout if it wasn't.

Overheal · 19-10-2016 9:38pm

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

Wouldn't over rely on Poll data, as it didn't fair too well for some folks during the Brexit recently, nor the UK general elections before that.

FiveThirtyEight is a US political statistic modeling site. It accurately called the 2008 election 49/50 states and the 2012 election 50/50 states. It's a bit more than polling it's politics with calculus and actuarial science applied.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

alastair · 19-10-2016 9:43pm

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Anyone think that Bill's past indiscretions and Trump's current spate of accusations means they almost cancel each other out, leave both candidates vulnerable (regardless of how accurate or credible the smears are for both) and therefore they may both avoid going too heavy on each other in bringing up sleaze in the debate tonight?

Most people are savvy enough to understand Hillary isn't responsible for Bill's choices. Never mind that the electorate made up their mind on Bill's morals and their application to the job on offer in 1996. Slick Willy for all his failings however never made any admission that sexual assault was a part of his 'indiscretions' - and any claims made against him in that regard have been unconvincing. Bill seems to have no difficulty in finding willing partners in his dalliances. Trump has implicated himself in unwanted sexual assault, so it's kind of hard to dispute that's part and parcel of how he treats women. Lots of sleaze on both sides, but Bill's record appears to be rather more about consensual activities. It's telling that Bill's presidential favourability ratings ended higher than where he started off - after all the Lewinsky saga and the impeachment - whereas Trump's polling figures nosedived on the back of his hot mic revelations.

B_Wayne · 19-10-2016 9:47pm

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Anyone notice that he's not mentioning the wall as much lately?

It seems to be more that he's a flailing wreck and anything close to a script exited the window.

Black Swan · 19-10-2016 9:54pm

ebbsy wrote: »

No wonder she was sitting down all the time in the 2nd debate.

There were chairs provided for each of the candidates for this Community forum debate so that each candidate could have the option to relax during discussions, unlike the paired podium debate to be hosted in Nevada tonight. Part of the reason for chairs was to create a relaxed atmosphere. Are you claiming that if Hillary Clinton sits down on occasion in the seats provided, that something must be wrong with her? Trump also sat down. Do you have any quantitative evidence that would suggest that the number of times each candidate sat down, and for how long they sat down might suggest that they were physically unfit to be president? What threshold (or anecdotal line in the sand) did you use to come up with this conclusion about Hillary Clinton, and not Donald Trump, who also sat down?

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-10-2016 9:57pm

Some of the (3rd Presidential Debate Futures) markets on offer, for tonight include:

- Donald Trump to walk out during the live broadcast 8.50 (15/2)
- Hillary Clinton to take a drug test before the debate 15.00 (14/1)
- Donald Trump to not attend the 3rd Debate 15.00 (14/1)

- Will Hillary Clinton say the following words in the 3rd live debate: Trumped-Up 2/1

Will Donald Trump say the following words in the 20/10/2016 live debate:
- Worst Secretary of State 2/1
- You’re Fired 8/1

A couple of these (in bold) may have some likely-hood, the rest, not so much.

BorneTobyWilde · 19-10-2016 10:04pm

Mentioned that wall in rallies all this week. It's funny how DNC gets people to cause violence at Trump rallies yet no one things it's a big deal. It's funny how they use voter fraud to get ahead. These are things said directly from the mouths of people that work their campaign, yet it's not rigged eh .
Voter fraud '' we have people that can make things happen that you don't need to know about '' She's so crooked it's laughable .

InTheTrees · 19-10-2016 10:11pm

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

Wouldn't over rely on Poll data, as it didn't fair too well for some folks during the Brexit recently, nor the UK general elections before that.

The american polling companies know what they're doing. They've always been accurate in the past.

That polling companies wete off in some other countries is hardly very relevant is it?

realitykeeper · 19-10-2016 10:11pm

Stopping US companies moving to other countries seems to be much higher on Trumps priority list than Clintons. That being the case, how does Donald Trump really view Ireland? More to the point, should he be elected President, what will he have to say to Enda Kenny next St Patrick`s day? Kenny has been critical of Trump and that is not something Trump is likely to forget. I believe Trump will be the next US President despite or rather because of mass media support for his opponent.

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 10:12pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Mentioned that wall in rallies all this week. It's funny how DNC gets people to cause violence at Trump rallies yet no one things it's a big deal. It's funny how they use voter fraud to get ahead. These are things said directly from the mouths of people that work their campaign, yet it's not rigged eh .
Voter fraud '' we have people that can make things happen that you don't need to know about '' She's so crooked it's laughable .

You posted this crap before and were asked questions on it. You disappeared without answering them and here you are back again as if for the first time.

So good luck with that.

TheDoctor · 19-10-2016 10:17pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

Wouldn't over rely on Poll data, as it didn't fair too well for some folks during the Brexit recently, nor the UK general elections before that.

The american polling companies know what they're doing. They've always been accurate in the past.

That polling companies wete off in some other countries is hardly very relevant is it?

The last brexit polls before the vote were a statistical tie, stay by 3% with a margin of error of about +\- 3% . So all this rhetoric about how the polls got it wrong are themselves in fact wrong.

The leave vote was also rising the last few weeks and had the momentum, Trump is heading the other way.

Sofa Spud · 19-10-2016 10:17pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Mentioned that wall in rallies all this week. It's funny how DNC gets people to cause violence at Trump rallies yet no one things it's a big deal. It's funny how they use voter fraud to get ahead. These are things said directly from the mouths of people that work their campaign, yet it's not rigged eh .
Voter fraud '' we have people that can make things happen that you don't need to know about '' She's so crooked it's laughable .

Any evidence for this? Actual factual evidence, not just someone saying it or tweeting it?

Actual research - a News21 analysis and recent court rulings - shows voter fraud is a statistical non-event. Previous posts show that most states, especially 'battleground' states have Republican administrations, and they are the folks responsible for running the elections in their states.

Remember Katherine Harris? She was the Republican Secretary of State in Florida that certified the election result that handed the presidency to W.
She was also responsible for the purge of the voters register in the years before that election that managed to eliminate eligible as well as ineligible voters that just happened to be predominantly black.

Oh, and she was also co-chair of G W Bush's 2000 election committee in Florida....

BorneTobyWilde · 19-10-2016 10:17pm

He got fired.

A friendly fire

'' we will fire you to make it look like you were not under our orders, then we will take care of you as you know our secrets''

'' yea good idea, I love you Hilary xx ''

Billy86 · 19-10-2016 10:18pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You posted this crap before and were asked questions on it. You disappeared without answering them and here you are back again as if for the first time.

So good luck with that.

It's become standard with this one - 'the polls are wrong' is coming up within their next 3-4 posts I reckon. I don't mean for that to sound like attacking the poster rather than the post - but I've pointed out the error in that maybe 8, 10, 12 times to them by now (e.g. Trump was winning 159 of 160 polls for the six months leading into the end of the primaries, and Brexit was if anything more towards 'leave' before the terrorist attack) and yet just as you say... no response, followed by the exact same falsehood 1-2 days later. Sometimes within the same day.

Black Swan · 19-10-2016 10:22pm

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

Wouldn't over rely on Poll data, as it didn't fair too well for some folks during the Brexit recently, nor the UK general elections before that.

It should also be noted that FiveThirtyEight uses 2 models when forecasting, a simple poll-driven model, and also a fundamentals-driven model, the latter incorporating a multiplicity of factors in addition to polls that are run 10's of thousands of times thanks to the convenience of computer statistical programming and analysis. FiveThirtyEight has had rather rigourous and confident forecasts during past presidential elections, but they too suggest that caution should be used in this 2016 presidential election when reading their results. They also suggest that the closer they get to 8 November 2016, the closer their forecast gets (but I think this last point is an elaboration of the obvious).

aloyisious · 19-10-2016 10:29pm

ebbsy wrote: »

It's hard to believe there are actually people out there who think he is going to build a wall.

Anything further on the wall he want's built on his Doonbeg golf course and resort in Co Clare?

Sofa Spud · 19-10-2016 10:38pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Anything further on the wall he want's built on his Doonbeg golf course and resort in Co Clare?

The initial planning permission was turned down and he had to reply to about 50 specific points that Clare CoCo had made - hilariously, he seems to believe in the climatic impact of global warming when it impacts his property...

glued · 19-10-2016 11:05pm

Neither candidate is up to the job. I don't really know how anybody can honestly justify a vote for either candidate. Both have proven their incompetence time and time again. Trump says he's the guy to 'make America great again' yet he won't recognise his own workers rights and pay them their deserved minimum wage. Clinton has proven herself to be incompetent while in public office.

gosplan · 19-10-2016 11:08pm

Trumps problem now is that the polls could be out a bit and he could win some of the states he looks like losing such as Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada Florida etc. but he has to win ALL of those and then take somewhere like Pennsylvania where he's trailing HRC more than he is nationally.

BorneTobyWilde · 19-10-2016 11:12pm

glued wrote: »

Neither candidate is up to the job. I don't really know how anybody can honestly justify a vote for either candidate. Both have proven their incompetence time and time again. Trump says he's the guy to 'make America great again' yet he won't recognise his own workers rights and pay them their deserved minimum wage. Clinton has proven herself to be incompetent while in public office.

I agree and one is worse than the other. The one with a track record of being corrupt politically.

Sofa Spud · 19-10-2016 11:22pm

gosplan wrote: »

Trumps problem now is that the polls could be out a bit and he could win some of the states he looks like losing such as Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada Florida etc. but he has to win ALL of those and then take somewhere like Pennsylvania where he's trailing HRC more than he is nationally.

Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager (the guy played by Woody Harrelson in Game Changer) was on tv this morning saying the panic has begun in relation to the polls and he believes that Hillary is now heading to exceed 400 in the electoral college. Agree that the polls can be wrong, but the momentum is clearly building for her, and barring something cataclysmic, she could be heading for a finish that not even Trump at his Trump-iest could spin as being fraud. Still curious to see what the turn-out will be....

Overheal · 19-10-2016 11:24pm

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager (the guy played by Woody Harrelson in Game Changer) was on tv this morning saying the panic has begun in relation to the polls and he believes that Hillary is now heading to exceed 400 in the electoral college. Agree that the polls can be wrong, but the momentum is clearly building for her, and barring something cataclysmic, she could be heading for a finish that not even Trump at his Trump-iest could spin as being fraud. Still curious to see what the turn-out will be....

97% is the popular landslide win for dictators..

K-9 · 19-10-2016 11:24pm

Brian? wrote: »

That's absolute nonsense. There is zero evidence that she's "on something".

The reason she sat down so much was there were chairs provided. Trump looked like a mad man, pacing around while Hillary talked.

As Farage put it "he was like a silver backed gorilla".

Dohnjoe · 19-10-2016 11:25pm

Holy crap what happened to the polls in the last day?

The BBC averages had it at 49% Clinton 40% Trump (yesterday I believe)

Today it's 47% to 43%...

Yes polls are not an exact science, yadda yadda.. but if Trump does well tonight, he could turn this into a close one

Dohnjoe · 19-10-2016 11:29pm

glued wrote: »

Neither candidate is up to the job. I don't really know how anybody can honestly justify a vote for either candidate. Both have proven their incompetence time and time again. Trump says he's the guy to 'make America great again' yet he won't recognise his own workers rights and pay them their deserved minimum wage. Clinton has proven herself to be incompetent while in public office.

It's subjective, there are those who think Obama has been incompetent.

Generally, when asked (polled), a majority of Americans seem to view Hillary as being more fit for the job than Trump, despite her history in office.

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-10-2016 11:32pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Today it's 47% to 43%...

And usually with a margin error of 5%. Unless the polls have consulted each and every voting adult anonymously, then wouldn't take them too seriously.

K-9 · 19-10-2016 11:33pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Holy crap what happened to the polls in the last day?

The BBC averages had it at 49% Clinton 40% Trump (yesterday I believe)

Today it's 47% to 43%...

Yes polls are not an exact science, yadda yadda.. but if Trump does well tonight, he could turn this into a close one

Can't trust the polls!

Trump has got that close a couple of times in the campaign, that is his peak before yet another crash.

13% chance of winning sounds about right.

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 11:35pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Holy crap what happened to the polls in the last day?

The BBC averages had it at 49% Clinton 40% Trump (yesterday I believe)

Today it's 47% to 43%...

Yes polls are not an exact science, yadda yadda.. but if Trump does well tonight, he could turn this into a close one

There are lots of polls. Lots and lots of them.

The latest has Clinton 7 points ahead. Others have it tied. RCP average the polls and that has it 48.6 to 42.1.

The thing to remember with US presidential elections is that it's electoral college votes that get you elected. The current projections have it strongly going Clinton's way with a better than 80% chance of her winning.

Dohnjoe · 19-10-2016 11:36pm

K-9 wrote: »

Can't trust the polls!

Trump has got that close a couple of times in the campaign, that is his peak before yet another crash.

13% chance of winning sounds about right.

Indeed, but Brexit was at what 9%?

A good performance tonight could create a Trump rally

Sofa Spud · 19-10-2016 11:40pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but Brexit was at what 9%?

A good performance tonight could create a Trump rally

Will people attending the Trump rally have to wear brown shirts?

Zubeneschamali · 19-10-2016 11:41pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A good performance tonight could create a Trump rally

Trump could turn out to be a wonderful president, and maybe the Moon really is made of green cheese.

InTheTrees · 19-10-2016 11:42pm

You cant distrust polls just because you see two that are different.

There's companies taking them daily, hourly even. They change all the time.

TheDoctor · 19-10-2016 11:44pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but Brexit was at what 9%?

A good performance tonight could create a Trump rally

No as I mentioned already tonight, Brexit polls were a statistical tie the week of the vote with the leave side having all the momentum.

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 11:46pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but Brexit was at what 9%?

A good performance tonight could create a Trump rally

Brexit polling was a lot closer than that. Averaged polling put the gap at 2% before the vote.

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-10-2016 11:48pm

TheDoctor wrote: »

No as I mentioned already tonight, Brexit polls were a statistical tie the week of the vote with the leave side having all the momentum.

I got a 1,300% return backing Brexit with S'James the week before Brexit.
The very best I could get backing Trump (today or in the last 3mths) would be 650%.

Dohnjoe · 19-10-2016 11:51pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Brexit polling was a lot closer than that. Averaged polling put the gap at 2% before the vote.

No, I mean 9% to leave, 91% to stay (in EU)

Those were the odds I remember - was pretty universal across the board, from bookies to currency traders

I know a UK ref is different from a US election, but I certainly wouldn't call this election yet

BorneTobyWilde · 19-10-2016 11:51pm

Hard to hide the live poll on CNN right now.
90% of people in back ground are cheering for Trump and holding up his posters.
So funny to see it on CNN, it's like a Trump ad all paid for.
I dunno if it's a CNN protest or just a gathering of voters, but it's all Trump.

Overheal · 19-10-2016 11:52pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

You cant distrust polls just because you see two that are different.

There's companies taking them daily, hourly even. They change all the time.

Which is why I trust a stat crunch site like 538

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 11:59pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No, I mean 9% to leave, 91% to stay (in EU)

Those were the odds I remember - was pretty universal across the board, from bookies to currency traders

I know a UK ref is different from a US election, but I certainly wouldn't call this election yet

Those numbers never came up in Brexit polling. Bookies maybe, but bookies set odds based on betting patterns as well as polling and other data, so they can't be compared.

And the bookies were clearly wrong whereas the polling was much, much closer to the result.

Dohnjoe · 20-10-2016 12:19am

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Those numbers never came up in Brexit polling. Bookies maybe, but bookies set odds based on betting patterns as well as polling and other data, so they can't be compared.

And the bookies were clearly wrong whereas the polling was much, much closer to the result.

The odds of Trump v Hillary are being computed using the same methods of probability

Financial institutions and forex traders - going much deeper than we are, determined that there was a low chance of Brexit, hence the almost universal financial shock the next day

The same methods are being used to determine Hillary V Trump odds.. at the end of the day we're all basing our predictions on these odds and polls

Dohnjoe · 20-10-2016 12:20am

Overheal wrote: »

Which is why I trust a stat crunch site like 538

Indeed, but they had Clinton at 99% to win the Michigan primary. Sanders won.

Zubeneschamali · 20-10-2016 12:22am

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I dunno if it's a CNN protest or just a gathering of voters, but it's all Trump.

Clearly, he cannot lose! Place your bets now!

Billy86 · 20-10-2016 12:27am

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I agree and one is worse than the other. The one with a track record of being corrupt politically.

By this logic, you're a better football manager than just about anyone with a few years experience in the Premiership. So why have the English FA not been in touch with you to take up their manager's spot?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments