martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Must read:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-obsessed-with-revenge

I think questioning of DJT's character are fair and based on the examples used in this MOther JOnes article, I concur that his seemingly fly off the handle reactions make him unfit to be POTUS.

Like I have been saying, we have two awful options to choose from.

I think people are really exaggerate Hillary's negative qualities. Just today my colleague said he hates Hillary and wished Collin Powell had run. Seriously?! Hillary had an e-mail server that might have in theory but not in reality actually harmed human lives. Collin Powell lying or misleading about WMD lead to a war that cost thousands of lives. And yet Powell has an 85% approval rating? It's not really Hillary's actions that people disapprove of. That's just an excuse. People overlook much worse behavior from other political figures. She just doesn't have the same superficial charm that more popular politicians have. (And in all fairness, it is hard for a woman to come across as charming and still be taken seriously.)

Bonnie, 100% agree. Well said.

I suggest you guys prepare for the next 20 hours of news cycles beginning at 10:30.

As much as people think the news media is in the bag for Clinton, unless Trump pulls out his dick, calls Hillary a bitch on air, or passes out and needs to be revived by CPR, people are going to say he exceeded expectations and speculate this could be a start of a comeback.

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Must read:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-obsessed-with-revenge

I think questioning of DJT's character are fair and based on the examples used in this MOther JOnes article, I concur that his seemingly fly off the handle reactions make him unfit to be POTUS.

Like I have been saying, we have two awful options to choose from.

I think people are really exaggerate Hillary's negative qualities. Just today my colleague said he hates Hillary and wished Collin Powell had run. Seriously?! Hillary had an e-mail server that might have in theory but not in reality actually harmed human lives. Collin Powell lying or misleading about WMD lead to a war that cost thousands of lives. And yet Powell has an 85% approval rating? It's not really Hillary's actions that people disapprove of. That's just an excuse. People overlook much worse behavior from other political figures. She just doesn't have the same superficial charm that more popular politicians have. (And in all fairness, it is hard for a woman to come across as charming and still be taken seriously.)

Bonnie, 100% agree. Well said.

I suggest you guys prepare for the next 20 hours of news cycles beginning at 10:30.

As much as people think the news media is in the bag for Clinton, unless Trump pulls out his dick, calls Hillary a bitch on air, or passes out and needs to be revived by CPR, people are going to say he exceeded expectations and speculate this could be a start of a comeback.

They can say it all they want but they are only speaking for and to a limited audience that's too dumb to get out of their own way. Don't care how many people I really enjoy talking Knicks with on this forum and yet have offended; you can't really get around supporting Trump without tripping over the same tied shoelace trick that a 3 year old just pulled on you, and Trump has just done that.

I do think Hilary will be the last of the "establishment" type presidents; there is too much angst in our country. It's too bad too that more Republican voters were fooled into the Tea Party movement and yet got NOTHING from their representatives and moved the country in the wrong direction entirely. Obama should have been a president more Americans got behind - it turned out that he wanted to follow a movement instead of lead it, and from an intellectual standpoint I could understand it but thought he should have been much better.

Either way, Hilary in a landslide.

martin wrote:I do think Hilary will be the last of the "establishment" type presidents;

I have to say, when people say "establishment" and "elite" I'm not really sure what they're referring to.

there is too much angst in our country. It's too bad too that more Republican voters were fooled into the Tea Party movement and yet got NOTHING from their representatives and moved the country in the wrong direction entirely. Obama should have been a president more Americans got behind - it turned out that he wanted to follow a movement instead of lead it, and from an intellectual standpoint I could understand it but thought he should have been much better.

I think people need to generally get a look at these issues through a more historical lens.

We had the Klan in this country. We've had segregationists. We had the civil rights era and the war protests of the 60s and 70s. We had the rise of the militia movement in the 90s and the rise of the religious right in the 2000s.

There has always been unrest and angst in some form. It is the byproduct of the most diverse electorate in human history.

What's maybe different today is the rise of the internet, social media and 24 hour partisan cable news that acts as amplifier, megaphone and to a degree, organizing (for lack of a better word) tool.

This year, Bernie Sanders and Donald trump were the definitions of "anti-establishment," and I'm not certain either really qualify.

Forgetting about the wonky details about the local and state campaign infastructure (which is NOT insignificant), the superdelegate system in the Democratic party, again, the electorate is just too diverse to coalesce around a competitive third party in the foreseeable future.

The are still significant party loyalists. And good luck getting the truly angsty people to agree on anything, much less one candidate.

I think we're decades away from whatever people think of as anti-establishment from making a dent in the democratic party, and I think Trump has set that possibility back decades in the republican one, which might be as internally splintered as they are splintered vs the left.

reub wrote:He doesn't need a comeback because he's already ahead: http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-leads-clinton-by-one-point-going-into-debate-in-ibdtipp-tracking-poll/

A few things:
-That poll is an outlier.
-It does not have him ahead. It has them at a statistical tie. They interviewed about 800 people and about 8 more said Trump than Clinton. That is not a large enough polling difference to conclude that in an election with over 100 million voters, Trump is winning. (That's what the margin of error refers to.) Every poll is either in the margin of error or has Hillary with a lead outside the margin of error.
-The IBD poll consistently favors Republicans though it's not off by as much as other polls. In 2012, it underestimated Obama's margin of victory by 2.3%.
-Any individual poll has to be unskewed if it included more people from one political party. I haven't found the party breakdown info yet for the IBD poll. It's risky to use one poll and ignore all the others, though.

martin wrote:Definite it how you will but having the focus of the middle and lower portions of our country and making it a priority as a vehicle to move this country forward would do wonders.

What does that look like, pragmatically?

We've challenged Trump supporters to articulate this policies in this thread, so I think it's fair to ask what specific 'anti-establishment' policies that can get through Congress are we talking about?

October 19, 2016
Marcy Kreiter
Posted with permission from International Business Times
Republish
Reprint
The poll that has proved the most accurate in the last three presidential election cycles Wednesday indicated Republican presidential contender Donald Trump is leading Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by a point going into the final presidential debate.

Though most polls indicate Clinton is leading Trump, the poll by Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence indicated the real estate mogul leading the former secretary of state 41 percent to 40 percent.

Political consultant Frank Luntz noted the Investor’s Business Daily poll of 2012 proved to be the most accurate of that election cycle. It also had the smallest deviation from certified results in 2004 and 2008.

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

October 19, 2016
Marcy Kreiter
Posted with permission from International Business Times
Republish
Reprint
The poll that has proved the most accurate in the last three presidential election cycles Wednesday indicated Republican presidential contender Donald Trump is leading Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by a point going into the final presidential debate.

Though most polls indicate Clinton is leading Trump, the poll by Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence indicated the real estate mogul leading the former secretary of state 41 percent to 40 percent.

Political consultant Frank Luntz noted the Investor’s Business Daily poll of 2012 proved to be the most accurate of that election cycle. It also had the smallest deviation from certified results in 2004 and 2008.

Are you going to dismiss 538, which aggregates all the polls (including this one), weights their accuracy, weighs the state polls more heavily (since that's how we elect presidents) and has been highly accurate since day 1?

Not dismissing anything, not debating anything. Just posting a poll which is supposed to have a good track record of predicting the outcome. FYI.

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

October 19, 2016
Marcy Kreiter
Posted with permission from International Business Times
Republish
Reprint
The poll that has proved the most accurate in the last three presidential election cycles Wednesday indicated Republican presidential contender Donald Trump is leading Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by a point going into the final presidential debate.

Though most polls indicate Clinton is leading Trump, the poll by Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence indicated the real estate mogul leading the former secretary of state 41 percent to 40 percent.

Political consultant Frank Luntz noted the Investor’s Business Daily poll of 2012 proved to be the most accurate of that election cycle. It also had the smallest deviation from certified results in 2004 and 2008.

Are you going to dismiss 538, which aggregates all the polls (including this one), weights their accuracy, weighs the state polls more heavily (since that's how we elect presidents) and has been highly accurate since day 1?

Not dismissing anything, not debating anything. Just posting a poll which is supposed to have a good track record of predicting the outcome. FYI.

Fair enough...