Trump to win?

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Of course.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/

Thanks.

[FrankL]

Re: Trump to win?

you're being evasive, woodsman, deliberately dense. you know i was not referring to any logic in politics, i was referring to YOUR statement that comey not recommending indictment handed the election to trump. politics is not logical, but i expect the conversation here, among members, to be logical. or are you saying that your writings here are meant for political and emotional effect only, and we should not expect you to be logical?

i would much rather expect you to be logical - it makes for more interesting and productive discussions. but if you insist that you are just being political and logic is not an ingredient, so be it.

can't you just admit that your statement "comey just handed trump the election" was an emotional reaction, and had no logical content?

My guess of the implied logical reasoning would be: an indictment of Hillary would (possibly) push Sanders back into the picture as a candidate, which may have a better chance running against Trump.

However, I think that in practice, the democratic party will do everything in its power to find someone else than Sanders as a replacement candidate for Hillary, and probably manage to get away with it.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

A friend posted this:

"

I have been watching the Comey testimony rather closely. At the beginning, Jason Chaffetz ask a great question. One that may have legs. He asked Comey if Hillary lied. Simple question. Comey danced. Then Chaffetz reminded Comey that Hillary said, UNDER OATH, at a previous hearing that she didn't send classified emails. Since Comey said she had, Chaffetz asked why that is not perjury? Comey said they would have to investigate that but would need a directive from Congress to do so, as a separate matter. Chaffetz said he would have a directive to Comey by the end of the day. A separate matter. Involving perjury only. Hillary may not be out of the woods and this is exactly how they got Martha Stewart" This will likely drag on for months.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

A friend posted this:

"

I have been watching the Comey testimony rather closely. At the beginning, Jason Chaffetz ask a great question. One that may have legs. He asked Comey if Hillary lied. Simple question. Comey danced. Then Chaffetz reminded Comey that Hillary said, UNDER OATH, at a previous hearing that she didn't send classified emails. Since Comey said she had, Chaffetz asked why that is not perjury? Comey said they would have to investigate that but would need a directive from Congress to do so, as a separate matter. Chaffetz said he would have a directive to Comey by the end of the day. A separate matter. Involving perjury only. Hillary may not be out of the woods and this is exactly how they got Martha Stewart" This will likely drag on for months.

I bet Hillary Clinton will continue to get a pass. Just like most of the powerful financial sector principals got a pass. Martha Stewart was in the unfortunate position of being high enough profile to serve as "an example of justice in action", but not powerful enough to escape.

Let that be a lesson to the 2nd%

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

iirc comey said that 3 emails were marked classified. hillary turned over 30,000 emails i believe. if she says she forgot or overlooked 3 out of 30,000 who would be shocked? i sincerely doubt this will qualify as perjury.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Not 30,000 of the ones she turned over to the state department, several thousand of the ones she turned over. 110 classified emails are not a few.

She deleted 30,000 emails, many permanently.

Clinton's lawyers that went through all the emails did not have security clearances.

Stop trying to put lipstick on the lies.

[Lasher]

Re: Trump to win?

This really bugs me, and I've seen it a few times. Why do they put in Johnson (who obviously sucks predominantly away from Trump), but not include Stein (who I have to imagine would be an equal hit to Clinton)?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

This really bugs me, and I've seen it a few times. Why do they put in Johnson (who obviously sucks predominantly away from Trump), but not include Stein (who I have to imagine would be an equal hit to Clinton)?

She's on the ballot in 23 states and expected to be on the ballot in 47 states this year. If you think she should be on your PA ballot in November, you can help collect signatures. You have until August 1st.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...liberal-213972

[Lasher]

Re: Trump to win?

She's on the ballot in 23 states and expected to be on the ballot in 47 states this year. If you think she should be on your PA ballot in November, you can help collect signatures. You have until August 1st.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...liberal-213972

That wasn't really my point - I was just expecting the Libertarian to draw a lot more from the Republican than the Democrat. If that was correct, it seemed shifty to remove the Green party in a projection as I would expect them to be comparable to the Libertarians. But in looking at the methodology, it appears that the above assumes Johnson takes votes equally from Clinton and Trump.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

getting back to the thread's subject: "trump to win?"

i've been of the persuasion that trump would pull things together and use his powers of persuasion to take control of the election. i am now questioning his ability to do that, and what changed my thinking was the fact that yesterday he went off message in a speech and brought up again the supposedly anti-semitic tweet that his jewish son-in-law had written an op-ed about to try to get it off the table.

eliz warren has described trump as "thin-skinned" and it appears she's right. he can't get past any criticisms and is driven to defend himself, at length and at volume, repeatedly, when he might be better off letting some subjects drop and just moving on.

i think this will be a severe vulnerability for him.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

A friend posted this:

"

Then Chaffetz reminded Comey that Hillary said, UNDER OATH, at a previous hearing that she didn't send classified emails. Since Comey said she had, Chaffetz asked why that is not perjury?

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'sent' is." Or 'never', 'email', or 'I'.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Don't forget that 42% of voters identify as independents. With the extremely high negatives of both Trump and Clinton you may see Johnson gaining quite a few votes from both major candidates. The Green party will likely take away from Clinton.

This is an election like we have never seen in a deeply divided country.

Don't think Republican or Democrat. They have the lowest voter preference ever.

[Lasher]

Re: Trump to win?

Don't forget that 42% of voters identify as independents. With the extremely high negatives of both Trump and Clinton you may see Johnson gaining quite a few votes from both major candidates. The Green party will likely take away from Clinton.

This is an election like we have never seen in a deeply divided country.

Don't think Republican or Democrat. They have the lowest voter preference ever.

That's a good point. I typically think of Libertarians as small-government conservatives, but in thinking about it they could really appeal to a socially liberal person who hates Clinton.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

getting back to the thread's subject: "trump to win?"

i've been of the persuasion that trump would pull things together and use his powers of persuasion to take control of the election. i am now questioning his ability to do that, and what changed my thinking was the fact that yesterday he went off message in a speech and brought up again the supposedly anti-semitic tweet that his jewish son-in-law had written an op-ed about to try to get it off the table.

eliz warren has described trump as "thin-skinned" and it appears she's right. he can't get past any criticisms and is driven to defend himself, at length and at volume, repeatedly, when he might be better off letting some subjects drop and just moving on.

i think this will be a severe vulnerability for him.

And when asked point blank if he would take office if he wins, his answer was, “I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens,"

With HRC now facing hearings regarding her email through the election cycle, would the Republicans not be smart to just pick Paul Ryan at the convention and let Trump do whatever he's going to do? He won't be on any ballots so voters will have to write him in. Ryan will steal votes from Johnson and almost all Republicans and many independents like him.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

That's a good point. I typically think of Libertarians as small-government conservatives, but in thinking about it they could really appeal to a socially liberal person who hates Clinton.

In response to your earlier post, I was going to say that Johnson and Stein would tend to take votes from each other. I don't believe the disaffected pool of voters expands greatly when both are in play. Sanders would take votes from both of them since he appeals to the same group.