US Election 2016

[David]

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

Interesting view of likely outcomes for the election from Nate Silvers 538 site:

http://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-1021-11.png

Basically before the ABC poll showing something like an 11% lead for Clinton, Silver reckons that:

13% chance: A Trump win, including cases where he loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College.

13% chance A narrow Clinton win, wherein she wins the Electoral College, but wins the popular vote by 3 percentage points or less. (Or wins the Electoral College and loses the popular vote.)

31% chance A Clinton win in the �Obama zone,� wherein she wins the popular vote by 4 to 7 percentage points � the margins by which President Obama won the elections in 2012 and 2008, respectively. Clinton is all but certain to win the Electoral College if she wins the popular vote by this amount.

43% chance Finally, a Clinton blowout, wherein she wins the popular vote by 8 points or more, which would almost certainly also yield a dominant performance in the Electoral College.

[Tannin]

^ just imagine if Obama was running. Or Bernie. Or, indeed, anybody decent. The reality that Trump can't even hope to beat the uninspired and awful Clinton illustrated just how insane the Republican Party has become.

And the fact that he'll still get 30-40% of the vote illustrates just how insane the US of A has become.

[Wokko]

Trump's charity? Who gives a ****, he was a private citizen and a business man. Nobody giving to his charity could expect any favours, I would expect any charity of a real estate mogul to be nothing more than a tax reduction scheme. The 'charity' of a top level government official on the other hand that has been proven to be a front for 'quid pro quo' favours is a level of corruption that should have someone in jail.

On to the polls.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

I provide evidence of rigged polls and you then point at those same rigged polls? What?

They are not discussing internal polling, why rig internal polls? They're talking about the polls you see in the media and the way they are manipulated to point to a Clinton victory. In a voluntary system if you can convince the other side to stay home then you win. The media overwhelmingly supports Clinton, this has also been shown in the leaked emails. 96% of media donations are to Clinton's campaign.

Why anyone would cheer on a Hillary win is beyond me, I can even see why people don't like Trump, the guy is neither a conservative or a libertarian and the 'Never Trump' people have genuine concerns but the Hillary mob are cheering on a warmongering, corrupt, evil woman. She has consistently been shown to be racist, sexist, nasty, scheming with no redeemable qualities. Her vaunted experience has been inept and corrupt and her accomplishments amount to pretty much nothing.

If she wasn't a woman then she wouldn't have even made it past the first couple of primary contests. She had to cheat to beat a 75 year old Communist Jew, then buy him off to make sure his supporters would hold their nose and vote for her.

I say it's insane that a candidate like Clinton who makes Richard Nixon look clean is this close to the White House. It's like people are cheering on World War 3 or the destruction of the USA. Nobody who's even scratched the surface on who she is could think that a HRC presidency will be a good
thing.

[watt price tully]

So you can't provide one piece of evidence to refute the assertion that the Clinton Foundation has donated millions to assist others? Go figure.

[Morrigu]

I am very surprised that you would be so in support of the Clinton Foundation WPT - yes they have done some reasonable work - and I speak only from experience in Africa - but man have they caused more problems than what they have actually assisted with and played the power game ( to the detriment of the greater good) e.g in Rwanda and many of their practices ( let alone the creative accounting) are extremely dodgy as are most " celebrity charities" who basically push their own barrow for whatever reason and the " branding" has been worth a fair bit of coin to many including the Clintons!

Haven't got a clue about Trump's and don't care- I would love to see all these " celebrity" self servicing " charities" just knick off and have the money go to real humane organisations such as MSF who aren't playing the power game just trying to actually help people

It's probably for a different topic - but the septic God bothering charities are over in Africa convincing the locals that circumcision will prevent HIV/AIDS all because they are anti condoms!!!

The sooner the general public realise that these " celebrity" charities spend more on admin and influencing with the ultimate aim of attaining power and control etc than actually " helping" the people the better.

[David]

[HAL]

A little more.

[David]

As for the polling, Wokko, I guess we shall see whether the results hold up on election day. Frankly, I'm not even sure I see the benefit of 'rigging' polling; while it may discourage Trump supporters and lead to them staying home, it might just as likely give Clinton supporters (and the many other anti-Trump forces) sufficient feeling of complacency to stay home as well. If I were going to rig polls, I'd rig them to make sure they were close, to increase the likelihood of people turning out to vote for me.

Furthermore, nearly every polling firm in the US (bar the LA Times, interestingly) is giving Clinton a substantial lead. Are you suggesting they're all in her campaign's pocket? If so, I dare say you're getting into Illuminati/Bilderberg/Alex Jones territory.

The thing to remember with polling is that, at the end of the day, their primary commodity is their credibility. If they get it wrong (as they most certainly have in the past, the last UK election being a case in point), then they wind up with massive egg on their face. The New York Times, for instance, is currently giving Clinton a 93% chance of victory. How stupid will they look if the election ends up being close, let alone if Trump wins?

At the end of the day, you have to face reality: Trump is not the sort of candidate who can win a plurality of voters. Even in a two-horse race against a broadly unpopular opponent, in a country without mandatory voting, in a system without even preferential voting (so that third-party voters are also removed from the equation), he can't do it. Most women don't like him; most people from ethnic minority backgrounds don't like him; most university-educated people don't like him. Plus, he's currently dealing with a whole lot of sexual assault scandals, his debate performances were average at best, and you'd be the first to agree that the mainstream media is mostly antagonistic towards him. These are sizeable barriers to overcome for any candidate, let alone one as love-him-or-hate-him as Trump.

Whatever the Clinton campaign is or isn't doing with them, the polling figures reflect the situation more or less as you would expect. I'm not sure why you would expect Trump to be doing better than he is right now.

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

David wrote:


WPT, you might want to take a look at this � from no less than the Huffington Post, which is about pro-Clinton as it gets:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/hillary-clinton-morocco-emails_us_580cd86be4b0a03911ed5e27

[Wokko]

Michael Moore on Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY

[watt price tully]

How republicans try to rig elections: an appalling practice which limits & handicaps black & minorities from voting in republican states.

...Activists said this month that as many as 100,000 Georgia �voter-registration applications have not been processed. One of the state�s largest counties offered only one early-voting site, prompting hours-long waits for many people at the polls last week. And the state�s top election official has refused to extend �voter-registration deadlines in counties hardest hit by Hurricane Matthew...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-conflict-over-voting-rights-in-georgia-where-the-presidential-race-is-tightening/2016/10/24/2e9d2caa-84e6-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_gavoting-219pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory[/b]

[Culprit]