Trump pulls ahead
At least, in this Rasmussen poll.
What’s more, he seems to be gaining in certain key states. However, he has quite an electoral mountain to climb before he can said to have a good chance of winning.
Ever since midsummer, I’ve believed (and written here) that I think Trump’s chances have risen, and that lately I’d give him 1 in 3 odds. I think that is still true, although if this continues it may rise to 2 in 5 or perhaps even more.
I think there are two reasons Trump has been gaining. One has to do with Trump: he’s been acting more “presidential” (or perhaps it’s better to say less profoundly unpresidential—that is, less of a loose cannon). The second has to do with Clinton, who has had a series of bad days, including her health crisis.
Interesting times, interesting times.
I think it is pretty well documented that I did not favor Trump–not at all. I will say, however, if he had shown the same face during the latter part of the primary season that he is showing recently, I might have felt a lot different. Or maybe the fact that there is Trump, or there is Hillary, has skewed my thinking.
Hillary is truly limping in. It really seems that there are some kind of serious health issues; and I should be more sympathetic than I am. I think Trump can score a knock out in the debates if he does two things. One–keep it civil. Two–don’t get caught up in the minutia of issues. He is a big picture guy, and hopefully he won’t forget. The essential theme is change of directio, and Hillary’s role in the Obama regime–which she will try to obscure.
I think Trump will need a clear win in the debates because he has to demoralize the Democrat ground game.
Disappointed in G.H.W. Bush if he actually said that which is attributed to him’ and I haven’t heard that he has denied it. The Bush family is obviously piqued at Trump for his insults toward Jeb; but, that does not justify publicly nodding toward Hillary. Wish G.W. & Jeb would come out and disavow any agreement with the Old Man on this score. Too much at stake.
Your excellently articulated opposition to Trump for over a year has rested on two main pillars:
1) Trump as a person with really deplorable characteristics, his character is populist, dishonest, and he’s a (yet another) egomaniac.
2) Trump is very unlikely to win against Hillary.
But perhaps your emphasis on his unelectability is very heavily influenced by your objection to his character, so it’s really just terrible character plus a mirror of that with the voters agreeing he’s so bad that it makes him unelectable.
My questions for you — now FiveThirtyEight has it 59-41, how close does it have to be before you admit that Trump could, indeed, beat Hillary — and thus your “unelectable” objection has been answered?
Then it of course remains the real issue all along (1) — how big a jerk is Trump, really?
Tho I see in the Publius notes a good (3) what policies, really, would Trump do? But, nobody knows, since (1) he’s not trustworthy and there’s no record.
What IS known on policy, is that Hillary will be in favor of the same or very similar policies, yet claim that under her there will be big improvements. Certainly false unless there is substantial change in the policy itself.
I suggest looking more at Senate and Congress seats, until after the first debate.
Trump plus Reps in Congress — best chance to avoid the Dem disaster.
— (edited to be below the line)
The tragedy of Dem domination of Media & Academia has been the devolution of voters so that (1) character has not been as important as other stuff. This is reflected in the elected politicians, too.
Really, the eGOP comfy “Elect”, hated and feared Cruz too much to back him early enough to win against Trump. I sadly feel Cruz would have been leading over Hillary, too, because she’s so terrible — but with different supporters. … but that’s now too late.
Clinton has a six point lead in the latest NBC poll, so if anything the national polls are all over the place. But it still comes down to state by state where Clinton maintains a lead. The debates will be important.
In order to gain a little perspective on things, take a moment and imagine an even stranger election (I know…) in which Trump and Hillary are both running as independents.
Just looking at the race between them, who would be leading? By how much?
I suggest that it wouldn’t even be close.
An idle (yet persistent) thought I’ve been having these last three weeks or so:
Maybe Kellyanne Conway is to Trump as Valerie Jarrett has been to Obama?
They certainly seem to share the same kind of Svengalian powers, no? In any case I must say, “Well done Ms. Conway; please keep it up!”
PS: I’m given up on the “93” thread. Like I’ve said, it’s clearly a case of “East is East and West is West” here in Neo-Land.
An idle (yet persistent) thought I’ve been having these last three weeks or so:
Maybe Kellyanne Conway is to Trump as Valerie Jarrett has been to Obama?
They certainly seem to share the same kind of Svengalian powers, no? In any case I must say, “Well done Ms. Conway; please keep it up!”
PS: I give up on the “93” threads. Like I’ve said, it’s clearly a case of “East is East and West is West” here in Neo-Land and as someone I admire has also said, “A mind is a difficult thing to change.”
Iowa is a swing state. Saturday I will be at a 5k run in honor of Sarah Root. She was killed by a drunk illegal alien driver.
That never should have happened. That young woman should be alive today. Hillary will continue open borders. Trump wins Iowa.
Rasmussen polls have been consistently giving trump a better showing, while the NBC polls have been the opposite in favor of clinton.
Going by the RCP average (Rasmussen not yet included), it seems trump has leveled off if not slightly turned south.
There are several weeks of ads, gaffes, debates, and events that could swing this either way.
As mentioned before, GOTV ground game probably favors clinton by 1% to 2%, state by state. A lot depends on those battleground swing states.
A close race might also energize the dems rather than complacency that comes with a “foregone conclusion”.
trump can win but “he has quite an electoral mountain to climb”, and it goes well beyond just poll numbers.
No matter what, it is a heads they win, tails we lose election for anyone who finds both candidates unacceptable.
yeah sure…
like reading pravda and telling me you know something in the stalin era… about all you knew was the lefts agenda, what they wanted and what they hated… and thats about it as far as truth went…
for a decade i have heard almost everyone here bad mouth the honesty of the press… except when it says what you like, and now, when we ignore our regard and pretend…
talk about wacky nutty crazy…
and not knowing it…
in other areas there are reports of democrats switching sides claiming never to want to go back, think you will see that in any press that wants the reverse?
we are talking about a press who reported one block from my office a mans face slashed open, asked for help, but wont describe the assailant because to do so would be to report black man slashes face of white man coming off the subway and your brain would tick it off and start realizing whats going on…
and your trusting the SAME PRESS to inform you?
by the way, its getting harder and harder to find the history and such as google bombards you with things you never asked for making it too hard to find the target if the target is not what they want found.
this goes all the way back to Walter Duranty…
(and a few others i have talked about)
and even in poll and such lierature, is the idea of using polls to change minds instead of measure them!!! (i put up the info to no effect)
“There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.”
–New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” –New York Times, August 23, 1933
“Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.” –New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
that was what they told people when 8 million people were being starved to death as punishment and we were eating their food we bought from stalin!!!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
REMEMBER.. the side with control of the press, the unions at the press, the wealthy donors in the press, the leftist liberal students hired to write for the press, to an extreme degree being on the left, follow the press ideals of their hero the soviet union, not ben franklyn and all that…
[edited for length by n-n]
That seems to be the case, that she is limping. You know, he might be able to trigger a fit, coughing or otherwise, in her while she is on stage if he utilizes the proper stress inducing techniques without seeming too rude.
Hell, she might stroke out right there in front of everyone, or be so confused by meds as to be seemingly lunatic..
I don’t know whether that would be ultimately good or bad. Probably a coughing fit or spasm would be good, whereas her complete incapacitation and collapse on stage would be less good.
No- the closeness is not the motivator. Being far ahead actually is a motivator, while being far behind is an actual depressor.
Clinton has started to lose support at precisely the time Trump began to look more like a president. Motivation for coming out to vote for her rests on two pillars- people really wanting her to be president, and people really not wanting Trump to be president. I argue that almost all of the motivation on her side came from the latter of those two pillars. On Monday, Trump must continue to undermine that second pillar, and if he does, he will win and easily at that.
Monday’s debate reminds me greatly of the 1980 debate- that was the first presidential debate I watched (I was 14 at the time), and to this day, I acknowledge that Carter won it on the merits, but it didn’t matter because Reagan did exactly the thing he needed to do- seem to fit in the mold of what a president should be in temperament and intelligence. I would hope someone has shown Trump a recording of that debate if he has never seen it (he probably watched it himself at the time it aired).
On Wednesday, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that Clinton, the Democratic nominee, was up 6 points over Trump in the same four-way race
======
Donald Trump is up 5 points nationally over Hillary Clinton in a four-way race, a Thursday poll from right-leaning Rasmussen found.
It’s the Republican nominee’s largest lead in the poll since mid-July.
In the poll that also includes Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Trump holds a 44% to 39% advantage over Clinton.
=================
which is it? does it matter as its like a GREEK BEARING GIFTS…
You are a prisoner in a room with 2 doors and 2 guards. One of the doors will guide you to freedom and behind the other is a hangman –you don’t know which is which.
One of the guards always tells the truth and the other always lies. You don’t know which one is the truth-teller or the liar either.
You have to choose and open one of these doors, but you can only ask a single question to one of the guards.
What do you ask so you can pick the door to freedom?
=============================
wall street journal
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have struggled to win over a majority of voters, but so far the Democratic nominee has shown greater potential to grow her support
really?
een her own side hates her more than trump!!
==============
“I’ve been a lifelong union guy, a working guy,” said Jeff Kulow, a 25-year member of the Teamsters who recently retired. “Can you imagine people like me going to Trump or going Republican?”
Kulow said President Obama, a politician “against everything I believe in,” has been the tipping point.
He blamed a $650 increase in his health care premiums directly on the Affordable Care Act.
“They just don’t get it anymore with us,” Kulow said of the Democratic Party. “Maybe in an upscale area or downscale, maybe they’ll resonate. But around here – all working class and middle class, everyone has left the Democratic party. I can’t see myself ever going back.”
==========================
and what about Nate Silver?
now THIS mans whole future and career ride on his accuracy…not anything else!!!!!!!!! so who would you trust more? papers you KNOW lie, and you hope arent this time, or people like Nate?
NATE SILVER: Trump surges from 3% to 48% chance…
The latest vote projection from elections guru Nate Silver has Republican Donald Trump just six electoral votes short of winning and one point away from equaling Hillary Clinton’s popular vote.
but but i thought neo said he has a long way..
6 out of more than 200 is NOT a long way
Election Update: Reports Of A Clinton Rebound Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Election Update: Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week — By Nate Silver
Election Update: Where Polls And Demographics Disagree
By Harry Enten
lots of beter sources… even if the press prints them, its the sources that did the writing, not the press corps..
===============
or didnt you realize that on the rasmussen poll and others there are no authors? no one to hold to the fire if wrong tomorrow? no ones reputation if they lie?
they do mention Rasmussen Reports analysts Amy Holmes and Fran Coombs are available for interested media. [but they didnt write the article for public consumption]
A former speechwriter to Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, Ms. Holmes holds a degree in economics from Princeton University
what did they leave out?
RINO Bill Frist: The Wrong Choice for Majority Leader!
Shot In The Dark: The RINO Cancer
The RINO Hunters’ Lodge – Senator Bill Frist (R)
i give up… at least on trying to get people to examine their own actions compared to prior actions and what they say and so on… how dumb is it to spout how bad the press is and then rely on them for anything much in terms of debate material in a general case..
freaky… but then again, neo called me negative when i said 10 years ago, that we would lose this battle and the nation… there is no way we can win as only what the left defines as ok after all the education and toxic spew for 50 years will be acceptable… even now, the right would rather lose than win with a character who is not what they IMAGINED SHOULD win
Cranky can’t understand why she isn’t 50 points ahead.
That voice, haranguing you, me, all of us. For at least 4 years.
@Cornhead –
“Trump wins Iowa.”
He’s adding North Carolina this week.
a biblical lesson for those not getting how being saved can work…
God Will Save Me – The Epistle
do you wait for the savior of your imagination and lose or do you accept that a savior is not what you expect it to be, and realize through history, that has been the truth… david against goliath? reagan? churchill? tecumsah sherman?
even the elite of the day could not concieve of a savior like jesus… they all would say, if god really sent a son, why is he poor, why does ne not speak with the elite or be one of them. they could not concieve that from humble backgrounds and such comes such things.
god is like a mustard seed…
why not like a giant and great sequia, why a weed?
look to history and the odd heroes…
Who thought ghandi could beat england?
Mohandas Gandhi — The greatest Indian of the millenium. A leader spiritual and temporal who combined moral saintliness with political cunning and inspiring leadership. Gandhi’s crusade for non-violence, human rights, religious tolerance and aiding the helpless were a beacon of light in the 20th Century’s darkness — particularly since he did so on a vast subcontinent where none of these qualities were known. Though the racist Churchill dismissed Gandhi as `a half-naked fakir,’ the Indian sage will likely be regarded by future historians as the noblest and most important human being of the 20th Century- and, of course, the father of Indian independence
what about the man who killed john wilkes booth? crazy as a hatter cause he was a hatter and had murcuroy poisining… he self castrated..
anyone remember the hero john chapman?
hint, his birth day is 5 days past mine
September 26, 1774
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Mikeski,
A commenter over at Althouse alluded to this classic Star Trek scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7r-B3gsxcY
This is as good a place as any to add a comment about how I think the election will go. Later, I can look it up and force myself to remember how wrong I was. What’s more, the points I’ll list seem obvious to me. When I say that, I know I’m shooting myself in the foot, but the temptation is too great. I just gotta pretend I’m a pundit.
Hillary was headed towards a comfortable win until her health problems became too obvious to deny. On top of that, her denials did double duty. They showed everybody that she’s both very sick and very dishonest. Since I’m pretending to be a pundit, I’ll also play doctor and diagnose her main problem as cardiac arrhythmia. If her health problems worsen, the election could be up for grabs. However unlikely, she could even be forced to withdraw and to cede her place to Bernie Sanders.
Despite Hillary’s drop in the polls, recent Democratic candidates have an advantage in the electoral college. Even for Hillary, this looks hard to lose. I’ve tinkered with the electoral college map at Real Clear Politics, but my analytical techniques have been no more sophisticated than that.
Hillary has a very sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. This is built on Obama’s operation and has two main pieces: ground game and databases. As we get closer to the election, this will become more important, and could even overcome her poll numbers sinking below Trump’s. Most of Hillary’s voters will be legal, but she’ll also receive far more illegal and imaginary votes than Trump can possibly muster. Also, Hillary’s databases are tied into Facebook, Twitter, and even Google search results. Their propaganda value shouldn’t be underestimated. Compared to Hillary’s, Trump’s get-out-the-vote operation is invisible.
Hillary’s health and Trump’s recklessness make the debates far more unpredictable than those of past years — and, therefore, more important. Unfortunately, I’ll have to find out how it went by reading the postmortems. I can’t stand listening to either one of these candidates. Drinking doesn’t help. I’ve tried … and tried.
Add it all up, and it turns out my opinion hasn’t changed much since Trump became the obvious nominee. Unless Hillary’s health fails dramatically, she’ll win comfortably.
“Most of Hillary’s voters will be legal, but she’ll also receive far more illegal and imaginary votes than Trump can possibly muster. Also, Hillary’s databases are tied into Facebook, Twitter, and even Google search results.” – Cornflour
Looks like a fair assessment, but for this part.
No doubt some of that (illegal voting) goes on, but not sure how much that really is and if it makes a difference. Also, we cannot assume the GOP are immune to this either, so need to net that difference.
As for database ties, need something more concrete than suspicion on that, as that is a rather huge claim.
Big Maq:
Sorry, I didn’t mean that the database programming is tied into the programming for Facebook, etc.
It’s widely known that Hillary’s campaign database uses detailed profiles partly derived from Facebook and Twitter. From these profiles they create the electronic equivalent of precisely targeted campaign mailings. These can take the form of Facebook posts, Twitter messages, email, etc.
The staff of Hillary’s and Obama’s internet campaign includes former employees of Facebook, Twitter, and Google. While they’ve been very helpful in developing methods of making use of their former companies’ software, I assume there’s been no co-mingling of code. I’m sorry if that’s the impression I created.
No doubt some of that (illegal voting) goes on, but not sure how much that really is and if it makes a difference.
Since you haven’t even admitted that voter fraud exists in places like Chicago, I find it hard to believe you are capable of judging what difference it makes, from whatever evidence does exist. Won’t matter too much when the person seeing it can’t tell the difference.
Two interesting developments on the side:
1) Cruz’ campaign manager tweeted a message about how Trump’s more responsible bearing was making it possible that Cruz might endorse him.
Story was carried by Ace, and if true, must’ve been a trial balloon ordered by Ted.
2) Ben Shapiro says that Trump will make an addition to his SCOTUS picks in a week, adding 9 new names. Shapiro thinks Trump may add Cruz.
If true, this could be a quid pro quo worth jumping off the fence for, for many conservatives.
The case could be made that it would be a sellout, but on the other hand, what are Cruz’ chances of being effective without endorsing Trump, win or lose? A SCOTUS nomination might be as good as conservatives could muster, and McConnell would have an incentive to get Cruz out of the Senate.
On Cruz recommending Trump, I think it far more likely that he goes on the offensive against Hillary:
Can YOU, in good conscience, vote for:
An ex-Sec. of State who violated gov’t rules to keep gov’t emails out of gov’t security — and then illegally deleted them to avoid FOIA.
… any of a long list of lies and problems of Hillary.
But as I try to write them, it’s not so easy to “sloganize” the critiques of Hillary, and that makes it tougher to fit them on bumper stickers.
Also, Cruz has a reasonably good GOTV database / ops, I think, at least for the primaries.
“Vote your conscience” can still be turned into an effective anti-Hillary campaign. I hope the Donald can come up with a Deal for Cruz — but I’m not holding my breath.
You go up to one of the guards in front of his door and ask if there is a hangman behind one of the two doors. The always lying guard has to say no. If the guard you ask says no, you go through the other guard’s door.
This used to be a truth-telling Whitefoot and lying Blackfoot Indian story, but the fact that you could ask about Whitefoot Indians ever lying made it possible to tell them apart since the lying Blackfoot would have to say they do; so the scenario had to be rejiggered.
In order to work as an insoluble dilemma the one question you are allowed to ask has to be further narrowed to merely asking if there is a hangman behind that particular door, or the guards need to be separated from the doors.
It occurs to me that in Arts example, we assume that the liar is in front of the hangman’s door and he knows what is behind it. If we do not know at least this, or even if the guards are guarding a particular door, there is no point in asking them anything.
“It’s widely known that Hillary’s campaign database uses detailed profiles partly derived from Facebook and Twitter.” – Cornflour
Yes. What you describe to here is what is available to any large marketing / website / social media operation. There is a fairly large market of offerings and consultancy firms.
.
“The staff of Hillary’s and Obama’s internet campaign includes former employees of Facebook, Twitter, and Google. While they’ve been very helpful in developing methods of making use of their former companies’ software, I assume there’s been no co-mingling of code. I’m sorry if that’s the impression I created.”
Understand your point much better now. Thanks!
No doubt, people who know the inner workings of these online tools have valuable input as to how to make use of them in campaign marketing.
The tenuous aspect of this argument is twofold:
1) We don’t know the degree to which the GOP campaign or their consultants are also engaging these types of folks. Would place high odds they are.
2) We really cannot argue against those individuals’ free association of choice of employment.
“Since you haven’t even admitted that voter fraud exists in places like Chicago, I find it hard to believe you are capable of judging what difference it makes, from whatever evidence does exist. Won’t matter too much when the person seeing it can’t tell the difference.” – Ymarsakar
There is a huge distance between saying that it exists (which I have btw, no denying it), and claiming that it has swung elections.
Chicago, and any large city, for that matter, and specific precincts within those cities are more likely than others to have such fraud exist. Agree.
BUT, for all the years we’ve heard claims of fraud (since my youth, some time ago), there have been very few cases proven.
Could it be that most often it is a case of opponents on both sides use that argument to delegitimize the other’s win?
Haven’t we seen how trump plays that game – CO delegates system is rigged, the debates are rigged, the polls are rigged, the Nov election is rigged, etc. etc.
It is a populist / Alinkskyite move to raise ire in their supporters.