Octopus Overlords

Mad?

ROFLMAO.

I would call Palin the same thing if she went to a Carter Homes for Humanity event to get some political dirt to exploit. Like coming out and saying JC told her privately that HRC knew that all the women who made accusations against Bill were telling the truth.

Doing that crap is as reprehensible as it gets.

If I lived in Ohio, I would SO go to one of these campaign events:

Stars of The West Wing are reuniting to hit the campaign trail — this time for a real-life presidential candidate.

A decade after the NBC political drama concluded, cast members Richard Schiff (Toby), Allison Janney (C.J.), Bradley Whitford (Josh), Dulé Hill (Charlie), Joshua Malina (Will), and Mary McCormack (Kate) are set to stump for Hillary Clinton in Ohio.

The Clinton campaign announced Wednesday that the six actors will participate in grassroots organizing events across the battleground state this weekend, discussing why they support the Democratic nominee and urging Ohioans to register to vote.

Rip wrote:Mad?

ROFLMAO.

I would call Palin the same thing if she went to a Carter Homes for Humanity event to get some political dirt to exploit. Like coming out and saying JC told her privately that HRC knew that all the women who made accusations against Bill were telling the truth.

Doing that crap is as reprehensible as it gets.

So you have called her a c***? Can you find that?

Alefroth wrote:

Rip wrote:Mad?

ROFLMAO.

I would call Palin the same thing if she went to a Carter Homes for Humanity event to get some political dirt to exploit. Like coming out and saying JC told her privately that HRC knew that all the women who made accusations against Bill were telling the truth.

Doing that crap is as reprehensible as it gets.

So you have called her a c***? Can you find that?

I didn't because she didn't. If she does, I will.

I won't hold my breath.

Come on, Rip. Nobody here believes you wouldn't exploit political dirt on Hillary in a heartbeat if you had the opportunity.

I'm just sad no one got my "CC" and "panties in a wad" pun. I guess it wasn't punny.

After posting something I felt was interesting in this thread, I noticed it has been completely lost in the cesspool this thread has become (and it pretty much started as Rip's pet thread).

I can't find a serious post in 2 pages.

Pyperkub wrote:After posting something I felt was interesting in this thread, I noticed it has been completely lost in the cesspool this thread has become (and it pretty much started as Rip's pet thread).

I can't find a serious post in 2 pages.

Benghazi!

Well to get us back on track a bit:

Just for fun I looked up the poll numbers for Obama/Romney around this same time in 2012, including RCP averages and fivethirtyeight's predictions. The race was quite a bit tighter, and as late as mid-October Romney was enjoying a 6-point lead (Gallup) among likely voters. Winning percentages were also much tighter - this week in 2012, only 5-6% separated the two in the Now-cast probabilities (compared to the current 15%)

This doesn't mean anything is set in stone, of course, but it does mean Trump's tightening of the polls doesn't mean the end of the world...yet. It just reflects a candidate who was getting his ass kicked by a huge margin finally coming into some semblance of what we'd expect given the nation's extreme partisanship.

To play devil's advocate for the Rip's of the world, however, Nate Silver has said if we're seeing the same trend next week then the Democrats have reason to fret. The expectation is that the race will settle back somewhere around her 3-4 point cushion. If it doesn't, she'll have some work to do.

GreenGoo wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:After posting something I felt was interesting in this thread, I noticed it has been completely lost in the cesspool this thread has become (and it pretty much started as Rip's pet thread).

I can't find a serious post in 2 pages.

Benghazi!

Benghazi? You mean where four Americans were killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security was uncloaked, and the credibility of President Obama and his Secretary of State was damaged. While you and your pals characterize it as an inconsequential event, the rest of America says "fuck you" to HRC.

Let's talk about Hillary's "record" that she's running on.

Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large. Incompetent, lazy, or arrogant -- inspirational! Nothing to see here. I'm sure she didn't mean to do harm.

Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era. I'm sure Hillary thought she fired all of those people for cause...although no cause was ever found. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Humagate: Huma's family has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, Huma was never properly vetted, and Huma shared access to Hillary's e-mails. Nothing wrong could happen from that. Rumor has it Hillary and Human are lovers -- which I don't care about -- except as a reason that Hillary was compromised. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons. A half a million dollars contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor. Already documented a few on this forum. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records. Two years of searches and subpoenas. The files finally showed up at the White House with Hillary's finger prints all over them. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Filegate: The improper use of FBI files by the Clintons (with Hillary's direct involvement) to dig for dirt on their enemies for political purposes. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell. More salacious is the reports that Chelsea is actually the daughter of Web Hubbell. No DNA tests, but the resemblance is uncanny. Nothing to see here. Bill had Monica. She can have Web and Huma. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions. No quid pro quo here. Nothing to see, no sir-ee! Keep moving.

Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill. Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire. Her $1000 investment made her over $100,000 in 10 months. Unprecedented. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

So, don't bother sending me all the debunking stories. I already know that you don't care even if these are true. If you're wondering, just like Hillary, why she isn't winning this thing in a landslide then wonder no more.

Pyperkub wrote:After posting something I felt was interesting in this thread, I noticed it has been completely lost in the cesspool this thread has become (and it pretty much started as Rip's pet thread).

I can't find a serious post in 2 pages.

I kind of wish it were possible to have an ignore list that's limited to a specific sub-forum.

I think I might be done reading this thread. Not because I give a flying fuck about what Smutly thinks, but because if I wanted to read steaming pile of shit straight out of Breitbart or Drudge Report, well...I'd read Breitbart and Drudge. I feel my IQ dropping every time I see one of his posts.

YellowKing wrote:Well to get us back on track a bit:

Just for fun I looked up the poll numbers for Obama/Romney around this same time in 2012, including RCP averages and fivethirtyeight's predictions. The race was quite a bit tighter, and as late as mid-October Romney was enjoying a 6-point lead among likely voters. Winning percentages were also much tighter - this week in 2012, only 5-6% separated the two in the Now-cast probabilities (compared to the current 15%)

This doesn't mean anything is set in stone, of course, but it does mean Trump's tightening of the polls doesn't mean the end of the world...yet. It just reflects a candidate who was getting his ass kicked by a huge margin finally coming into some semblance of what we'd expect given the nation's extreme partisanship.

To play devil's advocate for the Rip's of the world, however, Nate Silver has said if we're seeing the same trend next week then the Democrats have reason to fret. The expectation is that the race will settle back somewhere around her 3-4 point cushion. If it doesn't, she'll have some work to do.

Yeah, that's the thing. Nate Silver's pointed out in the past that Romney's had a similar probability of winning for much of the race in 2012 as Trump has today, but back then people had a hard time believing that Romney's chances were so low, while now everyone has a hard time believing that Trump's chances are so high.

Similarly, I read someone else arguing that people are overthinking why Trump is doing so well - he's the Republican nominee currently getting (by polls) about 90% of Republicans, so in a two-party system he's pretty competitive. Which I think is also why the polls have closed in September - a few bad news cycles for Hillary, the fading of the effect of the respective conventions, and Trump getting competent campaign staff has "normalized" Trump for Republican voters who were repulsed by him in August.

*Hopefully* the debates have a similar effect on those Republicans as the conventions did, although the debate's harder for Clinton to control than the DNC was.

Smutly wrote: So, don't bother sending me all the debunking stories. I already know that you don't care even if these are true. If you're wondering, just like Hillary, why she isn't winning this thing in a landslide then wonder no more.

You seem to "know" an awful lot about the people here. Either you are working for the FBI or you are just spouting more closed-minded bs. Occam's Razor is telling me which one to believe.

El Guapo wrote:*Hopefully* the debates have a similar effect on those Republicans as the conventions did, although the debate's harder for Clinton to control than the DNC was.

I've read multiple reports that Hillary is debate-prepping like mad, preparing for every personality that Trump could show up with. Trump on the other hand, is free-wheeling it as he usually does - causing some concern among his staff. Still I don't underestimate Trump - if there's one thing he knows how to do *extremely* well, it's how to play the media like a fiddle.

As far as the Hillary stuff Smutly posted, I think at some point you have to separate people voting for Hillary because she's a better alternative than Trump, and people voting for Hillary because they actually like Hillary. I definitely fall into the former category. No, I don't believe every scandal is true. On the other hand, she's a lifelong politician, and that takes a certain kind of character that requires some less than desirable traits.

Ultimately, however, I'm not voting on whether Hillary turned $10,000 into $100,000 illegally, or whether Trump bankrupted a casino. I'm voting on the person I think is best qualified to lead the country for four years. One of these people has decades of experience in Washington, understands the political process inside out, and has extensive established relationships with foreign officials. The other is a real estate tycoon turned host of Celebrity Apprentice. It's not even a contest.

El Guapo wrote: the debate's harder for Clinton to control than the DNC was.

Let's hope the vote count is harder for Hillary to control also. Those three non-paid attendees at her rallies are gonna have to caste buku votes.

YellowKing wrote:It's not even a contest.

Yes.....yes it is.......

Hehe sorry, meant not a contest for me. I can't speak for the other yahoos of the world.

Smutly wrote: Rumor has it Hillary and Human are lovers -- which I don't care about -- except as a reason that Hillary was compromised.

Yeah, you can't trust Human!

Again, I think most people agree that Hillary is dishonest. Most of us know that most politicians are. Hillary just seems to be a little worse at hiding it. I honestly don't think many of us like Hillary, trust Hillary, or would choose her out of the original selection of candidates to be President.

We are, as so many others have said, stuck with a binary choice this time. One of two people will be running the country in a few months. One of those choices would be terrifyingly disastrous, and many of us are willing to pay the price to avoid that outcome.

FWIW the polls coming in this week seem to be mixed, but on balance slightly positive for Clinton. She's edged back up a few percentage points in the 538 models - up to 58% in Polls Plus, 59% in polls only and (most importantly for my sanity) 59% in now cast, where she was at 52% at this point last week.

And she edged back despite any major gaffes from Trump while being almost invisible from the news cycle after her pneumonia debacle. I'm no pollster, but this would lead me to believe things are normalizing again after her bad weekend.

The thing I find interesting is that the fear of her dropping dead in office is supposed to make me rethink my vote. Heck, that's in the running for my best-case scenario. It's certainly one of the top two.

YellowKing wrote:And she edged back despite any major gaffes from Trump while being almost invisible from the news cycle after her pneumonia debacle. I'm no pollster, but this would lead me to believe things are normalizing again after her bad weekend.

I've heard an argument that shifts in the polls may not reflect actual shifts in voting preferences by elusive "swing" voters as much as response biases in polling. When a candidate is having a bad week or receiving poor media coverage, supporters may feel discouraged and be less likely to respond to polling requests. This can lead to the samples consisting of different types of voters at different time-points and give the illusion of a changing race. As someone interested in polling, I'd be curious if anyone knows whether this occurs and if so, whether polling firms adjust to account for it in their data.

I'm not a polling expert but I assume reputable polling firms have a way to counteract this tendency. I would love it if they would release numbers of how many people were contacted to achieve the final sample, so it might be apparent whether response rates shift when media coverage of a candidate is poor.

I actually enjoyed this.

It's painful to watch someone try and be human.

Fivethirtyeight.com just posted that Clinton's rebound has been exaggerated, and that she's still not improving on average.

Moliere wrote:It's painful to watch someone try and be human.

What, is that Robot Hillary?

YellowKing wrote:Fivethirtyeight.com just posted that Clinton's rebound has been exaggerated, and that she's still not improving on average.

Yeah, that's a buzzkill. However, a lot of what that post is talking about is trend lines from previous versions of the same polls, including those in non-competitive stats and comparisons to polls at the height of Clinton's convention bounce. And Nate Silver posted on twitter that while the polling is mixed, the models view it on balance as positive for Hillary (hence the marginal improvement in her % chances per the models).

Still, it's clearly a marginal improvement at the moment, so we're still way too close to American Hitler.

I enjoyed moments of that but holy cow is the difference between the charisma of an Obama and her painfully apparent. When Obama sat in that chair...it felt he was in on the joke the whole time. This plays out almost like a Borat interview.

If Hill had some charisma to go along with her competence, it would all be over except for the pointing and laughter.

I like Hillary a lot, but at the same time man I wish Biden were the nominee - he's got a much more natural charisma as well, and so I suspect he'd be up an additional 2%ish.

Captain Caveman wrote:I actually enjoyed this.

That was unexpectedly funny.

El Guapo wrote:I like Hillary a lot, but at the same time man I wish Biden were the nominee - he's got a much more natural charisma as well, and so I suspect he'd be up an additional 2%ish.

Biden would be up 20%, but that ship has sailed. You guys picked you horse and now you are stuck with her.

Hello, pot? This is kettle...

Isgrimnur wrote:Hello, pot? This is kettle...

Yea, but the difference is the Rs didn't have anyone that could win besides Trump. The second most popular choice was Cruz and he would have gotten blown out.

Rip wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Hello, pot? This is kettle...

Yea, but the difference is the Rs didn't have anyone that could win besides Trump. The second most popular choice was Cruz and he would have gotten blown out.

Not against Hillary. I think he would have been at least competitive and quite possibly winning.

Rip wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Hello, pot? This is kettle...

Yea, but the difference is the Rs didn't have anyone who could survive the GOP primary that could win besides Trump. The second most popular choice was Cruz and he would have gotten blown out.

There were plenty of GOP choices that would have been much more competitive against Clinton. Kasich would probably be up by 6+ points right now. The problem is that the wingnuts are running the GOP right now, so a reliable (but sane) conservative like Kasich can't cut it anymore.

Rip wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Hello, pot? This is kettle...

Yea, but the difference is the Rs didn't have anyone that could win besides Trump. The second most popular choice was Cruz and he would have gotten blown out.

So in order have a better chance to win (and still not a great one) Republicans had to nominate someone from outside the party who is the antithesis to all the values they previously claimed to uphold (except for making the enriching the wealthy)?

I mean, *I* knew Republican ideology was bankrupt a while ago, but it's weird to hear you say it.

Pyperkub wrote:If I lived in Ohio, I would SO go to one of these campaign events:

Stars of The West Wing are reuniting to hit the campaign trail — this time for a real-life presidential candidate.

A decade after the NBC political drama concluded, cast members Richard Schiff (Toby), Allison Janney (C.J.), Bradley Whitford (Josh), Dulé Hill (Charlie), Joshua Malina (Will), and Mary McCormack (Kate) are set to stump for Hillary Clinton in Ohio.

The Clinton campaign announced Wednesday that the six actors will participate in grassroots organizing events across the battleground state this weekend, discussing why they support the Democratic nominee and urging Ohioans to register to vote.

Yeah, but Schiff and Whitford will be unavailable for later events, as they'll probably miss their motorcade.