Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:05 am**

YK, you, and no doubt your mother as well, will be pleased to hear that North Carolina is becoming a backstop for Clinton.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:13 am**

What's a backstop in this context?

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:27 am**

GreenGoo wrote:What's a backstop in this context?

Basically alternative plausible routes to winning the election even if things go wrong for her elsewhere. It's explained more in depth in the article, but the key point is that Trump needs to sweep several swing states to win, his odds of winning many of those states are linked by demographics, so that he if he wins one he's more likely to have won other similar states. However, NC is demographically different from other swing states that are important to Clinton, so it's less clearly linked to her fortunes in those states.

So, for example, if Clinton's support collapsed in the next month among white male voters without college degrees, and that collapse caused her to lose essentially the entire midwest outside of Illinois (which she will win even if Jesus endorses Trump), she could still plausibly win North Carolina, and if she wins NC, VA, and FL (plausible), she still becomes president.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:31 am**

On a related note, 538 put up a chart indicating correlations between the votes of various states:

The lowest correlation (of the states examined) appears to be between the votes of Georgia and Maine. So presumably Clinton should be telling everyone in Maine and Georgia that everyone in the other state loves Trump.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:34 am**

El Guapo wrote:(which she will win even if Jesus endorses Trump)

I'm surprised he hasn't claimed this yet.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:37 am**

Fitzy wrote:
El Guapo wrote:(which she will win even if Jesus endorses Trump)
I'm surprised he hasn't claimed this yet.

He would have to be able to tell us what the H stands for.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:40 am**

Isgrimnur wrote:
Fitzy wrote:
El Guapo wrote:(which she will win even if Jesus endorses Trump)
I'm surprised he hasn't claimed this yet.
He would have to be able to tell us what the H stands for.

Huge.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:42 am**

Jeff V wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:
Fitzy wrote:
El Guapo wrote:(which she will win even if Jesus endorses Trump)
I'm surprised he hasn't claimed this yet.
He would have to be able to tell us what the H stands for.
Huge.

That's spelled with a Y, silly.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:14 pm**

H is pronounced Y in ancient Hebrew.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:12 pm**

Yebrew

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:50 pm**

Except Jesus isn't a true hero, he let the Romans catch him and torture him.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:52 pm**

Archinerd wrote:Except Jesus isn't a true hero, he let the Romans catch him and torture him.

Jesus was a patsy. The true Messiah used him as a distraction to flee into the wilderness.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:22 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote:
Archinerd wrote:Except Jesus isn't a true hero, he let the Romans catch him and torture him.
Jesus was a patsy. The true Messiah used him as a distraction to flee into the wilderness.

Bless you, my son.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:38 pm**

The Atlantic just endorsed Clinton.

This wouldn't be surprising in a left-leaning publication except that they have endorsed only three presidential candidates in their 159 years: Lincoln (as a statement against slavery), LBJ (in support of civil rights and rejection of Goldwater's nativism), and now Clinton (in response to Trump).

Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.

These concerns compel us, for the third time since the magazine’s founding, to endorse a candidate for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

[...]

In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:00 pm**

Wow, that was brutal. Good on them. I eagerly await the Trump tweet storm that is sure to come.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:48 pm**

NYT is now giving Hillary an 81% chance of winning the election in November. 538 is slightly less optimistic but also way up from their numbers last month, putting her at 76.7% as of 2 hours ago.

538 is also practically giddy by their standards when it comes to Democrats retaking the Senate - 61.5% probability (that's way higher than even the ever-optimistic WaPo and NYT).

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:56 pm**

gilraen wrote:NYT is now giving Hillary an 81% chance of winning the election in November. 538 is slightly less optimistic but also way up from their numbers last month, putting her at 76.7% as of 2 hours ago.

538 is also practically giddy by their standards when it comes to Democrats retaking the Senate - 61.5% probability (that's way higher than even the ever-optimistic WaPo and NYT).

The bleeding might not be over yet for Trump either - the NowCast (which essentially heavily weights the most recent polling) has Clinton over 80%. She's now narrowly ahead in Ohio (in addition to significant leads in FL, NV, and NC), and is inching close to the lead in IA. She's even up to a 40% chance in Arizona.

Crazy that it was inching very close to a 50/50 race just a week and a half ago (before the debate). Might've been worth putting in some prep time on that after all, eh Donald?

Though I don't know what's crazier - that one debate started such a huge swing, or that the September media coverage was crazy enough to make it a 50/50 race to begin with.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:03 pm**

Also, keep in mind that early voting has started, which means Clinton is already banking part of this lead now in those states that she's ahead in.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:18 pm**

It's crazy that it took this long for Donald Trump to face some serious vetting, while Hillary has every cough and twitch analyzed. The double standards are YUGE.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:53 am**

Isgrimnur wrote:
Fitzy wrote:
El Guapo wrote:(which she will win even if Jesus endorses Trump)
I'm surprised he hasn't claimed this yet.
He would have to be able to tell us what the H stands for.

Jesus Hillary Christ!

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:29 am**

Zarathud wrote:It's crazy that it took this long for Donald Drumpf to face some serious vetting, while Hillary has every cough and twitch analyzed. The double standards are YUGE.

Darn liberal media.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:18 am**

El Guapo wrote:Though I don't know what's crazier - that one debate started such a huge swing, or that the September media coverage was crazy enough to make it a 50/50 race to begin with.

Right after the debate I was watching some Fox News talking heads, and one of the guys mentioned that "Trump could turn this campaign around in a week."

Yes, or he could drive it into the ground leaving nothing but a smoldering flaming wreck.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:24 am**

Absent a real doozy of a bombshell coming out against Clinton - I don't see how it turns it around in a week or a month. That debate was a complete disaster and the NY Times story on his taxes was possibly a killing blow. He is bleeding support badly right now.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:38 am**

malchior wrote:Absent a real doozy of a bombshell coming out against Clinton - I don't see how it turns it around in a week or a month. That debate was a complete disaster and the NY Times story on his taxes was possibly a killing blow. He is bleeding support badly right now.

It's still doable for him. A "beats expectation" performance in debate two and/or three + some "casts shadows" scandal stories on Clinton + a terror attack + some Wikileaks bombshell could make the race a coin flip again.

Of course, I would be more worried if I thought it was possible for advisers to get a good debate performance out of him, or to get him to not get baited into self-destructive feuds.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:44 am**

malchior wrote:Absent a real doozy of a bombshell coming out against Clinton -

Julian Assange has just announced such a thing and the press conference is underway...but first this message about Wiki-Soda, the best tasting soda that the NSA doesn't want you to know about!

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:48 am**

Also, it took just a month for Clinton to go from ~ 81% on 538 on August 26th to ~ 54% on September 26th. So Trump still has time to make it close (though we're probably getting to mid-4th quarter at this point time wise).

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:49 am**

El Guapo wrote:
malchior wrote:Absent a real doozy of a bombshell coming out against Clinton - I don't see how it turns it around in a week or a month. That debate was a complete disaster and the NY Times story on his taxes was possibly a killing blow. He is bleeding support badly right now.
It's still doable for him.

Whether he's polling well or polling poorly, I'll consider him out when Clinton is elected and not before. Anything else leaves me vulnerable to agonizing pain if I think he's out and he gets voted in.

No chickens will be counted until Clinton has hatched her schemes to...what is she supposed to do again? Eat babies?

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:50 am**

hepcat wrote:
malchior wrote:Absent a real doozy of a bombshell coming out against Clinton -
Julian Assange has just announced such a thing and the press conference is underway...but first this message about Wiki-Soda, the best tasting soda that the NSA doesn't want you to know about!

He pretty much destroyed what little credibility he had left, didn't he? Now the announcements read like "a million documents will be released a week until the election and number 723,158 will blow your mind." Coming after the idea that he's getting them from Russia and Russia are even altering some of the mails, I think he's going to be reduced to the stuff of conspiracy theory, which I don't think he was before the last few weeks. Before then he he seemed like someone with real information, whom was hellbent on destroying the US political machine with timed releases of that information.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:52 am**

LordMortis wrote:
hepcat wrote:
malchior wrote:Absent a real doozy of a bombshell coming out against Clinton -
Julian Assange has just announced such a thing and the press conference is underway...but first this message about Wiki-Soda, the best tasting soda that the NSA doesn't want you to know about!
He pretty much destroyed what little credibility he had left, didn't he? Now the announcements read like "a million documents will be released a week until the election and number 723,158 will blow your mind." Coming after the idea that he's getting them from Russia and Russia are even altering some of the mails, I think he's going to be reduced to the stuff of conspiracy theory, which I don't think he was before the last few weeks. Before then he he seemed like someone with real information, whom was hellbent on destroying the US political machine with timed releases of that information.

I do worry about the possibility that WikiLeaks will release altered, incriminating documents in the days before the election.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:57 am**

It's also worth remembering that most predictions for the Republican primary were terrible partially because they didn't realize the mass support Trump was getting from people that in past elections were unlikely to vote (and thus weren't being polled). That might be fixed now, but it isn't going out on too great a limb to suspect that the current polls aren't necessarily a reflection on who will turn out to the polls.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:58 am**

He never really had the kind of credibility you're referencing here. Stuff comes out and either matters or doesn't. Nothing ever rested on Assange personally.

That the conservative pundits got trolled is their own fault. Sure Assange was a dick, but he's always been a dick, even when he sometimes performs a public service that I agree with.

I'm not trying to embarrass or criticize those that got trolled, because I can see how even a good journalist could be taken in. Their mistake was hyping the crap out of the coming "announcement" based on nothing but Assange telling them he had something big that would take Clinton down. "I'll believe it when I see it" should be every reputable journalist's position.

Staying up all night salivating at the idea of a juicy scandal while telling everyone this is going to destroy Clinton (despite having no evidence or even idea what it could be) is just setting yourself up for failure.

Assange is not a credible person. What comes out of wikileaks tends to be very credible. This trolling hasn't changed that, imo of course.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:12 am**

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:It's also worth remembering that most predictions for the Republican primary were terrible partially because they didn't realize the mass support Trump was getting from people that in past elections were unlikely to vote (and thus weren't being polled). That might be fixed now, but it isn't going out on too great a limb to suspect that the current polls aren't necessarily a reflection on who will turn out to the polls.

This isn't really true. The polls in the Republican primary were fine - they showed Trump consistently ahead from beginning to end (broadly speaking). The prediction problems were because people (really pundits) didn't *believe* the polls (or they believed that Trump's support was likely to disintegrate at some point).

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:15 am**

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:It's also worth remembering that most predictions for the Republican primary were terrible partially because they didn't realize the mass support Trump was getting from people that in past elections were unlikely to vote (and thus weren't being polled). That might be fixed now, but it isn't going out on too great a limb to suspect that the current polls aren't necessarily a reflection on who will turn out to the polls.

Actually, IIRC, the polls were perfectly fine in predicting him getting his share of the vote in the primary. The pundits just had difficulty believing it because: (1) It was Donald Trump. (2) Generally, support for the Republican front runner doesn't last as long as his did (eg, the flavor of the week from the last election) and (3) His support was never high but the field was very divided.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:17 am**

It's my understanding that the polls were accurate, it was the interpretation of the results by pundits that was way off.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:18 am**

What people are missing is that the polls in the GOP primary were pretty accurate. People (pundits, really) just kind of refused to believe them.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:20 am**

I thought the primary polls were accurate, and it was just that people were just hoping they were wrong. Someone should clear that up for us, though.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:25 am**

Isgrimnur wrote:I thought the primary polls were accurate, and it was just that people were just hoping they were wrong. Someone should clear that up for us, though.

You'd have to be really smart to be the first one to note that, though.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:31 am**

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:It's also worth remembering that most predictions for the Republican primary were terrible partially because they didn't realize the mass support Trump was getting from people that in past elections were unlikely to vote (and thus weren't being polled). That might be fixed now, but it isn't going out on too great a limb to suspect that the current polls aren't necessarily a reflection on who will turn out to the polls.

I'm not sure this is really true, though. It was more that people didn't really believe the polls, not that the polls themselves weren't accurate.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:33 am**

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:It's also worth remembering that most predictions for the Republican primary were terrible partially because they didn't realize the mass support Trump was getting from people that in past elections were unlikely to vote (and thus weren't being polled). That might be fixed now, but it isn't going out on too great a limb to suspect that the current polls aren't necessarily a reflection on who will turn out to the polls.
I'm not sure this is really true, though. It was more that people didn't really believe the polls, not that the polls themselves weren't accurate.

I couldn't disagree more.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:35 am**

Let's dispel once and for all with the fiction that the primary polls weren't accurate. The polls were accurate; they knew exactly what they were doing. They were undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America Great Again. It was just that the pundits didn't believe them.

Octopus Overlords

The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread

Re: The Hillary Clinton thread