Octopus Overlords

Exodor wrote:Trump has appointed Ben Carson to help find a VP.

Today Carson had this to say about Cruz:

When Fox News Radio’s John Gibson asked Carson on Wednesday whether it would be “smart” for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump to offer Cruz a position on the Supreme Court, he said yes.

“I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific attorney general. Or he could be both,” Carson said. “He could be attorney general first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court.”

Might be worth a shot just to watch the confirmation hearings for such a universally reviled douchebag.

Jaymann wrote:

Exodor wrote:Trump has appointed Ben Carson to help find a VP.

Today Carson had this to say about Cruz:

When Fox News Radio’s John Gibson asked Carson on Wednesday whether it would be “smart” for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump to offer Cruz a position on the Supreme Court, he said yes.

“I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific attorney general. Or he could be both,” Carson said. “He could be attorney general first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court.”

Might be worth a shot just to watch the confirmation hearings for such a universally reviled douchebag.

Has a SCOTUS nominee ever been rejected by a vote of 100-0?

The first of many brutal anti-Trump videos.

He *is* a unifier.

El Guapo wrote:The first of many brutal anti-Trump videos.

He *is* a unifier.

That's awesome and completely useless and Trump supporting idiots.

And she just posted another biting video.

tru1cy wrote:Now that he's won the nom any bets on who he chooses for VP? My guess is either Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich. If he was smart he would choose Marco Rubio as an Olive Branch to the Never Trump GOP

If I was Trump I would choose my good friend Rudy Giuliani. He's had his own presidential aspirations in the past and would stand tough in an increasingly turbulent Trump campaign.

Dave Allen wrote:

tru1cy wrote:Now that he's won the nom any bets on who he chooses for VP? My guess is either Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich. If he was smart he would choose Marco Rubio as an Olive Branch to the Never Trump GOP

If I was Trump I would choose my good friend Rudy Giuliani. He's had his own presidential aspirations in the past and would stand tough in an increasingly turbulent Trump campaign.

Palin's ego would clash with Trump's and she has the taint of a loser. He will choose someone with perceived gravitas who will not upstage him.

Dave Allen wrote:If I was Trump I would choose my good friend Rudy Giuliani. He's had his own presidential aspirations in the past and would stand tough in an increasingly turbulent Trump campaign.

Having the P and the VP from the same state presents certain issues in the electoral college.

More to the point, though, even Trump must know that there is such a thing as too much New York.

If it's not Gingrich, it might be fired top general Stanley McChrystal, who hates Obama/Clinton with teeth-gritting passion and would ace Trump's "Kill 'em All" rallies.

Holman wrote:

Dave Allen wrote:If I was Trump I would choose my good friend Rudy Giuliani. He's had his own presidential aspirations in the past and would stand tough in an increasingly turbulent Trump campaign.

Having the P and the VP from the same state presents certain issues in the electoral college

The improbable is Trump's forte.

Holman wrote:...even Trump must know that there is such a thing as too much New York.

The excessive is Trump's other forte.

Yesterday Trump said that Kasich was on his short list. Which is surprising, though it wouldn't be a bad choice. Don't know if Kasich would accept, though.

Donald Trump isn't going to be President.

But how does this happen in practice? Florida, for example, is critical. Republicans can’t win without it. To flip the state, Trump has to outperform Romney with Latino voters—there just aren’t enough non-Hispanic whites to make up the difference. How does Trump fare among Latinos?

Eighty-seven percent of all Latino voters have a negative view of Trump, according to a new Latino Decisions national survey. In Florida, it’s 84 percent. In other Latino heavy swing states like Colorado and Nevada, it’s 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. If Trump loses 87 percent of Latino voters nationwide (and nothing else changes from 2012), the Democrats add North Carolina to their 2012 haul as well as 8 million more popular votes.

OK, well, what about black Americans? There aren’t any detailed polls of blacks vis-à-vis Trump, but most national surveys show disapproval in the 80 to 90 percent range. If black turnout stays at its present trajectory, Trump will need to crack 15 percent with blacks to peel critical swing states from Democrats. (A Trump who could accomplish that is also a Trump who is clearly winning.) No Republican has secured more than 15 percent of the black vote in 60 years.

Trump is deeply unpopular with women, too. Seventy percent hold a negative view, according to a recent Gallup survey. If Trump loses 70 percent of women, then he’s lost, period.

Donald Trump begins the general election with a huge deficit in head-to-head polls, deep unpopularity, and major demographic headwinds. Unless he wins unprecedented shares of black and Latino voters, or, barring any improvement with nonwhite voters, unless he wins unprecedented shares of white voters, he loses. And he has to do this while running as the most unpopular nominee in 30 years of polling. He has to do it while running against a Democratic Party operating at full strength, with popular surrogates (including a former president) crisscrossing the country against his campaign. He has to do it with a divided Republican Party. He has to do it while somehow tempering his deep-seated misogyny and racism. All this, again, in a growing economy with a well-liked president—solid conditions for a Democratic candidate.

At least Trump might rid me of asshole McCain.

at least he thinks so

I wish his lack of popularity had been evident during the nomination race. He destroyed his competition. Presumably, because he was popular.

That kind of article talking about how Trump has no real chance of winning the general election would provide me with a lot more comfort if I hadn't read a bunch like it about how he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (I think 538 at one point gave him a 2% chance).

Among primary voters.

538

As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.

Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008.

As first written up by PolitiFact, the party that had higher turnout in the primary won the national popular vote three times and lost three times. If you look at the Electoral College, the party that had the higher turnout in the primary won four times. That can hardly be described as predictive.
...
In four of five1 elections in our data set, the party with the larger raw vote increase in the primary lost the national popular vote in the fall. For the Electoral College, the party with the larger vote increase lost three of five times.
...
The party whose primary turnout improved the most won the national popular vote in the general election two of five times and won the Electoral College three of five times.

ImLawBoy wrote:That kind of article talking about how Trump has no real chance of winning the general election would provide me with a lot more comfort if I hadn't read a bunch like it about how he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (I think 538 at one point gave him a 2% chance).

Yep. Gonna be a stressful year, and I live in another country!

If it helps, a lot of internet commentors from the UK love him and are very supportive of America for nominating him.

GreenGoo wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:That kind of article talking about how Trump has no real chance of winning the general election would provide me with a lot more comfort if I hadn't read a bunch like it about how he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (I think 538 at one point gave him a 2% chance).

Yep. Gonna be a stressful year, and I live in another country!

If it helps, a lot of internet commentors from the UK love him and are very supportive of America for nominating him.

Are they all bald, boot-wearing thugs by chance?

GreenGoo wrote:If it helps, a lot of internet commentors from the UK love him and are very supportive of America for nominating him.

I've been working on a project with some of my company's UK-based folks lately, and in some casual conversation, our account guy more or less asked me what the hell was going on in the US with Trump. I think he was pretty much offering me safe haven in the UK if Trump gets elected.

If I've learned nothing in the last 6 months, I've at least learned not to predict any results this year. NONE of the standard political bell weathers and tactics have followed any kind of traditional pattern. I'm completely confused by the results so far, and I'm so NOT going to assume things are going to go like the experts say they will.

El Guapo wrote:Yesterday Trump said that Kasich was on his short list. Which is surprising, though it wouldn't be a bad choice. Don't know if Kasich would accept, though.

Out of all the clowns on the bingo card, Kasich is probably the only one who added to his brand and wouldn't be a bad choice for the GOP to groom for 2020 (or 2024 if the Hilary machine is cruising along). Then again, if he happens to think that (1) Trump will win and (2) his presidency would not be an unmitigated disaster, destroying the careers of anyone intimately involved in the regime; then Kasich is probably doing us a favor by exposing himself as another Republican who is too damn dumb to be president.

Jeff V wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Yesterday Trump said that Kasich was on his short list. Which is surprising, though it wouldn't be a bad choice. Don't know if Kasich would accept, though.

Out of all the clowns on the bingo card, Kasich is probably the only one who added to his brand and wouldn't be a bad choice for the GOP to groom for 2020 (or 2024 if the Hilary machine is cruising along). Then again, if he happens to think that (1) Trump will win and (2) his presidency would not be an unmitigated disaster, destroying the careers of anyone intimately involved in the regime; then Kasich is probably doing us a favor by exposing himself as another Republican who is too damn dumb to be president.

Kasich will never win the Republican nomination. He's a liberal and people like me would do everything in our power to keep him from even getting close. He'd get run off the ballot in the south and the heartland.

Besides, he says there is no way he will accept the VP nomination.

msduncan wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Yesterday Trump said that Kasich was on his short list. Which is surprising, though it wouldn't be a bad choice. Don't know if Kasich would accept, though.

Out of all the clowns on the bingo card, Kasich is probably the only one who added to his brand and wouldn't be a bad choice for the GOP to groom for 2020 (or 2024 if the Hilary machine is cruising along). Then again, if he happens to think that (1) Trump will win and (2) his presidency would not be an unmitigated disaster, destroying the careers of anyone intimately involved in the regime; then Kasich is probably doing us a favor by exposing himself as another Republican who is too damn dumb to be president.

Kasich will never win the Republican nomination. He's a liberal and people like me would do everything in our power to keep him from even getting close. He'd get run off the ballot in the south and the heartland.

Besides, he says there is no way he will accept the VP nomination.

If they are intent to coddle the lunatic fringe and stay away from the center, then the Republicans will have to wait for some epic disaster before getting within spitting distance of the White House.

Primary politics are weird because they are affected by so many variables: the number of candidates in the race, the results of previous races, local state politics, and the weird rules that change from state to state (at least on the GOP side). Most of all, they play out within the realm of the party's internal politics rather than national politics.

The general election is much more straightforward. The basic fact this year is that Trump has to do better than Romney, under less favorable conditions than 2012, and he has to do it with several different demographic categories. Just doing better with less-educated white males will not be anywhere close to enough.

ImLawBoy wrote:That kind of article talking about how Drumpf has no real chance of winning the general election would provide me with a lot more comfort if I hadn't read a bunch like it about how he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (I think 538 at one point gave him a 2% chance).

The electoral college math is pretty hard to refute but yeah almost everyone (except Ornstein) got it wrong. Looked at with some perspective I think it comes down to a huge crowd helped him and enough people are *much angrier* than expected. He coasted with a thin plurality until everyone else fell apart. Luckily he has no ground game to get the vote out in any state much less the ones he needs to flip. He almost certainly won't be President.

msduncan wrote:If I've learned nothing in the last 6 months, I've at least learned not to predict any results this year. NONE of the standard political bell weathers and tactics have followed any kind of traditional pattern. I'm completely confused by the results so far, and I'm so NOT going to assume things are going to go like the experts say they will.

The polls had Trump up from the beginning. The chattering class, including presumably empirical stats-crunchers like Nate Silver, didn't believe they would stay that way. Why? Not because of any empirical evidence, just because they couldn't conceive of such a boorish self-promoting blowhard having staying power. Silver didn't trust the data. Some others, like Sam Wang at Princeton, did a much better job ignoring personal biases and trusting the numbers. They were right all along that Trump was the favorite to win.

The lesson here isn't that things are so unpredictable that they defy analysis. The lesson is to trust the data and askew opinion. The polls always had Trump ahead during the primary, and they've consistently had him behind in the general. I'm going to do my best to ignore the overreaction to each daily media cycle by the pundits and have faith in the numbers. I'm sure they'll ebb and flow, and the race will tighten as it always does, but fundamentally the numbers right now look really, really daunting for Trump.

Jeff V wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Yesterday Trump said that Kasich was on his short list. Which is surprising, though it wouldn't be a bad choice. Don't know if Kasich would accept, though.

Out of all the clowns on the bingo card, Kasich is probably the only one who added to his brand and wouldn't be a bad choice for the GOP to groom for 2020 (or 2024 if the Hilary machine is cruising along). Then again, if he happens to think that (1) Trump will win and (2) his presidency would not be an unmitigated disaster, destroying the careers of anyone intimately involved in the regime; then Kasich is probably doing us a favor by exposing himself as another Republican who is too damn dumb to be president.

Kasich will never win the Republican nomination. He's a liberal and people like me would do everything in our power to keep him from even getting close. He'd get run off the ballot in the south and the heartland.

Besides, he says there is no way he will accept the VP nomination.

If they are intent to coddle the lunatic fringe and stay away from the center, then the Republicans will have to wait for some epic disaster before getting within spitting distance of the White House.

What you are calling the "lunatic fringe" is roughly 20 to 30 States and a significant portion of the American electorate. Roughly, depending on the years of course, around half actually.

So maybe instead of making these kinds of statements, we should work to understand the core beliefs and values of our political opposites before these divisions lead us down a very dark path that I don't think anyone wants. We haven't been this polarized in 150 years

ImLawBoy wrote:That kind of article talking about how Trump has no real chance of winning the general election would provide me with a lot more comfort if I hadn't read a bunch like it about how he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (I think 538 at one point gave him a 2% chance).

Yup. The only thing I know for sure about this election cycle is that all cards are on the table.

msduncan wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Yesterday Drumpf said that Kasich was on his short list. Which is surprising, though it wouldn't be a bad choice. Don't know if Kasich would accept, though.

Out of all the clowns on the bingo card, Kasich is probably the only one who added to his brand and wouldn't be a bad choice for the GOP to groom for 2020 (or 2024 if the Hilary machine is cruising along). Then again, if he happens to think that (1) Drumpf will win and (2) his presidency would not be an unmitigated disaster, destroying the careers of anyone intimately involved in the regime; then Kasich is probably doing us a favor by exposing himself as another Republican who is too damn dumb to be president.

Kasich will never win the Republican nomination. He's a liberal and people like me would do everything in our power to keep him from even getting close. He'd get run off the ballot in the south and the heartland.

Besides, he says there is no way he will accept the VP nomination.

This is one of the main reasons why we have Trump. To view Kasich as a "Liberal" is just way off base. Above all he is a fiscal conservative who doesn't care who he pisses off to balance the budget. At the same time he does actually care about social issues and he finds ways to pay for the issues that he thinks are important. If caring about social issues brands him as a "liberal" who shouldn't be the President then it's obvious why the GOP is a party in free fall.

This is coming from a guy who is pissed about some of the financial and social things Kasich has done with my state. But I still respect the fact that he hasn't spent money that he doesn't have.

msduncan wrote:
Kasich will never win the Republican nomination. He's a liberal and people like me would do everything in our power to keep him from even getting close. He'd get run off the ballot in the south and the heartland.

That kind of thinking is what got you guys so screwed to begin with. He's a republican who just happens to be able to cross the aisle every now and again for the sake of compromise. Did you learn nothing over the last 6 months?

we should work to understand the core beliefs and values of our political opposites before these divisions lead us down a very dark path that I don't think anyone wants.

Your first statement above gives me doubt that you actually mean that.

GreenGoo wrote:I wish his lack of popularity had been evident during the nomination race. He destroyed his competition. Presumably, because he was popular.

If it helps, keep in mind that the total number of people who have voted for Trump in the primaries (~11M) represents only about 5% of the overall electorate (~220M).

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I wish his lack of popularity had been evident during the nomination race. He destroyed his competition. Presumably, because he was popular.

If it helps, keep in mind that the total number of people who have voted for Trump in the primaries (~11M) represents only about 5% of the overall electorate (~220M).

True, but he also broke the record on the number of primary votes.

msduncan wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I wish his lack of popularity had been evident during the nomination race. He destroyed his competition. Presumably, because he was popular.

If it helps, keep in mind that the total number of people who have voted for Trump in the primaries (~11M) represents only about 5% of the overall electorate (~220M).

True, but he also broke the record on the number of primary votes.

What record? Hillary has received more primary votes than Trump has.

As others have said, the reason Clinton will win in November is because of this:

the behind the scenes machine that she has assembled

You all know I like to make comparisons and parallels from politics to sports. This extensive team/machine of technology, information, and bodies working behind the scenes reminds me a LOT of the type of thing that Nick Saban assembled years ago at Alabama (and which continues to have success). There is an entire secondary staff at Alabama who pour through information on opponents, recruits, potential assistant coaches, etc. The public really never hears about this organization, but I've read articles about it's effectiveness. Literally when the coaches come in Sunday morning after a game, they have huge amounts of detailed and summarized information at their fingertips on next week's opponent. Film. Patterns. Tendencies. Profiles of players. You name it.

Jimbo Fisher from FSU mentioned this in an interview about Saban and Alabama. He says it's often Tuesday before they get the amount of data (if they get it) on their opponents that Alabama coaches have the evening after a game or the next morning.

This is a lot of how I view the Clinton machine. It's well oiled. It provides crazy amount of data on swing voters. Patterns of voting, behavior, moods etc. It has methods and means of reaching these voters. It's an impressive behind-the-scenes operation.

Unless Trump quickly catches up, this will be like Alabama facing Penn State from a few years back. Both big names but one was completely out prepared and out gunned.

That makes me feel a little better about having to vote for her.

PLW wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I wish his lack of popularity had been evident during the nomination race. He destroyed his competition. Presumably, because he was popular.

If it helps, keep in mind that the total number of people who have voted for Trump in the primaries (~11M) represents only about 5% of the overall electorate (~220M).

True, but he also broke the record on the number of primary votes.

What record? Hillary has received more primary votes than Trump has.

The Republican primary record. But I was wrong - he hasn't broken it yet. He's on track to break it.

link

msduncan wrote:

PLW wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I wish his lack of popularity had been evident during the nomination race. He destroyed his competition. Presumably, because he was popular.

If it helps, keep in mind that the total number of people who have voted for Trump in the primaries (~11M) represents only about 5% of the overall electorate (~220M).

True, but he also broke the record on the number of primary votes.

What record? Hillary has received more primary votes than Trump has.

The Republican primary record. But I was wrong - he hasn't broken it yet. He's on track to break it.

link

FWIW Trump would also be the GOP candidate with the most votes *against* him in history.

msduncan wrote:As others have said, the reason Clinton will win in November is because of this:

the behind the scenes machine that she has assembled

You all know I like to make comparisons and parallels from politics to sports. This extensive team/machine of technology, information, and bodies working behind the scenes reminds me a LOT of the type of thing that Nick Saban assembled years ago at Alabama (and which continues to have success). There is an entire secondary staff at Alabama who pour through information on opponents, recruits, potential assistant coaches, etc. The public really never hears about this organization, but I've read articles about it's effectiveness. Literally when the coaches come in Sunday morning after a game, they have huge amounts of detailed and summarized information at their fingertips on next week's opponent. Film. Patterns. Tendencies. Profiles of players. You name it.

Jimbo Fisher from FSU mentioned this in an interview about Saban and Alabama. He says it's often Tuesday before they get the amount of data (if they get it) on their opponents that Alabama coaches have the evening after a game or the next morning.

This is a lot of how I view the Clinton machine. It's well oiled. It provides crazy amount of data on swing voters. Patterns of voting, behavior, moods etc. It has methods and means of reaching these voters. It's an impressive behind-the-scenes operation.

Unless Trump quickly catches up, this will be like Alabama facing Penn State from a few years back. Both big names but one was completely out prepared and out gunned.

Conversely, not only is Clinton's machine well built, but by all accounts I've seen Trump's organization is a mess. Now, it looks like they're investing a lot into bringing it up to speed, but it's way late in the game to be doing that.

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:As others have said, the reason Clinton will win in November is because of this:

the behind the scenes machine that she has assembled

You all know I like to make comparisons and parallels from politics to sports. This extensive team/machine of technology, information, and bodies working behind the scenes reminds me a LOT of the type of thing that Nick Saban assembled years ago at Alabama (and which continues to have success). There is an entire secondary staff at Alabama who pour through information on opponents, recruits, potential assistant coaches, etc. The public really never hears about this organization, but I've read articles about it's effectiveness. Literally when the coaches come in Sunday morning after a game, they have huge amounts of detailed and summarized information at their fingertips on next week's opponent. Film. Patterns. Tendencies. Profiles of players. You name it.

Jimbo Fisher from FSU mentioned this in an interview about Saban and Alabama. He says it's often Tuesday before they get the amount of data (if they get it) on their opponents that Alabama coaches have the evening after a game or the next morning.

This is a lot of how I view the Clinton machine. It's well oiled. It provides crazy amount of data on swing voters. Patterns of voting, behavior, moods etc. It has methods and means of reaching these voters. It's an impressive behind-the-scenes operation.

Unless Trump quickly catches up, this will be like Alabama facing Penn State from a few years back. Both big names but one was completely out prepared and out gunned.

Conversely, not only is Clinton's machine well built, but by all accounts I've seen Trump's organization is a mess. Now, it looks like they're investing a lot into bringing it up to speed, but it's way late in the game to be doing that.

Republicans have been behind on this type of thing for over 10 years. Romney's attempt at an electronic system to help get-out-the-vote election day ground forces crashed the morning of the election and never came back up. He ignored suggestions to test it in the weeks before the election.

Captain Caveman wrote:

msduncan wrote:If I've learned nothing in the last 6 months, I've at least learned not to predict any results this year. NONE of the standard political bell weathers and tactics have followed any kind of traditional pattern. I'm completely confused by the results so far, and I'm so NOT going to assume things are going to go like the experts say they will.

The polls had Trump up from the beginning. The chattering class, including presumably empirical stats-crunchers like Nate Silver, didn't believe they would stay that way. Why? Not because of any empirical evidence, just because they couldn't conceive of such a boorish self-promoting blowhard having staying power. Silver didn't trust the data. Some others, like Sam Wang at Princeton, did a much better job ignoring personal biases and trusting the numbers. They were right all along that Trump was the favorite to win.

The lesson here isn't that things are so unpredictable that they defy analysis. The lesson is to trust the data and askew opinion. The polls always had Trump ahead during the primary, and they've consistently had him behind in the general. I'm going to do my best to ignore the overreaction to each daily media cycle by the pundits and have faith in the numbers. I'm sure they'll ebb and flow, and the race will tighten as it always does, but fundamentally the numbers right now look really, really daunting for Trump.

This is right. To be fair, early polls tend to overvalue candidates who already have built-in and widespread name recognition (such as Trump). The argument was not that the poll numbers must be wrong because Trump is a buffoon whom nobody could like, but rather than even assuming the polls were then correct, Trump's numbers would eventually plummet as other candidates attacked him (and as the other candidate without widespread name recognition began to air ads, campaign, and otherwise raise their name recognition). That, of course, ultimately proved to not be the case in the GOP primary.

This is a different situation. Polls here show Trump losing decisively in the general. Both Trump and Hillary already have widespread name recognition. So for things to change you have to assume (if the polls are generally correct) that the numbers will change dramatically over the course of the general election campaign. Which is possible, but doesn't seem terribly likely.

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:As others have said, the reason Clinton will win in November is because of this:

the behind the scenes machine that she has assembled

You all know I like to make comparisons and parallels from politics to sports. This extensive team/machine of technology, information, and bodies working behind the scenes reminds me a LOT of the type of thing that Nick Saban assembled years ago at Alabama (and which continues to have success). There is an entire secondary staff at Alabama who pour through information on opponents, recruits, potential assistant coaches, etc. The public really never hears about this organization, but I've read articles about it's effectiveness. Literally when the coaches come in Sunday morning after a game, they have huge amounts of detailed and summarized information at their fingertips on next week's opponent. Film. Patterns. Tendencies. Profiles of players. You name it.

Jimbo Fisher from FSU mentioned this in an interview about Saban and Alabama. He says it's often Tuesday before they get the amount of data (if they get it) on their opponents that Alabama coaches have the evening after a game or the next morning.

This is a lot of how I view the Clinton machine. It's well oiled. It provides crazy amount of data on swing voters. Patterns of voting, behavior, moods etc. It has methods and means of reaching these voters. It's an impressive behind-the-scenes operation.

Unless Trump quickly catches up, this will be like Alabama facing Penn State from a few years back. Both big names but one was completely out prepared and out gunned.

Conversely, not only is Clinton's machine well built, but by all accounts I've seen Trump's organization is a mess. Now, it looks like they're investing a lot into bringing it up to speed, but it's way late in the game to be doing that.

Republicans have been behind on this type of thing for over 10 years. Romney's attempt at an electronic system to help get-out-the-vote election day ground forces crashed the morning of the election and never came back up. He ignored suggestions to test it in the weeks before the election.

And this is just the beginning of Trump's problems. How badly is the GOP side going to fracture? How strongly is the GOP going to leverage its machine (such as it is) to help Trump? If they do, for how long (if Trump's numbers don't move), vs. using that to help GOP downstream candidates? How many GOP-friendly donors are going to help Trump? Are any of them going to go beyond staying neutral, and instead actually help Clinton?

That's the thing. As far as I can tell every available metric points decisively to a Clinton win. I get that this election cycle is uniquely strange, but that doesn't turn elections into sorcery.