The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:03 pm

Freyland wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.
Okay, little irritated here. That article points out that Eric Trump "caused a furor when he compared Syrian refugees to Skittles". I just read his statement, and it seemed an extremely reasonable analogy in an otherwise sea of Trump garbage.

The analogy is only apt if you think eating a skittle is of equivalent moral value to saving a stranger's life.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:10 pm

Freyland wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.
Okay, little irritated here. That article points out that Eric Trump "caused a furor when he compared Syrian refugees to Skittles". I just read his statement, and it seemed an extremely reasonable analogy in an otherwise sea of Trump garbage.

It's not. Feel free to read the rebuttals of that analogy, or someone can just post a picture of the size of the skittles bowl involved, as just one aspect of what's wrong with the analogy. Or you can ask yourself how many lives would you save if the risk to any *American* was infinitesimally small based on all available data that isn't created out of whole cloth by fear?

And that's only when you focus on the cowardice of Americans.

If you look at the courage of Americans, it makes even less sense. Americans are renowned for their courage and bravery. The idea that they would leave people to suffer and die because it's possible that one or two skittles in a building sized bowl of skittles has a chance to possibly harm someone in America, is ludicrous on the face of it. Or at least it used to be.

I think the average American is courageous and willing to risk themselves if it would save others. Thousands and thousands of others. They are being deceived and controlled by those preaching fear.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:20 pm

Max Peck wrote:Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.

The greatest politician in the history of the world? I'm not on board. He has been doing business his entire life, but he isn't the greatest businessman in the history of the world.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:20 pm

Freyland wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.
Okay, little irritated here. That article points out that Eric Trump "caused a furor when he compared Syrian refugees to Skittles". I just read his statement, and it seemed an extremely reasonable analogy in an otherwise sea of Trump garbage.

That's some good irony, that is. Right? Also, it was Donald Trump Jr., not Eric.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:27 pm

Is it me, or does it seem like this surrogate started hitting the Jack Daniels when she woke up this morning? I probably would be,too, if I had to seriously spout this shit.

It's 5:00 somewhere

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:41 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Freyland wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.
Okay, little irritated here. That article points out that Eric Trump "caused a furor when he compared Syrian refugees to Skittles". I just read his statement, and it seemed an extremely reasonable analogy in an otherwise sea of Trump garbage.
That's some good irony, that is. Right? Also, it was Donald Trump Jr., not Eric.

Just because numerical analysis exists and estimating was part of the course, and despite being really bad at it, I'll just point out that the data used to come up with the 1 in 3.6whatever billion already includes heavy (but standard) screening of refugees. The article uses the probability number but then references the screening process as another step protecting against poison skittles. Unless you're screening twice, that's not a correct way of viewing your guestimation.

Yes no one cares, yes I'm being overly pedantic and yes, the analogy falls apart long before we get to that stage. Still, when your prof is whipping you, some stuff sticks and doesn't let go.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:54 pm

tgb wrote:Is it me, or does it seem like this surrogate started hitting the Jack Daniels when she woke up this morning? I probably would be,too, if I had to seriously spout this shit.

It's 5:00 somewhere

I think it is fair to mention every time I see Betsy I have to remind myself that I'm watching the person who invented death panels speak. She is a loathsome and evil political hack. She lies with ease and without compunction. As KO said she can burn in hell too. Listen to what she is saying. Everyone who is part of the system is corrupt and lying. They are literally committing treason on tv. It's insanity.

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:55 pm

PLW wrote:
Freyland wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.
Okay, little irritated here. That article points out that Eric Trump "caused a furor when he compared Syrian refugees to Skittles". I just read his statement, and it seemed an extremely reasonable analogy in an otherwise sea of Trump garbage.
The analogy is only apt if you think eating a skittle is of equivalent moral value to saving a stranger's life.

I disagree with the above quote because, frankly, it assumes a lot more info is given. For example, my willingness to save a stranger's life goes down considerably if the probable outcome is my own death, as that leaves my wife and children in a particularly bad way. That said, the "bowl scaling" discussion was very helpful in showing me the error in the analogy. Thanks for that, other than ruining my belief that something reasonable came out of the Trump camp.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:58 pm

Sound bites (or gifs) that break down complex situations should probably be taken with a grain of salt from pretty much anyone on either side of the aisle. In this case, I save time by assuming anything said by Drumpf or one of his surrogates has little to no basis in reality.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:36 pm

While many democrats and sane people worry about Trump mobilizing mass numbers of voters who don't traditionally vote and/or "shy" Trump voters (i.e. poll respondents who don't want to admit that they're going to vote for Trump), Nate Silver tweeted an article pointing out that many "deplorable" candidates in recent years have underperformed polls.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:38 pm

I've never been a big fan of Mark Cuban, but this exchange with Rudy Giuliani during a CNN interview made me laugh.

CNN host Erin Burnett then asked Giuliani if there was any story that could come out that would lead him to disavow Trump.

"I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals," he said, before asking Cuban, "If someone came to you and said Hillary Clinton murdered someone, and you believed them, would it change your mind?"

"Yes," Cuban said in response.

"Okay," Giuliani said. "Um, yeah. But that's a hypothetical."

And then

On Trump's businesses, Cuban said, aside from real estate, Trump's been a failure at "everything else" and he's now "crushing his brands."

"It makes no sense what he's doing because everything he's saying is hurting his brand," he said.

Giuliani responded by saying he visited Trump's hotels and golf courses, and added that "everyone's had failures."

"Why all the failures?" Cuban said.

"People doing bold things sometimes fail," Giuliani later said.

"Trump steaks is bold?" Cuban interjected. "Trump playing cards is bold? Trump card games is bold?"

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:41 pm

Has Fivethirtyeight had Clinton as the favorite to win Ohio for awhile now or is that a new thing?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:42 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Has Fivethirtyeight had Clinton as the favorite to win Ohio for awhile now or is that a new thing?

Since the 2nd debate at least.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:42 pm

tgb wrote:Is it me, or does it seem like this surrogate started hitting the Jack Daniels when she woke up this morning? I probably would be,too, if I had to seriously spout this shit.

It's 5:00 somewhere

OMG. A THIRD Melissandre?! Seriously getting creeped out by the lady Trumpsters all dressing and looking similar. Uniforms?!

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:05 pm

malchior wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Has Fivethirtyeight had Clinton as the favorite to win Ohio for awhile now or is that a new thing?
Since the 2nd debate at least.

Yeah, Ohio's not the most recent state to flip blue. Iowa and Arizona turned blue after Ohio. I've since between watching to see whether Alaska or Georgia would creep up towards 50%, though (for the moment at least) they've stalled at around a 33% chance for Clinton.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:45 pm

I've been assuming that the race would tighten towards the end as they all do, and that Iowa and Ohio would slip back to being red as they've been for most of this cycle.

Last night might have set a new course, though. Trump shredded himself on election rigging, Putin, and women, and that's going to further bleed his support.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:21 pm

The signs were always there, if only we had paid heed...

Magic Eightball said: Signs point to yes, followed by Outlook not so good.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:51 pm

I have a gut feeling that despite Hillary's big lead, it's still probably being *underestimated.* He's not going to pull in undecideds, and it's far more likely that there are registered Republicans willing to jump the fence and vote for Hillary behind closed curtains than vice versa. Those who are just going to stay home out of disgust were probably never going to be Hillary voters anyway, so their absence hurts him more than it hurts her.

The biggest factor, however, I think is something the polls can't really capture - and that's Hillary's ground game. She's absolutely crushing him in terms of fundamental groundwork, and I think that's going to pay dividends that can't adequately be modeled.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:55 pm

Yeah, I agree. She's also got a lot more money being spent on ads.

Personally, I think at this point, Clinton is probably likelier to win by double digits than she is to have a 2008-sized (4%) win.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:06 am

We'll have to see. My great great fear is that we wake up and find out that Trumpers were not accurately captured in the polling (as likely voters) and that they turned out in droves and elected a madman president. That is what keeps me up at night.

Frankly, I'm usually like RM9 when it comes to elections (if I interpreted him correctly, apologies if not). US politics is like a river, it may shift one way or another, but it operates within an accepted and expected channel, recognized by both parties. Candidates come and go, and for most elections, though I may favor one or the other, I can usually live with the other. In many ways I don't really feel comfortable with either party because there are things I love about each party, and other things that I really hate. So I have a love/hate relationship with presidential elections.

But never in my life have I wanted a more flawed candidate to so badly win an election. I just really can't imagine a Trump victory. Or rather I don't want to. And I hope to God I don't have to.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:06 am

With all the mud that's been slung over the last year, how did I miss out on the story about the time that Trump's father was arrested (but not charged) at a Klan event while wearing Klan attire (but which Trump maintains totally never happened).

Default · Post by **Default** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:11 am

After the election, we may need to rename this thread "The Art of the Donald Trumpcollapse".

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:38 am

The polls keep making predictions, but I fear that some of the factors going into this election can't be anticipated. There are so many things at work that have just never been seen before - like a major party largely abandoning its candidate - that it is hard to predict the impact it will have on the voting.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:46 pm

Stay classy, South Texas:

Republican Rep. Brian Babin on Thursday defended Donald Trump calling Hillary Clinton "a nasty woman" at the final presidential debate, saying "sometimes a lady needs to be told when she's being nasty."
...
Appearing on the "Alan Colmes Show" on Thursday evening, Babin, a Trump supporter, was asked if he thought Trump's comment was appropriate.

"You know what, she's saying some nasty things," the Texas congressman answered.

Colmes asked again if the comment was appropriate, to which Babin responded, "Well, I'm a genteel Southerner, Alan."

"So that means no?" Colmes asked.

"No, I think sometimes a lady needs to be told when she's being nasty," Babin replied. "I do."

"My assessment is that Mrs. Clinton has got so much baggage--" Babin added. "I think she's done some nasty things."

After Colmes repeatedly pressed the Texas congressman, he said he agreed with Trump's assessment of Clinton as a "nasty woman."

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:08 pm

Speaking of classy, why does Newt Gingrich hate America so much?

In a interview Thursday on the Mike Gallagher Show, Gingrich, a prominent adviser to the GOP nominee, cited anti-Trump Republicans, the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of private email, and the release this week of an edited video suggesting a Democratic operative and staff hired people to incite violence at Trump rallies as evidence that the election might be rigged against Trump.

"So you look at all that stuff, and you say, I'd be a little bit cautious about automatically accepting that Hillary Clinton will be legitimately anything," Gingrich said. "We are in the worst cycle of corruption in American history, and in many ways, we resemble Venezuela and Argentina more than we resemble traditional America."

I was worried that Trump might turn the USA into a banana republic, but according to Newt it already is.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:22 pm

...only if Trump loses. If Trump wins, then America is Great Again!

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:42 pm

Watching a Trump speech, I just realized something. When they make the film about this election, Trump has got to be played by Shatner! All he really has to do is switch rugs and talk the way he always does.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:44 pm

Statements like that would kill a political career not too long ago. Now it's just noise is news cycle filled with equally vile statements and worse.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:52 pm

Max Peck wrote:Speaking of classy, why does Newt Gingrich hate America so much?
In a interview Thursday on the Mike Gallagher Show, Gingrich, a prominent adviser to the GOP nominee, cited anti-Trump Republicans, the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of private email, and the release this week of an edited video suggesting a Democratic operative and staff hired people to incite violence at Trump rallies as evidence that the election might be rigged against Trump.

"So you look at all that stuff, and you say, I'd be a little bit cautious about automatically accepting that Hillary Clinton will be legitimately anything," Gingrich said. "We are in the worst cycle of corruption in American history, and in many ways, we resemble Venezuela and Argentina more than we resemble traditional America."
I was worried that Trump might turn the USA into a banana republic, but according to Newt it already is.

If anyone knows what it's like to be in the middle of wort cycle of corruptions of American history, it's Newt.

And if anyone knows the system is rigged, it's someone born in to millions dollars, with family contacts in government contracts, who legally doesn't pay taxes, and has enough lawyers to make large corporations blush.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:13 pm

Blitzer blows it. How did he keep himself from responding "says who?"

Dogstar · Post by **Dogstar** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:23 pm

So the New York Daily News dropped a six-page, 7900-editorial as to why Trump shouldn't be President. It comes complete with political cartoons for each of the fourteen chapters. I'm not sure it tops the National Review's issue devoted to Trump, but man... they absolutely do not like him.

When deliberating over a presidential endorsement, the Daily News Editorial Board strives to identify the person who offers the greatest promise to brighten the futures of Americans and to safeguard the national security.

Never have we questioned a candidate’s fitness to serve.

Then came Donald Trump — liar, thief, bully, hypocrite, sexual victimizer and unhinged, self-adoring demagogue.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:45 pm

Dogstar wrote:

Then came Donald Trump — liar, thief, bully, hypocrite, sexual victimizer and unhinged, self-adoring demagogue.

And those are his good points.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:00 am

Oops!... He did it again. Another key player in Trump's campaign falls to the wayside.

Jim Murphy joined in June to serve as political director, replacing Rick Wiley, who'd only been in the position for two months. On Thursday, it was reported that Murphy had to "step back" from the campaign for the last three weeks for personal reasons. Murphy came on shortly after former campaign manager Paul Manafort joined the team, but outlasted Manafort by about a month-and-a-half.

Murphy's job was to focus on Trump's efforts on the ground in those battleground states. This would be a thankless job under any circumstances, given Trump's repeatedly expressed antipathy for running traditional field campaigns and his apparent decision to outsource most of the work of contacting and turning out voters to the Republican Party. As Clinton has seen her lead expand and as Trump has watched the electoral math slip further away thanks to stagnant or worsening numbers in key states, it's easy to see why a political director might become a bit disheartened.

[...]

What a political campaign should be doing right now — even a struggling political campaign — is driving a unified message, contacting voters with that message before they vote and encouraging supporters in early-voting states to get to the polls. It's the Jim Murphys of the campaign who are responsible for doing that.

Trump is now without a Jim Murphy. Even if he could crawl back nationally — probably a decent-sized if — he's now completely reliant on his party to do the hard work of ensuring voters go to the polls. If he doesn't crawl back nationally, or if he doesn't crawl back enough, the party doesn't have a lot of incentive to spend time and money that could instead go to embattled House and Senate candidates.

For another campaign, this would be a crisis. But for this campaign, it's a crisis that's somewhere toward the middle of the long line of crises. It's a guy who lost a finger walking into an emergency room filled with people who have lost both legs and arms. It's a problem, and a big one — but it's not the worst one.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:00 am

The totally liberally biased rigged media would like to remind you that it ain't over 'til it's over. Bad boy underdog Trump is surging in the polls... Well, some of them.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gained on his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released on Friday.

The polling data showed Trump's argument that the Nov. 8 election is "rigged" against him has resonated with members of his party.

"Remember folks, it's a rigged system," Trump told a Pennsylvania rally on Friday. "That's why you've got to get out and vote, you've got to watch. Because this system is totally rigged."

Clinton led Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, according to the Oct. 14-20 Reuters/Ipsos poll, a 4-point lead. That compared with 44 percent for Clinton and 37 percent for Trump in the Oct. 7-13 poll released last week.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:12 am

So it's a rigged system that's showing him catching up? I can't wait to see how Supreme Glory Kim Jong Trump and his minions spin this one.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:10 am

It's an interesting spin, given that there's been a lot of chatter that "the media" will want to find a Trump come-back narrative to keep the masses' attention. If you go to the Reuters polling explorer, you'll see that they are reporting the weekly tracking numbers. If you switch to the 5-day rolling view, you'll see a very different trend. It looks to my untrained eye that Trump had a good polling day just before the debate that might be skewing the weekly numbers, then things go to hell for him after the debate. I'll take the whole thing with a splash of salt until a poll-whisperer like Nate Silver has enough data to opine on what is actually going on.

Edit: Added screenshots of the weekly vs 5-day rolling numbers.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:16 am

Max Peck wrote:Reuters polling explorer

OK, I'm not sure I trust their likely voter model if 3% of likely voters say they wouldn't vote.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:32 pm

Defiant wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Reuters polling explorer
OK, I'm not sure I trust their likely voter model if 3% of likely voters say they wouldn't vote.

Heh, good catch.

Nate Silver touched on the concept of identifying "likely" voters in an election update just a couple of days ago.

So let’s use today’s Election Update as an excuse to talk about something else: the effect that likely-voter models are having on the polls. Every pollster has its own method for determining who’s a likely voter, although I generally think of likely-voter models as falling into two categories: “soft” likely-voter screens that simply ask voters whether they’re likely to vote, and “hard” likely-voter screens like the one that Gallup employed that use a longer battery of questions, including voting history. I won’t go into too much more detail on methodology here, but there’s a great primer on likely-voter models at the old Mystery Pollster site if you’re into that kind of thing.

I'd guess that Ipsos/Reuters is using a "hard" likely-voter screen that predicts that some people who say they'll vote won't actually get around to doing so. That's a prediction that I don't disagree with, although I have no idea how large that slice of pie would be.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:37 pm

Remember Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, where he threatened to sue everyone who had accused him of sexual assault?

Donald Trump declared that he was “looking forward” to suing every woman who has accused him of groping and assault during a Saturday speech laying out his plan for the first 100 days of his presidency.

“All of these liars will be sued after the election,” Trump claimed, alleging that the 10 women who have so far accused him of unwanted advances came forward “to hurt my campaign.”

The Trump team billed the speech, held in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in honor of Abraham Lincoln’s address, as an opportunity to lay out his top priorities.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:35 pm

Holman wrote:Remember Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, where he threatened to sue everyone who had accused him of sexual assault?

Donald Trump declared that he was “looking forward” to suing every woman who has accused him of groping and assault during a Saturday speech laying out his plan for the first 100 days of his presidency.

“All of these liars will be sued after the election,” Trump claimed, alleging that the 10 women who have so far accused him of unwanted advances came forward “to hurt my campaign.”

The Trump team billed the speech, held in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in honor of Abraham Lincoln’s address, as an opportunity to lay out his top priorities.

There's no way he will do that. First off, it will open his entire sexual history to discovery and I doubt he wants that. Secondly, were he to become president, he should be far to busy to get involved in multiple suits of such a personal nature - unless perhaps he plans to outsource domestic foreign policy to Pence as he supposedly offered to Kasaich.