Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:05 pm**

Grifman wrote: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.

You need to allow for the fact that Trump is a delegator (for the actual work, although not necessarily the credit for the work). Once Alex Jones (who better to root out the Shadow Government) purges the Gulenists/Lizardpeople/Silence from the FBI and DoJ, he will simply assign a special prosecutor who will take care of the details, like booking the flights to Gitmo, while the The Donald himself works on making Amerika great again. Furthermore, the mainstream Breitbart media will clearly show that not only are the allegations completely false, but the people concerned never existed and there never were any allegations to begin with.

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:46 pm**

If the system is as rigged as he keeps saying it is, then why bother telling people to go out and vote? Either the system is rigged and your vote doesn't matter, or your vote does matter because the system isn't rigged. Maybe he's implying it's only a little rigged, so they just need to win even harder to overcome the shoddy rigging?

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:55 pm**

Chaz wrote:If the system is as rigged as he keeps saying it is, then why bother telling people to go out and vote? Either the system is rigged and your vote doesn't matter, or your vote does matter because the system isn't rigged. Maybe he's implying it's only a little rigged, so they just need to win even harder to overcome the shoddy rigging?

Assuming that isn't a rhetorical question, hammering away at how it's rigged means that he isn't losing -- he's being robbed, and by extension his followers are being robbed. His ego doesn't allow for him to be anything but a winner, the best winner, the YUGEST winner, and the mental slight-of-hand keeps both his and his minions' self-image of "Winning!" intact. Clinton is the loser, not him, but all of the elites are conspiring to defeat him. Better to be a victim, and plot revenge, than to be a loser. It's a classic.

OTOH, if it was a rhetorical question, one of my hobbies is answering rhetorical questions.

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:55 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.

Four score and sevens hoes ago.

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:16 pm**

Max Peck wrote:
Chaz wrote:If the system is as rigged as he keeps saying it is, then why bother telling people to go out and vote? Either the system is rigged and your vote doesn't matter, or your vote does matter because the system isn't rigged. Maybe he's implying it's only a little rigged, so they just need to win even harder to overcome the shoddy rigging?
Assuming that isn't a rhetorical question, hammering away at how it's rigged means that he isn't losing -- he's being robbed, and by extension his followers are being robbed. His ego doesn't allow for him to be anything but a winner, the best winner, the YUGEST winner, and the mental slight-of-hand keeps both his and his minions' self-image of "Winning!" intact. Clinton is the loser, not him, but all of the elites are conspiring to defeat him. Better to be a victim, and plot revenge, than to be a loser. It's a classic.

OTOH, if it was a rhetorical question, one of my hobbies is answering rhetorical questions.

Maybe his concession speech will include something along the lines of, "You know who the real losers are? My supporters."

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:02 pm**

Amidst reports that occupancy rates at Trump Hotels have slipped this election season, the company has announced that new brand hotels will no longer bear the Trump name.

The newest line of luxury hotels, geared towards millennials, will be called Scion, the company said.

link

Posted: **Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:50 pm**

What a difference a day makes... Just last night Reuters was telling us that Trump had cut Clinton's lead in half. Today?

Clinton far ahead in Electoral College race: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton maintained her commanding lead in the race to win the Electoral College and claim the U.S. presidency, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project results released on Saturday.

In the last week, there has been little movement. Clinton leads Donald Trump in most of the states that Trump would need should he have a chance to win the minimum 270 votes needed to win. According to the project, she has a better than 95 percent chance of winning, if the election was held this week. The mostly likely outcome would be 326 votes for Clinton to 212 for Trump.

Trump came off his best debate performance of the campaign Wednesday evening but the polling consensus still showed Clinton winning the third and final face-off on prime-time TV. Trump disputes those findings.

And some national polls had the race tightening a wee bit this week though others had Clinton maintaining her solid lead. But the project illustrates that the broader picture remains bleak for Trump with 17 days to go until the Nov. 8 election.

I like how they refer to their own poll as "some national polls."

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:06 am**

Defiant wrote:

The newest line of luxury hotels, geared towards millennials, will be called Dad's Basement, the company said.

FTFY

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:15 am**

Kraken wrote:
Defiant wrote:

The newest line of luxury hotels, geared towards millennials, will be called Dad's Basement, the company said.

FTFY

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:22 am**

Donald Trump's 100 day action plan.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:38 am**

That's seems like a pretty realistic list for first100-day goals: a constitutional amendment, total overhaul of the tax code, renegotiate NAFTA, withdrawl from TPP, upset relations with China, construct a wall (on Mexico's credit card - remember also while renegotiating NAFTA - sucks it bitches!), pass a bill to expand the world's largest prison population with recidivist illegal immigrants (he didn't say who'd pay but why not Mexico? They're already on the hook for a wall anyway), repeal Obamacare and replace it with a healthcare word salad, and a bill to create a free-for-all education credit plus kill common core aka the eduderp act. The Washington Post cut out the following minor goals: cutting any payments to UN Climate Change initiatives for US infrastructure updates, break up all the media conglomerates, and sue the multitude of his women accusers.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:39 am**

pr0ner wrote:Donald Trump's 100 day action plan.

They cut out the part where he announces everyone gets a pony. That's about as likely to happen as anything else he talks about.

At least he's going to allow everyone to send their kids to the homeschool of their choice. I hear Martha down the street's pretty smart, I think I'll send my kids to her for school.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:51 am**

Grifman wrote: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.

This describes my opinion perfectly. Only I'm optimistic that the "silent majority" of Trump supportors really are a very vocal minority. Not positive, but optimistic.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:08 am**

Grifman wrote: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.

I don't think I responded to this, but yes you have captured my philosophy accurately. I vote for the candidate for President that I believe to be the best person for the unforeseen events that will occur during their term. I do not vote for them based on ideology or legislative agenda (unless there is something extreme that they support that is anathema to me).

Being a near life-long Republican (moderating into a much more liberal Republican in recent years), this election is especially bothersome. The nail has finally been placed in the coffin of Lincoln / Roosevelt / Rockefeller Republicanism and has been replaced with an ideology that would make Jefferson Davis proud.

And that was before they nominated this criminally-incompetent asshole to run under their banner. I hope Trump loses and I hope the loss is catastrophic for the Republican Party. And if they aren't going to learn from it, I hope it's fatal.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:18 pm**

Can't wait for these people to actually have a real reason to be upset.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:49 pm**

Either way, the reality is that I have voted probably 95% Republican over my life at the local, state and national level. I will not vote for any republican for any office until I see real changes in this party. At the very least it will make my task easier going forward.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:26 pm**

pr0ner wrote:Donald Trump's 100 day action plan.

Trumps final 100 day action plan:

Day:

1-45: Blame the media
46-94: Mope
95-99: ?
100: Profit!

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:02 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote:
And that was before they nominated this criminally-incompetent asshole to run under their banner. I hope Trump loses and I hope the loss is catastrophic for the Republican Party. And if they aren't going to learn from it, I hope it's fatal.

I don't foresee learning from it. They spent a lot of time and energy creating the now famous "autopsy" after the Romney defeat, identified a lot of the structural long term issues threatening the Republican party, recommended ways to broaden the base, and then nominated somebody who is the antithesis of everything they called for. The base don't give a fuck - they are angry and like lashing out, even though (hopefully!) it dooms them on a national level.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:03 pm**

This type of info puts a chill down my spine. The guy who got the last election cycle right is saying Drumpf is actually ahead and that everything will tighten up shortly in the other polls. Maybe he'll be wrong - but if right then American democracy is truly broken. He is arguing that none of the scandals are actually hurting Drumpf. I can't believe that but we'll see I suppose.

*I'm choosing to ignore Mulshine's editorializing outside the factual stuff he wrote about the polling because frankly - I think he's wrong way more than he is right on the opinion side.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:42 pm**

malchior wrote:He is arguing that none of the scandals are actually hurting Drumpf. I can't believe that but we'll see I suppose.

He is right that the scandals are not hurting Drumpf - with his base. Mathematically, his original base was never enough for him to win the election, and he hasn't added to it since at least the 1st debate, maybe earlier. In the last election, new voter registrations were up for Republicans and down for Democrats. This time, it's the other way around (in some states, by tens of thousands). Wishful thinking aside, there are only so many electoral map breakdowns that will get Trump to 270, and they are not adding up.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:46 pm**

malchior wrote:This type of info puts a chill down my spine. The guy who got the last election cycle right is saying Drumpf is actually ahead and that everything will tighten up shortly in the other polls. Maybe he'll be wrong - but if right then American democracy is truly broken. He is arguing that none of the scandals are actually hurting Drumpf. I can't believe that but we'll see I suppose.

*I'm choosing to ignore Mulshine's editorializing outside the factual stuff he wrote about the polling because frankly - I think he's wrong way more than he is right on the opinion side.

If I remember right, he wasn't the only guy to get the last election cycle right.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:02 pm**

I can agree with the fundamental point that Trump's base cannot be persuaded no matter what. That's probably less than 35% of the electorate. That's not enough to win.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:04 pm**

Alefroth wrote:
malchior wrote:This type of info puts a chill down my spine. The guy who got the last election cycle right is saying Drumpf is actually ahead and that everything will tighten up shortly in the other polls. Maybe he'll be wrong - but if right then American democracy is truly broken. He is arguing that none of the scandals are actually hurting Drumpf. I can't believe that but we'll see I suppose.

*I'm choosing to ignore Mulshine's editorializing outside the factual stuff he wrote about the polling because frankly - I think he's wrong way more than he is right on the opinion side.
If I remember right, he wasn't the only guy to get the last election cycle right.

The linked article strangely implies that -only- IBD/TIPP called the race for Obama at this point, but Huffpo, 538, and PEC had Obama ahead throughout all of October 2012. As aggregators, they could only have done so if most of the best-regarded pollsters showed that too. (Of the major aggregators, I think only TPM showed Obama losing at any point in October.)

I do think the race will tighten a little, but that article carries a whiff of clickbait.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:17 pm**

And I would note that the IBD/TIPP is not the highest rated pollster on 538, and indeed is rated lower than the ABC poll that came out showing Clinton +12.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:31 pm**

You're going to see plenty of stories about the race tightening in these last two weeks. But ultimately it's the media trying to shape an exciting narrative to what is going to be a very boring and lopsided victory for Clinton.

Remember, we went through this whole dog and pony show in 2012, and that was a race that was legitimately MUCH tighter. Yet still the pollsters turned out to be right, and there was no magical deus ex machina sweeping in at the last minute to save Romney.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:42 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote:I can agree with the fundamental point that Trump's base cannot be persuaded no matter what. That's probably less than 35% of the electorate. That's not enough to win.

I read somewhere, can't remember where, that even if all of Trump's demographic(ALL of them) voted it still wouldn't be enough. There aren't enough of them spread out over enough of the country to swing the necessary amount of electoral votes his way.

I don't know if that's true of course, but I suspect it is. I think the days of that kind of voter determining the outcome of national elections is over, but wacky things can happen. I won't breathe a sigh of relief until it's official.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:43 pm**

I expect it to be lopsided. But at the same time I do still have slight concerns that the polling is off just due to how wacky this election is and how the models are designed. That is the discussion I have been talking through with poly Sci data nerds (this is sorta work related actually). The consensus I am seeing there is to tend to think Nate is right but there is an elevated chance at a big polling miss this year. It is there that the concern springs from.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:03 pm**

YellowKing wrote:You're going to see plenty of stories about the race tightening in these last two weeks. But ultimately it's the media shaping trying to shape an exciting narrative to what is going to be a very boring and lopsided victory for Clinton.

Remember, we went through this whole dog and pony show in 2012, and that was a race that was legitimately MUCH tighter. Yet still the pollsters turned out to be right, and there was no magical deus ex machina sweeping in at the last minute to save Romney.

Was Romney's base ever really fired up about him, though, or did they dutifully fall into line?

Trump's base can count on 100% turnout, but as gameoverman notes that isn't enough. Clinton does not inspire excitement. If polls giving her a comfortable lead cause enough of her reluctant supporters to blow off voting, Trump might just pull off a Brexit scenario.

Mitigating that danger is the Democrats' formidable get-out-the-vote machine. That, combined with the Republican Party's abandonment of Trump, ought to make the difference. It's going to come down to the ground game, and Trump hasn't got one.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:10 pm**

There is reason to believe that the polling models are undercounting Clinton support as well (lower estimates for Latino and female turnout).

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:23 pm**

Kraken wrote:
Was Romney's base ever really fired up about him, though, or did they dutifully fall into line?

Trump's base can count on 100% turnout, but as gameoverman notes that isn't enough. Clinton does not inspire excitement.

Saying this doesn't make it true.

Trump May Depress Republican Turnout, Spelling Disaster For The GOP

Trump is getting only about 80 percent of the Republican vote, whereas candidates typically finish at about 90 percent of their party’s vote or above.

Trump voters are less enthusiastic about voting for him than Romney voters were at this point in 2012

There have been other polls that have shown the same kind of thing - that enthusiasm among Clinton supporters is higher than Trump supporters.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:25 pm**

malchior wrote:Can't wait for these people to actually have a real reason to be upset.

Has anyone done a study to see if the cities where Trump holds his rallies coincides with the Monday Night Raw Schedule? Because I swear I saw some of those people on Raw cheering on Brock Lesnar and booing the New Day.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:35 pm**

Blackhawk wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Donald Trump's 100 day action plan.
Trumps final 100 day action plan:

Day:

1-45: Blame the media
46-94: Mope
95-99: Declare bankruptcy
100: Profit!

Filled in the blanks for you.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:53 pm**

malchior wrote:This type of info puts a chill down my spine. The guy who got the last election cycle right is saying Drumpf is actually ahead and that everything will tighten up shortly in the other polls. Maybe he'll be wrong - but if right then American democracy is truly broken. He is arguing that none of the scandals are actually hurting Drumpf. I can't believe that but we'll see I suppose.

*I'm choosing to ignore Mulshine's editorializing outside the factual stuff he wrote about the polling because frankly - I think he's wrong way more than he is right on the opinion side.

I wouldn't sweat it. I read an article today about Democrats for Drumpf that makes the breitbart.com spin look like objective professional journalism. If I took that article to heart Dems are going to vote for Drumpf in droves. It's a MASSIVE exodus because Clinton is the devil and was mean to Bernie, or something.

Hilarious in it's absurdity.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:58 pm**

gameoverman wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I can agree with the fundamental point that Trump's base cannot be persuaded no matter what. That's probably less than 35% of the electorate. That's not enough to win.
I read somewhere, can't remember where, that even if all of Trump's demographic(ALL of them) voted it still wouldn't be enough. There aren't enough of them spread out over enough of the country to swing the necessary amount of electoral votes his way.

Someone here early on (mid summer?) pointed out that there was almost no path for Drumpf to collect the necessary electoral votes no matter what the polls were saying about the popular vote. I've been clinging to that idea for months, and even when Drumpf's poll numbers were in the vicinity of Clinton I never let go of the idea.

It kept me sane(ish).

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:08 pm**

GreenGoo wrote:
Someone here early on (mid summer?) pointed out that there was almost no path for Drumpf to collect the necessary electoral votes no matter what the polls were saying about the popular vote. I've been clinging to that idea for months, and even when Drumpf's poll numbers were in the vicinity of Clinton I never let go of the idea.

It kept me sane(ish).

Well, I'm glad it kept you sane, but I disagree with that. If Trump hadn't proved to be quite the trainwreck he became (which we had no certainty he would become even a month ago), he could have either - won the swing states, or tried to go for the midwest (where he has more appeal and where Clinton is more vulnerable - as seen in Ohio and Iowa)

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:09 pm**

Trump has a smaller lead among white voters than Romney did.

Maybe he can make up the difference with other demographic groups?

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:09 pm**

GreenGoo wrote:Someone here early on (mid summer?) pointed out that there was almost no path for Drumpf to collect the necessary electoral votes no matter what the polls were saying about the popular vote. I've been clinging to that idea for months, and even when Drumpf's poll numbers were in the vicinity of Clinton I never let go of the idea.

It kept me sane(ish).

That was me (among other maybe). If you start with Romney states and realize that he didn't win, you have to find states that Trump can win that Romney lost, all while not losing any states that Romney won.

That seemed like too tall an order.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:14 pm**

Holman wrote: Maybe he can make up the difference with other demographic groups?

Sure, as long as they're not minorities.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:18 pm**

Holman wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
malchior wrote:This type of info puts a chill down my spine. The guy who got the last election cycle right is saying Drumpf is actually ahead and that everything will tighten up shortly in the other polls. Maybe he'll be wrong - but if right then American democracy is truly broken. He is arguing that none of the scandals are actually hurting Drumpf. I can't believe that but we'll see I suppose.

*I'm choosing to ignore Mulshine's editorializing outside the factual stuff he wrote about the polling because frankly - I think he's wrong way more than he is right on the opinion side.
If I remember right, he wasn't the only guy to get the last election cycle right.
The linked article strangely implies that -only- IBD/TIPP called the race for Obama at this point, but Huffpo, 538, and PEC had Obama ahead throughout all of October 2012. As aggregators, they could only have done so if most of the best-regarded pollsters showed that too. (Of the major aggregators, I think only TPM showed Obama losing at any point in October.)

I do think the race will tighten a little, but that article carries a whiff of clickbait.

Apparently, that IBD/TIPP poll was only accurate in 2012 if you measure accuracy by the final poll they took. 2 weeks out, they were predicting a Romney win and then steadily scurried back to Obama's favor by Election Day.

I'm not saying they were doing this, but one way to get a ton of attention and clicks is to go against the grain for as long as you can, and then try to be as accurate as possible with your last poll to claim accuracy for the future. Rinse and repeat.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:37 pm**

That doesn't surprise me too much - the IBD is a daily tracking poll - you have to pull back and look at the trend. That was his point in the NJ.com article - he thinks since he is trending now towards Donald that the rest of the polls will follow. Or they won't. Either way - any chance greater than zero for Drumpf concerns me until it's over.

Octopus Overlords

The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse