Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[EyewatchTV211]

If true, the FBI's reputation is going to tank even more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/meet-donald-trump-s-top-fbi-fanboy.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

Outrageous if true.

[LoneHaranguer]

4 hours ago, ruby24 said:

These are a bunch of alpha males who seethe at the sight of Hillary in her "quest to attain power" and her ambition marks her as evil to these men.

Don't you mean quest to regain power? I think it's ironic that even as supporters are blaming the failure of HillaryCare on men not liking that she wasn't content with being a First Lady, that she's attempting to portray herself as just that to escape Trump's complaint of her not trying to do anything she's currently promising when she had the chance earlier.

[caracas1914]

2 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

Being a woman who knows how to wield power and use it.

 

 

Quote

But, she wanted power--real power.  Even when she failed at her universal healthcare initiative, she wasn't contrite enough to know her place.

One could (shakily IMO) make the argument that as FLOTUS she wasn't elected to yield power, which is silly since every President has had trusted non Cabinet advisers who unofficially yielded great influence and power.  Eisenhower's brother Milton was one of his closest advisers.   Hell, Rosalyn Carter even sat in in Cabinet meetings.    It was more the perception that  Hillary wasn't content to mask her influence per the traditional role of the First Lady  who did not overtly display their authority.

She was hemmed in because she had what many thought was  a set role as FLOTUS.  Bill didn't have the luxury like, say,  Jack Kennedy of appointing his brother Bobby Attorney General.

Paradoxically when her husband left office, and she openly ran for Senator, then it wan't disguised anymore  as per her straining against the role designated for her, but the GALL of openly running for office and power herself.

With Hillary the marker is always moved  to rationalize the visceral reactions her haters have.

So of course if she's qualified becuase she has broad experience as both Senator and SOS, and having been FLOTUS is far behind her; now  it HAS to that she doesn't qualify because she's the most corrupt and lying politician to ever walk on the earth.

[needschocolate]

3 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Here's the thing that kills me...what evidence is there that Hillary is so much worse than any other politician in the  public eye for the last 30 years?  Seriously.  What sets her apart from the Bushes, Paul Ryan's, John Kerry's , Joseph Biden's, Ted Cruz's , etc, etc.. 

As far as being a pragmatist and making back room deals, for God's sake, I would hope the POTUS would be good at this shit.

The Pollyanna view of politics that some  have is baffling.

In addition to the things others have mentioned - she is married to a man who did a lot of good in his presidency, things like balancing budgets and a creating a good economy, and the Republicans didn't like him making them look bad so they went after him.  He is not longer in office, but they can't let go of their vendetta and so they take it out on her.  

[Landsnark]

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Don't you mean quest to regain power?

Right.  Exactly.  Just like last time when she was President of the United States of America.  She's regaining that status.  Or something.  It does make a nifty play on words, though.

Fun how it's a pejorative too.  She wants to "REGAIN" power (whatever the fuck that means), and it's a negative.  Anyone else runs for office 2x, and it's the American story.  Keep on keepin' on.  Persevere.  She does it, and she's a greed-mongering, slavering evil harpy bent on controlling the world.  Anyone else run for office 2x, and it's ho hum.   She does it, and it's proof of... uh... I guess it's just proof enough to apply any insult needed, cuz her ambition is whatever insult to her you need it to be.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Landsnark

[theredhead77]

One of my friends is like a dog with a bone when it comes to H. Clinton's public speaking fees and that she (and Bill) couldn't have possibly earned their money by working and investing. As a public servant she shouldn't be rich.

I love my friend but this is so tiresome.

[Darian]

7 hours ago, Pixel said:

I'm not really a numbers person. Can anyone explain to me why 538 is still showing Trump slightly ahead of Clinton in Florida, when the polling of people who actually have already voted indicates that she's currently winning Florida and is projected to win by a decent margin there?

Nate Silver is trying to kill me? (I am stressed, y'all)

[MulletorHater]

10 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

One of my friends is like a dog with a bone when it comes to H. Clinton's public speaking fees and that she (and Bill) couldn't have possibly earned their money by working and investing. As a public servant she shouldn't be rich.

I love my friend but this is so tiresome.

Interesting...I don't mean any harm but did your friend have an issue with other public services who happened to be rich?  Oh, say, like the Bushes, Cheneys, Reagans, Kennedys, or Roosevelts?  Even President Obama was criticized because--gasp!--he had some extra change in his pocket.  People forgot that his book was a bestseller but somehow people like him and the Clintons don't deserve it.

I agree that it is all so tiresome.

[starri]

9 hours ago, HumblePi said:

President Obama gave a speech in Florida just now that was absolutely incredible. The bottom line was 'choose hope'.

I should probably be embarrassed to admit this, but shame is overrated.

If you're unfamiliar with the broad plot of the upcoming Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, it involves a bunch of scrappy rebels trying to find a way to destroy the Death Star.  Now, Clinton/Kaine aren't scrappy upstarts, but the rest of the metaphor works really well.

They released a great final trailer a few weeks ago, and at one point, a Rebel leader, horrified by what the Death Star can do asks "If the Empire has this kind of power, what chance do we have?"  To which the film's main character, Jyn answers "We have hope.  Rebellions are built on hope."

I've probably lost count of the number of times I've watched the thing when I've been close to freaking out.  And it's helped.  Every single time.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next..."

[HumblePi]

6 hours ago, scriggle said:

This will surprise no one.

The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say

I hope Hillary Clinton fulfills their worst nightmare by being elected despite their efforts to prevent it from happening. And, I bet she has their numbers and will clean house once she's seated as President. I have heard that the FBI is a mess internally and fighting within their ranks. Who needs that for a Federal agency?  Not us, get out the bums and start all over with a clean slate.

[theredhead77]

11 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

Interesting...I don't mean any harm but did your friend have an issue with other public services who happened to be rich?  Oh, say, like the Bushes, Cheneys, Reagans, Kennedys, or Roosevelts?  Even President Obama was criticized because--gasp!--he had some extra change in his pocket.  People forgot that his book was a bestseller but somehow people like him and the Clintons don't deserve it.

I agree that it is all so tiresome.

Not to my knowledge. I've never heard them bitch about Obama (or anyone else). I think they are still stuck in their BernieBro bitterness. I'd remind them even Bernie says vote for H. Clinton but this person isn't a citizen (yet) and can't vote. I do admire their passion for politics and one day they'll be a great citizen. I'm just so over their constant barrage of this drivel.

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 6:48 PM, KerleyQ said:

That's exactly what this is, too - it's giving in to bullying.  The GOP is pissed off that we're not voting their way in the White House, so they sit back and refuse to do anything other than relentlessly attack and obstruct President Obama and, now, Hillary.  And I've heard more than one person express that same thought - "well, if Hillary wins, nothing is ever going to get done because they'll do the same thing to her they've done to President Obama."  OK, then here's the solution to that problem- vote out the assholes who refuse to do their job because they don't like who the American people have voted into the White House.  Replace them.  That's how you send the message that this shit is wrong, not by sitting back and saying "well, let's just give them their way so they'll do their jobs."  

Unfortunately there are so many gerrymandered congressional districts (especially in the South) that the only threat to a Republican candidate is from someone further to the right.

[Pixel]

I hate to say it, but given what we are now hearing about the turmoil in the FBI, and the faction that's using sources from a Breitbart funded book about the Clintons to justify investigating them, it's starting to look like Comey isn't the bad guy. I may be misunderstanding, but it's starting to look to me like he was trying to strike first before the crazies in the NY office could leak something false that would have been even more damaging, even though it was based on lies. Is it possible his goal was to lessen the impact they were planning to make, by beating them to the punch with something awful, but less inflammatory?

I'm starting to feel like a conspiracy theorist. I hate this craziness, but damned if all the outlandish conspiracy theory bullshit isn't reality this election season. 

[ruby24]

1 minute ago, Pixel said:

I hate to say it, but given what we are now hearing about the turmoil in the FBI, and the faction that's using sources from a Breitbart funded book about the Clintons to justify investigating them, it's starting to look like Comey isn't the bad guy. I may be misunderstanding, but it's starting to look to me like he was trying to strike first before the crazies in the NY office could leak something false that would have been even more damaging, even though it was based on lies. Is it possible his goal was to lessen the impact they were planning to make, by beating them to the punch with something awful, but less inflammatory?

Well, if he was, he could have written in the letter what his own advisor said publicly today- which is that the media shouldn't blow this out of proportion, because we have no idea what's in the emails and it's entirely possible there's nothing in them.

That is literally what Comey's advisor said today, and blamed the overreaction to this on the media. So you know, if his boss would have just said that himself, it would have at least had his words out there in less uncertain terms.

[needschocolate]

Comey should write a new letter explaining that there is a leak in the FBI and/or that the and that any information regarding the candidates for president is unsubstantiated and anyone spreading this information will be part of the FBI's investigation into this matter.  

[Pixel]

10 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Well, if he was, he could have written in the letter what his own advisor said publicly today- which is that the media shouldn't blow this out of proportion, because we have no idea what's in the emails and it's entirely possible there's nothing in them.

That is literally what Comey's advisor said today, and blamed the overreaction to this on the media. So you know, if his boss would have just said that himself, it would have at least had his words out there in less uncertain terms.

True. I'm just wondering. It sounds like the whole FBI is in turmoil, and after watching Rachel Maddow tonight I have a headache from trying to figure out how this isn't blowing up right in Trump's face. I try to be skeptical of news sources (and by that I mean aware of bias), but when she laid out the obvious connections between Breitbart, Trump, and the FBI it just rings true.  I don't know what to believe anymore, and I'm horrified that so many in this country are ok with all of this. 

I keep telling myself that the election won't even be close. That the media and even 538 have an interest in keeping us on the edge of our seats and are overplaying the close race angle . In a way, I'm glad if they are, because I think that saying the race is tight will inspire more people to get up and vote. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Pixel

[Darian]

7 minutes ago, Pixel said:

. In a way, I'm glad if they are, because I think that saying the race is tight will inspire more people to get up and vote. 

And work. At my Hillary phonebank tonight, even the organizers were surprised at how many people were there. At times, people were making calls standing up. At my table-for-two, three of us were practically sitting in each other's laps. But I am scared, and begging friends to do everything they can. 

[Padma]

32 minutes ago, Darian said:

And work. At my Hillary phonebank tonight, even the organizers were surprised at how many people were there. At times, people were making calls standing up. At my table-for-two, three of us were practically sitting in each other's laps. But I am scared, and begging friends to do everything they can. 

Thanks for doing that--and .. great to know people are so involved on her behalf!  I think if the media would stop telling us there's an "enthusiasm gap" and "unlikeability blahblah" they might actually SEE the enthusiasm that IS there! I can't phone bank this year, but am super nice when people call and thank them for doing what they are to help.  I don't even know if Trump HAS much GOTV effort anywhere--sure doesn't seem like it! Apparently HRC has more offices in 41 states--he only outstrips her in 7 (ones like, "North Dakota" and "Mississippi")  That's great! :)

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, Padma said:

Thanks for doing that--and .. great to know people are so involved on her behalf!  I think if the media would stop telling us there's an "enthusiasm gap" and "unlikeability blahblah" they might actually SEE the enthusiasm that IS there! I can't phone bank this year, but am super nice when people call and thank them for doing what they are to help.  I don't even know if Trump HAS much GOTV effort anywhere--sure doesn't seem like it! Apparently HRC has more offices in 41 states--he only outstrips her in 7 (ones like, "North Dakota" and "Mississippi")  That's great! :)

I've only received about a dozen or so calls from the Trump campaign and it's a robo-call with him speaking loudly, "THIS is DONALD TRUMP, etc".  I got so aggravated that when I heard the first two words "THIS is"....  I just hang up *click*

[caracas1914]

What irks is that this anger at Hillary as part of the establishment  is because she can't reverse something that resulted from alot of factors, namely the dissapearance of high paying blue collar jobs due to decreased industrial output.

These people act as if they were ALWAYS high paying blue collar jobs, which really only resulted after WW2 , so all their anger and resentment , and you sandwich that with millennials angry that their college degrees aren't resulting in high paying entrance jobs out of school.

[HumblePi]

3 minutes ago, caracas1914 said:

What irks is that this anger at Hillary as part of the establishment  is because she can't reverse something that resulted from alot of factors, namely the dissapearance of high paying blue collar jobs due to decreased industrial output.

These people act as if they were ALWAYS high paying blue collar jobs, which really only resulted after WW2 , so all their anger and resentment , and you sandwich that with millennials angry that their college degrees aren't resulting in high paying entrance jobs out of school.

The old Republican guard of Anglo-Saxon males that are still living in the elite world that doesn't exist for the younger generation makes for a very divided country. The blue collar jobs have shrunk because of advancements in technology and free trade. But it's also a fact that young people entering college 20 years ago wanted to be financial analysts and get rich on Wall Street and be a hedge fund guy. Young people today don't aspire to be scientists, aerospace engineers, biochemical engineers. Those fields are coming from Germany, Japan, China, not the US.  There are many people who go to college for absolutely worthless degrees in theater arts, liberal arts and communications. Progress advanced in warp speed, leaps and bounds. It exceeded the expectations of just about everyone, We outsourced jobs to China, India and the Philippines where labor was minuscule compared to ours. Globalization became reality.  The old Republican guard still got rich, still controlled the strings, still remained politically powerful but never kept up with technology and the future of the young, upcoming generations. They will not relinquish their old ways without a fight and they're selfish, bigoted, and a dying breed of American.

[madmaverick]

Just read this piece from a BBC reporter.  American and foreign reporters have all been trying to get a handle on who Trump supporters are throughout this campaign, with varying levels of success imo.  Are they rich?  Are they poor?  Are they educated?  Are they deplorable?  Are they prejudiced? 

I have to admit that it's disheartening to read a piece like this.

I don't want to be unfair to those interviewed and judge on the basis of a short piece like this, but it's hard not to wonder at what values they have that are fueling the sorts of sentiments they have towards Hillary and Trump.

"I'm highly educated, 2 degrees, I trust what [Donald] says, I think he's honest".

I just can't when of all things people say they support Trump because they say he's honest.

The woman also had a visceral dislike of Hillary, noted by the reporter.  But why?  Doctor husband chimes in to say he thinks Hillary has no moral compass.  On the basis of what does he draw that conclusion?  And then he made a remark about Obama which could only leave me wondering about his stance on race.

Then from another, Hillary's views are too far left?  I have never understood this about half of America.  While basically all other Western countries have moved towards the left on social issues, half of America seems to refuse to budge election after election even as we approach the 2020s.  Still stuck in the endless debate about guns, abortion, LGBT rights.  When does it end?

Yet another person talks about needing a gun to protect herself.  I would like to read actual cases of where civilians actually managed that because I have barely come across data indicating that having a gun makes one more safe.  Do they even live near any gangs that they seem so afraid of?

Where was this plane coming from?  A Red State? ;)  Would Hillary have ever made any headway with these people even if she talked to them one on one?

I don't envy you Americans, though other countries can also be polarized.  But it seems like the values of half the country are so different from the other half, and moving in different directions.  People can despair about the political establishment (but haven't the Republicans been the ones to hold things up?), but how on earth does that means Trump is the one with the answers when he has proven to be so full of s*** is beyond me.  Excuse the rant.

[FilmTVGeek80]

Hopefully, something to cheer people up a little bit: Hillary Still Leading

[GHScorpiosRule]

33 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I've only received about a dozen or so calls from the Trump campaign and it's a robo-call with him speaking loudly, "THIS is DONALD TRUMP, etc".  I got so aggravated that when I heard the first two words "THIS is"....  I just hang up *click*

I haven't received any calls or any emails from either party. Well, except for emails I purposely subscribed to receive.

[madmaverick]

A reflective piece from the BBC reporter on Hillary's plane.

I would be exasperated too.  

Indeed, how did it ever come to this?

[HumblePi]

6 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Hopefully, something to cheer people up a little bit: Hillary Still Leading

That is great news and a boost to many who are suffering with borderline despair. But I've said from the start that I believe most people of voting age are intelligent enough to recognize that Donald Trump would be absolutely toxic for this country. I hope I'm right. We'll all find out very soon.

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 8:52 PM, maraleia said:

I'm so irritated. I was all set to canvass for Hillary, Tammy Duckworth and Amanda Howland in the 6th IL Congressional district earlier today and it started raining. At least I have their phone numbers so I'll call them tomorrow after the World Series is over.

All 3 of them got my vote, maraleia!

Edited November 4, 2016 by Quilt Fairy
ETA: DuPage County Democrat here; the few, the proud

[Silver Raven]

The head of the FBI's agents union has quit his job with the FBI and written an open letter criticizing Comey for politicizing the FBI.

[Quilt Fairy]

Trump campaign telling people they can just text their vote for Hillary.

[backformore]

20 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Trump campaign telling people they can just text their vote for Hillary.

Yep - posted by twitter trolls, and in Spanish, too!  

I'm taking a lot of antacids lately.

[Pixel]

2 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Trump campaign telling people they can just text their vote for Hillary.

This is awful. But... I believe most Hillary supporters are too smart for this to get them. The Trump downfall is that they're too dumb to realize those of us on the correct side of history aren't as stupid as those on their side.  

[katha]

13 hours ago, Pixel said:

I'm not really a numbers person. Can anyone explain to me why 538 is still showing Trump slightly ahead of Clinton in Florida, when the polling of people who actually have already voted indicates that she's currently winning Florida and is projected to win by a decent margin there?

I don't know about specific polls, but my impression is that Silver has been badly shook up by being wrong about Trump and since then he's going out of his way to interpret everything in his favour. For fear of being wrong about Trump again. And then there's also just the sheer volume of polling, reliable and unreliable, that's coming out now. Particularly right before the election no one seems to know anymore which polls to trust and which ones are just bloviating in the wind. And since the 24-hours-news-cycle dictates that everything is drama and panic at all times, no one checks for reliability there either.

[Pollock]

8 hours ago, starri said:

I should probably be embarrassed to admit this, but shame is overrated.

If you're unfamiliar with the broad plot of the upcoming Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, it involves a bunch of scrappy rebels trying to find a way to destroy the Death Star.  Now, Clinton/Kaine aren't scrappy upstarts, but the rest of the metaphor works really well.

They released a great final trailer a few weeks ago, and at one point, a Rebel leader, horrified by what the Death Star can do asks "If the Empire has this kind of power, what chance do we have?"  To which the film's main character, Jyn answers "We have hope.  Rebellions are built on hope."

I've probably lost count of the number of times I've watched the thing when I've been close to freaking out.  And it's helped.  Every single time.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next..."

Each time I see Trump, I too have a Star Wars quote in mind, a depressing one: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause" and I cringe.

[Spartan Girl]

I think about that Star Wars scene too. I'm just hoping I won't have to say it on Election Day.

[sum]

Re: the discrepancy between polls on Florida, Florida Bombshell Poll Is More Than Meets The Eye this article and especially the comments under it shed some lights on the issue. They are a lot but it's tricky to pick and choose a handful and it won't be a waste of time. Nobody can be sure at the moment which is more accurate. However, it appears that the TargetSmart poll (28% cross-vote claim) shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

[Darian]

I am hoping the FBI story dominates the news cycle, as it should. Not hopeful, but it should. I will be clicking on and sharing every damn story, since their tactics have had an effect and are based on bullshit (and I rarely use that word). 

But I also want to share something lovely, from one of my favorite authors, Chimamanda Adichie:

What Hillary Clinton's Fans Love About Her

Quote

Human beings change as they grow, but a person’s history speaks to who she is. There are millions who admire the tapestry of Hillary Clinton’s past: the first-ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley speaking boldly about making the impossible possible, the Yale law student interested in the rights of migrant farmworkers, the lawyer working with the Children’s Defense Fund, the first lady trying to make health care accessible for all Americans.

There are people who love how cleanly she slices through policy layers, how thoroughly she digests the small print. They remember that she won two terms to the United States Senate, where she was not only well-regarded but was known to get along with Republicans. They have confidence in her. There are people who rage at the media on her behalf, who see the coverage she too often receives as unfair. There are people who in a quiet, human way wish her well. There are people who, when Hillary Clinton becomes the first woman to be president of the United States, will weep from joy.

It's a very, very good read. (Well, duh, it's from Chimamanda Adichie)

[Constantinople]

9 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Just read this piece from a BBC reporter.  American and foreign reporters have all been trying to get a handle on who Trump supporters are throughout this campaign, with varying levels of success imo.  Are they rich?  Are they poor?  Are they educated?  Are they deplorable?  Are they prejudiced? 

I have to admit that it's disheartening to read a piece like this.

I don't want to be unfair to those interviewed and judge on the basis of a short piece like this, but it's hard not to wonder at what values they have that are fueling the sorts of sentiments they have towards Hillary and Trump.

"I'm highly educated, 2 degrees, I trust what [Donald] says, I think he's honest".

I just can't when of all things people say they support Trump because they say he's honest.

The woman also had a visceral dislike of Hillary, noted by the reporter.  But why?  Doctor husband chimes in to say he thinks Hillary has no moral compass.  On the basis of what does he draw that conclusion?  And then he made a remark about Obama which could only leave me wondering about his stance on race.

The gist of "Doctor Jim's" remark about Obama since Obama was elected, there shouldn't be any more racial problems in the US, but if there were, it was Obama's fault.

The doctor also said

Quote

She hasn't driven a car for more than 20 years, she's so out of touch

Does he think Trump drives himself around or has ever driven himself around?

It's disturbing that this person has a medical degree.

[Moose135]

45 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

It's disturbing that this person has a medical degree.

Maybe he went to medical school with Ben Carson.

[MulletorHater]

9 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Trump campaign telling people they can just text their vote for Hillary.

Rachel Maddow mentioned this on her show last night, explaining that there are many forms of voter suppression and this is yet another one of them.  I vaguely recall a similar stunt being pulled back in 2012 with billboards specifically targeting minority communities warning about the consequences of voter fraud.  There were also robocalls deliberately giving minority voters the wrong date of the election.

Here's a suggestion for the GOP.  Maybe if y'all had some policies that voters can actually get behind, you wouldn't have to resort to this kind of chicanery.  Here's to hoping that you continue to be exposed for the anti-democracy POS' that you are.

And, because I'm a conspiracy theorist, I kept my lips firmly shut about the possibility that documents that were "leaked" could be fake.  Well, it turns out that our friends at the FBI are examining fake documents targeting the Clinton campaign.  Gee, ya think?

FBI Investigating Fake Docs

This is where corporate media has failed miserably.  They were so breathlessly talking about Wikileaks and the goings-on in the Clinton campaign that it never seemed to occur to them to ask the obvious:  Why was only her campaign being targeted?  And, yes, I still have a bug up my butt about Donna Brazille being ousted from CNN while Corey Lewandowski is still there under the most dubious of circumstances. 

[clb1016]

CNN is announcing that Hillary has fallen below 270 in electoral votes.  Maybe that will help her supporters GOTV.

[MulletorHater]

18 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

CNN is announcing that Hillary has fallen below 270 in electoral votes.  Maybe that will help her supporters GOTV.

With all due respect, given that CNN was said to have been hacked, I don't trust anything that comes out of it.

Nate Silver's 538 shows a different number, as well as this particular site which has been quite reliable:  http://election.princeton.edu/

But, I agree that the GOTV efforts should be on point.  I will be doing some work myself on behalf of the campaign this weekend.

[clb1016]

I check 538 way too often and checked PEC a short while ago, and I realize that CNN is just trying to keep the horserace aspect going for ratings purposes.  But it kills me that the race is close enough for them to do that.  Hillary should be winning in a landslide, coasting to the finish line

[Morrigan2575]

I've been going to 538 since 2012 but, just found PEC.  After doing some research it seems that while they were both very, very close and both very very accurate, PEC was slightly more accurate in 2012.  There was another site that was actually the most accurate Drew Linzer who is at DailyKos.  It'll be interesting to see the final EC Count to see who is the most accurate this time, since there's a rather large difference between Drew and Nate.

DailyKos/Drew Linzer has HRC at 323 (91% chance HRC wins)

PEC/Wang has HRC at 312 (>98% chance HRC wins)

538/Nate Silver has HRC at 296 (68% chance HRC wins)

It seems to me that HRC will win, there's just a question of by how much

Here's the article that detailed the predictions from 2012 and which Pollsters/Aggregates had the best record - http://rationality.org/2012/11/09/was-nate-silver-the-most-accurate-2012-election-pundit/

Edited November 4, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[MulletorHater]

13 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I check 538 way too often and checked PEC a short while ago, and I realize that CNN is just trying to keep the horserace aspect going for ratings purposes.  But it kills me that the race is close enough for them to do that.  Hillary should be winning in a landslide, coasting to the finish line

I understand how you feel.  I've stopped checking 538 frequently to preserve my own sanity.  I made a decision to only check in the evening or first thing in the morning.  I remember how the Democrats panicked in 2014 when Nate Silver predicted that the GOP was slated to take over the Senate and would add more seats to the House.  And, what was their reaction?  They paid attention to some polls numbers indicating that President Obama was unpopular.

Not only did they run away from him and his accomplishments, they ran away from their own platform and ran as GOP-lite.  A couple of them wouldn't even admit on the campaign trail that they voted for him. It all became a self-fulfilling prophecy thanks to their cowardice.

I think Nate's approach is a little more cautious because the polls are all over the place now.  But, we shall see.

[backformore]

The voter suppression I remember when Obama was running was flyers in your mailbox telling you your polling place was changed. Then giving an address to a polling place in a nearby district, so people would show up there and be turned away.

[zxy556575]

This is an excerpt from an op-ed piece in the Canadian Globe and Mail, endorsing HRC that was posted in the Trump thread.

"As a politician, however, something about Ms. Clinton has always rubbed a lot of Americans the wrong way, and the Democratic Party’s decision to nominate her was a political error."

Sorry, but fuck that noise. Do most people believe that's the general sentiment? She won the damned primaries.

HRC certainly had a lot Republican pre-hate going on, but they and their true blue supporters would have lied about and obstructed anybody the Democrats put up. ANYBODY.

[Padma]

3 minutes ago, lordonia said:

This is an excerpt from an op-ed piece in the Canadian Globe and Mail, endorsing HRC that was posted in the Trump thread.

"As a politician, however, something about Ms. Clinton has always rubbed a lot of Americans the wrong way, and the Democratic Party’s decision to nominate her was a political error."

Sorry, but fuck that noise. Do most people believe that's the general sentiment? She won the damned primaries.

HRC certainly had a lot Republican pre-hate going on, but they and their true blue supporters would have lied about and obstructed anybody the Democrats put up. ANYBODY.

You're right, but the rest of the op-ed was very good. I thought that part was the "foreign" part, where you realize they really don't "get" why the opposition to Dem candidates is so personal and dirty.  Bernie hasn't been a Republican target very long, but Trump already marginalized him as "Crazy Bernie" and was, I'm sure, ready to break out clips of him bellowing, wild-eyed "We are bringing a political and social revolution!!!" while branding him as a communist, to the left of Karl Marx, and elderly and doddering to boot.  That the nastiness is basically undeserved might be hard for non-Americans to understand, given the intensity of it, and the lousy job of our press in separating fact from fiction and reluctance to expose lies.

I think success (and a cult following) hasn't really been good for Nate Silver. But that Princeton polling site is great!

[clb1016]

59 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I've been going to 538 since 2012 but, just found PEC.  After doing some research it seems that while they were both very, very close and both very very accurate, PEC was slightly more accurate in 2012.  There was another site that was actually the most accurate Drew Linzer who is at DailyKos.  It'll be interesting to see the final EC Count to see who is the most accurate this time, since there's a rather large difference between Drew and Nate.

DailyKos/Drew Linzer has HRC at 323 (91% chance HRC wins)

PEC/Wang has HRC at 312 (>98% chance HRC wins)

538/Nate Silver has HRC at 296 (68% chance HRC wins)

It seems to me that HRC will win, there's just a question of by how much

Here's the article that detailed the predictions from 2012 and which Pollsters/Aggregates had the best record - http://rationality.org/2012/11/09/was-nate-silver-the-most-accurate-2012-election-pundit/

Daily Kos is another site I've been checking way too often.  I'm just not sure that their partisanship (which I share) hasn't colored their interpretation of polls.

 

54 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

I think Nate's approach is a little more cautious because the polls are all over the place now.  But, we shall see.

Agreed, but Nate might also be a little more cautious because he was wrong about Trump getting the Rep nomination (as were most people, to be fair).

[LoneHaranguer]

16 hours ago, Landsnark said:

Fun how it's a pejorative too.  She wants to "REGAIN" power (whatever the fuck that means), and it's a negative. 

A central theme of the 1992 Clinton campaign was that it was going to be a dual Presidency, and that's exactly how she acted in the White House, rather than as First Lady. It's a negative because not wanting to abide by the two-term limit of the 22nd Amendment shows her disrespect for the law.

[Padma]

1 minute ago, LoneHaranguer said:

A central theme of the 1992 Clinton campaign was that it was going to be a dual Presidency, and that's exactly how she acted in the White House, rather than as First Lady. It's a negative because not wanting to abide by the two-term limit of the 22nd Amendment shows her disrespect for the law.

Do you remember those years personally? I do and the "you get two" was never presented as a dual presidency. Hillary made mistakes in how she approached Congress over health care, but (1) her heart was in the right place because this country desperately needed health care legislation (and single payer was a great idea that would have avoided the problems Obamacare has in being watered down by compromises made with Republicans).

And (2) I'm impressed how much she learned from that failure. She's one of the few people who is widely praised by Republicans for her time in the senate and how effective she was working "across the aisle".

People can make mistakes, but her intention from the beginning was very good and she learned from mistakes to become more effective. (Totally different from Trump who I'm afraid will just have his rages when he realizes that a president is not really a dictator and that the actual process of governing requires patience, negotiation (not by threats), and most of all the ability and willingness to compromise. He's unequipped for any of them.