|
i ended up re-reading those articles about how much of a shitshow romney's it infrastructure was back in 2012. how much worse do you think trump's is gonna be?
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
For your infrastructure to be a shitshow you must first have infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Clinton has been involved in politics basically her entire life and probably has a pretty good idea of when the best time to attack trumps weak point for maximum damage is He's already glowing orange and he's flailing at everything wildly, we need to insert another coin and queue up Donatello.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:i ended up re-reading those articles about how much of a shitshow romney's it infrastructure was back in 2012. how much worse do you think trump's is gonna be? look to your left look to your right do you see any Trump infrastructure? good, now imagine the same thing except with the vast majority of the united states
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Should we really be surprised that there is a market for a reality denying poll? I eagerly await all the think pieces about why the polling was so wrong and how no one could possibly have seen the landslide coming. NippleFloss posted:If you believe that things are tightening again then you also accept that at best Trump can only sustain short term damage from even the worst of gaffes, so why bother burning damaging info when he can just "moderate" for a week and everyone forgets. I'd say it's actually the opposite. The race tightens for brief periods when Trump is reigned in by his advisors for a polling cycle and the media has nothing to do but print endless articles about emails and the Clinton Foundation that boil down to "if you think about it hard enough, don't you smell smoke?" Only Trump's numbers never rise, it's Hillary's numbers falling as people think maybe she is just as bad as Trump. Then Trump Trumps, everyone realizes that no, she's really not just as bad, her numbers go back up to just under 50% and things continue on as usual until the cycle repeats. Except each time it cycles through the polls stay further apart and Clinton rebounds faster and higher. It also happens about every 2 and a half moths or so, which is an issue for Trump since it's happening now so it's not due to happen again until around the end of November or mid December.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
It feels like CelestialScribe's persistent hyperbole has gotten this thread to entrench against recognizing any sort of shift in the polls. A few weeks ago Clinton had something like an 80% chance. She's slipped a bit and vaguely has a 70% chance now. The exact numbers are probably different, but she's slipped a fair bit. That's just true. (Interestingly Trump hasn't gained, Clinton's just slipped. Which is weird.) She's still probably going to win. She's less likely to win now than she was after the conventions. Maybe I'm skimming this thread too lightly and I'm mostly reading mocking responses specifically to CelestialScribe, but it feels like people are having a hard time emotionally accepting that slight but meaningful decrease in her chances. "The polls are tightening" is a true statement, and not a particularly apocalyptic one considering how far ahead Clinton was to start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Every time panic rises in your throat, ask yourself if you sincerely believe Trump is going to do better than Mitt Romney. Hell no, but I'd expect Hillary to do worse than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It feels like CelestialScribe's persistent hyperbole has gotten this thread to entrench against recognizing any sort of shift in the polls. Yeah this is where I stand. Look I want Hillary to win, but she has to up her game, and as much as everyone wants to blame the media for the email bullshit. Guess what? they'll go for what will sell, and if Trump isn't being an rear end in a top hat for a week they go there. So HRC needs, needs to start just releasing all the oppo research she has on Trump because the Media will start to bite. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Hell no, but I'd expect Hillary to do worse than Obama. Hillary's not super charismatic but the Clintons are a machine, I think you might be wrong about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It feels like CelestialScribe's persistent hyperbole has gotten this thread to entrench against recognizing any sort of shift in the polls. The polls are expected to tighten and are doing so because America is full of irrational behavior and press corps that want a horse race. Our resident canary posts electoral maps that would require the polls to literally form an X to be possible, not likely, possible. The only emotions most of us are growing numb to having to put up with nonsense media. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah this is where I stand. Look I want Hillary to win, but she has to up her game, and as much as everyone wants to blame the media for the email bullshit. Guess what, they go for what will sell, and if Trump isn't being an rear end in a top hat for a week they go there. So HRC needs, needs to start just releasing all the oppo research she has on trump because the Media will start to bite. If attacks haven't started by this time next week you might have a point but it's labor day weekend, so this would be probably the literal worst Friday of the year to open up the war. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Clinton has been involved in politics basically her entire life and probably has a pretty good idea of when the best time to attack trumps weak point for maximum damage is To be fair, if she were good at campaigning she wouldn't have gotten schlonged by Obama. Or had such a tough time with Bernie. I don't think she's particularly good at this stuff. A pity that campaigning and governing are so vastly different skill sets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
I'm sick to death of discussing the horse race because at this point I no longer give a poo poo. I'm taking a George Carlin approach by being detached and bemused by the spectacle and uninvested in the outcome. But I will say that after the debates, races usually come into sharp focus. Sure happened in 2008. Definitely in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Well at least in good news Bernie is hitting the road for her starting Monday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:You don't launch an attack right before Labor Day weekend. You wait until Tuesday when you'll have peoples' attention. I actually have a theory that after some point the opposition research is going to come out and it'll be a sort of rolling Tuesday and Friday bombshell until the end of the election barring national holidays or large scale tragedies. Republicans will have exhausted the email stuff and Benghazi stuff (been exhausted, but really bore people with it), exhaust the conspiracy theories and then end up with some bitchmade arguments that don't make sense. Meanwhile Trump is on the defensive and will dig himself a hole instead of deflect. Bobbin Threadbare posted:It's 12th dimensional Clinton chess. Encourage the horse race angle to energize the base and GOTV so it really will be a landslide. I don't actually think so. Horse race angle encourages the republicans to get out and vote only if Trump isn't covered in loser stink. The point of this election for the democrats isn't just to win, but win at least 50 seats in the senate in order to confirm some supreme court nominees. Downticket matters and the more toxic you can make Trump the more toxic you can make those who back him. If Trump looks like he's going to lose then fewer people show up. No one wants to stand in line and wait if they're going to lose anyway. They'll stay home or go to the bar. Or at least a decent portion of them will. GOTV stuff is stuff the democrats are going to be doing anyway. Early voting is going out soon and it's an early hurdle that the Trump camp is going to have to deal with because they'll be in the hole with few early voters or at least fewer by comparison. It's stuff the that republicans and Trump especially should be doing, but they're not. Ground game is going to stun Trump when he finds out that he doesn't have it and why it's important. There will be a scramble, but it won't be as effective because they'll start late and republican voters are spread out in rural counties. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
I think it's important to distinguish between "slipping in the polls" and "slipping in the odds". Everyone can agree that Clinton's polling lead has dropped by a few points, but not every model agrees on how much this actually hurts her chances. Clearly 538 is as pessimistically swingy as ever, while PEC seems to think her remaining buffer is still pretty ironclad. The states she depends on are all still leaning her way, some quite decisively, and it may just be that she'll run up the popular vote score less than previously thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah this is where I stand. Look I want Hillary to win, but she has to up her game, and as much as everyone wants to blame the media for the email bullshit. Guess what? they'll go for what will sell, and if Trump isn't being an rear end in a top hat for a week they go there. So HRC needs, needs to start just releasing all the oppo research she has on Trump because the Media will start to bite. Hillary is going to start flying with the press and probably start talking Trump stories and fluff pieces not about her email. We're 3 weeks from the debate, and at that point we enter the home stretch when everyone who is going to vote actually pays attention. If after the first debate she's still rope a doping, then is the time to start thinking about worrying. FairGame posted:To be fair, if she were good at campaigning she wouldn't have gotten schlonged by Obama. Or had such a tough time with Bernie. This is ridiculous. Campaign Obama is an electoral juggernaut and the 2008 version was playing the game on god mode. Meanwhile Sanders was done by Super Tuesday and the appearance of a super tough slog was due to Hillary doing her best to keep everything friendly as possible so Bernie supporters would quickly migrate to her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Yeah Bernie was way further behind Hillary than Hillary was behind Obama in 08. The Dem Primary was not close. In like late April early may Bernie would have had to have won like 75% of the remaining dem primary voter votes to win the nomination
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Hillary is going to start flying with the press and probably start talking Trump stories and fluff pieces not about her email. We're 3 weeks from the debate, and at that point we enter the home stretch when everyone who is going to vote actually pays attention. If after the first debate she's still rope a doping, then is the time to start thinking about worrying. Campaign Obama had nothing to do with Clinton being stupid enough to hire a team that didn't understand how the delegate system worked, which killed her on Super Tuesday 2008. She's bad at campaigning. It's ok to say that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Eiba posted:(Interestingly Trump hasn't gained, Clinton's just slipped. Which is weird.) I think this is one of the main reasons the thread isn't worried. He hasn't gained pretty much at all, ever. Her numbers rise and fall because of the constant email/Ben Ghazi stuff. And to echo the thread, it is honestly infuriating that the NYTimes and other places are publishing hit pieces like they have due to lack of real content, and are skipping over Trump going turbo-fascist the other night. Jesus, that almost makes me sound like a republican.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I've said it before: If Trump starts gaining in polls then I'll be worried. That is significant. Clinton's numbers going up and down doesn't mean a lot if we're not seeing a matching rise in Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Okay, here's 2012 "very close" - any state decided by less than 5% set to undecided - and then all the 'undecided' states to Trump, plus WI because the headlines at the bottom of the page say it's close, minus VA for Clinton. Clinton still wins. I don't really see the point in saying "but she only has a 70% chance of winning" if nobody can come up with a plausible electoral map where Trump wins - what am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Edit: Pretend I was replying to the above post, that's exactly the kind of stuff I was thinking about.RuanGacho posted:The polls are expected to tighten and are doing so because America is full of irrational behavior and press corps that want a horse race. Our resident canary posts electoral maps that would require the polls to literally form an X to be possible, not likely, possible. Clinton doesn't have an electoral firewall. Her advantage is that more people are probably going to vote for her, not some electoral magic. Here's the most likely Trump victory map:  I'm not posting that to Arzy, that's just if Trump wins everything he's got a 35% or greater chance at (according to 538's conservative Polls Plus). Basically, there's less than a 1/3rd chance that anything like this will happen (even assuming 538's Polls Plus is totally accurate), but that's different than zero. This map will only happen if there's further movement, but Clinton's not impervious to that kind of thing just because of the Electoral College and how good she's doing in Pennsylvania and Virginia. She's the overwhelming favorite at this point, and some dumb people in the media can't deal with any sort of probabilities, but that doesn't mean we can start dealing in absolutes. I'm pretty sure she's going to win, but it's easy to overstate that. Iron Lung posted:And to echo the thread, it is honestly infuriating that the NYTimes and other places are publishing hit pieces like they have due to lack of real content, and are skipping over Trump going turbo-fascist the other night. Jesus, that almost makes me sound like a republican.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It feels like CelestialScribe's persistent hyperbole has gotten this thread to entrench against recognizing any sort of shift in the polls. The polls have been shifting constantly for months. There's no long term trend beyond the fact that Clinton polls better than Trump consistently. The degree to which she is beating him varies from week to week based on news cycles, moon phases, planetary alignments, who knows...but given how erratic things have been its stupid to look at this time as the one that indicates a long term trend and not just more noise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It feels like CelestialScribe's persistent hyperbole has gotten this thread to entrench against recognizing any sort of shift in the polls. a) Trump's numbers aren't actually going up at all b) This kind of dry spell for her has been happening on a regular basis and is usually associated with Trump running around showboating while Clinton does actual unglamourous campaign work and the media just twiddles their thumbs and talks about e-mails c) She's still winning by a good margin d) it's not really that significant of a drop e) The debates are later this month f) Clinton having maintained a healthy lead all the way through August bodes extremely well for the election g) horse race narrative (the GOP post-mortum for this election will be quite the read) etc etc etc
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
I really like the NYT paths to victory graphic at the bottom here. It's a really good demonstration of exactly why it is so insanely difficult for Donald Trump to take the white house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'm not posting that to Arzy, that's just if Trump wins everything he's got a 35% or greater chance at "If Trump wins everything he has a 35% chance of winning" is Arzying. This isn't a video game where you can get XCOMM'd and suddenly Trump is President. Trump winning everything he has a 35% chance of winning would either be a sign of literal actual electoral fraud or something significant happens to drastically alter the course of the race to the point any previous polls are meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I don't actually think so. Horse race angle encourages the republicans to get out and vote only if Trump isn't covered in loser stink. The point of this election for the democrats isn't just to win, but win at least 50 seats in the senate in order to confirm some supreme court nominees. Downticket matters and the more toxic you can make Trump the more toxic you can make those who back him. If Trump looks like he's going to lose then fewer people show up. No one wants to stand in line and wait if they're going to lose anyway. They'll stay home or go to the bar. Or at least a decent portion of them will. The horse race encourages both sides to GOTV. Besides, Hillary's camp needs to avoid projecting too much confidence or else risk upsetting the pessimists. quote:Clinton officials are also worried about projecting too much confidence when 64 percent of voters think the country is moving in the wrong direction and the candidate is intensely disliked; projecting a commanding position could negatively affect Democratic turnout needed to guarantee a win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
So, this preacher who's interviewing Trump tomorrow here in Detroit? He, uh, he sure is something... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYMweBKhl_Y And here's a heartfelt rebuttal of a little brouhaha set off by that video made by the Bishop himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFPvquQxZc 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I really like the NYT paths to victory graphic at the bottom here. It's a really good demonstration of exactly why it is so insanely difficult for Donald Trump to take the white house. he would pretty much have to win every competitive state and/or flip a buttload of currently solid blue states.  Crowsbeak posted:I would disagree, Arzying is saying Trump is going to win. Suggesting Hillary pick up her game because we want her to win big, especially as that's whats needed to take the senate so she can actually get the cabinet she wants, get the ambassadors she wants, and ensure the Judiciary is largely democratic, in important. It's September 2nd. Of course Hillary is gonna pick up her campaign. She's the one who's actually been preparing over the summer. Trump could afford to be aggressive on TV in August because he hasn't been doing anything else of value for his campaign. Augus fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I would disagree, Arzying is saying Trump is going to win. Suggesting Hillary pick up her game because we want her to win big, especially as that's whats needed to take the senate so she can actually get the cabinet she wants, get the ambassadors she wants, and ensure the Judiciary is largely democratic, is important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Augus posted:Clinton is definitely dropping but My point hasn't been that we should worry. My point is just that we shouldn't be so absolutist. It is perhaps an overly pedantic point. NippleFloss posted:The polls have been shifting constantly for months. There's no long term trend beyond the fact that Clinton polls better than Trump consistently. The degree to which she is beating him varies from week to week based on news cycles, moon phases, planetary alignments, who knows...but given how erratic things have been its stupid to look at this time as the one that indicates a long term trend and not just more noise. She's fallen in all of them. Not to the point where she's anything but the overwhelming favorite, but still fallen since her post-convention high. ImpAtom posted:"If Trump wins everything he has a 35% chance of winning" is Arzying. This isn't a video game where you can get XCOMM'd and suddenly Trump is President. Trump winning everything he has a 35% chance of winning would either be a sign of literal actual electoral fraud or something significant happens to drastically alter the course of the race to the point any previous polls are meaningless. Basically it would take some sort of national Trump surge to win in either of those states, and such a national Trump surge would affect both of those states. Also, since I really don't get your objection here I should also mention, 35% chance to win is not the same as 35% in the polls. Maybe the point I'm making is too nuanced and I should just drop it, but all I'm trying to say is that 70-80% isn't 100%. Imagining the possibility of a Trump victory is just accepting the odds, not sky-is-falling fear-mongering. It's not likely. It's possible. Both things are true, and that's the extent of my point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Hillary's chances are now 69% on polls-plus 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
What if there are no oppo bombs
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Equally as likely as the Machiavellian fan fiction in here
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Okay, here's 2012 "very close" - any state decided by less than 5% set to undecided - and then all the 'undecided' states to Trump, plus WI because the headlines at the bottom of the page say it's close, minus VA for Clinton. Clinton still wins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
It's especially possible that Clintons numbers continue dropping. It's not difficult to imagine that: Her numbers continue to drop Trump manages to pass the first debate without incident In that context he doesn't need to gain much to win in a state like Ohio or NH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Is it wrong to suggest Hillary should unleash the hounds? Is that arazying? Because we need to take the senate. The GOP has to be crushed for her first term to be anything more then a replay of the past two years. If you're aggressive you get the voters out. Also how is this going to happen Celestial, does it turn out that HRC didn't prepare for debates and did no opposition research at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I'm gonna wait till the 10th of September. If Clinton doesn't make a move then, something is wrong.CelestialScribe posted:Trump manages to pass the first debate without incident  LOL NO. Dude there is no way Trump gets through the first debate without stirring some poo poo. It's all he knows how to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It's especially possible that Clintons numbers continue dropping. It's not difficult to imagine that:
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:36
|
|