The Clinton Victory Thread

[Shrunk]

More bad news. I lost respect for Nate Silver but many here defended him vigorously. Silver is predicting a trump win.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, who is widely regarded as one of the top political pollsters in the country, has released a new model that shows Trump shellacking Hillary Clinton, with the projected chance of victory for Trump standing at a margin of 13.4 points.

In terms of raw electoral college votes, Silver’s map shows Trump finishing with 283 electoral college votes to Clinton’2 253, if the election were held today. A candidate needs 270 electoral college votes to win. Trump also wins key swing states like Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Clinton’s only swing state wins are Colorado and Virginia, according to FiveThirtyEight’s projections.

http://usuncut.com/politics/donald-trum ... rojection/

283-253 is a shellacking?

That's already changed. As of today, 538 has Clinton's chances of winning at 53.9%, and has her winning the electoral college 277-260. I wonder if that's also considered a "shellacking"?

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Polls will settle again after the DNC. A little Republican bump following the RNC was to be expected as is a little Democratic bump this week.

[Ven. Kwan Tam Woo]

Polls will settle again after the DNC. A little Republican bump following the RNC was to be expected as is a little Democratic bump this week.

[Shrunk]

Polls will settle again after the DNC. A little Republican bump following the RNC was to be expected as is a little Democratic bump this week.

Yeah, it's sort of a truism of US politics. I don't really understand why, "Hey, the Repubilcans just had a convention. I'm going to vote for them. Hey, wait a minute! Now the other guys just had a convention?! Well hell, then, I'm voting for them."

[purplerat]

Polls will settle again after the DNC. A little Republican bump following the RNC was to be expected as is a little Democratic bump this week.

Yeah, it's sort of a truism of US politics. I don't really understand why, "Hey, the Repubilcans just had a convention. I'm going to vote for them. Hey, wait a minute! Now the other guys just had a convention?! Well hell, then, I'm voting for them."

I think it's been going on for a while but I also think our national obsession with reality TV has made it worse. People want to feel like they are part of the show so they tell a pollster they are going to vote for the people they just saw on TV.

[Byron]

Clinton was more than happy to hire Debbie the Dirtbag the moment she was forced to resign from the DNC for her incompetence and corruption. Goes to show what kind of candidate Clinton is.

Yes. The sheer tone-deafness of that decision bothers me more than anything else about this affair.

Latest in a long, lamentable line.

The path to victory is clear: Clinton needs to co-opt Sanders' base, and win over those tempted by the protectionism of Trumpery. (Without spooking the swing states, yes, but jobs and protection sure ain't likely to do that.) The screamingly obvious way to get the "Bernie Bros" onboard was to Veep Sanders and offer some solid policies to repatriate jobs and end undercutting.

Instead, not only does she Veep some Blue Dog's breakfast, she hires the woman caught fixing the campaign for her. My contempt for Clinton is no secret and knows few bounds, but even I didn't think she'd be this obtuse.

[Teague]

Clinton didn't cheat - how about the DNC laundering money to the Clinton Fouandation then?

[Willie71]

It's a tiny lead (refleccting the fact that Silver still projects Clinton marginally more likely to win the popular vote) obtained in the week of the Republican convention bounce, and prior to the Democratic convention. All up, it's not something that should have anyone putting the house on Trump. Given Trump's awfulness, though, the Democratic candidate should be streets ahead at this point, but they chose someone deeply unpopular, because it was her turn. It's all sorts of fucked up, but only in the way it's been fucked up for months now.

This was really my point. After the shit show that was the RNC convention, Trump should have gone down, not up. That is worrisome. The DNC establishment seems to be bleeding out after the first day of their convention. It'll be interesting if the Democrats get a bump with this convention.

[Teague]

So is anyone going with Nate Silver anymore? I though clinton had an 80%, 75%, 60% 53% chance of winning....

[Willie71]

So is anyone going with Nate Silver anymore? I though clinton had an 80%, 75%, 60% 53% chance of winning....

It just follows Clinton's polling trends. The more she is exposed, the more she goes down.

[Teague]

Huge boos for Clinton at the convention - it's going so wel lfor democrats isn't it...

[purplerat]

So is anyone going with Nate Silver anymore? I though clinton had an 80%, 75%, 60% 53% chance of winning....

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the business that Nate Silver is in.

You come off here as a creationist criticizing scientists for revising theories as more evidence comes in.

[Boyle]

So is anyone going with Nate Silver anymore? I though clinton had an 80%, 75%, 60% 53% chance of winning....

What?

[Teague]

Aah so pointlessly making a "prediction" then?

[purplerat]

Aah so pointlessly making a "prediction" then?

Hey, if you can get a bunch of idiots to latch onto these things so far in advance why not?

[Byron]

It's a tiny lead (refleccting the fact that Silver still projects Clinton marginally more likely to win the popular vote) obtained in the week of the Republican convention bounce, and prior to the Democratic convention. All up, it's not something that should have anyone putting the house on Trump. Given Trump's awfulness, though, the Democratic candidate should be streets ahead at this point, but they chose someone deeply unpopular, because it was her turn. It's all sorts of fucked up, but only in the way it's been fucked up for months now.

This was really my point. After the shit show that was the RNC convention, Trump should have gone down, not up. That is worrisome. The DNC establishment seems to be bleeding out after the first day of their convention. It'll be interesting if the Democrats get a bump with this convention.

It wasn't shit show, though, it was as carefully choreographed as the usual coronations: Trump got attacked by Cruz in a pre-vetted speech and saw off a token rebellion (see how anti-establishment I am!), then, having whupped the GOP into shape like a boss, delivers a calculated populist pitch, drawing on the Southern Strategy (law and order candidate) and, in a rhetorical masterstroke, America first.

The DNC's mistake is to assume, with typical limousine liberal disdain, that Trump's the sub-literate blowhard he plays on stage, and not Penn-grad and ruthless corporate kingpin he is, a guy who's mounted a hostile takeover of the GOP in little over a year.

Trump's established a clear pitch: a winner who takes the side of decent working people against thugs in Wall St. and in the ghetto, a ruthless businessman who'll rock up on the Hill, kick out all the shysters and money grubbers, and get things done. Vote Trump, he'll build a wall to keep out those Mexicans undercutting you, kick terrorist ass, cut great deals with everyone, give you back everything Crooked Hillary and her cronies have stolen from you, and make America great again.

Against that, Clinton offers ... everything Trump's just denounced.

Well sheeeit.

[Boyle]

Aah so pointlessly making a "prediction" then?

His whole thing is aggregating data and trying to predict accurately, not just "Clinton win/Trump win" but how by how much. So, sure, pointless.

[Teague]

Like he "predicted" trump wouldn't win the GOP candidacy....



Pence makes a good point - the RNC at least seem to be together whereas the DNC is in shambles right now. Who's to blame for the shitstorm the Dems are going through right now - Clinton and the DNC.

At this point, I think they've lost all hope of gaining Sanders supporters. They have massively fucked up with their cheating and underhanded ways so if Trump now gets in, all the things Sanders fought for like $15 minimum wage, free tuition, lesss super delegates, etc, he won't even ge to see because Clinton is royally fucking this up!

[Boyle]

Clinton didn't cheat - how about the DNC laundering money to the Clinton Fouandation then?

There's no proof they put money in laundry machines they don't even know how to use them. Their servants, though, oh boy are they in trouble.

Like he "predicted" trump wouldn't win the GOP candidacy....

You're really stuck on this. There's a difference between what he believe what would happen (Trump not getting the nom) and what did. But he didn't use data to support his gut and so it's unsurprising that his gut was wrong because all it is is a mess of body parts and organic goo that can barely detect toxic materials, let alone predict a Trump nomination. That was the point of his op ed thing where he was all "I dun fucked up." He fucked up because he didn't trust the data and got egg on his face for it.

[Oldskeptic]

The DNC claims its neutral, and does not put its hand on the scales. They claimed that Sanders was given a fair chance, when in fact they discussed feeding information to the media to discredit him. They used demeaning language, and insulted Sanders and his supporters.

So no cheating. Thanks for confirming.

There is a lot of evidence of cheating,..

Actually no there is no evidence of cheating at anything.

...but the lawsuits are still in progress.

Class action lawsuits that will go nowhere because 1) There is no evidence of wrong doing, and 2) What evidence they think that they do have is illegally obtained and of unproven and unknown provenance. It's all for the show and everyone knows it.

The fact that the lawsuits weren't dismissed as frivolous is telling to a certain extent, showing legal basis.

Haven't been dismissed yet, and that means nothing until someone files for a summary judgement/dismissal. At that point the plaintiffs better have a damn good case or they're in danger of paying a shitload of attorney's fees out of their own pockets.

That isn't good enough for many people, so I didn't list it. The fact that the DNC worked to support Clinton and dismiss sanders isn't "cheating" in a neutral contest? If a ref in a hockey game worked with one team against another team would be cheating to me, but I guess it's not a universal standard.

The DNC isn't a referee or an umpire or whatever other sports analogy you want to try. The DNC is committed to one thing above all other smaller goals, and that is getting a Democratic president elected. The DNC isn't there to make sure that each team plays fair, and that's probably a good thing for Team Sanders. Sanders is lucky that the DNC even let him play in their league. Nothing in the bylaws or president says that the Democratic party had to let Bernie run as a Democrat. And I'm betting that a lot of people are regretting not just telling Bernie, "No Thanks."