Ummmm...Trump win in November now plausible...

[maxparrish]

A few weeks after the conventions, it looked as if Clinton was going to crush Trump. Trump's year of bat shit crazy comments, truth challenged twitter blasts, and anti-intellectualism seemed to have finally had some lasting impact...that seems to been a forlorn hope.

IMO, Clinton was a horrible candidate and almost certain to lose to any Republican nominee, unless (I predicted) it was Trump (I'm sure Biden has been kicking himself). Polls have showed that only Trump was so far behind that it seemed impossible for him to win in the general election. At one time, I assumed that only an FBI recommendation of an indictment of Clinton could derail her path to victory. But the underlying weaknesses of Clinton have been shown to be even worse than thought.

First, it seems that a plurality or majority of the general election voters have wanted an excuse to NOT vote for Clinton. All they needed was someone who was "normal" to run against her. So it is not a surprise that Trump's wild swings in the polls have been dependent on whether or not he has said something really stupid and polarizing to swing voters...which is then broken by those brief interludes where he "seems" normal and his poll numbers surge.

But in the last three weeks he has avoided being Trump. He has made two or three good teleprompted policy speeches without ad libs (apparently they have a new and much better speechwriter), and his only mis-step was his modification on immigration, but it was not, to the swing voter, an unreasonable moderation and his loyal supporters don't care (hence no effect on his poll numbers).

Second, while Trump's breaking 'bad news' is mostly self-inflicted and within his immediate control, Clinton's breaking bad news is rooted in her associations and prior actions. The FBI finding did not end the constant stream of breaking stories...the Clinton foundation meetings with donors, new court orders to release more emails, the "erased" 15,000 emails discovered, etc.

Finally, come election day, it will be the "in the booth" factor. Many folks, in their mind, will be faced with voting for a known "evil" vs. and unknown outsider who might be evil. Such voters usually break to the outsider.

And the latest polling news?

http://www.theecps.com/

Three new Emerson College polls show a tight race shaping up between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump in the key Rust Belt States of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The two are deadlocked at 43% in Ohio. Clinton leads by three points in Pennsylvania (46% to 43%) and by five in Michigan (45% to 40%). The Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson garners 7% of the vote in Pennsylvania and Michigan and 10% in Ohio. Green Party candidate Jill Stein receives 2% of the vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania and 3% in Michigan. Each poll consisted of 800 likely voters and had a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points…

All hail Trump, our new 'Alt-Right' overlord.

 

[Elixir]

I wouldn't get too freaked out by polls until well after the first debate. If Trump holds his own with anyone outside his redneck racist base, then there will be cause for concern. If not, he's fairly guaranteed low 40's numbers in November, barring the aforementioned indictment(s) of HRC.

 

[untermensche]

The US has a choice.

Be the word's laughing stock.

Or seem to the world to be moving forward in terms of equal rights.

Maintain female reproductive rights or set the clock back over 40 years.

Embrace hatred, xenophobia, and ignorance. With a US foreign policy "to be determined".

Or embrace nearly the same policies as Obama for another four years. Unless the obstructionist, which is their right, Congress can be replaced.

Fall for the lies from a man who has never thought about anybody but himself.

Or the lies from a woman who has spent her life in politics.

It is not a choice of similar outcomes.

It is the total unknown on one side, and this appeals to living in the moment thrill seekers. Unfortunately they like their thrills more than rational thought.

And a somewhat bland Corporatist retread on the other.

 

[Elixir]

The US has a choice.

Be the word's laughing stock.

Or seem to the world to be moving forward in terms of equal rights.

Maintain female reproductive rights or set the clock back over 40 years.

Embrace hatred, xenophobia, and ignorance. With a US foreign policy "to be determined".

Or embrace nearly the same policies as Obama for another four years. Unless the obstructionist, which is their right, Congress can be replaced.

Fall for the lies from a man who has never thought about anybody but himself.

Or the lies from a woman who has spent her life in politics.

It is not a choice of similar outcomes.

It is the total unknown on one side, and this appeals to living in the moment thrill seekers. Unfortunately they like their thrills more than rational thought.

And a somewhat bland Corporatist retread on the other.

The quandary is - which of those choices will lead us to a better moment of change in 2020-2024? Occasionally I am given to think that the best thing for a progressive future would be a Trump regression now, and the ensuing backlash. Of course this assumes that by 2020, the elections have not been called off due to a never ending state of emergency called by a Trump totalitarian State. And it assumes that the planet we live on hasn't been reduced to a molten ball of slag by then...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I didn't know California legalized pot.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's right, Trumpsters, you got it locked up.

Don't worry 'bout a thing.

 

[maxparrish]

I wouldn't get too freaked out by polls until well after the first debate. If Trump holds his own with anyone outside his redneck racist base, then there will be cause for concern. If not, he's fairly guaranteed low 40's numbers in November, barring the aforementioned indictment(s) of HRC.

The problem is not that Trump is in the low forties, it is that Clinton is also plunging back to the low forties. I don't believe there is one chance in a thousand that the majority of voters support Trump and in any "normal" two party election he would be toast. However, as Hillary Clinton is almost as unpopular as Trump, and very large number of voters are likely to stay home or vote 3rd party...and Johnson and Stein draw votes disproportionately from her.

The following breakdown by the Monmouth University Poll is telling:

This is a record for the percentage of voters who say they view both candidates unfavorably, the previous record being set in 1992. However the number in 1992 was a mere 9%. While for Clinton and Trump the number is more than three times that high, 35 percent.

The 21st Century American republic has sunk to new lows - shameful for a "democratic" system to end up with these two as choices..

 

[Funkytrip]

Finally, come election day, it will be the "in the booth" factor. Many folks, in their mind, will be faced with voting for a known "evil" vs. and unknown outsider who might be evil. Such voters usually break to the outsider.

Incorrect. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is polling consistently on 40 seats or 25+ seats last election. In the voting booth people hesitate and will choose the good ole' devil they know and Wilders ends up with half the seats they polled him with. It could be of course that Americans think vastly different and will vote for Trump.

The quandary is - which of those choices will lead us to a better moment of change in 2020-2024? Occasionally I am given to think that the best thing for a progressive future would be a Trump regression now, and the ensuing backlash. Of course this assumes that by 2020, the elections have not been called off due to a never ending state of emergency called by a Trump totalitarian State. And it assumes that the planet we live on hasn't been reduced to a molten ball of slag by then...

There's also that chance that Hillary isn't the devil she's made out to be for the last decades, but turns out to be a fairly moderate person who is able to do more than Obama because of the political behemoth she has been over the years.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Trumpies have no shortage of wishful thinking. Any chance your candidate has of ever closing the gap will be destroyed by him in the next moment. Then there's the debates to consider. Trump will (as narcissists who walk around in a constant state of ALARMINGLY high Denning-Krueger tend to do) just show up and wing it, supremely confident in his own ability to win.

He's fucking toast. He's easily baited, he won't have anything but the most cursory knowledge, and to put it bluntly - he's a dumb ass with a 3rd grade vocabulary. These traits make him charismatic to the mouth breathing alt-right segment of the population, but the rest of the country doesn't fall under his shit spell. Hillary may be unlikeable, but that will be overshadowed by how petty and unqualified Trump will appear to even those who are only paying half of their attention to the screen. The problem is, that first debate (I have my doubts there will be another) will be watched by a lot of people eager to see what Trump's dumb ass is going to do next. He was able to fade into the background amongst the other clown car posse before - not now.

 

[Treedbear]

His using a teleprompter has made all the difference lately. No teleprompters during the debate.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm thinking that at the first debate it's

Clinton: "Unlike the squeals from little business fraud Trump, there is general consensus that American employment is up 15 million during the Obama presidency .....detail, detail, detail".

and

Clinton: "Unlike claims by two faced Trump, relations with Mexico are an integrated seamless fabric of cooperation .... detail, detail, detail".

and

Clinton: "Dishonest Donald showed his multiple shades stupidity when he tried to claim no talk of paying for the wall took place with the president of Mexico when the President was in the room ..... detail, detail, detail".

Question. Does The Donald respond to the facts of Clinton's comments or does he react to "not rich", "liar", "dishonest and stupid"?

I'm thinking he might blow up on dishonest and stupid.

 

[Elixir]

I'm thinking he might blow up on dishonest and stupid.

Sure, but so what? 50% of the electorate are dumber than average. Most of those are Trump voters, who will see his obstinate denials of facts as a sign of strength. If the electorate was collectively rational, Trumples would be polling at around 10%. As fra as dishonesty, he will simply tell people "Hillary lied about xyz, she lies lies lies. She lies. She's a liar who lies. Liar.", and his base, representing the shallow end of the gene pool, will eat it up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

She lies, the debate was rigged, the networks hate me, the moderator looked, I dunno, maybe Mexican. Not saying he wasn't an American citizen, but he's obviously got to have ties to the Mexicans. That's the thing about debates. You can't watch Hillary lie and then wait for the talking heads in her pocket to say she won. You and I know who won, we knew it as soon as i answered the question, and even before that swarthy bastard said, "Shut up, Mr. Candidate, it's not your turn.!"

 

[jonatha]

She lies, the debate was rigged, the networks hate me, the moderator looked, I dunno, maybe Mexican. Not saying he wasn't an American citizen, but he's obviously got to have ties to the Mexicans. That's the thing about debates. You can't watch Hillary lie and then wait for the talking heads in her pocket to say she won. You and I know who won, we knew it as soon as i answered the question, and even before that swarthy bastard said, "Shut up, Mr. Candidate, it's not your turn.!"

Methinks "bastard" is an insufficiently ethnically precise insult for Trump to use.

Plus it's French...

 

[Elixir]

She lies, the debate was rigged, the networks hate me, the moderator looked, I dunno, maybe Mexican. Not saying he wasn't an American citizen, but he's obviously got to have ties to the Mexicans. That's the thing about debates. You can't watch Hillary lie and then wait for the talking heads in her pocket to say she won. You and I know who won, we knew it as soon as i answered the question, and even before that swarthy bastard said, "Shut up, Mr. Candidate, it's not your turn.!"

You need practice. Nothing is said once, or even twice. I'll fix it for you:
"She lies. She's a liar. Believe me she's a liar. She lies. The debate was rigged - it was rigged. They rigged it. The networks hate me - they hate me. We all know they hate me. The moderator looked, I dunno, maybe Mexican. Probably Mexican. Not a good Mexican either. But he looks Mexican. Is he Mexican? Not saying he is Mexican, but he's obviously got to have ties to the Mexicans."

Etc etc etc...

It will be interesting to see if the moderator lets him keep talking the entire time that is allotted to his opponent, like he did in the primary Clown Show (and as he has obviously instructed his surrogates to do when they hit the talkshow/news circuit).
Do those guys have a button to cut off the mike if he does that?

 

[4321lynx]

She lies, the debate was rigged, the networks hate me, the moderator looked, I dunno, maybe Mexican. Not saying he wasn't an American citizen, but he's obviously got to have ties to the Mexicans. That's the thing about debates. You can't watch Hillary lie and then wait for the talking heads in her pocket to say she won. You and I know who won, we knew it as soon as i answered the question, and even before that swarthy bastard said, "Shut up, Mr. Candidate, it's not your turn.!"

Methinks "bastard" is an insufficiently ethnically precise insult for Trump to use.

Plus it's French...

And isn't "swarthy" a bit too "literary" or "edicated" for him? Not great, not fantastic. No. Believe me...