[ldrews]

Latest poll from California shows Trump ahead by 7 points.

[billw55]

 ldrews, on 2016-July-27, 13:49, said:

Latest poll from California shows Trump ahead by 7 points.

Polls mean nothing anymore. Several of the primary polls were wildly wrong. Now I just ignore then entirely.

[mike777]

 ldrews, on 2016-July-27, 13:49, said:

Latest poll from California shows Trump ahead by 7 points.

538 gives trump a 4.3% chance to win Calif, that seems to high.

[Winstonm]

Actually, I am fairly confident that Trump will shoot himself in the foot before November. That won't matter to the hardcore bigots, but it might to give pause to the rest.

[kenberg]

A question occurs to me. Who is switching? Who will switch? I am not sure that I know anyone who is remotely likely to change his/her mind about Trump versus Clinton. Eight years ago I was thinking, early on before the primaries, that I might vote for McCain. I made a bet with someone that McCain would win the nomination (right) and win the election (wrong). Long before November, even before Sarah Palin, I changed my mind. I did not really consider voting for Romney but I think I knew people who made their choice fairly late after some thought. Two years ago I, a registered Democrat, voted for Larry Hogan, a Republican, for governor. But this time around I do not know anyone who is saying "Trump or Clinton, Trump or Clinton, I can't decide". You hear of Republicans who feel that they cannot vote for either and so they don't know what they will do, and I gather some Sanders supporters are thinking of sitting it out, but in fact I don't personally know anyone who is still thinking it over. For most of us, they could save a lot of hassle and hold the vote next week.

So I ask: Do you personally know people who are still mulling over the choice between Clinton and Trump? What are they thinking will happen to clarify the choice? Or are some of you out there reading this and still undecided?

[Winstonm]

I don't know anyone who supports Trump; at the same time, I know lots of people who seem to be full of hatred for Hillary - what she ever did to them is a mystery.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-27, 16:47, said:

So I ask: Do you personally know people who are still mulling over the choice between Clinton and Trump? What are they thinking will happen to clarify the choice? Or are some of you out there reading this and still undecided?

I know plenty of folks who are torn between "Hillary" or "not voting", "Hillary" or "Stein", "Hillary" or "write in Bernie", and even a few idiots who seem to be in the "Write in Bernie" or "Johnson" camp...

I am guessing that the same exists on the other side of the aisle.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2016-July-27, 18:28, said:

I don't know anyone who supports Trump; at the same time, I know lots of people who seem to be full of hatred for Hillary - what she ever did to them is a mystery.

Speaking for myself, I don't hate either of these candidates. I just don't think either of them should be President.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2016-July-27, 18:37, said:

I know plenty of folks who are torn between "Hillary" or "not voting", "Hillary" or "Stein", "Hillary" or "write in Bernie", and even a few idiots who seem to be in the "Write in Bernie" or "Johnson" camp...

I am guessing that the same exists on the other side of the aisle.

So these are people who still might, or might not, vote for H. Do you have any sense of how they might reach a conclusion?I have never not voted in a presidential election. I have at times written in a candidate in the primaries, but not in the general election. I can understand a write-in, I can understand a write-in even if it is for Donald Duck, aka none of the above. And, for that matter, I can understand people who generally don't vote on anything because they just don't have enough interest to care. But it is difficult to understand why a person who takes a serious interest in the affairs of the country would not vote. It seems petulant. Write in someone if you want, but if you have an opinion, cast a ballot.

[kenberg]

If this convention does not convert some among the undecided, I don't know what will. Listening to Joe Biden felt like being at home talking with a friend. His sober argument as to why we simply cannot have Donald Trump as president matches mine both in logic and in emotion.

We will see where this goes. But as with Michelle Obama the other night, I found this authentic. Not something I usually say about a political speech.

Good luck to us.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-July-27, 18:39, said:

Speaking for myself, I don't hate either of these candidates. I just don't think either of them should be President.

Well, one of them will be, so you might want to vote for the one that is not terrifying. You may find Clinton not to be a very exciting candidate, but she is unlikely to do major harm.

[Vampyr]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-27, 20:03, said:

If this convention does not convert some among the undecided, I don't know what will. Listening to Joe Biden felt like being at home talking with a friend. His sober argument as to why we simply cannot have Donald Trump as president matches mine both in logic and in emotion.

We will see where this goes. But as with Michelle Obama the other night, I found this authentic. Not something I usually say about a political speech.

Good luck to us.

Are undecided people really spending their evenings watching both conventions? It seems to me that conventions are mainly about preaching to the converted.

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2016-July-27, 20:40, said:

Well, one of them will be, so you might want to vote for the one that is not terrifying. You may find Clinton not to be a very exciting candidate, but she is unlikely to do major harm.

Here in the US we have 3 "equal" branches of government. Now in practice one branch or the other seems to wield more political power. The branches are engaged in endless conflict.

Dont think of it as in the UK where basically one party controls the levers of great power.


If by chance you dont like the choices for the executive branch, you can try and game the system to give another branch more political power. If all of that sounds confusing, it is.

=====


For example imagine a UK where the PM is a Tory and his cabinet, Parliament run by the Labour Party, and supreme judges who tend to favor the Green party policies.


Oh btw now add 60 million, yes 60 million people from 100 different countries and cultures living in the UK!


Welcome to America

[Phil]

 ldrews, on 2016-July-27, 13:49, said:

Latest poll from California shows Trump ahead by 7 points.

What poll is that? 538 shows otherwise:

http://projects.five...ast/california/

[shyams]

 mike777, on 2016-July-27, 21:57, said:

 Vampyr, on 2016-July-27, 20:40, said:

Well, one of them will be, so you might want to vote for the one that is not terrifying. You may find Clinton not to be a very exciting candidate, but she is unlikely to do major harm.

Here in the US we have 3 "equal" branches of government. Now in practice one branch or the other seems to wield more political power. The branches are engaged in endless conflict.

Dont think of it as in the UK where basically one party controls the levers of great power.


If by chance you dont like the choices for the executive branch, you can try and game the system to give another branch more political power. If all of that sounds confusing, it is.

=====


For example imagine a UK where the PM is a Tory and his cabinet, Parliament run by the Labour Party, and supreme judges who tend to favor the Green party policies.


Oh btw now add 60 million, yes 60 million people from 100 different countries and cultures living in the UK!


Welcome to America

Wow! I did not know any of this until your post!!!
Thank you for your insightful non sequitor.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-27, 16:47, said:

A question occurs to me. Who is switching? Who will switch? I am not sure that I know anyone who is remotely likely to change his/her mind about Trump versus Clinton.

A question occurs to me Ken. How many truly working class people, living on or below the bread line, do you actually know? Most reports seem to suggest that Trump's support is heavily concentrated in this section. Who is switching? I think you could look at some of the Brexit statistics for a reasonable idea of the profile to look for. Right across the Western world, people in this group are angry and scared. The situation reminds me quite strongly of the 1930s, just replace Communists with IS/Isis, Jews with bankers and gypsies with refugees (or Latinos in America I suppose). I hope we have enough people aware of history that we do not start repeating it.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2016-July-27, 16:45, said:

Actually, I am fairly confident that Trump will shoot himself in the foot before November. That won't matter to the hardcore bigots, but it might to give pause to the rest.

I can't imagine what he could do at this point to drive away someone who was going to vote for him. They are fine with all of it so far, what is left? They willfully ignore his past statements for gun control and abortion choice, rapturously soaking in the lies of convenience he offers today. Maybe the only thing would be to backtrack on racism.

 Zelandakh, on 2016-July-28, 01:28, said:

I hope we have enough people aware of history that we do not start repeating it.

Sadly I fear it has been too long. Not enough vets and survivors left now. Trump may lose for other reasons, but not for history.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2016-July-28, 06:52, said:

I can't imagine what he could do at this point to drive away someone who was going to vote for him. They are fine with all of it so far, what is left? They willfully ignore his past statements for gun control and abortion choice, rapturously soaking in the lies of convenience he offers today. Maybe the only thing would be to backtrack on racism.


Sadly I fear it has been too long. Not enough vets and survivors left now. Trump may lose for other reasons, but not for history.

No, I don't think those voters will change their minds, but I do look for a substantial amount of voter turnout from those who normally don't vote or who would normally vote Republican being spurred to turn out and vote for Clinton in order to prevent a Trump presidency.
The crazier Trump projects himself, the greater the likelihood of spurring these folks to action against him, IMO.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-July-28, 07:59, said:

No, I don't think those voters will change their minds, but I do look for a substantial amount of voter turnout from those who normally don't vote or who would normally vote Republican being spurred to turn out and vote for Clinton in order to prevent a Trump presidency.
The crazier Trump projects himself, the greater the likelihood of spurring these folks to action against him, IMO.

I dont see any evidence that there will be a substantial amount of voter turnout from those who dont normally vote.

I do see a bit of evidence that voter turnout will be less since a black man is not running.

At this point I would not be surprised if Clinton ends up close to 350 votes(270=win) With less than 50% of the actual voters and far less than 50% of all possible voters.

[awm]

 cherdano, on 2016-July-26, 13:10, said:

Ok, let me rephrase my question. Was there anything that the DNC staff did that was improper, for which there was no evidence last week, and for which there is evidence now?
- The debate scheduling was ridiculous, but possibly counter-productive (no surprise that Hillary's campaign pushed to change this).
- The voter database row was publicised back then (and there seemed to be justification for their actions); any more news about that in the leaked emails?
- I used NY Times and 538 as my news sources on the status of the race, and I don't even remember whether they included superdelegates. I only cared about the non-superdelegate count, and it was easy to find that, I don't remember having to jump through any hurdles. Meanwhile, any evidence in the emails that the DNC controlled how other news organisation reported on the race?
- Any evidence in the emails for nefarious dealings with your other allegations?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denied on many occasions that the DNC was intentionally "stacking the deck" for Hillary Clinton despite the many events which seemed like they were. The emails mostly provided evidence that she was lying about this. I don't think they revealed any new activities by the DNC of this sort -- rather they revealed internal conversations which confirmed that actions which favored the Clinton campaign were not merely coincidental but intentionally so.

If the result of all this is more transparency at the DNC and reducing or eliminating super delegates, that will be a positive. Like I said, Hillary gets the nomination anyway -- her huge margins in the south were too much to beat when Bernie was hardly running up margins anywhere and it's proportionate representation. All this DNC stuff is maybe a couple percent in a few states.

Hillary will be a fine president, but I'm glad Bernie pulled her to the left on a few issues and I hope she will stick to them. Really the thing that bothers me is the feeling that our country is becoming an oligarchy (two Bushes and now two Clintons? And both recent Republican nominees super-rich businessmen who are the sons of super-rich businessmen?)