[PassedOut]

The NY Times has an interesting timeline of Trump's comments and the points at which different republicans publicly repudiated him: At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.

Not all of them will vote for Clinton, though.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2016-August-28, 15:28, said:

Yes, it's frightening that odds are that close. At 22.2%, if the election were held three times, Trump would be better than 50% to win at least once.

That assumes each election is independent.

[shyams]

PassedOut, on 2016-August-29, 08:36, said:

The NY Times has an interesting timeline of Trump's comments and the points at which different republicans publicly repudiated him: At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.

Not all of them will vote for Clinton, though.

The infographic appears to be designed specifically to give prominence to the "What Trump Said" portion of the page. It's like collating all his horrible quotes and presenting them in easily digestible forms for the NY Times readers.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-August-29, 08:36, said:

The NY Times has an interesting timeline of Trump's comments and the points at which different republicans publicly repudiated him: At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.

Not all of them will vote for Clinton, though.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men..." --Brutus

The tide is flowing out for Trump. Some columnist, I forget who but I think I linked to him earlier, got it. Trump is the guy nobody wants to sit next to at dinner. Bigoted, self-important, obnoxious, determined to insult everyone. Whatever the initial excitement, it wears thin and then that's it.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2016-August-29, 09:02, said:

That assumes each election is independent.

Yes.

[shyams]

Has the Clinton campaign been underperforming in the last few days?

The odds of a Trump victory are shortening on UK betting sites, although the reduction is a small fraction.

[kenberg]

I hate to admit I read this or anything about Anthony Weiner, but the article suggests 11 thoughts on the matter.

Number 7: Anthony Weiner is proof that the Clintons don't actually have people murdered.

I will now try to return to more serious thoughts.

[shyams]

shyams, on 2016-August-28, 14:50, said:

If betting odds represent likelihood of an outcome (and I'm not saying they do), at this time Donald Trump is 22.2% likely to become President. Odds offered on a betting exchange are 4.50 (or 7:2 odds in English style)

The odds have shortened on a Trump victory. They currently stand at 29.4% -- odds on betting exchange are currently 3.40 (or 12:5).

[helene_t]

Interesting psychological study on the worldviews of concervatives and liberals, and on Trump supporters in particular: https://jerclifton.c...ople-living-in/

Basically, conservatives see the World as fair, as getting worse, and they see dichtomies as largely good-vs-bad while liberals tend to see dichotomies as more often equally good/bad.

Trump supporters are not that different from typical conservatives, actually Cruz supporters are less typical.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on 2016-September-09, 10:30, said:

Interesting psychological study on the worldviews of concervatives and liberals, and on Trump supporters in particular: https://jerclifton.c...ople-living-in/

Basically, conservatives see the World as fair, as getting worse, and they see dichtomies as largely good-vs-bad while liberals tend to see dichotomies as more often equally good/bad.

Trump supporters are not that different from typical conservatives, actually Cruz supporters are less typical.

Great link! Thanks.

Doesn't make it clear, though, why so many think Obama was not born in the US...

[PassedOut]

The Guardian has an interesting piece about Hillary Clinton in action: 9/11 tapes reveal raw and emotional Hillary Clinton

Quote

Having declared 9/11 to be an attack on all Americans, Clinton soon discovered that the national response was not entirely united or favorable to struggling New Yorkers. The head of the EPA at the time, Christine Todd Whitman, repeatedly insisted the air at Ground Zero was safe even as early as three days after the towers collapsed, as did Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite worries within City Hall that they were facing thousands of liability claims.

Confronted by this wall of denial, Clinton was one of the most powerful voices warning of an impending health crisis. Ben Chevat, chief of staff to congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York on 9/11, recalls the impact.

“The Bush administration was saying, ‘There’s no problem, move along’,” he said, “and so it was hard work getting any traction in the media. Yet we knew there was a problem because people were getting sick with respiratory diseases and cancers.”

Chevat, now executive director of 9/11 Health Watch, said: “It took Clinton to put a spotlight on the issue and change the frame.”

Smart, serious, hardworking. "Likeable enough."

[The_Badger]

shyams, on 2016-September-06, 06:57, said:

The odds have shortened on a Trump victory. They currently stand at 29.4% -- odds on betting exchange are currently 3.40 (or 12:5).

Betting sites can be pretty useless at predicting political events. Take Brexit - Britain's exit from the European Union - for example. Up to last day before voting you still could get 5-2 as a bet on Brexit: it was an odds-on certainty that Britain was going to vote to stay in the European Union. How wrong they were!

And, Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was a 100-1 shot to win the leadership when he was first nominated out of 4 candidates, as many thought he was far too left-wing to succeed as the Labour party put him up as their token left-wing candidate. And guess what: he won it by a mile!

And sadly, my best friend (and this is a true story) who is an ex-bookmaker was going to place £1000 at 100-1 but decided not to, and he still had an opportunity at 50-1 too.

And why was he interested in this bet? Well, he has this theory that in political elections it is activists that amass support, people who want to change things for (in their opinion) the better.

As I much as I personally dislike Donald Trump, he's making a helluva lot more press over here in Britain than Hillary Clinton. And when a candidate's got impetus who knows how the public's going to vote...

[cherdano]

Here is my theory. Right now there is a lot of coverage about Clinton emails and Clinton Foundation. It seems the election is a referendum on that, and since voters don't like Clinton, the polls are tightening.

Once the debates happen, voters will remember that this is a choice about whether Clinton or Trump will be president. After the debates, no matter who "won" them, Clinton's poll numbers will improve.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-September-09, 13:18, said:

The Guardian has an interesting piece about Hillary Clinton in action: 9/11 tapes reveal raw and emotional Hillary Clinton


Smart, serious, hardworking. "Likeable enough."

This is a very good article. And really, "Likeable enough" is fine by me. I'm not planning on asking her out.

[PassedOut]

No wonder Trump hates the Post: How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people’s money

Quote

The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not like other charities. An investigation of the foundation — including examinations of 17 years of tax filings and interviews with more than 200 individuals or groups listed as donors or beneficiaries — found that it collects and spends money in a very unusual manner.

For one thing, nearly all of its money comes from people other than Trump. In tax records, the last gift from Trump was in 2008. Since then, all of the donations have been other people’s money — an arrangement that experts say is almost unheard of for a family foundation.

Trump then takes that money and generally does with it as he pleases. In many cases, he passes it on to other charities, which often are under the impression that it is Trump’s own money.

In two cases, he has used money from his charity to buy himself a gift. In one of those cases — not previously reported — Trump spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself.

Money from the Trump Foundation has also been used for political purposes, which is against the law. The Washington Post reported this month that Trump paid a penalty this year to the Internal Revenue Service for a 2013 donation in which the foundation gave $25,000 to a campaign group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi ®.

Trump admires Putin for, among other things, reining in the Russian press. It's obvious why.

[kenberg]

The WaPo quoted Lindsey Graham on the praise of Putin

Quote

“Other than destroying every instrument of democracy in his own country, having opposition people killed, dismembering neighbors through military force and being the benefactor of the butcher of Damascus, he’s a good guy,” quipped Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) of Putin.

Dems could learn from this. Often what you hear is something like "Oh how awful, Trump said Putin is a strong leader." And listeners respond "He isn't?". Graham had the good sense not to dispute that Trump is a strong leader, rather he put this strong leadership in a correct context. Pay attention to this, Dems. It applies to a wide range of issues.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-September-11, 10:13, said:

Dems could learn from this. Often what you hear is something like "Oh how awful, Trump said Putin is a strong leader." And listeners respond "He isn't?". Graham had the good sense not to dispute that Trump is a strong leader, rather he put this strong leadership in a correct context. Pay attention to this, Dems. It applies to a wide range of issues.

It's not clear that sarcasm and subtlety works well in the context of political statements, especially with Trump involved. Consider his claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS. It wasn't clear how he intended it initially, and then in followup comments he seemed to flip-flop on whether it was meant seriously or sarcastically.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-September-11, 10:13, said:

The WaPo quoted Lindsey Graham on the praise of Putin



Dems could learn from this. Often what you hear is something like "Oh how awful, Trump said Putin is a strong leader." And listeners respond "He isn't?". Graham had the good sense not to dispute that Trump is a strong leader, rather he put this strong leadership in a correct context. Pay attention to this, Dems. It applies to a wide range of issues.

Clinton will go after this at the debates. She will have zingers ready that will sound good because they are harsh and accurate.

Oh and that noise you are hearing? It's the Clinton video team arguing who gets to script the Putin ad to be aired in the last 2 weeks before the election.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-September-11, 12:21, said:

It's not clear that sarcasm and subtlety works well in the context of political statements, especially with Trump involved. Consider his claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS. It wasn't clear how he intended it initially, and then in followup comments he seemed to flip-flop on whether it was meant seriously or sarcastically.

It appears to me as if Donald Trump doesn't care what he means - he is viewing this campaign like a t.v. ratings contest. As long as the tv cameras and lights are pointed at him, he is satisfied.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-September-11, 12:39, said:

Clinton will go after this at the debates. She will have zingers ready that will sound good because they are harsh and accurate.

Oh and that noise you are hearing? It's the Clinton video team arguing who gets to script the Putin ad to be aired in the last 2 weeks before the election.

Perhaps "If you like Vladimir you will love Donald" ?
Or "Nero, a strong leader"

They need to hire me, I have some time free.