With a month to go…

NBC released a new national poll this morning that’s pretty consistent with the rest of the pack. It gives Clinton a six point lead over Trump, 46-40. It also shows Johnson at 9 and Stein at 3. We’re past the point at which Trump could hope to close the gap. There’s been no great wave of new white voters in PA, OH, WI or MI. Republicans have not consolidated around him. He’s shown no secret competence that he was hiding during the primaries. He’s toast.

So let’s play. How do think the final numbers fall?

With an assist from the friendly folks at 270towin.com Here’s what I think it probably looks like on the map:

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com


We should expect that Trump will continue to flail. His behavior will grow more erratic and offensive as the outcome becomes unavoidable. With defeat certain, his veneer of winnerness is being stripped away. People who stuck with him because they thought they had to will start to flee their cages.

Today Trump is polling at about 40%, which is about where he’s been since May. He still has a pretty firm floor in the upper thirties.

Clinton has been hovering at 46-47. Obama went into the ’12 election polling at 48 and finished at 51. That swing was partly about undecided voters finally pulling the lever, but it had more to do with a built-in advantage in the Democratic coalition. Dems enjoy remarkably solid support in concentrated, heavily populated geographies. That leaves their Presidential candidates almost always underpolled in national surveys.

Also watch for some twisting in the third-party outcomes. Johnson will underperform his polling by a pretty big margin in important states like Colorado, North Carolina and Florida. He is likely to score big numbers in places like Texas and Georgia that aren’t supposed to be competitive as disgusted Republicans revolt. That may be enough to tip Georgia to Clinton, though probably not enough for Trump to lose Texas.

My guess is we get an ending like this:

Clinton 52%
Trump 39%
Johnson 7%
Stein 2%

At those numbers nationally, Ohio and Iowa might still be close. If she only gets to 50% nationally she’ll probably lose those two states. Anything less than 53% nationally is probably too weak to flip Texas or Missouri. At my estimate for Clinton Democrats would probably pick up seven seats in the Senate, but fail to take the House.

We’ll see. Early voting has already started in a few places. It will be over soon. For that we can be grateful.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
376 comments on “With a month to go…
  1. Stephen says:

    I stayed with my daughter and her two lady friends during Matthew . One of the ladies had two children a son and a daughter. These Porto Rico women well educated are registered and will vote democrat. But what surprise me was the young man of about 12 engaged me about the election and was well informed. He supported Hillary although he cannot yet vote. But that for millions like him is coming. The electorate is rapidly changing and that includes the children of my generation who are repulsed by the GOP. With the collaspe of Porto Rico’s economy many of them are moving to Florida and they vote Democrat. I think by 2020 for presidential elections Florida will be firmly in the blue column.

    • 1mime says:

      Stephen, so glad you’re ok and that Matthew was less dangerous than expected – tho I know the destruction will be immense from flooding and infrastructure/housing repair. No lives lost yet?

      • Stephen says:

        I think some women who had a heart attack and help could not get to her until the storm abated. Until you are cut off from your civilization you forget how dependent you are on it. Thanks for your kind concern.

    • flypusher says:

      Looks like the worst part of the storm is staying offshore. Glad everyone is OK and merely inconvenienced.

  2. flypusher says:

    Looks line Clinton is moving into the “finish him” phase:


    This is the most damning criticism of Trump of all. This is someone who said that rude gestures justified sinking other countries’ ships and denied that would constitute an act of war. This is someone who when confronted with his own past boorish behavior, had an online temper tantrum that was equally boorish. The notion that he should be CIC is delusional.

    • 1mime says:

      Well, it is getting more and more difficult for Trump supporters to excuse his behavior away. I’ll give them this – they’ve hung in there a looooong time…Trump loyalty!

  3. bubbabobcat says:

    Documented audio/video just released and NOT denied by Trump camp:

    “I moved on her. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

    I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”

    But it won’t matter to his basket of deplorables supporters. It never does. As long as Donald continues to consistently wear his virtual pointy white hoodie. Nothing else matters.

    • 1mime says:

      Paul Ryan’s budget plan, “A Better Way”, is getting more exposure for comments Ryan made this week. No doubt as a GOTV goad, Ryan said if Republicans hold the Senate and their House majority, he would use a rare legislative procedure to implement his plan, which would:

      “…cut at least $6 trillion in federal spending, with 62 percent of that coming from programs that help low- and moderate-income families. It would “block-grant” a number of anti-poverty programs, giving fixed sums to the states to manage without any federal restrictions (and without the ability to get expanded funding based on need). It would raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and cripple the program by offering “premium support” for seniors to buy private insurance, fracturing the market and breaking a system that works pretty well. And Ryan’s plan would cut individual and corporate tax rates, with 99.6 percent of the benefits going to the wealthiest 1 percent.”

      Lots riding on the Senate majority for sure. Ryan isn’t hiding his plan to ram this through Congress.


  4. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    This might be the King of Whoppers… and I ain’t talking Burger King!

    “Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants Are Pouring Over The Border To Vote”
    “Another reason he thinks the election is rigged against him.”


    This to me seems like an example of next level bold face lying. It is also a mouth fart of degenerate xenophobia and a complete departure from logic.

    This is an election that needs to be examined in absolute nauseating detail so maybe we can avoid candidates such as Trump in the future. That’s my hope.

    Really Mr. Trump?

    Undocumented immigrants hiking over the border of Mexico just to vote against him?
    And I thought Nixon was paranoid…

    Sad thing is as I write this posting there are throngs of his desperate supporters who will believe this new accusation without reserve or fact checking (cause fact checking is for losers!)

    What makes this extremely awful to me is because out of all the lies that could successfully undermine the credibility of American democracy, this repulsive and absurd falsehood is perhaps the most asinine.

    P.S. There is no evidence as we speak that this is happening, or has ever happened.

    • RobA says:

      It’s even more insane because of the obvious fact that non citizens can’t vote.

    • Stephen says:

      I know people who were undocumented. If that is the case the last thing you want is to be scruntized. It is scarey that people who are gullible enought to believe crud like this vote. I am beginning to understand why the founding fathers wanted to limit the voting rights.

  5. RobA says:

    It’s debatable on whether it’s wise for a UN official to explicitly call out Trump, but what’s less debatable is that it is quite unnerving to see Russia lodge a formal complaint about it.


    It’s not even clear that accurately quoting Trumps positions is “criticizing”, but wtf is RUSSIA doing complaining about this is Trump isn’t even doing so?

    • 1mime says:

      Don’t you see what they (Russia) is doing? They are “playing” Trump….knowing by appealing to his insecurity and vanity that if he is elected, they will be able to manipulate him….Someone as hard-nosed as Putin would never “respect” a man with Trump’s inherent weaknesses. He’s too easily exploited and too predictable.

  6. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    I spent the better part of the GOP primaries arguing the position of, “I’d take the 40% chance of a Trump presidency over a 10% chance of a Cruz presidency”

    …who knew that one day I would miss the relative normalcy of someone trying to establish a pseudo-Christian theocracy in the US and taking away the rights of women and gay folks?

    • RobA says:

      Hillary would have crushed Cruz. His rigid ideology would stop him from spouting the Rorschach like rhetoric of Trump (I.e. say enough vague statements to cover the gamut, allowing ppl to hear only what they want too) and his policies are immensely unpopular.

      And, to his credit, Cruz at least inhabits the same planet as we do, he would not muddy the waters with insane, bald faced lie after insane, bald faced lie.

      He wouldn’t be gaslighting America the way Trump/Pence are currently doing.

    • 1mime says:

      If you missed the entire documentary from Frontline, “The Choice”, here’s specific background on Trump’s financial collapse in the 90s that led to his $916million loss….

  7. RobA says:

    For those worried Trumps humiliating debate performance might somehow sour him to buckle down and properly prepare for the next one, you can rest a bit easier: here is the bulk of his “prep”.


    A ridiculous town hall, with T ball questions (“softball” is much too aggressive of a term) such as: “What would you say to convince Hispanics who are deceived by Obama, Clinton and the biased media to vote for you?”

    Not only that, he specifically, and bizarrely, went out of his way to insist that this was NOT debate prep. The man twisted idea of what constitutes “strength” and “leadership” is so bad that he thinks that merely admitting you’re prepping for something is a sign of weakness. This should be very worrying.

    And, to top it off, he left the 90 minute event after 30 minutes. Guess he got bored and had better ways to spend his time, such as watching CNN and firing off angry tweets at every negative comment by every minor pundit.

    The clown literally does not have the brain capacity to do what needs to be done to prepare for the job, even if he wanted too (which he doesnt).

    • flypusher says:

      I’m in a quandry here. Is it worse to gloat about profiting at others’ expenses during an economic disaster, and it turns out you’re lying, or to gloat about profiting at others’ expenses during an economic disaster, and you actually did?

      • 1mime says:

        Fly, the man is just despicable – it’s impossible to pick a “worse” thing…

      • RobA says:

        But Mime…… Hillary used private emails, even though a thorough investigation by a Republican FBI director cleared her of criminal charges.

        They’re both just as bad!

      • 1mime says:

        You’ll never sway those who have abandoned reason, Rob, and there are lots of them out there. One thing we shouldn’t ignore is that Hillary did use very poor judgement about her email process – no criminal intent – but a very poor decision. Does it compare in scale to the lies Trump has told or her judgement more broadly as compared with him? No. This is not a campaign where the candidates are pristeen, but there are definitely a best and worst choice. Anyone who thinks Trump is the better choice I choose not to try to convince otherwise. They’ve swallowed the Hillary poison and nothing will change their minds.

        Hillary Clinton will be competent, she will protect our nation, maintain positive relationships with our allies, and calm the markets. If you listen to financial pundits, the market (indeed the Forbes Fortune 500 CEOs) is hoping for a Clinton win. There is a reason for that.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Well, Mrs. Clinton did apologize for the email issue, but maybe that was a mistake, because it’s kind of an admission of guilt.

      Mr. Trump’s philosophy is, if you get caught, don’t apologize, and make sure to brag about what you did.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Hell, yeah, I used a private server for classified emails! Big deal. It just proves I’m a genius.

      • 1mime says:

        Clinton made a bad choice about the server, but she is far from claiming that it was due to “genius”….No deflection there, “I was wrong” – simple, direct. What this experience did point out is the decades old problem that exists in the State Dept with archaic technology and pitiful security, despite the critical, sensitive role served by this division of government. They needed to overhaul their entire system. I suspect this deficiency isn’t only found in State…In fact, the IRS is working to replace an antiquated computer system (my two IRS friends confirmed). The problem is resources….Congress (Repub) wants less bureaucracy and thus cuts budgets. Department heads have to choose many times between skilled, experienced people and hardware. So sad. Obviously, both are needed and computers will likely replace more people than people replace computers, but someone needs to load those pesky pieces of equipment and that should be smart, experienced people.

      • 1mime says:

        Hillary should have apologized for her poor decision about using a private email server. She was/is guilty of that and is confronting it as a mistake, as she should. It would have been better to not have made the poor choice, but I have no doubt that what she did was criminal just stupid.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, I hope you realize I was being sarcastic when I suggested that Mrs. Clinton should act more like Mr. Trump.

      • 1mime says:

        (-; of course

      • Fair Economist says:

        Except she didn’t. She used the state department server for classified emails. Comey claims three emails sent *to* her (but not by her) were classified because they had a (c) in them (the same as used for copyright in text); the State Department says none were, because the emails weren’t about classified matters and it was just a mistake that somebody put (c) in them.

      • 1mime says:

        My understanding of her apology was that she apologized for using poor judgement in having a personal server for emails that dealt with state matters…classified or not. She should have used better judgement on this but to her credit, admitted she did not.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        No big deal. Just another social media misunderstanding.

      • 1mime says:

        But I didn’t misunderstand you, Tutta! Did you misunderstand me?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, who’s on first?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Mime, we are good now. Not to worry.

      • Fair Economist says:

        Apologizing was a mistake. Of the options she had available to her, she chose the best one. The State Department system was vulnerable to moles, and indeed there was a monster breach in 2010. Using a commercial server, like Powell, would also have been substantially less secure as literally hundreds of employees could have poked around in it. I guess she thought apologizing would satisfy the complainers; but it doesn’t because she’s facing professional complainers who make up scandals when they can’t find real ones.

        Just to put things in context, how often do you hear the people complaining about Clinton’s emails talk about emails under Bush? 22 million emails, many of them actually classified (the ones about Valerie Plame for sure; undoubtedly many others) or subject to legal inquiry (about the attorney general affair) were stored on the Republican National Committee servers and ALL deleted. Not just ones from personal friends, EVERYTHING. This was deliberately done to get around record rules, as made clear in Powell’s email where he said he kept his emails on commercial servers so he didn’t have to report them.

        You never hear about this, because the complainers have no genuine interest in the law or security, they’re just trying to cook up scandals about Clinton.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I read somewhere that you should never apologize to appease people because they will use it against you. Plus, instead of looking nobly humble, it just make you look weak.

      • 1mime says:

        You should apologize when you were wrong, but not to appease anyone, to acknowledge a poor choice.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        This election may hinge on voters’ personal definition of “strength.”

        I consider stability, predictability, and diplomacy signs of strength.

        Other people see strength in never feeling the need to apologize.

      • Fair Economist says:

        In this age of gotcha journalism you shouldn’t apologize. I think that’s sad, and I’ll bet you do too, but that’s what gets eyeballs and clicks.

      • 1mime says:

        I disagree again. If you made a mistake and it is publicly released, I think an apology is important.

  8. rightonrush says:

    Trump surrounds himself with the “best” people.
    “Richard Burt helped shape the candidate’s first foreign-policy speech while lobbying on behalf of a Moscow-controlled gas company”.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-campaign-lobbyist-russian-pipeline-229264#ixzz4MOx5mvT8

    • 1mime says:

      I think the Trump fascination with all things Russian is one of the most frightening aspects of his campaign. It should be sending shivers down the spines of our military and our allies….Trump has no moral core and his judgement is terribly flawed. He is unfit.

  9. tmerritt15 says:

    This is way off topic, but nevertheless I find it interesting and it does refute the BS that Trump has been pushing about the military. See the link below from Huffington Post.


    As I’ve stated before, the DOD is very concerned regarding the geopolitical challenges to the US and is preparing for them. That means this Administration is also concerned, but is playing its cards close to the vest. To me it is obvious they do not want to get bogged down in another misbegotten conflict that really does not threaten the US.

    Also, I’ve been travelling for a while and have not followed the blog, but the outlook for HRC has improved markedly since the debate.

    • Creigh says:

      The DOD is also taking disruption due to climate change very seriously in its planning exercises.

      • 1mime says:

        Those generals taking climate change seriously are probably “on Trump’s list” of “worst” generals….

      • RobA says:

        Mime, in Trumps America, they’ll be among the first purged.

      • 1mime says:

        IMO, if there is purging to be done in military leadership, it should be done within the military structure. The executive branch should respect the independence of the military and their judgement of their people. If there is a security breach that requires executive action, that would be the exception, otherwise, hands off!

    • 1mime says:

      Better for Clinton but not as positive for Senate…NH is in a presidential dead heat and it is being reflected in the Hassan/Ayotte race….with Ayotte leading…There is a ton of $$ being spent in all the Senate swing states….The GOP knows, as do the Dems, that taking the presidency without holding the Senate will be fruitless. I wouldn’t want 4 years of dealing with a Repub Congress AND SCOTUS…a nightmare!


  10. flypusher says:

    Since it is 2016, I’m not shocked by this kind of thing anymore:


    No excuses. If you do not evacuate, it will serve you right if natural selection gets you. If a cat4 was headed towards my house, I’m bugging out!

    Good luck, FL!

  11. RobA says:

    An essay on mat leave in Canada. To be totally honest, I had no idea this wasn’t the standard in all rich countries until I moved to America to work a few years back (although I’m back in Canada now).


    • 1mime says:

      American policy is ruled by men who don’t value women properly. When we get either a different mindset in politics or more women in Congress, maybe we’ll have a shot at not only paid maternity leave and equal pay for equal work.

      Are you permanently residing in Canada now, Rob?

  12. RobA says:

    Man, the GoP is such a morally bankrupt bunch of cockroaches. Not that any of us thought otherwise, but it’s still infuriating to hear them admit it. Sen Flake I’m sure will catch heat for going rogue.


    I really wish Obama would withdraw Garland if Hillary wins, so that she could make it hurt bad for them, but I know he won’t. he’s too honorable for that and im sure he gave MG his word who, it should be said, seems like a fine man and jurist.

    But man, McConnel is the absolute worst. His whole “the American ppl should decide, sonext president will make the pick” will be exposed for the toxic bullshit it is when the American ppl DO decide, in the form of HRC, and McConnell rushes Garland through in the lame duck.

    • flypusher says:

      “….McConnell rushes Garland through in the lame duck.”

      That is my biggest political wish.

      • RobA says:

        I actually think he kind of has to Fly.

        As Boehner knows, the right wing outrage machine saves their biggest scorn for those weak feckless RINOS who are unable to stop Dems through sheer force of will.

        All HRC has to do is dangle the most liberal judge she can find, and he’ll pass Garland. How would he be able to explain letting in the hypothetical liberal judge when he had Garland sitting there for months?

      • 1mime says:

        McConnell et al are still hoping the “hail mary” will come through 11/8. They.really.are.

    • johngalt says:

      Flake admits Garland is a centrist whom they could live with.

      I hope Obama withdraws Garland and Hillary nominates Obama for the seat, if only to watch GOP heads explode.

      • 1mime says:

        Oooh, wouldn’t that be delicious. I’ll bet RBG would retire in order to allow that to happen if O would be interested. The whole Republican “head exploding thing” is an image that makes me smile…plus, I think O would be a fantastic S.C. justice. It would guarantee that his nomination would be filibustered…no House hearing….Heck, we’d all pay much more attention to SCOTUS if O was on board!

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        I love this Obama-a-supreme idea!

      • Obama has said that he doesn’t want it: that after eight years of high profile government, he wants to relax.

        It’s a shame. He’d probably be good at it.

      • 1mime says:

        Don’t you think he’s due for a little R & R? Given his passion for constitutional law (he taught it at Chicago U.), maybe he might be more receptive after he rests a little. Goodness knows he’s earned it. I look for RBG to retire if Clinton is elected, so there will be more time and another chance for him to reconsider. But, like all here, I think O would bring wonderful qualities to the SC, in addition to his experience, intelligence, and training.

    • 1mime says:

      S’alright Rob, there are two additional S.C. jurists who are in their 80s who may choose to retire in the next two years to allow their replacement by a Democratic POTUS. I have no fear of a Merrick Garland but I do worry about an 8-person S.C. It is impacting how many cases they can hear, how many cases they deadlock on, and the number of cases they remand back to the appellate courts. It is not a good situation for our country or our highest court.

    • 1mime says:

      Note that Paul Ryan, as House Speaker, or the House chair of the Judiciary Committee have also refused to calendar Garland for a hearing.

      Flake said it all: “”Our position shouldn’t be that the next president ought to decide. Nobody really believes that, because if this were the last year of a Republican presidency nobody would say that,” Flake told the Daily Beast.”

      that is what is at stake here. The other positive for MG is that he has already gone through the vetting process so the hearing/approval process could be expedited….

      Republicans are so hypocritical. It’s disgusting.

  13. I hope Hillary can win without Florida’s 29 electoral votes. The hurricane is going to really screw up voting. Miami-Dade and towns to the north I think is where the Dems take the state. I do not see how there will be voting there or even people to vote if the forecasts are correct. I am on the west side of the state and the weather forecasts for the east coast are terrible. A cat 4 is one hell of a storm!

    Everyone on the east coast of Florida, Be Safe!!

    • RobA says:

      Do you think it would be that bad? The elections over a month away. I’m sure that’s enough time to get the initial emergency part out of the way.

      • RobA says:

        That said, Hillary has several paths to win without Fla. Trump has none, nor does he have any party without Ohio either, which Hillary just opened up a lead, representing an 8 point swing in about a week (albeit only one poll. More will be needed to confirm).

        Hillary is up 3 in the newest Fla poll. Most intestingly, when you remove Stein and Johnson, she’s up 7. This goes to tbe millennial enthusiasm gap, which I think will close.

        Trumps lack of paying taxes mean nothing to his base. It is horrifying to ppl in my demographic that I know of. Add that to the post I made below, Paul Ryan admitting he’s going to steamroll through massive tax cuts for the wealthy if Trump wins, and I think you’re going to see a lot of 3rd partiers cone to the Dems over the next few weeks.

        Gary Johnson is clearly not helping himself, his latest disqualifying thing is that he doesn’t know the name of North Korea’s leader. The guy clearly has less knowledge about the world then Trump (and that’s saying something) and the media smells blood in the water. I’d look for more of these type of question to undermine him in the near future.

      • Fair Economist says:

        We definitely need more than the Monmouth poll to proclaim Hillary ahead in Ohio. It’s had a D lean this election.

      • Justanotherhuman says:

        As i understand it, this area is a big Dem area. They are saying if the worst happens, some areas will be out of electricity for 3-4 weeks. 4 weeks is close to election day. There are a ton of elderly who live in this area. They will have evacuated and there could be no place for them to come back to.
        Rick Scott, a teaparty favorite, is governor. Call me a sleptic, but Republicans have a history of making it difficult/impossible for people who do not vote Republican to vote!
        This is Florida we are talking about!

    • flypusher says:

      “Everyone on the east coast of Florida, Be Safe!!”

      Same for everyone in GA, SC and NC. Veer east Matthew, veer east!

    • 1mime says:

      The hurricane will definitely impact early voting in the areas of contact, but there is a month between now and the general election. IN the Miami-Dade area, is this Dem or Repub, Just Human? Glad you’re safe…we lived for several years in the panhandle/Destin area but never experienced a Cat 4 hurricane –

    • Stephen says:

      North East Florida is also going to be beat up.
      This is the conservative part of the state.
      So the effect will be some what countered. Orlando and Tampa all purple trending blue should not be beat up too badly.

  14. RobA says:

    Paul Ryan must have woken up and thought: “hmmmm…..how can I give an adrenaline shot to Hillary’s tepid enthusiasm gap?”


    I guess on the one hand, I appreciate his honesty. Most pols would lie about ramming through such important legislation as cutting O’CARE and trillion dollar tax breaks, which will accrue 99.6% of the benefit to the top 1%. On the other hand, how tone deaf is this clown that he think THIS is a winner with the mood of this electorate?

    • 1mime says:

      Ryan is consistent in his fiscal plans. We’ve had years to study them and they don’t get any better (for anyone other than the wealthy). In all honesty, I do not oppose rational compromise to the tax code, but what Ryan is proposing is totally one-sided and a major shift in policy.

      There is just so much riding on this election….Cannot say it often enough. That’s why so much money is being pushed down to the Senate and House races. The GOP has made the calculated decision that if they hold both houses in Congress, they can suffer a POTUS defeat and still get a lot done that is important for conservatives. The rest of the country? Not.so.much.

      As an aside – Pres. Obama’s approval rating is at 55% nationally, on par with where Reagan was at this juncture in his presidency – but Repubs only give him 13%, up from 11%. Stingy little buggers.

    • Speaking of Paul Ryan, looks like the spineless twat’s thrown any that last iota of dignity he, arguably, had. He’ll be campaigning with Trump in Wisconsin.


      • 1mime says:

        Sort of….The WI event was already a stop for Ryan and Trump decided to show up as well. The press release advised all campaign questions to be directed to the Trump campaign. They will occupy the same territory but it doesn’t seem like they’ll be holding hands….Of course, nothing surprises me anymore.

      • 1mime says:

        Ryan, hope you are away from the hurricane…You did say you were on the west coast of FL, right?

        One question, the only good thing about this hurricane is it may blow out the mosquito population that is carrying ZIKA…Of course they can come back and there will be lots of standing water, but it could help.

      • Appreciate the concern, mime, and yes I am on the west coast. Forecast for my area barely scratches 50% for rain and some gusty winds, but nothing severe.

  15. formdib says:

    I just downloaded the sample ballot for my county.

    I haven’t been voting for long. I started in 2004, age of 18. I’ve changed a lot since then and my politics have shifted, but one thing that’s worked well for me is looking up websites of people running for various options. In 2004, it wasn’t unusual for smaller position local politicians to have terrible websites, or lack websites altogether.

    But either way, by final reckoning I’d end up with split tickets, often times Democrat for most federal offices and Republican for most local.

    This year is unique. Looking these people up, there are certain trends I’m noticing:

    1) Every Democrat has a website. Several Republicans are on the ballot but might as well not exist as far as the Internet is concerned. In my world, that shows such a detachment from basic level engagement that they’re not worth considering. It’s not 2004 anymore. If you don’t have a website, you’re not a public official.

    Maybe I’m being a little harsh about this, but seriously. I’m 30 fucking years old. I’m not longer ‘young and naive.’ The Internet is a thing now, not ‘could become a thing’, and if you don’t take the extremely cheap and accessible method of at least bookmarking a basic digital outline of your policy ideas, then what the fuck are you doing with your campaign? It takes a few hundred dollars and a 16 year old relative to build a legible website.

    2) The Republicans that do have websites have shitty websites. Like, Geocities quality websites. These are people who look like they’ve never touched a computer. In 2016. One of them has an “Issues” page where each issue hyperlinks to the “Issues page” and another has an “Issues” page that that is all broken links. The only one that has an “Issues” page that is fully operational cites “Agenda 21”, which if you’ve never heard of, is a UN soft agreement favored by freak out wingnut paranoiacs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agenda_21

    And unlike previous years, they’re all old, white, and male, except someone running for Secretary of State who is female. She, however, has a barely legible website that only talks about ‘law and order’ and ‘voter fraud.’ Her Democratic opponent actually lists the responsibilities of the office and how she intends to live up to them.

    3) The remaining functional Republicans left have websites literally indiscernible from when I looked at the Republicans from 2004. The same simple text-and-image based websites (nothing wrong with it, but looks cheap) citing the same issues that, like, aren’t even issues anymore. Like “opening up our oil wells for energy independence”, you know, after the United States has become a competitive global energy producer and oil prices have plummeted due to global surplus.

    It’s like these guys have literally been asleep for 12 years straight.

    4) Republicans are super fond of ‘blogs’ sections of their websites, which are basically wish fulfillment fantasies of what they wanted media to say about them (note: them, not their issues) if media were reporting on them. Democrats are super fond of linking their ‘issues’ pages to news and journalism that supports their point (note: their issues, not them).

    ‘Liberal media’ indeed.

    5) I recognize the names of more than a few of the Democrats. The Republicans? Nearly entirely people I’ve never heard of, nor do they seem to have any office experience. Now I know for a fact my state is not devoid of Republicans, especially elected ones. So who are these people?

    All this is to say, remember what I said above: I’m unaffiliated, I’ve voted Democrat and Republican variously based on ideas and how well they present them on their own small area of Internet real estate. I filled out the sample ballot and it’s straight Democrat until I hit the judges. It would be straight Democrat except one Republican judge with exceptional credentials. But that’s not even representative.

    Where did all the local Republicans I voted for go? Are the Republicans really gone or is this some sort of flight from the ticket at the local level? Or is this just some sort of timing thing, with gubernatorial and local elections usually heavy during the midterms?

    And lastly, and more simply, just… What the fuck?

    • 1mime says:

      It’s interesting to see that there is a party difference in how candidates present themselves to the world…and, didn’t you say you live in NY? You don’t get more high tech unless you’re west coast….I don’t know, laziness? Are Dems so strong in NY that Repubs just go through the motions but don’t invest much effort or $$?

      I have a personal theory about Republicans. They have morphed so completely into a party-first mindset that I think it’s robbed many of them of any creativity. Or, maybe they’re afraid to put out an original thought for fear of being criticized….Glad to hear the Dems are not sitting on their laurels. They’ve needed to get the lead out for a while.

      Good for you for doing your homework, formdib.

      • formdib says:

        “didn’t you say you live in NY?”

        My voter registration, driver’s license, permanent address, and more are in a state that 538 gives 400x more sway to.

        “They have morphed so completely into a party-first mindset that I think it’s robbed many of them of any creativity. Or, maybe they’re afraid to put out an original thought for fear of being criticized….”

        After thinking it through, I realize that this year’s ballot probably has little to do with Trump or the GOP in general but is more of a special case.

        There’s just simply not that many big ticket positions during the general election; there are more during the midterms, when things get pretty aggressive. 2018 will be interesting because our governor’s term limits will be up.

        But furthermore, from my personal perspective, our governor essentially got in the office, locked the door, and disappeared for any reason other than knockers with stuffed envelopes to slide under or the occasional, semi-periodical prairie dog pop up to throw some socially conservative bullshit that the state hasn’t wanted in 30 years into the state legislator.

        Meanwhile, there’ve been a few scandals and corruption cases over the past couple-three years that’ve ended up removing some state officials from their positions.

        My feeling is that the state GOP has just been neglected and purged over the last couple years, and with no major big tickets to pick up, are just neglecting to really ‘run’ this year.

        If Trump has anything to do with it, it’s probably that the national GOP doesn’t feel there’s anything to gain by investing in my state, and is diverting funds elsewhere.

        What I WILL say is that I voted in the GOP primary, and none of people I voted for made it to the final ticket. Among them was a guy I was really excited about for state legislator, who seemed on top of his shit, had a great website with a list of policies, and a background that more or less you could say makes him a ‘Silicon Valley conservative’ if that term ever takes a hold (a fiscally conservative technocrat with his eye on technology). So he was primaried in favor of blandly socially conservative old white guys that haven’t discovered the Internet, if that indicates anything toward where the local GOP is headed.

    • Never really paid much attention to the specific offices in play between midterms and general elections in my district, but my ballot looks pretty average. The usual federal offices of course and races for sheriff, county commissioner, property appraiser, state senate rep and and a huge swath of judges.

      How’s everyone else?

      • 1mime says:

        These “average” lower level elected officials have a way of rising through the ranks. It’s called “farming”. Nip ’em in the bud at the local level so you aren’t having to deal with them at the state and national level.

      • formdib says:

        “how’s everyone else?”

        In the end I exaggerated slightly and discovered two highly qualified county judges registered GOP that I will be voting to retain.

        Literally, that’s it.

        Another fun fact is that my ballot is like 80% female right now. I’m not sure whether that’s significant or relevant of anything, but it is different from previous years. I couldn’t tell you what the percentages were but I know it would be less than 50% due to not that many women running.

        In the end I think this year’s local elections are more just a curiosity than indicative of ‘the direction the state is going.’

  16. Pedneuro says:

    Over at DailyKos I read an article that is there a possibility that Trump may actually release his 2015 tax returns as a type of Hail Mary pass, in order to scramble the race again – an October surprise if you’d call it that. How likely do the wise people here think it is? And it’s effect on the race?

    • Curiously, if the NYT reporting is correct and Trump didn’t pay any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, starting from ’96, I assume, his break would’ve expired in ’12 and so releasing his ’15 returns wouldn’t give us an answer one way or the other. A desperate move to try and quash the story. He should release at least five years’ worth, at a minimum, if not a full decade.

  17. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    The picture below is not a production still from the stellar ensemble of the film “Boogie Nights”.

    Nor is it the picture of someone’s pervy uncle in the 80’s… though I can understand if someone can imagine that esp. after I put that visual in your minds.

    No, this is a historic picture of amateur Playboy photographer, failed casino developer and current Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

    One hopes Trump and Bill Cosby didn’t hang out together at the Playboy Mansion back in the day (the trouble those two would have gotten into!)

    Hey 1990’s Trump… her eyes are up here!

      • objv says:

        Sir Magpie, Did you mean Bill Clinton instead of Bill Cosby?

      • Turtles Run says:

        OBJV – Thanks for the photos. As you included no commentary are you trying to state the obvious conclusion that Trump likes to hang out with a man that he calls “the WORST abuser of women in U.S. political history”. He even let Bill get his hands on Melania. What kind of husband does lets a rapist hold on to his wife.

        eyes rolling

      • Turtles Run says:

        Per 1mime’s article.

        Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.

        Well at least Trump has OBJV and TTHOR’s vote.

      • objv says:

        Turtles, Trump might be the most unprepared, but Hillary is the most corrupt. In addition her attacks on the women her husband preyed on make her seem like a hypocrite when it comes to women’s rights.

        I do not like the idea of a Trump presidency and hate some of the things he has said about women, but Bill makes Trump look like a choirboy when it comes to taking advantage of women.

      • flypusher says:

        “Turtles, Trump might be the most unprepared, but Hillary is the most corrupt.”

        You cannot truthfully say that, given that 1) Trump won’t release his taxes, 2) HIS “charitable” foundation has all sorts of problems and looks to mostly be mostly re-gifting other people’s $, 3) he’s been busted TWICE by the DOJ for housing discrimination, and 4) there are many, many suits pending against him for fraud, and failing to pay contractors. You cannot cite a flaw in Hillary that Trump doesn’t exhibit at least 10 times worse. You cannot win that argument.

        Also even IF Hillary actually was as corrupt as you claim (spoiler alert, she isn’t), being unprepared and incapable (which Trump is), is a far worse failing.

        To state the obvious, other than your subjective opinion about SCOTUS picks, ALL of your Hillary is worse than Trump claims are epic logic fails.

      • 1mime says:

        “Trump is just Trump: a powerful personality with an agenda and a plan all his own. Pretending him away is delusional and dangerous. If we’re going to elect him, at least let’s be honest about what he is — and what he isn’t.”

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440742/donald-trump-supporters-self-delusion

      • @objv: >] “Turtles, Trump might be the most unprepared, but Hillary is the most corrupt. In addition her attacks on the women her husband preyed on make her seem like a hypocrite when it comes to women’s rights.

        I do not like the idea of a Trump presidency and hate some of the things he has said about women, but Bill makes Trump look like a choirboy when it comes to taking advantage of women.

        No, he is the most unprepared, unqualified individual to ever aspire to the presidency in modern American history. There is no “might” about this.

        Really though, this would seem to be a rather desperate attempt on your part to try and create a false equivalence between Trump and Bill Clinton’s treatment of women and somehow holding Hillary responsible for it. Now, in all fairness, hold her accountable for whatever part she’s played over the years, but even in the worst case scenario, that does deter from Trump being a uniquely grave threat to America that would not only undermine our economy, but our standing in the world in a way that should give any decent citizen a palpable feeling of dread.

        It’s not an especially pleasant decision, but it’s not a difficult one either. A vote for Trump, however you want to justify it, is still a vote for a dangerous bigot. You and Tracy are free to dance around that reality all you want, but that doesn’t make it go away. I’ll cast my vote for Clinton in November with eyes wide open and all that that entails, good and bad.

        In all sincerity, I highly advise you to rethink your decision. Once you cast that vote, it’s not one you ever get to take back.

      • Whoops, meant to say “doesn’t deter“. Sorry ’bout that.

      • flypusher says:

        “It’s not an especially pleasant decision, but it’s not a difficult one either. A vote for Trump, however you want to justify it, is still a vote for a dangerous bigot. You and Tracy are free to dance around that reality all you want, but that doesn’t make it go away.”

        Not just a bigot, but extraordinarily thin-skinned. The fact that he was up in the wee hours of the night hurling stupid petty insults via Twitter because he was called out on past jerk behavior is a total disqualifier just by itself. But wait, there’s more. Add to that an astounding level of ignorance. Someone who said out loud that rude gestures are justication for sinking a naval vessel. Then denied that that would be considered an act of war (fact check: wars have started over less). This person should NEVER have the power to order American troops into harm’s way. Their jobs are tough enough without having to worry about whether an utter lunatic is giving orders.

        Sane vs insane.

      • 1mime says:

        But….Clinton’s worse….much worse….despite everything that’s been reported about Trump – worse…despite the FACT that Trump has only received endorsements from only four newspapers in the PRIMARY – ZERO for his POTUS candidacy (1 obscure CA city paper, the NYPost, the NY Observer – owned by his son-in-law, and the National Enquirer), Zero magazine endorsements, whereas Clinton has 17 major newspaper endorsements, including many who traditionally support Republicans or make no endorsement – despite a total lack of surrogates out there campaigning for him as noted by veteran political pundits – no one is stumping with Trump except Pence, whereas Hillary has Biden, Bill, Bernie, Warren, Obama, and people from all walks of life are out there in public, stumping for and with her….You don’t see Ryan, McConnell, any senators or members of congress, how about any governors going out in public with Donald….no, they will condone him but won’t help him….oh, Giuliani and Christie? Those paragons of virtue? Other Republicans are staying as far away from personal contact with Trump as they can….

        There is NO.WAY. to justify justifying one’s support for Trump based upon the “Clinton’s worse” line of thought. This level of self honesty is evidently impossible for people, which makes me very sorry for our nation.

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      I meant Bill Cosby, Objv.

      Former conservative traditional values hero and go to black community critic, Mr. “Pull up Your Pants!” crusader against shiftless blacks, current facing prosecution for sexual assault, has been revealed to be essentially a serial rapist who had victimized dozens of women (whom he often drugged) over several decades including a model at the Playboy Mansion named Chloe Goins in 2008.

      Bill Cosby… whose misdeeds has led lawmakers in Democratic Party dominated California to pursue a bill which would increase the amount of time criminals would be held liable for rape and sexual assault.

      Bill Cosby regrettably is not liable for a host of crimes that would have imprisoned him for several lifetimes because of current statues of limitation.

      That Bill Cosby, not Bill Clinton.

      But getting back to Trump… interesting fellow. Doesn’t seem to have hung out with Bill Cosby but did have interesting alliances/friendships over the years with people who also had interesting relationships with women.



      • objv says:

        Sir Mapie, It’s easy to find any number of photos of famous people together.

        Bill Cosby has been accused of rape; so has Bill Clinton. One is living in disgrace. One is aiming to live in the White House again.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well OV, since you want to go there on mere accusations of rape, There is a REAL lawsuit filed against Trump that he raped a 13 year oid girl.


        And of course the well documented rape of his former wife Ivana. There are other accusations too. But I can only post one link.

        And Trump wants to be in the White House too. But NOT as a spouse. Rapist Prez trumps (pun intended) rapist spouse of Prez, OV.

        And you will vote for Trump regardless. You lose OV. Nothing has changed. Keep digging that hole. Quack Quack.

      • objv says:

        As far as Ivana’s claims …

        “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” Ivana Trump said in a statement at the time, as the Daily Beast reported. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”


        Wow! That means Donald Trump was not “tender” towards her on one occasion. What a horrible person!

      • objv says:

        Bill Clinton has his own history with Epstein.


        If the alleged victim has proof against Trump, Trump should be charged and jailed. However, it seems strange that there would be only one woman to come forward. Bill Clinton has had multiple women charge him with unwanted contact.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Ah OV crabbing again so she can maintain her racism yet claim she’s not a racist. Oooh Ivana backtracked to keep the money flowing.

        “During a deposition in the ’90s, Ivana described a harrowing scene in which Trump held her arms back, pulled at her hair, and raped her in a fit of rage. She herself used the word “rape.” The details of the incident were made public in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, written by the journalist Harry Hurt III.”


        She accused him of real rape. Period.

        And you dismiss a lawsuit that Trump raped a 13 year old girl because he “only raped one child”? And that allegations of “unwanted sexual advances” from multiple adult women are more egregious than allegations of a forcible rape of a child? SERIOUSLY?

        “But, but but Bill Clinton is worse….” Bill Clinton is no longer running for President. Trump is.

        All I hear is more incessant quacking from OV. The more you post, the more you confirm your racism. I see you continue to willingly self categorized into the percentage of the basket of deplorables who support Trump OV. Congratulations.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        “The National Enquirer has released new details about the two men’s friendship,…”

        Nice “reputable” source for your “facts” OV.

        What was that OV? I’m sorry I don’t understand unintelligible racist quacking.

      • objv says:

        Flight logs are a reliable source of information – whatever your opinion of Fox News.


        Ivana did backtrack her accusations for whatever her reasons. Who knows why. A friend I had a few years back admitted to me that she was trying to goad her husband to do something physical to her so she could have leverage in a divorce. I was shocked but it was a messy divorce and the kids suffered psychological damage from their parents’ bitter split. At least, Ivana and the Donald were able to put their kids first and raise them to be successful and seemingly well-adjusted adults.

        As I’ve mentioned before, I find Trump arrogant and insufferable at times. That said, Hillary and Bill are even worse.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So OV doubles down and says it’s Ivana’s fault she was raped and she actually shrewdly “manipulated” poor ole helpless innocent Donnie into raping her for political leverage”.

        Yes women all over the country are so impressed with you OV. Take a chunk off Phyllis Schlaffly’s headstone and put it under your pillow and you will awake to a 24 karat golden chastity belt altar to call your very own OV. Signed by poor ole misunderstood Donnie himself.

        Christie-ish unrequited obsequiousness is so pathetically unbecoming and demeaning but you have demonstrated yet again it fits you like a glove OV.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Verbatim quote from your Fox innuendo hit piece OV:

        “Virginia Roberts, 32, who claims she was pimped out by Epstein at age 15, has previously claimed she saw Clinton at Epstein’s getaway in 2002, but logs do not show Clinton aboard any flights to St. Thomas, the nearest airport capable of accommodating Epstein’s plane.”

        “Flight logs ARE a reliable source of information” as you proudly crow, aren’t they OV?

        So your own Fox yellow journalism hit piece manages to absolve Clinton of guilt by association in some unknown circular style of “investigation” as you/she attempts to tar him of the same by innuendo.

        And despite all the leaps of logic to smear Clinton and associate him with a pedophile, surprise, surprise, surprise, the “unbiased” Fox “intrepid investigator” takes Trump’s lawyer’s canned statement/denial of Trump’s association with same said pedophile at face value without any further action or commentary.


        So in summary, OV ignores/accepts that Trump is LEGALLY accused of BEING a pedophile and raping a 13 year old child, and blames yet another Trump rape accusation on the victim, and then does backflips of convoluted “logic” and outright lies and fabrications to excoriate Clinton for purported ASSOCIATION with a pedophile that Trump is also accused of associating with, just so that she can pull the lever for Trump with a “clear conscience”.

        Let me get this straight OV, Bill Clinton associating with a pedophile in your bizarre world of deplorable “logic” is much, much more egregious that associating with the same pedophile in ADDITION to BEING a pedophile AND a serial rapist to boot.

        Did I understand you alt right OV?

        Keep quacking away OV.

      • objv says:

        “Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
        Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.”

      • objv says:

        As far as any lawsuit against Trump by an underage girl, I think he should be held accountable if he is guilty just as I think that Bill Clinton should be held accountable for past misdeeds.

      • objv says:

        Ivana said, “I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

        Good night, bubba. Sweet dreams.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        objv says:
        October 6, 2016 at 8:04 pm
        “As far as any lawsuit against Trump by an underage girl, I think he should be held accountable if he is guilty…”

        But you are going to vote for him no matter what. Because you agree with him on the one and only thing that matters first and foremost to you and other Trump no matter what supporters. And its not the SCOTUS appointment red herring bullshit.

      • objv says:

        bubba, if Trump were to be proved guilty, believe me, I would not vote for him. I would hope that he would be put in jail for a long, long time.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        objv says:
        October 7, 2016 at 1:16 pm

        “…if Trump were to be proved guilty, believe me, I would not vote for him. I would hope that he would be put in jail for a long, long time.”

        So for Trump against allegations of multiple rapes, one by his ex wife and one by a 13 year old child, he has to be “proven guilty” but for Hillary, only National Enquirer tabloid allegations of INFIDELITY (without proof of guilt)” against her husband, and not her, is adequate for you to condemn her and refuse to vote for her. Did I get that transparent hypocritical double standard convoluted justification quacking alt right OV?

        Trump (and his father) have been PROVEN a racist in and actively discriminated against Blacks and Hispanics by his own documented statements and a court of law. But THAT is no biggie to you OV as long as no Whites were discriminated against. Ain’t that alt right OV?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Documented audio/video just released and NOT denied by Trump camp:

        “I moved on her. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

        I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”

        But OV is going to attempt some type of contortional “logical” gymnastics to “justify” that that is not as egregious as Hillary Clinton being MARRIED to a philanderer and wanting to save her marriage.

    • formdib says:

      I have to admit of all the issues with Trump I have, I don’t really care that he had a cameo appearance in a pornography and hung around models. I actually sort of find his appearance on WWE more disqualifying, really, but that’s just personal opinion.

      Someday the sexcapades of people won’t matter to their public service, and that day will be a good day.

      • formdib says:

        That said, regarding BOTH Bill Clinton and Trump, and Cosby and so forth and so on…

        … yes, if their ‘sexcapades’ cross boundaries into abuse, molestation, and rape, then sure, I care about that.

        But a photo of a dude in a suit taking a Polaroid of a model doesn’t speak the 1000 words intended. To me that says more about our culture’s messy relationship to sex, which isn’t a subject that’s clarified by this particular presidential debate.

      • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

        I will say this about the photo, if Barack Obama had engaged in half of the escapades Trump had pursued in his formative years… do you think he would be considered by the current Trump supporters as a viable presidential nominee?

        Why is it certain people are allowed to act like a complete troglodyte, or pursue the role of the homely playboy or even engage in the corrupt actions of a amoral grifter? Yet other people like Obama (or even Clinton) who were the ones who did their homework, went to class, went around the world for the actual purpose to learn or improve the the state of humanity…

        Those people are considered to have no real experience, have no gravitas or strength. Those people are the “Bitch”, “The Hag”, “The Boy” or the “Chimp”.

        I find myself gagging on the contempt in today’s society for meritocracy. Class, race and gender should be irrelevant..Having the talent, knowledge base and governmental experience to get the job done effectively.

        The tasks of a businessman or CEO is much different than the tasks of a political leader. Those who were best as governmental leaders had humility, curiosity and a diminished lack of concern for their personal interests.

        Trump doesn’t remotely have that.

        If he did he wouldn’t be trying to use his own presidential campaign to line his pockets (or the pockets of his family) with the campaign funds from gullible contributors who refuse to believe they are being conned.

        That picture for me makes me gag.

        I gag at the hypocrisy of that subset of American voters that would place the fate of our country’s government in the hands of a man who is still the same wealthy/incurious douchebag from the 1990’s who used a Poloroid camera to immortalize a woman’s ample bosom.

      • 1mime says:

        Sir Crow, let’s talk a little about your statement: “The tasks of a businessman or CEO is much different than the tasks of a political leader. Those who were best as governmental leaders had humility, curiosity and a diminished lack of concern for their personal interests.”

        I respectfully disagree. I do think that most outstanding businessmen/women (-; are happier pursuing personal and financial success through business ventures, but I don’t think it has to be this way. In fact, why do you think it is not likely that an outstanding businessman would lack humility, curiosity and self interests? It is likely driven by financial reward more so than public service, but we have seen examples of leaders who combined these traits – Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt come to mind. What is more telling (to me) is what the businessman cum elected leader does following political life.

        What do you think?

      • formdib says:

        “I will say this about the photo, if Barack Obama had engaged in half of the escapades Trump had pursued in his formative years… do you think he would be considered by the current Trump supporters as a viable presidential nominee?
        Why is it certain people are allowed to act like a complete troglodyte, or pursue the role of the homely playboy or even engage in the corrupt actions of a amoral grifter? ”

        I’m completely on board with you on that — they would be reamed for it.

        And they shouldn’t be.

      • formdib says:

        “The tasks of a businessman or CEO is much different than the tasks of a political leader. Those who were best as governmental leaders had humility, curiosity and a diminished lack of concern for their personal interests.”

        I do think there are areas of management and organizational behavior that allow a good businessperson to be a good politician. If an actor can become a party darling, I don’t see why a businessperson can’t.

        That’s assuming the businessperson is a good businessperson. Donald Trump cut his taxes by losing nearly a billion dollars. To riff his own quote,

        “I prefer businesspeople who don’t lose money.”

      • flypusher says:

        Could a CEO be am effective President? I’ll give you an analogy from my line of work. It is not uncommon for MDs to try their hands at a research sabbatical. If they go into it without any research experience and the attitude of “I went to med school, so this will be easy”, they get a rude awakening. One of my grad school friends did her thesis project in a lab that studied cholesterol biosynthesis, so she had plenty of stories to tell. I have also encountered a few MDs in research, although my experience has been the opposite. What’s the difference? The people I met understood that despite a lot of overlap, there are fundamental differences in how one approaches the clinic and one approaches the lab bench. If you account for that, you can do quite well at both. I think the same applies for the CEO. If s/he is smart and always keeps in mind the fundamental differences between government and business, that person could be an effective President.

        That of course totally rules out Trump.

      • 1mime says:

        Nice finale, Fly (-;

        Here’s a little piece of trouble for Mr. Trump. Seems that the water system in Atlantic City is having financial difficulties. People aren’t paying their bills….including, Mr. Trump’s two casino properties…who are $146,000 behind on their bills…..Good luck water system…Mr. Trump’s track record is not very good on meeting his financial obligations…especially if he loses….sour grapes and all that stuff.


      • johngalt says:

        Fly, I know a lot of MDs who are outstanding scientists. The best of them bring a deeper understanding of what are the most important problems in the clinic to their research than most Ph.D.-level scientists can muster (ironically, to do so, these MDs largely abandon their clinical practices). A larger proportion of MDs (and I’ve had a few in my lab) are, as you describe, disasters. Extrapolating to your analogy, I think this suggests that some CEOs would be great presidents. The majority would not. Trump is a reality TV star and con artist. His only turn at being a real CEO ended in disaster in the mid ’90s.

      • johngalt says:

        formdtb: “Someday the sexcapades of people won’t matter to their public service, and that day will be a good day.”

        We’ve had that day in the past and it was good. Many presidents have had extramarital dalliances. Bill Clinton is in no way unique. John Kennedy screwed everything in a skirt in sight – he was apparently fond of “rehabilitation” sessions in the White House pool with his secretaries, whom the Secret Service nicknamed Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. Can you imagine the apocalypse if the most famous actress (think Jennifer Lawrence, except more) of the time serenaded Obama, “Happy Birthday Mr. President.” FDR died in the company of his mistress on his retreat in Georgia. You think LBJ never had a secretary on her knees under his desk? Jefferson was overly fond of the “help”. Ben Franklin (not a president, I know), was legendary on two continents for his randiness. Hell, even boring Dwight Eisenhower found time in between golf matches to spend quality time with an aide.

        Being a successful politician is about seducing people to trust you. It is probably hard to turn that off. Clinton’s dalliances had no impact on his job performance until a certain Ken Starr, whose obsession with sexual misconduct apparently did not carry over to his last job, decided that is should be front page news.

      • formdib says:

        Man, I tell you what, I barely sort of kind of defend Trump in one issue, and he turns that one around on me within two days.

      • 1mime says:

        Trump is rotten to the core, formdib. There’s no polishing him up. Despite months – if not years – of opportunity to begin the process of self-evaluation and fundamental change, Republicans have doubled down on policies and practices that cripple the democratic process – all for power. The Republican Party needs a 12 step plan. Decrying a candidate as despicable as Donald Trump doesn’t count. That’s easy. No, Republicans have created the self-serving, narrow party structure and either they change it or it will collapse or become irrelevant. I do not see acceptance nor recognition that they are at fault for what they have wrought and am not hopeful for their recovery.

  18. VJV says:

    I would love to see that map, but I think it represents more of a realistic best-case scenario for Clinton than the likeliest outcome. Remember September? People hate Trump, but people don’t like HRC, either. When Trump shuts his mouth for awhile, the race tends to tighten.

    The range of plausible outcomes for this election could broadly be divided into four buckets:

    1. Clinton landslide
    2. Clear Clinton victory
    3. Narrow Clinton victory
    4. Narrow Trump victory

    I think over the past several weeks the odds of 1 have declined substantially and the odds of 4 have declined somewhat. Basically, the range of possible outcomes has started to cluster around possibilities 2 and 3, though 1 and 4 remain on the table.

    Chris’s map basically represents possibility #1. It could certainly happen, but there needs to be a definitive and lasting swing in Clinton’s direction and the odds of that have diminished over time. By now, it’s kind of hard to imagine absent some sort of external push.

  19. Archetrix says:

    Confirmation of what Chris was saying last week when he told everybody freaking about the tightening race to “chill out”:


  20. Bobo Amerigo says:

    I wish this were talked about in the campaign:

    A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.

    “Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”

    In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”


    • RobA says:

      It’s good, really good. Unfortunately it’s a little long for TV , but it at least gives the media soundbites if they want to rebut Trump surrogates who make the rounds today refusing to admit that Pence was mind bogglingly untruthful.

    • Turtles Run says:

      “AIA appreciates the need to periodically review the state workers’ compensation system,” says AIA Vice President Bruce Wood. “However, changes and improvements to the workers’ comp system should be debated at the state level where whatever policy balance results, can be more readily fine-tuned as circumstances require.”

      When it is the states pushing for these decreases in coverage then NO that is not where the debate needs to be. States should be allowed latitude but time and time again we see states taking the opposite approach in fighting for the welfare of their citizens. States need to be controlled and forced to operate within certain boundaries because they are far to susceptible to extreme positions.

      • 1mime says:

        Unfortunately, this is one of those safety net programs that Republicans have targeted. You will find much more stringent guidelines and far fewer benefits in “red” states….No one objects to a confirmation process that eliminates abuse/fraud, but there are too many legitimate workplace injuries that are leaving people with out the support that workmen’s comp was designed for. Usually, reductions in benefits accompany “right to work” statutes….which again, don’t have to “fight” oneanother, but of course, they do.

    • 1mime says:

      I’ve given this subject (workmen’s comp laws/policies/procedures) more thought and think this would be an excellent initiative for Clinton to directly impact the needs of the working class. It’s something she could push for at the federal level, and even though “right to work” forces would probably lobby against it, it would be hard for the GOP to ignore this part of “their” base that basically has been ignored. This is when you wish you knew someone on the campaign team and could slip them a note (-;

  21. vikinghou says:

    It didn’t take the Clinton campaign long to produce this add about Pence’s cavalier treatment with the truth during last evening’s debate. Check out the new ad.


    • RobA says:

      Pence was def polished and prepared. He also looked the absolute epitome of the “career politician” archetype that Trumps campaign is built on destroying.

      Another example of the dissonance within the Trump campaign.

    • JeffAtWolfcreek says:

      Great ad and, I think, might explain some of the tactics used by Kaine. The irritating interruptions could be a way to get a couple dumb sound bytes from Pence. Like the ones used in the ad. They were obviously planning it because of the speed of getting the ad out.

      • 1mime says:

        Maybe, but I still think Kaine could have achieved his goal of Trump denial while making more of a reasonable presentation of his and Hillary’s plans.

  22. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    Man….Kaine is not good at this. Pence has a much harder job, almost an impossible job, but Pence is doing this much better than Kaine.

    Kaine is talking over the moderator when the moderator is helping him, and interrupting Pence way, way, way too much.

    He just can’t help himself from reacting too quickly.

    • rulezero says:

      Agreed. I’m not the most conservative guy in the world, but Kaine needs to be quiet. I can’t hear half of what Pence is saying because Kaine keeps interrupting and talking over him.

    • flypusher says:

      I caught some of it on the drive home. The moderator lost control of it. She heeded an air horn and a switch to kill interrupters’ mics.

      Yeah, Kaine was annoying with so many interruptions (and some repititious remarks about Trump liking Putin), but it didn’t escape my notice that Pence deflected every time he was asked how could he defend Trump. I also thought Kaine had a good retort for Pence complaining about the deplorable remark- he noted that Clinton apologized, but Trump hasn’t yet for any of his many insults.

      Still think the deplorable remark was accurate, just not politic.

      • 1mime says:

        Moderator didn’t help by losing control and format pushed both her and the debators making the discussion disjointed.

    • 1mime says:

      Pence won the debate on style but if you listened (and could hear!!!) he fudged with his answers about Trump statements. I did not like the 9 ten minute sessions – too disjointed. I also think Pence held the floor more than Kaine which contributed to Kaine’s nervous interruptions. The moderator didn’t do a good job of keeping the men to the questions or to their time line. I fault her for that, but all in all, Pence won (mainly for himself as a future presidential candidate….god help us given his narrow views).

      One of the pundits made a good point by pointing out that if Trump watched and learned from how “self-control” helps in a debate, or could see himself in Kaine’s interruptions, he will be more formidable in Sunday evening’s debate. I agree. This debate wore me out. I didn’t learn from it, like it, or feel Dems were helped by it. I think Republicans were.

    • RobA says:

      That was my first impression. Now I think he may have done more or less exactly what he set out to do.

      At the time of the debates, Pence seemed in command and poised. I.e. according to most shallow media metrics, he “won”. But today, mostly they’re talking about Pence bizarre creation of this alternate running mate, this Bizzaro Trump guy, who is wise, kind and knowledgeable who has never said any of those shitty things that the other Trump is on record as saying.

      Looks like Hillary just wanted Kaine to get Pence on record to deny these things, which they knew he would, so they could have materiel to create more ads with.

      That ad posted above is already being used on CNN, and the discussion seems much more about Pences easily disproved lies then the fact that he looked good saying them.

  23. RobA says:

    Man, bill Clinton needs to be behind the scenes.

    I understand his comments about Obamacare were meant that they have to do MORE, not less. But he’s been the worst of all her big name surrogates. He needs to offer moral support and that’s it.

  24. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    “There’s been no great wave of new white voters in PA, OH, WI or MI. Republicans have not consolidated around him. He’s shown no secret competence that he was hiding during the primaries. He’s toast.”

    Based on the numerous inexplicable events during this election, I choose to be optimistic but forever cautious and vigilant about the final outcome.

    Let’s just say I will be convinced Trump is “toast” when I see some burnt bread crumbs on the morning of November 9th.

  25. 1mime says:

    It is being said that Pence is going to “mop the floor” with Kaine…reason why? In debate practice, Scott Walker has played Kaine………….!!!!!

  26. 1mime says:

    O.T. but is Trump kingmaker in chief Chris Christie going to walk away from the Bridgegate trial? Yet another member of Trump’s inner circle who is having to defend himself…..

  27. Griffin says:

    Sorry to be looking even further out but do you think Cruz’s flip-flopping on Trump will hurt his chances of getting the nomination in 2020? On the other hand I don’t see any Establishment Republicans of note who would still be able to beat him. If Cruz is getting the nomination in 2020 than Dems will hold the White House for eight years, likely having the Senate for many of those years and gaining the Supreme Court while the GOP will be bleeding seats in the House except on off years. Unless they can hold the House the GOP is ready to become utterly irrelevant and implode on the national level at some point in the 2020’s.

    • goplifer says:

      He could have survived by opposing Trump at the convention or by knuckling under and kissing ass like everyone else. I don’t think he can survive having done both. He is rich in enemies and now he has destroyed his own greatest strength – his defiant brand. If Perry enters the race in 12, as it looks like he might do, Cruz is finished.

      • 1mime says:

        That’s interesting, Chris. I see Perry being a better Senator “fit” than POTUS candidate. Third times the charm? I just don’t think Perry has the grey matter upstairs to appeal…and, besides, the guy can’t dance!

      • Griffin says:

        So Perry failed in 2016 because fundies and Dixiecrats supported Cruz and with Cruz discredited Perry can soak up that support instead? Well I guess Rick Perry is an improvement over Cruz, albeit a very slight one. Although imagine if Steve King ran for the nomination, combining the religious fanaticism of Cruz with the explicit white nationalism of Trump. Now there’s a scary thought.

      • RobA says:

        Agreed. I thought he was playing the long game and I thought it was smart.

        I appreciate that he was under considerable pressure, but doing both cooked him. He looked weak. And in Donald Trump GOP, weakness is fatal.

      • RobA says:

        Mime, I think the social conservative archetype has no shot whatsoever in 2020, or ever, for that matter.

        2012 was the last plausible shot for these types. I doubt the GOP realizes it and I’m sure they’ll nominate a Cruz type, but by 2020, enough Boomers will have died (combined with millenials finally being a major voting bloc) so that a social conservative will be toasted.

        Ppl just don’t care about that stuff anynore. Or, more accurately, not ENOUGH ppl care to make it a winning strategy

      • @RobA: >] “Mime, I think the social conservative archetype has no shot whatsoever in 2020, or ever, for that matter.

        2012 was the last plausible shot for these types. I doubt the GOP realizes it and I’m sure they’ll nominate a Cruz type, but by 2020, enough Boomers will have died (combined with millenials finally being a major voting bloc) so that a social conservative will be toasted.

        Exactly, and it’s why pundits talking about Pence seemingly having his eye on 2020 comes across as blindingly stupid to me. So what if he does? A social conservative who sold his soul to align himself with Trump is supposed to be any kind of a challenge? President Clinton would throttle him.

      • 1mime says:

        Pence handled himself well in the debate last night. I don’t agree with his social or religious positions, and he seemed “feigned” to me in his debate style but it was effective in terms of furthering his own career. I don’t see how anyone with his beliefs in 4 years would be able to stand on that platform and win an increasingly diverse electorate but then I didn’t ever see Trump getting the nomination either. Remember, these people who voted for T are not going away. What we have to hope is that we’ll gain on him in raw votes with a more involved millennial population and the balance of voters who have had enough of moral austerity and fiscal privilege.

      • @1mime: I’m through guessing about who Republicans will nominate. One mishap with Trump was enough for me. Maybe it will be Pence in 2020? Who knows?

        To be sure though, a social conservative like Pence stands no chance in a general election. He’s the relative equivalent of a choir boy preaching tax cuts and a backwards social agenda that’s just’s not going to fly.

      • 1mime says:

        Like you, I don’t really care. Bring ’em on……

    • 1mime says:

      Despite our disappointment in Paul Ryan, I believe he will be the GOP nominee in 2020.

    • Republicans’ national relevance is already gone; someone needs to turn out the lights and plan a funeral already.

      As for when the House goes, that plan’s already in the works. President Clinton and a Democratic Senate’s first order of business will be flipping the Supreme Court, after which Democrats will file a suit against gerrymandering faster than you can blink, if they aren’t already planning one of their many suits against it making its way to the high court already.

      One way or the other, they’ll get a favorable ruling before 2020, and if Chris is right in that it’s going to be a Republican wipeout similar to what we’ll see in November, combined with the coming surge of Millennial and Hispanic voters (whom a Clinton White House will be consistently courting and registering to vote along the way), all of it’s going to coming down like a hammer to break the Republicans’ grip on the House and across state legislatures across the country.

      The only thing that can save Republicans is if the Democrats implode before then. Otherwise, hold your breath. 2016 ain’t gonna have nothing on 2020.

  28. WX Wall says:

    I’m a little less optimistic because I think they’ll be a “Wilder effect” (polls overestimating a black candidate by around 5% because people when asked say they support the black guy but then vote for the white guy instead). In this case, I suspect there are a lot of educated, white suburban voters who know they’re not “supposed” to be supporting trump so they say they support Johnson or that both candidates suck, etc. And then will secretly vote Trump.

    I still think hillary will win, but I’m guessing by only a few percent.

    The more fascinating story (for me 🙂 is what happens if Johnson clears 5%. They’ll be eligible for federal funding next election. Johnson is a clown but with the Feds kicking in $20 mil for the general election, the libertarians will likely attract a bunch of credible candidates. That will make for 3 serious parties in 2020…

    • Pedneuro says:

      Trust me, Trump supporters as they are, are pretty outspoken about their support. Even the white suburban male voters. What’s more likely to happen is that white suburban ‘women’ who while they may be saying Trump in fear of having an argument in their family, will actually secretly vote for Hillary in the booth.

      • 1mime says:

        Isn’t democracy wonderful? Saying you’re voting for one person but secretly voting for another because……….

  29. flypusher says:

    Chris, I see you predict AZ turning blue, which I suspect means high Hispanic voter turnout. So does McCain hold on in such a scenario??

    • goplifer says:

      He probably does win. McCain is far more popular in AZ than either Donald Trump or the Republican Party. He has a sizable lead in his race and I think that lead will hold up.

    • 1mime says:

      I sure hope increased Hispanic turnout will turn out Arpaio.

    • RobA says:

      It’s starting to appear that Trump will have less of a drag on down ballot then hoped. I guess it makes some sense. If you’re not comfortable with Hillary but can’t stomach Trump (probably a sizable number of ppl) you might want to vote GOP to keep her in line.

      I think there’s still a 50% chance or so Dems take the Senate, but it’s not quite as likely as it seemed a while ago. If they do, it’s mostly because of the large number of GOP seats up for grabs relative to Dem seats.

      • goplifer says:

        Dems need only 4 wins to take the Senate. Despite optimistic polling, under these wider conditions the GOP has a 0% chance of holding WI, IL, NH and PA. nada. No f’g way. None of those Senators distanced themselves enough from Trump to get out of his blast radius.

        Add to that NC, IN and MO and that’s probably where it ends up. Dems +7. At that rate the GOP could potentially retake the Senate in 2020, though there are a lot of if’s there.

      • 1mime says:

        4 + Clinton…..which I know you predict….What do you see for House pick up, Chris. I know the GOP will hold the House, but is there a threshold of Dem pick up that will make them more of a force, or will the loss of more GOP moderates simply strengthen the Freedom Caucus dominance?

      • Fair Economist says:

        The Republicans will take back the Senate in 2018 no matter what. The cohort up in 2016 is the Democratic “triple miracle” cohort, the result of three successive elections that broke very well for them (2000, 2006, and 2012). I think 25 of 33 are Democrats, and there will be a substantial advantage for the Republicans in a midterm with a Democratic President (let’s assume).

        The Democrats might get it back in 2020, although I’d bet against it with the way this election is going. Trump’s unfitness is having a big benefit for the Republicans; hundreds of millions in advertising smear money that would have gone to the Presidential race has gone to the competitive Senate races instead, and it’s having a significant effect.

      • It’s by far too early to be guessing about ’18, but if Dems only get +7 in November, you’re right. With the two Independents (Sanders and King) they have caucus with them, they’d only have 53 seats. Republicans would only have to win in Indiana, Missouri and N. Dakota and pick up one elsewhere in ’18 to win a narrow majority.

        That said, if Dems could hold on elsewhere, I’d say they win back the upper chamber in ’20.

    • Kenneth Devaney says:

      I saw this article today in The Guardian regarding a small and somewhat shy group of Arizona Republicans voting for Hillary. The Arizona Republic newspaper says they poll around 7% all registered Republicans voting for Hillary. Some of them are involved with Together For America. I just thought it was interesting watching folks trying to work through this election and stay true to the convictions.

      I also took a look at the Together For America Website. Maybe these are the kernels of a new party.



      and again, I am amazed at the level and detail of coverage by foreign newspapers of this US election.

      • 1mime says:

        Other countries have a lot at stake in who becomes POTUS, Kenneth. Like you, The Guardian has impressed me with their timely reporting and the depth and quality of their articles.

        In addition to the links you provided, I thought this was interesting. It focuses purely on millennials.


  30. flypusher says:

    The Trump campaign has made threats against the 1st & 4th Amendments, and now they are attacking the 6th:


    I hope this blows up in their faces. I get the outrage over people who commit horrid crimes, but to right to legal counsel should not be tossed aside. Everybody has that right. Even if you’ve been molesting children. Even if you park a bomb outside a Federal building and murder hundreds. Kaine and anyone else who represented criminal defendants do not deserve to be reviled for doing a Constitutional duty. These idiots should realize that if the worst of the worst can get a fair trial, that bodes well for them should they ever be accused (never say it can’t happen to you).

    • tuttabellamia says:

      This is what I fear most about a Trump presidency — that it could result in a major violation of our Constitutional rights — since he has come right out and discussed the possibility of doing so on more than one occasion.

      I keep hearing from Mr. Trump’s supporters that he MIGHT violate our rights, whereas Mrs. Clinton WILL violate them, and therefore he is the lesser of two evils. In other words, better the devil you don’t know than the devil you do know.

      I’m not buying it. His emotional instability leads me to believe he could try to pull any type of executive stunt on a whim, especially since he’s already implied that he might do it.

      Mrs. Clinton is not a saint, and I think she might have designs on the second amendment, but I think she would be easier to reason with.

      • RobA says:

        Those ppl are idiots though.

        What right, specifically, is Hillary supposed to violate?

        The 2A thing is absurd. Not only has she never said she wants to do away with it, but she’s actively said she WONT. She wants more restrictions, but that’s not “doing away with” it. There are already restrictions on the 2A. She just wants more, in line with most Americans.

      • >] I keep hearing from Mr. Trump’s supporters that he MIGHT violate our rights, whereas Mrs. Clinton WILL violate them, and therefore he is the lesser of two evils. In other words, better the devil you don’t know than the devil you do know.

        Pretty much the same argument Tracy gave a while back, to which I still ask what, exactly, is Clinton going to do with the 2nd Amendment? Yes, she’ll flip the Supreme Court and they may do something the 2008 Heller decision, but is anyone going to lose their shotguns or rifles? No.

        And let’s assume that things go smoothly and Democrats retake Congress in 2020. What’s the worst that’s going to happen? Clinton signs universal background checks, maybe initiates a gun buyback program and a few other things? Oh, the horror…

  31. Resident Alien says:

    Here’s my prediction. I’m less convinced than Chris that Missouri will turn blue. Having lived there, I found the rural and SW portion of the state to be very red. Not sure whether KC, St. Louis and Columbia will have a high enough turnout to counteract that. I think it will come down to what the suburbs do.

    • goplifer says:

      You might be right. Trump seems to be carrying enough weight with bigoted, older union voters to twist outcomes slightly. It looks like it might be worth an extra point or so in Ohio, Iowa, and MO. I don’t think it will be enough in OH or IA, but in MO it will be very close.

      The other wild card is that the Dem Senate candidate is polling well ahead of Clinton, which is a little odd. Tough to call.

      • >] “The other wild card is that the Dem Senate candidate is polling well ahead of Clinton, which is a little odd. Tough to call.

        True, but part of it may well be an unusually strong Democrat (who’s won statewide office in Missouri before) and a milquetoast Republican you could find pretty much anywhere.

        Also, aside from the presidential race, Kander may well have run the single best ad I’ve seen this entire cycle, and the million+ views it’s already gotten would seem to prove it.

      • Creigh says:

        No doubt it’s a successful ad and a poke in the eye of his opponent, but ffs, what does the ability to reassemble a rifle blindfolded have to do with being a Senator?

      • 1mime says:

        Kander’s ad accomplished: held your attention; proved his ‘recent’ military bona fides; demonstrated health/youth/freshness – appeal to millennials. He is an attorney and current SOS for MO. When running against Roy Blunt, who is 31 years older and has been in politics “forever”, this might be the year for a “newbie” whose family is well known (5 generations in MO)…Blunt is going to be hard to beat but I think we’ll be seeing more of him on the Democratic scene I suspect…

  32. A Non Mouse says:

    I have been thinking for a few months that Clinton would likely win by five points or so. That still seems like it might be in the cards, looking at current polling, but there are some small signs that point to her winning by ten to fifteen points, where you predict the race will end up.

    As you noted somewhere along the way, Trump’s inability to get much over 40% in the polls is a telling sign. Also, Google Consumer Surveys (one of the more accurate pollsters of the 2012 cycle) has shown an odd result: Clinton winning Kansas by 14 points. Google divides results into states based on IP geolocation, which puts network addresses that only have location specificity to the United States at large into Kansas, specifically a certain farm in Kansas, which has caused some problems for the owner:


    This has left me wondering if this result is representative of the national electoral result. It does square with your prediction. I can’t decide which way I think it will go.

  33. bubbabobcat says:

    I was in Louisiana when Grand Wizard David Duke won 55% of the White vote in the election for Governor and still lost by a comfortable margin to a corrupt convicted felon Democrat (Edwin Edwards). Though I was sweating it out.

    I’m hoping for a similar national outcome. As noted here already and by Chris, posters, and various media, it ain’t the old angry White voters who are undercounted in polls. They always show up to vote pre-Trump and still have land lines and all the usual hooks to show up in “standard” polls.

    And Florida is the key to Hillary’s 270 electoral vote threshold and per NYT article, Hispanic “bloc” is no longer monolithically predominantly Cuban, right wing, and Republican.

    Not expecting, but really hoping for a Hillary Electoral College landslide to send a message.

    • flypusher says:

      I totally loved some of the bumper stickers from that election: “Vote for the crook, it’s important!!” Also, although Duke is a total scumbag, he’s not as narcissistic and delusional as Trump is.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes, that’s what worried me then. Duke had “cleaned himself up” and started using coded “conservative” language and wearing a business suit rather than his usual inflammatory hate rhetoric and pointy white hoodie and was quite disciplined in his message and his “mainstream” presentation style. In many ways, much “smarter” than Trump but with the exact same message and support base with at the time, smart demographic targeting in the right state. He had already won a state senate seat in the White suburbs of New Orleans in Metairie. It was a big exhale in the end when he lost.

    • Stephen says:

      The Hispanic vote never was monolithic. Hispanics are a diverse group. Currently in Florida Porto Ricans are the largest part of that block and vote Democratic. Cuban younger voters are trending Democrat. And Trump breaking the Cuban embargo may turn older Cuban voters who vote Republican away from him and the Republican party. Younger voters ; northern transplants and our large Black population are voting more Democrat. I think Hillary will carry Florida.

    • 1mime says:

      I read Edwards biography by Leo Honeycutt and thoroughly enjoyed it. If you haven’t done so, it is a very interesting read. I haven’t seen it get less than 4 stars on any book review site.

      Since we’re traveling down memory lane and Edwards was mentioned, and since I’m bored out of my goard today, here’s a WAPO collection of some of him more memorable quotes. The man was a natural raconteur. Interesting point, during Jindal’s reign of terror as LA Governor, there was a poll asking which man voters preferred – Edwin Edwards or Jindall. Edwards beat him handily (-;


  34. 1mime says:

    I am more and more impressed with Megyn Kelly (FOX News). She is drilling down and she’s taking no prisoners. I’ll bet those who are scheduled for interviews with her are doing their homework because she certainly is doing hers – and she clearly doesn’t suffer “fools”.

    This interview was of Boris Epshteyn, one of Trump’s campaign advisors where she nails him on the Trump bankruptcy and his failure to release his tax returns.

    “GM is not running for president as a brilliant businessman,” Kelly shot back, noting that Hillary Clinton has used the tax returns as evidence that Trump made a “business model” of corporate excess and “puts his own interests ahead of the country.”

    Indeed, Megyn. Indeed. You think maybe Trump is “seeing red” coming out of wherever from Megyn Kelly’s reporting?

    • 1mime says:

      People are started to speak out about Trump’s rhetoric which clearly is not presidential……..He can think what he wants, say what he wants in private, but when he posts nasty tweets etc in public or to people who occupy a public space – he’s toast.

      If only these reporters et al had spoken up earlier – during the GOP primary….Is this the type of man anyone should want as POTUS?


      • tuttabellamia says:

        Another thing I don’t like about him, is, ironically, for someone who “tells it like it is,” he can be pretty vague when he speaks. For example, when complaining about what a newspaper said about him, he’ll say something like, “Freedom of the press, folks, freedom of the press.”

        Freedom of the press WHAT? What ABOUT freedom of the press? Is he threatening to “open up libel laws” again? Is he saying, oh well, we have to accept freedom of the press?

        Or, he’ll mention “the second amendment people,” which could be a group of people, or he could also be referring to “the second amendment, people,” with a comma after amendment, in others words, the amendment itself and addressing you “people.”

        He uses incomplete sentences and often throws out subjects with no verbs. The president of the United States should be a better speaker than that.

      • 1mime says:

        His obtuseness is deliberate, Tutta. It’s what an uninformed, con man does to avoid specificity. This way he can avoid being responsible for a specific comment and he also can “look” like he knows more than he does through generality. Trump is very superficial. He may be very knowledgeable about how to take advantage of tax laws but he is seriously devoid of expertise in all the areas that I want in my president – beginning with integrity, world affairs, domestic affairs, and more.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It’s like he’s intentionally vague, so that when the sends out a sinister message, he can always come back and say, “I didn’t say that,” which is technically true, even though he did imply it.

  35. RobA says:

    Another thing Chris, is that polls get weighted based on traditional turnout.

    So, for example, if a certain poll has HRC up say, 10 points in the raw data, but was heavy on, say, Hispanics or Millenials, those numbers will be weighted using that groups historical turnout.

    It’s the best system to get accurate polls, but it has one major weakness: it requires the turnout to look more or less like historical turnout. Obviously, they have to do it this way, because you can’t ASSUME groups that have never turned out before to start turning out. So maybe the polls that actually come out only have HRC say, a 5 point lead.

    But if Hispanics and Millenials turn out the way I think they will, the end result could significantly outperform the polls.

    Trump has much less upside in this case. His major constuency (older, angry white ppl) turns out high historically. There aren’t many baby boomers voting for the first time in 2016. It seems much more likely, given the dynamics of the campaign, that HRC voters will have historically high turnouts then Trumps.

    • 1mime says:

      Don’t you need to factor in the anticipated high turnout of the newly mobilized white blue collar voter who traditionally don’t turn out?

      • Funny, mime, but you know very well that Republicans have maxed themselves out with white voters. There is no secret bloc of Trump supporters waiting to swamp the polls in November. New registrations in Republican-leaning counties have been unremarkable in ’16 and the share of the white vote as a whole continues to decline.

      • 1mime says:

        No, I don’t know that, and in all respect, we won’t know that until the votes are tallied (-;

    • Perhaps, but all that’s really important in this election is control of the presidency and the Senate. As long as Democrats take those two, the Supreme Court is ours for a generation.

      • 1mime says:

        I don’t want the SC to be “ours” for a generation. I want a generation in which a balanced court can assess serious cases on the merits and not on partisan numbers. Because of that, I would hope Clinton will approve Garland who is a centrist – if she wins and if the Senate confirms.

      • That’s a luxury of principle we don’t have, mime. It’s either “ours” or it’s “theirs”. With the former, we have a more balanced, less activist Court that, yes, will assuredly hew more to the left on a lot of issues, but will be decidedly less conniving as Roberts has been in his systematic pursuit of issue after issue.

        If it’s “theirs”, you get a Court full of Alitos and Scalias that pursue their agenda with all the relentless fervor of a child tearing apart their presents on Christmas morning.

        Keep in mind that Democrats made a conscious decision to avoid the Supreme Court back when they pulled the lever on judicial nominations. Republicans could’ve taken the high road and given a perfectly qualified nominee, Judge Garland, the vote he deserves, but instead they’ve decided to turn the high court into a political tool and they have to pay the price. They started it and we’ll be the ones who finish it.

  36. RobA says:

    These numbers wouldn’t be taking into acct the tax bombshell either. That should be good for a few points too.

    Good to see Clinton hammering the most damaging part: the business losses, over the tax avoidance.

    • I’d hold off on popping the champagne over the “tax bombshell”. Media and pundits hype it, but it’s nothing that’s going to radically change people’s opinions one way or the other.

      • flypusher says:

        I see it as one more thing to get under Trump’s thin skin. That makes it quite valuable, and there are rumors that there’s more to be disclosed. I hope so. The more distracted and erratic and angry Trump is, the better.

      • 1mime says:

        There was an interesting discussion today on CNBC about Trump’s tax deal. It cut away to T explaining how bad things were when he lost so many properties….much “worse” than the Great Recession (for him). The panel didn’t seem to cut him a lot of slack on that basis except for Larry Kudlow (who is advising his campaign), who said that for those in commercial real estate, the early 90s were extremely difficult. Which begs the question – how did others manage to survive? Further, it seems that the tax code impacting real estate losses has not been changed in 30 years…Think it’s time to look at that? But I was intrigued that T is trying to do damage control because so many are reporting his tax issues as a knock on his business acumen. The fact that he was buying everything in sight was not discussed as contributory to his problems when the market turned down….a little better planning, caution, and humility might have helped him. Much discussion about the fact that without his returns, no one can tell how he utilized the tax code to help him recover…which he did by buying distressed properties in ’08 (which he gloats over) and trading on his name.

  37. Clinton and Democrats will steamroll to control of both the presidency and the Senate, no doubt, but I guess it just feels counterintuitive (not to pull a Gingrich, mind you) that a party would win the presidency by that much and yet still fail to take control of the House.

    Pooling the average of the last six or seven polls, Dems have a little more than a six-point advantage nationwide, probably not enough to take control. If they could manage a gain of two or three more points between now and November, things might change, but it’s honestly difficult, if not outright impossible, to see much of anything changing at this point.


  38. Hope Lifer is right!

    It all depends on who votes. i am driving people to the polls for all the early voting and election day. I have never done it before. I strongly suggest if anyone can you do. I know around where I live there are a ton of people who are determined to vote against Hillary. They hate Obama! He was born in Kenya you know!! And Hillary murdered Vince Foster and got away with it:-))!! Heard it on Fox!

  39. Fair Economist says:

    I certainly hope you’re right! I’m considerably less optimistic. Based on 2012 and the ground game differential, I think it’s reasonable to expect a swing of 2-3% to Clinton in the voting booth but I think polls should be taken seriously, and the race they show is close enough than even that swing wouldn’t produce your blowout. “Unskewing polls” is a trap.

    • Unskewers are partisan idiots, surely enough, but no one here’s doing anything like that. Back in ’12, RCP had President Obama and Romney virtually tied heading into November and Obama won by about four points. Right now, they have Clinton up by about four, so if we reasonably assume that she only gets about as much of a swing, then she should win by somewhere around eight points.

      That’s probably hedging conservatively. Trump has no ground operations or GOTV efforts. If you don’t believe that hurts him, then by extension you don’t believe that said efforts are worth much of anything to begin with, which is nonsense on its face. Even if it only costs him a single point, that still has Clinton within spitting distance of a double-digit win.

      This isn’t some partisan exercise, Economist. For pollsters good enough to provide their actual demographic samplings, you see a consistent pattern of Whites being oversampled and minorities being undersampled relative to their turnout in ’12. That’s not to say that they’re being partisan, but rather it’s probably like Chris has argued in that they’re simply hedging conservatively in an otherwise unpredictable environment to save face.

  40. 1mime says:

    What is Bill Clinton thinking?!! This is exactly what people are concerned about – what his role will be as First Man…He needs to shut the heck up before he blows this election for Hillary. She had better put him down now.

    “At a rally on Monday in Flint, Michigan, Clinton blasted the core principles of ObamaCare as unworkable as he pitched a new system that would allow people to buy into Medicare or Medicaid.”

    He goes on to pitch a whole new plan !!! Regardless of its merits, HE is not running for President. Geez…..This is outrageous. At Peres funeral last week, Bill delayed Air Force One by visiting too long on the tarmac…requiring Obama to urge him to board. This isn’t funny. It’s serious, and Hillary needs to put him in a box with a tight lid. If he won’t stay there, she needs to send him on a looong vacation.

    What an arrogant, self-serving person….This close to E-day and he pulls this!


  41. Turtles Run says:

    I see Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina swinging to Trump. His dealings in Cuba may tip Florida in Clinton’s favor plus her polling has been strong there.

    Per Real Clear Politics Trump is up in Ohio by 3.4 points. The map above has Clinton winning, obviously we have a disconnect somewhere.

    • vikinghou says:

      If you’re correct then it looks like PA will be a “must win” for Clinton. In any case I suspect things may get ugly there on Election Day.

  42. 1mime says:

    That’s a map I like….hope it ends up as you predict, especially for the Senate seats….Since today is Tuesday, the new “wikileaks dump” is predicted. It’s been a wild ride. I have to admit, I’ll believe it only when I see it (-; (ever the skeptic)

  43. flypusher says:

    “Clinton 52%
    Trump 39%
    Johnson 7%
    Stein 2%”

    I hope so. Trump’s cult will scream about rigged elections, but that will be the needed rebuke to the likes of Ryan and McConnell.

  44. Ken Rhodes says:

    Looking at your projections (map) I see several blue states that I think could go red, primarily because of a large number of “religious conservatives.”

    Georgia, as we know from many years experience, and North Carolina, as evidenced by their recent migration in that direction, have that potential. And a reason to think they might do that in spite of polling is that the citizens farthest to the extreme are also the ones most likely to cast their votes. I have less than full confidence that poll subjects who identify themselves as “likely voters” all have equal likelihood of showing up.

    Florida is a different case. We’re not surrounded be social extremists, but rather by old white retirees who believe with great fervor that all the Dems want to do is take away their hard-earned savings and turn the money over to the folks who haven’t earned it. In other parts of the country you’ll hear “I’m a Republican, but I can’t understand how we nominated that guy, and there’s no way I can vote for him.” Here though, among otherwise sensible retirees, I often hear “I’m a Republican, but I can’t understand how we nominated that guy. It doesn’t matter, though. He’s the Republican, so I have to vote for him.”

    • 1mime says:

      All those old, white people who moved to FL for retirement are finding themselves surrounded by more and more brown people, who are registering Democrat. It will probably take more time, but FL will turn blue and the white folks are just going to have to learn to live and let live…a lesson that is long overdue for this group.

    • Stephen says:

      Ken I find interesting your view. I am a Florida native old white guy not an import. In my youth my state and city culture was deep south. Many of us natives as the population shifted changed our view points. We are part of the emerging culture of Florida a cosmopolitan diverse tolerant culture. Because of that plus our excellent ports, roads and rails we are becoming the place for trade with our neighbors to the south. That will only accelerate the trend which includes Florida’s drift towards blue.

      • 1mime says:

        Stephen, you are an exception in all the best ways. You set a great example and work hard to be fair. Really, that’s all I ask for – not a lopsided Democratic Party, but pertinent, quality debate by responsible elected officials. I may not always like the outcome, but I can accept it if the debate has been fair and balanced…which it is not currently.

  45. vikinghou says:

    Wow, that looks mighty optimistic. I hope you’re correct. And I hope Democrats don’t get too optimistic and decide their vote isn’t so important. Voter turnout really concerns me. It seems the Trump voters are the most dedicated. And you’re right about being grateful it’s almost over!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 455 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: