87.2 for meWhat the feck? I've just checked in on 538.com three times now, and each time it has a completely different win percentage/margin for Clinton. First it was 90.9 like the image above shows, then it shifted to 88.2% now it's saying 86.6% and "last updated 11 hours ago"
Something fishy is going on there. I reckon Mr Assange is involved somewhere along the lines.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
So at least I arrested the slide!
Is it cycling through the cast type on you? @Charlie FoleyMadness, why is it different all the time?
87.2 for me now too.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first 3 sentences. And those only.
Think you're looking at different forecasts. There's the nowcast (result if election was held today), polls only (forecast for Nov 8 based only on polling) and polls plus (forecast that also uses other info, like economic data).What the feck? I've just checked in on 538.com three times now, and each time it has a completely different win percentage/margin for Clinton. First it was 90.9 like the image above shows, then it shifted to 88.2% now it's saying 86.6% and "last updated 11 hours ago"
Something fishy is going on there. I reckon Mr Assange is involved somewhere along the lines.
This is me reading the tweets in this thread.
Don't worry Don, it's constitutionally impossible.... unfortunately
Well it's just updated in the last 30 mins, but I was sure I was just looking at the nowcast. Thanks anyway, will keep an eye on it.
Why are wikileaks hell bent on Clinton and the DNC? If they really are proponents of transparency, shouldn't they be dumping whatever they have on Drumpf/GOP too?
Mmmmmmmmmmeltdown.
Maybe Trump brokered a deal with Assange for immunity or protection of some form.
The media are already working overtime on Trump whereas Hillary is being largely left alone. It's not like there isn't enough on Trump at the moment.
Its actually a good move for the sake of balance, with all the Trump revelations recently its easy to forget Hillary has her own skeletons.
Well one theory is that these charges against Assange, the ones that have him staying at the Ecuadorean Embassy are false and being driving by some powerful people/government in an attempt to bring him down. If it is the US Government behind it well who was part of the Government in power at the time? One Hillary Clinton and the DNC. So the theory goes it is a bit of revenge.
EDIT: I am not saying this is in any way true. It is just one thing I read someplace and should be taken with a grain of salt.
They can only leak what they have...
I'm firmly in the Hillary camp, however their accusations and Obama's treatment of whistleblowers left more than a stain on their reputation.
Assange has been living in his own world for quite some time now.
Changing the subject slightly, the lady on Fox just said "well the moon is everywhere all at once, you can see it from all over the world at the same time"
I suppose it's only 4000 years old too, the same as the Earth. Feck my life.
I suppose it's only 4000 years old too, the same as the Earth. Feck my life.
Naptime with Ben Carson needs to happen.
ABC have Clinton 4% ahead of Trump. And people think this election is over and Clinton has it won already.
In October 2012 Obama was 11%, up on Romney.
In October 2012 Obama was 11%, up on Romney.
I've never voted for a politician. But I have voted against the EU in several referendums. Me and the Irish government haven't always seen eye to eye.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shep-smith-fox-news-interview_us_5800f0d1e4b06e0475944919?
Wow! What an amazing article giving a fair bit of insight in to Fox and where it wants to be in the future. I guess the model it will likely follow would be Sky News seeing as James will likely be in control of the network. I've always liked Shep Smith too, he's a great journalist and always says it how it is, and he's respected and liked by so many people.
The article does however give a bit of credibility to Trump's TV/News channel venture because if Fox does go "fair and balanced" and it gets rid of people like Hannity, then there will be a gap in the market and the mock Trump TV channel clip above, might not actually be so far fetched.
The weirdest thing about this election is that there are apparently still a large number of undecided voters. Who are these people and what is wrong with them?
I'm fascinated by the idea of Trump TV and hope it happens, as it will take Fox off the table as a major TV network that spends its life doing the GOP's bidding. Hopefully Fox becomes a more moderate force in the equation and in the process pushes the Tea Party / Alt-Right nutters to Trump TV, which will only push the conservative movement further out of the mainstream in the lead up to future elections.
I've never voted for a politician. But I have voted against the EU in several referendums. Me and the Irish government haven't always seen eye to eye.
fair enough so
If you have ever been to America then it shouldnt be weird.
Stellar example of the progress under an 'establishment' type GOPer.
Hillary Clinton might be a shit sandwich, but the Republican Party from top to bottom is a YUGE steaming pile of horse manure mixed with acid. There's no equivalency here.
Holy shitball, Egg McMuffin is doing it!
I got a call from Hillary campaign asking me to volunteer in Nevada next weekend. Spending the weekend in Reno sounds alright to me. Washoe County is one of the most important districts so it's looking like a go for me.
Rip democrats.
I'm always surprised that people actively support Clinton. I completely understand it in terms of opposition to Trump, and the least worst voice (on social issues it's by a distance), but she's still absolutely terrible. The two worst candidates ever (and I thought Kerry and Bush were both crap).
The interesting thing is that Clinton's campaign have actively pushed Trump's legitimacy as a candidate since the start. They've done it because they know they can beat him, which is smart, but there's also something deplorable in that notion too. That the political landscape will shift to the right by virtue of helping to legitimise the most right wing fringe candidate available.
I honestly hate them both.
The interesting thing is that Clinton's campaign have actively pushed Trump's legitimacy as a candidate since the start. They've done it because they know they can beat him, which is smart, but there's also something deplorable in that notion too. That the political landscape will shift to the right by virtue of helping to legitimise the most right wing fringe candidate available.
I honestly hate them both.
Point out the issues that she's worse than W, Romney, McCain.
I understand the frustration, but this is exactly the kind of false equivalency that saw R gaining control and feck everything up last 6 years.
The one that I'm thinking about a lot lately is foreign policy. I've been reading a lot of material on her stances (re Russia, Syria, China), and they really aren't encouraging. But the only other option is a vile racist, and that's sad.
Also, I wouldn't seek to make equivalencies here. On social issues, the GOP is off the scale in terms of backwardness. I acknowledge that. It's the sole reason I can tolerate the notion of Clinton winning. But there's an element of "hope for the best" -- that she doesn't mean what she says -- when she speaks about upping tensions with Russia in Cold War terms.
This would be an awesome development.
W gave us Afghanistan and Iraq
McCain is a known hawk that enthusiastically supported every military adventure of the US.
Mitt 'Russia is the US biggest geographical foe' Romney
Clinton is bellicose, no doubt, but her focus has been on the often ridiculed 'pivot to Asia' ever since they first came into the WH (Beijing speech, normalization with Vietnam, increased navy presence in the region). She's a rational actor and while I think the Middle East will still be shit or get even worse under her rule, the global landscape will be more secure than if we put just about any GOPer in charge.
You already did that though by following the 'worst two candidates ever' rhetoric. I understand that not everyone have the time or patience to read up on US history (except for losers like me I guess), but that's demonstrably false.
And Clinton actively supported both. She later tried to distance herself from Iraq, but she was quite hawkish about it initially.
The only real plus (for me at least) when it comes to Clinton is that she does not advocate boots on the ground, which is always good. At the same time, she wants a no fly zone over Syria -- one that will risk genuine conflict with Russian forces.
Obama was present in both of those races, so on average, the candidates felt a hell of a lot better.
You're not the only person who has time or patience to read up on history. I'd imagine many people in this thread have done the same (I've done it for years academically). Most of the US history I've studied -- as in actual study -- pertains to social issues, but also quite a lot on foreign relations. Maybe it feels like they're the worst candidates ever because Clinton is just wholly uninspiring whilst the GOP has given us the most right wing alternative in decades.
No worries, they have the entire rest of the media for that sort of stuff.
- Status