FBI reviewing emails found on devices used by Weiner/Abedin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maledict said:
No she is not.

This ridiculous notion that Europe is a liberal paradise and that over here Hillary would be in our right wing parties is so divorced from reality in every way its embarressing, and makes us europeans just look stupid.

Hillary is in favour of universal health care.
She is in favour of higher taxes on the rich.
She is in favour of more welfare support to narrow the gap.
She is in favour of government intervention in the market place to narrow equality and to stimulate the economy.
She is a believer in regulation and government oversight.
She is in favour of taking action against climate change.
She is in favour of LGBT, womens and other social issues generally seen as left wing.

Is she far left? No. But to describe her as right wing by ANY country's definition is just plain balmy. She is not, nor has she ever been, "right wing" or "centre-right". Be it America, Britain, France or Sweden she is on the left.
Click to expand...

Those are empty statements.

- In countries with universal health care, are all parties of the right looking to abandon this? What's Hillaries position on the positions of private companies in health care and professional salaries?
- How high does she want to set the taxes on the rich? In her mind, what is rich and what is middle class? Aren't parties on the right in Europe looking to reduce taxes to percentages still much higher than Hillary proposes to raise them to?
- What level of welfare is she proposing? If she got her way, is that to higher or lower standards than are now customary in the EU?
- Does she want to institute as big a government as many EU countries have? (Public spending often half of total GDP)
- In fighting climate change, does she want to set as strong environmental laws as in Europe?

The socials issue is a bit more complex. In many northwestern countries LGBT and women's issues are issues of the 'right parties'. (in Germany for example the FDP is pro-gay marriage and is a party to the right of Merkels CDU which is a centrist/christian party with anti-gay positions.) Beyond that, Hillary has an extreme position in gun control (she doesn't want to ban guns, just some minor background checks) that would put her far to the right in Europe.
 
Nothing1016 said:
I wonder why everyone is infatuated with 538. I prefer Princeton honestly but I'd much rather look at the average. :P

NYT: 87%
538: 68.9%
HuffPost: 98%
PredictWise: 85%
Princeton Election Consortium: 99%
Daily Kos: 91%

Avg: 88.2% chance Hillary wins.
Click to expand...
538 just dropped again to 67.6%.

Florida flipped to red.
 
TheLaughingStock said:
Not saying she's a surrogate. All I'm saying is that Donald is not the shadiest or most powerful guy/gal running around. And apparently, Hillary prefers to associate with the kinds of business men and women you'd find at Goldman Sachs vs. a Trump hotel. These kinds of firms disproportionately go after minorities with fraud schemes, avoid taxes, and make a living operating at a level of corruption that Trump could never dream in a wide variety of markets that they're stakeholders in. These are the big fish felons that you don't want to be seen with similar to the mafia and drug traffickers. Particularly if you claim to care about African Americans, Latinos, poor whites, and so on that get hit hard. Heck, even guys like Don get fleeced routinely as part of the bread and butter when coming to the big shots for lending.

So I don't see why you would go for the generic GS surrogate given the disparity in scale of wrongdoing and how many lives they touch. Plus, the only thing a Lloyd Blankfein type is competent at is getting caught. I suppose reducing his or her firm's corresponding fine and avoiding prison time by settling out of court is a sign of impressive negotiating skills. But a lot of people can do that. Donald has done that and admits no wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have seen such amazing and ballsy spin for Trump. It's spin that would make The_donald proud.

Doing it with the avatar is just the cherry on top.
 
TheLaughingStock said:
Not saying she's a surrogate. All I'm saying is that Donald is not the shadiest or most powerful guy/gal running around. And apparently, Hillary prefers to associate with the kinds of business men and women you'd find at Goldman Sachs vs. a Trump hotel. These kinds of firms disproportionately go after minorities with fraud schemes, avoid taxes, and make a living operating at a level of corruption that Trump could never dream in a wide variety of markets that they're stakeholders in. These are the big fish felons that you don't want to be seen with similar to the mafia and drug traffickers. Particularly if you claim to care about African Americans, Latinos, poor whites, and so on that get hit hard. Heck, even guys like Don get fleeced routinely as part of the bread and butter when coming to the big shots for lending.

So I don't see why you would go for the generic GS surrogate given the disparity in scale of wrongdoing and how many lives they touch. Plus, the only thing a Lloyd Blankfein type is competent at is getting caught. I suppose reducing his or her firm's corresponding fine and avoiding prison time by settling out of court is a sign of impressive negotiating skills. But a lot of people can do that. Donald has done that and admits no wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Goldman Sachs doesn't go after minorities and poor whites. They target people with a lot of money to invest. What are you talking about?

And speaking of the mafia, Trump has mob ties. This post is just ridiculously ill informed.
 
Washington Post Story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...84dede-a134-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html

My summation:
- Comey knew in early October, but wanted more information regarding what may be on the device
- Was briefed on them 2 weeks later after reviewing/investigating what could be there,, decided the next step and pursue a warrant
- FBI believed they could do this privately for fears of it leaking, which would be volatile for the election and their investigation
- A meeting with DOJ was made to discuss findings/explain what would be done
- Comey sent a "circumspect" letter to Congress based only what his people believed were there
- EDIT: Comey believed he had to send the letter to Congress because he openly promised he would if new information should arise

I apologize if I missed anything important or misinterpreted something. But this article feels very straight forward and to the point.
 
CNN was just interviewing Comey's Lawyer who basically repeatedly said that Comey didn't know what was in the emails and that the letter makes it clear that he didn't know(pointed to the "maybe pertinent" bit in the letter).
 
Just saw 2 reports. Take with grain of salt atm

First that the FBI is 99% sure that at least 5 foreign powers hacked hillarys email server.

And second non duplicate emails of Clinton were found on weiners- huma''s laptop.
 
YourMaster said:
Those are empty statements.

- In countries with universal health care, are all parties of the right looking to abandon this? What's Hillaries position on the positions of private companies in health care and professional salaries?
- How high does she want to set the taxes on the rich? In her mind, what is rich and what is middle class? Aren't parties on the right in Europe looking to reduce taxes to percentages still much higher than Hillary proposes to raise them to?
- What level of welfare is she proposing? If she got her way, is that to higher or lower standards than are now customary in the EU?
- Does she want to institute as big a government as many EU countries have? (Public spending often half of total GDP)
- In fighting climate change, does she want to set as strong environmental laws as in Europe?

The socials issue is a bit more complex. In many northwestern countries LGBT and women's issues are issues of the 'right parties'. (in Germany for example the FDP is pro-gay marriage and is a party to the right of Merkels CDU which is a centrist/christian party with anti-gay positions.) Beyond that, Hillary has an extreme position in gun control (she doesn't want to ban guns, just some minor background checks) that would put her far to the right in Europe.
Click to expand...

Hillary's not running for office in Europe, she's running for office in the US. So what exactly is the point of trying to directly compare the policies of politicians who work in very different political environments? You think Obama or Hillary can snap their fingers and turn the US into your "European utopia" when they can't even get fucking background checks and the public option through? All these comparisons do is make you look like an navel-gazing douche IMO.

Oh and the reason why your right wing parties don't look to abandon universal healthcare is because those services have been normalised to the point where trying to take them away would create a huge public backlash against them. It's the same reason why Republicans stay the fuck away from Medicare.
 
Lenardo said:
Just saw 2 reports. Take with grain of salt atm

First that the FBI is 99% sure that at least 5 foreign powers hacked hillarys email server.

And second non duplicate emails of Clinton were found on weiners- huma''s laptop.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Considering your tag, I hate to ask, but where are these reports from?


LiquidSolid said:
Hillary's not running for office in Europe, she's running for office in the US. So what exactly is the point of trying to directly compare the policies of politicians who work in very different political environments? You think Obama or Hillary can snap their fingers and turn the US into your "European utopia" when they can't even get fucking background checks and the public option through? All these comparisons do is make you look like an navel-gazing douche IMO.

Oh and the reason why your right wing parties don't look to abandon universal healthcare is because those services have been normalised to the point where trying to take them away would create a huge public backlash against them. It's the same reason why Republicans stay the fuck away from Medicare.
Click to expand...

Tories have been underfunding NHS to a breaking point for years. They're definitely working on getting rid of universal healthcare.
 
I won't believe a damn word coming out of Fox News at this late in the game. The absolute garbage they were claiming about Obama in the final week of the campaign in 2008 was barely above slander.

Also, why the fuck would a random source say they're sure the server was hacked now when their report in July claimed there was no sign it was.
 
fantomena said:
I see your point, however, for what it's worth, in my country, that's normal conservatism. Even the somewhat right-wing party is for most of points there.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?

Progress Party
Its main declared goal is a strong reduction in taxes and government intervention. The party is today considered to be conservative liberal, but has sometimes been described as populist. [...] As of the late 2000s, the party has also been influenced by Thatcherism, particularly with Siv Jensen becoming party leader.
[...]
The party is strongly individualistic, wanting to reduce the power of the state and the public sector. It believes that the public sector should only be there to secure a minimum standard of living, and that individuals, businesses and organisations should take care of various tasks instead of the public sector, in most cases. The party also generally advocates the lowering of taxes, various duties, as well increased market economy.
[...]
The party believes that artists should be less dependent on public support, and instead be more dependent on making a living on what they create. The party believes that regular people should rather decide what good culture is, and demands that artists on public support should offer something the audience wants. It also wants to abolish the annual fee for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and privatise the company. Otherwise, the party wants to protect and secure Norwegian cultural heritage.
[...]
Generally, the party wants a stricter immigration policy, so that only those who are in need of protection according to the UN Refugee Convention are allowed to stay in Norway. In a speech in the 2007 election campaign, Siv Jensen claimed that the immigration policy was a failure because it let criminals stay in Norway, while throwing out people who worked hard and followed the law. The party claims the immigration and integration policy to be naïve.
[...]
The party wants to strongly reduce taxation in Norway, and says that the money Norwegians earn, is theirs to be kept. They want to remove inheritance tax and property tax.
Click to expand...

And that's your Christian Democratic Party:
In social policy the Christian Democratic Party generally have conservative opinions. On life issues, the party opposes euthanasia, and abortion, though it can support abortion in cases of rape or when the mother's life is at risk. The party supports accessibility to contraception as a way of lowering abortion rates. They also want to ban research on human fetuses, and have expressed skepticism for proposals to liberalize the biotechnology laws in Norway. Bondevik's second government made the biotechnology laws of Norway among the strictest in the World, with support from the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party, but in 2004 a case regarding a child with thalassemia brought this law under fire. On gay rights issues, the party supports possibilities for gay couples to live together, but opposes gay marriage and gay adoption rights. The party maintains neutrality on the issue of gay clergy, calling that an issue for the church.
Click to expand...

Those voters would feel right at home with the pre-2016 republican party.
 
If the US pulls of a Brexit I'm not sure the world can handle it. The economy will tank and most frighteningly, US citizens will have to live under the rule of a madman. With the greatest military force on earth at his hands.

This just makes me so incredibly sad. How is this clown even close to the white house.
 
MacBosse said:
If the US pulls of a Brexit I'm not sure the world can handle it. The economy will tank and most frighteningly, US citizens will have to live under the rule of a madman. With the greatest military force on earth at his hands.

This just makes me so incredibly sad. How is this clown even close to the white house.
Click to expand...

The Democrats were threatening to make America more democratic again. Republicans can't stand it.
 
Quadraphonic said:
Could be worse. Could be that Los Angeles Times poll that's been completely fucking wrong every day.
Click to expand...

We figured out whats so messed up with it. One AA person in Illinois represented like 30% of the AA vote in the tracking poll.

So the poll tipped wildly based on ONE person.
 
LiquidSolid said:
Hillary's not running for office in Europe, she's running for office in the US. So what exactly is the point of trying to directly compare the policies of politicians who work in very different political environments? You think Obama or Hillary can snap their fingers and turn the US into your "European utopia" when they can't even get fucking background checks and the public option through? All these comparisons do is make you look like an navel-gazing douche IMO.

Oh and the reason why your right wing parties don't look to abandon universal healthcare is because those services have been normalised to the point where trying to take them away would create a huge public backlash against them. It's the same reason why Republicans stay the fuck away from Medicare.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. She's a US candidate and the US as a whole has strong believe in both the free market and Christianity. She's clearly left of center in the US.

But I responded to people saying she would be considered left anywhere, which simply isn't true. That isn't a problem, every country has different political focus points. Likewise, it is - like you personally seem to imply - silly to just make teams and lumping all the 'right' parties together with all the 'left' parties and acting like one is good and the other is bad. Especially because there's also a different mix between 'Big government/small government' and 'socially progressive/conservative'. It is very shortsighted to say that all right parties are just waiting to terminate universal healthcare if only they would get support for that.
There's always a proper balance between what should be government mandated and what should be left to the market. (In the US the 'right' party wants to socialize defense for example), and some countries have the balance too far to either side. Beyond that, there's also the competence of the party, with parties that are either mostly idealistic or more evidence based. The latter being preferential, but that has no place on the left-right scale. Parties that refuse to act according to the facts right in front of them are a problem everywhere, but just because that in the US has their right party in that position they tend to project that on 'the right' in general.

TLDR: If somebody says Hillary would be considered a 'right wing' candidate by European standards, that doesn't mean that Europe is 'better'.
 
YourMaster said:
My point exactly. She's a US candidate and the US as a whole has strong believe in both the free market and Christianity. She's clearly left of center in the US.

But I responded to people saying she would be considered left anywhere, which simply isn't true. That isn't a problem, every country has different political focus points. Likewise, it is - like you personally seem to imply - silly to just make teams and lumping all the 'right' parties together with all the 'left' parties and acting like one is good and the other is bad. Especially because there's also a different mix between 'Big government/small government' and 'socially progressive/conservative'. It is very shortsighted to say that all right parties are just waiting to terminate universal healthcare if only they would get support for that.
There's always a proper balance between what should be government mandated and what should be left to the market. (In the US the 'right' party wants to socialize defense for example), and some countries have the balance too far to either side. Beyond that, there's also the competence of the party, with parties that are either mostly idealistic or more evidence based. The latter being preferential, but that has no place on the left-right scale. Parties that refuse to act according to the facts right in front of them are a problem everywhere, but just because that in the US has their right party in that position they tend to project that on 'the right' in general.

TLDR: If somebody says Hillary would be considered a 'right wing' candidate by European standards, that doesn't mean that Europe is 'better'.
Click to expand...

No, you still don't get it. What you're trying to do only works with ideologues because they're running on their beliefs, which probably aren't going to change no matter what environment they're in. Hillary isn't an ideologue, she's running on what she thinks she can realistically get done in the US. If she were in another country and another political environment, she'd be running on different policies and the same goes for most politicians.

Whether she'd go further left is up for debate but based on her record, I think she would.
 
LiquidSolid said:
No, you still don't get it. What you're trying to do only works with ideologues because they're running on their beliefs, which probably aren't going to change no matter what environment they're in. Hillary isn't an ideologue, she's running on what she thinks she can realistically get done in the US. If she were in another country and another political environment, she'd be running on different policies and the same goes for most politicians.

Whether she'd go further left is up for debate but based on her record, I think she would.
Click to expand...

Sure, if she'd run with policies further to the left she could be considered left by European standards. I was replying to people who'd found it ridiculous to call her policies right by European standards, which is perfectly possible.
I'd be happy to accept that she'd move more left if she'd run anywhere else, but I doubt she'd be EU-type socialist looking for 75% tax for rich people and a strong protectionist market.
 
YourMaster said:
Sure, if she'd run with policies further to the left she could be considered left by European standards. I was replying to people who'd found it ridiculous to call her policies right by European standards, which is perfectly possible.
I'd be happy to accept that she'd move more left if she'd run anywhere else, but I doubt she'd be EU-type socialist looking for 75% tax for rich people and a strong protectionist market.
Click to expand...

No-one said she's be a European socialist. But she would absolutely be in our left wing parties. Saying otherwise is literally just ignoring every objective fact about her issues and her voting record, *and* ignoring the fact that Jeremy Corbyn isn't the only left wing politician in Europe.

You're creating these absolutely ridiculous purity tests that don't match up to either how our own politics work in Europe, or to any generally accepted definition of left versus right.
 
Maledict said:
No-one said she's be a European socialist. But she would absolutely be in our left wing parties. Saying otherwise is literally just ignoring every objective fact about her issues and her voting record, *and* ignoring the fact that Jeremy Corbyn isn't the only left wing politician in Europe.

You're creating these absolutely ridiculous purity tests that don't match up to either how our own politics work in Europe, or to any generally accepted definition of left versus right.
Click to expand...

Come on now. I just had an entire post explaining being 'left' or 'right' doesn't make you any more or less pure. Political left is 'Communism, Socialism, etc' and Political right is 'Conservatism, classical liberalsm, etc'. But look here.

The democrats in America are still for low taxes, international trade, free market, etc. Thse are right wing policies. That's not a bad thing, I'd love a free market as much as the next guy.

But political classification is difficult, true. Personally I find the Political compass model easiest and most useful in discussing and comparing political parties internationally.
 
YourMaster said:
Come on now. I just had an entire post explaining being 'left' or 'right' doesn't make you any more or less pure. Political left is 'Communism, Socialism, etc' and Political right is 'Conservatism, classical liberalsm, etc'. But look here.

The democrats in America are still for low taxes, international trade, free market, etc. Thse are right wing policies. That's not a bad thing, I'd love a free market as much as the next guy.

But political classification is difficult, true. Personally I find the Political compass model easiest and most useful in discussing and comparing political parties internationally.
Click to expand...

The political compass model is junk. It's been used to demonstrate everything and everyone in various guises.

And the democratic party are campaigning, under Hillary Clinton, right now for higher taxes on the wealthy. It's not a theoretical point - it's their policy, she talked about it in the debate.

I also think that ascribing international trade as a right-wing policy is bizarre to be frank. Protectionism is not by any means a "left wing" policy - or is Donald Trump left wing and Hillary Clinton right wing?


I still go back to my fundamental point, which is you keep saying that the democrats would be a right wing party in Europe but you aren't actually backing this up with policy examples at all. At this stage it's just embarrassing for us Europeans because there's just no basis in it. It's exactly the same as how Corbyn followers refuse to accept that there might be a left wing in politics which doesn't directly follow everything he says. The left and right accommodate many different forms, and you can absolutely find politicians like Hillary Clinton in all our left wing parties.
 
Radio-Canada has an article saying that the Liberal Party of Canada used Hillary's visit in 2014 to raise funds for their party (organized the event, collected the funds) and Abedin sent them an email afterwards saying they were angry that money had been raised for a political party.

Le PLC aurait profité de la présence d'Hillary Clinton à Ottawa pour amasser de l'argent

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...u-hillary-clinton-financement-politique.shtml
 
Maledict said:
And the democratic party are campaigning, under Hillary Clinton, right now for higher taxes on the wealthy. It's not a theoretical point - it's their policy, she talked about it in the debate.

I also think that ascribing international trade as a right-wing policy is bizarre to be frank. Protectionism is not by any means a "left wing" policy - or is Donald Trump left wing and Hillary Clinton right wing?

I still go back to my fundamental point, which is you keep saying that the democrats would be a right wing party in Europe but you aren't actually backing this up with policy examples at all. At this stage it's just embarrassing for us Europeans because there's just no basis in it. It's exactly the same as how Corbyn followers refuse to accept that there might be a left wing in politics which doesn't directly follow everything he says. The left and right accommodate many different forms, and you can absolutely find politicians like Hillary Clinton in all our left wing parties.
Click to expand...

My last response as I feel I'm drawing this thread too far off topic,...

And yes, she's proposing to raise taxes. She's proposing them to be still lower than in most places in Europe. That's the whole point, her policies would move the US to the left. But not as far to the left Europe is.

And yes, Free market and free trade is right wing, State led production and Protectionism is left wing. Donald Trump is not a traditional candidate at all, a populist in many ways picking and choosing positions to get support.
But surely in principle it is possible for mostly right wing people to have some left wing positions and vice versa.

To your final point. Sure you could find people 'like her' in 'our' left wing parties, whatever that means. I'm saying it wouldn't be ridiculous AT ALL to categorize her as a right wing politician. She still wants low taxes - just not as low as the US has right now -, still wants a free market, open borders, hardly any gun control, etc. You just seem to think that being 'right' is like being evil, and as Hillary is not evil, she must be 'left'.
 
Member when I was called a conspiracy theorist for saying it was possible the DOJ was stonewalling the FBI?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/secret-recordings-fueled-fbi-feud-in-clinton-probe-1478135518

Ooooh. I member!

Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions. Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to “stand down,’’ a person familiar with the matter said.
Click to expand...

As prosecutors rebuffed their requests to proceed more overtly, those Justice Department officials became more annoyed that the investigators didn’t seem to understand or care about the instructions issued by their own bosses and prosecutors to act discreetly.

In subsequent conversations with the Justice Department, Mr. Capers told officials in Washington that the FBI agents on the case “won’t let it go,” these people said.

As a result of those complaints, these people said, a senior Justice Department official called the FBI deputy director, Mr. McCabe, on Aug. 12 to say the agents in New York seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions, these people said. The conversation was a tense one, they said, and at one point Mr. McCabe asked, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’’ The senior Justice Department official replied: ”Of course not.”
Click to expand...
 
I'm trying to be positive about the election even if Hillary Clinton wins by just a few points. But she's such an unbelievably unpopular candidate, I'm actually more concerned about 2020 election. Seriously. Did Democrats not consider how hated she is by people who don't read the New York Times? There's Obama hatred. And then there's Clinton hatred. At least Obama can bring people together sometimes by being cool and funny. Clinton struggles to even be my abuela.

This election has left me so .. over it. Please win Ohio and Florida, Clinton ! You have no idea how much Republicans are going to celebrate even if they lose the election because they were able to flip FL and OH. With DONALD TRUMP as their front runner.
 
Maledict said:
No she is not.

This ridiculous notion that Europe is a liberal paradise and that over here Hillary would be in our right wing parties is so divorced from reality in every way its embarressing, and makes us europeans just look stupid.

Hillary is in favour of universal health care.
She is in favour of higher taxes on the rich.
She is in favour of more welfare support to narrow the gap.
She is in favour of government intervention in the market place to narrow equality and to stimulate the economy.
She is a believer in regulation and government oversight.
She is in favour of taking action against climate change.
She is in favour of LGBT, womens and other social issues generally seen as left wing.

Is she far left? No. But to describe her as right wing by ANY country's definition is just plain balmy. She is not, nor has she ever been, "right wing" or "centre-right". Be it America, Britain, France or Sweden she is on the left.
Click to expand...

Hillary would absolutely 100% be part of the leading CDU party in germany, the centre-right party. That is the thing: With the exception of LGBT marriage, none of these points are considered "left" in germany. Universal healthcare, higher taxes on the rich than on the poor, welfare support, regulated markets, government oversight, climate change...the CDU does all of that, and they are a center-right party here. On the contrary: If you look at the actual leftist parties in germany, they would be considered dangerous communists hellbent on destroying the country in the US.

The republicans are the AfD, the Democrats the CDU with a little bit of SPD mixed in.
 
B-Dubs said:
Nice selective quoting. There's no indication that this is the bogus Foundation investigation that's predicated over the Breitbart book. You really managed to outdo yourself this time.
Click to expand...

So this is another Clinton Foundation invesitation from the FBI?
How many do you think they have?

Also no idea where breitbart came from. I'm talking about how I theorized Comey's announcement timing was due to DOJ stonewall.
 
Scandals within scandals within scandals. The Clintons are scandal machines. They surround themselves with shady people and cannot help themselves in doing shady things. Whatever she is planning on doing as president, she better get it done in the first 2 years.
 
diablos991 said:
So this is another Clinton Foundation invesitation from the FBI?
How many do you think they have?

Also no idea where breitbart came from. I'm talking about how I theorized Comey's announcement timing was due to DOJ stonewall.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I miswrote. This is the bogus investigation based on the bullshit breitbart book.
 
DragonSworne said:
Nate Silver is completely clueless this whole election cycle.
Click to expand...

I disagree. His explanation and reluctance to fall into the media driven rhetoric has always been refreshing to see as he doesn't embellish the polls to fit a story.

Also, I don't think it's fair to discount someone who has such a strong history of accuracy in the past versus other sources. All my own opinion of course, but I think Nate's one of more level headed guys in this election cycle.
 
The left/right distinction is loosing it's meaning in Europe, so any comparisions are meaingless.

The reason why right is growing so fast in EU is because they took over all the causes of the left and added anti-imigration to it. Bassicaly now the only thing that defines left policies that's different from right is "we want to flood our country with migrants".
 
I don't get people being mad at 538, it's not like they're changing anything, it's a system they have in place that's telling them the numbers, not that they're rigging it.
 
Meadows said:
I don't get people being mad at 538, it's not like they're changing anything, it's a system they have in place that's telling them the numbers, not that they're rigging it.
Click to expand...

Actually they added a whole bunch of new metrics this year, kind of in a panic reaction to the primaries.
 
teruterubozu said:
Actually they added a whole bunch of new metrics this year, kind of in a panic reaction to the primaries.
Click to expand...

There's also a larger number of 3rd-party/undecided voters for this late in the game, so the general uncertainty is much higher than it was in the past two cycles.

How you account for that uncertainty is the big difference between the electoral models. High undecideds exacerbates polling swings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LG G3 turning on devices?
8
1K
Hookshot replied
Possible signs of life found on k2-18b
News Science  2 3
108
5K
GeekyDad replied
Random: anyone know why I suddenly can't access my Apple tv subscription on my devices?
7
466
jorgejjvr replied
OpenAI Whistleblower found dead
15
2K
IntentionalPun replied
Gene Hackman and wife found dead, in their home
2 3 4 5
214
15K
Rentahamster replied
Top Bottom