User 463088
Banned
So Hillary must be feeling good about Arizona. They emailed my fiance personally to ask him for money.
I'm not allowed to give anymore
Except Roslin was complete unqualified and had no experience...
According to The NY Times, Trump is going to play up the stupid health conspiracy. I hope Clinton asks him about his sniffles.
Insane. Do you have a link to this?
T. R. Ramachandran @yottapoint
6) HRC was portrayed as a liar for saying she was allowed to use a personal email server & that there were no laws prohibiting it
T. R. Ramachandran @yottapoint
9) However, HRC was ACCURATE in saying that, back in 2009, she was in fact LEGALLY ALLOWED to do what she did http://electionado.com/canvas/1471731044335
T. R. Ramachandran @yottapoint
11) That HRCs arrangement was legally ALLOWED was also confirmed by the FBI - citing Bureau of Info Sec Mgmt http://electionado.com/canvas/1471731044335
Read the whole thing.12) IOW, the media, in their haste to indict HRC, ignored/downplayed what was legally allowed, to focus solely on opinion of State IG
It's part of this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/u...ll-clinton.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur
Mr. Trump’s aides are preparing him with a sharp escalation in attacks on Mrs. Clinton’s character and a focus on her health, according to a senior campaign adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
On Sunday, in a debate prep session at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., Mr. Trump sparred with Gov. Chris Christie, who informally played the role of Mrs. Clinton, according to a second senior adviser, who also requested anonymity to share details of internal campaign activities.
Mr. Christie helped sharpen Mr. Trump for his last debate performance, helping him to more aggressively and coherently attack Mrs. Clinton over her use of a private email server, the adviser said. This time, Mr. Trump’s advisers are preparing lines related to Mrs. Clinton’s health, which Mr. Trump has sought to make an issue of after her bout of pneumonia in September.
Like why? Of all things? This?
He's gone full Breitbart. He's still gotta play up to all those nutters so he can launch TrumpTV after he loses bigly. He's going to trot out every conspiracy you've ever heard of tomorrow - maybe even reptilians to give Alex Jones a boner.
Beyond the political differences, there are issues of sincerity and character for voters to consider. First, he reneged on his unequivocal pledge not to run for re-election for a position he once openly disdained but only after he lost his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to his nemesis, Donald Trump. Then he endorsed Mr. Trump, whom he called a con man during the campaign. And still at this late date, he continues to stand by that endorsement, even as the Republican candidate stumbles from gaffe to insult to outrage.
Mr. Trumps candidacy is a test of character, and Sen. Rubio is failing that test. How can voters believe hes sincere when he says he does not share Mr. Trumps awful views on Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, women, etc., yet at the same time stands by his endorsement of the New York billionaire? His act is unconvincing. It reeks of political convenience rather than political conviction.
There really isn't any plausible scenario where Hillary falls short of 270 (sans Utah) but wins Utah to get above it. Her vote share would have long collapsed in Utah if she ends up losing states like North Carolina and New Hampshire.
Except Roslin was complete unqualified and had no experience...
I agree, but really this is saying that Utah is meaningless to the outcome. Which is true. If one wishes to vote McMuffin in hopes of simply embarrassing Trump I think that's fine, with the caveat that I'd still wait and see what the situation looks like as we approach election day. It's just that people have argued for voting McMuffin on the basis that there's a strategic value to denying Trump electoral votes when there isn't. There are basically two categories of votes: Clinton and not-Clinton.
I do find it amusing that, of all people, McMuffin could very well be the first third-party candidate in 48 years to carry a state. Hardly anybody has heard of him, he's rarely discussed outside of places like PoliGAF (even the John Oliver segment on third-party candidates didn't even mention him), and yet he has a legit shot at pulling it off. Perot couldn't. Anderson couldn't. Nader couldn't. For all the attention they get, Stein and Johnson aren't close to doing it. But this guy might.
A vote for McMullin does nothing to help Hillary if Republicans have the majorities of states in the House. I feel like we keep talking about this and it's the same reasoning.
Yeah I think Trump would start some sort of media arm, and would try to run again in four years if Hillary. The goal would be to have a network solely dedicated to attacking Hillary and also other people in the Republican party, to prepare the field for 2020.
Is poligaf slacking or did I miss this? Miami Herald endorses...Murphy
Isn't he Mormon? That's why.
I don't think he wants to run again. It's not where the big bucks are and what's the point of elections are rigged? I think it's interesting that Trump might start a Good Ol' Boys Network while Fox News will be targeting the Megyn Kelly and Shep Smith Conservatives.Yeah I think Trump would start some sort of media arm, and would try to run again in four years if Hillary. The goal would be to have a network solely dedicated to attacking Hillary and also other people in the Republican party, to prepare the field for 2020.
Also, Trump performs exceptionally poorly among Mormons for a Republican candidate.
There is literally no scenario in which Hillary wins the election by the virtue of Utah's electoral votes. If she can't hit 270 without Utah, she's not hitting 270 period, and a vote for McMullin changes nothing. If she's competitive in Utah, it's because she's blowing Trump out on the National stage, so Utah's electoral votes are the difference between winning by 172 or 178. You guys are spending way too much effort worrying about a third-party spoiler in Utah while forgetting that Hillary has never, ever been projected to win those votes, and she's still safely past 270 in almost every scenario. If it were something like Florida then I could see the concern, but McMullin is not going to be responsible for no one winning a majority of the Electoral College.
Also, Trump performs exceptionally poorly among Mormons for a Republican candidate.
Oh yeah, they hate him.
She'll get her own showDo you guys think Trump TV will have like a daily segment dedicated to attack Rosie O'Donnell?
Do you guys think Trump TV will have like a daily segment dedicated to attack Rosie O'Donnell?
RE: Responses on the last page about McMullin in Utah...
I am certainly not voting for McMullin for any "strategic" reasons as one poster may have suggested. I have no hardline party affiliation. I recognize Utah's fairly inconsequential position in the electoral math, especially considering its history as a solid red state. (as well as Hillary's current standing in the polls, the electoral map in general, and her chances of winning) I also am drawn to a principled, conservative candidate that is distanced from the horrible baggage of the Republican party. (though there are, of course, a few areas I disagree with him on... this is politics after all) Finally, I do recognize that this is in many ways a "protest vote" however, this protest vote comes in a state that has the highest chance of going 3rd party in decades, with the opportunity to send a message, albeit likely and ultimately inconsequential, about the choices offered in this election and the future of many conservative principles that have been hijacked by a truly dangerous candidate. (this certainly won't be the last time we see McMullin, in my opinion) That opportunity is exciting to me, and is why I feel more comfortable putting my name behind a 3rd party candidate in Utah as opposed to another state in which their odds would be even longer. (or the chances of spoiling would be higher)
I would also love to see Utah go not-Red as a big middle finger to Trump.
At the end of the day, it's a choice I have put a lot of thought into over the past few weeks and is something that I am energized about something I was not expecting earlier in the year.
Yeah I think Trump would start some sort of media arm, and would try to run again in four years if Hillary. The goal would be to have a network solely dedicated to attacking Hillary and also other people in the Republican party, to prepare the field for 2020.
As a side note, the last presidential electoral vote cast for anybody other than the major party candidates for president was for John Ewards [sic].
Do you guys think Trump TV will have like a daily segment dedicated to attack Rosie O'Donnell?
Part of me still can't believe we're doing this debate tomorrow.
I don't see what new audience Trump tv opens up that Fox News doesn't reach. I mean maybe during the primaries there was tension but they've been shilling as hard as possible for Trump since he got the nomination.
He would have to secure a lot of talent and I don't know where he is getting the money to pull this off.
Part of me still can't believe we're doing this debate tomorrow.
Is poligaf slacking or did I miss this? Miami Herald endorses...Murphy
Okay, I respect this a lot then.
I'm still not entirely buying the idea Trump is going to show up to this thing. I won't believe it until he's out on the stage and answering questions.
The Senate model since the first debate is striking. Also, this is pre-Bayh +6 poll to be added.
Trump has invited Wayne Newton. I'm not sure who that is supposed to irritate.
Wang and God Nate aren't quite as optimistic unfortunately ... I'm trying not to pick and choose my models so I'm still kinda nervous about the senate
Trump has invited Wayne Newton. I'm not sure who that is supposed to irritate.
Trump has invited Wayne Newton. I'm not sure who that is supposed to irritate.
Hillary, you know what to do.
Engelbert Humperdinck.
Trump has invited Wayne Newton. I'm not sure who that is supposed to irritate.