• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.

atr0cious

Member
Chuck Todd really is a joke. Just let a Trump surrogate spout BS for 5 minutes.
They all do, the trump surrogate will get chunks of time just whining about how unfair this is compared to Hillary, then they'll interrupt anyone else talking. All the while the host just looks on in a daze before thanking them and going to commercial. In the brief second before the ads hit, you can see how bullshit it is on everyone's face, from the angry disbelief of the Hillary surrogates to the half smirks from the trump surrogates.
 

Slayven

Member
I think i will skip the debate and just go to bed early. Rather be sadden and fearful in bitesize chunks instead of 3 hours
 
I missed this cross tab the other day... but that her trust deficit is below his is really astounding. Not sure if posted.
In the last NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, voters judged Donald Trump to be more honest than Hillary Clinton by a ten-point margin. It is a finding that boggles the mind. Americans deem Clinton less honest and trustworthy than a man who lies in public about opponents in both parties with a frequency and brazenness unsurpassed in national politics, who has broken precedent by refusing to disclose his tax returns, who routinely refused to pay contractors for services rendered, who abused a charitable foundation for personal and political gain, who once boasted in a best-selling book about his habit of lying, and who is currently facing trial for bilking thousands of victims in a massive fraud.

Clinton, as I have conceded, has done some bad things born of secrecy and paranoia. But those bad things have not merely tainted her image but defined it. The email story has utterly dominated the public’s impression of Clinton, who is the second-most-unpopular nominee of all time and whose shortcomings compare in the public mind with those of her grossly unqualified, authoritarian opponent.
The news media’s obsession with the emails has, without necessarily intending to do so, conveyed the impression that Clinton committed not just run-of-the-mill political scandals but extraordinary offenses of a historic scale.
it should go without saying that the comparison does not excuse Clinton’s very real failures of ethics and judgment. Yet the question is not whether Clinton’s ethics problems exist at all but whether they ought to separate her from normal politicians.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ion-of-hillary-clinton.html?mid=twitter_nymag

Why are you so dumb mureca.
 

Revolver

Member
Kellyanne has her work cut out this morning trying to spin the Flowers thing into a negative for Hillary. She claims the Clinton campaign were easily baited and how he got into their heads and was counter-punching. Really? She thinks her candidate throwing a sucker punch about an affair that happened decades ago in reaction to Cuban isn't the definition of being baited? Lame.
 

Hopfrog

Member
I missed this cross tab the other day... but that her trust deficit is below his is really astounding. Not sure if posted.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ion-of-hillary-clinton.html?mid=twitter_nymag

Why are you so dumb mureca.

It does beggar belief. 20+ years of right-wing anti-Clinton screeds, combined with her own failings at certain moments, have some seeing her as more untrustworthy than a man who has built his entire career on obfuscation and out-and-out falsehoods.
 
Meh, really like Lovett but who cares about their attitude if they're model is supportable. I find Cohn's arguments more convincing, although the closer we get to Nov the 538 model makes more sense to me in terms of their appreciation for how many undecideds there are (which we see reflected in all the noise lately).

I think there's value in both the Upshot and 538 models.

Many folks like Lovett whining are just lashing out against 538 because the model challenges their feelings about uncertainty and bias for who they want to win. And Nate is just tired of the charade he has to put on for the gullible and ignorant with stats.
 
I think we're basket fulls of incorrigibles, to be fair. :p .

Did someone say basket full of corgis?
puppy_basket__large.jpg
 

Dany

Banned
I legitimately had a dream about the debate. Like Hillary and Trump were in one of my college classrooms and students were asking questions.

All the questions were fucking dumb. Like, at one point a student asked the candidates if they think Prof. Karver should receive tenure. Clinton gave an eloquent answer while trump said "if thats what the board thinks then yes" and the student lost her shit and security had to take her out. Someone asked about the new iphones and their thoughts on it.

What a nightmare
 
She needs to get an ad with Bams, Biden, Warren and Bernie with that CNN black background with moving light where they say "vote for her or else."

There it is positive while still being a negative ad.
 
Diablos has requested we stop using him as a verb, I think we should respect that. Especially since it seems like every third poster is freaking out.

My only worry at this point is some debate surprise, intentional or not. I presume Hillary will win bigly with undecideds.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
This ad sucks

Yeah, not a fan. Tells of nothing of Hillary's policies. Her untrustworthy levels are gigantic. Start showing why she can be trustworthy.

Cannot wait for Obama and Biden to get out there and start campaigning frequently.
 
It seems that pollsters in general have been pretty bad at capturing the Latino vote in many states, CO included. Which isn't just a 16 problem, it was a problem in 12 and 08.

Like, the demographics aren't really there for Trump to win Colorado. If it was getting closer, they'd reserve ad time. They haven't (their PAC said they might) so there's probably a reason their team doesn't feel the need to spend there.
 
Ok yeah I don't know who that ad is supposed to convince. The one with the daughters I think is much more effective. People don't give a shit about his Russian ties
 
It seems that pollsters in general have been pretty bad at capturing the Latino vote in many states, CO included. Which isn't just a 16 problem, it was a problem in 12 and 08.

Like, the demographics aren't really there for Trump to win Colorado. If it was getting closer, they'd reserve ad time. They haven't (their PAC said they might) so there's probably a reason their team doesn't feel the need to spend there.
YouGov also had Colorado a 1-point race in their last poll too, it's not like this is anything new.

It might be nice if Clinton goes back on the air there but eh.
 

Emarv

Member
I'm so glad I'm working tomorrow. Otherwise I'd be glued to listening to Wolf talk all day about nonsense and I don't have time for that.

Soon as I get off work though, I'm gonna have beer and like 4 screens open in front of me all night. One dedicated to GAF, one to twitter and one to Jon Lovett's twitter feed directly.
 

BSsBrolly

Banned
So, how does Hillary counter all the guaranteed BS that will be spewed by Trump? I'm not talking about policy BS. I'm talking about the inevitable Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, email, BS. You know Trump will be mixing in every manufactured scandal he can in an attempt to avoid talking policy.

Edit: in regards to Monday nights debate.
 
YouGov also had Colorado a 1-point race in their last poll too, it's not like this is anything new.

It might be nice if Clinton goes back on the air there but eh.

Yeah, and that was when everyone else was showing her up big. We'll see what happens the next few weeks, but my guess is that they never go back on the air there.

But if she goes back on the air in Colorado, we will just complain about the ads.

Probably. I'm not that big of a fan of her new one, but her last couple have been solid.
 
I wish I had saved to tweet, but one of stats guys (or one of the journalists, idk) retweeted a stats guy pointing out that when Clinton wins in November this will, at least statistically, be one of the most uneventful races in history. As in all the polling and expectations have had Hillary winning for months and then... she does.

So basically you're all crazy. Of course people are worried about polls like a day before the fascist Cheeto gets destroyed in live TV. It's the same thing that happened pre-DNC.
 
I wish I had saved to tweet, but one of stats guys (or one of the journalists, idk) retweeted a stats guy pointing out that when Clinton wins in November this will, at least statistically, be one of the most uneventful races in history. As in all the polling and expectations have had Hillary winning for months and then... she does.

So basically you're all crazy. Of course people are worried about polls like a day before the fascist Cheeto gets destroyed in live TV. It's the same thing that happened pre-DNC.

Stuart Stevens guessed that when this was over, we'd eventually see that Clinton campaign's analytics team had the race basically unchanged since August.
 
I'm gonna guess that the entire strategy would be different.

Like what? More media presence?

In that ABC/Wapo, people view Trump as more honest and trustworthy by 9 points.

Ans she has a "don't give a fuck about being perceived as honest", all her ads are about attacking Trump.
 

PBY

Banned
Her trustworthiness is a lost cause.

It doesn't matter anyways, she just gotta get back on the trail after the debates.
 

Boke1879

Member
But if she goes back on the air in Colorado, we will just complain about the ads.

That ad isn't great but we're at a point in these threads where shit we don't like gets amplified 10 fold.

Look at the two ads where it showed her giving speeches throughout her life on issues.

Or the ad about the "daughters" which was negative on Trump but also showed we do care about our young girls. Or the one with the disabled girl hitting trump but showing that our disabled are just as important as anyone else.
 

Bowdz

Member
Like what? More media presence?

In that ABC/Wapo, people view Trump as more honest and trustworthy by 9 points.

Ans she has a "don't give a fuck about being perceived as honest", all her ads are about attacking Trump.

What irks me is that the period of time in which she had the biggest lead in this race (right after the DNC), she ironically spent the least amount of time attacking Trump. Maybe the campaign should take the hint.
 
So, how does Hillary counter all the guaranteed BS that will be spewed by Trump? I'm not talking about policy BS. I'm talking about the inevitable Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, email, BS. You know Trump will be mixing in every manufactured scandal he can in an attempt to avoid talking policy.

Edit: in regards to Monday nights debate.

No one cares about that coming from Trump and none of it will look good coming from him anyway.

She'll need to deal with an emails question from the moderator though, probably.
 
What irks me is that the period of time in which she had the biggest lead in this race (right after the RNC), she ironically spent the least amount of time attacking Trump. Maybe the campaign should take the hint.

Yeah I think people got the message that Trump is scum, so move on to a positive message?

They're doing nothing to improve her honesty perception.
 

royalan

Member
So, how does Hillary counter all the guaranteed BS that will be spewed by Trump? I'm not talking about policy BS. I'm talking about the inevitable Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, email, BS. You know Trump will be mixing in every manufactured scandal he can in an attempt to avoid talking policy.

Edit: in regards to Monday nights debate.

It's tricky, I think.

Because the one thing that frustrates a child in the middle of a tantrum the most is when their tantrum gets ignored. Trump is a tantrum prone piglet, and is most definitely going to be doing everything he possibly can to get her down in the mud with him, because that ONLY hurts her at this point (Trump lives in the mud, he doesn't get penalized for it like she does). So she needs to ignore and deflect most of his attacks. If she spends the debate fact-checking him or attacking him, she only hurts herself.

But she can't look like she's running away from him. She needs to size Trump up early in the debate, see which Trump she's getting, then pick her spots based on some sort of theme, then stick to strategy and ignore everything else.

Also, now would be the time to do away with that Coddle Republicans strategy she has been employing. She's gotten all the Republican support she's going to get out of that, and if she goes on that stage concerned about poor Republican fee-fees, she'll be falling into the same trap all of Trump's primary opponents did: not attacking Trump aggressively because they didn't want to alienate his support. Hillary needs to stay out of the mud, but when she does throw a bomb (and she'll have to throw a few), make them nuclear. Torch the whole fucking party
 

HylianTom

Banned
I wish I had saved to tweet, but one of stats guys (or one of the journalists, idk) retweeted a stats guy pointing out that when Clinton wins in November this will, at least statistically, be one of the most uneventful races in history. As in all the polling and expectations have had Hillary winning for months and then... she does.

So basically you're all crazy. Of course people are worried about polls like a day before the fascist Cheeto gets destroyed in live TV. It's the same thing that happened pre-DNC.

It was Matt Yglesias:

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias
If you focus on the polls, historians may look back on 2016 as one of the least-dramatic elections of all time.

And then Wang quoted him and said he was correct. And then he added this regarding Silver's claim that 2016 is particularly volatile:
As far as I am aware, Silver is factually incorrect. Standard deviation of Clinton-v-Trump national margin is 2.2%, lowest ever since 1952.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom