Link
The Autumn Wind
Says the guy stanning for the candidate who barely gets any sleep by his own admission.
The Trump supporters we have are being especially disgusting in this thread. Not that it's too surprising.
-
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.
Clinton has pneumonia
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
The Trump supporters we have are being especially disgusting in this thread. Not that it's too surprising.
Nah, the campaign just injected all of those staffers with pneumonia to make you think that way!
With each post of yours, I learn a little more about the alternate universe you're living in.
BlastProcessing
Member
There has actually been some research that would suggest that you are close to the answer
Democracy for Realists:
Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government
Many voters seem to make instinctive moral snap judgements about a candidate and then, after the fact, they backfill in the reasons for their support.
Prodigal Son
Member
Seeing this all over Twitter too. Pretty funny. Delusional desperation.
Muppet of a Man
Member
I am ashamed at the carnival of stupid which American politics is / has become. Mostly fed by the 24 hour cable/internet news cycle and its propensity to enable echo chambers. The corporate elite really are fucking destroying this country with their divide and conquer tactics...those spineless fuckers.
Acerac
Banned
I dunno, I'm not sure I would want anyone who can get sick as my president. /s
Fair, but let's not pretend that losing ~5 points in the polls within a 3 week period isn't something to be concerned about.
And he should lose by more than Romney did. By a lot.
There's still time, hopefully he does.
Ugh. This is depressing. Thanks for ruining my lunch.
Team Alucard
Banned
Its not an alternate universe. Your memory is just bad.
Obama collapsed in polling following his disastrous performance in the first debate. Romney overtook him for the first (and only) time in aggregate polling in the week following Obama's stutter-fest. In 538's model in particular, Obama dropped from 320 projected EVs to 280 projected EVs in the polling cycle following the first debate. His chances of winning also fell from nearly 90% down to 60%.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/
Obviously he recovered afterwards, winning the final two debates, but his performance in the first debate clearly had a major negative impact on his numbers.
They are really shortsighted on this. It can have devastating results both on their industry and the country as a whole.
minor effort
Banned
Try to relax by thinking about it in a different way.
There are so many ways people are expecting Donald Trump to lose the debate based on things he might say or do within his control, because it speaks to who he is as a candidate. Whether it's his depths of ignorance or inexperience on domestic issues or foreign affairs, his "politically incorrect" (to put it mildly) attitudes, his untamed speaking style, his lack of fluency, his tendency to ramble on repeating the same sentence over and over. There's so many ways Donald Trump can lose this first debate.
Compared to that, when you say Hillary might pass out in the first debate, is that Hillary's possibility of losing the debate is based on something outside of her control.
In any case, I hope she recovers well. And if she doesn't, I'm sure the hospital would need to strap her to the bed with restraints to keep her from the debate.
whyamihere
Banned
I mean, it's not really something to be concerned about because clearly there was a lingering post-convention bounce from the Khan comments that have subsided to where we are before the convention. Look at that, this race actually might be super stable.
And yes, while he "should" lose more than Romney, a loss is a loss, and our hyper partisan electorate makes that close to impossible, so I don't know why we're obsessed with the idea that she should be winning by 20 points when such an event will not happen with a 2016 electorate.
Post convention bounces don't last for 4 weeks. She slipped, and part of the reason why was because Trump didn't open his mouth for a few weeks.
Again, as I've said in other threads, the EC map looks really bad for any Republican, least of all Trump. I understand that (and put a lot of money on Clinton), but there was clearly a trend for a while. If it continued, that could have been bad. Nothing more to it than that.
I remember that first debate quite well, actually. The only way a bad first debate performance almost costs you the election is if the election is held in between the first and second debates.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes they can! Especially since Trump fell over himself with the Khan comments which elongated the process. We're back to where we were pre-convention. "Falling ~5 points" isn't really that big of a deal because of where we where and the natural contours of the race.
If you're trying to make the argument that Trump is in a great spot because he's stalled out doing worse than Romney did in 2012 during his "best" 3 weeks, I don't know what else to say.
Did you even bother reading the second sentence, or were you hovering over reply after the first? There are plenty of publications that said the lead was stable and wasn't a bounce. You wish to think differently, that's on you.
If you don't know what else to say, please don't say anything else.
whyamihere
Banned
Lord Frieza
Member
I admit this is a good thing on his campaign's part, but anyone following his campaign can see this isn't really true. Trump is still doing a lot of the same shitty things as before, including having one of his xenophobic-driven rallies just a week ago, and continues to praise Putin, which has put even top GOP officials in a defensive stance. 'Old' Donald had his moments, too, such as seemingly-but-totally-obviously-not heartfelt video after the France terrorist attacks. But, in general, his campaign has really changed very little. It says a lot that the standard is so low that a very minor thing like this is somehow a sign his campaign is on any kind of track, despite being the disaster it's always been the rest of the time.
I mean, if you want to quote 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-post-convention-bump-is-holding-steady/
Even the graph they used in the article had her lead shrinking much sooner if it was simply a convention bounce.
Old Donald will resurface during the debates if she hits him hard enough. There's only so much you can change over a few months. But his speeches are tighter, and he's been staying quiet for the most part. Yeah, that's still below the standard that we set for most candidates, but for him he's practically been a new person.
whyamihere
Banned
Again, a lot of this has to do with the Khan comments, and the tweet admitting they probably called the bounce over too soon is from after that article was written. Nate is correct that she faded back to pre-convention numbers.
Lord Frieza
Member
This isn't true, I am afraid. I think people forget that Trump actually got a very large bump post-RNC, and then tanked to an epic degree post-DNC. Unless when you say pre-convention, you're referring to both conventions. Which yeah, we seem to be back to what the numbers were like pre-RNC, though I think Trump is still a little lower than he was then. I don't know, in a way I am with Maxim, I think it was more than just a bump for Hillary there. Trump tanked much harder, and that "bump" lasted way longer than any bump does (look at Trump's bump, for instance, and how it vanished very quickly). But I will say, I think it was naive to think that the numbers would always been that vast. I know some wanted to believe, but I knew once we got closer to election time more people would settle into their 'team.' Thankfully, there still seems to be more than enough people who aren't into teamplay.
They weren't the only publication that made such a statement. I'll find them and post them.
And it isn't exactly biting political commentary to point out that fucking up so badly is going to hurt his numbers. He didn't exactly have a lot of people on either side of the aisle agreeing with him when he took on the Khan family, and that damage lasted for over a month. Much longer than any convention bounce ever has.
It's easy to contort numbers to fit a narrative. One can say that it's the post-convention bounce normalizing, while someone else can say that he improved or she slipped. What does historical precedence say? Because historically speaking, bounces don't last more than a month.
excelsiorlef
Member
She's already dead they just won't announce it till after the election....
She'll be fine. Should be back in action by midweek.
whyamihere
Banned
I mean both conventions. And how could there be more than a bump there if we're right back to where we started before the conventions? And Trump's bump "vanished" because the DNC was the following week and was a much better convention.
Again, the combination of the largely excellent DNC plus the Khan family debacle contributed to Trump's numbers being driven down. We are now where we were before the RNC (more accurately, pre-Comey). Historically speaking, that's relatively normal, even if it took us a bit longer to get there. You're trying to make a mountain out of something that was probably inevitable.
They are assembling a team of experts on plug pulling.
You tell me!
She's fine, she canceled this weeks campaign stops to get some much needed rest.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Clinton prime is dead, but we have a body double now.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I mean, the term exists for a reason- It's a time period following a convention after which polling normalizes. Her lead lasted beyond that time period.
Just so we're all clear- At what point does polling fluctuation fall out of the post-convention bounce? Election Day? Do you see how easy it is to simply say 'Well, it took longer, but they're normalizing now!' when the bump has never lasted that long?
RumblingRosco
Member
Is there a source for the "midweek" part of your post? I guess I'm pretty impressed that doctor's can predict pneumonia recovery to the date practically.
whyamihere
Banned
Take it up with Nate Silver, then.
(Also, for the record, saying never when we have, maybe, less than a dozen cases of modern polling/conventions in history is a pretty small sample! And it's not like other things were happening at the time that could've kept Trump's numbers low!)
Muppet of a Man
Member
The problem is, that when you are a billionaire, there really aren't any consequences to ruining millions of people's lives, as the 2008 financial crisis has shown once again.
The way to solve this is changing the system itself, not counting on good behavior from the incumbents of power. These people need their money and power forcibly taken away if they keep doing what they are doing, which is legislative and political warfare via incessant lobbying/bribing/revolving doors and control of media.
Reform the capital gains tax, personal income tax, and corporate taxes to make them more progressive in nature, helping those with less resources/capital gain traction in the market (thereby increasing competitive forces present) and mitigating the wealth/power concentrating impact of those with more resources/capital. We should be exerting fiscal policy to move business entities to the middle, increasing competition of viable alternatives, rather than bolstering the startup/small business vs corporate behemoth dichotomy that exists today. Another way of preventing drastic polarization of wealth is to peg executive total compensation to a ratio with the average or median (whichever is lower) total compensation across all employees and contractors working for a company. These 2 things alone would restore a large, vibrant middle class and a strong safety net.
whyamihere
Banned
Bounces subside overtime and usually revert back to the mean. Whatever that reversion is to is a question. Nate Silver and others have stated that Clinton's bounce probably was declared "over" too quickly. I didn't realize this was a controversial statement.
It is if you look at his statistical models that he made comparing previous convention bounces.
And, the fact that he hasn't exactly been the best pundit this cycle.
You can loosely base in on the typical treatment of Mycoplasma pneumonia (the most common agent that causes 'walking pneumonia'), which is Azithromycin (Z-pack). If you've had a Z-pack before, you know how long a complete treatment is.
whyamihere
Banned
I mean, it's not really if you understand the context of the Khan statements, but we're going in circles I guess.
I'm not talking about the bounce reverting back to the mean, I understand that. What I meant was, I thought the predictive value (if there is such a thing) of a convention bounce is to indicate who is more likely to win, and not necessarily by what margin they'll win. So if Hillary and Trump come out of the conventions with Hillary +9, that doesn't mean she'll win in November by nine points, just that she's notably more likely to win. Is that completely wrong?
excelsiorlef
Member
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general...pects-to-be-back-on-campaign-trial-by-midweek
Local NY paper but written by the AP and quoting Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon.
Sir Alemeth
Member
Big deal.
I get sick all the time.
Fucking GOP.
I get sick all the time.
Fucking GOP.
Lord Frieza
Member
Yeah, honestly, I'm starting to get a tad confused about what's actually being argued.
Shit.
All the news feeds on my phone are going crazy with the DNC meeting to replace Clinton with Sanders, think pieces about Clinton's health now putting the chance of a win in doubt, etc.
I think I need to stop letting Google Now determine where my news comes from, because all this is pretty bullshit.
All the news feeds on my phone are going crazy with the DNC meeting to replace Clinton with Sanders, think pieces about Clinton's health now putting the chance of a win in doubt, etc.
I think I need to stop letting Google Now determine where my news comes from, because all this is pretty bullshit.
minor effort
Banned
Nothing's being argued, just insinuated.
The alt-right has been claiming for months that Clinton has Parkinson's/Alzheimers/brain damage without any evidence. Just a few clips of video when she (clearly intentionally) moved her body in a surprised or exaggerated motion.
Now that she's been caught on camera actually fainting and has been actually diagnosed with pneumonia they're rushing to get their "we were right all along"s in, when no, they weren't.
Now, BESIDE all of that alt-right mess, some are blaming Hillary for not having known she was going to collapse at a public event despite being diagnosed with "walking pneumonia", which has been described as a type of pneumonia in which sufferers are still able to carry on with their daily routine to a degree. But "she should have known better".
Hmm. This is a tough call.
I think withholding it is correct decision, but letting her go out in public is not.
How delusional do you have to be to think that Hillary would be replaced by Sanders instead of Kaine even in the improbable event she had to drop out?
Oh...
minor effort
Banned
Yeah, I'm not sure how that would work out for choosing Sanders if Clinton's health took a more serious turn.
Kaine's already on the ticket, is on board with the current platform, and would probably inherit the current Clinton campaign operation as-is without massive shakeups.
Sanders would probably immediately want to start replacing staff, revamping the platform, and moving away from a lot of the groundwork already in place for Clinton. With less than two months out it'd be nothing short of a disaster. I don't care how well he polls in hypotheticals.
The more I think about it, this is the classic problem people have with Clinton, and where the trust issues come from.
The usual quote is "the cover-up is worse than the crime". In Clinton's case I'd argue: the weirdness and secrecy is worse than the boring truth.
The boring truth is Clinton has pneumonia. Lots of humans get pneumonia, if anything it humanizes her. She has pneumonia, she'll get over it.
But instead she covers it up, tries to power-through, and then finally is forced to admit it only when it becomes a crisis.
I think Hillary especially has learned to be overly secretive, knowing absolutely everything that can be used against her, eventually will. But that means the public expects her to hide things, only to admit them when/if they elevate to a crisis, and that's not good.
The usual quote is "the cover-up is worse than the crime". In Clinton's case I'd argue: the weirdness and secrecy is worse than the boring truth.
The boring truth is Clinton has pneumonia. Lots of humans get pneumonia, if anything it humanizes her. She has pneumonia, she'll get over it.
But instead she covers it up, tries to power-through, and then finally is forced to admit it only when it becomes a crisis.
I think Hillary especially has learned to be overly secretive, knowing absolutely everything that can be used against her, eventually will. But that means the public expects her to hide things, only to admit them when/if they elevate to a crisis, and that's not good.
- Status