Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[Pookie]

I'm glad you finally seem to realize I was right about the USC/LA Times poll being a likely voter poll, and also that it's impossible, at this point, to evaluate it for accuracy, as I previously explained.

I never said it wasn't. Here is my earlier post (emphasis added) ...

I'm not so sure that's accurate:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html

Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that... (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?

It appears they try to discern who likely voters are from a group of "3000 U.S. citizens" by asking the percent chance they will vote from the subset of 400 they call each day.

Asking the percent chance someone will vote is a rather novel approach for determining likely voters. Typically, polls who's methodology has been validated ask a series of nominal and/or interval questions to develop a profile in order to make that "likely voter" determination instead. The latter method would tend to weed out someone giving a false percentage to avoid telling the surveyor something that might seem embarrassing. That plays into the whole validity issue of this poll. I suspect it's part of the reason Nate Silver's adjustments results in such a large change in the Clinton lead, and more closely mirrors other polls during roughly the same time period.

 

[about_average]

Well that make a her SOOOOOOOOO much better!!!

Oh look someone else called Clinton a warhawk, better go defend the American Angels honor !!!

I didn't say it made her better. Though I guess, if comes down to it I'd rather have a president actually choose who to go to war with rather than accidentally start a war.
Not that that made much difference in Iraq.

 

[toubab]

I never said it wasn't. Here is my earlier post (emphasis added) ...



Asking the percent chance someone will vote is a rather novel approach for determining likely voters. Typically, polls who's methodology has been validated ask a series of nominal and/or interval questions to develop a profile in order to make that "likely voter" determination instead. The latter method would tend to weed out someone giving a false percentage to avoid telling the surveyor something that might seem embarrassing. That plays into the whole validity issue of this poll. I suspect it's part of the reason Nate Silver's adjustments results in such a large change in the Clinton lead, and more closely mirrors other polls during roughly the same time period.

You didn't say it wasn't, but when I said the USC/LA Times poll is a likely voter poll, you said you weren't so sure about that, casting doubt on my opinion. Apparently you are now sure I was right, since Nate Silver says so.

I see no basis for Silver saying this current poll is off by four percentage points. He may be right, but he also could be wrong. It appears to be a guess, so far as I can tell. The RAND poll done in 2012, done by the same people, using the same methodology, was more accurate than that. Why this iteration of the poll would be considerably more inaccurate is a mystery to me.

 

[Adre]

You're probably right. Clinton has this in the bag. It would probably just as well that you to go ahead and skip voting, sit home, and start gloating early.

Amusing, but I think I'll vote and then gloat.

 

[sr71plt]

Amusing, but I think I'll vote and then gloat.

Or, at least, breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[Pookie]

You didn't say it wasn't, but when I said the USC/LA Times poll is a likely voter poll, you said you weren't so sure about that, casting doubt on my opinion. Apparently you are now sure I was right, since Nate Silver says so.

I see no basis for Silver saying this current poll is off by four percentage points. He may be right, but he also could be wrong. It appears to be a guess, so far as I can tell. The RAND poll done in 2012, done by the same people, using the same methodology, was more accurate than that. Why this iteration of the poll would be considerably more inaccurate is a mystery to me.

No, I said I'm not sure that's accurate. It is an attempt at a likely voters poll, Until the methodology has been validated, it will be treated as such - a discounted likely voters poll.

As for your not seeing a basis for Nate Silver saying something ... LOL.

 

[Adre]

Anyone else seen the Trump/Letterman commercial about who makes his clothing? Funny stuff.

 

[sr71plt]

Anyone else seen the Trump/Letterman commercial about who makes his clothing? Funny stuff.

It's saturating TV land. Trump's supporters are going to have to turn off their TV sets to avoid seeing it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I didn't say it made her better. Though I guess, if comes down to it I'd rather have a president actually choose who to go to war with rather than accidentally start a war.
Not that that made much difference in Iraq.

You're right you didn't say that.

Sorry must be all that super defensive of Clinton posting you've been doing.

I don't think it really matters either, there will be more war.

Just like there will be less opportunity as it is legislated away bit by bit in the name of 'regulation' because regulating for the sake of regulation just to fuck with people is ALWAYS a good thing.

And the wealth inequality gap will continue to grow faster and bigger.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're right you didn't say that.

Sorry must be all that super defensive of Clinton posting you've been doing.

I don't think it really matters either, there will be more war.

Just like there will be less opportunity as it is legislated away bit by bit in the name of 'regulation' because regulating for the sake of regulation just to fuck with people is ALWAYS a good thing.

And the wealth inequality gap will continue to grow faster and bigger.

You know what? Barring something unforeseen I'm willing to state that at best one part of this is correct and the rest is just hissy fit nonsense. And that is perhaps more opportunity will be legislated away than is legislated in.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You know what? Barring something unforeseen I'm willing to state that at best one part of this is correct.

Well considering wealth inequality has grown and we've been at war somewhere pretty much my entire life..........

What makes you think either of the money grubbing warhawks jockeying for office right now is going to shatter that trend and become the greatest American POTUS of all fucking time???

If they did that would be awesome, but I just don't see it in either one of them.

and the rest is just hissy fit nonsense.

How so?

And that is perhaps more opportunity will be legislated away than is legislated in.

That is directly connected to the wealth inequality.....if that's happening more rich people are getting richer and fuck those not cool enough to get that coveted licence/permit from the state.

And war? This is the USA it's almost a given....even an openly anti war Obama, Mr. "You can take that to the bank!" couldn't help himself. War war war...money money money.

That machine ain't stopping till it totally shits the bed.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You said the rate would accelerate. I see no reason to think that. It will grow but that's just life in a capitalist society. Hillary is highly likely to increase the minimum wage. All but gauranteed if she gets 8 years. That's more a matter of how much and when, not if.

Actually we pretty much made it through the 90s just fine. We had a large exercise in Iraq for a few weeks and then called it. Obama has managed to wind wind the wars down and we seem reluctant to start anything. I have no real reason to believe either of them would change that barring something crazy.

For all the shit we like to give Obama he actually did a pretty good job on that front. And Bush was winding down on his own truth be told.

No, the over regulation is really a separate issue and one that has to be addressed on a point by point basis but nobody will.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You said the rate would accelerate. I see no reason to think that.

But from everything I've read it's been growing bigger and faster (wealth inequality) for nearly 15 years. Include stagnation and the vast majority of American's haven't had a raise in over 20 years.

I see no reason Clinton or Trump would do anything about it. They both live in that bubble where that shit just ain't their problem outside the campaign trail. They wear more in clothes than what the average american makes in 6 months BEFORE taxes. The only people they give a shit about are their mega bucks buddies who live in the same bubble they do.

It will grow but that's just life in a capitalist society.

We live in a capitalist society like N. Koreans live in a democratic republic.

That's the label but rather far from the reality.

Hillary is highly likely to increase the minimum wage. All but gauranteed if she gets 8 years. That's more a matter of how much and when, not if.

That will get some cheese on the working class's whoppers for about 4 months.

A bandaid over a gaping wound that will 'help' for what amounts to the blink of an eye get +0.01 ups. Because it's ignoring the larger issues that have made 15/hr not even close to what the working class needs in order to no be living in our current definition of poverty.

Actually we pretty much made it through the 90s just fine. We had a large exercise in Iraq for a few weeks and then called it. Obama has managed to wind wind the wars down and we seem reluctant to start anything. I have no real reason to believe either of them would change that barring something crazy.

Toss in Africa, S. America, Bosnia and the 90's are a whole lot less peaceful looking....true not actual wars but then again neither was Vietnam.

The US military, Team America World Police, is pretty much ALWAYS fucking with someone somewhere.

For all the shit we like to give Obama he actually did a pretty good job on that front. And Bush was winding down on his own truth be told.

He did get it to a dull roar. 1 ups for O on that one...not quite in the bank like he promised but I'll give him a point for that.

No, the over regulation is really a separate issue and one that has to be addressed on a point by point basis but nobody will.

It is a separate issue but it's directly tied to wealth inequality and choking out upward mobility. You don't hand entire markets to the handful of elites while cock blocking everyone else creating what is essentially government mandated monopolies without increasing the wealth inequality.

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Clinton 44.6

Trump 43.4

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Recap of the Administration foreign policy.

Moscow and Tehran are in an alliance.

Moscow is flying bombing missions from Iran over Iraq into Syria.

Iraq is allowing Iranian fighters to fight in its battles.

Russia is massing troops on the border of Ukraine.

Russia and China are holding navel exercises in the disputed South China Sea.

And our biggest diplomatic coup was cash for hostages...

Oh yeah..., Colin Powell told me to hide my emails...

Leadership should be made of sterner stuff.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Mandatory Ethics Classes?



NOT FOR HER MAJESTY!

She had a note from Colin Powell!

"Leaky" Dick Armitage's boss...

 

[Wrong Element]

There's now one less Russian agent in the high reaches of the Trump campaign, as Manafort has "resigned."

Wasn't Trump's pitch that as a business genius, he'd know how to hire the best people? His inner circle comes with a revolving door built in.

 

[Que]

But from everything I've read it's been growing bigger and faster (wealth inequality) for nearly 15 years. Include stagnation and the vast majority of American's haven't had a raise in over 20 years.

I see no reason Clinton or Trump would do anything about it. They both live in that bubble where that shit just ain't their problem outside the campaign trail. They wear more in clothes than what the average american makes in 6 months BEFORE taxes. The only people they give a shit about are their mega bucks buddies who live in the same bubble they do.



We live in a capitalist society like N. Koreans live in a democratic republic.

That's the label but rather far from the reality.



That will get some cheese on the working class's whoppers for about 4 months.

A bandaid over a gaping wound that will 'help' for what amounts to the blink of an eye get +0.01 ups. Because it's ignoring the larger issues that have made 15/hr not even close to what the working class needs in order to no be living in our current definition of poverty.



Toss in Africa, S. America, Bosnia and the 90's are a whole lot less peaceful looking....true not actual wars but then again neither was Vietnam.

The US military, Team America World Police, is pretty much ALWAYS fucking with someone somewhere.



He did get it to a dull roar. 1 ups for O on that one...not quite in the bank like he promised but I'll give him a point for that.



It is a separate issue but it's directly tied to wealth inequality and choking out upward mobility. You don't hand entire markets to the handful of elites while cock blocking everyone else creating what is essentially government mandated monopolies without increasing the wealth inequality.

The part he is missing is how, and why regulations are written. It's either someone from The Trial Lawyers Lobby looking for a regulation that will likely be broken so they can sue or it's written by an industry lobbyist to erect a barrier to future competition or to squeeze out a weaker competitor.

Regulations don't pop up because some legislator or bureaucrat notices that something is unsafe and they just from an altruistic standpoint want to protect us from that hazard. They are nearly all written by lobbyists.

 

[silver gurl]

Anyone else seen the Trump/Letterman commercial about who makes his clothing? Funny stuff.

Yup. It is even on, up here in Canadaland.

If he shut his trap awhile ago, he could have had a chance.

 

[Adre]

There's now one less Russian agent in the high reaches of the Trump campaign, as Manafort has "resigned."

Wasn't Trump's pitch that as a business genius, he'd know how to hire the best people? His inner circle comes with a revolving door built in.

Next stop federal prison for tax evasion?

 

[Aglaopheme]

There's now one less Russian agent in the high reaches of the Trump campaign, as Manafort has "resigned."

Wasn't Trump's pitch that as a business genius, he'd know how to hire the best people? His inner circle comes with a revolving door built in.

Have no fear Breitbart will save him!

 

[Sean Renaud]

But from everything I've read it's been growing bigger and faster (wealth inequality) for nearly 15 years. Include stagnation and the vast majority of American's haven't had a raise in over 20 years.

I've read it was fairly steady until the recovery and that's when it kicked into high gear. Which makes sense. Things like recessions might hit the rich the hardest for a split second but they come roaring right back. It's the result of your money making money.

I see no reason Clinton or Trump would do anything about it. They both live in that bubble where that shit just ain't their problem outside the campaign trail. They wear more in clothes than what the average american makes in 6 months BEFORE taxes. The only people they give a shit about are their mega bucks buddies who live in the same bubble they do.

Neither of them will do anything because at the end of the day we the people don't want anything done about it. The solution is quite simple. Tax the every loving shit out of them, raise the minimum wage and take other steps in those directions.

We live in a capitalist society like N. Koreans live in a democratic republic.

What we live in is as close to a capitalist society as anybody is stupid enough to try and we don't get to complain that the natural state of capitalism is one king ruling everything. That is the result of a system that doesn't have checks in place to prevent it.

That will get some cheese on the working class's whoppers for about 4 months.

A bandaid over a gaping wound that will 'help' for what amounts to the blink of an eye get +0.01 ups. Because it's ignoring the larger issues that have made 15/hr not even close to what the working class needs in order to no be living in our current definition of poverty.

It's not a bandaid. It's part of the solution. At this point a bigger part would be addressing the 40 hour work week in a more efficient way, or having talks about other things. I don't pretend to have a perfect solution for THIS but I'd rather an imperfect solution to sitting on my hands.

Toss in Africa, S. America, Bosnia and the 90's are a whole lot less peaceful looking....true not actual wars but then again neither was Vietnam.

The US military, Team America World Police, is pretty much ALWAYS fucking with someone somewhere.

Vietnam was a real war in all but the most formal sense of the word. It lasted years, involved a draft and cost tens of thousands of lives. Contrast that with Desert Storm,Bush's war (My bust think I labeled this Clinton above.) If we're just counting Coalition forces it was a grand total of three hundred souls over just shy of seven months.

Vietnam lost more than that per day. If you're using THAT standard then the entire world is filled with hawks because everybody pitches in for those.

Now it's always possible something jumps off but I don't see any real reason to doubt the general draw down will continue.

He did get it to a dull roar. 1 ups for O on that one...not quite in the bank like he promised but I'll give him a point for that.

He promises to step things up in Afghanistan. You're like the only person who thinks that speech he gave in a high school gym out ranks what he stated in the Presidential Debates.

But yes over all he kept winding things down, overall prevented starting any new ones despite heavy pressure from the right to do exactly that. We can debate on if we SHOULD have put troops on the ground in Syria but not that Obama didn't at least in the formal sense. I'm sure there are teams on the ground doing shit but we're supposed to pretend we don't know about that.

It is a separate issue but it's directly tied to wealth inequality and choking out upward mobility. You don't hand entire markets to the handful of elites while cock blocking everyone else creating what is essentially government mandated monopolies without increasing the wealth inequality.

Of course you do. The majority of those regulations were from back in the day. The reality is that if you want to close a wealth gap you simultanously hold the top down while forcing the bottom up, but Americans don't have the stomach for that and that's that.

 

[Adre]

So much for Detective Don and his "extreme vetting."

 

[Sean]

Russia and China are holding navel exercises in the disputed South China Sea.

How does one exercise a navel? A piercing with weights attached?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Regulations don't pop up because some legislator or bureaucrat notices that something is unsafe and they just from an altruistic standpoint want to protect us from that hazard.

That's the bullshit excuse they sell the fucked up 'regulation' on.

"We are here to regulate you out of your chance for success, it's for your own good!!"

What we live in is as close to a capitalist society as anybody is stupid enough to try and we don't get to complain that the natural state of capitalism is one king ruling everything. That is the result of a system that doesn't have checks in place to prevent it.

No we don't.....the Scandinavians and several Asian countries including S.Korea, China and Japan are infinitely more capitalist than we are.

Because that's not the natural state of capitalism, that's what your commie brain has demonized capitalism into.

It's not a bandaid. It's part of the solution.

Without the rest of the solution it's just a bandaid that will accomplish fuck all.

Of course you do.

No you don't....government mandated oppression and denial of upward mobility = more wealth inequality.

You don't get to pretend they aren't linked.

The majority of those regulations were from back in the day.

Bullshit, the landslide majority of our regs have all happened in the last 70 years and even if they were old they are still being used today to oppress the non-elites.

The reality is that if you want to close a wealth gap you simultanously hold the top down while forcing the bottom up, but Americans don't have the stomach for that and that's that.

That's one way, can get dicey doing that though.

Or you could not punish people for success and simply provide equal opportunity for the bottom rungs instead of robbing them of the opportunity to better themselves in the legislatures.

Other peoples success doesn't make poor people more poor, rob them of opportunity or prevent them from making a better life for themselves. The government telling people they aren't allowed to do anything except be a wage slave does.