U.S Presidential Election 2016 Not Otherwise Specified

I had never heard of the Hatch Act, so the letter Harry Reid has sent to Mr Comey is important if the Democrats can now use this angle to turn the FBI investigation away from being an issue over emails -650,000!!!- and the proper conduct of the FBI with regard to the investigation into Anthony Weiner as well as the hacking of the DNC emails as I think the public will at least warm to to concept of 'fair play' in this and feel uncomfortable with the idea the head of the FBI is politically biased -but they have to press this home, as the elephant in the room is this rather unattractive man called Weiner which the Americans even pronounce 'weener'!! I see it and think Viner. Whatever. Who could imagine a Presidential election would pivot on a groper on the one hand and a flasher on the other? I think you deserve much better, such as a debate on education and climate change, but I guess its too late for that now.

Maybe Obama sent Huma 10,000 presidential pardons as a gag.
The next few days should be very interesting............

According to emails released by Wikileaks, supposedly Donna Brazile leaked two debate questions to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary. While I take issue with how Wikileaks probably came by this information, this doesn't look good. Especially when you have Donald Trump going around saying that the election is rigged. Just when I have accepted the fact that I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, this and the whole email fiasco rears its ugly head.

As if Hillary needed the exam questions ahead of time! Donna Brazile is a fucking idiot.

2 weeks ago clinton had an 88% chance of winning. today she has a 75% chance. by election day, that percentage may have fallen even lower.

and then we have this:

Attachment 976330

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

2 weeks ago clinton had an 88% chance of winning. today she has a 75% chance. by election day, that percentage may have fallen even lower.

and then we have this:

Attachment 976330

---

I have talked before about how I can see Trump winning this election. But if he does lose, I don't think its going to be in a blowout as many in the media thought it was going to be.

Hillary will clear 300 Electoral Votes. It is not even a close race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ampaign-230616

White nationalists plan to try to suppress black vote on election day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ampaign-230616

White nationalists plan to try to suppress black vote on election day.

---

"hand out liquor and marijuana in the city’s “ghetto” on Election Day to induce residents to stay home"

i don't get how this induces someone to stay home. can't they just claim the free booze and weed and still go out and vote? or better yet, vote early then get your reward on election day.

either way, i'd like to claim that, along with my free blowjob from teambj

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTNcTo4ut2s

Should be a great spectacle if they can muster up at least a couple dozen. The big question though is: How many klan/nazis can squeeze into the clown car?

This election is starting to remind me of this year's NBA finals or the World Series. Where one team was up 3-1 in the series and momentum slowly started to shift to the other team as they won the next two games. Before you know it, its game 7 and Lebron James is holding up the O'Brien trophy.

I really hope you're not comparing Trump to LeBron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

I really hope you're not comparing Trump to LeBron.

---

Hey I know its an insult to Lebron James. But the analogy is kind of fitting.

The way things are looking, I could probably switch Lebron for a member of the Chicago Cubs.

I do feel a momentum shift, but I still think Trump will fall short. I'm not sure if it's just wishful thinking or that I think Trump has had a ceiling in this election, just 2-3% behind Hillary in the popular vote. Of course, he can win the election without the popular vote but he needs a lot of swing states. Florida will be a big one. I think Hillary has it, but not by a lot.

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia on the BBC the other night pointed out that one percentage point does not make that much difference when overall Hillary Clinton is estimated to have around 70% of the vote based firmly in the large states. He discounts the importance of North Carolina (where today we have heard Black voters are being removed from the register and given no reason for being denied the vote), preferring to consider Florida the key state where the Trump vote is weak in some areas. He also argued that while the Democrats have a well-oiled machine across the USA on the ground, Trump has next to nothing and is dependent on tv, to the extent that he stated that because neither candidate can claim popularity, if Hillary Clinton is headline news, her poll ratings go down, if Trump becomes headline news, his ratings go down.
If the Democrats can find something on Trump -particularly any links to Russia- or Trump does a Trump and insults or abuses a fellow American, and if it happens later this week, the pendulum will swing again, but from where we are something sensational must happen for Trump to win this election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

. He discounts the importance of North Carolina (where today we have heard Black voters are being removed from the register and given no reason for being denied the vote), preferring to consider Florida the key state where the Trump vote is weak in some areas.

---

Right now there are a bunch of states within the margin of error. But looking at the map and assuming they each get the majority of the states where they have current leads, Florida becomes crucial. If Hillary wins Florida, it is mathematically very tough for Trump to win. He would need to win every swing state where he has a current lead, plus several states where Hillary has a lead depending on the electoral vote of those states (Michigan, Pennsylvania etc). In most scenarios, he would need to win three states that are very likely to go to Hillary, plus carry every state that he has a current lead in.

Nate Silver has been a bit shoddy in predicting European elections with his poll aggregator but his method seems to have been pretty reliable in the U.S. in both presidential and congressional races. This is what he has so far...a somewhat close race with a clear edge to Hillary. Here are the electoral totals to play around with...but he has Florida close.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo


Here are the electoral totals.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...S_DBYQ9QEIHzAA

But I want to re-emphasize that Florida is much more crucial to Trump than Hillary. She has many ways to win without Florida....if Trump loses Florida, his chances are slim.

The most useful graphic in the 538 link is the "winding road to 270" (slightly below middle of the page). He has every state color coded for who has a current lead, with the ones within margin of error a lighter shade. Very useful to then add or subtract from that graphic.

i agree with broncofan; if hillary won florida it would be near impossible for trump to win, but i think he'll win florida at this rate. the thing is, she HAS TO win pennsylvania and possibly colorado (not sure about the last one)- and maybe ohio?

whatever the case, i don't think clinton would survive another wikileaks scandal.

btw: i was keeping a tally of how many times gary johnson got embarrassed during his campaign, and i can't figure what was more embarrassing. him loosing his cool during an interview (again) or bill weld basically leaving him hanging and endorsing clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

i agree with broncofan; if hillary won florida it would be near impossible for trump to win, but i think he'll win florida at this rate. the thing is, she HAS TO win pennsylvania and possibly colorado (not sure about the last one)- and maybe ohio?

---

The problem is there are so many ways to reconfigure this. If he wins Florida, and every state goes to whoever has a current lead, Hillary would win slightly, taking Pennsylvania and Colorado but not Ohio. If she loses Colorado, North Carolina which is currently polling Red would more than make up the deficit if it swung her way (his average lead there is smaller than Hillary's lead in Colorado). Pennsylvania on the other hand is tougher for her to lose because it has 20 votes, but Ohio's 18 would probably be enough to get her to 270 if they swapped.

Have you seen the one with Gary Johnson holding his tongue:)? Gary Johnson videos have kept this campaign fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Have you seen the one with Gary Johnson holding his tongue:)? Gary Johnson videos have kept this campaign fun.

---

of course man. that was one of my favorite- but him describing conquering mt everest definitely takes the cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nOy4WtAc4c

I think the word on the street is...if they call either North Carolina or Florida for Clinton, the Clinton/trump election is over.
I'm still guaranteeing Hillary in the Oval Office, but I'm waiting to see if Director Comedy directed the senate to trump.

PS Hillary, please fire Comey in a sneaky deliberate way when you are IN, and oh yeah, fire every Republican you can day by day, hour by hour.
People in my neighborhood aren't putting up Trump signs.
Maybe he didn't make any, maybe people are afraid their home values will go down.
Presidential elections are like a card game with 52,000 cards.

Pennsylvania is not even close. The state is solid blue except when they need except for the times the Democrats in this state need money; then it becomes a battleground state. When was the last time PA went red? Almost 30 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerrrr

Pennsylvania is not even close. The state is solid blue except when they need except for the times the Democrats in this state need money; then it becomes a battleground state. When was the last time PA went red? Almost 30 years.

---

The polls indicate Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but you have to remember analysts are trying to present this data in probabilistic terms. This requires being able to think in shades of gray. I'm not suggesting you aren't able to or that "not even close" isn't a reasonable metric:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The polls indicate Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but you have to remember analysts are trying to present this data in probabilistic terms. This requires being able to think in shades of gray. I'm not suggesting you aren't able to or that "not even close" isn't a reasonable metric:).

---

The last time PA went red was 1988. If PA goes red there is a serious problem within the Democratic Party.

The analysts are just stroking fears. If you look at the hard data I think almost 35 states have voted the same way for the past 4 or 5 elections. There are only a few states that are true toss-ups. Most states are solidly in one column or another which is why I say the electoral college is slanted heavily towards the Democrats.

Here is an article with electoral maps going back 50 years. Pay attention to the electoral college vote from 2000 forwards and tell me how many states flip-flop. The NE, Rust Belt, and west coast are solid blue with the center of the county and south red. The elections come down to only about 10-15 states with the Democrats winning most large states over 12 electoral votes.

2000 is a better starting point than 1992 which is what I had before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/up...blue.html?_r=0

From 2000 forward only New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida changed hands. That is 10 states out of 50. I may have missed a few but for the most part the election is pretty much focused on a few states. Most of the country is locked into place.

2000 is a very good starting point because it shows just how thin of a margin the Republicans have to win. In order for the Republicans to win the White House a lot has to go their way on the Electoral College map.

Sonny Jurgensen was told by Vince Lombardi that most football games are decided by two or three plays,
of course you never know WHICH three plays.
In this World the best you can get to the truth is an EDUCATED guess.

Does anyone wonder if, given the controversial nature of this year's election, Faithless Electors in one or more States could affect the final result? A Faithless Elector is one of those electors chosen to cast their vote in the Electoral College who switches their vote -for example, voting for someone other than the candidate chosen by popular vote in the state. It might seem perverse, but it is after all a 'pledge' and I am not sure if electors are obliged by law to vote for the candidate the State has chosen, some fundamentalist Christian, for example, in a State won by Trump might switch the two with Pence as President... The wikipedia article on it is here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...000_to_present

The timetable for the Electoral College looks like this:

• November 8, 2016—Election Day:
  The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven original "Certificates of Ascertainment" of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register.
• December 19, 2016—Meeting of Electors:
  The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The Electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining original “Certificates of Ascertainment.” The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the Federal and State officials listed in these instructions.
• December 28, 2016—Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes:
  The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
• January 6, 2017—Counting Electoral Votes in Congress:
  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).
• https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...les.html#dates

The way the electoral college works is something we almost take for granted despite the examples of faithless electors in your link. If the election is close, it could undoubtedly be a factor (this is afterall an election where many norms have vanished), and would contribute to a feeling that the democratic process was subverted. I just read in another link that federal law cannot require electors to honor their pledges (perhaps states have their own mechanisms to ensure)..

I'm not sure what the purpose of not having the vote in each state just add to a national tally is. Is it to give the appearance that the selection is more indirect than it is? This is something that has been mysterious to me my entire life...I remember asking people as a child what would happen if the electoral college did not vote the way the voters of each state did and they would assure "that won't happen", almost as an article of faith. For my part, I hope they don't break faith and it's one less thing to worry about.

But maybe we should worry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...te-for-clinton

The man said no matter what he won't cast his vote for Hillary. So, election predictors now have to assume that in Washington, a state where Hillary is almost assured a win, she will get 11 not 12 electoral votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The way the electoral college works is something we almost take for granted despite the examples of faithless electors in your link. If the election is close, it could undoubtedly be a factor (this is afterall an election where many norms have vanished), and would contribute to a feeling that the democratic process was subverted. I just read in another link that federal law cannot require electors to honor their pledges (perhaps states have their own mechanisms to ensure)..

I'm not sure what the purpose of not having the vote in each state just add to a national tally is. Is it to give the appearance that the selection is more indirect than it is? This is something that has been mysterious to me my entire life...I remember asking people as a child what would happen if the electoral college did not vote the way the voters of each state did and they would assure "that won't happen", almost as an article of faith. For my part, I hope they don't break faith and it's one less thing to worry about.

But maybe we should worry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...te-for-clinton

---

Thank you for your thoughts and the link.
One only hopes this freaky election does not produce the freak result.

why do we have an electoral college as opposed to a simple national talley?
cuz George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were deathly afraid of direct democracy....so were Winston Churchill and FDR centuries later, and they routinely overruled it for the greater good.
All you need for a modern day example of majority rule run amok is the BREXIT vote

I hope they show "The Apprentice" outtakes after the election.
Kind of like when Eisenhower made the local Nazi townfolk walk through the Concentration Camps.

If it's not on TV, it's not real.

Instead of a Mortician, Kellyanne Conway will need a team of autobody repairmen to remove that phony smile from her face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

why do we have an electoral college as opposed to a simple national talley?
cuz George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were deathly afraid of direct democracy..

---

I anticipated it was a bulwark against dangerous popular impulses, but that's why we have the judiciary and the bill of rights. I'm just curious what the acceptable range of their discretion is between automatically casting their vote for the state's winner and deciding to supplant their judgment for that of the voters.

What exactly is their mandate or role??? Do they only refuse to comply when conscience won't allow them to accede to the public's desires? Or do they have a more robust role than that? It's just always been hazy to me...doesn't mean it is for you or anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

What exactly is their mandate or role??? Do they only refuse to comply when conscience won't allow them to accede to the public's desires?

---

Because if their role is to buffer us against the stupidity of the masses, then maybe they should refuse to cast electoral votes for someone who doesn't understand something so basic as why we can't really use nukes.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-clinton.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I hope they show "The Apprentice" outtakes after the election.
Kind of like when Eisenhower made the local Nazi townfolk walk through the Concentration Camps.

If it's not on TV, it's not real.

Instead of a Mortician, Kellyanne Conway will need a team of autobody repairmen to remove that phony smile from her face.

---

I know one thing, if Trump does pull this thing off, she is going to be smiling all the way to the bank. She was able to do what two other campaign managers weren't able to do. Turn Trump into a general election candidate.

No, that was the clown car of GOP candidates from Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie up to Jeb Exclamation Mark.

This just in: Trump's campaign managers took away his twitter account. They don't trust him with a twitter account, but they want to hand him the nuclear codes. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I know one thing, if Trump does pull this thing off, she is going to be smiling all the way to the bank. She was able to do what two other campaign managers weren't able to do. Turn Trump into a general election candidate.

---

Look, Half my family lives on the Gulf Coast, if I lived down there, I would be voting for Trump like you. .
It's just like Obama said
"If I watched Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, either"

If you support Trump for whatever reason, that is your right.
But if you believe
"we can't AFFORD health care for poor people"
and
"throwing away the Constitution is better than giving Hillary her Supreme Court Justice"
or "climate change is fake"

you're going to get a talk.
If someone can talk you into something, then someone can talk you out of it.

The fact that both sides are insane shows how much more alike both sides are than unlike.
There is no doubt in my Heart that New York State Republicans who worked with Senator Clinton dug getting things done.
The USA is the greatest Country in the World!!!
"There is no security - only opportunity" ..Douglas MacArthur
"It's your ass now, Compton" Joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VaXlMvAvk