US presidential candidates sharpen claws ahead of TV debates

[Pinot]

14 hours ago, Anthony5 said:

He won't have a shortage of that, since he's debating someone who's life is based on lies.

 

Life based on lies? 

[Anthony5]

24 minutes ago, Pinot said:

 

Life based on lies? 

 

Yeah right. You can't see it?

 

Suggestion : take of the blinkers.

[Pinot]

Just now, Anthony5 said:

 

Yeah right. You can't see it?

 

Suggestion : take of the blinkers.

 

I don't watch Fox News 24/7 so I have a little different perspective on life. 

[Publicus]

 

Trump as always is instead going to wing it. Fly by the seat of his pants...

 

New York Times: “Philippe Reines, a longtime aide to Hillary Clinton and one of the most astute observers of her personal and political vulnerabilities, is playing Donald Trump in her mock debate sessions… His selection as the Trump stand-in means that Mrs. Clinton wants an opponent in her mock debates who knows her flaws and how to exploit them and who is fearless about getting under her skin the way that Mr. Trump might at their first debate on Monday night.”

 

 

Also....

 

“The uniquely uncivil presidential campaign is about to produce one of the biggest civic gatherings in decades: For 90 minutes on Monday night, a polarized nation will pause to watch the first head-to-head encounter between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,” the New York Times reports.

 

 

Also....

 

Dan Balz: “The first debate, at Hofstra University, should be great theater. Trump, an unguided missile, will be seeking to project a calmer demeanor and a command of the facts, enough at least to reassure voters who doubt his capacity to serve. Clinton, a studious and well-prepared debater whose expertise on many issues is deep, will be looking to avoid the weeds, offer a bigger and more affirmative vision and mostly try to prove that her rival is unfit to occupy the Oval Office.”

 

 

That Trump is unfit to be Potus is already well established both nationally and globally. HRC will simply be reiterating the decisive point and continuing to emphasise it.

 

All the same, the expectations game is acknowledged to be strange. If HRC seems off in any respect, it will be easy for a consensus to form that she had blown it. Yet if all Trump does is not sound like Fidel Castro in any of Castro's infamous raging stemwinders, he will suddenly look "presidential". (As presidential as Castro anyway.)

 

Clinton meanwhile has reestablished her significant lead in the reliable and respectable polling. Any likelihood that between now and Election Day this will change for any reason is infinitesimal. Trump is back where the voters know he belongs, which is behind on the running track chewing dust. 

[Jingthing]

Yes, Hill is back up 3 points in the Real Clear Politics average. It had gone as low as 1 up so bouncing back to 3 indicates it was a blip related to the deplorables and pneumonia-gate double whammy. 

[Publicus]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Yes, Hill is back up 3 points in the Real Clear Politics average. It had gone as low as 1 up so bouncing back to 3 indicates it was a blip related to the deplorables and pneumonia-gate double whammy. 

 

Indeed.

 

The polling indicates the Deplorables thingy and the pneumonia did not play a significant part in voters thinking about HRC.

 

It is substantially more the matter of Donald Trump taking out a Trump Shit Sandwich by retracting every wild thing he's been saying for years about Barack Obama not being born in the United States. 

 

In doing so, Trump highlighted (or lowlighted) his bizarre reaction to this black guy Obama being elected Potus and OB being reelected Potus. Each time decisively.

 

Trump the nutcase is what it comes down to in respect of the general electorate. The Republican electorate is quite another matter but they are quantitatively irrelevant to the outcome of the general election (and qualitatively unqualified to judge).

 

Voters have decided.

[Jingthing]

 It actually favors Hill's chances if people feel it's a tight race up till the bitter end. The prospect of a president trump is much more HORRIFIC to more Americans than the ONLY alternative -- Hillary Clinton. 

We haven't seen the end of the swings. 

A big question now is if trump will EVER better Hill in the RCP averages. I can't predict.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

 

Something one might want to consider is that there is a method to determine the Potus election outcome that is more accurate than polling averages. 

 

Since 2004 Pollyvote has been within one percentage point of the final outcome in each of the following six respects and overall. This is considerably better than the polling average (researched back to 1992), which have instead averaged 3 points off the final outcome. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/22/dont-trust-a-single-forecast-the-consensus-all-year-has-been-that-clinton-will-win/

 

 

The RCP polling average on Election Day 2012 had Barack Obama ahead by 0.7% but by the next morning OB had won by 4.8%. Pollyvote had had OB leading by 4.1%

 

As I'd posted the other day to another thread, it is the two party vote that matters as a leading indicator, if not the leading indicator. The winner in each election except in 2000 won the ratio and proportion of the two-party vote. (Never mind Independents.) 

 

In February, with Clinton and Trump already projected as the nominees, the percentage divide of the two-party vote was narrow to say the least, with Clinton getting 50.4% of it and Trump getting  49.6%.

 

Today the divide of the two-party vote is Clinton 52.3% and Trump 47.7%. The trend is consistent. Yes pollsters research this data and it has been reliable, consistent, an indicator one can have confidence in.

 

Directly put, it's a safe rule that the winner of the two-party vote wins the election of Potus.

 

Polling averages are derived from various and disperate polling organisations whose weakness is in the art of estimating their predicate, i.e., voter turnout by demographic group and party affiliation, to include Independents which only muck things up.  So also keep yer eye on the proportion of the two party vote as it stands going forward as the historically proven indicator. 

 

Winner of the election of Potus has typically won the two party vote divide by the average of 5.5%. (It runs between 55% and 45% of the vote as revealed by data research.)

[Chicog]

I can't find the link, but I read last week that someone gave four different polling organisations an identical set of polling data, and they all gave different results:

Three gave it to Clinton and one to Trump.

 

 

[Publicus]

39 minutes ago, Chicog said:

I can't find the link, but I read last week that someone gave four different polling organisations an identical set of polling data, and they all gave different results:

Three gave it to Clinton and one to Trump.

 

 

 

That wuz the Washington Post which wanted to make its point that, as sophisticated as polling has become, we need a new model of scientific public opinion survey research. 

 

The standard polling is flawed. While it gives a viable notion of what public opinion is likely to be at the moment, and over time in averaging, it typically misses the final outcome of the election by an average of 3%. This is bad for business.

 

In 2012 Romney had thought he wuz robbed after his pollster Scott Rasmussen told Mitt on the morning of election day he'd won, only for Romney to find out election night he'd lost.  We gonna have the 1948 election polling and reporting every time? Not.

 

WaPo and LA Times are working experimental and innovative new election polling models that are founded on several radically different principles than those used by existing pollsters. For one thing, each uses the same set of respondents all the way. And each takes data online (securely) rather than hunt down every respondent by a land line or a cell phone. WaPo uses an enormous sample of 60,000 in each of the 50 states.

 

There is a quiet but a great market murmuring and demand for more accurate polling, consistent polling, especially in the contest for Potus, but across the political election board. So as of this election cycle the inventors have got on the case. After this election is in the books, we'll see how the experimental pollsters did compared to the real data and outcome. Adjustments will be devised and implemented accordingly.

 

The one thing we do know is that by the time of the 2020 election campaign for Potus, polling will have some (more or less) radically different features from those of the historical present. 

[Linzz]

On 9/24/2016 at 6:00 PM, Silurian said:

 Oh my god! He said intercontinental instead of transcontinental. Holy Cow! Alert the media! Obama is an idiot!

 

Just a click bait article. Move along nothing to see here.

 

I think we probably can find at least 15 dumb things other Presidents have stated as well (including Presidential nominees). 

 

Yes but that's the point. ALL Presidents and candidates make errors, no one is perfect and least of all Trump in that he has no political experience.

[Linzz]

On 9/24/2016 at 7:03 PM, peterbuttler said:

I think Clinton has a great reputation and I want her to be the next president of United States of America.

 

Don't you mean in spite of her reputation?

[Linzz]

20 hours ago, Pinot said:

 

"Considering" her untrustworthy and being a serial liar are two different things.

 

Trump isn't even having mock debates. He's not preparing. He can't prepare. He's just going to wing it. Say whatever comes into his thick head and that's going to be stuff he makes up on the spot. 

 

He's way out of his league with HRC in a debate. This will be fun. 

 

It's worked for him so far

[Silurian]

54 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Yes but that's the point. ALL Presidents and candidates make errors, no one is perfect and least of all Trump in that he has no political experience.

 

 I get quite tired of people stating that Trump has no political experience. This is absolutely not true. He has been dabbling in politics for many years. He has mentioned the idea of running for POTUS since 1988. He has stated his various (and sometimes contradicting) political views for decades. Stating he is an outsider is also not true. Trump has dealt with many of local and national goverment leaders on all sorts of national issues. Heck, Trump probably has talked and made deals with more government officials than most Senators or Congressmen. Let's drop this whole Trump has no political experience BS. It just doesn't fly.

 

Just check out a couple of Wiki pages on Trump and politics. Heck, just goggled Trump and politics.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

 

[Linzz]

Post 44

Well by comparison Trump has not been Secretary of State, married to  a President, a Senator, an  Attorney or Law Professor nor ever run for Office before. He has been President and founder of his own organizations. Not sure how you compare  some meddling and exploratory attempts as a foray into politics and a lifelong political career. Your own reference says "Trump's strengths as a potential candidate in the 2012 presidential election included being a businessman, not being a politician, not talking like a politician, and not thinking like a politician"  I suggest that still applies today and is why he is successfully challenging Hillary and it is no one else in the manner of career politicians doing so.That does not mean he is going to win, but explains his success to date. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Linzz

[Silurian]

13 minutes ago, Linzz said:

Post 44

Well by comparison Trump has not been Secretary of State, married to  a President, a Senator, an  Attorney or Law Professor nor ever run for Office before. He has been President and founder of his own organizations. Not sure how you compare  some meddling and exploratory attempts as a foray into politics and a lifelong political career. Your own reference says "Trump's strengths as a potential candidate in the 2012 presidential election included being a businessman, not being a politician, not talking like a politician, and not thinking like a politician"  I suggest that still applies today and is why he is successfully challenging Hillary and it is no one else in the manner of career politicians doing so.That does not mean he is going to win, but explains his success to date. 

 

I was not comparing Trump political career to Hillary's. I was stating the people believe Trump has no political experience at all. This is false. These people want to believe Trump is an "outsider" when he has had business and political dealings for decades. Trump himself has bragged that he "gives" money and "favors" to politicians and then expects to get a "favor" sometime in return. This is political wheeling and dealing. Not something an "outsider" does.

[Jingthing]

He certainly has no GOVERNING experience.

From failed reality t.v. host to president ... INSANITY. 

[peterbuttler]

Yes, I know the history of  Clinton.

[Jingthing]

Yes, I know the history of  Clinton.

Silly.