Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection on the eve of the election: Trump, with only one of the three main swing states (Ohio), has only a 30% chance of winning. His likeliest path to victory is to pick up North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Last update: November 9th 2016.
In 2016 the US chooses a new president. He or she will take office on January 20th 2017.
The candidates:
A powerful third-party candidate could arise, particularly with Donald Trump in the mix, but as it stands now, a Democrat or Republican will likely win.
Here are the Democrats and Republicans who are still running, along with their opinion poll averages (from Real Clear Politics as of January 13th 2016). I used their Twitter avatars as pictures. They link to their Twitter accounts.
Those with descriptions in light-grey italics have dropped out as of August 1st:
48.3% Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state (2009-2013), senator of New York (2001-2009), First Lady (1993-2001) and Republican campaign worker (1964). She is the wife of Bill Clinton. Currently favoured by Trayvon Martin’s mother and most Black voters.
39.7% Bernie Sanders, senator of Vermont since 2007, former congressman (1991-2007) and mayor of Burlington (1981-1989). Currently favoured by Cornel West, Ralph Nader and me.
2.3% Martin O’Malley, former governor of Maryland (2007-2015) and mayor of Baltimore (1999-2007). The White mayor in “The Wire” was loosely based on him.
35.0% Donald Trump, businessman from New York, former Democrat, television actor (2004-15) and Fox News talking head (2011-2015). A Birther. Openly racist. Wants to keep out Muslims and build a wall between the US and Mexico. Favoured by Ann Coulter.
19.0% Ted Cruz, senator of Texas since 2013. Born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban Canadian father. Tea Party, Christian right.
11.3% Marco Rubio, senator since 2011 of Florida, a swing state. His parents came from Cuba before the revolution.
8.0% Ben Carson, former brain surgeon at Johns Hopkins in Maryland. Christian right.
4.7% Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida (1999-2007), a swing state. President Bush I (1989-1993) is his father and Bush II (2001-2009) is his brother. His wife is from Mexico.
3.0% Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey since 2010. Best known for the Bridgegate scandal.
2.7% Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard (1999-2005), a California computer company.
2.0% Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas (1996-2007) and Fox News talking head (2008-15). Christian right.
2.0% John Kasich, governor since 2011 of Ohio, a swing state, and former congressman (1983-2001).
2.0% Rand Paul, senator of Kentucky since 2011. Libertarian.
0.0% Rick Santorum, former senator of Pennsylvania (1995-2007). Christian right.
0.0% Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia (1998-2002).
Candidates from most liberal to least:
- 35+: Sanders
- 30+: Clinton
- 25+: O’Malley
- 20+:
- 15+: Christie
- 10+: Fiorina, Kasich, Paul
- 5+: Carson, Bush, Huckabee, Rubio,
- 0+: Cruz, Santorum
- ??: Trump, Gilmore
By net worth:
- $1,000,000,000+: Trump
- $100,000,000+:
- $10,000,000+: Fiorina, Bush, Clinton
- $1,000,000+: Kasich, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, Christie, Paul
- $100,000+: Santorum, Rubio, O’Malley, Sanders
- ???: Gilmore
By race:
- White: Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Bush, Christie, Fiorina, O’Malley, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Santorum, Gilmore
- Latino: Rubio, Cruz
- Black: Carson
- Asian:
- Native:
By religion:
- Jewish: Sanders
- Christian:
- Catholic: Rubio, Bush, Christie, O’Malley, Santorum
- Anglican/Episcopalian: Fiorina, Kasich
- Presbyterian: Trump, Paul
- Methodist: Clinton, Gilmore
- Baptist: Cruz, Huckabee
- Seventh Day Adventist: Carson
The calendar:
- February to June: state primaries and caucuses pick delegates for the party conventions. Super Tuesday is March 1st.
- July: party conventions pick their candidate for president, who in turn picks a candidate for vice president.
- The Republican convention is from Monday July 18th to Thursday, the 21st in Cleveland, Ohio;
- the Democrats, the following week, from Monday July 25th to Thursday, the 28th, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
- September to October: television debates:
- November 8th: the election.
- January 20th 2017: the new president takes office.
– Abagond, 2016.
Update (February 3rd): In the wake of the Iowa caucus on the 1st, three have dropped out: Martin O’Malley, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul. Cruz won the caucus on the Republican side, Hillary Clinton, narrowly, on the Democratic side. Given her advantages over Sanders, it amounts to a loss for her, as The Root notes:
“She effectively lost to a 74 year old Vermont senator with no prior national profile; who had openly declared himself a socialist; who had no Super Pac funding or Wall Street money behind him; and who couldn’t call on a veritable Maginot line of endorsements and cronies and ambitious toadies to grease his path.”
Update (February 18th): Four more Republicans have dropped out: Santorum, Fiorina, Christie and Gilmore.
Still running:
- Republican: Cruz, Carson, Trump, Bush, Kasich, Rubio.
- Democrat: Clinton, Sanders.
Update (February 21st): Jeb Bush has dropped out.
Update (March 9th): Ben Carson dropped out shortly after Super Tuesday (March 1st). Kasich and Rubio disappoint. The Republican side is becoming Trump v Cruz and the Democratic side, Clinton v Sanders. Clinton is strong in the South, Sanders in the North. Trump, in new lows, assured us of his penis size and would not forthrightly condemn the support of David Duke and the Klan, both nakedly racist.
Update (March 16th): Rubio has dropped out: he lost his home state of Florida to Trump. It was not even close. Kasich, meanwhile, held off Trump in his home state of Ohio, but it is the only state he has won. That leaves Cruz as Trump’s only serious opponent in the Republican race.
Trump rallies are becoming increasingly violent.
Update (May 3rd): Ted Cruz has dropped out! He lost the Indiana primary, a do-or-die state for him. Trump will almost certainly be the Republican nominee.
Update (May 4th): John Kasich, Trump’s last remaining Republican opponent, has dropped out. Barring death or grave illness, Trump will be the Republican nominee.
Update (June 8th): Hillary Clinton won California, giving her enough elected delegates to win the Democratic nomination in July. Bernie Sanders has not (yet) dropped out. He says “The struggle continues” and will take the fight to DC next week in the primary and to the party convention in Philadelphia in July. He meets with President Obama tomorrow.
Update (July 22nd): Last week, Bernie Sanders at long last endorsed Hillary Clinton. This week was the Republican convention. Cruz refused to endorse Trump! Trump chose Mike Pence as his vice president and gave an angry, red-faced, fearmongering acceptance speech full of racist dog whistles and twisted factoids. Next week is the Democratic convention. By then we will know who Clinton’s running mate will be.
Update (August 6th): Nate Silver in his polls-plus forecast gives Donald Trump a 25% chance of winning: the way it looks now, Hillary Clinton will most likely win all the states Obama won in 2012 plus North Carolina:
Update (September 3rd): Trump has picked up two states over the past month, North Carolina and Iowa, but still needs three or four more. He has a 30.6% chance of winning:
Update (September 15th): In the past week Trump has picked up Ohio and Florida in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection. If Trump can pick up Pennsylvania or Virginia, he wins. Here is the map:
Update (September 21st): Trump picks up Nevada. He no longer needs Pennsylvania to win. He could do it with Colorado or maybe even with New Hampshire and a congressional district from Maine (Maine votes by congressional district and one of them is leaning towards Trump):
Update (October 1st): Since the debate on September 26th, Trump has lost Nevada and Florida in Nate Silver’s polls-plus forecast. His likeliest path to victory is to win back those two states and then Colorado.
Update (October 6th): Trump loses yet another state in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection: North Carolina. He is now four states short with a 25% chance of winning:
Update (October 9th): And now Ohio is gone too. On the eve of the second presidential debate, but before his hot-mic comments have had a chance to show up in the polls, Trump is no longer projected to win any of the three key swing states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. That gives him a 22% chance of winning. By the end of the week we will know if the second debate and the hot-mic scandal have cratered his campaign. This map shows where he stood BEFORE the hot-mic scandal broke:
Update (October 12th): And now Iowa is gone too, with Arizona starting to swing. Trump is now projected to win only the Romney states:
Update (October 25th): With two weeks to go, Trump has picked up Iowa (just barely) in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection, which gives him a 17% chance of winning. To win he also has to pick up Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania along with either Nevada or North Carolina:
Update (November 3rd): With just five days to go, Trump is only one state short of winning in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection. He does not even need Pennsylvania any more – New Hampshire or Colorado will do. He has a 36% chance of winning:
Update (November 7th): Trump has lost Florida, North Carolina and Nevada over the past four days – despite not saying anything stupid, despite Hillary getting all the bad headlines. He is no longer closing fast. On the eve of the election, he has a 30% chance of winning:
Election Night:
Update (7.46pm ET): I voted for Hillary Clinton. I also filled out an exit poll that CNN is taking part in.
Update (12.26am): No winner yet. It is way closer than the polls predicted, particularly in the Rust Belt where Trump is currently ahead in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. He has already won the big swing states of Ohio and Florida. If he wins Pennsylvania it will be pretty much over.
Update (1.56am): Trump has won Pennsylvania. He just needs one more state.
Update (2.46am): Trump wins Wisconsin and will be the next president.
Sources: insidegov.com (liberal ratings), CBS News (net worth), Real Clear Politics (polls), NNDB and Wikipedia (religion and dates).
See also:
- The 2016 election by county
- Hillary Clinton for president – my endorsement
- debates:
- Democrat
- Hillary Clinton 2016
- vice president: Tim Kaine
- Bernie Sanders
- Hillary Clinton 2016
- Republican
- Donald Trump
- vice president: Mike Pence
- Ben Carson
- Ted Cruz
- Huckabee 2008
- Donald Trump
- Libertarian: Gary Johnson
- Green Party: Jill Stein
- 12 American presidential elections: 1800, 1820, 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000, 2012.
Abagond 
“By race:
White: Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Bush, Christie, Fiorina, O’Malley, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Santorum, Gilmore
Latino: Rubio, Cruz
Black: Carson
Asian:
Native:
”
When did “Latino” become a race? Both Rubio and Cruz are white in contrast with their fellow “Latino” Sammy Sosa.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Raimanet.
LikeLike
This Presidential election will be between Sanders,The People’s Candidate and Clinton, Big Bank entitled, Wall Street financed, DLC loving, Republican-Lite Plutocrat.
All the republicans are too extreme to be elected.
Was Bill “Republican-Lite” Clinton really good for minorities ?
We elected Obama because we didn’t “settle” for the so-called “electable” republican-lite, DLC. Big Money backed, Hilary Clinton.
Yes, Sanders needs to make a broader outreach to the minority community. But, Clinton, was a member of the old “Law and Order”, cut welfare, increase Charter schools, war hawk) DLC. That means she is really only a slightly liberal “REPUBLICAN” in a dress.
IF, Clinton is elected, I fully expect her to have none of the policy problems faced by President Obama because she will fully embrace the conservative Republican “Plutocrats” agenda. She will accommodate the Plutocracy and feign a liberal social agenda to the extent that it helps, first and foremost, white women. Intersectionality, Anyone..??
Let’s face it, she is the very definition of a Plutocrat. Follow her MONEY and It leads right to the doorsteps of the big banks and Wall Street.
Sanders, OTOH, has always been a “Rebel with a Cause”. And that cause has been steeped in fairness and universal political participation of Social Democracy. He ain’t no COMMIE, OK..??
* Universal, Single Payer Healthcare will eliminate the cost of corporate and
individual private healthcare premiums by slightly raising taxes to cover the
cost = net coat reduction for everyone.
* Anti-Intervention Foreign policy = America in no longer the “World Police”
* Anti-Big Bank and Wall Street Agenda for reviving the middle class and
elevating the working poor.
* Anti-Clinton DLC backed policies
* Pro-Renewable Energy Growth = no more oil wars.
* Free College Tuition for everyone.
* No compromise with Big Business on any form of discrimination.
* Advocate for the full restoration of the Voting Rights Act.
Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, period…!!!
LikeLike
This would be hilarious if it weren’t true!
LikeLike
I’m not voting but here’s my take:
Paul : the only Republican who’s not a war monger, is for a less intrusive government, for personal liberties, and truly understands federal government’s authority under the Constitution. Perfect Republican candidate, terrible campaign strategy.
Trump: misunderstood, words minced and treated unfairly by the media. But building a wall to keep out Mexicans and discriminating against Muslim immigrants are not going to beat the Democratic candidate, whoever that is.
Cruz: no substance. I’ve never listened to anyone who said so much about so little.
Rubio: soft on “illegal” immigrants. Too far left for Republicans.
Carson: too soft (personality). He makes Obama look tough.
Carly Fiorina: bat sh!t crazy, and was a terrible HP CEO with no record of success on which to stand.
Jeb: a nerdy George W. Bush, whom people still despise.
Christie: anti personal liberties and shamelessly milks Sandy as if it were an accomplishment rather than a tragedy. Scumbag.
Clinton: her campaign rhetoric suggests her administration will make it tougher for business than Obama’s, which this weak economy simply cannot bear. But she’s flip-flopped on almost every issue, so maybe she’ll flip-flop on this one too and be more pro-business like her Slick Willie.
Bernie Sanders is making big promises of handouts and doesn’t give any details on how the government could afford it. That rhetoric always works in a weak economy, but it’s disingenuous to say the least.
Everyone else: who really cares?
LikeLike
Jill Stein is running on the Green Party ticket.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’d characterize Christie as being more Iiberal then the other republican canidates. He want to revamp the war on drugs and go after States that have decriminalised Marijuana.
Rand has a few Libertarian ideas in regards to some civil liberties but he is mainly a Chistian conservative. He’s pro life and against marraige equality. The Libertarian party made same sex marraige part of their platform way back in 1976.
@rsw77
I wouldn’t describe Trump as “misunderstood”. Both white and Black Americans know exactly what he means.
He’s like a petulant child. The Republican party is afraid of him because he’s not a team player. He won’t do what their party wants he just gonna do what Trump wants.
I also think his bigotry extends across party lines
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
The media has the power to make anyone look how they want. For example, Trump accused the Mexican government of sending criminals and rapists to the US, and the media twisted that, and now most Americans believe that he was suggesting Mexicans are criminals and rapists. Yes he could have been more clear, but in full context, it was clearly about the Mexican government, not Mexican people. That’s what I mean by Trump is misunderstood.
As to Rand Paul, he doesn’t believe the federal government should fund abortion programs because he believes life starts at conception. Everyone has an opinion. He also leaves it up to the states to come up with their own abortion legislation. That is not the position of most evangelicals, who want the federal government to criminalize abortions.
On marriage, he said all Americans have a “right to contract,” which includes gays who want to marry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Keep in mind that the “states rights argument” also acts as a deflection from taking a stand. Personally I don’t think the government should be involved in the marraige business anyway.
LikeLike
Non-American here, so I could use a clarification… Why are there more republicans than democrats? Is this normal, or… ?
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of Sanders, but I definitely don’t want Trump or Hillary to win.
LikeLike
@ Mira
Some election cycles it’s the other way around. In 1992, Bill Clinton emerged from a crowded field of Democratic candidates (nine, I think).
As far as I know, neither party places a limit on the number of party members who can declare their candidacy for president.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@michaeljonbarker
“Keep in mind that the “states rights argument” also acts as a deflection from taking a stand. Personally I don’t think the government should be involved in the marraige business anyway.”
I completely agree with you in principle, but at least it gives people the option to move to a neighbouring state with more favourable laws. States wouldn’t need to be in the marriage business if they didn’t grant special tax breaks and benefits to married couples (which I think is unfair to those who are single).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kiwi and Solitaire,
Thanks for the explanation. Makes more sense now. (Well, as much as politics can make sense but that’s another issue 😉 ).
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
No thanks. But I kind of hope he wins just to see how foolish you supporters of his look when all those promises he’s made aren’t delivered. Like Hope and Change: the Sequel. But it’s wishful thinking because the Democratic establishment will never let him win.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mirkwood, are you for real?
I will admit those cows will someday make some delicious steaks though!
LikeLike
Does the president get a makeup and wardrobe allowance? If they do, I’m running!
LikeLike
Mercifully, you would be automatically disqualified!
What about Tom Cruze? He was born and raised in Canada until he was four. At least, if I were president fun times would be had by all!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a piece by Bill Moyer. He reflects my pessimism and nailed it.
http://willmoyer.com/cycle-2016/
On Bernie Sanders,
“He wants to use the most powerful, hierarchical, violent, imperial institution on the planet to help those oppressed by said institution. Only in the minds of liberal reformists and state socialists is such a strategy even plausible, let alone desirable. It should be outright laughable to anyone not willfully ignorant of the machinations of power.”
“The purpose of Sanders’ campaign is to keep young, progressive-minded people participating in an election they would otherwise dismiss as a perfect example of everything wrong with American electoral politics.”
Like Abagond he sees Trump as a fascist.
“But here’s the most important point about Trump’s fascism: it isn’t his. It’s built on culture and sentiments that are at the very core of the United States.”
“Donald Trump is America.”
“The white supremacy, the nationalism, the militarism, the classism, the celebration of global hegemony, it’s all there. He is tapping into the not-so-deeply-hidden cultural forces that drive the American state. And to add the extra seasoning of what makes America America, he’s a self-styled alpha-male billionaire-playboy reality TV star who also courts the Christian right. Come on.”
On Hillary Clinton,
“If Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump represent different flavors of disillusionment with the system, Hillary represents the system itself.”
“She is ruling class through and through. If you use the endorsements of governors, senators, and representatives as a measurement of establishment support — as FiveThirtyEight does — you’ll find that Hillary is the “most establishment-approved candidate on record.” On record, not just in this election.”
“Hillary is the system. The Clintons are the epitome of the true political process in the U.S., using power and influence peddling to enrich themselves while the empire deals out mass death and destruction, all while serving the interests of wealthy corporations. Hillary doesn’t represent you. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat. Or if you’re a woman. Or if you’re a long-time supporter. Hillary’s constituency is Goldman Sachs, General Electric, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.”
“A liberal might conclude that these situations are created by loopholes and bad policy. That they signal which areas of the system are in need of reform, which areas are flaws in an otherwise good system designed with our benefit in mind. They are abuses of the system.
“But that’s wrong: these abuses are the system. This is what the political and economic structure of the United States is supposed to do. It’s what power is for. A radical critique does not see these deals “as aberrant outcomes of a basically rational system, but as rational outcomes of a system whose central goal is the accumulation of wealth and power for a privileged class.”
And Moyer goes deeper, I hit the highlights.
P.S. “If you’re wondering just how many bombs the United States dropped on Muslim-majority countries in 2015 alone, the answer is 23,144.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update (February 3rd): In the wake of the Iowa caucus on the 1st, three have dropped out: Martin O’Malley, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul. Cruz won the caucus on the Republican side, Hillary Clinton, narrowly, on the Democratic side. Given her advantages over Sanders, it amounts to a loss for her, as The Root notes:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/02/sanders_beats_clinton_49_49_the_real_story_behind_the_iowa_numbers.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update: Four more Republicans have dropped out: Santorum, Fiorina, Christie and Gilmore.
Still running:
Republican: Cruz, Carson, Trump, Bush, Kasich, Rubio.
Democrat: Clinton, Sanders.
LikeLike
Update: Jeb Bush has dropped out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KORZ8F–crY)
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
You are right, Bill Moyer did nail it. (Belated) Thanks for sharing that piece.
LikeLike
[…] The 2016 election for US president […]
LikeLike
Update (March 9th): Ben Carson dropped out shortly after Super Tuesday (March 1st). Kasich and Rubio disappoint. The Republican side is becoming Trump v Cruz and the Democratic side, Clinton v Sanders. Clinton is strong in the South, Sanders in the North. Trump, in new lows, assured us of his penis size and would not forthrightly condemn the support of David Duke and the Klan, both nakedly racist.
LikeLike
Marco Rubio was the one who mentioned Trump’s small hands I can’t believe this campaign it’s a circus this is so embarrassing for the country. The Rethuglicans are clowns.
LikeLike
Ben Carson is a weirdo
LikeLike
Update (March 16th): Rubio has dropped out: he lost his home state of Florida to Trump. It was not even close. Kasich, meanwhile, held off Trump in his home state of Ohio, but it is the only state he has won. That leaves Cruz as Trump’s only serious opponent in the Republican race.
Trump rallies are becoming increasingly violent.
LikeLike
Hopefully hillary will get indicted or at least questioned by congress
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2016/02/08/a-marco-rubio-doll-wed-like-to-see
LikeLike
Update: Ted Cruz has dropped out! He lost the Indiana primary, a do-or-die state for him. Trump will almost certainly be the Republican nominee.
LikeLike
@abagond
I remember back in December that you didn’t think he would get the republican nomination. Frankly, neither did I. And yet, he appears to be just that.
LikeLike
Update: John Kasich, Trump’s last remaining Republican opponent, has dropped out. Barring death or grave illness, Trump will be the Republican nominee.
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
Sad but true.
LikeLike
Trump is the dominant White populace’s last “great white hope” in a color-changing country called America. Trump is saying things that the average White person is too afraid to say or simply can’t say in the streets or at the workplace or at an NBA game:
1. Blacks and Browns [that includes Arab Muslims] are “criminals” and “rapists.”
2. Political correctness is “bullshit.”
3. Diversity is “white genocide.” Note that Trump paraphrases those words by saying “Let’s take back our country” [from people of color] and “Let’s make America great again” [because people of color have ruined it]. The code language of Trump has aligned the poorest Whites in Appalachia with the wealthiest Whites in Beverly Hills, California.
I’ll end my comment by saying – White people (young and old) are on CODE with their White LEADER Donald Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update: Hillary Clinton won California, giving her enough elected delegates to win the Democratic nomination in July. Bernie Sanders has not (yet) dropped out. He says “The struggle continues” and will take the fight to DC next week in the primary and to the party convention in Philadelphia in July. He meets with President Obama tomorrow.
LikeLike
Update: Last week, Bernie Sanders at long last endorsed Hillary Clinton. This week was the Republican convention. Cruz refused to endorse Trump! Trump chose Mike Pence as his vice president and gave an angry, red-faced, fearmongering acceptance speech full of racist dog whistles and twisted factoids. Next week is the Democratic convention. By then we will know who Clinton’s running mate will be.
More:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/mike-pence/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/racial-dog-whistle/
LikeLike
How about voting for this party as an alternative?
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSkqSv6fcSw&spfreload=10)
http://www.americabutbetter.com/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s their platform:
http://www.americabutbetter.com/#!platform/c1flq
LikeLike
Update: Nate Silver gives Donald Trump a 25% chance of winning: the way it looks now, Hillary Clinton will most likely win all the states Obama won in 2012 plus North Carolina:
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
LikeLike
Update: In Nate Silver’s polls-plus forecast, Trump has picked up two states over the past month, North Carolina and Iowa, but still needs three or four more. He has a 30.6% chance of winning:
LikeLike
Update (September 15th): In the past week Trump has picked up Ohio and Florida in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection. If Trump can pick up Pennsylvania or Virginia, he wins. Here is the map:
LikeLike
Yikes!!
LikeLike
Did Virginia just turn a lighter shade of blue?
LikeLike
Update: Trump picks up Nevada. He no longer needs Pennsylvania to win. He could do it with Colorado or maybe even with New Hampshire and a congressional district from Maine (Maine votes by congressional district and one of them is leaning towards Trump):
LikeLike
@sharina
Yikes is right!
@jefe
Yes, Virginia is now a lighter blue.
LikeLike
That Ohio flipped is a bad sign for Clinton. It makes it more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will flip too (the Michael Moore Rust Belt scenario) since neighbouring states tend to act alike.
LikeLike
Update: Since the debate, Trump has lost Florida and Nevada in Nate Silver’s polls-plus forecast:
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update: Trump loses yet another state in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection: North Carolina. He is now four states short with a 25% chance of winning:
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update: And now Ohio is gone too. On the eve of the second presidential debate, but before his hot-mic comments have had a chance to show up in the polls, Trump is no longer projected to win any of the three key swing states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. That gives him a 22% chance of winning. By the end of the week we will know if the second debate and the hot-mic scandal have cratered his campaign. This map shows where he stood BEFORE the hot-mic scandal broke:
https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/nate-silver-polls-plus-2016-10-09.png?w=500&h=328
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update: And now Iowa is gone too, with Arizona starting to swing. Trump is now projected to win only the Romney states:
https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/nate-silver-polls-plus-2016-10-12.png?w=500&h=367
LikeLike
Just saw this article about a national poll of American Millennials (18-35) that found that nearly a quarter of respondents would,
https://www.uml.edu/News/press-releases/2016/odyssey-poll-10182016.aspx
A giant meteor strike to the earth is better than Trump or Clinton for President? Wow! That is some genuine despair.
LikeLike
@Afrofem: It’s interesting that those young folks would rather see a meteor blow up the earth than have either Clinton or Trump be president. Very interesting indeed.
LikeLike
@Mary Burrell
Yeah, shows how unpopular both candidates are. Both are seen as essentially dishonest.
The Millennials may be young, but they see some people very clearly.
LikeLike
Update: Trump has picked up Iowa (just barely) in Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection. But to win he has to pick up Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania along with either Nevada or North Carolina. With only two weeks to go, his chances of winning are 17%.
https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/nate-silver-polls-plus-2016-10-25.png?w=500&h=351
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
LikeLike
Trump loses Iowa but gains Ohio…
LikeLike
Trump now has Iowa too. He still needs North Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania. His chances are 20.5%.
LikeLike
Not so fast, Hill!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-congressional-investigation-hillary-clinton-emails-back/story?id=43138105
LikeLike
What a difference a week makes. Panic, Hillarites, panic!
(https://youtu.be/-fsU1oogBo0)
LikeLike
‘Did law enforcement and intelligence officers stage a counter-coup to Hillary’s criminal enterprise???
A certain someone just found herself not so above the law as she thought she was… but is she still?’
https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/now-theres-a-conspiracy-theory/
LikeLike
Update: Trump is closing fast. The Real Clear Politics’s poll average puts him only 1.7 points behind – close enough for a photo finish. Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection gives him a 36% chance of picking up the one extra state he needs to win:
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
LikeLike
Trump has been picking up Gary Johnson voters. It is so close that it all could come down to turnout among Blacks (especially in Florida, North Carolina and Ohio) and the White working-class. North Carolina is an election scandal just waiting to happen.
LikeLike
the crook is going to be indicted, barring some lynch or Obama obstruction, because Obama is implicated
LikeLike
“Trump has been picking up Gary Johnson voters. It is so close that it all could come down to turnout among Blacks (especially in Florida, North Carolina and Ohio) and the White working-class. North Carolina is an election scandal just waiting to happen. ”
.
It is so close that it all could come down to … wait for it … how well this (s)election process is RIGGED.
Polls/surveys don’t matter. Neither do the ‘exit polls.’ It matters not who votes! What matters is who manipulates and who counts the votes. This is like watching almost the entire nation under the influence of magical enchantments and spells.
Future historians will look back at this time with a smidgen of humor, disbelief and melancholy. And, with an understanding that those people were on an unshakable yet speedy trajectory towards their destiny.
Amerika might have done much better for itself by choosing two denizens for candidates out of a random zoo. (Or pet store.)
No more wars. No genocides. No racism! No background checks or tax-returns required. No more chicanery!! The only technical requirement is that the zoo denizens/candidates were born in Amerika!
LikeLike
“NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury”
Truth or Fiction?? Are the NYC cops really exposing this crime syndicate??
How Hillary fans can still believe in their crooked candidate defies all semblance of sanity. Anyway, it looks like the Clintons are finally running out of JUICE.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/NYPD_Blows_Whistle_on_New_Hillary_Emails%3A_Money_Laundering%2C_Sex_Crimes_with_Children%2C_Child_Exploitation%2C_Pay_to_Play%2C_Perjury/55022/0/38/38/Y/M.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Dems cynically connived for a terrible candidate to go up against Trump because they thought Trump was unelectable. But everywhere the Clintons go scandals follow so here we are: a major party’s candidate under FBI investigation for national security breaches WHILE running for president. Reality or the plot of a dark comedy?
LikeLike
omg our busses are still on strike in philly
LikeLike
@ Fan
If it is rigged, then whoever is doing the rigging wants to destroy or damage the US, which would suggest the Russians.
LikeLike
@ Origin
It is appalling that both parties picked such terrible candidates. AT BEST the next four years will be scandal-plagued.
LikeLike
‘If it is rigged, then whoever is doing the rigging wants to destroy or damage the US, which would suggest the Russians.’
of course. its always the Russians. it has always been the Russians. it will always be the Russians. that’s neomccarthyism.
LikeLike
(https://youtu.be/4D92Gc7f6Lk)
its a myth. seed planted by clinton
LikeLike
“If it is rigged, then whoever is doing the rigging wants to destroy or damage the US, which would suggest the Russians.”
@Abagond
Is this the premise for the post you’re going to write someday on Election Fraud, that the Russians are/were likely responsible for rigging the 2016 elections in the USA??
I guess the Russians probably rigged the 2000 election too?
What’s next, the Russians conspired with Bin Laden, Quadaffi and Saddam to bring down the Twin Towers (and building 7) on 911 to incite the War on Terror??
How about this — Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers were all Russian spies planted in the USA to monkey-wrench Bill Clinton’s efforts at running the country??
Or, that the Russians somehow drew Nixon’s people into committing the Watergate break-in??
Almost everyone knows it was the Russians who put Oswald (and his magic bullets) in place to assassinate JFK in Texas.
Should Santa and his reindeer turn up missing on Christmas Eve, surely the Russians will be the primary suspects – coz that’s how Santa rolls… or rather slides, or flies, right??
Is that tin-foil (Russian style) hat of yours getting a little snug around your head of late? You may want to visit a Russian tailor and get your brim adjusted. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
New York Daily News Opinion
The case against Hillary Clinton
The Daily News last month published an indictment of the character and temperament of Donald Trump that stands as the longest editorial in the 97-year history of the newspaper. When drafting that, we invited a prominent critic of Hillary Clinton to take her best shot at writing an equivalent indictment of the Democratic nominee.
That Op-Ed is below. Read both and come to your own conclusions. We welcome letters meant for publication. All submissions must include the writer’s full name and city and/or borough. Send to voicers@nydailynews.com.
BY Lisa Schiffren
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, November 3, 2016
By now, Hillary Clinton is as polished as politicians come. At 69, her hair is perfectly coiffed and colored, her makeup is subtle and her clothes are expensive. A trained debater, educated at Wellesley and Yale Law School, with decades of public life, she speaks well.
In an election that she has framed around temperamental fitness for the presidency, her deliberate comments and careful parsing of words suggest that she possesses the steadiness and judgment required. That is the image we saw when she stood on a debate stage with the far less controlled, more hot-tempered Donald Trump.
Clinton’s public persona is a façade, though a well designed one, held up by her staff, masters of television illusion and a collaborating national media. With the release of WikiLeaks emails, it has become clear that her senior staff questions that image among themselves.
To understand what she is likely to do with the enormous, now largely unchecked power of the American presidency requires seeing the reality behind that façade. Judging by her actions over the past 35 years in Washington and Arkansas, in roles from governor’s wife to First Lady, senator to secretary of state, it is clear that Hillary’s deep character flaws and temperamental shortcomings, while better hidden than Donald Trump’s very visible ones, present a much greater danger to our democracy.
Clinton’s character-revealing behavior includes incessant lying to the public; vast personal greed leading to corruption in high office; abuse of power on behalf of herself and against private citizens and political rivals; disregard for the law, and the very idea of the Rule of Law; disdain for the “deplorable” half of her opponent’s supporters, and the confession, made during a private Goldman Sachs speech revealed by WikiLeaks, that she typically offers one position on policy and politics in private and another, often very different one, for public consumption.
This admission alone makes it impossible to know whether any policy agenda she has campaigned on reflects her intentions. Or is she actually planning to implement unwelcome policies voters would reject if she were honest about them?
Nor is the media helping find the truth. As we have learned lately, some top-tier news organizations have offered her staff questions before interviews and debates, so that she can rehearse, and her staff can veto uncomfortable questions. Reporters have run copy past her campaign staff. The press seems happily complicit in this corruption, but it makes any reporting hard to trust.
Given that the Democratic National Committee worked with the Clinton campaign to beat Sen. Bernie Sanders in the primaries, using money, smears and other tools, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will develop sudden respect for democracy and refrain from chicanery against her GOP rival. Her use of operatives like Robert Creamer to foment violence at Trump rallies, as Creamer boasted on a Project Veritas videotape, suggests she will stop at nothing.
Finally, her political judgment is terrible from any perspective. Her policy mistakes at home and abroad — from the secretive attempt in the early 1990s to foist government-run health care on the country as the unelected First Lady; to helping fuel the Arab Spring by using the State Department to train young, mostly radical Islamist “revolutionaries” to destabilize their governments; to encouraging the killing of Muammar Khadafy, which unleashed a civil war in Libya — have been costly.
Her concrete achievements are hard to name, which is why both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, at her Democratic National Convention, were reduced to describing her as an “agent of change,” and not the author of any particular accomplishment or significant legislation in the Senate.
For all her talk of working tirelessly for children, just three bills of hers were passed in eight years in the Senate. They were for name designations of a local post office, a portion of a highway and a historic site. As New Yorkers across the state are aware, her campaign promises to bring jobs and sorely needed economic growth to upstate amounted to nothing. She was not able to get a bill passed to help fund “government investment” in the region.
The American people understand much of this. Only 11% of voters find her honest and trustworthy, even if they plan to vote for her.
It is puzzling that so many of Clinton’s supporters seem indifferent to her unethical and illegal behavior. Living in denial, they insist that each instance in which she has been accused of lying, breaking laws set up to protect national security, letting large donations bend policy or failing massively with policy can be explained by accusing the imaginary “vast right-wing conspiracy” of persecution.
Investigations, accusations and evidence amassed by Congress, and recently by the FBI, are dismissed because she has never been convicted of or charged with a crime.
That would mean something, perhaps, had she ever been tried in a court of law. Earlier this summer, we saw what happens when the FBI, a formerly clean, respected agency, undertook an investigation of the Democratic candidate for President for serious breaches of national security that were a consequence of using a private email server in contravention of all government rules concerning the handling of classified information.
Revelations of the political pressure brought to bear on FBI Director James Comey to decline to recommend indictment, even in the face of the clear evidence of violation of the Federal Records Act and the Espionage Act and evidence-tampering by destroying 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed, demonstrate Clinton’s willingness to corrupt the FBI and the Justice Department itself, and undermine the rule of law.
Clinton supporters now dismiss Comey’s re-opened FBI investigation into newly unearthed emails that Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin may have failed to turn over previously as an unfair action so close to the election. As always, they show no interest in the substance — including the exposure of secret government information and the selling of U.S. policy.
Let’s go to the record.
She’s a liar
Most politicians are not above small untruths, and occasionally larger ones. Clinton has been known as a bold and frequent liar, under oath and to the media, since her first stint in Washington. Everything from the nature of her marriage, to her health, to any random anecdote she might tell (landing under sniper fire in Bosnia!), to her public stand on any issue at any moment is or could be a lie.
While some of this has been apparent, in recent weeks, WikiLeaks has released emails between members of her staff concerned about her health, her ability to articulate a serious rationale for her candidacy and the problems created by emailing back and forth with President Obama on her illegal server. These emails drive home the magnitude of her lies.
In a January 1996 column called “Blizzard of Lies” about the then First Lady’s mounting scandals, the late, highly respected New York Times columnist William Safire wrote:
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady … is a congenital liar … she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”
Safire listed the Clinton-era scandals: the $100,000 she claimed to have made trading in the cattle futures market; the abuse of presidential power in which she “induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies”; and her decision to hide incriminating records from the Rose Law Firm, which showed she had lied under oath “when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison Guaranty S&L.”
Safire concluded, “Therefore, ask not ‘Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?’ She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
Twenty years on, in face of larger scale but similar influence-peddling accusations, she still has never been held accountable.
A rotten temperament
Behind the cool façade that suggests steadiness under fire, Hillary is a well-known rageaholic, infamous for shrieking nasty imprecations at both professional staff and people who guard her, as leaks from the Secret Service and others have long indicated.
For instance, newly released FBI records show that, in her years as secretary of state, the nation’s leading diplomat, Clinton was so rude and nasty to the State Department security agents assigned to guard her that they refused to work with her. “[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” the interview summary says. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”
This behavior occurs frequently, and it undermines any idea that Mrs. Clinton is in control of her emotions, or in any way “steady.”
The personal is political
Mrs. Clinton’s sex life is no concern of ours. The nature of the Clinton marriage, however, remains relevant, on two counts. First, Democrats have questioned how conservatives can tolerate a thrice-married man as the GOP candidate. That is a fair question.
But when the other choice is a long-term marriage riddled by chronic infidelity, in which, according to sources close to both Clintons, the husband and wife have not lived under the same roof since leaving the White House 16 years ago, a couple of divorces start to seem, if nothing else, honest.
Of far graver concern as a marker of character is the role that Hillary Clinton played when her husband was governor and President in suppressing “bimbo eruptions.” We don’t need to rehearse Bill Clinton’s affairs, or even the accusations of rape and harassment lodged against him. Nor does it matter how Hillary felt about that behavior.
What matters is that she personally was known to suppress potential scandals and keep the women involved silent, either by intimidating them herself, or allegedly sending one of several men who did such things in Little Rock and D.C.
Mrs. Clinton’s current crusade against “bullying” seems ironic given that she personally bullied the women her husband slept with in pursuit of keeping the Clinton, Inc. reputation clean enough to fool most Americans.
Many women found it puzzling that such a strong-seeming woman stayed with a husband who humiliated her by constant cheating. But it makes a lot more sense if you consider them a pure partnership, devoted to acquiring power and money.
Money, money, money, money
Amassing vast amounts of money, by whatever means, has always occupied a significant part of Hillary Clinton’s energy. She has consistently been indifferent to the legal and ethical considerations that apply when a holder of high public office takes large sums from private interests. She has a stunning ability to corrupt people and institutions around her as well, most recently the State Department and the Department of Justice.
While all of Hillary’s early scandals were about obtaining money, usually in return for the kind of favors a governor can dispense, former Clinton strategist Dick Morris claims that the current level of greed didn’t begin until shortly before the Clintons left the White House.
money
In the course of Bill’s impeachment after his affair with Monica Lewinsky, his perjury cost him his law license. Morris claims that the Clinton Foundation, a massive influence-peddling operation, was a substitute for a more traditional, honest path to riches, denied them because of lying about an affair. Character is destiny.
And this brings us to the great, interlocking personal scandals of Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state.
Servergate, influence-peddling and worse
Let’s start with the most consequential current scandal, which gets bigger by the day. That is the linked set of illegal actions Clinton took as secretary of state, including “Servergate” and the alleged auctioning off of U.S. foreign policy to the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Those who followed Servergate were initially led to believe that Clinton had used her own Blackberry, instead of the State Department’s secure email system, for personal convenience. As the magnitude of her evasion of the mandated use of the State Department’s secure email system became clear, the line became that she had merely been careless with national security secrets.
Only recently has it become clear that the likely purpose of setting up the private server in the Chappaqua residence and a bathroom in a non-secure office in Denver was to avoid detection of the private business Clinton conducted from her office — namely, directing nations with business before the U.S. State Department to become donors to the Clinton Foundation.
spinmachine
Even if the Clinton Foundation did some good charitable work in the Third World, the ugly nature of these transactions is clear.
The private server was set up before Clinton took office, to avoid any public — or government — scrutiny, and in case of Freedom of Information Act requests.
Why? Because she knew in advance that using her position as one of the most powerful officers in the U.S. government to hit up foreign governments and private institutions for cash, in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation, was unethical and illegal. The magnitude of this self-enriching pay-to-play scheme is stunning.
To be sure, it was a highly successful scheme for the Clinton bank balance. In the four years that Hillary served as secretary of state, Bill earned $48 million for speeches given to private companies and foreign governments.
Those included many of the world’s most tyrannical, brutal and un-free nations. The Foundation has banked tens of millions of dollars from Arab nations, including those funding ISIS, though, as we recently learned, a $12 million gift from the King of Morocco, solicited by Clinton, didn’t happen because she was about to start her campaign and thought it might look bad.
Surely the most egregious triangulation was the one in which a State Department committee agreed to allow the sale of 20% of U.S. strategic uranium reserves held by a company called Uranium One (owned by a big Clinton donor, Frank Giustra) to the Russian company Rosatom, which has close Kremlin ties. It is hard to rationalize that action under any circumstance.
As the New York Times reported, “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.” The seller, “Frank Giustra … a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation…”
And, speaking of ties to Russia, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech, part of which is thought to have come from the Russian government. Vladimir Putin showed his thanks by attending the speech.
As Peter Schweitzer, author of the expose “Clinton Cash,” noted, WikiLeaks e-mails provide proof that the “Clintons have a long and lucrative history of financial deals with the Russians, particularly with the Russian government.”
Are we sure the Clinton Foundation is really that corrupt? The very respectable law firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett was brought in, in 2011 by Chelsea Clinton, fresh from graduate school, to evaluate the disturbing accusations of quid pro quo expectations among foreign donors.
The ultimate report concluded that many people who raised money for the foundation reported conflicts over what donors expected in return. Sadly, the Simpson, Thacher recommendations were ignored.
Policy and political judgments
It is hard to find any actual successes in Hillary Clinton’s four years as secretary of state. But her major failures illustrate the problems with her judgment.
The Benghazi debacle has been studied ad nauseam, without any real conclusion as to why the Obama administration declined to send timely help to rescue Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his men. The one action about which no questions remain is that, though she knew exactly what had happened, how and why, in real time, Clinton chose to spin a farfetched story about the Arab world getting riled up by an anti-Islam video, and lie to the American people, for months to come.
coverup
The accepted explanation, that President Obama couldn’t afford to take the hit for the gruesome deaths of U.S. officials two months before an election, on the anniversary of 9/11, no less, would be a very cynical political reason for a huge lie.
Speaking of cynicism, in his 2014 memoir, Robert Gates — who had served as secretary of defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama — wrote that Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the 2007 troop surge had been based on how she thought her own political fortunes would be affected by taking that position.
For example, Gates described a “remarkable” exchange that he had witnessed in which Clinton, speaking retrospectively, “told the President that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary” and could not afford to be perceived as pro-war.
The record shows, again and again, lies, secrecy and duplicitousness deployed as means to the ends of amassing wealth and power.
Despite her well-padded resume and long proximity to power, Hillary Clinton’s illegal actions, abuse of office, secretive, undemocratic instincts and low character render her unfit to serve as President of the United States.
Schiffren is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.
© Copyright 2016 NYDailyNews.com. All rights reserved.
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/11/op-ed-case-against-hillary-clinton/
LikeLike
Just sitting here waiting for the Friday afternoon bombshell to drop….
LikeLike
@abagond
It’s a total disaster and it barely matters which of the two wins. A volatile time is coming. If Hillary wins, as is still likely, there will be a president entering the Oval Office with an ongoing FBI investigation into possibly treasonous activity. It’ll be Bill’s impeachment drama all over again no doubt amplified by Trump and his sizeable contingent of supporters who’ll struggle, with his encouragement, to accept the election’s outcome. If Trump wins his presidency will also be incredibly divisive due to some of the things he’s said and the strong feelings many people have about him. Neither can govern an inherently divided country as an inspiring or unifying figurehead because they both have baggage that makes them extremely divisive. So the coming years will be a total disaster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She is dan….. ger ous… Trump too, but not so bad as this. She’s already threatened to attack Russia on the false charge that Russia leaked her emails about stealing the Dem nomination. (Assange says it wasn’t Russia.) A dangerous woman. Willing to start WW3 over her own wicked mechanizations..
One two three four
What the heck are we voting for?
WAR WAR WAR!
(https://youtu.be/4D92Gc7f6Lk)
LikeLike
^^^That was in reference to your previous post that both candidates are bad, not the 20:17:10 post which I didn’t see until after hitting submit.
LikeLike
@ Origin
I agree that it will be bad either way, but I do not agree that “it barely matters which of the two wins”. The US and the world can weather another President Clinton, but it is an open question whether it can weather a President Trump. At the very least, under Trump there will be zero to negative progress on global warming. And the racial climate is bound to become much worse.
LikeLike
TBH, given Hillary’s likely very corrupt conduct as SoS under Obama, the thought of her as an executive-order-issuing president scares me no less than Trump. I’m slightly comforted by the possibility that, if she wins, the ongoing FBI investigation and the associated microscope will greatly limit her freedom of action.
LikeLike
Abagond
Can you explain why you think Black people will be safer with Hillary in the oval, than they would be with Trump?? Or point me to something you already wrote …
What specifically has she done or said that causes you to believe that Black interests is something she would fight for – or care about?????
@Origin
” And the racial climate is bound to become much worse.”
The racial climate went from bad to much worse from Bush to Obama!
WHO EXPECTED THAT???
Please explain in detail why you are so certain a Trump presidency will be a win-win-win scenario for heavily racist occupied Amerika. Presidents – by themselves certainly don’t have the power to legislate morality, or hate.
Yes, I believe to a large degree that if Trump wins, white people at large will likely feel racially energized and back on top. Yet the erosion of Black civil rights laws since their legislation during the 60s isn’t a new or sudden phenomena. That’s been happening for a long time. Trump does have his RACE issues, but what makes you think he’s the reincarnation of George Wallace??
LikeLike
*phenomenon
LikeLike
If Trump wins the inauguration will be filled with NASCAR types and klansmen.
LikeLike
‘If Trump wins the inauguration will be filled with NASCAR types and klansmen.”
If Clinton wins it will be Satanists and spirit cookers.
LikeLike
I notice that some commenters spend a lot of effort trying to prove or call others attention to how wicked “Die Frau” (The Woman; Clinton) is. Yet they hesitate to jump to the logical conclusion: call people to vote for Trump instead. I call this cowardice.
I see at this point in time (already very close to the elections day!) only 4 candidates and 5 options:
* The 2 major parties candidates (Clinton and Trump);
* Two minor candidates;
(Each candidate, big or small, corresponds to an option for the electorate.)
* A remaining option is to abstain from vote.
I think that people should concentrate their efforts in convincing themselves and others of what to do and not what not to do.
Abagond thinks that Trump would be a very bad choice for America and especially for Black people. Based on that premise he concludes that (Black) people should vote for Clinton. He is fully aware of the shortcomings of that candidate, but he thinks that the important thing right now is to avoid a disastrous course of action for America in the next 4 years. I understand his position as logical and coherent.
At least one commenter – resw77 – seemed to me to lean for a vote for Donald Trump (See, https://abagond.wordpress.com/2016/03/19/donald-trump-quotes-about-black-people/#comment-311897), but I’m not sure of that. Anyway, if he is for a vote for Trump, I’ll take it as a logical and coherent position. Not a naive position but one inspired by a calculation of what is better for the country, and arguably for Blacks too, considering the alternatives. In fact, one can argue that the nationalistic positions took by Trump would mean a rise in employment level in the following years, following a possible return of some jobs which went to foreign countries in the last decades. This argumentation makes some sense. Higher employment levels would benefit Blacks too.
What I don’t understand are the commenters who relentlessly try to prove that Die Frau is wicked but never show any viable alternative, because they say, if asked, that Trump is bad too. And no, they are not arguing for abstinence of vote either!
These attitudes would make more sense if coming for racist White trolls with an explicit purpose of effectively shut out the Black vote by seeding disorientation and indecisiveness in this particular block of the electorate.
Or, maybe… just maybe, these are Black minds which become very disappointed with how little the Democratic Party has delivered to the Black population in so many years where said population gave them help to win elections at all levels. Maybe they think it’s time to teach them a lesson showing them the red card! If this is what these commenters have in mind, why don’t they say it explicitly and come to the conclusion that his time voting for Trump instead, would be a way to bring an higher price to Black votes henceforth, votes which remained cheap until now, especially for the Democratic Party, which has used them without almost nothing in return. This position could be argued but I have seen very little in that direction. Maybe be because those commenters are very afraid of appearing as Trump adherents, at a time when this could be seen as a betrayal in some quarters. Therefore they keep arguing only that… Die Frau is wicked,… Die Frau is wicked,… Die Frau is wicked… in a very repetitive tone!
Life is about taking decisions. Some of them can be hard because the alternatives remain very close in merit or because some consequences that follow them can be risky. It’s a measure of maturity that one takes a decision despite the risks, if it comes from a well justified and logical thought process.
Taking decisions is not like playing God, because only He knows the future with certainty!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Correction in my last comment:
Where is
coming for racist White trolls
should be
coming from White trolls
LikeLike
“What I don’t understand are the commenters who relentlessly try to prove that Die Frau is wicked but never show any viable alternative,’ Jill Stein. If she’s not viable then the hell with it. Let Trump take the hindmost.
LikeLike
from racist White trolls
LikeLike
“Trying to prove”? I’m not trying to prove a damn thing. I’m pointing it out.
LikeLike
“Repetitive”
If you’re a passenger in a car being driven off a cliff, at what point do you stop shouting to the driver “you’re heading over a cliff!!!”
LikeLike
Where’s Ross Perot when you need him?
LikeLike
@ nomad
Exactly.
This is what I had in mind. Spend more time convincing people why those choices are better and not why… Die Frau is wicked!
If you put more effort proving the merit of such alternatives you could end up having more people on the same side as you.
Some would like to know more details about such proposals and you would take some time answering them.
For example: has Jill Stein not a very tiny bunch of followers? some would ask. And you would develop your explanation of how such a choice would make sense despite that. Or : is Trump not anti-Black? And you would try to explain why he would be better for America and Blacks nevertheless. This would be the basis of constructive, insightful and interesting dialogues between you and other commenters. This would enrich the debates on this blog.
The repetitive slogan, Die Frau is wicked! Die Frau is wicked is hardly meaningful!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Nomad,
I gleaned at least one (maybe two) thing(s) from our African brother’s dissertation.
We are both, apparently, immature cowards, according to our fellow poster.
To that I’ll say, truth-tellers have never been popular. People prefer to be left in their own delusions of grandeur. Very few enjoy having their apple carts upset!
@ munubantu
Don’t be shy! Next time you have something to say to me, you can say my name instead dropping innuendos like “… some commenters spend a lot of effort … ”
I’ll appreciate it and respect you more for approaching me directly than some round-about way.
It isn’t my mission here to tell anyone who to vote for, or that they shouldn’t vote. Most people here are of reasonable intelligence… Everyone should follow the instructions of their conscience, higher power, God or whatever.
I make decisions for myself, alone. It’s not my job to make decisions for others. All I can do is to tell the truth.
In honesty, I don’t believe voting matters much, if at all. I see it much like professional sports. It’s a useful distraction that gives the people something to hope for, to root for, while the powers that be go about their business as usual – which has precious little to do with doing good things for the nation’s people. Politicians in Amerika are overwhelmingly about lies and pretense – and self-interest, self-preservation.
Things aren’t getting better for the common person, yet hardly anyone says so out-loud. Nonetheless every four years this great PRODUCTION – presidential (s)election – is presented to the people to get behind and believe that wrongs will be made right, things broken will be fixed, wars will cease and change will happen, even with this being the worst offering of candidates in history! One is a crude and vulgar racist, the other is an insatiable super crook plus – AND a racist as well.
Little people believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Big people believe in elections, voting and change!
The type of change that the entrenched controllers/ruling cartel will never permit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Where’s Ross Perot when you need him?”
I prefer Cynthia McKinney, or at the very least, Dr. Ron Paul.
Favorite McKinney moment:
She asked Secretary of Defense D Rumsfeld, et al about the 2.3 TRILLION USD that went missing from the pentagon!
LikeLike
@munubantu
One irony is that the one commenter you noted who is most supportive of Trump is not an American citizen and can’t legally vote in a US election.
LikeLike
this jill stein person seems to be channeling ross perot, and coming from nowhere in the 11th hour!
LikeLike
and i study the occult, and that #spiritcooking mess sure caught me blindsided and somewhat befuddled! that is really down the rabbit hole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who’d she coup?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/5-minute-video-clinton-foundation-5-charity-fraud-obvious-election-fraud-lying-us-military-illegal-empire-wars-white-hat-insider-lawful-revolution-justice.html
the pedophile thing is going to be the nail in her coffin.
(https://youtu.be/KPiJdATpEaM)
LikeLike
v8driver
jill stein hashtag real person
LikeLike
Even if it’s a long shot the best possible scenario is that something happens in the next few days that completely wrecks Clinton’s campaign and forces everyone who was going to vote for her (just because she’s considered most likely to beat Trump) to pick someone else as their not-Trump vote.
I really cannot stomach the prospect of an obviously corrupt individual being president. I don’t have a real fear of Trump rounding up minorities and sending them to the gas chamber despite his insensitive racial remarks. OTOH, I think that Clinton’s pay-for-play propensities represent a real potential threat to life and limb of Americans and the whole world. Someone like that is unfit to be commander in chief of the world’s best funded military in my opinion.
So options are admittedly thin, but she isn’t one from my perspective. She’s quite possibly more of a danger to be stopped [Hillary on Qadaffi being tortured to death: “We came, we saw, he died..ha, ha, ha, ha”]. I don’t even think people who’re voting for Hillary are enthused about her. I get the sense that many are more uncertain about Trump and would rather stick with the evil they know. Yet what I know concerns me a lot. Hillary was a disaster when she had power as Secretary of State and she will have the most power ever as President.
But probably the votes don’t matter as many people say and the outcome is already rigged. Certainly some shenanigans took place to get Clinton the Democratic Party nomination so it’s hard to imagine they’ll stop before obtaining the ultimate prize when so much is at stake.
LikeLike
jill stein makes me think of ralph nader for some reason
LikeLike
@v8driver
How?
LikeLike
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-jill-stein-disturbing-echoes-of-ralph-nader/2016/08/23/513bc40a-696c-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html
green party? unsafe at any speed? found this article after i posted the above…
LikeLike
Is it really only meaningful decision in the battleground / swing states?
I mean, in the solidly Blue or Red states, do we have to worry about voting against our conscience? I do not recommend abstaining, but maybe we don’t have to vote just to keep the worst one out.
Even Noam Chomsky recommended voting for Hillary in the “swing” states against his best conscience. But, specifically in those states.
LikeLike
yeah thanks for telling me the libertarian vote is not just a waste but an indirect vote for trump! oi vey
LikeLike
@ jefe
If Clinton leads by more than 3% in your state, it is probably safe to “vote your conscience”. But the trouble is, if enough people do that, Trump will win!
LikeLike
@ Fan
It is not that Hillary Clinton will be good for Black people, just that she will be less bad.
Both Trump and Clinton have a clearly racist past, but Trump’s current rhetoric and his voter base are far more openly racist. If he wins open racism will become more acceptable, so will policies that are more racist, like nationwide stop and frisk. I do not want to live in a Breitbart world, or even one where Rudy Giuliani heads the DOJ – the current one is bad enough.
In my lifetime I have already seen the country lurch right, under Reagan and Bill Clinton. I would much rather have the flawed status quo, which is bad enough, than to lurch yet further right, this time into White nationalism.
LikeLike
I don’t think leading by 3% is a very safe margin. Even in those “leaning blue” states, such as Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc., you feel that your vote can matter. In the battle ground, eg, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, then your vote is crucial.
But in Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, DC, etc. (or West Virginia, Kentucky, Wyoming, Arkansas) I might think about the 3rd or 4th party candidates or maybe even an independent, if their platform is closer to what you want.
LikeLike
On the eve of the election, Nate Silver’s polls-plus projection gives Trump a 30% of winning.
He is no longer projected to win Nevada, North Carolina and Florida like he was last week. But those states, along with Ohio and New Hampshire, are still very close and could easily wind up on either side when the dust clears. The trouble for Trump is that he needs to win all five (or their equivalent in other states where he is farther behind), while Clinton only needs to win one.
More:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
LikeLike
“In my lifetime I have already seen the country lurch right, under Reagan and Bill Clinton. I would much rather have the flawed status quo, which is bad enough, than to lurch yet further right, this time into White nationalism.”
.
In my lifetime, I’ve never seen the country lurch as far right (into white nationalism) as it has during Barack Obomber’s time in office. Civil rights gains were rolled back! Firearm sales (via white people) never peaked as high as whites mobilized for … a perceived race war?? Dylan went into a Black church and blew away 9 unarmed people. Cops regularly murder unarmed Black citizens. Obomber faces a regular type of common disrespect and racism that Colin Powell and Condi Rice from W Bush’s prior administration rarely if ever experienced. Obomber has done next to nothing for Black people. It is white nationalism that made sure he played the zero sum gain game on their behalf, effectively tying up his hands on our behalf! They even shut him down on the Skip Gates debacle.
White nationalism?? This country is already mired in it! We are effectively in it now! Can’t lurch any further into white nationalism than where we are currently!! In fact, in order for this country to become more white, move in the direction you’re talking about, white birthrates would have to increase dramatically.
We all know that’s not happening.
LikeLike
“I’ve never seen the country lurch as far right (into white nationalism) as it has during Barack Obomber’s time in office. Civil rights gains were rolled back! Firearm sales (via white people) never peaked as high”
I was just thinking about this yesterday when someone set that the racial climate would probably be worse under Trump. Yet all the hate groups etc. got more active during Obama’s presidency not less. They might well be more militant under Clinton than under Trump who they’d perceive as being “their man”. Anyway, I don’t think that should be a consideration when it comes to one’s vote. Each person can only make a conscientious decision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Fan
Yes it can. We know that because it has, like under Jim Crow.
Yes, White nationalism has become more open under Obama – Trump did not come out of thin air – but that is hardly a reason to make it yet worse by voting the Klan’s wet dream into power and make him the most powerful man on earth.
LikeLike
Yay the busses are running in philly today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently, Trump over performed in States which have the highest drug, suicide mortality rates and alcohol. No Wonder he won, the populace was drunk, high on heroin, suicidal. They probably thought they wouldn’t be around to enjoy his presidency:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/09/daily-202-trump-over-performed-the-most-in-counties-with-the-highest-drug-alcohol-and-suicide-mortality-rates/584a2a59e9b69b7e58e45f2e/
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Herneith
Red states and counties tend to be the most dysfunctional and needy. When a local columnist asked why one of the poorest counties in the state went for Trump, their response (in the comment section of the article) was that they “got their self respect back”.
That is a loaded comment…and open to several ways of understanding. My personal interpretation is that as long as there was a Black man in the White House they felt diminished. With Trump, they feel restored to their former glory. Fewer services, more prestige.
In the article itself, this explanation was offered:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/counties-in-washington-that-rely-most-on-obamacare-voted-for-trump/
Biting off your nose to spite your face can be painful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Biting off your nose to spite your face can be painful.
Yes but you now have your white pride back, so what if it means the security net being pulled out from under you. They will find this out once they come out of their liquor and drug induced fog. they will then proceed to relapse when they realize what they have done! They will then proceed to attempt suicide en masse.
LikeLike