[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Sunshine Jesse]

Okay. Unlike the first one, this debate was actually relatively even. It took some top-level delusion to believe Trump won the first one, but in this one, he managed to keep calm and collected enough to not seem like a petulant child. He started out horribly but managed to get it together. To his supporters, this will likely be an overwhelming victory. He said some absolutely reprehensible things, mind, but that's more or less the standard that has been set for Trump so it didn't really work against him.

 

I'd say he won. If he performed this "well" during the first debate, he might not have dug such a ditch for himself.

 

His final response in the debate was wonderful and really unexpected coming from him. It perfectly encapsulated one of the big reasons I support Hillary.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Personal Outtake from today, Nigel Farage exposed ties between Haramabe and Trump

[Aerion Brightflame]

It was a pretty s*** showing from both candidates I think.

 

Trump was way to evasive and kept trying to play the 'They are favouring Hillary' card. Kudos to the moderators for taking none of that s***. Also Kudos to them for ensuring some fantastic questions were asked: The wikileaks question was insane. We also have him threatening to imprison political opponents, showing a complete lack of understanding on Aleppo and the middle east (The whole 'why not just use a Sneak Attack?' bit), we have him outright admitting to not paying income tax, we have him saying he 'disagreed with Pence and hadn't communicated with him'. He was also incredibly shifty on stage, and looked like he was trying to impose over Clinton which was odd. And the usual gigantic array of lies. There was a lot of really shitty things said, and in general he always kept trying to avoid the question by going into random anti Hillary rants.

 

 

Hillary on the otherhand, despite having the debate set-up for her on a silver platter just couldn't take advantage of it. She was also really evasive, and she focused on trying to go blow for blow with Trump instead of just win through superior policy. She did really poorly on the email question, and on the wikileaks question (Like seriously, the man who thought that up should do all the debate questions).

 

 

Trump's odd obsession with Bernie Sanders was quite fun as well.

 

 

Essentially it was a wash-out - I can't say either candidate decisively won because neither exactly stood out. I guess given the position Trump was in beforehand you can say he had a slight edge, but it was only through failed expectations rather than greater merit in the debate.

 

 

Also Winter: You realise that we have footage of Trump calling Bill Clinton's alleged victims 'terrible' and 'unattractive' right? He 'enabled' Clinton's abuse at the time as much as Hillary did. And his defense doesn't even defend his viewpoint, it's not 'I'm not guilty, I respect women', it was 'I'm going to bring up my opponents husbands s*** to try and make her look as bad as me and not say a word in my own defence'. It's just a frankly insane attempt at deflection.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

These new wikileaks make me wet, Assange doing god's work

[Aerion Brightflame]

Technically Gods work would be bringing both candidates because both of them are shits in the eyes of the Lord. But Assange's transparency towards Hillary has been evident for ages, so we have to settle with only half of the job he should be doing.

 

Can I ask you to be more specific about the leaks? Because the only leak I have seen today is an email telling Hillary to let-up on Bernie for the sake of consolodating support after the nomination. Which is completely expected because she was shooting herself in the foot by doing that. Even the bit about creating a super PAC behind Sanders and co's aim to fund liberal campaigns is a completely sane thing.

 

So I must be missing some of these leaks because I've seen no news stories about any leaks that have happened today.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cuaw-bEVMAAwcEd.jpg

 

Still against gay marriage for one?

 

Her campaign manager basically accepting she had health problems

 

Another one saying she better run against clown cruz because she lies so much it would be hard for her to beat anyone

 

Trump is a womanizer, HRC is a criminal at best, Traitor at worse...Trump is more damaging to himself than any leak

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't see what any of those leaks achieve:

 

We know she was sick, we saw her collapse, we heard from her doctor.

 

We know she lies, that's never been in question. It's part of the reason the Wikileaks question in the debate achieve.

 

We know she's really s*** at winning, because outside of her first relection as a senator I believe she's only ever gotten more unpopular as time goes on in elections. Bernie for example almost always polled better at the shot of actually winning after the nomination.

 

The gay marriage thing is iffy but the odds of it being repealled are slim and frankly being able to divorcee yourself from your own personal standpoints is great as a politician if Hillary could evidence it.

 

It's not new information for the most part, it's not proving much new stuff about her that you don't already know if you've been following the election. And that's the sort of people who'd actually read the emails. Neither is a great soundbite.

 

It doesn't matter if Trump would get damaged by the leaks or not, Assange tries to pride himself on revealing the truth about American leaders and politics. But given how poorly hidden some of this Trump dirt was you would expect him to have brought some up himself if he actually gave a damn about the truth.

 

Trump has more issues than just being a womaniser. Did you not watch some of the insane things he said in the debate? Like prosecution of his political enemies? Or complete disagreement with Mike Pence (And apparently no consultation with him)? His lack of knowledge about Aleppo and seeming like of care towards it? He has a lot of issues right now.

 

Including the wave of Republican senators not backing him (It's like a third of them at this point, and that includes every woman). To which he responds by threatening to dismantle them come the next set of elections. There's a lot of crazy s*** happening right know.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CubKKtlWEAEPeON.jpg This however breaks my heart Most Americans think she got off unfairly, hell the FBI is in open revolt vs comey for a reason. It wasn't a proper investigation He said he would get a private instigator to look into the matter, and was actually the most favorable moment for him among focus groups Pence agreed with Trump I'm not sure you can talk about care for Allepo when he affirmed that we need to make sure allepo doesn't fall

 

"..Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does" this is her #2 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuNmP0pWYAAKHBY.jpg hmmmm

[Aerion Brightflame]

Assuming you meant the prosecute enemies moment by this: he didn't say he'd get a Private Investigator. He said he would put a special prosecutor in place solely to look into Hillary with the express purpose of putting her in jail, ignoring that a) she's already been investigated (And it was agreed there was not enough evidence to convict, not that she was innocent) and b) that's not what you do to political opponents in Western societies. You don't threaten the person you are debating with with jail because of the disagreements. I watched the debate, he did not say private investigator, he said special prosecutor.

 

Likewise we also have him disagreeing with what Pence had said in the VP debate and saying 'I've not talked to him'. Again, words from his mouth that Anderson Cooper had to ensure he was being clear about on stage.

 

And on Aleppo, he entirely dodged the question about the humanitarian crisis, and if I remember rightly said something along the lines 'Aleppo has basically fallen'. This was at the same time he showed his complete disagreement with Pence. He spent the time ranting about ISIS and praising Russia and Assad instead of actually talking about the humanitarian crisis there.

 

I watched the debate as it aired, and watched him say all of these things. There is no 'oh you've misquoted him', 'oh he actually stands by X not Y'. This debate happened less that 24 hours ago. The only one he has possible leeway on is the Prosecutor one, but not enough to ignore him threatening a political opponent with prosecution. Otherwise there is no room here, he said these crazy things. I can pick out more from the debate if you'd like, like his comments about single payer/universal health care, or his brilliant idea to 'sneak attack' ISIS.

 

The Sanders leak is meaningless - Both points were already covered, namely that Hillary lies, and that Hillary should stop slandering Sanders. Her number 2 telling her to not do those things shouldn't be a shock because you know both are obvious mishaps. The Benghazi thing is a blow, but everyone knows she funked up there so it's not game changing. Still no magic bullet to be found.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Is this one a problem? The point is, we've BEEN arming the Kurds. We've been trying to do every HRC has said and that's what created this mess.

 

Russia and Assad cleaned out an area a day with their ariel bombings that we haven't be able to do in ages after they killed that Russian pilot.

 

Speaking of Trump's plan, he's been vindicated, they're been proof that Daesh leaders were fleeing mosul before the strikes. You hit them first, and then tell the public like you did with Bin Ladan

 

 

Aleppo has fallen, our focus should be on raqqa and mosul

[Tentacruel]

Trump's insanity aside, Pence is a fairly well-spoken guy.

 

That lady was reaching for something to get him on. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

OMFG

[Aerion Brightflame]

Whilst the actual theme of that message is scary, it's not that shocking. I can't imagine there are many politicians on earth who don't dream of an unaware and compliant public, because it lets them be elected very easily and get away with all the sheet they want to in office. We also know that Trump is better at using the media than Hillary, it's been one of his strengths up till now. So it's more 'Politicians are bastards' than 'Hillary is evil'. 

 

Having looked at both transcripts (The VP debate and the Presidential debate) I will give Pence's defence some merit. Trump technically does not mention establishing safe zones at any point in the debate with relation to Aleppo. His only comment is in relation to destroying ISIS and not to make Russia your enemy. These things technically oppose the stance Pence takes, because Pence talks about meeting Russian aggression with US force if necessary. But Pence takes a consistent viewpoint between this defence and the VP debate, so I give him credit there. He does downplay how much he talked about fighting back against Russian aggression however, with a small paragraph talking about how you should station troops in Poland and the Czech Republic (After pulling them out a few years ago).

 

It's essentially down to personal interpretation from there. There's enough evidence of Trump and Pence disagreeing on this that you can't dismiss it, but likewise you can't prove it because they have semi-similar ideas. But it is very hard to deny that Trump dodged the question on the Humanitarian crisis whereas Pence didn't. 

 

The idea of 'a sneak attack' is not a plan. A plan has specifics and details. That's just a random idea that has to have been considered in relation to Mosul because it's really obvious. Thus since we have no inside knowledge of the decision making or even all the details at work, we can assume the situation is more complex than Trump tried to paint it. I would also not call it comparable to the assassination of Bin Laden - Bin Laden was a hit by special forces, Mosul (I think) is a full scale siege of a city with the intent of taking it back. The ability to have a 'sneak attack' is greatly lessened when you have to go street by street in a fortified location. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Whilst the actual theme of that message is scary, it's not that shocking. I can't imagine there are many politicians on earth who don't dream of an unaware and compliant public, because it lets them be elected very easily and get away with all the sheet they want to in office. We also know that Trump is better at using the media than Hillary, it's been one of his strengths up till now. So it's more 'Politicians are bastards' than 'Hillary is evil'. 

 

Having looked at both transcripts (The VP debate and the Presidential debate) I will give Pence's defence some merit. Trump technically does not mention establishing safe zones at any point in the debate with relation to Aleppo. His only comment is in relation to destroying ISIS and not to make Russia your enemy. These things technically oppose the stance Pence takes, because Pence talks about meeting Russian aggression with US force if necessary. But Pence takes a consistent viewpoint between this defence and the VP debate, so I give him credit there. He does downplay how much he talked about fighting back against Russian aggression however, with a small paragraph talking about how you should station troops in Poland and the Czech Republic (After pulling them out a few years ago).

 

It's essentially down to personal interpretation from there. There's enough evidence of Trump and Pence disagreeing on this that you can't dismiss it, but likewise you can't prove it because they have semi-similar ideas. But it is very hard to deny that Trump dodged the question on the Humanitarian crisis whereas Pence didn't. 

 

The idea of 'a sneak attack' is not a plan. A plan has specifics and details. That's just a random idea that has to have been considered in relation to Mosul because it's really obvious. Thus since we have no inside knowledge of the decision making or even all the details at work, we can assume the situation is more complex than Trump tried to paint it. I would also not call it comparable to the assassination of Bin Laden - Bin Laden was a hit by special forces, Mosul (I think) is a full scale siege of a city with the intent of taking it back. The ability to have a 'sneak attack' is greatly lessened when you have to go street by street in a fortified location. 

What crisis Tom...Aleppo is gone. There's no two ways around it. It's not our jobs to take side in a conflict between Assad and his people. America (and the UK) are threatened by ISIS. That should be our focus, if Assad starts killing American soldiers, that will change matters.

 

The point about Mosul was in respect to HRC saying she wanted to nail Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi 

 

You're not gonna bag daddy if you told him that you're sending troops 3 weeks ahead of time.

 

Wikileaks From Today:

 

 

Meeting with DoJ about HRC's email case, more evidence that there was shifty crap going on

 

 

This on the other hand is inexcusable. Not only should we be sanctioning and declaring war on SA, we def shouldn't be taking 25 Million from them. This is treason

 

 

 

Just out today :))))

 

 

The fly that landed on Hillary won the debate. #Fly2016.

 

Might give a more in-depth analysis later.

Hillary thinks that environmental opposition to fracking is a plot by the Russians. You can't make this stuff up

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-expresses-support-fracking-wikileaks-document-2428659

 

Spin the wheel of blame Chinese or Russians?

 

The fly that landed on Hillary won the debate. #Fly2016.

 

Might give a more in-depth analysis later.

Hillary thinks that environmental opposition to fracking is a plot by the Russians. You can't make this stuff up

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-expresses-support-fracking-wikileaks-document-2428659

 

Spin the wheel of blame

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I just find the concept of talking about a sneak attack plan is hilarious

[Aerion Brightflame]

Saudi Arabia aren't the enemies of the US. So it's not treasonous to accept money from them, even if they are channeling money into IS. You can't be held accountable for everything that a foreign nation does simply because a charity to which you are associated accepted money from them. Unless you can prove that money went specifically on political sheet, then it's just a charitable donation by an ally. Which happens a lot to the Clinton Foundation because the Clinton Foundation is an actually functioning and highly rated charity. 

 

Basically if you are going to argue that Hillary commited treason by accepting money to her foundation from Saudi Arabia you have a funk tonne more groundwork to do. I.E. times and dates of the donations, proof that the donations were used for anything other than charity, proof that the money was specifically given by people with association to ISIS. Not just bullshit of 'She took Saudi money, she's a traitor'. 

 

Note - That is not a defence of character or her as a person, she's a politician she's done a lot of shady sheet, I just think you are grasping here. 

 

Speaking of funny sheet to do with the Russians today we've had Trump repeating falsified Russian propaganda as fact, we have his daughter going on a Holiday with Putin's girlfriend (In fairness that woman was involved with Rupert Murdoch before Putin so it might just be that. Or it's a sign that Murdoch Trump and Putin are all in on it together which is funking terrifying) and Christian Today, a leading evangelical mag, denounced Trump. Which is funking Hilarious because the Republican nominee is essentially ensured to Evangelical vote under normal circumstances. 

 

Oh and polls from the tail end of last week (I.E. after the pussygate tape dropped but before the debate) have Clinton up by as much as 11 points. 538 also now gives Hillary an 80 odd percent chance of winning the race. By the end of the week we will have a more clear picture because that will have the debate numbers factored in as well. So, should be interesting. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Saudi Arabia aren't the enemies of the US. So it's not treasonous to accept money from them, even if they are channeling money into IS. You can't be held accountable for everything that a foreign nation does simply because a charity to which you are associated accepted money from them. Unless you can prove that money went specifically on political sheet, then it's just a charitable donation by an ally. Which happens a lot to the Clinton Foundation because the Clinton Foundation is an actually functioning and highly rated charity. 

 

Basically if you are going to argue that Hillary commited treason by accepting money to her foundation from Saudi Arabia you have a funk tonne more groundwork to do. I.E. times and dates of the donations, proof that the donations were used for anything other than charity, proof that the money was specifically given by people with association to ISIS. Not just bullshit of 'She took Saudi money, she's a traitor'. 

 

Note - That is not a defence of character or her as a person, she's a politician she's done a lot of shady sheet, I just think you are grasping here. 

 

Speaking of funny sheet to do with the Russians today we've had Trump repeating falsified Russian propaganda as fact, we have his daughter going on a Holiday with Putin's girlfriend (In fairness that woman was involved with Rupert Murdoch before Putin so it might just be that. Or it's a sign that Murdoch Trump and Putin are all in on it together which is funking terrifying) and Christian Today, a leading evangelical mag, denounced Trump. Which is funking Hilarious because the Republican nominee is essentially ensured to Evangelical vote under normal circumstances. 

 

Oh and polls from the tail end of last week (I.E. after the pussygate tape dropped but before the debate) have Clinton up by as much as 11 points. 538 also now gives Hillary an 80 odd percent chance of winning the race. By the end of the week we will have a more clear picture because that will have the debate numbers factored in as well. So, should be interesting. 

Well there is evidence that the Clinton foundation money has gone to non-charitable causes

 

The way to prosecute HRC is that 1) She knew and accepted that SA would funnel money to ISIS, and still engaged in laundering with them

 

It's wasn't falsified, I assume you read the newsweek piece, Syd Blumenthal did in fact send that email. Trump didn't give the full context of the email, but he was NOT lying when he said a Clinton aide sent an email talking about Bhengazi being fair-game to her manager

 

But if you wanna talk about Bhengazi, there was an actual leak today about her lawyers buttering up the DoJ and lawyers involved in the case

 

Look at the crosstabs at polls

 

 

For example

 

Again Reuters puts out a poll showing Hillary +8

Democrats - 798/49.8%

Independents 228/13.7%

Republicans 586/36.5%

 

US = 32% democrat in 2014

 

Are you suggesting we had a 17% increase

 

I already posted the leak of monmouth altering their polls to favor HRC a couple times

 

 

The only poll to really trust and look at is LATimes

 

You for one should remember the brexit polls and betting avg's

 

Not saying Trump will win, I'm terrified everyday that he won't, but the polls are overstating it

 

Nate silver gave Trump a 1% chance of winning, and said he'd win 60 delegates in NY, Trump got 90. Silver had him beating HRC on the sunday before the debate. 

 

My "anti-trump" bit of the day

 

1) Paul Ryan is a jabroni and his staffer leaked the tape, but HRC is a witch and a danger to America, pick your fights Donald....damnit

 

2) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/apprentice-locker-room-video-trump-937111?utm_source=twitter

 

 

This either vindicates or damns trump depending on how you read it

 

A) He's a hypocrite

B) Locker Room Banter excuse does hold up

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

"The way to prosecute HRC is that 1) She knew and accepted that SA would funnel money to ISIS, and still engaged in laundering with them"

 

This is not how laws work

[cr47t]

(1) Well there is evidence that the Clinton foundation money has gone to non-charitable causes

 

The way to prosecute HRC is that 1) She knew and accepted that SA would funnel money to ISIS, and still engaged in laundering with them

 

 

(2) Look at the crosstabs at polls

 

 

For example

 

Again Reuters puts out a poll showing Hillary +8

Democrats - 798/49.8%

Independents 228/13.7%

Republicans 586/36.5%

 

US = 32% democrat in 2014

 

Are you suggesting we had a 17% increase

 

(3) I already posted the leak of monmouth altering their polls to favor HRC a couple times

 

 

The only poll to really trust and look at is LATimes

 

You for one should remember the brexit polls and betting avg's

 

Not saying Trump will win, I'm terrified everyday that he won't, but the polls are overstating it

 

(4) Nate silver gave Trump a 1% chance of winning, and said he'd win 60 delegates in NY, Trump got 90. Silver had him beating HRC on the sunday before the debate.

1.Source?

2. (addressing the Reuters poll) If you are going to post polls to make a point, at least use more than 1 so we know your point is more valid. (it's always good to not look at only one poll or source, because otherwise that one source turns out to be all you know.)

3. Post it again for us, I'm not sure a lot of us remember that.

4. Source? I seriously doubt Nate would be biased in this, he's had a record of non-bias.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I have class soon, so I'll try to get to as much as I can

 

1) http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

 

Only ~10% when to charity and the refused to show donors 

 

https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn/status/592047971631570944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

They also lied about it

 

2)

 

♦ Republican and Republican leaners 36%
♦ Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%
♦ Independents 12%

 

By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is roughly 27% ®, 32% (D), and 40% (I) – http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx–However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.

 

IND consistently lean Trump ever since the Blue Dog exile of the Obama years

 

NBC poll of post debate having her up 7 iirc?

 

Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people do when they are refuting a media poll. That aspect alone is not the big story.

Look at the polling organization:

Do you see: Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies?

Hart Research Associates is headed up by Peter D Hart (founder), and Geoff Garin (President) – SEE HERE

Now look at what role Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associate President, is currently occupying (link here):

OK, so Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates”, is currently working as “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“.  Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?

See the issue?

Wait, we’re not even close to finished.  It gets better.

Let’s take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associates and Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC.

For that information we turn to FEC filings -HERE-.  What do they indicate?

On Page #118 of the September 2016 (most recent) filing we find a payment for $178,500(screen grab above)

On Page #92 of the same September 2016 (most recent) filing, we find another payment for $42,000 (screen grab below)

♦ $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

♦ The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

♦ NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.

♦ Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.

Do you see now how “media polling” works, and why we advise to ignore it?

 

Few pages back I think I posted election ballot requests where Republicans are killing Dems in florida by almost 2 times more than Obama beat Romney by

 

Now yes, there is no promise that the Trump supporters will return the ballots, but not sure that's a bet you wanna go on

 

3) Check 1-3 pages back, it was after the first round of podesta emails dropped

 

4) Which part about Nate?

 

 

"The way to prosecute HRC is that 1) She knew and accepted that SA would funnel money to ISIS, and still engaged in laundering with them"

 

This is not how laws work

Uh, there's laws saying you can't accept or provide favors to Terrorist affiliated nations, your only argument is that SA is not officially a Terrorist sponsoring nation, but it sure as hell seems like HRC knew what they were doing and still didn't give a funk

 

If anything, her not alerting the proper authorities is a even bigger treason

 

Also this is not the sorta talk you have with low level staffers

[Aerion Brightflame]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/11/the-trump-putin-link-that-wasnt/

 

I've read the above and the newsweek post. To summarise: Blumenthal sent an excerpt of an article that said Bengazi was fair game. He did not state that opinion himself. Said email was picked up by Sputnik, a Russia government funded and run news network and the detail of it being a news article was then completely ignored. Trump then reports on the email, and reported on it at a rally (Again without it being mentioned that Blumenthal didn't state it as his own opinion). So either he read it because it was Russian propoganda, or because he read it and assumed it was easy blows. 

 

 

Either way, it is essentially the same as if he had just made it up. Because the argument he tried make from the email is a complete misrepresentation of the situation: Blumenthal did not state it as his own opinion, simply quoting an article that mentioned as much. Sydney made no comment on how legitimate the Bengazi attacks were. It's technically correct, but only in the bare minimum sense. It is to all and intents and purposes a lie because it's implying the campaign admits a form of legitimacy that doesn't exist.

 

 

The LA Times as an individual poll is only great at showing voting trends, because it takes a given group of people and runs constant polls on them and only them till election day. It lets you show the voting trends of the nation, but if the specific group has an given bias from the off it will constantly offset the data. http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ So you can use it to judge the trends among age groups and ethnic groups (The latter is kinda hard because they seem to have a really small portion of minorities to the extent that one guy not polling remarkably screwed with the data). If puts Clinton and Trump essentially dead even, and considering that it's always had Trump up compared to almost all other polls, you can assume Clinton's pulled a minor lead from this. It also shows that the public perception of whose winning has changed a lot towards Clinton's favour. Finally, you can see that the poll usually updates a few days after all other ones because of the polling metric, so there will still be I assume the 2nd debate to factor into this.

 

 

538, the aggregate which has had a 90+ percent accuracy across the 2012 election, 2014 ones and the 2016 primaries has Clinton with a 5-6 point right now. So whilst Nate Silver did screw up with Trump (And he admits as much) and Sanders, you can assume Clinton does have a lead right now. Probably not the 11 or 10 point lead some places are suggesting, but more substantial than the LATimes is suggesting.

 

EDIT: If we want our fun story of the week, we can see footage of Trump telling supporters to go out and vote on November 28th: http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-tells-rally-crowd-to-vote-on-november-28-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

 

An obvious gaffe, but still quite amusing. 

[cr47t]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/benghazi-unaoil-alamir-clinton_us_57fcf869e4b0e655eab7997c New news on Benghazi

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/unaoil-bribery-scandal-corruption_us_56fa2b06e4b014d3fe2408b9?ir=UK Big corporations be playing dirty (again)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

MULawPoll

‏@MULawPoll

Among likely voters in WI:

Thursday: Trump 41%, Clinton 40%

Friday: Clinton 44%, Trump 38%

Saturday and Sunday: Clinton 49%, Trump 30%

 

Good lord, someone shoot me

 

 

Atleast it's all pre-debate

[cr47t]

MULawPoll

‏@MULawPoll

Among likely voters in WI:

Thursday: Trump 41%, Clinton 40%

Friday: Clinton 44%, Trump 38%

Saturday and Sunday: Clinton 49%, Trump 30%

 

Good lord, someone shoot me

 

 

Atleast it's all pre-debate

Well you may want to be careful about what you hear from the candidates on the 3rd debate -- Chris Wallace, the moderator, has said that he will not fact-check the candidate's lies. So be skeptical of what you hear.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well you may want to be careful about what you hear from the candidates on the 3rd debate -- Chris Wallace, the moderator, has said that he will not fact-check the candidate's lies. So be skeptical of what you hear.

I'm more concerned that he lost all the ground he made up after the first debate with his economics speeches

 

This race is WAY to volatile for my liking

 

I mean when have they ever stopped HRC from lying? You might find today's wikileaks intriguing CR47

 

I'll elaborate and get to your post when I get back from class tom

 

Why Trump is talking about Climate Change is beyond me, he's not gonna get those people even if he panders