IBD-TIPP Poll – 23 October 2016

  Henri_Rousseau_ macaco na selva



 OK.  Explain that to me.  pl 


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

165 Responses to IBD-TIPP Poll – 23 October 2016

  1. Fifth Columnist says:

    It’s called an outlier. Instead of over-valuing a single poll you should be looking at the trends for poll averages.
    This poll shows Clinton winning ~77% of Democrats and only 65% of blacks. Not likely to be accurate.
    In any case it makes no difference. Trump is certainly campaigning as if he’s down big with all the rigged election whining.

  2. turcopolier says:

    5th Colummist
    Rasmussen is another outlier? I suspect that there is a lot of group think in the polling world as well as commonly shared sampling biases. pl

  3. Jack says:

    Zero hedge has two recent posts raising questions on the poll results.
    One about the skews.
    Second about how WaPo came up with the Borg Queen up 12 points in their latest poll.
    Now I’m no statistician and really don’t have any particular insight on the mechanics of polls. What I’m befuddled by is the emphasis on national polls when the presidential election is done on a state basis. Are the state polls equally flawed with their sampling? And what are their models for turnout?
    What I’ve noticed as you have pointed out is the massive effort by the Borg amplified by their media to destroy Trump to ensure the Borg Queen’s crowning, yet Trump within the margin of error in the polls in most battleground states. What’s up with that? Is there more latent support for Trump or more Les Deplorables than seems evident in the MSM election prognosis?

  4. All,
    My wife’s hairdresser is an excellent source for local gossip. After the Brexit result, he told her that a well-known BBC presenter had been in to have his hair done on polling day, and been confident that ‘Remain’ would win by 10%. And the ‘trends for poll averages’ turned out wrong.

  5. LondonBob says:

    Richard Baris says IDB/TIPP has it as a D+8 as well. He sees it as being a D+4 to +6 election and also has Trump two points ahead. Maybe this is all they have left, claim the race is over and hope to suppress the Trump vote? Always watch where the campaigns are, same battleground states, except looks like the Trump campaign sees Iowa as in the bag and isn’t bothering there anymore.
    Times like this I wish I hadn’t forsworn gambling, Trump at 4-1 at the bookies.

  6. Fifth Columnist says:

    Sure, any poll that doesn’t track with the polling averages could be considered an outlier. That doesn’t mean that the IBD or Rasmussen polls are provably wrong but that their results should perhaps be considered more unlikely than not.
    If future polling or the election on Nov 8th validates these current polls then we can revisit their merit.
    I say it doesn’t matter because these polls should have no practical effect on voting. Non-pollsters and those who have no background in statistical methodology have no way to determine what polls are credible. That’s why I suggest looking at poll averages.
    I think political observers find this confusing when their personal indicators, such as numbers of lawn signs or crowd sizes at rallies, don’t match the media polls.

  7. Jay says:

    I am not putting much trust in the polls this time. Trump has no common frame of reference when it comes to politics. The polls like himself. Are All over the place.

  8. Jay says:

    I don’t know about the “rigged election whining”. Between, the press, Wikileaks and what just happened in Illinois I’d say he has made some serious points.

  9. turcopolier says:

    5th columnist
    In all the years leading to my present advanced decrepitude one thing I learned is that the massed opinions of incorrect analysts grouped together for mutual support and security are apt to be wrong while the outliers in the back of the room are often right. I am interested in who is right not the statistical crap or your logrolling. I still think she will win but I think it will be close in the popular vote and in the Congress. pl

  10. LondonBob says:

    It isn’t an outlier, most reliable polls (LAT, PPD as well) have Trump narrowly ahead.

  11. johnf says:

    Our polls were not only wrong in the Euro referendum but in last year’s General Elction. Only one or two outliers were correct.

  12. Dan Berg says:

    these polls are done over the telephone; the only people who still have land lines are the elderly, therefore…………….

  13. johnf says:

    So convinced was I by the polls that I didn’t even bother to stay up and watch. I had a pleasant awakening.

  14. Dan Berg says:

    polls are done over the telephone; the only people who still have land lines are the elderly, therefore. . . . .

  15. Tyler says:

    Oversampling Dems.
    Questions designed to weed out Repubs and right leaning independents.
    Ignoring Trump’s base (poor whites who didn’t vote for Romney)
    Case in point there was a “poll” in AZ claiming HRC was up by 5. It was screamed from the hillyops as proof of a landslide. Problem is that it had a whopping D+38 oversample. This is all psyops onTeump voters trying to convince them it’s hopeless and to not vote. More media collusion that Wikileaks and Okeefe proved.
    I can’t even imagine what the internal polls look like for HRC.

  16. Tyler says:

    I put $500 on Trump

  17. Eric newhill says:

    Sir, I have concluded that the most of the polls are some of that “we create our own reality stuff”.
    Tactically, it seems risky to artificially inflate the polls in favor of Clinton because it could cause her weaker supporters to decide she’s got it and just stay home on voting day. However, there is probably some committee of genius pollster operatives that decided that the demoralization of Trump support would outweigh the complacency suppression on the Clinton side. These pollsters are either going to be heroes or schmucks of the first order on Nov 9.

  18. JohnH says:

    Having contracted for market research surveys for my company, I have become more suspicious of survey results over the years.
    First, any poll is a survey not of the population but only of those willing to respond. Internet surveys are particularly bad in this regard, because they only include those motivated to take the initiative to respond.
    Second, my impression is that the number of those willing to respond has declined significantly over the years. As cell phones became more common, pollsters could reach a smaller and smaller part of the population, because cell phone numbers are not published. Also, as caller ID became more common, people had the option to answer calls from unknown numbers or to not answer. As phone telemarketing scams became more and more common, often under the guise of research, more and more people decided not to respond to any call identified as ‘research.’
    Personally, I won’t answer any call from an unrecognized or identified source. IMO those who do answer such calls tend to be populations with low tech land lines…older and poorer.

  19. Fredw says:

    The breakdown on this poll indicates that Trump’s <2 point lead consists entirely of an 8-point lead in the south. He's behind in all other regions. (By about 2 percent in each.) He may be suffering from a reverse of the Democrats' congressional imbalance, in which they have more votes but all concentrated in a few districts.

  20. Jack says:

    The bookies always make money like the house in a casino. The odds they give is based on their book. I’ve read there is more money on the Borg Queen winning but more bets albeit with less money on Trump, similar to the Brexit bets in your country. I too will take the odds on Trump.

  21. kao_hsien_chih says:

    People are mixing up (inherent) uncertainty in public opinion and margins of error (that is the problem that the article Jack linked to was getting at.) Even if pollsters are measuring the same thing, from samples taken from the same population, they can be off by a little bit because of sampling errors–that’s margin of errors. When different polls are farther from each other than by the margins of error (or twice that), the short answer is that they are measuring something different (In fact, even if they are within margins of error, if they are sufficiently far apart, they probably are measuring something different, just that the odds are less than the usual statistical convention.)
    The trouble with polls is that since public opinion data is limited and nobody knows exactly what will happen on the election day, a lot of guesses go into forming the prediction, especially about what the electorate will look like on the election day. In 2012, most pollsters had similar ideas about who will show up, which, it turned out, was justified by the actual events. Most polls predicted something similar so that adding up the poll numbers gave clearer idea about what the election results would be than any single poll. In 2016, pollsters are predicting wildly different results basically because they have very different ideas about what the electorate will look like, into which they are fitting the public opinion data. Simply adding up the polls doesn’t help much because they are not even talking about something close to one another. The bottom line is that we literally don’t know as much as we’d like, and we are messing with numbers and formulas that don’t fit without having a clear idea what we are talking about (perhaps not quite that bad.) Cleverer people know this. Not so clever people are putting too much faith in their formulas because they worked before, when things were quite different.

  22. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Based on the numbers that I’d worked with, I’d give Trump about 1/3 chance (not very educated guess. I don’t completely trust the numbers I worked out myself–too much uncertainty.) of carrying the electoral college majority, although much less that he’d carry popular plurality (but not the kind of probabilities that poll aggregators are chirping about). The votes just aren’t there to make a Trump majority too likely, but there are too many strange things going on to stake too much on one conclusion or the other. The assumptions and formulas that pollsters seem to be using are just too inappropriate for the present state of things. If I were a betting person, this would be excellent betting odds: Trump is an underdog by a decent margin, but not nearly the underdog that the polls seem to suggest he is.

  23. Fred says:

    Unleash the Sardaukar!. paid off polling companies. I believe the bias is more manipulation of the electorate. It’s pretty obvious at the bottom of the poll you link too (Zeitgeist heading) that it is being (perhaps) effective in discouraging actual Trump voters so they stay home on election day (as if there were no other candidates or issues on the ballot to vote for or against). Clinton is obviously worried in the drop off in support (compared to Obama’s election) of the 18-44yo portion of the electorate. The very high level of support for third party candidates is very abnormal since that represents about a significant increase over the max seen by anything other than a nationally known candidate (Perot, Nader).

  24. Paul Escobar says:

    Mr. Lang,
    It is October 23 2016.
    So in regards to IBD/TIPP…
    Let’s look back at their performance, at the same time period in late October 2012.
    Two interesting articles. One from a liberal source, the other from a conservative source.

    From the the liberal Huffington Post, dated October 25, 2012:
    The liberal author addresses the hoopla about a “Romney Surge”. He describes Obama leading in state polls, but trailing Romney in nationwide polling.
    On October 25 2012, the following nationwide tracking polls put Romney in the lead:
    – ABC/POST
    – GALLUP
    – AP/GfK
    On October 25 2012, who has Obama ahead by 3 points?
    – IBD/TIPP
    As you know, this would end up being very close to the actual result. And I believe IBD/TIPP’s *final* result came even closer in accuracy.

    From the conservative PJ Media, dated October 24th 2012:
    To explain away IBD/TIPP’s result, this conservative author assures us there’s a problem with their sample sizes.
    He contends that large samples tend to show Romney ahead. While smaller boutique samples (like IBD/TIPP’s) show Obama ahead.
    He reminds his readers:
    “Statisticians will tell you that the larger the sample size, the more reliable the poll. A lower margin of error, and thus a greater level of reliability, for the large-sample pro-Romney polls. Each and every pro-Obama poll has a higher margin of error, and is thus less reliable.”
    In his conclusion, IBD/TIPP showing Obama +3 over Romney was “less reliable”.

    It is also interesting to note, Mayur of TIPP & the IBD staff are staunch conservatives. So all the more impressive that they would be an outlier in regards to Obama, back at that moment of time in 2012.

  25. ISL says:

    I made the mistake of answering the “landline” while prepping dinner and was poll questioned. When (after ten minutes) answered wrong on who I would vote for president, they dropped the line. Guess wrong answers don’t count.
    Aint making the same mistake of answering again.
    Anyone else have that experience?

  26. Freudenschade says:

    Over the last two presidential elections, Rasmussen has moved strongly in the direction of the poll averages in the last few weeks. Still, they are consistently one of the worst pollsters in predicting the final outcome.

  27. Jack says:

    How do these polls forecast turnout? It would seem their sample should reflect their expectation of the demographics of who are going to vote in this election.
    I would bet that black turnout will be less than what Obama got in 2008 and 2012. Also, there’s going to be some leakage of Sanderistas who by and large supported Obama enthusiastically. It would also seem more likely that the youth will vote less than what Obama got. Is there any consideration given to those who normally don’t vote that turned out for Trump in the primary? It would also seem likely that Trump will bleed some traditional GOP voters especially among women and urbanites.
    Another point is that it seems this election is mostly a referendum on Trump’s character. Does anyone even care about policy and positions? I get the impression that the media has made it all about Trump. He is the focal point. And of course the media have made it as negative and sensational as possible. What does that do to voter turnout demographics?

  28. jdledell says:

    The national polling is pretty worthless. Since these polls try to represent the nation as a whole, it can be an indicator of the popular vote totals but as Gore found out, that means nothing. The state by state polls are the only thing that counts since the winner is determined by the Electoral College.
    Real Clear Politics is the best place to see aggregate state level polling that is then translated into Clinton States, Trump States and toss-ups. Currently, RCP has Clinton winning states with 262 electoral votes to Trump’s 126 and 150 electoral votes as toss-ups. All Clinton has to do is move Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes to her side and she is the winner. Hell will freeze over before Minnesota votes Republican. Trump can win all the remaining toss up states like Ohio, Florida, NC, Iowa, Nevada etc and he still loses the election.
    If you look at the electoral map of Bush’s 2000 win with 271 electoral votes, the best Trump can probably do is Bush’s 2000 states minus Virginia, Colorado, and NH which would leave Trump with only 245 votes, still short of winning. I’ve been following these state polls daily and my guess is Clinton will end up with 322 Electoral college votes.

  29. Richard says:

    Wikileaks released a Podesta e-mail from 2008 where manipulation of polls via oversampling of “favourable” demographics in the poll is discussed. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 – especially see the attachment: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/26551/7326)
    The results of the polls are so far away from each other that you cannot explain it anymore by random chance (that would only explain gaps of 6-8 percentage points between the best and worst polls for one of the candidates, assuming you have a total of about 1000 randomly selected respondents in every poll). My hunch is that the polls that show Clinton ahead by +10 or more have oversampled Clinton supporters and that in reality, Clinton and Trump are still nearly tied at the moment.

  30. Lemur says:

    The media pushes poll narratives in conjunction with the Borg
    Both Brexit, the British Conservative Election victory, and the Colombian veto of the FARC peace deal were all electoral victories by right wing forces that were not forecast.

  31. Jack says:

    I think your observation “there is probably some committee of genius pollster operatives that decided that the demoralization of Trump support would outweigh the complacency suppression on the Clinton side” is right on.

  32. Harry says:

    Polls can be used to demoralize support. Why bother to vote if your candidate is way behind? One should always all who commissioned the poll.

  33. Eric newhill says:

    Slightly OT – I’m thinking Trump will not lose; at least not quietly, even if the vote goes against him. And it won’t be an impotent outburst. All Trump needs is solid evidence of voter fraud. Just ten cases in some key districts in a key state that he lost would be enough, IMO. Before the electoral college meets, he presents these cases. All the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. If the voter fraud is deemed to be legit by the court, Trump then demands that the states electoral votes go to him (or at least a significant proportion of them). His supporters demonstrate in the streets to demand this. He calls for Clinton to be arrested and jailed, etc. He could end up with a very unconventional win this way. Who could stop it with all the angry supporters demanding justice? I think that with the infusion of sufficient money, it should be easy to identify enough solid cases of voter fraud. This would be dead people voting, people in comatose states in nursing homes, illegal aliens, felons. The sort of thing that happens to some extent all the time.

  34. Freudenschade says:

    For a different perspective, check out google consumer surveys. They survey 20,000 or so respondents every week. For whatever reason, they aren’t included in the various averages, but they were the second most accurate pollster in the last presidential. Their MOE is around 0.8%. You also slice and dice by state, gender, etc.

  35. ISL says:

    Dear Colonel,
    Apparently, leaked email this morning reveal that Podesta suggested in Feb to skew the likely voter poll selctions between democrats and republicans to get the right answer and between minorities and older folk.
    zero hedge noted this morning that ABC assumed Dems were 9% more likely to vote, and then suddenly Hillary has a 12 point lead, rather than a 3% and within the margin of error.
    For example, Podesta suggests over-sample Hispanics and/or blacks depending on the state. Guidance is provided for each state.
    original at wikileaks:
    This could backfire with a few percent of Clinton followers being certain of overwhelming victory that they skip voting assuming coattails covers the downtick items. I suspect Trump supporters are more likely to vote to ensure downticket, campaigns, particularly if they are independent and may not vote party lines.

  36. Freudenschade says:

    all of the big polls call both land and cell.

  37. kao_hsien_chih says:

    The turnout is where the biggest uncertainty is. Different polls (and my tweaking of the poll numbers) have been doing all sorts of things to divine the turnout and they are all over the place, even though, taken individually, none of these tweaks are unreasonable (but are kinda hand-wavy). Generally, though, it will take two things for Trump to win–and that seems unchanged from the beginning. He has to boost the turnout significantly among the poorer whites while keeping most of the more affluent Republican voters that Romney had. As best I can tell, the latter is the bigger question mark than the former, though.

  38. GulfCoastPirate says:

    I accept. If I win I’d like my winnings donated to Planned Parenthood. If I lose I will donate to the charity of your choice or send the money directly to you.
    I can’t for the life of me understand why so many of you who are pleading for a Trump win are so focused on these national polls. They are meaningless. The only thing that matters is the electoral college and it’s quite clear Trump is lagging far behind. This is really not much different than 2008 and 2012 when the right thought their candidate was going to win based on national polls and then was devastated on election night when their candidate got wiped out. When are you people going to learn? Remember that episode on Faux News in 2012?

  39. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I don’t know about that: pollsters, generally, aren’t that smart or diabolical. All that would be achieved by trickery like that would be destruction of any credibility the public opinion research industry still has, which is already in difficult situation as is.
    Much of the uncertainty is due to how we are practically trying to make up data in the various attempts to extend the limited public opinion data that we do have to match the expected voting population, by extrapolating the data that we have (through phone, interviews, focus groups, internet panels, or whatever) to the data that we mostly don’t have (the public). It is getting increasingly harder to reach the public, and ever more creative ways must be concocted to extrapolate, and as everyone does something different, plenty of chance for things to go haywire.

  40. Jack says:

    The electoral college does not favor any Republican. They can only win change elections where the 2-5% margin by which Democrats typically win swing states shift the other way. In terms of actual votes in many states that’s not many votes. Looking at the actual vote margin that Obama defeated Romney it wasn’t much in several states.
    One problem I see with the RCP poll averages is that they may also suffer from some of the issues in the national polls. This election was always the Borg Queens to lose. I am actually surprised at the strength of Trump considering the forces arrayed against him. That IMO doesn’t portend well for the Borg Queen’s term, especially if a recession comes along and her foreign wars have unintended consequences and if her inclination to overreach domestically backfires.

  41. michael brenner says:

    You all are overlooking Trump’s secret weapon that will reverse the tide – built on the prototype of the one that Hitler used to salvage victory from the jaws of defeat. Unless, of course, he commits suicide by overdosing on his own bile before having a chance to deploy it.

  42. Tyler says:

    No. RCP suffers from “garbage in, garbage out” since it accepts a 500 person poll with a D oversample of +38 as a fair integer. It is an aggregate, and not reliable with the garbage polls out there claiming HRC is ahead by larger margins than Obama being factored in.

  43. turcopolier says:

    What a tragedy WikiLeaks is. pl

  44. turcopolier says:

    Michael brenne
    ah, the reductio ad hitlorum. pl

  45. eakens says:

    The fact that many polls had HRC going up after the first two O’Keefe videos being released is all you need to know about the polls.
    The first two videos were only the tip of the iceberg. If the subsequent info to be released is significant enough, which I believe it will be, then I think it makes these next couple of weeks incredibly dangerous with respect to the US and Russian interactions in the ME.
    It would be no surprise to me that her “missing” emails come out during this same period of time either. There is also chatter that they have HRC on video being racist towards an african american woman, and that will also be released shortly.

  46. Tyler says:

    The state polls like the one here in AZ that show HRC 5 ahead but was 70% Dem?
    L o l
    Your money will be just in time for Xmas. Might buy the kids a power wheels.

  47. I’m against neocons like Hilary but IBD tracks national (not electoral votes) & was off by 2.3% in 2012
    RealClearPolitics was created by & run by conservatives & they have Hilary locked to win 262 electoral votes
    120 electoral votes for Trump
    150 toss-up electoral votes up for grabs
    All Hilary has to do is win toss-up Minnesota’s 10 votes (Minn voted Dem for the past 3 presidential elections & leans Blue in 2016)
    she wins the presidencey even if Trump wins all the rest of the swing states
    -was the most correct in counting electoral votes in presidential elections in 2004, 2008, 2012 (note they admit they were wrong in 2016 primaries due to insufficient data) with less than 1% error rate,
    currently, the round-up of all the polls at 538 show a
    86% chance of Hilary winning with 340 electoral votes
    198 electoral votes for Trump
    73% chance of Dems flipping the Senate 51 to 49
    Princeton statisticians group was also among the most accurate for presidential elections electoral votes for 2004, 2008, 2012 with less than 1% error rate,
    His round-up of all polls show a 97% chance of Hilary winning
    with 340 electoral votes
    vs 198 electoral votes for Trump
    with a
    82% chance of flipping the Senate 51 to 49

  48. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    I dislike Hillary and was determined to write in Bernie.
    The conventions did not alter my view, nor did any news source, nor even the smart (mostly male) commenters at SST.
    Bernie Sanders’ exhortations to vote for Hillary fell on deaf ears.
    Then about two weeks ago, Trump’s obnoxious, lecherous behavior oozed through every screen and device that I own.
    His “Such a Nasty Woman!” comment, directed at Hillary, felt like it was targeting millions of us. FWIW, that was my personal Tipping Point.
    With any luck, the GOP will lose the House, the Senate, and quite a few state offices — thereby exposing McConnell and Ryan as obstructionist weasels into the bargain.
    The GOP is no longer a responsible political party.
    They’re devolved into a wannabe frat party on steroids.
    If my acquaintance are any indication, we’re going to see millions of ‘Nasty Women’ give an emphatic single fingered salute to the once-mighty GOP.
    Not because we’re happy about the situation, nor all that thrilled with Hillary.
    It’s more like: Enough Already!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Enough with the groping
    Enough with talking about your daughter being a ‘piece of a–‘
    Enough with your Stepford wives
    Enough with bragging about grabbing ‘p—y’
    Enough with the attitude (a la Romney) that tax dodging shows you are ‘smart’
    Enough with the smirking
    Enough with bankruptcy for profit
    Enough with obsessing about the size of body parts, already…!
    Assuming that Hillary wins, the next big task becomes how to unpeel the creepy Nuland and her ilk, and frankly there’s a case to be made that if enough business interests raise holy hell, it’s possible Hillary will have to cut that cabal lose.
    Here’s hoping.

  49. trinlae says:

    One point to keep in mind is that by with closed poll stations, new registrations failing (my own 18 yo nephew in CA had his Bernie registration processed as an AIP registration), and failure of pollsters to do CA exit polls in the Dem primary, the data that would normally be there for those voters is now lost, or at least incognito and not publicly disclosed in the case of the failed registrations.
    Many statistical packages have algorythms for fitting the “missing data” by interpolations, but i would be surprised to hear professional pollsters deny that they have this missing data. That it is not even spoken of as a topic of curious interest (except for Judicial Watch) is itself peculiar.
    If 18-34 cohort turns out at polls like their grannies and grandpas, it should be informative, if we have independent exit pollers out.

  50. trinlae says:

    Poignantly stated!

  51. rjj says:

    I do think Trump is a gentile stereotype – the loud nasty little thug from the schoolyard all grown up.

  52. rjj says:

    edit: for thug read brat.

  53. Bob Bernard says:

    Nate Silver’s 538 website is a poll of polls, and was spot on in the 2012 elections.

  54. bks says:

    The polls were very, very good during the primaries, with a couple of hiccoughs (Democratic result in Michigan). They were remarkably accurate for the multi-person GOP field; much more accurate than the pundits. Trump was touting the polls non-stop when he was leading the primaries. They only became “rigged” when they showed he was behind vs. Clinton.
    Clinton will get more electoral votes this year than Obama did in 2012.

  55. Dr Puck says:

    It’s worth pointing out that the combination of demoralization and Trump’s almost non-existent GOTV operation here in Ohio is up against HRC’s data-driven and relentless ground game, one that is oriented to GOTV and beat the Obama 2008 turnout.
    HRC began the ground game here in August. The local offices (in Cleveland,) are beehives of activity, led and managed by millennials, many of whom were brought in from out-of-state. Their laptops are always on.
    After the smoke clears and dust settles, we will learn whether the data and “knocking on doors” methodology was rendered useless by Trump’s big bet on ‘America first’ fury, and ‘now’s the last chance’ morale, and patriotic motivation.
    I remain surprised that Mr. Trump complains about his opponent’s marshaling of all available resources, and, her full spectrum of tactics.
    Did he not know that such a full spectrum campaign of HRC would have to be answered either in kind or with a scorched earth approach, one able to effectively suppress enough votes of millennials and the non-whites?
    In the terms of SST, this is Trumpian revolutionary fervor vs Borgist ‘utopian’ technocracy. What do the polls say in this race where the establishment candidate owns historically horrific unfavorables?
    “close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes”

  56. Jack says:

    Most Sanderistas and the Warren Wing as I have always believed are more hat than cattle as I always believed they would come home to mommy.
    I am glad you’ll feel all good in the afterglow of a woman POTUS. It will be rather amusing to see the hypocrisy ooze as many turn into pretzels justifying the Borg Queens bankster loving and callous warmongering gather pace with all the ziocons, banksters and friends of the Saudi sheikhs firmly ensconced. The deep corruption that we have seen through the exposed documents will just be a warmup act as the WH goes on sale. I’m happy you’ll be able to revel in it.

  57. JSand says:

    Can’t believe some people don’t know that political betting is now almost exclusively a form of political marketing. News 2 weeks ago was that Irish bookmaker Paddy Power paid out $1 million to people who bet on Hillary because it’s obviously over. You don’t have to read Wikileaks memos to know about the organized DNC/leftist plans to shape public opinion with bogus polls and the mantra of “it’s all over”. Even Fox News has shown itself this election and operating almost exclusively from this playbook. Paddy Power’s $1 million payout was carried in thousands news sites and played up. So, $1 million for that advertising is a major bargain.
    All of the forces of globalist cabal and its puppet masters are aligned against Trump. If you previously brushed off this globalist cabal you are now seeing it in action– in 4D HD– in this election. Its 24/7 organized directed attacks are unprecedented. It’s almost biblical, Book of Revelation stuff.
    The one area where the propagandists of the globalist cabal aren’t as singularly directed is the characterization of Trump. Half of the attacks say he and his followers are 1930’s Nazis and the other half say that he is a Russian agent and Putin operative.
    Some recent examples of the former:
    From The Jewish Daily Forward:
    How Do I Explain My Trump Nazi Nightmare to My Mexican American Daughter?
    I have a terrible recurring dream. I’m hiding in the attic with Anne Frank and she’s calling me “Kitty.” I tell her that I have to go, I don’t know where my daughter is, and she turns to me and tells me that we can’t go anywhere. We are in hiding and we must stay this way until the war is over. All of a sudden, I hear boots on the stairs and the door swings open and it’s Donald J. Trump — only he’s naked, wearing a swastika sweatband on his head, and he says, “I think Islam hates us.”
    I wake up sweating. I had this same dream for three consecutive nights in a row — only every night when Trump shows up in the nude wearing his Third Reich workout headband, he says something different. The second night of the dream he says, “I’m deporting your daughter even though she was born in New York.” The third night he looks at Anne Frank and says, “you’re fired.”

    The Wall Street Journal:
    The Plot Against America
    Donald Trump alights on the Compleat Conspiracy. Anti-Semites are thrilled.
    … [Trump’s] candidacy is manna to every Jew-hater. Anti-Semitism isn’t just an ethnic or religious prejudice. It’s a way of thinking…
    That’s why it’s utterly unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton. Leave aside the fact that Mrs. Clinton called privately for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches, while Mr. Trump has found public occasion to praise both Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad.
    More dangerous is that a Trump administration would give respectability and power to the gutter voices of American politics… American Jews shouldn’t have to re-live the 1930s in order to figure out that the “globalist cabal” might mean them.
    Nor should Jews ignore the rekindling of right-wing anti-Semitism simply because its next-of-kin—left-wing anti-Zionism—remains so potent on college campuses and in progressive political circles…

  58. JSand says:

    Funny how people who’ve worked with him for decades, even competed ferociously against him, now all support his candidacy. But I get your point. He’s not only Hitler and a Russian KGB agent and a sex predator and a P.T. Barnum-esque clown, he’s also a petulant child. Amazing how the globalists can get the average American to carry their water for them. Oy, the shabbos polloi.

  59. Peter Reichard says:

    All bets are off in this election as both candidates are highly disliked, normally reliable voter blocs are fragmented, the anger against the establishment underrated and voter turnout is a huge question mark. All deliberate distortions aside the usual polling methodology may prove to be unreliable in this most unusual of elections. Meanwhile the ace of spades of whatever the opposition research has dredged up on both sides is going to be played in the next ten days. The smart money is still on Clinton but the odds of a 1948 type of upset are not that long.

  60. Fred says:

    Dr. Brenner,
    “We habitually instruct, direct and hector. That is not diplomacy, it is imperial rule. “
    ESCAPING ALLADIN’S CAVE by Dr. Michael Brenner
    SST February 4th, 2011.

  61. egl says:

    This probably wasn’t a poll, rather someone trying to figure out whether you should be targeted for a get-out-the-vote campaign to be sure you get to the polls and actually vote. Once they figured out that you weren’t supporting their candidate, you were no longer of interest. If you had been a supporter, you might have gotten a call just before the election urging you to vote or even an offer of transportation to the polls.

  62. ISL says:

    yes it did. Rather annoying as I had wasted my time (albeit while slicing onions) talking to the person.

  63. Tyler says:

    LOL no they weren’t. Rubio/Kasich was supposed to win in NH, SC belonged to Cruz/Jeb, and Indiana was lauded as a “toss up” until the day of the election where Trump crushed everyone.
    But your Correct the Record check is in the mail, I’m sure, for this gaslighting nonsense.

  64. Tyler says:

    You assume they think they will pay any public price for lying. They think they will not, and likely would not care if they did because they are lying “on the side of the angels”.
    They are just another cog in the leftist machine.

  65. Tyler says:

    Nate Silver also said Trump had a 3% chance of winning the Republican Primary.
    He is just another head in the hydra of the Left now.

  66. Tyler says:

    I’d say you can reasonably ascertain that someone is a shill, paid or otherwise, if they refuse to note the fact that Podesta is LITERALLY dictating how to attempt to blow up polling results.
    All the stuff we have been discussing was already enacted by Podesta, yet we still get yahoos going on about “NUH UH STATE POLLS” and “MUH NATE SILVER/RCP”.
    Which is sadder? That they believe this or they’re getting paid to be Soros Hasbara?

  67. Laura Wilson says:

    BuddhistHarmony…I also follow 538 and have found it to be accurate. Most importantly, the site’s description of its methodology and process is very clear and should be read by all. Real Clear Politics is less clear, I think.
    Best part of 538? It is really a sports forecasting site and I know that everyone on this thread will enjoy that a great deal!

  68. turcopolier says:

    Laura Wilson Rasmussen still has DT up by 2%. sports? Not me. Never gave a damn about sports. I used to do sports with the troops because they liked that and were always glad to have something they did better than me, and they really did! It is clear that the latest meme from Ft. Brooklyn is “its all over,” “no point in voting if you are Republican.” pl

  69. morongobill says:

    If you believe that HRC will “peel away Nuland” then you really are a dreamer. She is owned by the neocons lock, stock and barrel.

  70. Jack,
    It is strange looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic, in the aftermath of ‘Brexit’. As so often when comparing matters in the United States and Britain, some things are very similar, and some things very different.
    One thing that I think is similar. There are people here – including good friends of ours – who reflexively defend Hillary Clinton, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence about how ghastly she is.
    But then, precisely such people are those who still cannot quite surrender their illusions about Tony Blair.
    On the other hand, the large body of opinion for whom the Blairs are absolute anathema crosses all familiar political boundaries. And I suspect something similar holds in relation to people’s attitudes to the Clintons in the United States.
    But, of course, to very many of the ‘anti-Clintonistas’ on the ‘left’, very many things about Trump make him absolute anathema.
    My own view of Trump tends to echo those of ‘kao_hsien_chih’ and ‘TTG’.
    And I also think that to a surprising large extent, even after this whole long campaigning season, he remains very much an ‘unknown quantity’.
    I simply do not know how far one should discount his crazier remarks as political opportunism, and how far one should take be hopeful that his many sane remarks could issue in sane policies.
    That said, however, there seem to be to be two fundamental issues.
    Anyone who thinks that a system of total ‘open borders’ between Third World and First World countries is a good idea is clearly either 1. totally devoid of experience of any Third World country, and indeed probably without very much experience of their own, outside various kinds of ‘bubble’, or 2. batshit crazy.
    Anyone who thinks that somehow, Hillary’s unquestioning endorsement of the combined nonsense of ‘neocons’ and ‘R2P’ people in her campaign is going to be replaced by a cautious and pragmatic policy in office is, to my mind, taking a quite extraordinary gamble.
    I am not excessively pessimistic about the chances of her precipitating an all-out nuclear war.
    However, my earlier estimate here on SST, of I think it was 3%, now seems to me a bit conservative.
    But of course, confronted by Trump’s ‘locker-room’ comments – which actually I very much dislike, but seem in the light of the behaviour of Bill Clinton and the Kennedys, rather ‘par for the course’ with a lot of presidential candidates (both Carter and I think Reagan being honourable exceptions) – why should ‘liberals’ worry about nuclear war?
    Say, a one in twenty chances of the end of the world – why should that matter, confronted by outrage at what many boorish men actually say all the time.
    One has to get one’s priorities right.
    Partly because I have some intellectual roots, on ‘the left’, and am still in some ways ‘liberal’, I have not totally abandoned hope that a good few people who loathe Trump may realise both that Clinton is much worse, and that a vote for an alternative to both is a wasted vote.
    As I wrote at an earlier stage in all this, if I were an American, I would have a couple of stiff whiskies (perhaps three!) and then go along to the booth and vote Trump.
    One cannot dodge unpleasant choices, or take refuge from them by retreating into fantasy.

  71. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to readerOfTeaLeaves 24 October 2016 at 02:25 AM
    Somebody who thinks that somebody being murdered by a mob who murdered him by repeatedly violently sodomising him with a dagger – that means they raped him anally with a dagger in case you haven’t worked it out – is funny is a nasty person. I’d go further someone who laughs publicly about the fact that somebody was murdered by repeatedly raping him anally with a dagger is not only nasty she’s vicious, depraved, and utterly amoral.
    She’s not only nasty she’s a warmonger – she has deliberately cynically with malice and with forethought fomented wars all around the globe. She’s not only nasty, vicious, depraved, and amoral she’s dangerously unhinged as well as being nasty, vicious, depraved, and amoral nasty, vicious, depraved, and amoral and that you can even contemplate voting for her tells me all I need to know about you.
    the next big task becomes how to unpeel the creepy Nuland and her ilk,
    You know perfectly well that won’t happen – lie to yourself in the privacy of your own home if you really must, but I take it as a considerable insult to me and everyone else here that you tell that lie to us.
    there’s a case to be made that if enough business interests raise holy hell, it’s possible Hillary will have to cut that cabal lose.
    I repeat, you know perfectly well that won’t happen – lie to yourself in the privacy of your own home if you really must, but I take it as a considerable insult to me and everyone else here that you tell that lie to us.

  72. Jack says:

    Pravda on the Hudson has apparently published 2 pages of Trump “insults” to further the memetic manufacture of the election result. I know a few resisting the Borg attacks to vote Trump although they normally never vote for GOP candidates. My Republican friends while not holding much hope still plan to vote. I also notice a certain giddiness on the part of the Borg punditry and Democrat partisans. I can well see the triumphalism of the Borg Queen backed by the chorus as she walks into the WH. Hill and Bill will have the knives out and scores to settle.

  73. Old Microbiologist says:

    Speaking of sports, Ha! As a former SFC before I became a 2LT, I always competed with/against them and usually won. Same after I was commissioned. I When I was a commander of a large(ish) 100 TOE and 257 TDA I was also sadly the training officer. We were one of those bizarre MEDCOM units with dual TDA/TOE missions. I was the commander of the TOE and the Company Commander (as a Major) of the Battalion and was dual hatted as TO&E (plus about 20 other additional duties morale, voting, etc.). Anyway by then I was an old fart at 40 but was an avid marathoner and snowboarder so in great shape. I had an incentive based competition for our unit APFT where anyone that beat me on an overscale test would get a $25 savings bond. Anyone scoring perfect 300 could be excused from unit PT and do individual PT instead. My readiness ALO went way up as I had very few people on the fatboy list ( I did have 25 full colonels so there was that on top of it all but basically it was a fit unit). It took 3 years but finally I miscounted my situps and lost by 1. I proudly handed the guy a savings bond at formation later that afternoon. We also had unit level Hash Runs which was a great morale booster. I also sponsored long distance nike rises etc. and we had a competitive golf team, downhill ski team, cross country team, and competed in the International Military Patrol Competition and routinely placed. Considering I always brought a female sergeant that isn’t too bad. Actually, she was a “ringer” having been an Olympic Pistol Shooting team member and I recall a Bronze medal. I suppose you can guess what sports the commander liked. USAREUR had tons of money for this kind of stuff, at least back then. Your tax dollars hard at work.
    I jest as we actually were a hard working lab with great and excellent personnel who would be outstanding in any laboratory of the world. We serviced Europe, Africa, and the Mid-East plus had the duty for NBC field detection and confirmation plus Preventive Medicine for the Theater, not to mention the european Blood Bank and Forensic Drug Testing laboratory. I forgot to mention we also were the food inspectors for Europe and several of us were senior laboratory inspectors for civilian laboratories in Europe (College of American Pathologists). It was a full plate PLUS we served as the reference laboratory for Landstuhl Medical Center (back before our lab was absorbed into LARMC) and the TOE section moved to Aberdeen now known as the TAML. which I later served at the PROFIS lab chief for Microbiology for quite a few years until my retirement in 1999.

  74. Lugen Press says:

    You’re just regurgitating whatever pops up in breitbart or drudge. Look up what oversampling actual means wrt polling.

  75. rjj says:

    I was trying to figure out the VEHEMENCE of some of the reactions to him. What buttons are getting pushed?
    It was a half-assed expression of the half-baked thought:
    I think Trump is perceived as a Euro-Gentile stereotype who for some brings back the dread of schoolyard/neighborhood encounters with pushy, loud, little tough-guy wannabes.
    formative experiences and received stereotypes persist.
    Once saw a Chris Matthews – Mario Cuomo interview [dialogue?] in which the always eloquent and careful Cuomo, with a hard edge in his voice, “joked,” “you are what my mother used to call a potato head – an Irish potato head.” It got me thinking.

  76. MRW says:

    “gentile stereotype?”
    I guess you’ve never been to Little Odessa in Brooklyn.

  77. Lugen Press says:

    This is simply exploiting the enthusiasm gap to win down ticket races. I’m sure you can think of a military metaphor.

  78. MRW says:

    Trump speaks NYC/outer boroughs working-class construction talk.

  79. Dubhaltach,
    Your instinctive reactions are very much my own.
    But, it is sometimes helpful to, as it were, ‘cool it’.
    Over the past months, and years, I have had to live with very many old friends simply failing to adjust to the way that the world has changed.
    To try to explain to many people we know that Putin is not some kind of ‘comic book’ demon, but a very complicated and ambiguous figure, who is hardly an angel but actually talks a great deal of sense about a lot of issues, including issues in the Middle East, and is also much better from our point of view than any likely alternative in Russia, is very difficult.
    Likewise, to make people grasp that Hillary Clinton really is like something out of a bad pantomime – perhaps one might say, the Widow Twankey deciding to dress up as Boadicea – is very difficult.
    The attraction the Clintons and ‘Clintonistas’ had all those years ago as such that it is very hard for otherwise sane people to realise that they are – to be blunt – not simply corrupt, but insane.
    In trying to bring people back to some kind of sense of reality, there is a familiar problem.
    Does one do better trying to be emollient and ‘rational’ – or denounce them for the fools they are, but with what may be a partially inappropriate anger.

  80. rjj says:

    No matter – Trump is preferable to HRC and her familiars.

  81. MRW says:

    Oh please, ROTL. Get off your high horse. Walk around any NY construction site. Everyone talks like that. My nephew has a barbershop in Flyover Country. He’s late-20-something. They ALL talk like that, young and old, laughing their asses off.
    And as for Hillary ditching Nuland. I don’t know what you’re smoking, but Hillary created that spectre in the State Department. Nuland used to be a press secretary, remember? She has the foreign service cajones of a dead rock.

  82. Jack says:

    Yes indeed, those promoting open borders have never lived in the Third World. I’m sure you remember one of your countrymen, Sir James Goldsmith, he like Ross Perot have proven prophetic. Below an excerpt of an interview and debate with Sir Goldsmith and Laura Tyson, Bill Clinton’s trade negotiator on Charlie Rose’s show:
    Under Bill Clinton we voluntarily shipped our industrial base overseas. We consolidated our banking industry and financialized our economy at warp speed and created unprecedented scale in paper speculation which then imploded in 2008. And their losses were socialized. That same industry as the exposed emails show staffed Obama’s administration and now we know why there were no prosecutions as Holder whose law firm generated it’s fees from that same industry was on their proposed list of hires fir AG. Holder’s deputy at DoJ has returned to that same law firm. Check out his focus there – to defend banks against money laundering and violations of FACTA. Bill as Hillary has told us will become the Economic Czar. It doesn’t take much guesswork to know what happens.
    As Col. Lang brought to our attention in another thread Martin Indyk and the other ziocons are busy with their staffing lists for the important national security positions. Yes, the national security and financial Borg is preparing to take power. Madeline Albright who questioned what’s the use of a great military if we don’t use it and called out women who don’t support the Borg Queen to rot in hell are the kind of hubristic apparatchiks with the levers of state coming in.
    Women are more upset about Trump’s talk and his demeanor than about the deep corruption of the Borg. The fact that money was transferred to the wife of the FBI official overseeing Hillary’s email investigation is excused, but it is inexcusable that Trump is a misogynist.
    We can be certain that corruption will be on steroids and the politicization of the rule of law will destroy whatever remaining integrity exists in law enforcement. Pay to play will be the name of the game. Use of force will be the play book for those considered adversaries.

  83. Edward Amame says:

    The polling in question isn’t about public polling. It’s polling that’s done by campaigns and PACs so as to make smart media buys. They do that to target their ad $$$ effectively. Before the Clinton campaign spends 6 figures on a series of TV ads, they’ll poll the messages in those ads to figure out what to say/who to say it to. Again. It’s to target advertising and it’s what smart pres campaigns do.

  84. Edward Amame says:

    This poll suggests that the popular vote may be tight. But as others on this thread have noted, Trumps road to electoral college victory is thin.

  85. Edward Amame says:

    Nice job mansplaining the facts of life to readerOfTeaLeaves. I’s sure that did the trick!

  86. MRW says:

    OK. Explain that to me. pl
    The IBD-TIPP Poll uses a different methodology. They don’t do random sampling of 1,000 – 1,200 people, like the other polls do. They explain it on their site. They developed it three presidential cycles ago, and I think it includes the LA Times poll which puts Trump ahead as well. The head of RealClearPolitics explained it a few weeks ago on TV.
    I can’t remember the exact reasons now, but I looked into Rasmussen’s polling practices on a district by district basis in 2008–yeah, being a motorhead–and found their polling practices to be wildly off-the-mark. Never trusted them since.

  87. rjj says:

    MRW, is Little Odessa like Old Odessa???
    “Trump speaks NYC/outer boroughs working-class construction talk.”
    ergo??? don’t know what to make of your responses. what do you think I was trying to say?

  88. Fred says:

    I see there is more white Clinton privilege in action:
    Though technically this is only McAuliffe corruption privilege. Any innuendo that the FBI would cut a deal to keep Hilary out of jail is just innuendo. Good thing for Hilary the election is over and she can just settle back to pick cabinet officers and hire a decent interior decorator. The real question to ask is when Terry is going to run for President, it looks like he has all the foundational knowledge.

  89. Edward Amame says:

    You’re not as bright as you think you are. But you are a reliable source of the baloney that’s regularly being produced in the deli section of the WND/Breitbart mind bubble.
    What’s being discussed in the emails on the Vox Popoli site is private polling that’s done by campaigns and PACs to make informed media buys. Campaigns poll the messages in those ads to figure out what to say and to who before spending a boatload of $$$ on them.

  90. Edward Amame says:

    David Habakkuk
    It is strange looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic, in the aftermath of ‘Brexit’. As so often when comparing matters in the United States and Britain, some things are very similar, and some things very different.
    Indeed they are. indeed they are. Almost 60% Americans think diversity makes our country a better place to live. Less than 10% of us think diversity makes the US a worse place to live.
    Regarding immigration. Americans calling for reduced immigrant inflows is at 38%. Americans calling for immigration to stay constant is also at 38%,and Americans calling for increasing immigration is at 21%.
    Other polls show very similar results.

  91. different clue says:

    If one had abundant time and a sense of political humor, one could tailor one’s answers to troll the pollster.

  92. Edward Amame says:

    Yeah. For in-house polls. It’s what campaigns do when they want to get a read on a specific demographic. In this case it was to craft different campaigns ads in different markets.
    A sucker’s born every minute and ZeroHedge/Drudge know how easy it is to keep Trumpistas in a perpetual state of grieved agitation.

  93. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Laura Wilson,
    538’s appeal to sports fans is not really that widespread. Sabermetrics, of using statistical data to analyze sports (especially baseball), rather than intangibles and “gut feelings,” has been extremely controversial. While, by training and background, I tend to be on the side of the sabermetrics, I’ve often found them to be too full of their own formulas without realizing their potential shortcomings and problems. On average, sabermetrics is pretty good. If they are wrong, they can be really wrong, though, because they tend to systematically underestimate the inherent uncertainty in the reality–the chances of winning really huge lottery jackpot are very small, but if you win, you win really big, so to speak.

  94. MRW says:

    @David Habakkuk,
    As usual, David, you express my mind better than I could myself. There are two scary things about Hillary:
    (1) Marching us to war. She’s capable of it. I fear her wanting to show that women can be decisive Commanders in Chief.
    (2) Scarier still: Putting Bill in charge of fixing the economy. She said she would. If she implements that promise, Bill will create another Great Recession or even Depression, which he did with his Balanced Budget Act of 1996 or 1997. His surplus–‘the first since 1926-1929’ Bloomberg crowed at the time–created the Great Recession delayed by the dotcom and housing bubbles. The USA has run a balanced budget or a surplus seven times in its 240-year history. Seven times only. Each time was followed by a depression. You can verify this in Table 1.1 on the Historical Tables at the whitehouse.gov website. Right there in black & white.
    I have gone on and on at length on this board in my attempt to explain how the federal monetary system works devoid of political aspiration, decisions, or who’s in power, which I was accused of having. How federal currency transactions actually work in a fiat currency with a floating exchange rate. Which we have had for 83 years. Econ textbooks still teach gold-standard logic. Hell, econ students at MIT, Harvard, Yale, and the Univ. of Chicago don’t even have an accounting requirement along the way to their PhDs. Krugman to this day says money and banking don’t matter in econ models. ?!?!?!@#$%^&*???
    The malarkey about the federal debt is a case in point. Everyone assumes that Debt Clock in Times Square is telling the whole truth. Real Estate king, Seymour Durst, put that up in the 1970s. He knew as much about federal accounting as he knew about parenting (Robert Durst is his son, fercrissake).
    Mr. Durst Père neglected to add the Asset Clock which is the other side of the ledger. It’s goddam plain ‘ole double-entry accounting! There has to be an asset on the other side of the ledger. The federal government BUYS. It doesn’t “spend.” It provisions itself. We view it as spending from our side of the fence, because isdiot congressmen tell us that, but the government is buying things, ostensibly for the benefit of The People: telecommunications, military might, education, healthcare, transportation systems, janitor services for its myriad agencies, buildings, and facilities, gas and vehicles for all that, electrical and water services, federal salaries and pension funds, fulfilling past congressional appropriations of which Medicare Supplement B and D are locked in as statutory law, for example, to be paid as mandated without recourse to a new vote every year. Congressional appropriations are law. Just like Social Security is mandated by law, not paid for with FICA taxes, no matter what know-nothings tell you. (A favorite trick of Wall Street. They’re dying to get their mitts on made-private Social Security funds.)
    Last year alone, according to the US Treasury’s checkbook called the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government (US Treasury) created new interest-free-for-The People-money for fiscal year 2016, ending September 30, 2016, a grand total of: $95,648,584 million, or $95.6 Trillion.
    It redeemed: $94,225,757 million, or $94.2 trillion.
    Got that, everybody?
    That left $1,422,827 million, or $1.4 trillion that the federal government was leaving in the real economy for The People. ‘Natch the 1% nabbed it, because they know how this works.
    That amount on the checkbook statement is technically called “Net Change in Public Debt Outstanding.” AKA the part added each year to the National Debt. The National Debt is in pension funds, university trusts, Grandma’s Savings Bonds, corporate savings accounts, every country’s savings account at the Fed, and in your own bank account, including your PayPal account.
    Total federal taxes raked in last year? $2,845,362 million, or $2.8 trillion. Pays for bupkes.
    Daily Treasury Statement site for September 30, 2016: https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html. Look on page 2 of the PDF. “TABLE III-A – Public Debt Transactions” And lower down for Federal Taxes.

  95. MRW says:

    The WSJ article was written by BRET STEPHENS, the former editor-in-chief of the The Jerusalem Post. ‘Nuff said.

  96. MRW says:

    No. The IBD/TIPP poll and the LA Times polls are landline and cell.

  97. MRW says:

    I said I was voting for Hillary. I wanted her to think she has my state all sewn up.

  98. Nancy K says:

    I agree with reader of tea leaves and who are you to say she is lying. Are you a mind reader? Hillary Clinton did not annaly
    rape anyone with a dagger so why are you putting that on her. Trump did make comments about grabbing pussy and there are women who are accusing him of unwanted groping and he laughs about it and makes sarcastic comments

  99. Sam Peralta says:

    “The USA has run a balanced budget or a surplus seven times in its 240-year history. Seven times only. Each time was followed by a depression.”
    What is the actual mathematical relationship between these variables – budget surplus & depression? I don’t see any statistical correlation in the data. In some periods the government has run surpluses for long periods of time with excellent economic growth as well as growth in household income during that same period and others times shorter periods of surpluses.
    The correlation between periods of excess credit growth and subsequent liquidation of bad debt leading to depressions looks much stronger. In fact every depression has been preceded by massive credit growth rates leading to asset bubbles that burst.
    You also assert: “..created the Great Recession delayed by the dotcom and housing bubbles”
    Why couldn’t it be the downside of the credit boom during the dotcom and housing bubbles that created the Great Recession and not the balanced budget? Do you have specific economic relationships that work in all cases that you can share, rather than just assertions?

  100. LeaNder says:

    Sorry, ISL, I am somewhat skeptic.
    Yes almost nothing is impossible under the sun. An employee saboteur, or one who had a stroke, an internet phone line that crashed …
    But usually that’s a level of job, you are either are paid for output, or heavily statistically controlled and evaluated. At least over here.
    But surely you could simply falsify the poll, has been said to be done on that level.
    Thus, if he didn’t like your choice, why not simply fill in whatever he preferred? And supposing it was the last question, thanking you kindly and with the best wishes disconnecting the line?

  101. Edward Amame says:

    I think Dave Weigel put it best: “It definitely Raises Questions, such as: When did the Clintons obtain a time machine?” Since, as the article notes, the husband’s appointment to supervise the Clinton email case wasn’t seen as problematic because his wife’s campaign was over by by then.

  102. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Well, what kind of diversity are we talking about? (Current) Harvard Law School diversity? Where everyone looks different, but are all identical on the inside? Where all minorities are used as props to show how great and tolerant the elites are and how right their consensus is? I used to be one of the props and that made me sick. Louis Brandeis must be turning fast enough to generate a lot of electricity at the sight of how his alma mater has fallen intellectually.

  103. Swami Bhut Jolokia says:

    I think the technical term is “grasping at straws”.
    IBD/TIPP did well in 2012, however that race was much closer, and most pollsters generally understated Obama’s performance. That may explain Rove’s epic meltdown on Fox on election night. This year the margin is much larger, so IBD/TIPP is an outlier.
    You can look at 2012 performance of all the major pollsters here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

  104. tilde says:

    From what I understand, the variation among polling organizations come from the formulas used in the pollsters’ “likely voter model”. These models are a combination of the usual demographics, and then asking the respondents how likely they are to vote, how enthusiastic they are about their candidate, how much they’ve been following politics, how often they vote in the past, whether they voted last year, etc.
    It is hard to get right down to the single-digit percent. In 2012 most of the polls were off on the popular vote by ~3%, which gives us an idea of the amount of systematic bias we’re looking at due to the “secret sauce” aspect of polling, separate from random sampling error.
    For some idea of what goes into this see here:
    Some more things to consider when looking at variation between pollsters: Breakdowns of party affiliation, which the ZH articles look at, are themselves a moving target. And this year’s dynamic with the very high negatives on both sides and the strong anti-establishment mood is also a big factor that might throw off formulas that worked in the past.

  105. MRW says:

    @Sam Peralta,
    What is the actual mathematical relationship between these variables – budget surplus & depression?
    Don’t know.
    In some periods the government has run surpluses for long periods of time with excellent economic growth as well as growth in household income during that same period and others times shorter periods of surpluses.
    During that same period. Yes. But absolutely unsustainable. BECAUSE. (And let’s take the most recent surplus as an example.) The Private Sector has to borrow to pay its debts; wages aren’t covering it. The private sector went into deficit all across the board, Sam. First time since 1929. So what was Greenspan’s message in 1999? Refinance to make up for the fall in real wages. So the private sector ‘debted’ up. Refinanced. Went into massive debt. Which came home to roost in 2008.
    In fact every depression has been preceded by massive credit growth rates
    Right. It’s called the private sector—the non-federal government sector—going into debt. Academic term: leveraging. (Getting rid of debt: “deleveraging.” why cant they talk english?) The private sector was in deficit during those periods. The private sector was in deficit 1920-1930, and 1998 thru 2001. Only two times in the 20th C. ONLY TWO TIMES. There were a couple of single-year surpluses and one three-year surplus (1947-1949) when American workers’ bank accounts were bursting, but no more than that. The latter was a correction for demand inflation, the result of bursting employee post-war savings accounts. American workers were not allowed to buy what they produced during the war effort. Their checking and savings accounts were full with their earned income. That was not the situation in 1999.

  106. Tyler says:

    BS. This is you repeating HuffPaint Post talking points and trying to run cover for HRC. Everyone here except for the other Soros Hasbara knows your full of it and you’re just another shill living in your own reality.
    Lmao this is just getting sad at this point.

  107. Tyler says:

    Yeah, the Dem +2% registration advantage doesn’t translate to a +38 oversample.
    It is you who has no idea what they speak of.

  108. Fred says:

    Yes McAuliffe shelled out almost a $1 million with expectations of nothing. On another bright note this is the most transparent administration in history, but don’t take my word for it.

  109. GulfCoastPirate says:

    If you need money for Xmas for your kids without having to rely on the election I can give you some. It’s the christian thing to do.

  110. Phil Cattar says:

    Kao……….I respectfully disagree.I do some betting,legally,and even though I will vote for Trump and have no use for Clinton at all,if I was in charge of setting the house odds in Vegas or London,Id take all the money anybody would want to bet on Trump giving them 2/1 odds.This equals your 1/3 chance of Trump winning.I think the chances of Trump winning are closer to 20% tops.This is just based on my own analysis of the American public at this time……………….I’m talking about the electoral college here………………..I think she will win the popular vote by 4.5 to 5.5 %

  111. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Horse? Not likely.
    Bicycle, possibly.
    Does it bother me that (some) men talk like that? Does it shock me? Not altogether.
    I spent years wearing turtle necks to meetings spring, summer, fall, and winter.
    There’s a reason women sometimes wear sharp heels.
    Enough said.
    As far as I’m concerned, those guys on the work sites should say whatever they bloody well please, and the women in their lives can draw their own conclusions. It’s no business of mine.
    But once they claim to speak on my behalf, it’s a whole new set of standards.
    Once they run for public office, the kinds of insults that we’ve seen are disqualifying.
    Do I realize that voting for Hillary is quite possibly cutting off my nose to spite my face?
    I do.
    Am I pleased about that petty fact?
    Most decidedly not.
    I don’t know whether I’m more angry at the GOP for failing to provide an alternative, or at the DNC for becoming an arm of Clinton, Inc.
    Nuland worked for Cheney previous to working for Hillary.
    It’s a reasonable assumption that anyone who takes the time to read SST will find that sobering. FWIW, I find it horrifying.
    I did not claim to be happy or pleased to vote for Hillary; quite the contrary.
    I suspect that I’m like lots of people: I’ve had enough.
    I’m of the view that, as David H points out, anyone who thinks that ‘Open Borders’ between ‘First World’ and ‘Third World’ nations is a good idea must be batshit crazy. The failure to maintain orderly borders will fundamentally delegitimize government unless this problem is addressed. Hillary will have to choose between her current idealistic views on immigration, or a functioning government. It’s either/or on this one.

  112. MRW says:

    I’s sure that did the trick!
    Never. ~;)

  113. Edward Amame says:

    Harvard Law School? I’m not all that elite. I’m talking about my young IrishItalian/Vietnamese niece and nephew not having to face in 2016 what Asian-looking kids would have faced in suburban NJ, say in the 1970s.

  114. turcopolier says:

    Edward Amame
    You seem to demand a world filled with good will and kindness. You live in New York City? pl

  115. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to David Habakkuk 24 October 2016 at 01:42 PM
    Normally I would agree with you and normally I wouldn’t “let fly” in the way I have above. However when confronted with wilful ignorance, with a deliberate and wilful refusal to even contemplate the truth being nice doesn’t work. Neither does being nasty, particularly, other than as a means of bringing home to such people that others view their wilful behaviour with the contempt it merits.

  116. Jonathan House says:

    most recent results from IBD/TIPP and Rasmussen
    IBD/TIPP: October 19-24; 873 Likely voters:
    42% Clinton,41% Trump, 8% Johnson
    Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research: October 20-24; 1,500 Likely voters
    43% Clinton, 42% Trump, 5% Johnson

  117. Rich says:

    The Rasmussen poll seems quite opaque in terms of what they’re doing. They weight the data, but don’t provide much information on how they’re doing this weighting. Furthermore, it appears from their website that they’re not randomizing the order of candidates in their first question, where those polled are asked which candidate they may vote for. This will skew the results towards Trump, as he is the first candidate listed.
    Also, if appears they don’t call cell phones and their methodology to correct for this seems very suspect.
    From their website:
    “Do You Poll Cell Phones?
    While we do not currently call cell phones directly when conducting our surveys, to reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview a demographically diverse panel. Just like our telephone surveys, respondents for this approach are selected on a random basis to insure the reliability of the sample. As a result, you cannot sign up to participate.”

  118. rjj says:

    RoTL is winding the guys up with a Diana Moon Glampers-ish parody.
    well done, RoTL.

  119. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Maybe things are better for your conscience, putting us where you think we should “belong.” It’s not better from our perspective in 2016 than in 1970s. All the same PC’ness: things must be better because you guys feel better, never mind the people actually involved.

  120. kao_hsien_chih says:

    One great irony that I found in my admittedly limited experience is that the vast majority of really good, kind people came from the “flyover country,” from the South and the Midwest, while I found many in California (my home state) and NYC (where I spent good deal of time) to be intolerable jerks. My people in the South are given to nonchalantly saying shockingly politically incorrect things, but have been the kindest, most wonderful, and warmest folk, while many of the people I dealt with on the coasts might always say politically correct things, but were usually interested in having minority yes-people around only as props to show how wonderfully enlightened and superior they are.

  121. Sam Peralta says:

    In looking at the data carefully it is clear there can be no direct causation between federal government budgets in balance or in surplus and economic growth.
    If there is a causation then the inverse should be true too. Yet we find many instances of recessions when the federal government runs deficits and periods of great growth when the federal government runs balanced or surplus budgets.
    The chart of federal government debt since 1945 is self explanatory.
    This is the net deficit that the federal government has run since 1945. As is clear the government debt was flat from the 50s through the 60s. Yet we had really good growth in GDP and household incomes. However, since the mid-80s, federal debt has exploded and has even gone parabolic since the 2008 financial meltdown. Yet, we see several recessions and the weakest post-war economic recovery after the 2008 recession.
    Just the inverse of your thesis that only growing federal government spending and debt will provide economic growth! Clearly, there are other much better explanations for the drivers of household income and economic growth and what cause depressions.

  122. different clue says:

    Nancy K,
    Here is a short video link of Clinton’s statement about the Qaddafi dagger-anal-rape. I note the psycho-maniacal laughter on her part. Her intense pleasure in contemplating the event indicates why it should be put exactly on her . . . as well as her strong push within government to get Qaddafi overthrown.

  123. different clue says:

    If Clinton can get a war ( possibly nuclear) going with Russia fast enough, no other choices will matter.
    It doesn’t matter who is on the Supreme Court if they become part of the radioactive dust at the bottom of a big glowing crater.

  124. Tyler says:

    I’m always happy to take your money. A few less bottles of King Cobra and boxes of menthols will do you good.

  125. rjj says:

    there is also the constituency preoccupied with the danger that Trump will re-institute Jus Primae Noctis.

  126. Eric Newhill says:

    Remington Research is a new poll on realclearpolitics. They are doing state level polling and Trump is ahead in Nevada, Ohio and NC according to them.
    example: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Remington_NC_Oct_25th_2016.pdf
    I like the Remington polls. They appear to be very clean. Samples that make sense and no monkeying with the results based on “assumptions” (aka swag and politically motivated mumbo jumbo). It’s good old fashioned polling as far as I can see. Go out, make contact with members of a representative sample and report the results. Stop.

  127. turcopolier says:

    Ah, JPN, a right enjoyed mightily by my medieval ancestors I am sure. You have seen “Les Visiteurs?” pl

  128. Tyler says:

    The reweighting of that latest poll probably explains the uptick:
    IBD Reweighted Sample (D/R/I):

  129. Edward Amame says:

    I’m sorry to hear you’ve had it so rough.

  130. Edward Amame says:

    Do your research. Oversampling is polling enough members of subgroups in order to get a statistically significant result for said subgroup. These larger numbers for said subgroup are then weighted to their actual proportion in the population when the overall poll numbers are calculated. It’s done all the time.
    And again, Podesta requested oversampling to get a clearer picture of subgroups in different ad markets to target said subgroups with appropriate messages. Got it? In this case, the polling was for in-house use. To make smart ad buys. They’re not talking points. You are just apparently clueless and without curiosity.
    Also. I never read the HuffPo.

  131. Edward Amame says:

    Not an expectation. A hope. As in a Democrat gov hoping to get another Dem elected to the state legislature. You are familiar with how politics works, aren’t you? We here in NY state wish our well funded gov would spend a little of his own $$$ to get more Dems elected for the State Senate.

  132. Edward Amame says:

    Col Lang
    Most of us are pretty OK with/to each other here in NYC. We’re also OK with people from other countries. It’s people from other states we don’t like.

  133. Edward Amame says:

    Great job making sweeping generalizations based on your “admittedly limited experience.” I get it. You don’t like me. The feeling’s mutual.

  134. Edward Amame says:

    I was being sarcastic.

  135. turcopolier says:

    Edward Amame
    Perhaps you should secede from New York and then the US. pl

  136. Fred says:

    Thank you for confirming that Citizens United is only of concern because your opponents might do the same thing you are. Having run for office as a Democrat I am now well aware of just how corrupt too many Democratic politicians and operatives have become. Of course I should have read a bit more than just “The Art of Legislative Politics” by Speaker Loftus:

  137. Eric Newhill says:

    EA, That’s funny because us upstate NYers don’t like you NYCers. You guys and all your big city problems and welfare gets paid off our hard labor and we get nothing in return. We wish you’d become a state unto yourselves.

  138. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I don’t like you? That’s news to me. I don’t know you. I never met you. What possible reason have I got to dislike you? I don’t agree with your views on certain things, and that’s obvious enough, but I don’t agree with the colonel on many things, I don’t agree with the Pope, I don’t agree with my family, I don’t agree with my friends, again on many things?
    So is your criterion for disliking people that they don’t agree with you? Do you believe people disagree with one another because they don’t like each other, and that’s the end of the story? That explains a lot.

  139. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me much. My own number crunching suggests HRC lead between 2% and 8% nationally, depending on turnout assumptions for different demographics, so a 4.5% to 5.5% lead seems reasonable. I think I am giving Trump better odds than you (but not too much–I’m giving him around 30% odds or thereabout–not something I can defend rigorously because it is only a rough guess) because I think Trump can lose the popular votes but still win electoral votes if things break certain way in the Midwest, while there is no chance of HRC winning the electoral votes without popular votes. In terms of popular votes, I don’t think there is any realistic chance that Trump could capture a popular plurality.

  140. Tyler says:

    There is nothing in the emails to indicate this was the case. You are running smoke to try and cover for him.
    If you are in desperate need of money, please find something less sad than being a Soros Hasbara CTR shill. I’m sure there are positions at truck stops that have more dignity than this.

  141. Tyler says:

    You forgot to add *typed from the security of my neighborhood with an average 6 figure income*. But hey, let the rest of the country burn so you can have authentic Oaxacan tacos.
    You are literally Esau, selling his birthright for a bowl of pottage.

  142. Tyler says:

    If you look at his posts, he’s seceded from reality. Your suggestion can’t be far behind.

  143. rjj says:

    But no, I am not able to have the French for viewing without undertitles.

  144. Edward Amame says:

    Col Lang
    I was talking about the tourists.
    Why secede? Our current arrangement’s working out pretty well for us. Actually, the regular complaint from us ordinary NYers is that it’s working out too well, success is making it too expensive to live here. And when our fellow Americans elect idiots like GWB II we shrug our shoulders and try to muddle on. We don’t have hissy fits and threaten insurrection.

  145. Edward Amame says:

    It’s not about “disagreements,” pal. It’s your comment about intolerable jerks who say politically correct things, but are usually interested in having minority yes-people around only as props. That’s why I don’t like you.

  146. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Pity, since I like you and the perspective you bring. It is unfortunate that you should be so intolerant and prejudiced towards diversity of thought. How wonderfully alike you and Tyler are.

  147. Phil Cattar says:

    Thanks for your thoughts.I agree with your analysis of the electoral/popular vote breakdown.I do not know if there are odds set on the popular vote.If I set the odds on the popular vote it would be in the neighborhood of 19/1 in favor of Clinton winning it and would take it off the boards if too much money was being bet on the Clinton side.However ,anything can happen ,if Clinton had a mini stroke while giving a speech, all odds would be changed at once or the bet taken off the boards for future bets.

  148. Tyler says:

    “Everything is fine for me, why should I worry about those rubes in the sticks?”
    Yeah, you’re with her alright.

  149. Edward Amame says:

    Please carefully reread what I wrote and stop trying to make this about something else. My beef with you has nothing to do with “diversity of thought.”

  150. Edward Amame says:

    My neighborhood does not have an average 6 figure income. The per-capita household income for my neighborhood is actually is $44,714.

  151. Edward Amame says:

    You live in/near Tuscon, right? Or is it Phoenix? Phoenix is pretty cosmopolitan/suburban, we like Tuscon better. I don’t think either qualifies as the sticks, but then I’m no expert.

  152. Edward Amame says:

    Eric Newhill
    So you think you folks upstate are carrying us in NYC?

  153. Edward Amame says:

    You ran for office and you don’t know that Citizens United has to do with prohibiting the gov’t from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit corporations? Not how much state party committees can contribute to a candidate’s campaign.
    18 states impose no restrictions on the ability of state party committees to contribute money to a candidate’s campaign. One of them is Virginia. It is up to Virginia to change that.

  154. Edward Amame says:

    Insults won’t get you outta this one.
    from Politifact:
    “Trump is wrong that Wikileaks shows Podesta rigging the polls against him. He’s referring to an email obtained by the hacker group from Clinton’s 2008 (not 2016) campaign on what appears to be internal polling (not public ones published by media organizations). And oversampling in this instance means polling more people in a specific demographic group for analysis — not ignoring Republican voters to suppress their votes.
    …Experts told us the technical term for this is “stratified disproportionate sampling,” but most pollsters use “oversample” as a shorthand. It’s done not to skew the polls, but to gauge the attitudes of specific demographic groups, who would not be a statistically large enough group to analyze if sampled randomly.”

  155. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Ah yes. The wonderful diversity of thought as long as the mighty white man approve. Woe to the uppity chink who sticks out unlike your wonderful prop of half Asian relative. Gather the mob and bring the upstart furriner to his knees.

  156. Edward Amame says:

    Woe to the uppity chink who sticks out unlike your wonderful prop of half Asian relative.
    My brother married a prop, huh? I don’t know what happened to you in life, but you’ve got one big chip on your shoulder. Please feel free to have the last word. I will make sure to avoid you in the future.

  157. turcopolier says:

    Rasmussen’s national daily tracking poll of likely voters today (27 October) shows 44% Clinton and 43% Trump. pl

  158. Fred says:

    Some semblance of the truth is (wiki)leaking out.

  159. Tyler says:

    Phoenix, but my neighborhood is much more “diverse” than Upper Manhattan and a lot less insulated from the effects of the Masters of the Universe than you are.

  160. Tyler says:

    In Manhattan? What, are you counting the hired help?

  161. Tyler says:

    Quoting POLITIFACT of all people, which has been shown to be REPEATEDLY IN THE HOLE for HRC through the Podesta emails, won’t be enough to get you out of this one.
    In this case, they are conflating the fact that there’s a +2% Dem Registration advantage with the fact that the polls are oversampling by +30D to get the result they want, and claiming its hunky dory.
    Good grief you get more dishonest every day.

Comments are closed.