US Election Discussion Post 8/11/16

Written By: - Date published: 5:55 am, November 8th, 2016 - 234 comments
Categories: us politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

In order to free up Open Mike and Daily Review for other conversations we are asking that all discussion, posting of links etc on the US election go in this daily dedicated thread rather than OM or DR.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

There will continue to be author-written posts on the US election as well, usual rules apply there too.

leunigcrisis-looms

234 comments on “US Election Discussion Post 8/11/16 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Manuka AOR 1
    8 November 2016 at 6:27 am

    Battle for the Senate: Dems have a ‘slight lead’:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/congress-forecast-2016-230839

    As the final, frantic hours of the campaign for control of Congress come to a close, Democrats look like slightly-better-than-even favorites to reclaim the Senate, while Republicans appear certain to hold the House after a Donald Trump-induced October scare.

    HuffPo finds a 67% chance for the Dems: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/senate

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      8 November 2016 at 8:43 am

      Nate Silver: Clinton in weaker position than Obama; susceptible to undecided swing

      However compared to Trump she is clearly in the better position.

    • Pasupial 2.1
      8 November 2016 at 10:17 am

      @ 21:11 (GMT)

      Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright is knocking on doors:

      We’ve made many calls & knocked on lots of doors, but tomorrow is the big day! Let’s #GOTV for @HillaryClinton!

      That may prove a bit counterproductive. Anyone likely to be impressed by Albright turning up at their door has likely already decided. Has Clinton got Kissinger out doorknocking too? He’s about the only one who would make me less likely to hold my nose and vote for her than Albright.

  3. Andre 3
    8 November 2016 at 6:47 am

    If you’ve been like me and needed fresh undies every time you look at fivethirtyeight, here’s an explanation that should be a bit relaxing.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-wrong-with-538_us_581ffe18e4b0334571e09e74

    • Blackcap 3.1
      8 November 2016 at 8:37 am

      I saw that, but Huffington post is not exactly the bastion of neutral reporting. look who is behind Huffington post and that should tell you everything. I think 538 are pretty much on the mark here and Nate Silver has responded to that post.

      • Andre 3.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 9:15 am

        But the author of that piece appears to be independent of HuffPo and any other political polling organisation, but experienced in relevant data analysis.

        • Phil 3.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 10:03 am

          The HuffPo piece makes the mistake of assuming the recent history of electoral college results will hold, and that 2016 is similar to 2012 of 2008, when it pretty clearly is quite different.

          Firstly, there’s a criticism of polling results in ‘safe’ states like Idaho moving the prediction from 84.4% to 84.2%. Leaving aside that complaining over a 0.2% change is pretty fucking ridiculous to begin with, the author ignores that we KNOW states are correlated regionally. A strong result in Idaho doesn’t tell you much about Florida, but it does give you an indication of trends in nearby states that are in play – namely Utah and Nevada.

          Secondly, look back through the last 50 or so years of elections. Close results are not the norm at all. Most elections through history were won in what would be today classed as a shocking one-sided landslide. Collapsing the map down to less than a dozen competitive swing states was a politically genius move by Karl Rove – he was in the right place at the right time to get GWB enough electoral college votes for two victories. However, the movements in demographics and political affiliations we’re seeing today have broadened the map out. There’s a lot of evidence that the many more states are competitive today, be it TX or WI or AZ or PA, and that’s why lopsided results are still possible.

          • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 1:02 pm

            You are looking back too far.
            Only need to go back to the start of 1st Clinton era which is about 25 years now.
            What happened in Pennsylvania in 1968 doesnt matter anymore, most of those voters wouldbe dead and they grew up in a different era.

    • Andre 4.1
      8 November 2016 at 7:10 am

      Please explain to me how the interests of someone aligned with Stein’s interests are served by enabling the election of Trump.

      Coz sure as shit from the viewpoint of someone aligned with Nader’s views in 2000, things went badly backwards in the Bush years.

      Frankly the article you linked is largely fantasy. Conditions in the US are nowhere near bad enough to inspire the kind of popular uprising it dreams of, so the best way forward is incremental improvement.

      Oh, and Mumia Abu-Jamal a great revolutionary? That phrase alone utterly trashes the credibility of the writer. I was in Philadelphia for the aftermath of that episode, and Steve Lopez’s writings cover it well.

      • Spikeyboy 4.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 8:33 am

        Being there doesnt make your case any stronger. I was in Mostar, Bosnia watching US fighter jets with their trails of anti missile flares, glad that they had come. I wouldnt make that mistake again. Its easy when youre on the side of the winners to sneer at the losers. Much harder to feel and understand their pain. Collective punishment is never right.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 8:53 am

          Part of the long term US plan to break apart old eastern Europe and assimilate it into NATO, no matter the human cost to the locals.

          Under Bill Clinton.

        • Andre 4.1.1.2
          8 November 2016 at 9:03 am

          I’m actually mostly interested in hearing an argument of how enabling Trump’s election advances the interests of a voter aligned with Stein. I’ve been asking that question about Nader on and off for fifteen years, and all I’ve got is either diversion or fantasy revolutionary claptrap. I’ll be seriously impressed if you come up with something close to convincing.

          With respect to Mumia Abu-Jamal, being there means I’ve been exposed to the evidence that’s been ignored as the myth got built around him.

          • Spikeyboy 4.1.1.2.1
            8 November 2016 at 9:37 am

            If the article about not succumbing to the politics of fear and the courage that that takes and the time and the commitment and inclusion of everyone and the environment does not swell your heart and make you think yes this would be a great and awesome thing to be a part of then I certainly have no power to move you and I would say that whenever you come across such things your first instinct is to tear them down. Neither Trump nor Clinton are the way forward. Jill Stein offers a beginning that can only progress with our support

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.2
            8 November 2016 at 9:37 am

            Firstly, your Nader question is bullshit and is designed to deflect blame off Democratic (i.e. Clinton) responsibility for the loss and make Ralph Nader the scapegoat. It’s a shame that you’ve spent 15 years running that little game.

            As for Trump-Stein, Stein has explained that for herself on TV and it is based on the heightened chances of Hillary Clinton escalating international tensions leading to a nuclear exchange.

            • Andre 4.1.1.2.2.1
              8 November 2016 at 9:46 am

              If Stein actually believes that, it shows she hasn’t been paying attention to Trump endlessly demonstrating how thoughtless, impulsive, careless, malicious, resistant to advice…ad nauseum…he really is. Thereby showing how lacking in judgement Stein herself is, sadly.

              • Andre …
                8 November 2016 at 9:59 am

                Oh, and for any lurkers, there are many independent reasons Gore lost.

                Yes, Gore ran a crap campaign. Yes, the Florida Dems were particularly inept. Yes, Bush’s little brother improperly put his thumb on the scale. Yes, the Supreme Court intervention was probably improper. Yes, badly designed ballots. Yes, hanging chads. And on and on.

                Any one of those factors being different would likely have changed the outcome.

                And Nader running an aggressive campaign in swing states claiming there was no difference between Bush and Gore almost certainly siphoned off enough voters that would have vastly preferred Gore to Bush to tip it away from Gore in Florida. Probably New Hampshire too.

                So yes, it’s entirely fair to blame Nader and his promoters for suckering voters into casting their vote in a way that created a result opposite to their interests.

                • Spikeyboy …
                  8 November 2016 at 10:24 am

                  Just another iteration of the politics of fear. Always vote for what is the best on offer. My one vote isnt going to decide the election. If Jill Stein appears to me the best most believable inspiring choice then she gets my vote

                  • Andre …
                    8 November 2016 at 10:34 am

                    Clinton is the politics of choosing incremental improvement over a Stein dream that will inevitability be crushed.

                    • Spikeyboy …
                      8 November 2016 at 12:33 pm

                      We already have Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power literally screaming abuse and blame for everything on Russia. Do we really need to add Hillarys voice to such paranoia. With the US pushing closer and closer to the Russian borders and their record of fomenting war in many countries around the world do you not think that it is Russia that is entitled to be a little paranoid? Add to this Hillarys stated aim of a no fly zone and the potential for catastrophe is high. If you do not accept that a no fly zone in Syria is the same thing as a declaration of war then it is you that is living in la la land. Syria was supposed to be about ISIS but wierdly has become about Russia so your incremental steps are baiting Russia presumably until some reason can be found for further conflict and encroach further and further on Russia nevermind who you support so long as they tangle and trip up Russia. If thats your idea of progress then youre just pure malice. Let me vote for Jill Stein any day.

                    • Andre …
                      8 November 2016 at 12:43 pm

                      Pretty much a single issue voter then?

                    • Spikeyboy []
                      8 November 2016 at 1:20 pm

                      If the issues big enough then for sure

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 November 2016 at 2:29 pm

                      Don’t forget Susan Rice

                    • One Two …
                      8 November 2016 at 3:00 pm

                      “Incremental Improvement”…

                      Incrementalism is used to degrade , not to improve

                      Perhaps you’re too young to notice the trend, or perhaps you simply don’t notice the decline under ‘your blue team’ as well?

                      Certainty that Steins way would be “crushed” but at the same time believing ‘your team vote’ will lead to improvements

                      Voters are deluded which is why they keep voting…

                    • Spikeyboy []
                      8 November 2016 at 5:17 pm

                      Sorry. Not going to give up. Its too important . Time enough when you’re dead to give up. Take your vote and put it where you feel inspired.

                    • Andre …
                      8 November 2016 at 4:01 pm

                      Turn on, tune in, drop out

                • GregJ …
                  8 November 2016 at 8:33 pm

                  Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?

                  http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

                  1. If Gore had won his home state (Tennessee) he would have won without Florida. (Tennessee voted Democrat in both 1992 & 1996)

                  2. 12% of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Bush.

                  3. Half of all registered Democrats in Florida did not even bother going to the polls and vote.

                  4. Every third-party candidate (there were 7 in addition to the Greens) received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election.

                  Gore (& the Democrats) had no one to blame but themselves.

                  • Andre …
                    8 November 2016 at 9:03 pm

                    Yes, hardcore clueless but idealistic Greens would convince themselves of that, and try to convince everybody else to salve their conscience.

                    And yet, every single Nader voter I know now thinks it was a really naive stupid thing for them to have done. Even as they’re more committed than ever to Green ideals. They’re just relieved they weren’t voting in Florida or New Hampshire.

                    • GregJ …
                      8 November 2016 at 9:16 pm

                      2,882,955 voted for Nader so unless you’ve spent a long time over the past 16 years speaking to Nader voters your sample will still be statistically insignificant.

                      I find it’s better to Vote for something, not just be against something. It may not be always the most pragmatic and is probably naive but in the end its the simplest and most straightforward path.

                      Blaming Nader is just a lazy way for Democrats to fail to acknowledge their own failure.

                      Of course it would help if the US would bring itself into the 21st Century, ditch the 18th century voting system. and introduce a proper 2 or 3 round direct vote national Presidential voting system (shit even the Russians have a better Presidential voting system than the US).

                  • Andre …
                    9 November 2016 at 6:05 am

                    Yeah, in 2000 Nader got 2,883,105 votes. In 2004, he got 463,355 and the Green candidate got 119,859. I’ll take a guess that a lot of those 2 million plus Nader voters in 2000 that didn’t vote Nader or Greens in 2004 took a lesson from 2000.

                    It may even have poisoned the well for Greens to compete in seats they could actually win. There’s pockets along the West Coast and the Northeast where a Green might be competitive for a House seat, then later for a Senate seat. But it’s less likely to happen if the Greens alienate large numbers of otherwise sympathetic voters by being presidential spoilers.

                    I’ll repeat that the failings of the Gore and Democratic campaigns and the Republican shenanigans are independent issues to whether it was a good idea for the Nader/Greens campaign to conduct their campaign the way they did, and whether it was a good idea to actually vote for them.

                    Meanwhile, it’s a peculiar kind of privilege for someone to knowingly exercise their choice in a way that momentarily feels good to them but actually leads to a negative outcome for their values and for a huge group of other people. When they could have swallowed hard, accepted that the best actually achievable result would still move forward on most of their values and move forward for that huge other group of people.

  6. Manuka AOR 6
    8 November 2016 at 6:55 am

    COP22 gets underway, day before the US elections:

    The 22nd Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP22, kicked off in Marrakesh, Morrocco, one day before the U.S. presidential election between Republican Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/07/planetary-disaster-threat-trump-presidency-looms-over-un-climate-talks

    given that Trump has also promised to “stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs,” the climate fund could face some challenges under a Republican presidency. Further, the nominee has said that if elected he would shred environment regulations and lift restrictions on all sources of American energy, including the dirtiest fossil fuels and offshore deposits.

  7. lprent 7
    8 November 2016 at 7:07 am

    My thoughts today on this election?

    1. The trump presidential erection is finally dropping to the inevitable conclusion – even massive viagra can’take keep it up. Hillary wins because of the inherent logic of the electoral college.

    2. How much damage trump has done to the GOP house and senate votes is going to be interesting.

    3. The GOP is going to have some problems dealing with the self inflicted injuries. They have been deliberately courting the worst of the self-deluded mythology activist for the last couple of decades. That has caught up with them. It isn’t going to be pleasant to watch.

    • Richard Rawshark 7.1
      8 November 2016 at 7:42 am

      I sent a present to your kiwibank, if it’s not there by tomorrow let me know please Lprent.

      -assuming it is you donations go to..

    • Ad 7.2
      8 November 2016 at 8:21 am

      In my best of all worlds Hillary Clinton gets the Presidency, but the Senate is tied, so the Vice President has to be Speaker to break the deadlock.

      This would mean the White House has to perpetually run the entire House majority by whipping: she gets to control two Branches at once.

      Plus, three retire in the Supreme Court for a total of four slots and she finally gets a real crack at Citizens United.

      • lprent 7.2.1
        8 November 2016 at 8:40 am

        Depends on the level of flipping of seats between the parties in the Senate. And how well the Democratic get on with the two independents.

        Personally I would prefer if the Senate was independent of the presidency- ie without a VP casting vote. The position of constitutional monarch there is too strong already.

      • Colonial Viper 7.2.2
        8 November 2016 at 9:04 am

        Plus, three retire in the Supreme Court for a total of four slots and she finally gets a real crack at Citizens United.

        Hillary has been outspending Trump by anywhere from 5 to 1 to 30 to 1.

        Clinton will ensure that provisions guaranteeing the flow of infinite black corporate money into campaigns will continue.

        • Phil 7.2.2.1
          8 November 2016 at 10:07 am

          Hillary has been outspending Trump by anywhere from 5 to 1 to 30 to 1.

          Phact check rating: Liar liar, pants on fire.

          http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

          • Colonial Viper 7.2.2.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 10:33 am

            Sorry I was referring to campaign ad spending – I accept that in overall spending Clinton is only spending 50% to 100% more than Trump at this stage.

            LA Times Sept 21:

            Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to outpace Donald Trump and his supporters in television and radio ad spending with less than two months until election day.

            Clinton has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, compared with $17.3 million for Trump’s campaign, according to a report from NBC News and Advertising Analytics, a firm that tracks ad spending.

            Outside groups supporting Clinton, such as the super PAC Priorities USA Action, have spent nearly $60 million. By contrast, groups backing Trump, like the National Rifle Assn., have doled out a total of $16.3 million.

            Trump and his allies have reduced what started as a significant spending gap. A similar report released in July showed Clinton and her supporters outpacing Trump and his backers by a 15-to-1 margin.

            http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-1474489361-htmlstory.html

            • Phil 7.2.2.1.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 10:55 am

              Trump received something like $2bn in free, uncritical, advertising from news networks during the primary season. More than every other presidential candidate, on both sides, combined.

              That means Clinton has now pegged back the effective deficit she faced to something like $1.9bn. Good on her.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 November 2016 at 11:40 am

                Trump received something like $2bn in free, uncritical, advertising from news networks during the primary season.

                You mean when they focussed on Trump’s most ridiculous, outrageous, outlandish ratings pulling comments?

                • Phil …
                  8 November 2016 at 12:41 pm

                  I mean when the media was, metaphorically, one undone belt buckle away from fellating Trump uncritically in order to obtain ratings.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 November 2016 at 2:28 pm

                    Probably part of an early DNC ploy to sink serious repub candidates like Jeb Bush while boosting loser un-electable pied piper candidates like Trump and Carson.

        • Ad 7.2.2.2
          8 November 2016 at 10:30 am

          Citizens United is about Superpacs, not direct spending.

          • Colonial Viper 7.2.2.2.1
            8 November 2016 at 10:35 am

            And Superpac spending has greatly favoured Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. They will not get rid of it.

            • Andre 7.2.2.2.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 10:39 am

              The Dems are likely smart enough to realize that’s a circumstance unique to this election, caused by Trump being such an awesome turd tornado.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 November 2016 at 10:43 am

                Perhaps. But I love the fact that so many lefties are supporting the big money big spending Wall St backed candidate.

                • Phil …
                  8 November 2016 at 10:52 am

                  I love the fact that so many lefties are supporting the big money big spending Wall St backed candidate.

                  Instead of the big (but not as much as he claims) money, big spending (other peoples donations on art of himself), NRA backed candidate?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 November 2016 at 10:56 am

                    The Trump campaign has much less cash on hand, has spent much less overall, has raised much less money in total and has certainly been completely out bought by Clinton in terms of advertising.

                    Clinton is the big money candidate.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 November 2016 at 11:43 am

                      well, if you don’t count all the free interviews donated by fox news, of course.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 November 2016 at 11:48 am

                      Yes Fox News is one way of reaching out to the Republican base

                    • McFlock …
                      8 November 2016 at 12:08 pm

                      Yep, good advertising targetted at tory swine and petulant former saviours of the left.

                      interestingly, if one could see the appearance fees for product placement on “fox and friends”, the value of some of trump’s exposure could be calculated.

                      Trump’s not outspending clinton. Murdoch is, though.

                    • Ad …
                      8 November 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      No small money candidate has a show of ever winning.

                    • Phil …
                      8 November 2016 at 12:46 pm

                      Clinton is the big money candidate.

                      Just because Trump has less money than Clinton doesn’t for one second mean Trump is not also a big-money candidate.

                      You’re basically arguing that the sun is not ‘hot’ because it’s colder than Eta Carinae.

                    • Nick Morris …
                      8 November 2016 at 1:41 pm

                      He has raised less money because he is an abysmal candidate. The poorly educated have less to chuck around, surprise surprise. All that free publicity and airtime was certainly in the hope he would say something else outrageous but I for one never heard him say anything that wasn’t equal parts tiresome, uncouth and unconvincing. Did you?

                      Big ticket donors don’t necessarily mean big ticket sell-outs.

                      I am, for the moment, prepared to take both candidates at their word in terms of their intentions. Hillary talks Left(ish) and Donald talks Drivel. I have no reason, at present to think that their respective presidencies will stray far from their stump speeches.

      • dukeofurl 7.2.3
        8 November 2016 at 12:51 pm

        White house doesnt run the Senate !

        Even when there was a democratic majority, they run their own show. Very difficult to get every single senator voting the way they should.
        Theres a large group who bargain for their vote on key issues. Whipping by the WH doesnt work.

        • Garibaldi 7.2.3.1
          8 November 2016 at 3:52 pm

          Nick Morris .You are very late to the game if you are willing to take Hillary at her word. Where the hell have you been???

  8. lprent 8
    8 November 2016 at 7:23 am

    I did love this article from the Huff Post.

    President Barack Obama on Sunday mocked Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for having his Twitter access taken away by his campaign staff, who hope to minimize the real estate mogul’s frequent social media ramblings in the last days before the election.

    “Apparently, his campaign has taken away his Twitter,” Obama said, speaking at a Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee, Florida. “In the last two days, they had so little confidence in his self-control, that they said, ‘We’re just going to take away your Twitter.’”

    “Now, if somebody can’t handle a Twitter account,” he continued, to audience laughter, “they can’t handle the nuclear codes. If somebody starts tweeting at 3 in the morning because ‘SNL’ made fun of you, then you can’t handle the nuclear codes.”

    Trump’s campaign has reined in the candidate’s freewheeling and often late-night Twitter rants in the final days of the election, hoping to keep him disciplined and on message.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-donald-trump-twitter_us_581fa7a8e4b0d9ce6fbcc516

    Kind of says it all really.

    • Manuka AOR 8.1
      8 November 2016 at 7:37 am

      If somebody starts tweeting at 3 in the morning because ‘SNL’ made fun of you, then you can’t handle the nuclear codes.”

      3.00 in the morning he rises, disturbed.
      “Agh, stuff the wall. I’ll just take out Mexico. Problem solved.”

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 8:58 am

        Incorrect. Don’t fall for the Clinton hypnosis. Trump’s reponse to insults is almost always proportional. Someone takes the piss out of him on a comedy show – and he fires back by tweeting at them.

        Reasonable and proportional.

        • marty mars 8.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 9:45 am

          Those are two descriptors that cannot be used seriously with trump.

        • left_forward 8.1.1.2
          8 November 2016 at 9:58 am

          You really believe this sort of stuff, don’t you Mr Viper?

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1
            8 November 2016 at 10:05 am

            If someone like Speaker Paul Ryan insults Trump, Trump will insult them back. If someone like Speaker Paul Ryan turns around and then says something nice about Trump, Trump will turn around and say something nice back.

            Very predictable.

            • Andre 8.1.1.2.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 10:12 am

              So what’s going to happen with Trump’s Putin bromance when they go to shake hands and Vlad says “Oh, so it is true, your hands really are very small”?

            • left_forward 8.1.1.2.1.2
              8 November 2016 at 10:13 am

              Oh, he’s such a lovely man!

            • Nick Morris 8.1.1.2.1.3
              8 November 2016 at 1:48 pm

              It’s true “The” Donald responds to flattery. One nice tweet and Putin can invade Estonia. Two and he can have Finland.

              Even Melania got a grateful kiss as she introduced Trump with a few kind words, and she had to say something nice (or get chucked off the plane).

              Sad.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 November 2016 at 1:52 pm

                The US has insisted on filling up the Baltic States with weapons and moving NATO troops closer and closer to Russia.

                Clinton will exacerbate these tensions further.

                BTW Russia spans 11 time zones. It has major internal economic, law and order and environmental issues to tackle. The last thing it needs is to become responsible for extra economically struggling basket case states.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  8 November 2016 at 4:18 pm

                  The US has insisted on filling up the Baltic States with weapons…

                  That’s an impressive amount of wrong for one sentence.

                  1. It assumes the US gets to issue orders to the governments of the Baltic states, which it doesn’t.

                  2. If any governments are doing any insisting, it’s the governments of the Baltic states, which have a compelling historical basis for wanting protection against Russia.

                  3. The trivial forces that have been deployed to those countries by NATO hardly constitute “filling them with weapons.”

                  Clinton will exacerbate these tensions further.

                  I expect she would be willing to guarantee the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbours, yes – much like her predecessors from 1945 to 1990. It’s for you and Putin to explain how that “exacerbates tensions.”

                  BTW Russia spans 11 time zones. It has major internal economic, law and order and environmental issues to tackle. The last thing it needs is to become responsible for extra economically struggling basket case states.

                  That was true throughout the history of the Soviet Union, which spent most of its existence attempting to make itself “responsible” for other countries.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 November 2016 at 4:57 pm

                    2. If any governments are doing any insisting, it’s the governments of the Baltic states, which have a compelling historical basis for wanting protection against Russia.

                    What historical basis?

                    As I recall, It is Russia which has the “compelling historical basis” for making sure that Europeans (and especially Germans) don’t line up military forces just outside its home borders.

                    If Europe wants to destabilise their own security in order to up-militarise the Baltic States, they should keep going the way they are going.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 November 2016 at 5:08 pm

                      You forget that Russia “lined up” halfway through Poland, right alongside the Germans they feared. Then, after a short absence, took 50 years to leave.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 November 2016 at 5:20 pm

                      That’s what happens when western Europeans kill 27M of your people.

                      Russia has stated that it will never fight another war on its own territory.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 November 2016 at 5:28 pm

                      Oh fuck off.
                      I’m talking about the Soviet invasions of poland, finland and similar areas in 1939.

                      Hardly defensive.

                      At least the Czars were honest about conquest.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      8 November 2016 at 8:43 pm

                      As I recall, It is Russia which has the “compelling historical basis” for making sure that Europeans (and especially Germans) don’t line up military forces just outside its home borders.

                      There’s a bit more to history than Napoleon and Hitler. Russia didn’t get to be an empire by accident.

                      Most of Russia’s western neighbours have recent (within living memory) experience of being invaded and occupied by Russia – Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union three times, the Baltic republics twice. Others only managed a paltry once. Even those relatively-less-invaded countries fail to share your enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 November 2016 at 9:30 pm

                      The EU is going to splinter over the next few years. Let’s see if they consider Russia or the United States the more valuable ally, diplomatic partner and trading nation then.

          • Manuka AOR 8.1.1.2.2
            8 November 2016 at 10:11 am

            Unless I misread, CV has said his preferred US president would be Elizabeth Warren. Yet she is passionately against Trump and everything he stands for. His stance doesn’t add up.

            Liberal champion Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MASS) took to Facebook today to issue a stark warning to Democrats, Republicans, liberals, progressives, conservatives, and reasonable Americans of all walks of life, forewarning us against “staying quiet” for too long as Donald Trump descends even deeper into the dark wormhole of racial hatred and fascist fury.

            Her facebook post on this, from just a few hours ago, at this link: http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/11/06/elizabeth-warren-takedown-donald-trump-going-viral-2/

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.2.1
              8 November 2016 at 10:28 am

              Unless I misread, CV has said his preferred US president would be Elizabeth Warren. Yet she is passionately against Trump and everything he stands for. His stance doesn’t add up.

              It adds up like this:

              1) Anti-globalisation, anti-bankster agenda.
              2) Re-establishment of economic sovereignty and economic borders.
              3) Disempowering of big money corporate interests in the political centres of power.
              4) Relocalisation of high wage manufacturing and industry.
              5) Reduction in military tensions and improvement in strategic relations with both Russia and China.
              6) Ending of unequal free trade agreements.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                8 November 2016 at 11:05 am

                Apart from the gaffes and the showmanship flair ,…. just WHAT is wrong with any point on that list?

                Is national sovereignty and a leader who works towards a country’s best interests a dirty word these days?

                Is globalism with its corporate agenda good?

                Or do we really want a continuation of the current tide of Rothchild backed manipulations causing more wars , more inequality , more poverty?…

                Trump may be many things but one thing he isnt is in the pockets of the global elite. And he is paying the price with being smeared and deliberately attacked through the bought and paid for media of those 1% er’s.

                • McFlock …
                  8 November 2016 at 12:00 pm

                  Well, that list merely packages a turd:

                  1) Anti-globalisation, anti-bankster agenda.
                  Really? Where does he stand on Dodd-Frank and corporate taxes? What sort of congressional oversight of Fed?
                  2) Re-establishment of economic sovereignty and economic borders.
                  Done with tact and subtlety, great. Done by the tweeter-in-chief within 4 years? Trade war with China. Tarriffs on all big-box store items made in Asia. US economic collapse because not enough local workers are producing before supply dries up and prices boom. Inflation. Fed wants to ease, but Trump’s new congressional oversight is in lockdown and filibustered because someone tacked on an amendent about Planned Parenthood.
                  3) Disempowering of big money corporate interests in the political centres of power.
                  Really? How would he do that? Campaign finance reform? How? Public expenditure only? How would he addresss super pacs?
                  4) Relocalisation of high wage manufacturing and industry.
                  lol see 2.
                  5) Reduction in military tensions and improvement in strategic relations with both Russia and China. By increasing NATO members’ military expenditure? By expanding the drone war to friends and families of terror “suspects”? By encouraging South Korea and Japan to have unilaterally-deployable nuclear weapons, in addition to US, Russian, Chinese and NK nukes already in the region?
                  6) Ending of unequal free trade agreements.lol see 2

                  Half a dozen bumper-sticker notes are fine, but that’s not l’essence de drumpf.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 November 2016 at 12:40 pm

                    Those all sound like the same style of reasons that National and Labour use to keep NZ’s own market led, neoliberal status quo going. Can’t go back on the TPP, can’t protect our own industries, can’t upset foreign powers and foreign corporations.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 November 2016 at 12:54 pm

                      No, they weren’t reasons why those things can’t be done, e.g. “Done with tact and subtlety, great”.

                      They’re reasons why Trump would fuck them up based on his comments about those issues.

                      Essentially, your list was meaningless drivel because all those things can be very good or very bad depending on whether they are implemented by someone competent and with popular and house support, or someone whose impulse control is so bad that they can’t be trusted with a twitter account.

              • Phil …
                8 November 2016 at 12:53 pm

                Relocalisation of high wage manufacturing and industry.

                Serious question: how do you, en-masse, relocalise something that literally does not exist any more.

                The exodus of manufacturing jobs in the 80’s was driven by cheaper labour, but that’s a trend now on the wane. Robotics and automation are today rendering not just american manufacturing workers, but ALL workers obsolete. There are no manufacturing jobs returning to the US in the foreseeable future because manufacturing is no longer a major job-creating industry.

                • Lanthanide …
                  8 November 2016 at 11:09 pm

                  Yip. The manufacturing that has come back to the US in recent years due to cheap energy (from fracked natural gas) has been highly automated, so doesn’t produce many jobs.

                  Also these jobs can only be highly paid, if the products they produce sell for high prices. How does that work, exactly? Put tariffs on imported goods so everyone has to buy local? How does that help companies like Wal-Mart, who are the largest employers in some states? They won’t have product to sell, they’ll lay off employees. The ones who stay won’t get pay rises and won’t be able to afford all the newly expensive local products or newly expensive imported products.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 November 2016 at 11:17 pm

                    I love this, making the same open borders free trade argument that the big transnationals make.

                    Don’t try to regulate our businesses because it will cost jobs! Don’t try and increase wages because it will cost jobs! Don’t add costs to doing business because it will cost jobs!

                    Excellent.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      8 November 2016 at 11:39 pm

                      It took decades for the global economy to evolve to where it is now.

                      How is Trump going to turn it around within a span of 4 years, without destroying the US economy in they process? Because that is what he’s promising.

                      Also I noticed you just ignored the first point I made, that automation means those high paid manufacturing jobs simply don’t exist in the same numbers as they used to.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 November 2016 at 12:01 am

                      A highly automated and mechanised factory today with 50 workers can do the same work and produce the same value as 1,000 workers in a 1970 factory.

                      And the thinkers back in the 70s they already answered this question.

                      Have people work shorter hours, job share, and distribute a bigger share of the benefits of the value produced to a wider cross section of people. Not to a few big hedge fund shareholders somewhere in New York.

                      It took decades for the global economy to evolve to where it is now.

                      Yes. Neoliberalism and financialisation has taken 30-40 years of radical change to get to where it is today.

                      And it works pretty well for the richest 500M people in the world.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 November 2016 at 6:22 am

                      “Have people work shorter hours, job share, and distribute a bigger share of the benefits of the value produced to a wider cross section of people. Not to a few big hedge fund shareholders somewhere in New York.”

                      And that’s great and all, but that’s not the policy or solution that Trump is actually proposing.

                      Yes, Trump gets credit for saying things and identifying problems in a blunt simple manner that other politicians are to scared to say. The problem is, his solutions are all simple or plain unworkable and will do more harm than good. Putting tariffs up the way he wants to will result in the single biggest destruction of American purchasing power in history – it will hardly make them more prosperous.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 November 2016 at 11:19 pm

                    And by the way, the Waltons, one of the wealthiest families in the entire world, thank you for your excellent summation of their business model and why it should be protected at all costs.

        • Manuka AOR 8.1.1.3
          8 November 2016 at 4:55 pm

          I wrote: “Agh, stuff the wall. I’ll just take out Mexico. Problem solved.”

          CV: Incorrect. Don’t fall for the Clinton hypnosis. (… and other stuff…)

          Just for the record, it was joke. Guess I should have put a smiley.

          OTOH, you never know…

    • marty mars 8.2
      8 November 2016 at 7:53 am

      yep that was funny – hope trump loses so we don’t have his hands on any buttons anywhere.

    • mikesh 8.3
      8 November 2016 at 8:42 am

      Obama is comparing apples with oranges. I suspect he is incapable of reasoned argument.

    • rhinocrates 8.4
      8 November 2016 at 10:10 am

      George Takei and his followers on the tweets, and what he’d be tweeting if they still let him.

      http://the-daily.buzz/trump-trumps-missing-tweets/?utm_content=inf_4_1163_2&tse_id=INF_f1350310a4e811e6ae75d71756b4e6b3

  9. Manuka AOR 9
    8 November 2016 at 7:49 am

    Five ways the Repubs are threatening voting rights:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/five-ways-republicans-are-threatening-voting-rights.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region&_r=0

    Donald Trump has been claiming for months now that Tuesday’s election will be “rigged.” But the only ones threatening the democratic process are Mr. Trump, with his thinly veiled calls for voter suppression, and Republicans in state governments doing their utmost to keep minority voters from the polls. [At the link] are five ways the candidate and the Republican Party are working to suppress voting this year, drawn from recent editorials:

  11. save nz 11
    8 November 2016 at 8:25 am

    The appeal of Trump… people only have one thing left to fight with, their vote.

    extract…

    “The good news—and the bad news—for America is that the nation’s own super-elite is rapidly adjusting to this more global perspective. The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled.

    I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      8 November 2016 at 9:08 am

      “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled.

      They forgot to add that they skim off the difference in money for their own Wall St profits. That’s why they do this. That’s why they export all these factories and jobs from the USA and put them in China.

      And the Clintons are a central cog in this huge globalist money machine.

      For all you lefties who support Clinton, this is the nation border destroying, sovereign independence killing, bankster empowering machine that you are supporting.

      Good luck to you.

      • save nz 11.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 12:01 pm

        Exactly and a workers expenses in China or India are a lot less than someone who is in the US or NZ. You can’t compare the two. Added to this is the environmental costs to go with the lowest common denominator – why add security to a baby monitor or kettle for example when the consumer and the sales team are wanting the cheapest products to make the maximum profit. Why protect rivers and streams if you can just buy water rights around the world for a song, and then profit from it when unpolluted water becomes scarce. The consumer profit driven model is not good for society. Are Indian and Chinese workers better off now or are some people in China and India better off and a lot of locals worse off?

        • Olwyn 11.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 3:36 pm

          The consumer profit driven model is not good for society I agree, and the Atlantic article you put up vividly displays the sort of values that are salient within it. Think about the queen of England. You might not like her, but at least she is tied to her society by obligations connected to her role within it. Or think of the Kennedy’s – Joe certainly grasped and climbed to get his family into high office, but once they were there, a public spirited attitude was an understood and accepted requirement. With this lot, even their philanthropy is governed by whim rather than obligation, which is certainly better than nothing at all, but still doesn’t form a basis for real social connection. It is a model that puts self-serving upward mobility in the role that was once reserved for courage, foresight and wisdom. It is no wonder it generates the kind of politicians that it does.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.2
        8 November 2016 at 12:46 pm

        The principle that accusations ought to be accompanied by substantive evidence indicates support for ethics: Birthers and Truthers and witless alt-right shills don’t get to tell your lies unchallenged.

        Of course you falsely characterise that as support for Clinton, because you’re a liar.

  12. Ad 12
    8 November 2016 at 8:59 am

    Wall Street Finance Senate Contest Direct Spending

    – Marco Rubio, R, Florida $6.8m
    – Ted Cruz, R, Texas $4.9m
    – Chuck Schumer, D, New York $4.8m
    – Bernie Sanders, D, Vermont $2.9m
    – Rob Portman, D, Ohio $2.9m
    – Pat Toomey, R, Pennsylvania $2.8m
    – Michael Bennet, Colorado $2.7m
    – Kelly Ayotte, R, New H. $2.6m

    Source: Centre for Responsive Politics Data, Bloomberg

  13. te reo putake 13
    8 November 2016 at 9:13 am

    The Guardian on Trump’s many, many lies. While obviously not yet at John Key’s level, Trump and Dunnokeyo do share one interesting trait; they both lie even when they don’t need to. It’s a kind of sport.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/07/how-does-donald-trump-lie-fact-checker

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      8 November 2016 at 9:27 am

      Watch Hillary Clinton’s face as she lies over and over again about her emails and her mishandling of national security information. Superbly practiced, but you can spot the signs.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efe276Doht0

      Now, it comes out that Hillary Clinton directed her maid to handle classified materials that her maid had no authorisation to access.

      http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

      • te reo putake 13.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 9:34 am

        Meh. Yesterday’s news. Tomorrow’s President.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 9:41 am

          Your political tribalism gives her a pass, but Clinton is very practiced at lying to the public on TV and she will continue to lie to the public from the Oval Office if she gets that chance.

          • te reo putake 13.1.1.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 9:53 am

            So what? The only damage done over the email issue was to herself. And as the FBI repeatedly say, she’s done nothing illegal. Trump, on the other hand is a serial liar, serial business failure, serial destroyer of American jobs, serial sexual abuser and serial bigot. There’s simply no comparison between them for anyone with a heart and a hope for the future.

            But you righties will probably only have to put up with her for four years. At this point, I don’t think she’ll want another term. The win tomorrow will be enough to see her place in history and that should satisfy her ego. Four years from now, the Republicans will be facing any even scarier prospect; a black woman POTUS.

            You read it here first … President Michelle Obama.

            • marty mars 13.1.1.1.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 9:58 am

              Yep I think that prediction is correct. Looking forward to Michelle being there.

            • Andre 13.1.1.1.1.2
              8 November 2016 at 10:01 am

              Personally I’d prefer it was someone like Kamala Harris or Catherine Cortez Masto. I really dislike the movement towards dynastic presidencies.

            • Macro 13.1.1.1.1.3
              8 November 2016 at 10:04 am

              “You read it here first … President Michelle Obama.”

              I could vote for that.

              There is one problem I have with both George W, Hillary, and a proposed Michelle…(and for that matter the Kennedy’s); and it is a dynastic one. The US is becoming more and more like the Roman Empire with regards its ruling class, and that is not good for the process of democracy in general.

            • Ad 13.1.1.1.1.4
              8 November 2016 at 10:33 am

              Michelle?
              There’s only so much kale and raw carrots I can support.

            • Phil 13.1.1.1.1.5
              8 November 2016 at 10:58 am

              Michelle’s stated, repeatedly, that she has no appetite for political office. Not going to happen.

              Sasha and Malia, on the other hand, might want to follow in their Dad’s footsteps?

            • One Two 13.1.1.1.1.6
              8 November 2016 at 3:39 pm

              Is it important to you to be ‘first ‘?

            • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1.1.7
              8 November 2016 at 11:16 pm

              Apparently Michelle dislikes politics. It’d be far too early for her to run anyway, perhaps 2028. If she really wanted it, her best bet would be to win a Senate seat or governorship first – like Hillary did.

              Also I’m not sure how much the American public really like these political dynasties. I think Clinton and Bush are anomalies and they’ll go back to having unrelated presidents after this next term.

          • Matt D 13.1.1.1.2
            8 November 2016 at 10:05 am

            Hey CV, why are you still even here? They’ve even starting calling you a right winger now!

            • Ad 13.1.1.1.2.1
              8 November 2016 at 10:33 am

              Do you understand debating at all?

            • GregJ 13.1.1.1.2.2
              8 November 2016 at 8:58 pm

              @Matt D

              I’m not sure the traditional labels of right and left wing work anymore in CVs case which he has kind of explained here a number of times. I may not agree with him but I sort of understand how he has moved to where he is on the political matrix (I’m imaging the matrix rather than a spectrum – sort of a 3D model!). In the same way New Zealand First supporters (generalisation alert here), while socially conservative are not really “right wing”.

          • Psycho Milt 13.1.1.1.3
            8 November 2016 at 10:43 am

            …Clinton is very practiced at lying to the public on TV and she will continue to lie to the public from the Oval Office if she gets that chance.

            Are you imagining some ideal PotUS who doesn’t lie? Hillary Clinton’s a professional politician, so of course she’s a practiced liar. Your disgust at the thought she’s like other politicians brings to mind the (probably apocryphal) story that Ruskin couldn’t consummate his marriage when he saw that his wife had pubic hair.

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.3.1
              8 November 2016 at 10:50 am

              Just pointing out what she does smoothly and frequently, that’s all.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 November 2016 at 1:13 pm

                In your Trumpy opinion, that is.

              • left_forward …
                8 November 2016 at 1:53 pm

                Boringly CV, here we are on the last day and you still have not acknowledged any of the many many serious failings of the Don; the reasons why most thinking people have completely rejected him. Yet instead you have chosen for some inexplicable reason to continue to drill home, ad nauseum your deranged perspective of Hillary.
                I don’t accept your last words are truthful – ‘thats all’.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  8 November 2016 at 2:24 pm

                  ; the reasons why most thinking people have completely rejected him

                  More liberal intellectual pejoratives. Those damn naive/uneducated deplorables and irredeemables.

                  • McFlock …
                    8 November 2016 at 2:31 pm

                    We are talking about a candidate who felt compelled to reassure voters that his penis is of an acceptable size.

                  • left_forward …
                    8 November 2016 at 5:43 pm

                    I can see that you are not not educated, so thats no excuse for your mindlessness. If putting some thought into the suitability of a character to be a world leader is intellectual then so be it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 November 2016 at 6:51 pm

                      If putting some thought into the suitability of a character to be a world leader is intellectual then so be it.

                      Trump already figured youse out

                    • left_forward …
                      9 November 2016 at 11:31 am

                      Haha – good to see he figured something out.
                      There is a small chance of brain function after all.

  14. Richard Rawshark 14
    8 November 2016 at 9:21 am

    Ok 5 pm tommorow it starts so 1 day out I’ve heard enough and seen how it’s gone i’m going to throw my prediction out there. This is prediction who will win, and not who I support.Perhaps. Just a win prediction.

    From what I have seen and the feeling I have gotten about it from media people etc..

    Trump, and it’s going to be bigger than certain media have painted it..

    gawd…risky predict..but meh go with the ghut.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      8 November 2016 at 9:32 am

      I think a Trump win if it occurs will be clear and resounding – around the 290 mark.

      I think a Clinton win will just squeek her through – 270-ish.

      But that Clinton machine is powerful and runs deep. Getting off on even being charged with national security crimes when people like Cartwright and Patreus did a tiny fraction of what she did. Also the submariner who took 6 photos of his work area on the USS Alexandra to show to his future kids is spending a year in prison and has ruined his career.

      • stunned mullet 14.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 10:42 am

        I’m picking it’ll be done and dusted reasonably early in favour of Clinton and that the Dems will take Florida.

        It will be interesting to see who both the major parties choose for the next election as they have a very very annoyed and disallusioned populace at present.

      • weizguy 14.1.2
        8 November 2016 at 10:42 am

        This is an empirically baseless predicition. Can you explain why you think a Trump win would be a big one, while a Clinton win would be a squeaker?

        Then again, I think you’ve made it clear that you don’t care much for empiricism.

        • Colonial Viper 14.1.2.1
          8 November 2016 at 10:53 am

          And why do you think “empiricism” even applies in this case i.e. why is it any more powerful than other ways of looking at this electoral race?

          BTW Nate Silver said that Clinton sits on a 270 state win in his predictive model. Is he not being “empirical”?

          • weizguy 14.1.2.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 4:49 pm

            What are these other “ways of looking at this electoral race”? Your gut feel?

            I’m not sure where you got the idea that the 538 model “that Clinton sits on a 270 state win”. It very clearly doesn’t. It’s not even how the model works. Yes, some of the simulations will end with Hillary at 270, but the distribution makes it much more likely that she gets significantly more.

            As for Trump winning with 290 or above, no models are predicting that as particularly likely. It seems to be an entirely evidence-free statement.

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.2.1.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 4:51 pm

              Nate Silver said a day or two ago that 270 is the most likely result for Hillary Clinton at this stage, compared to 538’s forecast of around 320 for Obama at the same stage.

              As for Trump winning with 290 or above, no models are predicting that as particularly likely. It seems to be an entirely evidence-free statement.

              Where did I say that it was “particularly likely”?

              • weizguy …
                8 November 2016 at 5:03 pm

                538 updates the model fairly frequently – you can check for yourself. Florida, North Carolina and Nevada now lean Democrat.

                That particular comment was made when Hillary’s support was at its nadir – before it sunk in that Comey had completely ballsed up his intervention.

                I’m a big fan of Charlie Brooker – based on that video alone, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t share your glowing view of Mr Trump.

                All going well, tomorrow we can send the carnival barker (and his horrendous, reality impaired surrogates) back from whence they came.

                • GregJ …
                  8 November 2016 at 9:36 pm

                  I think CV is probably basing his “feel” on a sort of “Brexit” situation where the polling may not be picking up something brewing underground.

                  In that case because there are quite a few states where polling is well within the margin of error territory it is possible to see Trump getting to 285-290. Trump has about 221 EV but there are about 78 EV in Barely Democratic States (polling margins of 1-4) – Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico. If something unusual is going on then around 290 is possible. Actually it seems more probable to me that if Trump wins it is under this type of scenario rather than a few states flipping to just get him over the line at 271-275.

      • Phil 14.1.3
        8 November 2016 at 11:04 am

        I think a Trump win if it occurs will be clear and resounding – around the 290 mark.

        Hahaha, 290 is not ‘clear and resounding’ you moron. Obama won with 365 in ’08 and 332 in ’12 – the latter being a close election where a few swing states all fell one-side of the ledger.

        But that Clinton machine is powerful and runs deep.

        In other word’s: Clinton got (ground) game. \
        If she beats her polling, it’ll be because she has a turnout operation that is unparalleled and light-years ahead of the orange chump.

        • Colonial Viper 14.1.3.1
          8 November 2016 at 11:11 am

          Hahaha, 290 is not ‘clear and resounding’ you moron.

          It will be for a guy who was 6 to 12 points behind in the polls less than a month ago.

          • Phil 14.1.3.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 1:34 pm

            You’re becoming increasingly nonsensical as the election gets closer.

            If the All Blacks are down 10 points with 5 minutes left in the game, and they score two tries to win, that doesn’t even remotely reflect a ‘clear and resounding’ win for them.

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.3.1.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 1:41 pm

              Trump has to flip 2 or 3 big blue states eg. Michigan, Pa. to get to 290+.

              Still much less likely than Clinton winning though, for sure.

    • Richard Rawshark 15.1
      8 November 2016 at 9:47 am

      John O, almost 5 minutes on trump.. Negatives.

      I could see why Trump declared war on the press and his supporters would be angry.

      Quite funny though.

      • Andre 15.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 10:21 am

        John Oliver is comedy entertainment, not pretending to be news.

        Prob’ly if you wade into the right wing fever swamp you can find similar ridicule of lefties. Or maybe the RWNJs don’t do humour and their equivalent is Alex Jones, Breitbart, zerohedge etc.

        • Richard Rawshark 15.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 10:26 am

          Hmm so is Mike Hosking and Paul Henry, if people watch the messages rub off, to me it’s sometimes more powerful than the campaigns themselves.

          meh just the way I see it, luv Oliver he’s hilarious, I was just commenting on how much ..comedy they give him to hand out.

        • Lanthanide 15.1.1.2
          8 November 2016 at 11:24 pm

          Except a lot of people in the US actually get their news from late night comedy shows. It sounds insane, but it’s true. For the most part their MSM is endless babbling noise as the talking heads turn everything into a meal and repeat the same things over and over as if it’s content or insightful.

    • Siobhan 15.2
      8 November 2016 at 12:59 pm

      Yeah, John Oliver has done some excellent work this election for his bosses at Time Warner.(In the top 10 of Clinton donors, not to mention the $50k to $100k that they gave to the Clinton Foundation)

      And I’m not talking about dealing to Trump, but the easy ride and facetious ‘comparisons’ of Hillary vs Trump ‘crimes’…not to mention his childish dismissal of Third parties.

  16. Morrissey 16
    8 November 2016 at 9:31 am

    The always astute Barry Shitpeas describes the Republican nominee perfectly

    Trump “looks like a guinea pig staring at you through the port-hole on a washing machine.”

  17. Morrissey 17
    8 November 2016 at 9:42 am

    Four dimwitted Trump supporters come up against Judge Judy

    What’s the bet that at least one of these thugs is a policeman?….

  18. weka 18
    8 November 2016 at 9:55 am

    I’m just trying to figure out some timelines for results, does this look right? These are all NZ times.

    Weds 1pm Polling closes in the Eastern US and projections start state by state.

    Weds 5pm Polling closes in Western US (7pm for Alaska, which is unlikely to affect the result). This is the first time that the election can be called, and traditionally media wait until this time.

    from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/us-election-important-moments/7943894

  19. Pasupial 19
    8 November 2016 at 10:09 am

    I’m only up to the four minute mark on this; “In the old days/ when you had a war/ on a humanitarian basis/ it’s to the victor belongs the spoils”. Despite the manipulative editing (and editorialising), it does seem worth watching; if only as entertainment. But I don’t think I can take the whole 21minutes at once:

  20. Andre 20
    8 November 2016 at 11:07 am

    It’s not a line from left to right in politics, it’s a very bizarre circle. The proof? Some very strange endorsements.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/11/07/slavoj_zizek_endorses_trump_why_am_i_not_surprised.html

    • Ad 20.1
      8 November 2016 at 11:22 am

      Zizek is one of those theoretical Trump-grumpies who appeals for violent revolution, gets it, and then can’t remember why he was asking for it.

  21. Grim 21
    8 November 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Predictions:

    Trump win, results is obviously rigged ie 100% to 0%

    Clinton can’t say anything as “rigging is a crazy right-wing nut-job conspiracy theory”

    Clinton investigation results delayed till after Trump takes office, no chance of Obama pardoning or Clinton squashing investigation.

    One mid level crime family replaced by another, business as usual, different pockets get filled, global agenda continues, standard of living for the 99% is averaged out, while the elite 1% are elevated to god status.

    The pyramid base is increased, all mid levels removed and the top floats miles above, this is the NWO, the United nations, the alt-left dream.

    1984/brave new world mashup is complete.

  22. joe90 22
    8 November 2016 at 12:05 pm

    (again, but in the right post)

    Kurt Eichenwald –

    The tweets will be presenting my findings from my Trump investigations in the order they were reported in @Newsweek.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    From….

    1.Trump lied to Congress that he was not meeting with any Indian casino executives when documents and sworn statements show he was.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    …to…

    8. Trump’s claim that his dad gave him only $1m is a lie. His trust fund was $1 mill. Dad gave $10.4m for a bogus consultant job…(1 of 2)— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    ..guaranteed $70 m loan, got him $35m credit line, laundered $3.35mill 2 Don in illegal casino deal, loaned $7.5m more (never repaid.) 2/2— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    through to…

    97. Trump’s only public company never made any $ and wiped out investors. Through management deals, Trump sucked $80mill out of company.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    98. When banks shut Trump out of loans because of his financial mismanagement, he started obtaining $ from Cayman Islands.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    99. Trump’s companies destroyed or hid 1000s of emails and documents demanded in official proceedings in defiance of court orders.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    100. Trump’s use of deception & false affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    I will be taking another break from posting the findings of my Trump investigations published in Newsweek. Feel free to read all so far.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) November 7, 2016

    https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/with_replies

  23. Andre 23
    8 November 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Interesting thoughts on how Trump got to where he is. No, it’s not mainly because whites are angry about being left behind economically.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/13532178/donald-trump-american-democracy-weakness

    On a related note, I’ve never seen any good analysis about why Clinton was so overwhelmingly popular with superdelegates at the start of the primary process.

    My personal theory (with no evidence I can point to easily) is that many of them have worked with her and directly experienced her commitment and competence, looked back at her approval ratings at the end of her State stint, and underestimated how much the stains from previous smear attacks would show when the smear machine cranked up again.

    No, I’m not interested in rants about how the Illuminati/lizard-people/Deep State have completely bought and installed her as a puppet.

    • McFlock 23.1
      8 November 2016 at 12:27 pm

      A lot of them would have, but there’s also a certain level of “home court advantage”. Sanders was a new democrat member/candidate.

      Clinton worked through senate, but most importantly campaigned against (and lost to) Obama with grace and made an important contribution to his cabinet, rather than just throwing her toys out of the cot. I think that that showed she was a)long term and b)valuable to the party.

      So the superdelegates would have been predisposed to support her. If Sanders had won the popular vote, the superdelegates might have switched, but that never happened (although he would probably have been a better, more inspiring president).

      • Andre 23.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 12:40 pm

        That doesn’t cover why they were so cool on O’Malley.

        O’Malley had solid long term Dem credentials, two term governor, old enough to be wise and experienced but still young enough that age and vigour would never be an issue. Only real downside I’m aware of was a lack of nationwide name recognition. So why didn’t some superdelegates recognize Clinton’s baggage would be a handicap and support him?

        • McFlock 23.1.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 12:49 pm

          heh.
          Completely forgot about O’Malley.

          I guess so did everyone else, with his trace-element popular vote.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.2
          8 November 2016 at 12:57 pm

          The Clintons have a massive roll call of contacts, favours owed and favours owing, money, track record, people they have helped place in key positions throughout the Democratic Party for decades.

          A great O’Malley quote:

          Silver got everything right about the 2012 race when he was with the New York Times. So why did he get everything wrong about the Donald?

          Maybe he didn’t listen to the guy who said “The presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families.”

          That guy was not a Trump supporter. That was former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who made a brief run against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race before bowing out.

          http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/11/bush_vs_clinton_the_battle_of_the_royal_families_w.html

          • Andre 23.1.1.2.1
            8 November 2016 at 1:05 pm

            Does anyone else hear spooky music with a ranting voice-over while fuzzy images with arrows flash up on-screen?

          • Phil 23.1.1.2.2
            8 November 2016 at 4:42 pm

            The Clintons have a massive roll call of contacts, favours owed and favours owing, money, track record, people they have helped place in key positions throughout the Democratic Party for decades.

            It’s amazing that someone who has spent upwards of 30 years being part of a political party and working within it’s established framework might have a large cadre of supporters within said party.

            Who knew!?

            *eye roll*

    • mauī 23.2
      8 November 2016 at 1:02 pm

      I can see it now those superdelegates stacked with civil, human rights activists and alternative economists backing a peoples movement like a Bernie or a Stein. Damn I should snap out of it, only a dream.

    • Manuka AOR 23.3
      8 November 2016 at 1:37 pm

      No, it’s not mainly because whites are angry about being left behind economically.

      From Andre’s link:
      “The belief that Trump is a predictable reaction to acute economic duress crumbled before the finding that his primary voters had a median household income of $72,000 — well above both the national average and that of Clinton supporters.

      “The idea that Trumpism arose as a response to a stalled economy collapsed as America experienced its longest sustained run of private sector job growth, and the highest single-year jump in median incomes, in modern history.

      “The idea that Trump was a reaction to failed trade deals and heavy competition from immigrants slammed into data showing support for him showed no relationship to lost manufacturing jobs and was strongest in areas without immigrant labor.

      “The idea that Trump is a reaction to historic disgust with American elites is at war with President Barack Obama’s approval ratings, which have risen above 50 percent and now match Ronald Reagan’s at this point in his presidency.”

      • Colonial Viper 23.3.1
        8 November 2016 at 1:49 pm

        “The idea that Trumpism arose as a response to a stalled economy collapsed as America experienced its longest sustained run of private sector job growth, and the highest single-year jump in median incomes, in modern history.

        Sounds like an ad for the National Party, with all the glowing sounding statistics that the NATs come up with.

        By the way, any mention of the 44M Americans on food stamps?

        • Manuka AOR 23.3.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 2:22 pm

          Feel free to check out the links, stats for yourself – they do link through at that the main link. Similarly at 538 (‘The Mythology of Trump’s Working Class Support”: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

          The Obama approval links include, show and compare stats from YouGov/ Economist, Gallup, Fox, Rasmussen, NBC/ Survey Monkey: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval

          • Colonial Viper 23.3.1.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 6:19 pm

            Similarly at 538 (‘The Mythology of Trump’s Working Class Support”:

            A nice article but there is a big gap in its analysis: it doesn’t compare the profile of Trump’s support with McCain’s support and Romney’s support.

            So yes – the guts of the Republican nominee’s support looks somewhat like that of any Republican nominee. However you would expect that – latest stats show that 85% or more of registered Republicans are now supporting Trump, and the “Nevertrumpers” are returning home.

            This question will be answered tomorrow night, that is: whom else apart from registered Republicans will turn out for Trump.

  24. Anne 24
    8 November 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Pablo’s (Paul Buchanan) description of Trump is hard to beat:

    Trump represents a grotesque caricature of the traditional alpha male, and in the absurdity of his candidacy lies the last gasps of a dying culture. In his sociopathic narcissism, his sexually predatory behaviour, his racism, bigotry and xenophobia, his abject greed, his pathological lying, his thin-skinned obsession with revenge, his insensitivity to others, his ignorance of basic economic, political, military and diplomatic facts, and in his adolescent resort to crude insults and derision as a weapon of last resort, Trump is the antithesis of the self-made, strong and independent straight-talking man on horseback.

    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/

  26. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 26
    8 November 2016 at 1:01 pm

    I think too many people posting here have missed an essential point about the US election:

    Namely – that while Trump would be an appalling president who would almost certainly not improve the lot of the average American, and not do much for the rest of the world also, there is a hell of a lot of people feeling disenfranchised in the States. 70% of American cannot find $1000 in savings, for God’s sake.

    If they get out and vote, Trump will win in a landslide, because Clinton is seen, quite rightly, as the establishment candidate, and its that very establishment, under Clinton, Bush and Obama which has put them in that precarious position.

    I can imagine feelings of what the hell, he can’t be any worse for me than a continuation of the last twenty or thirty years, I’ll vote for him!

    The missing million in New Zealand probably have the same feelings!

    • weka 26.1
      8 November 2016 at 2:10 pm

      I don’t think that point has been missed, so much as it’s been obscured by the way the debate has been conducted here that entrenched a polarity of reactions.

      I’m certainly aware of that issue, and would have put up posts myself on that in the context of the people who would vote Clinton anyway and what their responsibilities are to the people who vote Trump from that disenfranchised place you name, but honestly it’s just not worth the aggro.

      (Trump is establishment too btw).

    • Ad 26.2
      8 November 2016 at 2:12 pm

      Trump is going to give the missing millions $1,000 each into their saving accounts?

      Now I understand the situation.

      If Trump is the answer, what was the question again?

      • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 26.2.1
        8 November 2016 at 3:29 pm

        I sometimes wonder at the level of reading comprehension displayed by some people who post here!

        Nowhere was it said by anyone that Trump ‘is going to give the missing millions $1000 each into their saving accounts.’ I merely stated that 70% of American cannot find $1000 in savings.

        That indicates an enormous level of inequality. Many of these people will feel let down by the system and will vote against it.

        The people of the UK did, with Brexit, so why not the American disillusioned?

        • weka 26.2.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 3:40 pm

          I suppose it comes across as patronising to be told that we are missing the point. Ad is prone to sarcasm and smart arsery, but I think there is an issue of how Trump voting gets presented. Yet Ad misses the point (probably intentionally) – people aren’t voting Trump (or Brexit) because it will improve their lot, but because it’s one way to say Fuck You to the establishment. I’m not sure how comparable the US and the UK are though.

          • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 26.2.1.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 4:05 pm

            My apologies, Weka. I certainly didn’t mean to sound patronising. But almost all of the, at times, vicious argument here has been that Trump would make a worse choice than Clinton, or the other way around.

            Both would be pretty bad and neither will do much for the ordinary worker, or for the rest of the world for that matter.

            But, reportedly, the people of parts of the UK most damaged by EU membership voted to leave, again, apparently against their better interests.

            My point, and I appreciate that many have probably made it before, is that a similar result could happen in the US.

            • Macro 26.2.1.1.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 6:55 pm

              I think that the argument that both would be equally bad is not a true one. Little discussion has been given to the policy platforms of each candidate apart from the “she will bomb the living daylights out of every one” vs “no she won’t” variety. The rest of the time has been directed by some vocal ones here onto the moral capacity of HRC vs the virtues of Donald. 🙁
              If one were to take a look at the large policy platform of HRC v’s the few paragraphs by Trump it is quite obvious which of the two candidates would have a beneficial and progressive policies for the US. HRC wants to extend Obama care Trump wants to trash it. Trump wants to pay even less tax than he does now – Hillary wants to increase the tax take on the wealthy. Trump is a climate denier, and will rip up the Paris agree that has take the world 25 years of negotiation, Clinton recognises AGW and has some policies to address some of these issues.
              I haven’t the time now or the space to go through all the issues that are well documented in her many pages of Policy commitments. But suffice it to say that in general they are progressive rather than regressive, and would be of benefit not only to the people of the US but to the world in general.
              The most important question however is should she be POTU would she be able to implement her policy platform and that very much depends on the composition of the Congress and the Senate in particular. The House is most likely going to remain in Republican hands the composition of which having been gerrymandered by the REDMAP in 2010. An outrageous piece of political manoveouring. The Senate looks lily to be just in favour of the Democrats at this stage – but it is a toss up. Should it be 50 – 50 then the democrats will have control through the vote of the Vice President assuming HRC is successful. So if that is the case Hillary will have to get her skates on and pass a raft of policy before the 2018 elections.

    • Macro 26.3
      8 November 2016 at 2:30 pm

      Yes Tony there are millions disenfranchised – and let’s not forget that they have been disenfranchised by Trump probably more than anyone one else. No taxes paid for 18 years speaks volumes. Were he to show his tax returns (like any honest candidate) the disenfranchised would walk away from him in droves.
      I understand the frustration that these people are feeling, and wanting someone better, but with Trump’s chance of winning now less than 30%, and trending downwards as we speak, I’m sure that even they are seeing Trump for what he is.

      • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 26.3.1
        8 November 2016 at 3:33 pm

        Good God, Marco, (and Weka) I’m not pimping for Trump. He is as much establishment as Hillary. But when you’re angry and disillusioned, the grey matter doesn’t work too well.

        I think the disillusioned will probably stay at home, mentally shrugging their shoulders in frustration, but doing nothing.

        • weka 26.3.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 3:42 pm

          I didn’t take you as pimping for Trump. I get the argument you are making, and I think there is some truth to it, but I think it is over egged in general esp here on TS and as I said above, we missed an opportunity to have those conversations because of the way the debate played out here.

  28. dukeofurl 28
    8 November 2016 at 2:17 pm

    The FBI review of the Weiner/Abedin emails in just over a week?

    How could they get through 650,000 emails?
    “The F.B.I. discovered approximately 650,000 emails on a computer that agents had seized while investigating Mr. Weiner ”

    So how many were from Clinton?
    ” no need to review all of the emails, only Ms. Abedin’s. Those emails numbered in the thousands, and even many of those were duplicates of messages that had been looked at previously, officials said.”

    Just as I thought it was a ‘lost cache’ of some of Abedins emails and they have software that can check for dups-the bane of any large database of documents.
    ” Filtering software can ferret out duplicates from far larger databases than Mr. Weiner’s hard drive.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-fbi-emails.html?ref=politics

    Much as I thought it all would be, just a small rerun of the previous data. Virtually nothing contained classifies markings- as it came from unclassified sources, like TV documentaries and major Newspapers. But its still ‘secret’ under the US totalitarian style secrecy system.

    • Colonial Viper 28.1
      8 November 2016 at 2:38 pm

      I’m actually dumbfounded that they didn’t identify duplicates by metadata first before Comey went off to Congress to cause a massive fuss.

      • McFlock 28.1.1
        8 November 2016 at 2:43 pm

        Really?
        If it had been as damaging to trump, you’d be saying that it was exactly why they didn’t match the headers first.

      • One Two 28.1.2
        8 November 2016 at 3:34 pm

        It’s all part of the ‘show’

        Reality TV for the reality tv mindset!

      • dukeofurl 28.1.3
        8 November 2016 at 4:20 pm

        The FBI NY office aka Trumpland wanted it this way

        I think some SAC will be reassigned to Idaho or Alaska

        “Today, the New York Field Office is composed of over 2,000 agents, support staff, and task force members. It is the largest field office in terms of staff, and its territory has a population of over 13 million.”

        Interesting account of the “Abedin emails” from Newsweek who had FBi sources
        http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918
        ‘This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. ‘
        Not sure why she didnt know her clintonemail.com account wasnt on private server but every one uses email shorter aliases which hide the full email address

        “Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there.”
        Shades of Don Brash ? – he didnt make sure the printed emails were shredded and someone collected them and they ended up with Hagar ?
        Trump is much the same generation and he doesnt ‘use email ‘ but Im sure his employees do.

        “If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.

        This was written before the ‘final outcome’ was known, it obviously slants towards Clintons POV but at least it supplies details that are realistic and verifiable at some stage

  29. Colonial Viper 29
    8 November 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Fox News poll: Clinton moves to a 4 point lead over Donald Trump

    With the numbers starting to edge him out in favour of Hillary can Trump pull it off?

    With one day before Election Day, Hillary Clinton has a four percentage-point lead over Donald Trump, according to the final Fox News national pre-election poll of likely voters.

    She’s ahead by 48-44 percent, while Gary Johnson receives 3 percent and Jill Stein 2 percent.

    In the two-way race, it’s also Clinton over Trump by 48-44 percent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/07/fox-news-poll-clinton-moves-to-4-point-edge-over-trump.html

    • Pasupial 29.1
      8 November 2016 at 3:04 pm

      You almost have to feel sorry for Johnson and the Libertarians (but the urge passes quickly). Unless they get over 5% they are going to be out of pocket for this election, and unfunded in 2020 too.

      I tend to go with 538’s aggregation rather than Fox’s individual polls, and there; it is only on the 29th of October that they dropped below the 5% threshold (now at 4.7%). Johnson has dropped 1.3% since the 3rd debate, during which period Trump is up 2.3% – you can almost see a tube siphoning the votes over between the two.

    • Ad 29.2
      8 November 2016 at 3:21 pm

      Florida is his shot at it.
      He can see it.

      Tomorrow night we should know Florida if it’s a clear result there.

      • Garibaldi 29.2.1
        8 November 2016 at 4:18 pm

        Regardless of who wins we are going to be terribly disappointed. I despise the Republicans. I’m a lefty and I despise Hillary. The Democrats are every bit as crooked as the GOP now. You people who think Hillary is the answer are in for a hell of a shock as the Empire, which brings corporate monopoly ( “democracy a la USA), goes into overdrive and usurps more and more of this world. Watch her push Russia and China even harder, and bear in mind just which side is the aggressor ( hint… it is the one with military bases all over the world and spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined).

        • McFlock 29.2.1.1
          8 November 2016 at 4:26 pm

          You people who think Hillary is the answer

          who people?

          • Colonial Viper 29.2.1.1.1
            8 November 2016 at 5:30 pm

            All the people who spend 95% of their time and effort attacking Trump and Trump supporters and 5% or less of their time and effort attacking Hillary and Hillary supporters.

            But somehow still try and pretend that they are neutral, non-partisan commentators.

            • McFlock 29.2.1.1.1.1
              8 November 2016 at 5:33 pm

              Nah.

              Assuming the question is “”who is fit to be President of the United States of America?”, that just means that Trump is wrong. So very, very, bigly, wrong. It’s amazing how wrong he is. Hillary might be a bit off the mark as an answer, but Trump is just obscenely wrong to even be a viable candidate.

            • Pasupial 29.2.1.1.1.2
              8 November 2016 at 5:41 pm

              CV
              I really hope that you drew the short-straw in some contest between this site’s authors to decide who would get to be the devil’s advocate Trump supporter on these posts. It is better than thinking that you really believe all the nonsense that you are typing. Also, that would give some hope of your return to your default settings once this election is finally done.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 November 2016 at 6:06 pm

                Cheers. Although I won’t be becoming a Labour or Greens supporter in the foreseeable future.

                Re: Trump/Clinton

                With a President Clinton, you can expect NZ to be double-downed the road of eroding economic sovereignty, foreign corporate ownership, lobbyist written laws, bankster rule and cut price offshoring of our resources and infrastructure.

                That and ever increasing military tensions and confrontation in the west pacific.

                With a President Trump, some of those things may be temporarily slowed down.

              • fender …
                8 November 2016 at 6:06 pm

                +1 Pasupial

  30. fisiani 30
    8 November 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I hope Hillary Clinton wins. As a strong Natioanl supporter I cannot abide Trump.

    • fender 30.1
      8 November 2016 at 6:02 pm

      “….cannot abide Trump”

      Sure you can, just repeat “honest Don” over and over again to yourself as you do about John 😀

  32. joe90 32
    8 November 2016 at 6:16 pm

    The boot fits.

    .

    After the speech, Michelle Fields, a reporter for Breitbart, approached Trump with a question about affirmative action, when Corey Lewandowski, then Trump’s campaign manager, took her by the arm and yanked her from the candidate.

    It happened right in front of me.

    And yet, even though I saw it, the Trump team’s response — to claim it never happened at all — would become a small preview of a strategy the campaign would return to again and again on a much larger scale this year: Bully, don’t back down, do whatever you can to muddy up the facts. It was a type of lie that has lived at the center of the Trump campaign. This was not simply a misreading of history, an embellishment of biography, or a dishonest interpretation of a piece of legislation. It was a flat-out denial of something that undeniably happened.

    […]

    But by the time my editor asked me about it three days later, doubt had started to creep in. Trump had suggested Fields was probably making it up, and nobody else had corroborated my account. If it had really happened, Trump and his surrogates maintained, why wasn’t there any footage?

    […]

    “The Trump campaign did everything they could to get me to question my own reality,” she said. “You don’t think that will ever happen to you, but it did.”

    It’s been a hard few months for Fields. She lost her job at Breitbart, and though she now works for the Huffington Post, she admits she’s begun questioning the power of the press. She had her phone number and apartment address posted online and received death threats. And watching Trump battle with his recent female accusers has only made things worse.

    “It broke my heart,” Fields said when I met up with her recently. “He was attacking these women, and I remember thinking that I knew what they felt like: completely powerless. You know the truth, and you are watching this person lie to millions of people, and what can you do?”

    What worries Fields is that if Trump can get people to second-guess their own experiences, imagine how effective he can be convincing people who weren’t even there. It’s the kind of power that can get someone elected president.

    “Trump gaslighted me,” Fields said. “I worry now that he’s gaslighting the country.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/07/the-trump-campaigns-war-on-reality-made-me-question-what-i-saw/?

    .

    Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity.[1][2] Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

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

  34. joe90 34
    8 November 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Saving the best for last.

    The Trump private roads and transportation plan was unveiled on Oct. 27th, but the full impact took a few days to be understood.

    When the Republican candidate claims at rallies to want a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, naturally voters assume that the assets would be publicly owned and free to use.

    But nobody is awake at the switch, outside of Slate.

    In fact, Trump’s transportation infrastructure plan would privatize most of the new construction, make it all toll driven and concentrated in wealthy areas:

    Despite the Trump campaign’s sales pitch, it may also be a pretty expensive plan for building new roads. Governments can borrow for much, much less than your typical private company. That gives them a big, built-in cost advantage when it comes to infrastructure. If a corporation wants to compete, it has to be hyper-efficient about construction. And some might be! But between the higher interest rates they pay on their debt and the need to turn a profit, chances are a lot of private developers would end up just charging a boatload in tolls and fees—more, over time, than the government would have to levy in taxes … The main beneficiaries, in all likelihood, are the Wall Street investors who would love to skim some cash off your ride to work.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-just-told-the-truth-its-more-terrifying_us_581e495ce4b0102262411844

    • Colonial Viper 34.1
      9 November 2016 at 12:16 am

      It’s a bit late for the Huffington Post to be worried about Wall St skimming. They’ve backed the preferred Wall St candidate from the get go.

  35. Colonial Viper 35
    9 November 2016 at 12:06 am

    FIRST POLLING BOOTHS OPEN

Links to post