Patterico's Pontifications

10/26/2016

Was Newt Right When He Told Megyn Kelly Republicans Are Doing Well in Early Voting? Umm…

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



Lost in the ruckus over Newt Gingrich shouting at Megyn Kelly last night (YOU SAY BILL CLINTON WAS A SEXUAL PREDATOR!) was the debate they had early on about early voting. Gingrich claimed the picture was all rosy for Donald Trump:

GINGRICH: Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida, they’re outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That’s unprecedented. They’ve cut the Democratic lead —

KELLY: You predict a win in Pennsylvania?

GINGRICH: I think they might.

KELLY: Really? You think Trump’s gonna win Pennsylvania.

GINGRICH: Look, all I can report to you right now is, they’re outvoting the Democrats in early voting, uh, which is also true in Florida, which is unprecedented.

KELLY: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her winning.

GINGRICH: What?

KELLY: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her ahead.

GINGRICH:I know. I just told you, We have two alternative universes right now. In Iowa, for example, the Democrats are 50,000 votes behind where they were with Barack Obama in turnout. The governor is very confident we’re going to carry Iowa which Obama carried last time. I can just carry you through case after case like this.

Is he right? POLITICO says, on the contrary, things are looking bleak for Republicans in early voting (cached link) — including in Florida, where Republicans have a smaller lead at this point than they had in 2012:

In Nevada, where early in-person voting began on Saturday, Democratic voters cast 23,000 more ballots than Republicans as of Tuesday afternoon, good for a 15-percentage-point edge in the nearly 150,000 ballots cast. (Mail in and absentee ballots narrow the gap slightly).

Polling and early voting returns suggest Democrats are maintaining an edge in North Carolina, and they are also slicing into a thinner-than-expected early vote lead for Republicans in Florida, who now lead by about half a percentage point; in 2012, the GOP held a much more significant edge two weeks from Election Day. Women in Florida are casting early ballots in far greater numbers than four years ago, and Hispanic turnout is surging as well, according to data released by the Clinton campaign. Polls suggest that both constituencies are strongly Democratic this year.

In Colorado — where Democrats hold a voter registration edge for the first time — early returns give the party a 23,000-vote lead in returned and in-person ballots. In Arizona, which last went Democratic in 1996, Democrats held a thin early-vote lead on Monday.

As a reminder: Barack Obama won Florida in 2012.

As for Pennsylvania, I don’t know where Gingrich is getting his early voting numbers, as I can’t find a story reporting them. But Pennsylvania does not have early voting as a general rule — so any numbers Gingrich might have are a very small sample and not representative. What’s more, as Kelly points out, Hillary is ahead in all the polls there.

Newt has a point with Iowa. Things are looking OK for Trump there, and in Ohio. But, um, don’t get too excited:

Things do not look so rosy for Democrats in two other battleground states with heavy early voting: Iowa (44 percent of the vote cast early in 2012) and Ohio (33 percent in 2012). Iowa Democrats have always prided themselves on an outstanding early-voting operation, but they are running well behind their 2012 numbers. And in Ohio, which does not have party registration, the main danger sign for Democrats is lagging early voting in the big urban centers of Cleveland and Columbus.

Ohio and Iowa have been Trump’s two best battleground states. So while it is encouraging for his cause that he’s doing relatively well in early voting in those two states, it’s more significant that he’s doing not-so-well in Florida and North Carolina, both of which he badly needs to get to 270 electoral votes.

It looks like Gingrich was looking for optimistic data wherever he could find it, and putting a brave face on what is a dismal situation. He’s not a dumb guy, though, and he has to know the reality — and it had to be frustrating him as he was talking to Megyn Kelly.

No wonder he started yelling at her.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

195 Responses to “Was Newt Right When He Told Megyn Kelly Republicans Are Doing Well in Early Voting? Umm…”

  1. I love how Mr. Trump’s doing the early voting on that pig!

    He’s a splendid victorious, and I don’t even care what Justin Timberlake says – Mr. Trump’s CLEARLY the best choice not the diseased criminal stinkypig.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. All the ruckus? There was no shouting. Gingrich raised a good point about MeAgain Kelly’s fixation. Clinton campaign asserts this is in the bag, they’re confident of victory. Hundreds of emails show instances of doubts about Clinton’s “well being”, mental acuity, campaign dirty tricks, provable media collusion, criminality associated with pay for play, lying to Congress and the FBI, answers to the “what did he know, when did he know it” about Obama and the illegal server, etc.

    But Gingrich is painting a rosy early voting picture? Really!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  3. that link doesn’t go anywhere, not surprising, it’s the hive of the journolist,

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. and where are they getting their voter tallies,

    http://www.ncsbe.gov/Elections/Election-Information

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. putting a brave face on what is a dismal situation …

    But the conclusion that it is a dismal situation is based on media analyses. If these analyses can be shown to be wrong, and perhaps intentionally misleading, which is Newt’s point, then we may not be facing such a dismal future. And he doesn’t have to show that every media report in every state is wrong to cast doubt on the media.

    We’re having to deal with two confirmation bias problems that are contradictory. On the one hand, you think Trump has screwed things up, and so you tend to agree with those reports. On the other, we both think the media is an agent of progressive politics, and so we have some sympathy for Newt’s point. The latter bias is almost certainly based on fact, whereas the concern over Trump is still somewhat hypothetical. It makes sense that his lack of discipline, poor understanding of fundamental issues, and failure to exploit the opportunities provided by Hillary! would result in failure, but we both were shocked by Trump’s victories beginning in early May, so I don’t place much faith in my ability to predict these things.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  6. Pennsylvania does not have early voting, only for absentee ballots. And no one that I know gets information on who’s requesting them. The only way you can project any PA voting is by where absentee ballots have been requested and what the counties’ makeup is.

    bob (2adf4e)

  7. Newt, I loved you from 1994 to 2012, but man you have become nothing but a pig led easily to trough.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  8. Rush Limbaugh’s talking about all the polls moving in Hillary’s direction except in Ohio and in Ohio Trump is still ahead +1, He says they were talking about his interview with Trump until the Gingrich interview. He says they surprised at what Trump said – he’s been told to stop defending himself against the sexual allegations and instead talk about repealing and replacing Obamacare, but he doesn’t want to let these harges stand and sink into public opinion as the truth.

    If Hillary is indeed dropping everywhere, except in Ohio, it can only be her own commercials, or commerciasls for her, that are doing that. Maybe also the rubber stamp commercials for Congressional Republicans which implicitly say Hillary Clinton would nor be a good president.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  9. Rush Limbaugh says polls get more accurate as the election nears.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  10. ordinarily, but they don’t give a farthing, there is no accountability for them, the squirrel factor has been off the charts, they haven’t spent nearly as much, as they did in 2012, maybe it’s donor fatigue,

    narciso (d1f714)

  11. I wonder who the Sec of State was when this sh*t all got going and heavy?

    “JOHN SCHINDLER: Syria’s Civil War Is Over — Russia Won.

    For Putin, his Syrian intervention has been an unambiguous win on the world stage. Its benefits exist on many levels, not least Russia’s reinforcing the potent message that Moscow, unlike Washington, stands by its friends. When his regime was collapsing in 2011, Hosni Mubarak, who had led Egypt for three decades as a loyal ally of America, was coldly abandoned by the White House. President Obama, against the advice of his own national security experts, cut Mubarak loose to the mob, refusing to take his panicked phone calls pleading for help.

    That same year, when his regime was facing the abyss as civil war enveloped Syria, Bashar al-Assad got all the help he wanted from Moscow. Russia saved Assad and has not cared one whit about cries from the international community and NGOs about the brutal methods employed by the Syrian regime against rebels. This message has not been missed in the Middle East. It’s no wonder that even Israel has sought parley with Moscow, which has replaced Washington as the new regional kingmaker-cum-sheriff, while Egypt has renewed security ties with the Kremlin that Cairo abandoned more than four decades ago, in favor of the Americans. No more…”

    http://observer.com/2016/10/syrias-civil-war-is-over-russia-won/

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  12. the algerians did much the same way, this is why they were able to lecture the iraqis on how they handled the insurgency, after a time, bashir, said ‘talk to the hand’

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. I’m not sure what happened to the cached link because the Politico article is still up at its website. What about using this ABC News report and forgeting about Politico?

    DRJ (15874d)

  14. When the media says bad things about Trump, the media is 100% reliable.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  15. where is the data link, they ran a poll with 27% republican support just sunday?

    narciso (d1f714)

  16. project any PA voting is by where absentee ballots have been requested …

    In Washington, the registrars provided daily lists of valid ballots received. Knowing who has returned their ballot allows the candidates to focus their attention on those who have not yet voted, even though their vote has yet to be counted. This was true even before we went to an all mail “absentee” ballot system. Both parties have lists of known supporters, as well as lists of those who don’t support them. The latter lists may be somewhat uncertain, but with these lists you can make an estimate of the early voting trend by counting the “known” supporters in the early returns.

    An outside group that didn’t have voter preference data could make a similar estimate based on known contributors in the early balloting. And those performing polls can use the responses to the questions to link ballot returns to likely voting trends.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  17. Newt has jumped the shark so many times this election that he probably had a tank installed at home.

    He’s all in. He cast his lot with Trump, hoping for a piece of power, and now he goes big or goes home. Sad really. That the man who engineered the Congressional resurgence of the GOP should go out having helped to doom it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. Those totals are an especially inaccurate approximation this year. How many of those Republican ballots actually cast for someone other than Trump? How many of those Democratic ballots are for someone other than Clinton?
    My registration is as a Democrat. (As Narciso can tell you, Republicans are very thin on the ground in my neighborhood, and all the real contests are in the Democratic primaries.)
    The early voting analysis will lump me in the Hillary column, whereas in fact I will be voting for all the Republican candidates, including Johnson/Weld.

    Kishnevi (c5227a)

  19. Her show is drowning, she has a book coming out that no one will buy and she is up for a contract. The Nancy Grace of bimbo news hacks. Her interview of Mike Pence earlier in the day was troubling.

    mg (31009b)

  20. Sad really. That the man who engineered the Congressional resurgence of the GOP should go out having helped to doom it.
    Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:57 am

    Cause nothing quite spells doom to the GOP like supporting its candidate, right Kevin? What a creep this Newt is. Backing a Republican. What kind of a Republican would go out and back a Republican? Traitor!

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  21. “Megyn Kelly to Newt Gingrich: I’m Not Fascinated by Sex Scandals, I’m Fascinated by the “Protection of Women”
    —Ace

    Fox’s Fabulous Feminist got into a dust-up with a Non-Deferential Male last night — Newt Gingrich criticized her for calling Trump a “sexual predator” — so I imagine she’ll Summon the Male Defenders tonight.

    Last time I predicted that, I think maybe she heard the prediction, because she changed it up and Summoned the Male and Female Defender. Dana Perino was the latter; Chris Stirewalt, I think, was the former.

    I have a feeling though that last night’s confrontation was too much for this self-declared Protector of Women to bear without getting some reassurance and validation from older white men, so I re-predict she’ll have on Howard Kurtz and father figure/mentor Brit Hume to tell her everything she’s doing is perfect and she’s still the Apple of Daddy’s Eye…”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/366522.php

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  22. Preach it, Rev. Hoagie!

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  23. In 2008 we were told that the polls were wrong, except they were right.
    In 2012 we were told that the polls were wrong, except they were right.
    In 2016 we are told that the polls are wrong…

    I’ve been done with this talking point since the primaries. You can’t believe all of the polls, weeks from the election, are skewed and/or corrupt. And it’s hilarious that the Trump machine has everyone talking about Brexit polling today, as though a nation-wide popular vote is the same as 50 independent electoral elections. Also, cherry picking past elections to try and prove a point that polls can swing is fine, just make sure you make your argument understanding the context of the historical reference. My favorite one Trump fans have been throwing around now for weeks has been the 1980 election, where two weeks out Carter was beating Reagan. However, they always seem to forget to include the fact that one week before the election was the only Carter-Reagan debate, which was THE game changer; there are no such opportunities left before November [2]8.

    Sean (1d5074)

  24. Cause nothing quite spells doom to the GOP like supporting its candidate, right Kevin? What a creep this Newt is. Backing a Republican. What kind of a Republican would go out and back a Republican? Traitor!

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:27 am

    Wait, there is a Republican in this race?

    Sean (1d5074)

  25. @Sean:In 2008 we were told that the polls were wrong, except they were right.
    In 2012 we were told that the polls were wrong, except they were right.

    They weren’t “right” then either, and they weren’t “right” in 2014. My magic quarter told me “correctly” who was going to win all of those elections, but the methodology is bogus because my quarter is not magic. It has been over the last ten years getting increasingly difficult to correctly sample for polling, and this has been openly discussed for many years now.

    And whether the polls are wrong or right, the media will report and emphasize the ones that suit them while omitting the caveats. The official line is now, Hillary has it all sewn up, why bother. Forgive me if I go about what I intend without paying attention to them. The only “poll” that means anything is the one on November 8.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  26. Correct your talking points, Sean.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  27. Wait, there is a Republican in this race?
    Sean (1d5074)

    Yep! It’s the candidate with the (R) after his name.

    You know Sean, I used to be democrat. I switched to independent then just a couple years ago to Republican. In your world am I still a democrat?

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  28. For a guy in his early 70s, Newt certainly has some killer hair.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  29. I just heard a little clip of Hillary on the newsbreak.

    I don’t think she is doing her cause any good by pointing out that Trump supposedly screwed over American workers by hiring illegals.

    Pinandpuller (4255e1)

  30. “it’s more significant that he’s doing not-so-well in Florida and North Carolina”

    That was Sunday, this is Wednesday.

    In comparison to the 2012 cumulative totals, this year’s in-person absentee ballots are where things stood four years ago (733,269 compared to 2012’s same day total of 733,745). In terms of party registration performance, registered Republicans have met their same numbers from four years ago, while registered Democrats are down 11 percent, and registered unaffiliated voters are 30 percent ahead of where they were the same day in 2012.

    Professor Bitzer’s blog on North Carolina early voting is updated daily with MEGO level detail. It’s definitely not all roses for the GOP but the shift over the past three days is encouraging for Burr.

    Rick Ballard (1dde82)

  31. Correct your talking points, Sean.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75) — 10/26/2016 @ 11:22 am

    Based on what? You don’t like them?

    Sean (1d5074)

  32. Yep! It’s the candidate with the (R) after his name.

    You know Sean, I used to be democrat. I switched to independent then just a couple years ago to Republican. In your world am I still a democrat?

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 11:42 am

    Ah, so I’m just supposed to blindly vote for the guy with an (R)? Tell me how that is any different than Black Americans blindly voting for whomever has the (D) next to their name?

    Sean (1d5074)

  33. And whether the polls are wrong or right, the media will report and emphasize the ones that suit them while omitting the caveats. The official line is now, Hillary has it all sewn up, why bother. Forgive me if I go about what I intend without paying attention to them. The only “poll” that means anything is the one on November 8.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/26/2016 @ 11:14 am

    Trump does the same thing; one poll has him up and he touts it non-stop. The official line in 2012 was McCain was going to lose. In 2012 Romney was going to lose. Now in 2016 we’re told Trump is going to lose. Could he win? Sure, anything is possible, but all I’m saying is I’m no longer going to play the “these polls are rigged” game.

    Sean (1d5074)

  34. According to Shariah law: Once a Muslim always a Muslim. According to Fundamentalist Christians: Once saved always saved. According to Sean: Once a Democrat always a Democrat.

    Pinandpuller (4255e1)

  35. There’s a conditional tense in The South that applies here: Trump, he might could win.

    Pinandpuller (4255e1)

  36. No, based on the facts as explained to you by Mr. Hannah, Sean. When you are wrong, an honest man acknowledges that fact.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  37. You are – and continue to be – wrong on nearly everything you contend, Sean.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  38. No, based on the facts as explained to you by Mr. Hannah, Sean. When you are wrong, an honest man acknowledges that fact.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75) — 10/26/2016 @ 12:37 pm

    Facts? He offered his opinion. But, if you want facts, here you go, try telling me again that the polls were showing something other than Obama wins in ’08 and ’12:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

    Sean (1d5074)

  39. Sean,

    illary is going to become the next President.
    The only way to stop that from happening is to vote for Trump.
    You’ll have to decide for yourself if you really want to stop her from becoming President.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  40. if you don’t want world war three

    do not vote for hillary

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  41. Lol… Wikipedia!

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  42. Ah, so I’m just supposed to blindly vote for the guy with an (R)? Tell me how that is any different than Black Americans blindly voting for whomever has the (D) next to their name?
    Sean (1d5074) — 10/26/2016 @ 12:29 pm

    That’s not what I said Sean. You insinuated there was no Republican in the race. I pointed out there is and just because he was once a democrat means nothing. But as a favor to you I will explain why voting for “the guy with a (R)” is different than Black Americans blindly voting for whomever has the (D) next to theirs. First, historically democrats have enslaved and abused blacks therefore any black that votes for one is voting against his own interests. Second, since the Civil Rights efforts of the 60’s democrats have undercut the black family, black church, black community and deliberately gathered them in ghettos full of drugs and crime refusing to give them vouchers to improve their education and salting their communities with abortion clinics to use genocide on their people. A black vote for a democrat is a vote for slavery, ignorance and death.

    You voting for the guy with the (R) after his name says you want to put a stop to all that because the only reason Killary wants the WH is to keep the status quo (and to keep her ass out of prison). Make America Great Again, vote to Prosecute Clinton!

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  43. Sean,

    illary is going to become the next President.
    The only way to stop that from happening is to vote for Trump.
    You’ll have to decide for yourself if you really want to stop her from becoming President.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 12:42 pm

    I live in Texas, so my vote in your “binary decision” isn’t in play; but, let’s say I lived in Florida and it was. You’re assuming that I need to be okay with either a Trump Presidency or a Hillary Presidency. At any point in time have you considered that there are people like me that aren’t okay with giving the Presidency to either candidate? That neither Trump nor Hillary has won the vote from this group of individual voters? Not everyone is okay with voting a negative, or even consider this a choice between the lesser of two evils—to some it’s just an election between two evils. Just because you’ve made your peace, ignoring everything bad and/or no good about one candidate because you absolutely detest the other doesn’t mean everyone is okay with doing the same.

    I’m not okay with personally endorsing either candidate through my vote. Neither candidate has proven they can steer this country in the right direction, nor do they possess the temperament or policy knowledge to lead.

    Sean (1d5074)

  44. Lol… Wikipedia!

    Colonel Haiku (610d75) — 10/26/2016 @ 12:52 pm

    I see, Mr. Honesty. Tell you what, go dispute those numbers, and post your links here. I’ll wait.

    Sean (1d5074)

  45. That’s not what I said Sean. You insinuated there was no Republican in the race. I pointed out there is and just because he was once a democrat means nothing. But as a favor to you I will explain why voting for “the guy with a (R)” is different than Black Americans blindly voting for whomever has the (D) next to theirs. First, historically democrats have enslaved and abused blacks therefore any black that votes for one is voting against his own interests. Second, since the Civil Rights efforts of the 60’s democrats have undercut the black family, black church, black community and deliberately gathered them in ghettos full of drugs and crime refusing to give them vouchers to improve their education and salting their communities with abortion clinics to use genocide on their people. A black vote for a democrat is a vote for slavery, ignorance and death.

    You voting for the guy with the (R) after his name says you want to put a stop to all that because the only reason Killary wants the WH is to keep the status quo (and to keep her ass out of prison). Make America Great Again, vote to Prosecute Clinton!

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:02 pm

    So, anyone with an (R) next to their name is now to be considered a true Republican? The term RINO can’t possibly apply to Mr. Trump? He’s a bona fide Republican willing to fight for smaller government? Really?

    I can’t disagree with your assessment of Black America’s folly in voting Democratic, but many Conservatives who oppose Trump feel similarly about the effect of a Trump Presidency on Conservatism. Are their concerns invalid in this equation? If so, why? If not, then why hasn’t Trump done his job as candidate to assuage their concerns? Should it be the job of the voter to drag a candidate they don’t trust across the finish line or the candidate’s job to win support?

    Sean (1d5074)

  46. Sean,

    You need to relax and see reality for what it is.
    You don’t have to be in love with either of the candidates on the ballot. You don’t have to “make your peace” with either of the candidates.
    You just have to recognize as an adult that one of them will become the next President.
    It’s a binary outcome — either Trump or illary will indeed become the next President.

    If you believe someone else will become President, name that person, and then let’s put a wager on it.

    See, it never matters whether you like a President — they still get to manage the Executive Branch based on the electoral college. Which of these two satanic bastards would you rather have; the one who will enable Loretta Lynch to continue as AG, or the one who will nominate Chris Christie?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  47. @Sean: try telling me again that the polls were showing something other than Obama wins in ’08 and ’12:

    In order for polls to be “right”, they can’t just match who eventually won the election. A flipped coin would be “right” 50% of the time, if that were the standard.

    Here’s Nate Silver talking about 2012. Take a look, you might learn something. Some of the polls he mentions as being the best then, like TIPP, is now considered a hopelessly-Trump-biased outlier.

    Some of the overall Republican bias in the polls this year may reflect the fact that Mr. Obama made gains in the closing days of the campaign, for reasons such as Hurricane Sandy, and that this occurred too late to be captured by some polls. In the FiveThirtyEight “now-cast,” Mr. Obama went from being 1.5 percentage points ahead in the popular vote on Oct. 25 to 2.5 percentage points ahead by Election Day itself, close to his actual figure.

    Nonetheless, polls conducted over the final three weeks of the campaign had a two-point Republican bias overall, probably more than can be explained by the late shift alone. In addition, likely voter polls were slightly more Republican-leaning than the actual results in many races in 2010.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  48. @Sean:I’m not okay with personally endorsing either candidate through my vote.

    Regardless of how you vote, either Hillary will be elected or Hillary will not be elected. I know now you are going to say BINARY CHOICE DERP. I am not saying you have to vote for one of the two. Everyone knows you don’t. You can vote for a third party, write someone else in, or not vote. Everyone knows.

    But one of those outcomes, Hillary elected or Hillary not elected, is as a matter of logic the only two possible.

    a) Which outcome do you prefer: Hillary elected or Hillary not elected?
    b) What of all the possible voting options you can choose, is more likely than any other you can choose, to result in your answer for a? Yes, I am aware that your actual vote will not swing the election by itself. You have some tiny effect on the outcome. What effect do you choose to have, that will most likely result in your preferred outcome?

    More than one commenter here has said they preferred that Hillary be elected, and even more than one Republican. It’s okay to come out and say so.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  49. Nice try at framing and diverting attention away from the highlight of the interview.
    He was right to say she was obsessed with sex.

    otto (6617e7)

  50. Sean,

    You need to relax and see reality for what it is.
    You don’t have to be in love with either of the candidates on the ballot. You don’t have to “make your peace” with either of the candidates.
    You just have to recognize as an adult that one of them will become the next President.
    It’s a binary outcome — either Trump or illary will indeed become the next President.

    If you believe someone else will become President, name that person, and then let’s put a wager on it.

    See, it never matters whether you like a President — they still get to manage the Executive Branch based on the electoral college. Which of these two satanic bastards would you rather have; the one who will enable Loretta Lynch to continue as AG, or the one who will nominate Chris Christie?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:14 pm

    The reality of the situation is that many people don’t want either person to become president, and as such are not willing to personally endorse their candidacy with their vote. It has nothing to do with who the country elects as President, but rather who I’m voting for–endorsing–to be President. The fact that many of you seem to have forgotten that voting is an individual act, not a group think process, is unfortunate. We Conservatives used to believe that it was our candidate’s job to win over voters with ideas, policies, and leadership, not yell at one another that you’d better vote for my guy lest you be purged.

    Sean (1d5074)

  51. …. but many Conservatives who oppose Trump feel similarly about the effect of a Trump Presidency on Conservatism. Are their concerns invalid in this equation? If so, why?

    Yes, their concerns are invalid. The reason is because a Trump presidency will have the same effect on conservatism as a Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama presidency did. None whatsoever, because whether you or I like it or not there really aren’t that many conservatives, perhaps 15 million, and they have little effect on the GOP and zero effect on the democrats or the nation in general. In case you haven’t noticed regardless of who is president our nation has slowly and inexorably slid leftward. Just six year ago gay marriage, the confederate flag and homos in girls rest rooms were laughing matters. Who’s laughing now?

    There is NO CONSERVATIVE wing to the democrat party. ONLY Republicans have any conservatives whatsoever. Now go vote to keep Killary out of jail because Trump said pussy 11 years ago.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  52. In order for polls to be “right”, they can’t just match who eventually won the election. A flipped coin would be “right” 50% of the time, if that were the standard.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:14 pm

    Look at the links I posted, the running list of polls show that in both 08 and 12 Obama was considered the favorite throughout the race. That is a fact. I wasn’t talking about a few polls here or there, I was referring to the entire body of polls. The numbers are in those links, and they don’t show any point in 08 or 12 where either McCain or Romney were considered the overall favorite. In both elections we were told by the talk radio gurus and bloggers that the polls were wrong, they were oversampling Democrats, under weighting Republicans, purposefully being skewed by the news and pollsters to generate a narrative, that Romney was going to win bit, that McCain was going to squeak by, and in both cases those predictions were wrong.

    Sean (1d5074)

  53. We Conservatives used to believe that it was our candidate’s job to win over voters with ideas, policies, and leadership, not yell at one another that you’d better vote for my guy lest you be purged.

    Yeah, that worked out well by all those conservative Republican candidates and presidents elected over the last 35 years! Give me a break.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  54. a) Which outcome do you prefer: Hillary elected or Hillary not elected?
    b) What of all the possible voting options you can choose, is more likely than any other you can choose, to result in your answer for a? Yes, I am aware that your actual vote will not swing the election by itself. You have some tiny effect on the outcome. What effect do you choose to have, that will most likely result in your preferred outcome?

    More than one commenter here has said they preferred that Hillary be elected, and even more than one Republican. It’s okay to come out and say so.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:19 pm

    a. Hillary not elected
    b. This doesn’t matter, because you’re again assuming that voting for your guy is something I need to be okay with doing because I don’t want Hillary elected. You’re completely missing the point that I also don’t want Trump elected. So, now what? Do we move to point c in your linear bit of logic?

    Also, stop with the ridiculous logic of, “If you don’t vote for Trump you’re supporting Hillary.” And if I don’t vote for Hillary am I considered a good Republican because by your logic I’m really supporting Trump? Or am I damned because not voting for either means I’m really supporting both? Darn these forced binary choices are worse than temporal mechanics in Star Trek.

    Sean (1d5074)

  55. Yeah, that worked out well by all those conservative Republican candidates and presidents elected over the last 35 years! Give me a break.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:39 pm

    What’s your point? Are you saying I’m an idiot for supporting Conservative values because the candidates I want don’t win? I should be okay with Nationalist policies and bigger government because the ideals I champion haven’t won the White House since Reagan? Is that how you came to support Trump?

    Sean (1d5074)

  56. Or was it just school choice (charter schools) they stopped in DC?)

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  57. the best thing is to support Mr. Trump

    trust me I researched this

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  58. Yeah, that worked out well by all those conservative Republican candidates and presidents elected over the last 35 years! Give me a break.

    Well, the Republican party holds the largest number of governorships than ever before. And it holds a higher percentage of state legislatures than it did 35 years ago. And it holds both houses of Congress. I’d say it’s been working reasonably well. Not perfect, mind you, but it’s doing better now than before.

    What Sean said was basically true: if we want to win elections, we are going to have to change the minds of voters. And the best way to do that is to present better ideas and policies than the Democrats, combined with the leadership to implement those ideas and policies. Do you have a better way of winning elections?

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  59. 45. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:02 pm

    That’s not what I said Sean. You insinuated there was no Republican in the race.

    In the Saturday Night Live debate parody, the Republican was…Hillary Clinton.

    They had “Hillary” saying the choice was between a Republican…and Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  60. Sean, you seem to be forgetting that an election is not about what you want — rather, it’s about the better choice from what’s available on the menu.

    … and conservatism isn’t on the menu this year.
    So, as grownups, we say, “Okay, I’ll choose the better available choice.”

    As a Texan, you should know that the Democrats have a bull’s eye on The Lone Star State.
    The Left is looking to erode federalism.
    Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and a couple of Justices to be named by illary are looking to punish Texas.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  61. C’mon, Sean, stop with the semantics.
    It’s effectively a binary outcome rather than a binary choice, but you know what people mean when they say it’s a binary “choice.”

    Either illary or Trump will become the next President.
    If you want to wager a sum of money otherwise, let’s do it.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  62. Sean is a Texan? I hope so.

    DRJ (15874d)

  63. What’s your point? Are you saying I’m an idiot for supporting Conservative values because the candidates I want don’t win? I should be okay with Nationalist policies and bigger government because the ideals I champion haven’t won the White House since Reagan? Is that how you came to support Trump?
    Sean (1d5074) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:44 pm

    That’s not what I’m saying Sean. I’m saying the candidates you want do not exist and have not existed since maybe Ronald Reagan. Stamping your feet and bitching won’t help and letting the Butcher of Benghazi take the WH won’t help either. Getting Republicans in power will help get just a few conservatives in (hopefully the SC) and maybe some conservative policies but no more than that. But it’s 100% more than we’ll get with Klepto.

    I didn’t “come to support Trump”, I came to support Republicans as IMPERFECT as they are at least they aren’t corrupt leftists.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  64. Sean, you seem to be forgetting that an election is not about what you want — rather, it’s about the better choice from what’s available on the menu.

    … and conservatism isn’t on the menu this year.
    So, as grownups, we say, “Okay, I’ll choose the better available choice.”

    As a Texan, you should know that the Democrats have a bull’s eye on The Lone Star State.
    The Left is looking to erode federalism.
    Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and a couple of Justices to be named by illary are looking to punish Texas.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:53 pm

    Elections are most certainly about what individuals want. I reject your notion that we’re participating in a group think exercise like a bunch of mindless Liberals. I’m an individual with individual liberties and rights, and as such I vote based on my personal beliefs, principles, and faith. I’m not a lemming.

    And Conservatism is most certainly on the menu this year, just not at the top of the ticket.

    As a Texan I fight for Conservative Texas legislators, representatives and senators (unlike some whiney Trump fans who want to work to defeat Cruz in a couple of years); and yes I put my money and time where my mouth is, and have worked on several Conservative campaigns, from the local to federal levels. I trust our Republican leaders (actual leaders) here in Texas to do what’s right. I can’t say the same about either Presidential candidate.

    And as far as the Left goes, they’ve been eroding freedoms and liberties in this country for centuries, and they’ll continue to do so until the end of time. There will always be those among man who believe they know what’s best for society and will work tirelessly to attain power to see it through. History has shown us that won’t change… ever.

    Sean (1d5074)

  65. Sean sounds like a smart guy talking to obnoxious kids. They aren’t going to understand him even if they actually do because they just want to fight.

    Cruz Supporter has been like this since the early primary. Make one point 50,000 times. Binary choice binary choice. This is wrong. The election was lost to those who love liberty even when Hillary had a plausible opponent, which I would argue ended long ago.

    There’s no realistic outcome of this election that is preferable. Hillary or not.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  66. … and conservatism isn’t on the menu this year.
    So, as grownups, we say, “Okay, I’ll choose the better available choice.

    Agreed. And this year, sadly, the best available choice was on the Libertarian ticket.

    I wasn’t always a NeverTrumper. I would have gritted my teeth and voted for him. But his behavior in the past month soured me to the point where I could not in good conscience vote for him.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  67. Rev Hoagie, they’re comparing the actual choices on the menu to their ideal choices. But it’s not reality.
    Reality is what’s in front of us — not what we wish were in front of us.

    Nobody ever says, “Since I can’t live in my dream house which is a Frank Lloyd Wright designed structure in southwestern Pennsylvania, I’m just not going to choose a house — I’m going to live underneath the freeway in a cardboard box, instead!

    People choose the house which is available to them at the time.

    Unfortunately, the only choices available to us right now are Trump and illary.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  68. @Sean:because you’re again assuming that voting for your guy

    Oh, who is my guy? Because I haven’t decided yet.

    You are assuming, merely because I am arguing with you about whether the pollsters know what they are doing (they say they are having trouble), that I am trying to get you to vote for “my guy”.

    Since I don’t know who “my guy” is yet, you certainly can’t. He WAS Ted Cruz, but he’s not on the ballot on my state anymore.

    So one more time, I ask you:

    What of all the possible voting options you can choose, is more likely than any other you can choose, to result in your answer for a? Yes, I am aware that your actual vote will not swing the election by itself. You have some tiny effect on the outcome. What effect do you choose to have, that will most likely result in your preferred outcome?

    You said your preferred outcome was “Hillary not elected”. Excellent. So which vote, Hillary, Trump, someone else, or no vote at all, is most likely to result in that outcome?

    You don’t have to tell me. But you have to think about it if, as you claim, you don’t want her elected.

    You’re completely missing the point that I also don’t want Trump elected.

    I was saving that for after you answered a and b. c is,

    Given that you said you don’t want to see Hillary elected, and given that you don’t want to see Trump elected, which out come: Hillary not elected, or Trump not elected, do you prefer?

    And then d) is

    What vote, or non-vote, can you make that will maximize the result of your desired c)?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  69. C’mon, Sean, stop with the semantics.
    It’s effectively a binary outcome rather than a binary choice, but you know what people mean when they say it’s a binary “choice.”

    Either illary or Trump will become the next President.
    If you want to wager a sum of money otherwise, let’s do it.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 1:57 pm

    And again, you seem to be hung up thinking that I’m trying to convince you I believe someone other than Trump or Hillary can win. I’m not.

    Sean (1d5074)

  70. @Dustin:Binary choice binary choice.

    Horses–t. Binary OUTCOME. Hillary or not-Hillary. That is a matter of logic, and indisputable.

    You already answered the questions I asked Sean.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  71. Unfortunately, the only choices available to us right now are Trump and illary.

    No, there are other choices. None of the other choices will win, barring divine intervention, but there are other choices.

    You seem to be arguing that since only Trump or Hillary has a shot at winning, then everyone must vote for either Trump or Hillary. Is that a correct way to frame your argument? If not, then what is your argument?

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  72. I’ve got to go fight traffic and pick up my kids. I’ll pick this up later.

    Sean (00c1ae)

  73. Some people think Hillary represents an existential threat to America and the American way of life and they conclude we must support anyone that opposes her, even if it is someone like Trump. These people also seem to think that if you don’t agree with them, then you don’t think Hillary is dangerous and you don’t think this is an important election.

    However, I think Hillary is dangerous and I agree we face an existential threat, but I don’t think it’s solely from Hillary and the Democrats. I think the greatest danger we face is the effort to dispose of conservative values. I also believe America is at a turning point, but I don’t think avoiding Hillary is enough. There will be more Obamas and Hillarys, and the only solution is a return to conservative policies, values and ideas.

    DRJ (15874d)

  74. Sean

    Vote for the guy with the ‘D’ at the front of his name.

    Pinandpuller (4255e1)

  75. Hillary needs to hire Ben Carson to separate her from Obamacare.

    Pinandpuller (4255e1)

  76. Cause nothing quite spells doom to the GOP like supporting its candidate, right Kevin? What a creep this Newt is. Backing a Republican. What kind of a Republican would go out and back a Republican? Traitor!

    Newtie was a Trumpie from the getgo. There’s a difference between “My party, right or wrong” and “Let’s get this assh0le nominated!”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  77. In your world am I still a democrat?

    You’re overcompensating.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  78. So, if the choices were Stalin vs Mao, you’d be all for one or the other because “binary choice!” ??

    Both these candidates are horrid. Both the candidates want the Democrats to take the House and Senate. Both these candidates want gun control. Both the candidates want single-payer.

    The only way to win is not to play. I MUST vote for someone else. The more people who vote for someone else, the louder the message is: “NOT THIS!”

    If you vote for one or the other, you are co-signing their platform.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  79. 01000100 01101001 01100100 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01100010 01101111 01100100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01100001 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101000 01101001 01100011 01100101 00111111

    nk (dbc370)

  80. “MY USA TODAY COLUMN: What we’re not talking about in this election: Government Corruption, ObamaCare’s Implosion, The Ballooning National Debt. And that’s because, as Jim Treacher notes, “Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/247411/

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  81. What DRJ said @10/26/2016 @ 2:37 pm.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  82. There’s no realistic outcome of this election that is preferable. Hillary or not.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/26/2016 @ 2:12 pm

    So that’s why he’s voting Clinton/Kaine!

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  83. Sean is a Texan? I hope so.

    DRJ (15874d) — 10/26/2016 @ 2:01 pm

    So do I.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  84. And for 2008… http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  85. it’s like we’re in a mirror universe,

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/26/grenell-as-secretary-state-hillary-proclaimed-our-goal-is-to-help-strengthen-russia.html

    the damage she has wrought on so many continents was hidden, in the case of haiti and nigeria, most notably,

    narciso (d1f714)

  86. Just a snippet out of a very insightful read:

    “There are certainly downsides to a Trump victory — and NeverTrump is happy to talk about them (and overjoyed to the point of sexual pleasure to talk about Trump scandals).

    But there are also significant and real downsides to a Hillary victory — including major setbacks in the areas NeverTrump claim are of paramount concern to them, policy and principle.

    Trump will taint the GOP for a generation, NeverTrump says.

    But they never want to talk about losing the court for a generation — or longer. Or what substantive policy setbacks that will in turn cause.

    So I guess I’d just like to know from the people who claim to care only want to talk about policy and principle:

    What is stopping you from doing so, exactly? What is stopping you from answering people who ask you for answers on the policy and principle front, apart from your own cowardice and laziness about addressing questions you don’t have glib, scandal-heavy answers to?

    You intellectuals seem to like talking about being intellectuals. But you don’t seem much to like actually doing the actual work associated with true intellectual status.

    Don’t worry — I’m sure they’ll be another Trump scandal coming soon that will permit you to avoid such work for another couple of news cycles.”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/366527.php

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  87. the difference between then and now, is the other polls, didn’t catch how many voters 4 million in fact, had be demotivated out of voting for romney, through the irs osha and other apparat of the government,

    narciso (d1f714)

  88. @59 Sammy

    All over places like r/politics is the assertion that Obama and Clinton are right of center-but I think it’s more a function of being warmongering neocons.

    I watched the SNL Black Jeopardy skit and I thought it was pretty funny. I didn’t get that Tom Hanks was supposed to be a MAGA voter until I saw Gavin McInnis breaking it down but it was still above average.

    Pinandpuller (4255e1)

  89. she is in favor of toppling secular regimes, in place of salafi ones, that’s not right of center,
    she hasn’t spoken out against our significantly smaller armed forces, including the nuclear component, specially as Russia debut’s the Satan 2, which by it’s own reputation, they say can flatten texas, I think that’s overstate, that would require something in 200 megaton range, for those who care about such things,

    narciso (d1f714)

  90. nk

    We already voted in the 0. Or was it the 1?

    Pinandpuller (a2822d)

  91. Horses–t. Binary OUTCOME. Hillary or not-Hillary. That is a matter of logic, and indisputable.

    You already answered the questions I asked Sean.

    Gabriel Hanna

    You’re delusional if you think Trump has a shot at winning this election, so your logic is really just propaganda.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  92. “You’re delusional if you think Trump has a shot at winning this election, so your logic is really just propaganda.”

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/26/2016 @ 5:15 pm

    And that’s why he’s voting Clinton/Kaine!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  93. it’s like we’re in a mirror universe,

    No, we’re in the Bizarro universe.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  94. This campaign would have been so much fun if we had a candidate who could have brought reason and logic to bear. Or at the very least, humor.

    Instead we have a thin-skinned ignorant buffoon without a sense of humor. And as much as the public despises Hillary, Trump is hard to like, at least for anyone with a working bullsh1t detector.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  95. Instead we’re left to guess about tonight’s oppo drop. “Stolen” sealed testimony or just more claims of additional piggish behavior?

    Rick Ballard (1dde82)

  96. @84 Col Haiku

    He could be a TINO for all we know.

    I mean, a guy could be born in New York, or even Canada, and he moves to Texas, says y’all, and now we’re supposed to believe he’s a Texan?

    Feh!

    Pinandpuller (a2822d)

  97. Donald Trump has been a Republican longer than Ted Cruz hasn’t been a Canadian.

    Pinandpuller (a2822d)

  98. I like Hank Hill’s take on something when he told a visitor to Arlen from Massachusetts “…that was back when we had a Texan in the White House, not that Herbert Walker such and such”. Before Hank finished his line, the Mass guy fumed “He killed aahh JFK”.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  99. You’re delusional if you think Trump has a shot at winning this election, so your logic is really just propaganda.

    My name’s Hillary Clinton and I approved this ad.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  100. like I say rev, he’s still over macho grande, mind you I thought she was worthier than trump is now,

    narciso (d1f714)

  101. and well like the first consort said ‘you will be made to care’

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=366531

    narciso (d1f714)

  102. 104… Can’t even make this up, Hoagie. Disintegrating logic…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. And he’s wrong, of course…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. Though the name is a little complex, it’s probably more just the garden variety thuggy son of an FOI/NOI

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  105. I live in Ohio,and we do, in fact, have party registration. Ed Kilgore doesn’t know what he’s talking about. (Big shock, I know.) PS – I early-voted for McMullin.

    gwjd (032bef)

  106. Re #106

    Isn’t it amazing narciso, that we’ve been complaining about voter fraud for decades and they grab two and surprise, surprise…they’re Republicans!

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  107. I think you all know that I am not a Trump fan, but neither am I a fan of Ms. Kelly. She’s a grandstanding @sshat, in the tradition of Candy Crowley and others. She embodies everything that is wrong with modern journalism and she also deserves much blame (credit, to Trump fans) for the rise of candidate Trump. I often wonder if had Ms. Kelly simply behaved professionally in the Republican debate and limited herself to questions of substance, rather than wage a personal attack, would Donald Trump be the party’s nominee? Unbelievably, she’s still picking at that scab. Honey, it will never heal.

    A reporter who struggles in a tete-a-tete with the dim Trump has no chance whatsoever against the quick witted Gingrich. Just reading through the transcript of her interview with Gingrich made me cringe. He made mincemeat of her. The only thing I found more cringe-worthy is the “analysis” of the interview provided by some pundits. Once again, Allahpundit demonstrated just how shallow and imperceptive he can be. There should be a prize – he’d win it.

    I don’t really blame you for staying away from the substance of the interview. That was wise. All that would do is make Gingrich and Trump look good and I think we’ve all had enough of Megyn Kelly making Trump look good. But the above commentary has its own problem: you accuse Gingrich of grasping at straws when you, admittedly, haven’t a clue what data Gingrich is referencing. Thin gruel. Was that really worth the trouble?

    I’m hoping Bannon and Shorty really do join force to create their own media enterprise after his defeat (or his victory, for that matter). Both Trump’s wife and daughter would make more substantive newsreaders than Kelly.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  108. that’s unpossible, aint it rev, now this being colorado, they were on some of their famous product,

    narciso (d1f714)

  109. it was nowhere near her best work, this is why she has descended into the level of vanderbilt and maddow, which dante probably had a name for,

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. 100. Its utter weak sauce, it is nothing more than Shorty pining for one of his Apprentice contestants. Its actually not vulgar in the least.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  111. I keep hearing that “The Democrats try to demonize every GOP candidate!”

    And,yes, they do. The difference here is that with someone like Romney, only Democrats and fools (birm) believed that Romney game some woman cancer or wanted to put blacks back in chains.

    With Trump HIS OWN DAILY BEHAVIOR is his downfall. Oppo research consists of putting a microphone in front of his mouth. And the “demonization” is believed by a significant majority, including many Republicans. Why would this be? Most likely because it’s true and the real question is “why do so many Republicans persist in denial?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  112. I agree with much of what DRJ said, including that electing Trump is not enough to do any good.
    I guess where we differ is that I do not think electing Trump will mean much about the influence of conservatism one way or another.
    Yes, Trump is not conservative, never has been, and will not move government in the conservative direction.
    I don’t, however, see him as weakening the conservative cause. Anyone paying attention knows trump is not a conservative, and the lying media will always lie about conservatives no matter what,
    so it will remain the case that conservatives need to be active in explaining their policies and not default to defense at every “boo”, that is one good thing that should be learned from Trump’s candidacy, that a measure of spunk and willing to go on a counter-offensive can be a really effective thing if done with sanity and self-control.

    I think what will help the conservative cause is for those senators and representatives who get elected on a conservative platform to actually stay true to their promises and continually educate the public on their policies and views, all the time, not just in the election cycle,
    and to stand up to the McConnells and Ryans.
    Cow-towing to them, like almost all except Cruz and maybe a few others, got us where enough people were just fed up with them all to go for Trump.

    If Trump gets elected, and doesn’t get impeached, then we can primary him in 2020.

    We might get more left leaning presidents in their policies and survive, but humanly speaking, we will not survive the furtherance of lawlessness and the weaponization of the government unless a whole bunch of people are willing to be the martyr and give their money whether deductible or not, raise their voices whether they get blackballed or not, etc.
    And I doubt we have enough willing martyrs out here to dig out of a hole very deep.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  113. Many of us saw this coming.

    We said: Do not vote for this man. It will be a disaster. Pick anyone else.

    Later, we said: Do not nominate this name. It will be a disaster: Pick someone else.

    Later, after the first few own goals, we said: It’s not too late. It’s obviously a disaster. Pick someone else.

    Still later, after countless own goals, we said: It’s still not too late. Dump this man now. Pick anyone else.

    But no. The GOP missed more opportunities than Yassir Arafat.

    And here we are at the election and we hear; “Sure, Trump is awful, but who knew?! Still, he’s better than Clinton, so vote for Trump!”

    And we shake our heads and bury our guns.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  114. *Do not nominate this MAN

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  115. I agree that Trump is the reason for his problems, and it would be hard to say what he would do different if he was trying to throw the election.

    I agree with most everything that has been said criticizing Trump.
    I just think electing Clinton is far worse.
    We’ll never know, because only one will be president, and no matter how terrible they are,
    we will never know for sure if the other one would have been worse.

    I hope that trump is damaged so much that he can’t govern if elected,
    and that Clinton and the Dems are damaged so much they won’t get the chance to govern.

    But God may see fit to let us get what we deserve so we can (maybe) learn the hard way.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  116. ThOR:

    Our news is now entertainment, and often a team sport. Fox and CNN don’t have newsreaders so much as MCs, and the content is aimed at the masses so one shouldn’t expect “The Firing Line” level of civility.

    And Trump, bless his heart, is RIGHT AT HOME there. The news media act horrified, but he’s just the demon they’ve invoked and he’s well and truly jumped the containment grid.

    Substantive questions? Like what? They only ask those when they’re trying to show someone up. And with a demon like Trump, the spell doesn’t work anyway.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  117. “I keep hearing that “The Democrats try to demonize every GOP candidate!”

    And,yes, they do. The difference here is that with someone like Romney, only Democrats and fools (birm) believed that Romney game some woman cancer or wanted to put blacks back in chains.”

    And don’t forget the morons who prattled on and on about the Romney family political dynasty, disparaged (usually in a passive/aggressive manner) his religion, no “spinal column”, etc. and they weren’t Democrats, although I can think of one who now brags that he’s voting for Hillary Clinton.

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  118. @ Rev. Hoagie, #20:

    What a creep this Newt is. Backing a Republican. What kind of a Republican would go out and back a Republican? Traitor!

    Newt’s not backing a Republican. He’s backing Trump. The only Republican running, as far as I can see, is Evan McMullin.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  119. no mc’s is too charitable, they would send carol costello back to the mailroom, and they would pinkslip the whole msnbc crew, retroactively, they read scripts written by the infinite chimps banging out hamlet,

    narciso (d1f714)

  120. the striking thing is where this is showing up,

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-doug-band-memo-20161026-story.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  121. like I say it’s probably overrated, but we want to take a chance,

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-satan-2/

    narciso (d1f714)

  122. he has to stick up for his constituency, felons,

    https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/791344120396550145

    narciso (d1f714)

  123. Bury guns? Only a clinton republican would think this.

    mg (31009b)

  124. Doc,

    give their money whether deductible or not,

    The Tea Party groups that have been sidelined by the IRS were not seeking deductible IRS status, they were just seeking the opportunity to incorporate as non-profits. That is to say, they didn’t want to pay taxes on donations. Donors would not have been able to deduct their contributions from their the personal income taxes. The IRS was and is denying them the right to assemble and work together on political issues that displease our rulers.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  125. the fact nothing was done about this, specially to koskinen, makes one doubt there will ever be accountability to the people,

    narciso (d1f714)

  126. 76. Pinandpuller (4255e1) — 10/26/2016 @ 2:47 pm

    Hillary needs to hire Ben Carson to separate her[self] from Obamacare

    But she doesn’t want to! In Democratic Party mythology, Obamacare was a good thing.

    That’s her story, and she’s sticking to it. I said that whatever changes she would make, it would still be called Obamacare (not by her). It would described only as improving it.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  127. 124. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:17 pm

    I agree that Trump is the reason for his problems, and it would be hard to say what he would do different if he was trying to throw the election.

    Oh, he could do a lot more.

    It’s not Trump, but maybe people working for him, who could be trying to throw the election.

    Meanwhile they were trying to show him how good he was doing. They were taking him to early voting places in Florida on Thursday, and showing him long lines, two or three blocks long, with people wearing red hats and Trump campaign buttons. And staging big rallies.

    Trump told Rush Limbaugh he knew the argument that they could be fooled, but Romeny held only one big rally before the election, and he’s holding many, and Tim Kaine had a rally where there were only 30 people there. Trump said he would talk to ush Limbaugh on November 9th. It sounded like he wasn’t sure he was doing so well – some of his people were saing yes and some oehrs mus have been arguing against that.

    Of course, if someone has some supporters, they can stage rallies, and that doesn’t tell you if it amounts to 15% or 85%.

    And if people were being directed to the same location, you could get a big crowd at one particular early voting place that didn’t have too many people using it four year ago, so much so that they would have to bring in extra poll workers.

    Trump was in Miami, and after that they were going to take him to Sanford – the same place where George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, something that Trump himewlf probably was not aware of, but Democrats may very well have made sure other people were.

    Go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/25/mr_trump_calls_the_show for a transcript

    I agree with most everything that has been said criticizing Trump.
    I just think electing Clinton is far worse.
    We’ll never know, because only one will be president, and no matter how terrible they are,
    we will never know for sure if the other one would have been worse.

    That’s one of these things, although there can be some better clues than we have right now.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  128. Pinandpuller (4255e1) — 10/26/2016 @ 4:49 pm

    I watched the SNL Black Jeopardy skit and I thought it was pretty funny. I didn’t get that Tom Hanks was supposed to be a MAGA voter until I saw Gavin McInnis breaking it down but it was still above average.

    The sketches – and entire previous shows – are quite easy to find online, although teer is a commercial before it starts.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  129. Bob,
    Thanks for the clarification.
    My main point is the same, that we will simply need to fight to overcome the corruption and intimidation and pay the price doing so.
    The IRS issue was illegal and bad enough,
    but what the Milwaukee DA did in WI is frightening.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  130. Not quite. The TEA groups applied for 501(c)(4) status:

    A 501(c)(4) organization is a social welfare organization, such as a civic organization or a neighborhood association. An organization is considered by the IRS to be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Net earnings must be exclusively used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

    501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare and related to the organization’s purpose.

    Their non-political activities are tax-free, but their political activities are not.

    What Lois Lerner hung her hat on was whether they were primarily political organizations and should be organized Section 527. Do you guys think that the TEA Party was not primarily political? Honestly? She could have gotten away with it if she had not handled it so clumsily.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. organized *under* Section 527

    nk (dbc370)

  132. The TEA Parties in my area are about values rather than politics, so I would classify them as social welfare instead of political organizations. Their goal is to promote a conservative culture.

    However, conservative politicians are still popular here so political influence isn’t the main concern where I live. I can see that might not be the case in other places.

    DRJ (15874d)

  133. Do you guys think that the TEA Party was not primarily political? Honestly? She could have gotten away with it if she had not handled it so clumsily.

    The point was not that the TeaParty was or was not political. The point was does the IRS and government agents hold leftist organizations to the same standard. They weren’t and they aren’t. That’s not equal justice under law.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  134. Oh, and as painful as it is, I think Newt is right. Trump may be winning. The recent history of media polls is a 7% to 9% bias in favor of Democrats. If polls show Hillary ahead by 4% it’s likely that Trump is really ahead by 3% to 5% among people who have already made up their minds. The faithful on either side. We’ll know about the undecided on November 9.

    The media is playing with a two-edged sword. It’s true that polls that show a candidate losing will suppress his vote. And that’s why they’re rigging them to show Trump losing. But they will also lower the motivation of the undecideds who might have voted for his opponent, particularly an especially unlikable one like Hillary. “I never really liked her, she’ll win anyway, so ho-hum I won’t waste my morning or evening or lunchtime for her.”

    nk (dbc370)

  135. That is absolutely true, Hoagie. ACORN for one.

    nk (dbc370)

  136. DRJ, I think that’s part of the fallout of big government. If government is involved in everything, then an organization to promote healthy eating might be considered political. Think school lunches, food labels, and calories on menus.

    nk (dbc370)

  137. “DEM POLLSTER: Clinton ‘May Be Immune To Pay To Play’

    Democratic pollster and former Bill Clinton adviser Stanley Greenberg thinks Hillary Clinton may be immune to pay-to-play charges, according to a February 2016 email he sent to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.

    “She seems indifferent to the systemic corruption that makes it impossible for government to act for the middle class or address big problems, like climate or health care,” Greenberg said. “She may be immune to pay to play, but the system isn’t. She’s got to distinguish between self and country — and needs to.”

    Clinton is not “indifferent” to systemic corruption. It’s the swamp she’s happy to swim in and it’s made her quite rich.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/247477/

    Colonel Haiku (610d75)

  138. Its the closest thing to Roman proscriptuon, and Davey of Carlos slim kept one from even covering it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  139. The contract with America was another fall surprise, that wasn’t properly gauged.

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. 149..are you talking about the 1994 original, or Trump’s Contract with the American People?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  141. The former, Kuntz who blows hot and cold now, was the only one who predicted it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. Yeah, Luntz can morph into Patton Oswalt, complete with that actor’s goofy politic, in the blink of an eye.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  143. Autocorrect is dark magic, like John Nash without the PhD I look for patterns.

    narciso (d1f714)

  144. nk, I’m shocked! Shocked! Are you suggesting that an interest in political issues is not compatible with “social welfare”? Or do you simply believe that nothing advocated by Tea Party groups has any bearing on “social welfare”? The Democrats would have us believe that everything they do is for social welfare. The “loss” of China (meaning the undermining of Nationalist China,) the Korean War, Vietnam, the loss of Iran, Kuwait, the nuclear arming of North Korea and now Iran, the destruction of the Black family, the impoverishment of those consigned to inner city public education, the closure of power plants on the basis of carbon footprints, and, most recently, the introduction of male perverts to our girls locker rooms, are all examples of Democrat social welfare initiatives.

    Our founding fathers gave us a Republic and challenged us to keep it in order to promote what they defined as “social welfare”, meaning life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which, of course, are the foundational principles behind the Tea Party groups. But now these things are just “politics”? How far we’ve fallen. I think this is exactly what DRJ was concerned about in her comment above:

    I think the greatest danger we face is the effort to dispose of conservative values.

    But this is just politics to you?

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  145. It is the newspeak where there isn’t even a word for freedom, Bob.

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. Christine in retrospect, was a fool how dare she go on venues like Bill Maher and testify about her faith, and speak what she believed, doesn’t she know only respectable ones dare speak.

    narciso (d1f714)

  147. Newt is an imperfect vehicle as was Boris across the pond as is trump, but they seized in something real.

    narciso (d1f714)

  148. I don’t think there should be a 501(c) at all, Bob. You, me, my newsstand (when I had it), General Motors, the Catholic Church, and the Republican Party, should all be taxed the same on a return the size of an index card. When you need permission from the government to operate as a 501(c)(4) or any other number, you’ve already lost.

    nk (dbc370)

  149. You know about “warming the water before drowning the kittens”? Like that.

    nk (dbc370)

  150. Well it’s nice and all but they aren’t playing by those rules since the sixteenth amendment came into being.

    narciso (d1f714)

  151. nk, on #159 I heartily concur. Furthermore, no person or ENTITY should be able to donate more than (insert reasonable non-influencing amount of money here) to any politician, political party, lobby or special interest group and bundling should be illegal.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  152. the tariff did little social harm, whereas the income tax, reorganized society away from the individual to the state,

    narciso (d1f714)

  153. why exactly, who determines how much is too much, the state which is fundamentally compromised, soros chose to do exactly that to eliminate competitors, the uk has shorter elections, then again it has 1/5 our population, and a tiny fraction of our landmass,

    narciso (d1f714)

  154. That’s a very good point, nk, but I’m glad I live in a place where not everything is political. Yet.

    DRJ (15874d)

  155. Bob,

    I think nk is saying that everything is political because government has inserted itself into every area of our lives, which I think is also your point. My guess is most people here agree on this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  156. I think the greatest danger we face is the effort to dispose of conservative values.

    In a country where cigarette smokers are pariahs but gay men can shower with teen girls “conservative values” no longer exist.

    If some hairy dude in a dress and wig brought an 18 year old boy to a restaurant and began kissing him nobody would dare say a word. But if a guy at the next table lit a Marlboro the place would go crazy and the police would be called.

    Our country is screwed up and I do not believe it can be fixed.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  157. nk (dbc370) — 10/27/2016 @ 6:37 am

    If government is involved in everything, then an organization to promote healthy eating might be considered political. Think school lunches, food labels, and calories on menus.

    The Food Pyramid.

    Which has been wrong since the beginning.

    But gets taught in schools, at least a little. Including nursing school.

    In 1998, the year 2000 the Department of Agriculture staged a debate that included Dr. Robert Atkins.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feCpP40ZHqI

    They did it at almost the last moment they could and not have the anti-carbohydrate side have more ammunition, if I remember right.

    http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/61901-the-usda-great-diet-nutrition-debate/

    https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2004nl/040500puatkinsresearch.htm

    (He complains that the research that Dr. Atkins agreed to fund after that tested his diet against a typical diet, and not against a real low fat diet.)

    BTW, I think Dr. Atkins was wrong in being against fruit – Dr. Herman Taller, author of the forgotten 1961 best seller “Calories Don’t Count” was probably closer to the truth. (Dr. Taller was prosecuted for allegedly selling sunflower seeds and his book basically supressed.)

    I recently read something like back in the late 1950s the sugar lobby didn’t want sugar considered a bad food, so they got behind a competing theory that was out there: the low fat diet. Which is all wrong. I don’t know to what extent it is true that they had anything to doeith it.

    Anyway, people have been lobbying the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (which handles food labels, among other things) every since they got into the business of making bad eating and good eating pronouncemens.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  158. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/27/2016 @ 8:48 am

    In a country where cigarette smokers are pariahs

    Which is now being extended to E-cigarettes, even though E-cigarettes:

    1) Do not have the issue of irritating bystanders, or second hand smoke.

    2) Are manifestedly less damaging to health than cigarettes that burn tobacco and other stuff.

    Now – I think E-cigarettes are probably more bad for people than many people think, but they shouldn’t be as bad as regular cigarettes, since there is onl;y the issue of nicotine, and not tar, which causes cancer – only heart disease in other words – so you would think replacing many cigarettes with E-cigarettes would be a good thing.

    And there’s no reason for anyone to graduate from E-cigs to plain cigarettes.

    But they want to apply every law that anyone passed against cigarettes to e-cigarettes, like they were the same thing. Which they are not. And actually want to make it more difficult to market a new brand than cigarettes.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  159. you know surveying this political season, is tantamount to sipping from the dead sea, millions of words, in dozens of papers, yet none than can be consumed,

    narciso (d1f714)

  160. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/27/2016 @ 8:40 am

    no person or ENTITY should be able to donate more than (insert reasonable non-influencing amount of money here) to any politician, political party, lobby or special interest group and bundling should be illegal.

    And how then, os any outsider campaign going to get off the ground??

    The important point is that no one should be dependent on any specific source of money.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6)

  161. a tocqueville quote in the lund piece,

    [This power] is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that power, it had for its object preparing men for manhood; but it only seeks, on the contrary, to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves, provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and provides for their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?[85]

    narciso (d1f714)

  162. And how then, os any outsider campaign going to get off the ground??

    Easy Sammy, a lot easier than now when an “outsider campaign” has to go up against Killary Klintons billion dollar PAC. Nobody, absolutely nobody, not even Klepto Klinton can get a larger contribution than anyone else. Much more fair and a whole lot easier for “outsiders” when they don’t have to compete with K Street dontchathink?

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  163. So, what do you all think about the other thing I said? That the media polls are basically bogus and Trump might still win this dog of an election?

    nk (dbc370)

  164. I do agree that citizens united came up with the wrong remedy, as we see the left is all too willing to club us with the same tool they say they disdain,

    http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/judge-richard-posner-on-scotus-the-supreme-court-is-awful/

    talk about missing the point,

    narciso (d1f714)

  165. that part is probably true, but you don’t get at why the deck is stacked to hide the cards,

    narciso (d1f714)

  166. ? If you mean why the polls are “stacked”, I said it. The intent is to depress Trump’s turnout. It’s a proven fact — bad polls become a self-fulfilling prophecy by de-motivating potential voters.

    nk (dbc370)

  167. yes, but further grasshopper, it is to prevent any opposition to the current statist project, posner can’t see this, because he’s been fishing clerks from a rotten barrel, (re the untouchables,)

    narciso (d1f714)

  168. see they have chosen the egyptian strategy

    https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/791652886769983489

    narciso (d1f714)

  169. Hoagie, I heartily disagree that the government should be given the power to define what a “reasonable” donation is. The money we spend on politics is ridiculously small compared to the benefits that can accrue to those who wish to use the system to enrich themselves. The problem is that the average American is a cheapskate who expects everything to be free. If the 60 million people who voted for Romney had given $25 to his campaign, it certainly would have helped. And in our local races in the Seattle area, we are voting on a transit project that will give $50 billion to a tri-county transit authority, and at this point the only promise is that everyone will be billed for something, but no one knows what. This will work out to an indebtedness of about $33,000 per household, with a notion that it will be paid back over 20 years. But few of these homeowners, even if they will vote against this, are willing to donate even $10 to fight this folly. So more power to those who are willing to spend something, even a fairly large something, to fight the special interests who are behind these things. And the special interests will always be there, spending large sums knowing they’ll get it back with increased union dues or lucrative contracts for concrete work.

    This is off topic, but have you read Beat the Heart Attack Gene? I just got it, and it has a lot of information on the significance of inflammation for the problems we have had with our hearts. And some of this relates to four genes that they have identified and which can be tested for at a reasonable price. I’m making a list of tests and treatments that I plan to discuss with my cardiologist and family physician. I think you would find it of interest.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  170. four genes, that’s amazing bob,

    now you know her work with romney’s dog and the haircut, you expected her to apologize for basic factual error, that’s not how you rise in the organization,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?_r=0

    narciso (d1f714)

  171. narcsco, the genetic links aren’t exactly what you’d expect, but they do explain why some people who “shouldn’t have a heart attack” (because they do everything “right”) are at risk. And there are some very effective tests, like computed tomography calcium screening, and ultrasound imaging of the carotid arteries, that can give advance warning of possible problems. I wish I’d known of these tests a year ago. And the ability to identify the cause of cardiac problems suggests that I might be able to avoid a repeat of similar problems in the future. The book has been more informative than my doctors, but I’m a data-driven kind of guy, and reassurances of improvement by “experts” doesn’t do much for me. And 30 or 40 minute consultations are not intended to be all that educational.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  172. yes, the heart is a remarkably sophisticated piece of machinery, it’s like determining engine function with a simple oil change, that’s not going to happen,

    narciso (d1f714)

  173. the american thinker piece is for those who took the bait about gettysburg, and didn’t notice the substance,

    narciso (d1f714)

  174. she went on a limb about the london election, but she recognizes rhyming patterns,

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/epic-video-uk-reporter-calls-cnn-clinton-news-network-coverage-totally-biased/

    narciso (d1f714)

  175. SF: And how then, is any outsider campaign going to get off the ground??

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/27/2016 @ 9:15 am

    Easy Sammy, a lot easier than now when an “outsider campaign” has to go up against Killary Klintons billion dollar PAC. Nobody, absolutely nobody, not even Klepto Klinton can get a larger contribution than anyone else. Much more fair and a whole lot easier for “outsiders” when they don’t have to compete with K Street dontchathink?

    What you are advocating seems to be what Hillary Clinton is advocating!!

    Having someone else have too much money is not too much of a problem. They run into the law of diminishing returns, although someone with a lot of money might also know how to spend it. Hillary had little competition for the Democratic nomination not because she had so much money, but because everyone else had so little.

    Joe Biden didn’t run because he was convinced by Hillary Clinton’s agents that as of late October, 2015, he could not raise enough money fast enough to run a decent campaign. He couldn’t go to some millionaires and raise some money quickly, like Eugene McCarthy did in 1968.

    Having too little money and not being able to raise it quickly is a problem. They actually also have a greater need for money. Equal amounts of money, if it is low, is not equality.

    Bernie Sanders did run some campaign but that’s because he is a leftist. And he had some free publicity. Lawrence Lessig got nowhere.

    Politicians now have to spend years raising money because they have to raise it in tiny driblets. and challengers have more need of money than incumbents. Don’t you know what incumbent politicians do? They raise money between elections and build up a big war chest. Then nobody serious dares to run. That’s what Senator Charles Schumer does. Senate elections in big states are not very competitive, or if there is a race there’s a limited number of entrants. Why do you think there is no Republican candidate for the United States Senate in California?

    Limiting contributions wouldn’t stop pre-emptive fundraising – it would just give incumbents an advantage, and already it is near insurmountablebecause fund raising has bene limitde since the 1970s.

    Who has the mailing lists? And if you are going to raise money on the Internet how does it all begin? It is, by the way, illegal for a campaign to use another campaign’s published list of donors for fund raising purposes, unless they “buy” the list from the campaign.

    Then there are loopholes. Independent expenditures. Unions. .

    There’s also a tactic the Clintons used to further limit the contributions an opponent can get. They let people know that if they give money to their opponents they will be non-friends – that it is not acceptable to give money both to a Clinton and a Clinton’s opponent. Contributons over $250 are made public that so can’t be kept secret either.

    The Clintons also hire away campaign consultants.

    Right now at least very rich people can self-finance or threaten to self finance, but there aren’t enough very rich people who have an aptitude or interest in politics.

    Sammy Finkelman (592d97)

  176. 184. Of course the Clintons will claim that there was no quid pro quo and the race was over before the FBI official got put in charge of the investigation into her e-mails, and the investigation was practically over too…

    But the thing is, the Klinton Konspiracy, is not a little, little quickly organized conspiracy. If you try to believe in that, you’ll wind up with nothing. There are quids and quos going on all the time and the books are not balanced very quickly.

    The word the Clintons use, like the mob does, is “friend” of ours

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u5wo9Wx8qw

    In the case of The Clintons, “friend of Bill”, though some recently revealed e-mails indicate they’ve maybe gotten a bit more formal and now it’s sometimes WJC. It was WJC even though Hillary was the person in public office. It was friends of WJC who were given special consideration for contracts related to Haitian relief let by the State Department.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/state-department-bill-clinton-friends-haiti-earthquake-2016-10

    In one email, Klevorick wrote, “Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC,” referring to William Jefferson Clinton. “Most I can probably ID but not all.”

    She wrote in another email: “Is this a FOB [Friend of Bill]! If not, she should go to cidi.org,” referring to a general government website.

    This didn’t come from Wikileaks. Or even The western Journalism Center.

    That came from the Republican National Committee, which got it through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and managed to get ABC News to pick up the story. (They didn’t get Donald Trump to pick it up, though)

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fobs-hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends/story?id=42615379

    By the way, I think the Klinton Konspiracy got a little bit sloppy here. Most of the time they are more careful than that not to say anything incriminatting, but I guess Caitlin Klevorick was a little bit new to this. You can prove another way she was inexperienced. She asked for help because she didn’t know who was and who was not a FOB. And that e-mail was not deleted.

    Obviously there was more to it than just interesting an FBI official’s wife in running for the Virginia State Senate. Probably, it was when his loyalty was proven that he was promoted. Comey is the problem. What he needed to do was just leave things alone, and not start a RICO investigation.

    That’s what he did.

    Sammy Finkelman (592d97)

  177. Both BobStewart at Home and Sammy Finkelman have made good points. I have the solution but to honestly address each point you guys made and show how one well written law can eliminate all your doubts and clean up the election-for-bidders system we currently have but my reply would be too long, use too much room and make me type entirely more than any retired guy wants to type in one day. But thanks for giving the problem some thought and I bet you could come up with a just and honest system which would address all your concerns on your own.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  178. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/27/2016 @ 11:45 am

    But thanks for giving the problem some thought and I bet you could come up with a just and honest system which would address all your concerns on your own.

    One element of this would be – something that people like Hillary Clinton don’t like to mention, but followers of Ralph Nader have – and it may exist in Minnesota I am not sure – is Dollar for Dollar tax credits for campaign contributions up to a certain maximum per person.

    (Not standard public financing through qualifying by raising money in small driblets,a big chore, which still needs money to start – but giving money only when people have fronted the money.)

    Ideally this would be paid back quicker than the next tax return. And the refund not seizable for the Obamacare penalty or student loans or back taxes, or even child support, because you can’t make any exceptions.

    Mark Green would want to limit this to candidates for which a person could vote – only for the senate ion your state for instance. That’s not too serious a defect except in legislative districts where mostly poor people reside. Maybe you could provide $100 for such purposes to every person who voted in the last election in an even numbered year. Maybe also usuable for referendum. The money could be saved for a while but would be lost after two years or something like that.

    But I think you also need to allow or even refund a certain limited number of very large contributions, like $10,000 or even $100,000. Maybe no contribution could be more than 60% higher than the nect one, and the number would be set sufficiuent to allow campaigns to get off the ground.

    Also – let banks be responsible for filing campiagn contribution reports. Someone could just sign up with a certain bank and the bank would set up an account to take the money and do all the reporting. Why should every inexperienced campaign have to hire someone for those purposes?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  179. BobStewartatHome (b2bab4) — 10/27/2016 @ 9:39 am

    This is off topic, but have you read Beat the Heart Attack Gene? I just got it, and it has a lot of information on the significance of inflammation for the problems we have had with our hearts. And some of this relates to four genes that they have identified and which can be tested for at a reasonable price. I’m making a list of tests and treatments that I plan to discuss with my cardiologist and family physician. I think you would find it of interest.

    This also may mean thAt heart disease is an infectious disease (infections cause inflammation) and antibiotics may fight heart disease.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  180. Sammy,

    heart disease is an infectious disease

    As I understand it, the problem arises as a result of the body’s response to challenges like an infection, but the damage that leads to strokes and heart attacks is done by response to the stimulus, like white blood cells, that mistakenly attack the lining of the arteries. But it doesn’t have to be an outside agent, stress and life style issues (lack of sleep, lack of exercise) can excite the same inflammatory responses. It’s sort of like hay fever, the body senses something it is allergic to and it releases histamines that get all sorts of processes started, most of which are not warranted by the tiny grain of pollen. There are inexpensive ways to measure the body’s level of inflammation, and that plus the genetic component, are the subject matter of the portion I’ve read so far.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  181. Pfft.

    She’s in contract negotiations, asking $20 million+ /yr., so every move is suspect.

    Barbie the News Poodle: she’s just too good to be true, she’s so much better than you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.4336 secs.