(July 25, 2016 at 2:17 pm)Tiberius Wrote: As much as it shows how unlikable Clinton is, national polls are still a terrible indicator of how the election will turn out. FiveThirtyEight still put her chances at 58.2%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016...cast/#plus

That number will probably jump later this week when she is official confirmed as the nominee. It will then likely fall as a result of the leaked emails. documents, etc. I suspect it may jump back up when the debates start; somehow I can't see Trump holding his own against Clinton in a debate.

Polls plus factors in historical trends.  The expectation, is that the polls plus number will stay the same until election day, as it supposedly considers things such as conventions, debates, etc... 

The "Now cast" which is if the elections were held today has her chances at 43%.

Personally, I think this election is unprecedented in its nature, so I don't know if I'd be surprised by anything.  I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable relying on historical trends to predict the future of this one.  There are just so many different strong undercurrents pulling things all over the place.  

I wouldn't be surprised by either winning, or by any margin of victory at this point.  A 4th party candidate getting 5% seems possible.  A 3rd party getting 20+?  Maybe.  It's quite entertaining.

Luis Miranda, DNC Communications Director instructs Walter Garcia, Western Regional Comms Director to spread an article critical of Bernie Sanders:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9423

(July 25, 2016 at 6:01 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I don't know of an untarnished person. To expect anything approaching perfection with an elected official is just childish and naive.

I can't think of one untarnished politician either, but I'm getting tired of having to settle for the corrupt ones.

(July 25, 2016 at 4:49 pm)A Theist Wrote: I can't think of one untarnished politician either, but I'm getting tired of having to settle for the corrupt ones.

But not voting at all is more or less giving up. I can't remember when the last time was that I voted for someone. But there was always something to vote against. If it means supporting someone I didn't like, so be it. I liked the opposite even less. But there's one thing for sure. Radicals are far more likely to participate to push their candidate/perty through. So, chances are, that in not voting, you're actually supporting radicalism by proxy.

That's always something to consider.

Trouble is, despite all of the revelations about Hilary, given the electoral system in the United States, Hilary knows she doesn't need to make any effort whatsoever to appeal to the Bernie people. She can pick pro-Wall Street, anti-abortion Tim Kaine and many will still vote for her simply out of fear. She can keep sticking her middle finger up at her adversaries in the Democratic Party knowing many of them will vote for her given the winner take all system. She needs to realize that millions people don't want 'suck it up' so Hilary seems to be trying her best to lose the election by alienating large portions of the Democratic vote.

(July 25, 2016 at 4:58 pm)abaris Wrote: But not voting at all is more or less giving up. I can't remember when the last time was that I voted for someone. But there was always something to vote against. If it means supporting someone I didn't like, so be it. I liked the opposite even less. But there's one thing for sure. Radicals are far more likely to participate to push their candidate/perty through. So, chances are, that in not voting, you're actually supporting radicalism by proxy.

That's always something to consider.

You don;t have to vote to effect change.  In this climate with these candidates, arguably, voting is the -least- effective way to secure meaningful change.  A vote legitimizes an unrepresentative government...regardless of whether your vote carries. When whomever wins, wins, no matter what they do (and even when they do those things they promised not to, things you might have thought you were voting "against")....are they going to do anything -other- than point to all those votes, to their mandate?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dn...rns-226191

Quote:Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.

During the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

Despicable.

(July 26, 2016 at 9:14 am)Tiberius Wrote: Despicable.

Is it any surprise? As long as there are lucrative jobs waiting at the end of the political donor rainbow, this won't change. They will always do the donor's bidding and take a literal dump on the electorate. Change is not what they desire. It's a nice pay check at the end of the week. Same goes for both parties, obviously.

I'd like to think with every upward blip in the polls for Trump the (current and former) poobahs at DNC headquarters will be literally experiencing crashing waves of nausea repeatedly if not continuously for their connivance and deception and lying.

Nausea being a damn pale form of atonement, scourging similar to that which Christ (supposedly) endured might be a better penance, but, sigh, in this enlightened era a penance that is now frowned upon.

Maybe a more productive form of penance (and one that might actually accrue some benefit with the proles and sheeple) is to decree from now on, all internal party communications be instantly and immediately made available to all who wish to monitor it.

Nothing purifies a corrupt organization like generous doses of sunshine, and I know this will come as a surprise to the current DNC poobahs, but that sunshine might be just what they need to win more elections.

MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote:Trouble is, despite all of the revelations about Hilary, given the electoral system in the United States, Hilary knows she doesn't need to make any effort whatsoever to appeal to the Bernie people. She can pick pro-Wall Street, anti-abortion Tim Kaine and many will still vote for her simply out of fear. She can keep sticking her middle finger up at her adversaries in the Democratic Party knowing many of them will vote for her given the winner take all system. She needs to realize that millions people don't want 'suck it up' so Hilary seems to be trying her best to lose the election by alienating large portions of the Democratic vote.

Either that or she just sewed up swing state Virginia where Kaine is pretty popular. Virginia has 13 electoral votes. Add that to the 240 electoral votes of the 'Blue Wall' states, and she's walking in with 253 electoral votes. She needs 17 more to win, which means she only has to get two more swing states to take the election.

Winning a national election doesn't come from pandering to your base. You do that in the primaries.