Imo, Trump looked like an agitated mushroom. Clinton looked comfortable and in control of herself and the discussion. Would guess Trump was hurt. But admitted I don't watch reality tv or Understand why lots of people see him as genuine.
"anyone who thinks this isn't a jump ball is not serious"
Looks like it from the polls but I'm not sure. For at least 35 years, the candidate most tv personable has won. And It's so close, the debates are for the undecideds, so real issues and personal history of candidates won't matter much to most of them. And it's a "change" election. Otoh, a big ground game advantage for Clinton. And mass media, except Fox, will continue to kill Trump more than Clinton. Betting sites still almost 2 to 1 for Clinton. I still like my bet, but much too exciting.
Yes, gov doles corporate welfare, especially when people don't know how to vote. But it's the only protection regular folks have against being ruled by the wealthy except armed revolt. Read some history, this point isn't debatable.
"538 has been lost fot the entire election cycle."
Didn't follow 538 before this last few weeks. And, as you know, I didn't think he'd get this close. Of course I didn't see 1972 coming, never mind 2010, when I should have known better.
"Big new polls for Trump in Ohio and decent lead in Florida. Giving the polls credence (I do) and as it stands at this moment, all he needs is to win the coin flip in NC and he's got the White House. All the fuss over PA and VA can be rendered moot."
See 538, indicating that If Trump carries all the red states as well as Oho, PA, N.C., Iowa, and AZ and Clinton carries the blue states and the other battleground states, she wins by 41 electoral votes.
Think the speeches are a form of legal corruption endemic now in government. Reward for deeds done and/ or bets on politicians future influence.
An underlying issue is cost/benefit. That is, how much good and harm the politicians did. That's where it's no contest withTrump, whose whole life has been a con -- much actually illegal -- that hurt thousands, and helped only him and his.
"why no mention of the sad sack losers that will form lines to vote for hillary. this is the one day these losers "work" every 4 years to guarantee their gravy train doesnt run out"
Not the way welfare has worked the last two decades. Which means you know neither the law nor the people you think you're describing.
You also have the mountain/pebble problem. My guess is that for every $1k of corporate giveaways, you have about a penny in welfare abuse.
"The entire left is a bunch of hypocrites. bryan, how many homeless have you invited into your home?"
A person is liberal not necessarily because they see themselves as more caring about other people. For example, I don't see myself that way. Rather, it's in my interest and the interest of the people I do care about to consider the welfare of other people. If you happen to live in civilization, like it or not, you're in it together.
"Of course trump will be blamed if stocks have any significant drop. . "
High correlation between performance of market in last 3 months of campaign and election of incumbent party. The market drop, if anything, favors Trump."
"The thought of trump bringing back accountability. . . ."
If that thought is expectation, the thinker is tripping.
Doubled down on my Clinton bet when her odds dropped.
The article and how this election has proceeded makes me think that the US political oligarchy is a lot more exclusive than outsiders like me would have guessed. Your theory that the same process has been operating in UK seems plausible. Now inclined to agree that, at least medium term, optimism about our political process -- primarily the GOP -- is premature. The elite that I imagined would not play chicken with a Trump Presidency. (As of two days ago, over prior week, mass media ran pieces referring to the Clinton Foundation over 800 times, compare with 11 references to Trump using his Foundation to illegally contribute to the Fla AG.)
But still expect immigration reform by 2020.
"is it reasonable to wonder whether pollsters have a hard time with these dark-tinged populist situations"
One of the great current questions. And credit to aapl for calling the Trump rally.
Over the last three weeks, the media continued relentlessly negative on Trump (except Fox) as it has been all year, but also was very negative on Clinton – the Foundation, emails, polls saying people didn't trust her. So the target audience of both – moderate GOP and conservative independent undecideds – hears that they're both bad. This of course favors Trump.
I'm surprised. I'm confident the elite does not want Trump, and assumed the corporate media would continue to reflect that. Aapl, article by Steven Pearlstein in Saturday's Washington Post very intriguing to me. The thesis is that the corporate elite's political influence – outside its narrow business areas – has been very seriously eroded over the last 20 years. (wapoDOTstFORWARD SLASH2bLnYMK?tid=ss_mail might work). Your sense that potential Trump voters struggling with their embarrassment becomes ever more concerning.
Btw, the Clintons have gotten an incredible amount of bad media over the last 25 years, in part because Bill's charisma scares the elite. Hillary is effectively end-running the FDR fix.
Still betting Clinton will win – overwhelmingly better organization, ground game – so much more important in general election than primaries. Doubt the Russians will interfere further, as they already have what they wanted – making the U.S. and its next President look bad internationally. The old adage "better a wise enemy than a foolish friend" fully understood by Russians.
Saw Trump's Milwaukee speech tonight. Teleprompter. Powerful, He sure didn't mail this one in. His strategy is exactly what you suggest, bring out the ones who wouldn't admit they like Trump (as well as a big percent of the GOP base). He soke in Wisconsin. Wonder what he'll do in Florida. And the latest rumor -- Ailes will join the Trump campaign. Don't know if he'll keep it up or how it will effect the election. But it sure could increase Trump's post-election clout with the GOP base. Something's gotta give, right? The plot sickens.
"Trump was the only possible messenger. All those other republicans are wimps."
Did you hear his speech when he FINALLY got specific about what he's do to crush ISIS? Exactly what the Obama Administration is doing, with one addition: he's cut of internet access for ISIS personnel. Which of course is impossible.
" the fed created over $3.7TRILLION out of thin air to provide this debt financing. if they kept going, you'd see much higher inflation as all that pretend money begins to trcickle down the ladder"
Agree the QE, etc, was bad policy -- maybe politically necessary -- but bad policy. (Though not necessarily inflationary in a deflationary economic environment like we have. Witness Japan over the last 20 years). It was mostly to bail out the banks, which I think should have been liquidated instead. But this was sure not "stimulus" that we were talking about. The GOP didn't fight bailing out the banks, though they made noises critical of the Fed. They blocked economic -- not fiscal -- stimulus.
"Nyner, I know you don't believe me but nevertheless offer this guarantee: every point you make will be stronger without the various nicknames."
Appreciate the though, aapl. But it's better that nyner continues being himself so people don't forget who he is.
" I only meant that Trump appeals on a gut level to a significant number of people who would never admit it openly."
Not as prevalent a reaction as revulsion, fortunately. And a pretty united establishment opposition still matters here.
Fwiw, Trump does not remotely remind me of Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men. That matters outside his GOP base. Not sure a security crisis would help him.
"I think a powerful Trump comeback is a decent bet here."
Don't know, I wouldn't make that bet, but you may be right. The bet I made and would double down on if it gets close is that Clinton will win.
Btw, I think the scenario I suggested is in play either way, though maybe it gets harder if Trump is close. And as I said, I think Trump was and probably still is in it for the money, which I suspect he desperately needs.