Trump

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Just as an interesting hypothetical, how good must the alternative be to vote against a bad candidate? Should you always vote for the candidate that is the best, or is there a scenario where you vote for a major party candidate because they are good enough and the other option is bad enough?

You bring up a good point.

I'm a Rubio guy. If it were Clinton vs Jeb this year, I'd vote Jeb Bush in a heartbeat, even though he wouldn't excite me all that much.

Where to draw that line is up to each individual person. Trump is just so bad that voting 3rd party seems like an obvious choice for me this go around. In other election years, it is much less clear.

[ShockdaWorld]

Just as an interesting hypothetical, how good must the alternative be to vote against a bad candidate? Should you always vote for the candidate that is the best, or is there a scenario where you vote for a major party candidate because they are good enough and the other option is bad enough?

Good question. It made me think. I do not intend to ever vote for "the lesser of two evils." If I think one of the candidates that has a chance to win would be a good president, I would certainly vote for them, regardless of their party affiliation. I guess that's where my line would be is good versus bad. I think either of these two is bad, so I won't vote for them. If I thought Hillary was good (not just less bad) or Trump was good (not just less bad), I would vote for them. IMO, "good enough" doesn't necessarily mean "good."

[1972Shocker]

I 100% agree with this statement. I know way too many people that are voting for Trump, because "any vote not for Donald is a vote for Hillary" as well as too many that are voting for Hillary, because "any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump." If "we the people" (I hate that term) would all vote for what we feel is right instead of just voting against what we feel is "the most wrong", there could eventually be a change. I know some who think voting for Trump is right and some that think voting for Hillary is right. That's fine. The part that's wrong is that there are too many sheep that have been convinced that the only way to vote is to follow the elephant or the jackass.

If all of the people voting for Trump primarily to vote agains Hillary plus all of the people voting for Hillary primarily as a vote against Trump would cast their votes for a 3rd party candidate then that candidate might very will win this election. Unfortunately, the majority of voters view this election and most of our elections as a binary choice between the D's and the R's.

There is no question the media in this country is extremely biased with the great majority of the MSM with a strong left-wing bias. However, any candidate knows that going in. One place the actual electoral system does seem to be rigged is in the Commission on Presidential Debates. They have set up a Catch-22 that pretty much ensures that 3rd party candidates will be excluded. They require 15% polling average in 5 selected polls to get into the debates, however, getting to that level of polling is almost impossible without being in the debates.

At a minimum I would like to see all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically be able to reach 270 electoral college votes should be allowed in the 1st debate. After that debate, if any of those candidates are polling below 5% they could be excluded fron the 2nd debate. After that debate in any of those candidates are polling below 10% they can be excluding from any remaining debates. For any poll to be used in qualifyfing for those debates the top line must include all of the eligible candidates who meet the ballot access requirement.

Furthermore, the CPD's membership should include one-third Democrats, one-third Republicans and one-third Independents/Other.

[RoyalShock]

Thought this was a good article in response to some threats the Arizona Republic received after they endorsed Hillary Clinton:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/10/16/publisher-response-to-threats-after-republic-endorsement-clinton-trump/92058964/

Not sure we will ever get back to a time of civil discourse though.

My question is, why are media entities endorsing candidates?

Yes, I know they've done it for generations now. But it's such a clear conflict of interest.

[1972Shocker]

My question is, why are media entities endorsing candidates?

Yes, I know they've done it for generations now. But it's such a clear conflict of interest.

Something to do with the 1st Amendment I think. Allegedly this endorsement is made by the editorial board which is supposedly separate from their news department. Whether that is really true is probably debatable. It is an opinion which the deserve to have. Whether or not they let that color their news coverage is something their readers would have to take into account I suppose.

[RoyalShock]

Something to do with the 1st Amendment I think. Allegedly this endorsement is made by the editorial board which is supposedly separate from their news department. Whether that is really true is probably debatable. It is an opinion which the deserve to have. Whether or not they let that color their news coverage is something their readers would have to take into account I suppose.

Yes, that is true and I accept that. My point - which I clearly failed to articulate and I will blame on it being late in the workday - is that subscribers should expect their news sources to remain as unbiased as possible. An endorsement should automatically make a subscriber skeptical of that source's ability and commitment to be unbiased in its reporting.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If Trump is the nominee, Pennsylvania all of a sudden is problem for the Dems. Look at the numbers last night.

And if Hilary has to defend New York, unlikely but Trump is the ONLY GOP candidate that could force her to at least campaign there, at least the libs will be on the defensive for a change.

RCP shows Clinton leading New York 52-32. She leads Pennsylvania 47-40.

Texas, yes TEXAS, is more likely to go to Clinton than either NY or Penn are to be stolen by Trump.

But look on the bright side Trump supporters... Mike Pence is delivering Indiana. Trump is up by a whopping 4.5 pts in that swing state... errr... what? Romney won Indiana by 10? Oh.

*FacePalm*

[SB Shock]

I don't think it really all that suprising (especially as we are getting more hindsight as each day passes). The data in primary was just blaring.......BIG LOSS. The liberal wing of the republican party liked trump, but not the conservative side (and that is relative speaking). Bush-McCain and the Romney primary results shown below. Only place Trump did better than Bush was in Blue States and Romney did better than Trump in all.

[wufan]

Let me ask a question. I asked this recently of a friend whoi is a Trump supporter. I asked him if he had any concerns about Russia's seemingly strong desire to promote Trump for POTUS? Or at least I get the impression that is what Russia doing. He said no he has no concerns about that whatsoever. He seemed to imply that was a positive in Trump's favor. Has anyone given that any thought or is it of little consequence as my friend has suggested?

I think the endorsement of a foreign power is such small potatos when compared to all the other problems with these candidates. In other election cycles it would be concerning to me.

[Kung Wu]

538 currently shows the exact same 7% spread that RCP shows, making the LA Times equally as much of an outlier.

I'm standing by my assertion that I need not waste my time studying polling dynamics of the LA Times, or anyone else individually, to quickly see the LA Times is a major outlier and to know I can discard it immediately. If you care to study it in more detail, have fun.

According to this blog entry, 538 did poorly in 2012 using a 3 week look back methodology: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ial-race/?_r=0

Also it says that the TIPP poll was the closest using a 3 week look back. TIPP currently has Trump at +1: http://www.investors.com/politics/tr...tracking-poll/

I have no idea how useful that 3 week look back methodology is. Could be completely meaningless.

[jdshock]

According to this blog entry, 538 did poorly in 2012 using a 3 week look back methodology: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ial-race/?_r=0

Also it says that the TIPP poll was the closest using a 3 week look back. TIPP currently has Trump at +1: http://www.investors.com/politics/tr...tracking-poll/

I have no idea how useful that 3 week look back methodology is. Could be completely meaningless.

Do you think Trump is up? I'd be happy to give you even odds on the election.

[Kung Wu]

Do you think Trump is up? I'd be happy to give you even odds on the election.

No, but I suspect it may be closer than RCP is indicating. Maybe not though.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Here's me merely thinking out loud...

I seem to remember Romney doing really well in the final weeks prior to the election. There seemed to be a sense that he was saying just the right things, Obama wasn't finding great counters, and momentum was going Romney's way. I definitely remember a lot of talk about how "if only the election could be pushed back a few more weeks". Romney was clearly the underdog, and it felt like he finally started to hit his stride in crunch time. Sort of how sports teams suddenly wake up half way through the 4th quarter and you think, "dang, if only there were a couple more minutes of clock remaining".

To use another sports analogy, it is hard to go back and rank how bracketologists did by looking at their projections from weeks prior to selection sunday. A team that tanks down the stretch may fall to the NIT in a short time. Was the bracketologist who stood out from the crowd in January projecting them as an NIT team correct, or was this truly a NCAA worth team in January (as majority opinion believed at the time) who played their way out of the Big Dance?

My point is that is that possible to have a flawed analysis and to undervalue a team, or political candidate, but then look correct in the end because games, seasons, and campaigns, are roller coasters, not linear trajectories. Is it really fair to compare analysis done while the "game" is still in progress vs the final result? If I posted that UNI still had a 75% chance of beating Texas A&M when there was 1 minute left to go in that game, I would be laughed at. Even now, as we know that UNI did win, it would still look like a ridiculous comment that "lucked out" into appearing more accurate than it deserved.

I'm not trying to make a definitive judgment on that NYT poll analysis. Just asking questions.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

According to this blog entry, 538 did poorly in 2012 using a 3 week look back methodology: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ial-race/?_r=0

Did I miss something? I see analysis of individual polls, not of 538 overall.

This link shows 538 finished 2012 with a predicted Obama +2.5. Obama ended up winning by +3.9. Difference of 1.4.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/

Also, to clarify, I'm not claiming anyone is yet able to consistently get within 1% accuracy all the time. I'm just intrigued by this notion that a +6, +7, or +8 average is anything other than inches away from the fat lady singing for Hillary with less than 3 weeks to go.

[Kung Wu]

Did I miss something? I see analysis of individual polls, not of 538 overall.

There is a paragraph about 538s perfoance in the article but it won't let me copy/paste it from my phone. If the methodology sucks then it's all irrelevant though. I just don't know.