Clinton v Trump - The Stretch Run Thread

Remember the other day when I said the FBIRecordsVault Twitter account, had dumped the Bill Clinton/Mark Rich story after having been silent for over a year? But then I retracted that, because I looked at their history and it HAD been tweeting. HOWEVER, looking further, it turns out that before a sudden outburst on October 30, followed by the Clinton records dump on November 1 and silence since then, it turns out that prior to the October 30 tweets, it HAD been silent since October 8, 2015. And what was the first thing that was dumped on October 30? “Fred C. Trump was a philanthropist”.

And now the FBI is doing an internal investigation of its own Twitter account.

I did quote the entire part. Nothing hidden.
And why would that stop the impeachment? They can make up anything they want.

In some cases the “pink” means a 51% chance of winning.

If those states are coin flips, Trump has to win all of them. That’s a lotta coin flips. And he could win them all and still lose:

I’ve now seen this story reported from two sources.

The FBI is full of anti-Hillary sentiment.

That’s a rather improper recount. It actually said “Fred C. Trump (1905-1999) was a real estate developer and philanthropist.” which is almost exactly the opening of his wikipedia page.

And how is this a concern of the FBI after over a year of silence?

I counter your 538 cite with one of my own!

Americans love early voting and it might help Clinton

A federal judge has said that NC is engaging in “Insane Jim Crow–Style Voter Suppression”.

It sounds like they’re using the old voter caging trick aimed at minority neighborhoods.

So not a drop of contrition for misrepresenting the tweet? Ok then.

The official response is:

Both arguments are sort of right on early voting. In states where early voting is a minority of the voting (which is most states which have early voting), it isn’t super predictive. The people who vote early tend to be the ones who are never swing voters and usually the ones who are the most politically engaged. These voters aren’t representative of the broad electorate. But when a majority of the state votes early like in Washington and Oregon where almost everyone votes by mail before election day, or in Nevada where early voting is now up to like 60% of the populace, then early voting is predictive simply because when a large portion of the votes are early votes, they represent a broad swathe of the populace and are thus more or less representative.

Not very shocking that a law enforcement agency isn’t exactly HRC’s biggest fan. I suspect most LEO’s are on Team Trump (and most military members).

You left out No homo.

From your article:

May have a slight potential. What a bold stance. But the article mostly agrees with me in that “experts say its predictive value is not particularly high”.

Frankly, with the way Dems are hammering on early voting they better be getting more of it. Not a bit of this supports iiandyiii’s confidence in a Nevada win based on early voting.

But you have a much harder time analyzing the voting in those states: the clerk’s offices either do not pre-count, or, if they do, they do not reveal the numbers. Adding to that, in the states where there is early voting, what we are hearing are exit polls, which you really cannot do when the voters are not converging on polling sites.

Though in Nevada, apparently, the state releases the party affiliation of the registered voters. That’s how they’ve been able to determine who has been casting ballots, assuming the Democrats are voting Clinton and the Republicans voting Trump.

Repeat from another thread:

My state has mail-in voting and top-2 primaries, so party affiliation data would be extremely hard to harvest.

Is it just me or has one of the old standards been missing from this year’s rotation (“Hillary Clinton is THE MOST liberal candidate EVER!”) I remember this from the Gore, Kerry and Obama years but haven’t heard them try it this time. I kind of miss it.

No, that’s the 1990s version of Clinton.

The 2016 version is that she’s just a fucking whore.

I believe Donald’s “Such a nasty woman” comment will greatly remembered. It pretty much summarizes the case many have against her. They don’t like her. An aggressive, assertive, strong-fighting woman like that.