Seriously, I feel the need to emphasize this.
In a list of lies that supposedly should impinge on her honesty, you for some reason find it necessary to pad it by bringing up a cute and utterly meaningless personal anecdote from back when I was still crapping my diapers that was told to her by her mother and she simply didn’t doubt at the time. This while the opposing candidate’s main reason provided for accepting his judgment on foreign affairs is literally based on a lie.
You claim to measure a candidate’s honesty by some means other than factuality, then. Care to tell us why that is? Why your claims about Clinton’s dishonesty reflect Truth and so do not have to be grounded in mere reality?
How’s all that work?
LOL – Trump’s supporters are overwhelmingly white. The difference in polling between his white supporters and his overall supporters is negligible.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-14/ohio-poll
I think this is an election that stat geeks like Silver and Wang are just not in a position to call.
A single poll doesn’t mean he is now winning in that state. Polling aggregates (and experts like Silver) tell us that. Feel free to believe that this election is different, but until Silver’s track record in predicting Presidential general elections becomes flawed, I’m not going to believe random internet people are anywhere close to as good as he is at predicting Presidential general elections.
It’s not like he’s suddenly taken the lead there and now everything’s changed. There have been plenty of polls showing him up there. And some showing Clinton. Relax.
That’s a lot closer than I’d like to see here in Ohio - but then, that’s why it’s a battleground state.
Trump has actually been leading in most polls in Ohio:
538’s polls only forecast has Hillary slightly ahead in OH. Their polls-plus has Trump slightly ahead (this is a very recent development). I trust 538 and Nate Silver because of their great track record. Ohio appears to be tightening and very close, as it usually is, and it’s not terribly surprising. Hillary’s overall lead remains significant but not certain, and according to 538 she has an over 70% chance to win in enough states to add up to 270 right now, which is why her lead is still sturdy even if it’s not huge.
It’s all well and good that the Clintons are releasing information, but I think they (and a few here) are missing the real impact of her pneumonia battle. The fact is that despite their initial denials, Hillary was visibly ill with a serious, even if treatable, illness. Clinton has been and will continue to be the subject of perhaps unprecedented levels of nasty conspiracy theory political campaigning. When Obama was the subject of a similar smear campaign in 2012, he released his birth certificates, and more importantly, there was never anything that even remotely corroborated the claims. That is not the case with Clinton, who already rates very poorly when it comes to credibility. This is on the heels of the continued inability to deal forthrightly with her email scandals. She keeps people at arms length and operates with secrecy, and then implicitly and explicitly releases information to the public that is demonstrably false. That’s the problem.
Best counterargument, short of a marathon run, would be simply to keep on keepin’ on. Put more emphasis on surrogates, of which she is abundantly supplied. Relax, Eeyore. There’s still a good chance this will work out.
@ asahi: No, that’s not the problem. The problem is we’re dealing with an opposition full of CTers. There is absolutely NOTHING one can say or not say, do or not do, to alter a CTer’s opinion.
What one can do is get the honest segment of the media to quit playing into the CTer’s paranoia. Focus on the fraction of the populace you can actually reason with.
And then we quit hyperventilating every time a CTer says “But I’m not convinced!”
“CTer” Huh? Wha?
Conspiracy Theorists.
Yes, there are conspiracy theorists, but there are a lot of voters whose minds are not yet made up. Clinton could just be more transparent.
I was responding to this question:
“So, again, where’s the proof that Hillary Clinton is a serial liar? Or needs to be called out above all other politicians for her rampant lies?”
I’ve provided the proof, and explained why. I didn’t say Donald Trump hasn’t lied.
Sure, other politicians lie. But the the others lie in an attempt to exaggerate their value, or to gain a political edge. Clinton seems to instinctively lie about BS stuff. Compulsively.
Sure, you guys have all the standard, intellectual defenses: This lie doesn’t count, because of this. This one was really only a small lie, because of that. These lies don’t count, because other people told similar lies.
But you guys aren’t normal Americans. Normal Americans have an edge over the rabid partisan excuse makers here: they see Clinton for a liar just as clearly as they see that guy in the bar.
That’s why you may well lose this - your candidates lies are bad enough on their own, but her defenders’ attempts to excuse them are even worse. “You would clearly see that these lies aren’t really so bad, if you were only as smart as us” isn’t gaining many voters.
In deciding who to vote for, I am at a loss to see why the latter is worse than the former.
He had said Clinton’s minority supporters, not Trump’s. Reread the post you quoted.
It brings me a lot of delight to read the parsing here and be reminded of one of Nate Silver’s more recent and immense failures as an election prognosticator.
Huh. And all this time I thought Trump was the one who lied compulsively. BTW, did you know he delivered a one-hour speech today standing in a convention center that was 122 degrees? And even weirder, some of his audience were wearing coats…