A new Detroit News/WDIV-TV poll finds Clinton up nine points among likely voters in Michigan, 41-32. Note that the pollster says Clinton has a “shocking” lead in the GOP regions of the western and southwestern parts of the state.
But Trump told us he is going to put Michigan in play, because he’s doing so awesomely among working class whites, and also, he knows a lot about cars!
— Could Clinton win over GOP voters? Yes — thanks to Trump’s unique awfulness., Greg Sargent, Washington Post, this morning
Sargent also notes a new poll from New Hampshire showing Clinton up by 15% and Maggie Hassan ahead of Kelly Ayotte by 10%.
And he points to a fresh poll from Pennsylvania that has Clinton up by 11%.
Ah, but Michigan. Clinton leading in the western and southwestern parts of the state? Awesome. And btw, Bernie Sanders beat Clinton, big, in those parts of the state in the primary.
So sorry, Donald, but it’s just not working out.
I hope it’s not the Tom Bradley effect. I won’t believe them until they actually vote. I know what the voters in the west and southwest part of the state are like.
Yeah JackD, I know them too and I expect Pence will make it closer before November. That being said, the recent polls do help restore my faith in the country and the upper Midwest in particular. Just hope Hillary can keep it going until November and Assange does not have something to turn this thing around.
I doubt if the mainstreamers know about Assange’s latest bombshell yet. Ironically too, this story may lead to an odd partnership between ‘Democracy Now’ and ‘Fox News’ while MSNBC viewers are left in the dark. Our politics may be entering the ‘Twilight Zone’, hehe.
Yeah, I will pay attention to anyone who says, “t’s not just about Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah.”
just gets worse
In NH, HRC + 15, with Hassan +11 on Ayotte.
Larry Sabato reports that the Electoral College map has changed little since March:
There is much distortion in the air right now as to who is gaining or loosing in the polls. Western Michigan will Not go democrat and polls are very great subjective. A 600 person poll does not lead to causation or correlation in my opinion and the Trumpster will bounce back when we resume talking about any of the real issues again. Detroit is always blue while the rest of the state is always red. The American people will not tolerate having a pathological liar as their leader in the white house. As soon as we begin talking about the main-important issues and things that really matter Trump will get bounced back up and like all past elections it will be too close to call come election day…How is a $1.3T tax increase for all the socialism free bees going to work for ya? How do we contain Islam radical extremeism with the very same people who created them? How do we reign in wealth inequality and low wage growth with a 1.2% GDP economic no growth policies? How do we shrink the size and foot print of crony-corrupt too big government? ect. ect. ect…HRC will do none of this, Trump will.
Announcing Poll Results is important in laying the groundwork for “election intervention” – if necessary. That way it’s not an out-of-the-blue surprise which causes suspicions to bubble up.
“Poll: Clinton leads Trump in Georgia”
That headline may actually be factually correct, but in Georgia it’s meaningless. The coalition of the state’s blacks and Big City Liberals had made Georgia a Blue State for a very long time – until the advent of Diebold. That was precisely when God-Fearing Republicans suddenly took over. Any voter suppression efforts in Georgia are merely a cover; the Blacks and Liberals can vote all they want. No-verification computer voting machines will keep the state Deep Red unless those who control the machines desire to do otherwise. This election cycle they may actually turn the damned things off and allow Hillary to carry the state.
I’m overjoyed to see Hillary advancing in the polls.
But I want to give a warning. Why did Trump do so poorly in the polls during the republican primaries? I suspect the answer is simple. Trumps
strength is among working class, white, male voters. But this is a electoral segment that is notorious for low election turnout. Consequently, all the polls give this segment a very, very low weight in their models. But what if this population segment turn out in mass to vote for Trump? I’m not forecasting that they will, but I think it is enough of a risk that I’m being very cautious in reading all the polls.
Well-done polling is very accurate and useful. “Reporting” on the polling results doesn’t always meet those high standards.
I’m extremely cautious when I read about Poll results – other than the author is sending some kind of message to readers which may or may not be related to reality.
“Donald Trump Hired Me As An Attorney. Please Don’t Support Him For President.”
“Bullies will always exist somewhere, but the White House should not be that somewhere.”
1. The man lies all the time.
2. It is actually not all about the candidate. “It’s amazing how often I am right?” “I alone can fix this.” “I have a big brain.” “I advise myself.” “I am very, very rich.” Donald really said all these things. His ego seems to know no bounds. When Donald feels insulted by someone, he obsesses without control. He fusses, he fumes, and he says unbelievably inappropriate things. He is in his glory when he can bully his way to a result he covets.
3. U.S. presidents are by design not kings. The Constitution makes them share power. Donald Trump who uses the “I” word more than anyone who has ever aspired to the job, has a brazenly authoritarian bent. He wants to be a “strongman,” not a president.
4. The devil IS in the details. “Winning so much we will get tired of winning,” “Make good deals with China,” or even “Make America great again” are slogans that don’t actually say anything.
5. Words matter. Everything is not a “disaster,” “stupid” or a “disgrace.” Neither is it “tremendous,” “huge,” “fantastic” or “amazing.” Everyone is not a “loser,” “low energy” or a “bimbo.” Talk of former presidents being liars ― or his favorite, “a disaster” ― and foreign dictators being great leaders does not advance the discourse.
6. Reading is good. So is studying. Donald Trump recently told us that he does not read much.
7. The new vocabulary we are adjusting to is not a good one. Xenophobe (intense dislike or fear of people from foreign countries); misogynist (strong prejudice against women); nativist (preference for established inhabitants as opposed to immigrants); fascist (authoritarian and dictatorial); bigot (intolerance for those with a different opinion); demagogue (inflaming passions based on popular desires not on rationale arguments); dystopian (describing a place, typically totalitarian, where everything is unpleasant and squalid); racist (oh, you know what this one is). We have all had to get the dictionary out to understand many of the not household terms that had to find their way into print to describe the unique phenomenon that is Donald Trump. The scary thing is that these strange words are at least close to the mark. What happened to statesmanlike, well-qualified, or even brilliant, as words we can use to describe people we want to elect to high office? Haven’t heard any of these associated with the Donald.
There are 20 points in all, each as cogent as any of those above.
From that famously ultra-liberal, Charles Krauthammer:
“Trump’s latest gaffe shows clearly how unfit he is for the presidency. Donald Trump, the man who defied every political rule and prevailed to win his party’s nomination, last week took on perhaps the most sacred political rule of all: Never attack a Gold Star family. Not just because it alienates a vital constituency but because it reveals a shocking absence of elementary decency and of natural empathy for the most profound of human sorrows — parental grief.
Why did Trump do it? It wasn’t a mistake. It was a revelation. It’s that he can’t help himself. His governing rule in life is to strike back when attacked, disrespected, or even slighted. To understand Trump, you have to grasp the General Theory: He judges every action, every pronouncement, every person by a single criterion — whether or not it/he is “nice” to Trump.
Pertaining specifically to the post:
“Wisconsin’s top three Republicans are skipping Donald Trump’s visit to Green Bay. Walker, Ryan and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson are all taking a pass on appearing with Trump on Friday.”
A “divider” like GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will have a hard time winning Ohio, an important battleground that could help decide the election in November, said Buckeye State Gov. John Kasich, a former Republican presidential candidate.
“Ohio’s a snapshot of the country. People in Ohio want to see a positive agenda, a positive way to move forward.”
That’s politico-talk for “you will get no help from the GOP machine in OH.”
“From that famously ultra-liberal, Charles Krauthammer:”
Another neocon who wants more wars for Israel. Hillary has virtually promised those, and Trump is ‘squishy’ on the issue.
Regarding Walker, Ryan, and Johnson; the first two are total dogbreaths. Johnson I know nothing about and am not going to waste a minute looking. Trump kicking them in the teeth is something to applaud if he is willing to take his lumps from the blowback.
Whether willfully or not, you missed the point entirely. The comment went directly to Trump’s character. If the same comment came from Noam Chomsky, you would dismiss it too.
In case you haven’t yet taken notice this blog site is generally populated by adults with a reasonable point of view. Yes, they often disagree with one another, and often they provide some reasonable link or reference to data or genuinely expert opinion to support their perspective in a difference of those opinions. You don’t fit. Your comments are, at best, sophomoric, though I may be giving you too much credit with that. Childish is the word that comes to mind.
If you like Trump that’s fine. You don’t have to prove anything about him in support of your preference. What you don’t have the right to do is to waste digital space with jibberish, which is what you’re doing here at Angry Bear
To Jack August 5, 2016 4:46 pm:
I’m guessing you don’t read this forum very closely – I’ve stated at least once that I believe a Trump presidency would be a disaster.
I am dismayed by the tactics being used to trample him, especially given the nature of the other candidate. And how those tactics, if successful, are a harbinger for the future when President Hillary starts agitating for the wars she has already basically promised.
On another thread there was this bit of wisdom I’m cut/pasting below:
“Now we have a Presidential candidate who asks, “if we have them, why can’t we use them?” The naïve ignorance of those who blindly support this soulless, megalomaniacal creep is repulsive. Do I want to see him defeated? No, I want to see his political guts stomped out.”
No links, of course. Those might well have shown that this put-down used a totally out-of-context quote or paraphrase.
What’s missing on that thread are any remarks by a poster named “Jack”. No condemnation whatever.
If the owner of this forum is put out by my posting, he or she will invite me to leave. Or block my posts. The latter has happened before. I understand that on the Daily Kos site no criticisms of Hillary are permitted at all since the end of the Primary. It’s the Kos way or the highway. If this turns out to be an exclusively Hillary site like the Kos one, I’ll take down the bookmark and move on.
In the meantime, if you consider me to be a yammerhead, just skip over what I write. I seldom examine the scribblings of those I’ve identified as such, and very seldom write a response to them.
Jesus, I’ve only posted this about three times.
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them,” Scarborough said on his “Morning Joe” program.
Here’s the link:
It contains the video – the whole comment, the whole context, the whole tone. It took me about 2 minutes to find it. If you doubted the authenticity, you could have looked it up for yourself. You can view it. You can read it. But somehow I’m sure you’ll still find a way to deny it.
And since you brought it up, any Presidential candidate at any time of any party who speaks so casually and so ignorantly about using nuclear weapons should have his political guts stomped out before he has the power to reduce humanity to a heap of smoldering ash.
I can’t help but notice that you completely ignored the comments Trump so cavalierly made about using nukes. Don’t worry. I understand. If I were a Trump supporter who continually implies that the West is secretly plotting to launch a nuclear attack on Russia but was given direct irrefutable evidence (I have those links, too) that the only one threatening to use them was my candidate, I’d duck for cover too.
Your consistent anti-American, pro-Trump, pro-Russia line is deeply suspicious. Is there anything about your “home country” that you appreciate?
A right-wing nutcase makes a claim, therefore it must be true. Especially since he didn’t mention it for months.
In the future whatever Joe says about Hillary – or anything else – must also be true. Especially if it involves anonymous sources. Any claim whatever which he sits on until it’s ripe.
Unless that newly minted fact or revelation is inconvenient. In which case Joe reverts to right-wing nutcase.
By the bye, a nice video I saw was of Joe listening to a guest talking about a Winston Churchill quote which incorporated “Huns”, at which time he started squealing like a stuck pig about being called a NAZI! When he finally figured out that “Hun” does not mean “Nazi”, he quickly changed the subject.
Real rocket scientist, old Joe.
Bluff and bluster, ad hominem and misdirection.
How about a direct response to what Trump said about using nukes?
Apparently rightwingnutcases quoting anonymous sources is nothing to worry about, so I took a few minutes to find out if there was any reliable collection of actual sayings by Trump on the subject.
Those are a few which are very probably accurate.
Not that we know if Trump asked the unnamed adviser anything. Nor the context. The private adviser was presumably hired to educate The Donald, and as a student Trump would have asked many questions. He certainly knew the US has beaucoup nukes, and as president he’d have to know when they were expected to be used.
As it happens, the plan since WW2 was to use nukes if the Russians invaded Western Europe. There was no other way of stopping the massive Red Army. Nuclear weapons were stashed in Europe. In Turkey. And Lord only knows where else. Asking about their use – if that’s what happened (if it happened) was NOT a stupid question – unless the questioner is named Trump.
In the past few years there has been an ongoing program to spend about a trillion dollars to “upgrade” the nukes. So far as I know, Trump has had nothing to do with this at all. The object has been to make them more “useful” by installing dial-a-yield, extreme penetration, and again, Lord only knows what else. There has been a lot of concern this was done with the object of making the nukes more “usable”.
The current Corporate Media line is that only a dyed-in-the-wool neocon can be trusted to have final say with US nuclear weapons. You know, a person who has actual experience smashing little countries for fun and profit. Iraq. Libya. Syria. And the next show – Iran. Beginners might do it wrong – like not using the New Nukes at all. Or they might fly off the handle and use them in a reckless way. Dying from amateurish nuke weapon use is a whole lot worse than being vaporized by cold-blooded and steely-eyed experienced professionals.
Or so I’m endlessly told these days.