So now the FBI comes out and says the email thing was a nothing-burger. Again. After setting in motion a chain of events last week that significantly weakened the Clinton campaign. Again. I'm fairly confident it couldn't have brought her down at such a late date, against such a garbage fire of a campaign as Trump's anyway. BUT, I wonder if the FBI might have just tilted the balance enough to keep the Senate in Republican hands after all. We'll know in a couple of days, but I'm wondering what sort of consequences they should face if so? Or if it really just doesn't matter that a federal agency dipped their beaks into a national election just when the timing was worst for one side. Thoughts?
Pshaw. Does anything matter anymore? New prediction: There will be a movement in some states to secede from the Union after the election ... we're just voting tomorrow to choose which ones. I fear the country has a terminal case of irreconcilable differences. This election is the cliff hanger of all time, at least USA-wise. I don't know what's going to happen. I just know I'll be there in line, freezing my butt off, when the polls open at 6 AM tomorrow.
I think you're right, Mr. X. Clinton's lead was smaller but stubborn even before yesterday's announcement. That came too late to move things more than a point or so in her direction, probably. But that, combined with the fact that her superior GOTV effort should be worth anywhere from 2-4 points should translate to a Clinton win. Worth noting is that Trump, all through the primary season either matched or UNDER-performed his polls. This wasn't much noted at the time, as a state he was polling, say, +10 turned into a +6 win, which was still a win. That's what he noted (a.k.a. bragged and strutted about) and that's what the media mostly noted. And he was leading in the delegate count from NH on, so he had this aura of winning, which was a big part of his appeal, of course. But all the time he had a weak GOTV effort, even compared to Cruz and Kasich, (whose efforts pale next to Clinton's - just sayin'), and although in some states he matched his polls, in quite a few he underperformed them. Underperforming your polls by 4 points when you were up by 10 is not such a big deal. Underperforming your polls by 4 points when you're only up by 2, or tied, or trailing by 2 or 3 (and all the swing states are somewhere in there) can be a very big deal. So I think Clinton will win tomorrow. Which is not to say we can be complacent. I think we ALL realize that by now. But I think the FBI inserting itself 10 days ago - truly unprecedented, and there's a reason they're supposed to keep things like this quiet close to an election - probably created enough of a negative vibe to keep x-number of weak-but-leaning Democrats away from the polls and/or encourage weak-but-leaning Republicans to come out, that it could have cost the Democrats several senate seats in a year filled with close races. We'll see. Clearly, if Comey was going to send the letter 10 days ago, it was fine that he made that public, as obviously someone in the GOP Congress would have leaked it if he hadn't. But, having decided to send the letter (no doubt due to the huge pressure he received from Republicans after his July report), he should have made it much more clear that he hadn't at the time seen anything from Weiner's computer, and that it was likely that much or even all the Clinton emails on it would be duplicates (as indeed was the case), but they had to check just to make sure. Instead, he issued a statement with almost no detail or explanation that let everyone read into it whatever they wanted. And cast a huge shadow over the Clinton campaign during a critical 9-day period when millions of Americans were voting early. Much better would have been if he had waited till after the election to send the letter in the first place. The FBI conducts investigations all the time (that's what they do), and usually doesn't tell Congress about it until and unless they find anything notable. Yes, Republicans would have thrown a fit if they'd found out there was this investigation into Weiner's computer and Comey hadn't told them about it ahead of time, but he should have had the spine to take the inevitable criticism. He should have done the investigation to see if there was anything new, found out there wasn't, and then informed Congress of the fact that it was a nothing-burger after the election. That's typical procedure.
I wasn't aware of that. (in itself interesting, given the fact that I'm pretty much a news-junkie if there ever was one, and if I'd never realized there was probably some media-slant that made it so) - that could make for some interesting results come Tuesday to say the least. Frankly I've found it hard to swallow the notion that he's doing as well as they think he is...considering the fact that women and muslims and hispanics hate his breathing guts (and at least *some* of them might just decide to, you know, vote), and his support is pretty flaccid otherwise, I don't get why he's even in the range of a Romney or a McCain at all. When Japanese folks ask, all I can say is "angry white guys?". But yeah, the FBI thing was mishandled from the get-go, and there should be consequences for such shenanigans (particularly given the outcome).
Excellent commentary, and it hits on something that has been brewing in my head from many years. Specifically, the utility and veracity of polling. When a candidate in sitting high in the polls, supporters tend to become complacent, whereas the opponent’s supporters become more likely to turnout. So, if the poll is accurate, what should have been a 4 point win then becomes a squeaker or potential loss. In other words, the accurate polling data affected the election turnout thus creating inaccurate election results. For that reason, despite being interesting and making for great media headlines, I question the media’s reliance upon and the ultimate the value of polling data, and fear the negative sociopsychological effects it can have on an electorate. To be fair, it would be extremely difficult, even impossible for social scientists to perform any sort of study without data derived from polling questions. I just dislike the extent to which the media relies on them. Ultimately, the Trump surge over the past week might have been a painful blessing for Clinton and down-ticket politicians. A large plurality of polls showed her winning by a relatively comfortable margin. I even heard the term “landslide” mentioned a few times which sent a chill down my spine. Hopefully this little scare awoke those who might have been inclined to stay home to the horrific reality of a potential Trump victory, and compel them their polling locations. Fingers and toes are crossed. Excellent commentary, and hits on something that has been brewing in my head from many years. Specifically, the utility and veracity of polling. When a candidate in sitting high in the polls, supporters tend to become complacent, whereas the opponent’s supporters become more likely to turnout. So, if accurate, what should be 4 point win then becomes a squeaker or potential loss. In other words, the accurate polling data affected the election turnout thus creating inaccurate election results. For that reason, despite being interesting and making for great media headlines, I question the media’s reliance upon and ultimate the value of polling data, and fear the negative sociopsychological effects it can have on an electorate. To be fair, it would be extremely difficult, even impossible for social scientists to perform any sort of study without data derived from polling questions. I just dislike the extent to which the media relies on polls. Ultimately, the Trump surge over the past week might have been a painful blessing for Clinton and down-ticket politicians. A large plurality of polls showed her winning by a relatively comfortable margin. I even heard the term “landslide” mentioned a few times which sent a chill down my spine. Hopefully this little scare awoke those who might have been inclined to stay home to the horrific reality of a potential Trump win, and compel them their polling locations. Fingers and toes are crossed.
An interesting spin on the spin...and even more interesting (if uncanny) speculation of "what might have been". Fascinating to contemplate it all, but as they say...the only polls that matter are the ones we'll see soon enough. Frankly, I'm feeling a lot more comfortable thousands of miles away with even the *hint* of a possibility of a Trump win. I'll breathe a lot easier when they call it decisively and I see Trump's reaction with my own eyes, which I'm hoping will go something like this...
Every time I see that room, I look at the faux ceiling art and think of the Doonesbury strip (from probably 20 years ago) in which an artist was doing a ceiling for Trump, with the Donald himself as "Adam" a la the Sistine Chapel, and various cherubs and nymphs also having been painted. Trump walks in and says to the artist "Hey! Give those nymphs some hooters!"
I don't know if it was on the first years of the Apprentice, or one of those Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous shows, when they did a tour of Trump's place. So many times I've wanted to respond to Facebook posts talking about how Trump is the only one that will fight for them, by posting pictures of it and saying, "Yeah, that's the home of someone who understands your struggles." All of the candidates likely have homes that are larger, fancier finishes, show a designer touch, whatever...but like much of the rest of this political cycle, there's "normal parameters" and then there's that.
