Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hibernating Hillary Running Out the Clock

Hibernating Hillary Running Out the Clock

Leading by three touchdowns heading into the 4th Quarter of the game.

The current polling gives little rational reason to think Donald Trump will win in November.

No matter how you slice it — national 4-way, national head-to-head, battleground states, electoral college, unfavorability — Trump is deeply underwater, as this polling average chart at Real Clear Politics today shows:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The trends are not any better for Trump than the averages. The two weeks after the Republican Convention were a complete disaster for Trump, from which he has not yet recovered:

RCP Presidential Polling Trend Clinton v Trump 8-24-2016

RCP Presidential Polling Trend Clinton v Trump v Johnson v Stein 8-24-2016

You could argue that the polls are rigged or skewed. Because that worked so well in 2012.

Or you could argue that there are a lot of first time Trump voters out there who are not surveyed in polls. But where is the evidence of that? There’s some anecdotal evidence of Republicans doing better at registering new voters, but it’s doubtful it would be in large enough numbers to swing an election.

To use the football analogy, we’re at the end of the 3rd Quarter, and on Labor Day the 4th Quarter starts. Hillary is up by three touchdowns.

Yes, of course, anything is possible.

And we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate considered untrustworthy and dishonest, who also is one of the worst campaigners in history, someone who fails to inspire and epitomizes crony capitalism. How she got to the end of the 3rd Quarter with such a big lead was the result of repeated and devastating turnovers by the Trump side.

Hillary isn’t winning, Trump is losing through self-inflicted damage that may be irreversible.

At this point, Trump is losing people who were open to him, as this Luntz focus group indicated:

Logically looking at the situation, Hillary should be playing to avoid turnovers and to run out the clock.

Which according to Politico, is her strategy, Hillary Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy:

She is not planning on sitting for another televised armchair confessional to rehash regrets about a private email server. Nor is the campaign setting up the kind of war room employed last year to discredit a book that aimed to expose a quid-pro-quo relationship between Clinton Foundation donors and State Department officials.

With 75 days until Election Day and new emails once again casting a pall over her campaign, Hillary Clinton aims to “run out the clock,” confidants say, on the latest chapters of the overlapping controversies that have dogged her campaign since the start.

According to allies and operatives close to the campaign, Clinton’s team thinks “they can ride out” any negative reaction to a set of new emails that show Clinton Foundation officials trying to set up State Department meetings for donors during her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat.

“That doesn’t mean no response,” one Clinton team insider said, “but a muted one rather than a five-alarm fire.”

It’s a strategy borne, in part, of a belief held deeply by Clinton herself that the email controversy is a fake scandal and that voters are as sick of it as the candidate herself — and by the profound weaknesses of Clinton’s opponent.

If I were in Hillary’s position I’d run out the clock as well, and hope that lightning doesn’t strike the field.

That lightning could be some legal action against Hillary by the feds, something that should have happened already but didn’t. Maybe a local U.S. Attorney will go rogue, but there’s no reason to think the FBI or DOJ is going to do anything dramatic prior to the election.

Maybe the Russkies will drop the big one on Hillary’s campaign in the form of some blockbuster email. But it would have to be a thermonuclear email at this point to swing the election.

Or Trump could score big wins in the debates, and change perceptions overnight. That’s a more likely scenario than an external force intervening, particularly if Trump does the unexpected and patches together a few good weeks and the polls tighten.

I don’t think more State Department cronyism email revelations will make a difference unless it is something so simple on its face and so insanely outrageous that it will transcend the normal Clinton corruptocracy. More drip, drip could help tighten the polls, but it’s going to take more than that.

Sleaze and the stench of corruption is baked into the Clinton candidacy already. Democrats don’t care, and neither does Hollywood and the mainstream media.

So Hillary is hibernating. It’s one of the few things she does well.

Meanwhile, to give solace to those facing a harsh reality, there’s a risk to Hillary running out the clock. She may wake up in late October and find that her overwhelming lead has narrowed, and that it’s a game again. That will depend on Trump executing a comeback strategy, not just winging it, and avoiding more unforced errors and fumbles.

Because there’s a catch to trying to run out the clock.

And miracles happen.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

DieJustAsHappy | August 24, 2016 at 7:24 pm

It has been demonstrated, as I recall, that when Hillary is out front her poll numbers actually go down. Besides, when she hibernates, most of the media is willing to run her campaign for her.

However the outcome of Election 2016, I do not believe it will bring an end to these past contentious years. Rather, there will be at least four more.

I imagine secondwind will be needing another crate of these….

http://unsavoryagents.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/trump_dicks_web-2.jpg

“The current polling gives little rational reason to think Donald Trump will win in November.”

TRANSLATION: All hope is lost! We’re DOOOOOMED!!!

Oh, puh-LEASE!

Most of those polls (and subsequently, the RCP polls of polls) are “weighted” to favor the Dems. To ignore that is to be the irrational one.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Kauf Buch. | August 24, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    Oh puh-lease with the “polls don’t matter” crap. Jacobson is 100% right here. If the election was held today, Trump loses, simple as that. Trump needs to blow away Hillary in the debates (which really shouldn’t be a challenge). The debates are when he has a chance to make her fumble, otherwise she will just run out the clock.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Kauf Buch. | August 24, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    I’ll also add, Trump should be wary of the debates. Not because of Clinton, but because of the people running and moderating the debates. They will pull out all stops to cover for Hillary. If I was a DNC planner I’d pick the most obnoxious moderators and have them try and egg Trump into fights with the moderators. It will keep the spotlight off Hillary and allow the news cycle to focus on petty squabbles between Trump and moderators, something that doesn’t help him or hurt her. Trump will need to avoid the traps and refocus attention on Clinton.

      Trump can’t put together two consecutive rational sentences on policy, the man is ignorant and nearly incoherent. He got by on short sound-bite sloganeering in debates with many candidates and limited time for each. My dog could make him look like a fool in a one-on-one debate.

      Hillary isn’t very well spoken but even she will make him look like an ignorant fool. And that’s before the questioners hit him with details on Trump University and his history of deceit.

        murkyv in reply to Estragon. | August 25, 2016 at 12:35 am

        How many buildings in the world have your name on them?

        Although I suppose “Asshole Towers” just doesn’t have quite the ring to it.

          Quite apart from your unnecessary ad hominem here, I don’t understand the argument that Trump has had success in business and should therefore be president. Arguably, the most successful American businessman is Bill Gates (he’s the most successful in the world, not just in America, but I think we can both agree he’d be a horrible president). Trump doesn’t even make the top 300 in a list of the world’s most wealthy people, and the list includes a lot of Americans (Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, nanny Bloomberg, George Soros, among others.). If your argument is that we need to elect the most successful businessman around, then Trump doesn’t come close. He’s not even the most successful Republican businessman (the Kochs, Rupert Murdock, and on).

          If you really wanted to elect the most successful businessman to be president, it would be Bill Gates. If the top 10 matter, then you include Bezos, Buffett, Zuckerberg, and Bloomberg. This is, in other words, a silly reason to support a person’s candidacy because you’d never say” “Oh! That Bill Gates, he’s so successful and such a job creator–he should be president right now! Sign me up to vote for Gates!”

          Anyway, I’m not picking on you; I just find this a distinctly unconvincing argument. Any argument that claims that Trump is perfect for the presidency because he’s so successful in business must address why the hundreds of more successful businessmen and job creators are not perfect based on that measure.

          mailman in reply to murkyv. | August 25, 2016 at 5:26 am

          Fizzy Slippers…I think what you don’t want to understand is that generally successful people are exactly that…successfull at EVERYTHING they do.

          Trump has been majorly successful in his business life, and unlike Clinton, has knowledge and experience from that success that translates broadly to many things in life.

          The flip side is Clinton has been successful at being a failure all her life. EVERYTHING she has touched has been a failure. Benghazi and the aftermath of her coverup, the seedy dealings between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation and EVEN the Clinton Foundation itself…all of these things should be screaming at you that she is not a fit person for the Presidency.

          But know, many people like yourself will only ever see the little letter after her name and vote for that regardless of how utterly catastrophic she has been in her professional life.

          Mailman

          No one is successful at, to quote you, “EVERYTHING they do.” Literally. No one. And yes, that includes Trump. Setting aside his many failed marriages and even more numerous affairs, the long long list of his many many failed business ventures shows that. Off the top of my head: Trump vodka, Trump airlines, Trump steaks, Trump university, Trump magazine, Trump bike races (yes, really, look it up), Trump mortgage, Trump vitamins, and on. And on. None of these or a host of other Trump enterprises panned out, and he left people high and dry (not just investors, but employees whose paychecks bounced and/or who went to work only to find there was no electricity because the bill hadn’t been paid.). Trump has had an impressively long list of colossal failures. He’s the best, the greatest, at big ideas that flop hard in only a couple of years. The best! The greatest.

          If your point is that he’s been more successful in business than Hillary, you may have a point. Her “business” appears to be influence peddling and other assorted forms of corruption and lawlessness.

          If your point is that Trump is successful at EVERYTHING he does, you are in for a huge and potentially shattering series of disappointments, particularly if he actually wins in November and you realize that nothing he has said on the campaign trail is real and that everything he’s said for the decades leading up to this election cycle is, in fact, real. You may find yourself checking again and again to make sure that “little letter after his name” wasn’t actually a (D). To paraphrase Trump, there will be so much fail, you’ll be sick of failing.

          President Soros? President Buffett? President Bloomberg? President Zuckerberg?

          Should we just grant whoever is the richest person in America the right to run the country?

          Maybe let’s just give it to the Walton family. The United States of Walmart. Has a fun ring to it.

          murkyv in reply to murkyv. | August 25, 2016 at 12:32 pm

          I said what I did because I’ve yet to see a single comment from Estrogen on ANY topic on this forum since I’ve been ehre that he/she/it doesn’t show their backside.

          At least Rags occasionally has something worth upvoting, as long as it is not pertaining to do with this particular election.

    Estragon in reply to Kauf Buch. | August 24, 2016 at 11:26 pm

    Yes, and all the polls were “skewed” in 2012, too. Right.

    Funny how Trumpers would talk about nothing but polls in the primaries – or maybe that mythical wall he suckered them in with – but now dismiss them all except the one in every 20 or so that shows Trump in contention. Your wild fantasies are no more political reality than they are serious policy options.

    As many of us told you over and over again, Trump is going down, hard, and likely taking the Senate with him.

A think a “win” at this point would mean Trump dropping out, since the country loses big time if either of these gets in office.

    Milhouse in reply to jlronning. | August 24, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    While you’re wishing, wish for both of them to drop out. Or for something to happen to both of them. Preferably indictments, but it’s a bit late for that. It’s not too late for a meteorite to hit the first debate site, though.

This may be a bad year to run out the clock, as 2016 has been anything besides normal.

In other words, there may be more shoes to drop before this saga concludes.

If Trump can show in the debates he is not the dangerous person that Clinton, and other fearmongers, have described, and he starts to build momentum, who knows? It’s not like Clinton can is a superstar that can turn it on again in an instant.

1. There are a lot of unexpected Trump supporters out there, but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they are not included in the polls. That notion is pure wishful thinking, without even a single fact to support it. No, the polls are not weighted, they’re not rigged, and they know their business. There is no Bradley effect. The “hidden” Trump voters are already included in the numbers reported, and they’re not enough.

2. That said, my aunt sees a fair number of home help workers in Brooklyn NY, most of them black, and she says every one of them has told her they’re voting for Trump.

3. If I were Clinton I’d try to manipulate Trump into refusing to come to the debates. I’d try to leak some information about the moderators being biased toward me, or say something nice about them, or let it slip that I already had the debates in the bag, anything to send Trump in a rage and have him cancel.

I’d expect to see the real attacks coming from theDemocrats coming in October, and I don’t see any indication that Trump is prepared. Prior to Schwarzenegger’s election, they dug up the Pumping Iron documentary and made it front page news. Prior to Bush’s election, he was hit once with the DUI arrest (true) and again with the forged documents on CBS saying he was AWOL (false). There’s almost always an October surprise.

The Clintons also have a history of moving to the right and disavowing those on the left prior to an election, and I doubt Trump is prepared for that either. While I doubt Hillary’s going to call for deportations or building a wall, this is the traditional time that Democrats start talking about growing the economy or getting tough on terrorism. Thus I believe things can and quite likely will get worse for Trump between now and election day.

I. Still, because the vote was split three ways (Bustamenta and McLintock), and because none of the alternatives were really compelling, he was get 48% of the vote and win with a comfortable margin.

Unfortunately for Trump, this remains a two way race, and Hillary Clinton too is a celebrity candidate of sorts – she may not be that well liked, but she doesn’t have to introduce herself to voters. Also all of the negative information about her seems to be out already, while for Trump its very possible that in October we’ll see some new allegations that he’s unprepared for.

er

Like Arnold, he has been subjected to a ton of negative press, but he’s brought a lot of it on himself also obviously. All

legacyrepublican | August 24, 2016 at 8:12 pm

The fact is that if Trump really wants to win, he needs to keep it to a very simple one line statement.

He just needs to have everyone keep saying, Your vote buys Trump, cash buys Hillary..

One single talking point. No stats, no corruption talk, and nothing else.

Just keep saying it again, and again, and again, and again.

And have his spokespeople keep saying it again, and again, and again anytime they are interviewed. And have every supporter say it again, and again, and again.

He built his empire on one single word, Trump.

Trump can win this election with one simple phrase that calls it what their difference is, corruption.

Paul In Sweden | August 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm

Third Quarter, the teams have been chosen and in September will face each other on the field for the FIRST TIME so that every American can compare Trump to Hillary side by side – Assuming Hillary can be helped out onto the debate stage.

Not for Nothin’ but my heart sunk when Romney on TV in front of the whole world folded against the tag team assaults by Obama and CNN’s Crowley. I kept looking at Romney’s face and hoping he would retort, stand his ground and slam Obama and Crowley with the facts and drag them through their distortions but it didn’t happen, just a pregnant pause. Romney folded, it was at that point I knew Romney as an individual did not have the backbone to engage as our POTUS. Romney was still better than Obama, but that moment t that debate changed my mind against Romney forever.

During the three coming debates, I believe there will be many moments that average Americans are polarized, more so in my opinion against Hillary.

Hey, Trump is a New Yorker like me, maybe I am biased, but he on the debate stage will not be like Romney, McCain or anyone of the previous candidates.

Calling “leading by three touchdowns heading into the 4th Quarter of the game” without either team facing off at the line of scrimmage seems to me premature. If not why the heck should we even hold election day in November?

Maybe we should just sit back now and forever and let the smartest people in the world tell us who they have chosen to be our leaders.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Paul In Sweden. | August 24, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    As far as Romney is concerned, I believe that some while after the election a report circulated concerning the difference in his demeanor in the second debate vs the first one. It was stated that advisers told Romney that he couldn’t talk to the POTUS, especially this particular black one, the way he did. (Recall that he did quite well in the first debate.) So, he needed to be careful of his approach in the second debate. As we know, he unfortunately took their advice.

    One aspect of Trump is that while not a politician he was a known quantity in the minds of any number of people. And, it’s my belief that many of them had a difficult time taking him seriously. Moreover, he hasn’t helped them change their minds.

To those like Paulie ;
As I explained at the beginning, it’s win- win 4 me. In spite of the professors gloomy prediction I’ll keep fighting. I’m not one to sit on the sidelines & bitch like a certain brand of #never T-rumper, “principled conservatives” like Paulie & certain others are prone to do when they don’t get their way.

Either way, one good conclusion will occur. That particular brand of “principled conservatism” will never again have the influence it seemingly had before Donald Trump & his supporters exposed it for the no show fraud it really is.

#never T-rump, “principled conservatism” elected Hillary Clinton if she does win. Say the margin is 10%, that margin is the optimal number of “principled conservatives” who not only sat out the election but did everything they could to undermine the candidate validly chosen by the participating voters in unprecedented numbers.

Do any of you who are rational really believe such a rump faction of determined losers can ever prevail in a national election? They’ll be lucky to get Ted Cruz reelected senator in Texas if Rick Perry choses to run against him in the GODP Texas primary.

Nothing but train wreck as far as the eye can see. Best chance to elect a principled conservative that we’ve had in a generation, but then …

You people re determined to fall into the trap that the anti-Trump forces have dug for you, aren’t you? Look, the polls are totally unreliable. Embrace that fact. Monmouth was just caught “weighing” the raw numbers, in Ohio, to change the polls to show Clinton leading, while Trump led in the raw numbers. Now this “weighing” is based entirely upon the assumptions of the pollster. In that case the pollster “assumed” that the turnout would be 29%R/33%D/37%I, rather than the 33.3%R/29.3%d/35.6%I that was actually polled. And, the methodology for “weighing the vote, which was used, was based upon past voting trends confined largely to party affiliation. Now, this might work in a contest which followed historical trends. However, this one does not. There has been a monstrous surge in first time voters, mainly for Trump. The enthusiasm of self identified Trump voters is very high, as shown by the turn-out for Trump’s rallies. Forget the polls, unless they show Trump in the lead. Considering the anti-Trump operation which the establishment is running, the only polls that will count will be those where people actually cast a ballot. The rest is all smoke and mirrors, at this point.

    “Forget the polls, unless they show Trump in the lead.”

    This is apparently the announcement being played non-stop on the Trump Train ever since the convention.

      Mr. Izz in reply to Amy in FL. | August 24, 2016 at 11:46 pm

      So, did you believe all the “polls” of Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush easily winning out for the Republicans? Did you believe the EXACT SAME POLLS that are out now saying Trump is losing that he would have no chance in the primaries?

      The polls are definitely skewed this time around. You would have to be willfully ignorant and blind to think otherwise.

It will be a cold, frosty day in hell before I let a poll decide my vote.

    I’m with you. I let principles and the record guide me.

    Therefore it’s a down-ballot year.

    2 voices of sanity in a desert of largely crybabies.
    Upvote for both.

      Not one person here is saying they’re casting their vote based on what any poll says. It’s merely a discussion of how bad the polling looks for Trump at this point in time.

        Paul: I assert that the polls are being used to drive a narrative and dispirit Trump supporters. I won’t take any seriously until the last debate has concluded.

        So, my statement is more or less there to highlight the fact that I am unmoved for my support, enthusiasm, or activism…nor will that change if 1000 such polls are published.

          While I can sympathize with this viewpoint, Leslie, particularly having held it myself in 2012, I’m not sure I agree with the underlying premise.

          Yes, the polls are being touted far and wide to, at least in part, discourage Trump voters and almost certainly with the hope of making them stay home come November. If he were leading, we’d see very very little coverage of them; they’d be buried on page 23b and mentioned as an aside in the media and/or framed as being indicative of the voters not understanding how great Hillary is (or how damaging and scary Trump is, etc.). Whatever the media spin, it would be spinning like crazy.

          However, the prevalent view of Trump supporters seems to be that the polls themselves are “rigged” and are inaccurate. That, I think, is a stretch.

          Trump really screwed up after the GOP national convention, and he just kept on digging. The polls reflect, as the professor notes, that he is losing people who were open to him or even supportive of him. He’s not losing them because the polls are showing that he’ll lose in November; he’s losing them because of his own unforced errors.

          I do think he can turn it around; people, particularly these people he’s alienating, WANT to support him and vote for him. They just need to see some evidence that he’s worthy of their vote. His insistence on attacking polls, the media, and random “squirrels” the Dems toss out to incite him (he’s a hothead and very very predictable; they play him like a fiddle in this regard) is devastating his campaign . . . and his chances of winning in November.

          He’s already got your vote and that of a small percentage of the general electorate who make up the Trump train. He needs to worry about the people he’s alienating but who are–or were until the past several weeks–willing, even eager, to see him as a viable choice.

          That woman in the video the prof posted said that Trump was her first choice in the primaries but that she can no longer support him should have the Trump team shaking in their boots and doing everything within their power to get her back. He had her; she wanted him above all the other candidates in the field (16 other candidates!). She is the face of Trump’s future loss, if it’s not turned around, and that loss will indeed be self-inflicted.

          Fuzzy: I didn’t say the polls were rigged. I assert they are unreliable because people haven’t finished sizing up either candidate fully.

          So, I say game on and we revisit where the polls are on Halloween…which is the proper day to look at scary things. 😀

          Hee! You have such an amazing sense of humor, Leslie! I loves you to pieces. 🙂

          Common Sense in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 25, 2016 at 8:27 am

          Leslie I think your assessment is 100% correct. I think Crooked Hillary has hit her high mark in the polls and if Trump stays on message he will continue to see better poll numbers and she will see her poll numbers dropping.

          Just watch for the real craziness from the left to start.
          Then you know the fear has set in. Look at Crooked Hillary’s speech today…. It’s starting! Last night on CNN the lefty’s were screaming that Trump is a racist with zero proof and zero credibility. They are going to throw anything they can with the help of the liars in the media.
          You would swear that some of the “news anchors” are the spokespeople for the Clinton campaign.

      Having reread Zackery’s response I retract my up vote for him & give it to Leslie instead.
      Can I do that professor?

        No. Just up vote Leslie. The “votes” aren’t rationed, and you can up or down vote as many comments as you wish on any given thread. The same people tend to vote the same way on every comment (too often, in my opinion, based on whether or not the commenter is known to support the same candidate as the up or down “voter”).

        If you want to retract something, though, how about retracting your particularly vile and offensive comment highlighting your brother’s apparently base and vulgar sense of “humor”? Or how about your comment in which you express the following: “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings & we will kill Candy Crowley.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? Kill her? Metaphorically, right? Even so, a retraction is definitely in order.

          Your hero & flock leader has repeatedly threatened to rape people in various bodily orifices, he’s repeatedly implied he would like me to perform oral sex on him. It ain’t gonna happen. I’ve never once heard you call him out for that. He repeatedly calls people who disagree with him liars. He’s very abusive & insulting. He demeans, dismisses, & mocks my & others integrity & principle’s. I’ve never heard any of you try to tone him down. Instead you give him up votes of support. I owe nothing to any of you. You can’t take my honest appraisal of who & what all of you phonies are?

          Frankly Fuzzy & any of the rest of you irrational loser’s, I don’t give a damn.

          secondwind, I will spare you the evaluation of the numerous grammatical errors in your comment because we all make typos and errors when quickly typing up responses (though you see fit to see them as “evidence” of “stupidity”) and address the substance of your comment.

          Rags has been an LI reader for as long as I can remember, maybe going back to the days when LI was on Blogger, so I am very familiar with Rags, and he and I have had numerous disagreements over the years. We’ve always shared our conflicting views and our rationale and then moved on (usually with no “give” on either side) to the next discussion without rancor. In fact, that’s how LI’s comment section always has been . . . until recently, that is.

          That he has moved more toward demeaning and dismissive discourse is, to me, clearly rooted in the way that the primaries and then the nomination of Trump have unfolded and as the alt right has flocked to LI . . . apparently to pick fights and attack people who are accustomed to sharing their ideas and opinions without being torn down, viciously attacked, and bullied. I’ve watched as the Trump fans have ganged up on and eventually silenced a lot of our commenters who’ve been here for as long as or longer than Rags. They began, as did Rags, trying to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue, but it became quickly apparent that intellectual discussion and analysis were not on the menu of the new Trump fan commenters. The comment section became (and still is) a battleground, and the majority of our readers simply stopped commenting (they’re still here–they’re just not willing to engage with the new influx of commenters who can’t express ideas and seem only to attack and belittle people.).

          Rags and a couple of others, refused to be so silenced and slid into some nastiness that is, I agree, beneath them. However, it is unreasonable to think you can perpetually attack and gang up on a single commenter and not get some of your own back.

          Point fingers all you like, but your comments are often vulgar and insulting and almost never address or engage the topic at hand. Since I last noted this, you have made an obvious effort to engage in normal discourse within discussion threads not on the topic of Trump, and sometimes, you even manage not to even mention Trump, Cruz, your super duper double top-secret mission, and the like. For this, I commend you. You can be an interesting person with insights to share and original points to make. That, however, is not your record here.

          Sadly, this comment is your norm.

          And your bizarre fixation on up and down votes is really puzzling. First (and as I’ve told you before), LI authors cannot give up and down votes, and yes, that includes editors. To simplify for you: Even if I wanted to, I could not cast an up or down vote on any comment on this site; well, I can, but a page refresh erases it. Second, the same people vote, only once, on each comment. You never take this into account in your tallies, though. Let me break it down for you: if you see five up votes on one comment you make and ten down votes, those are individual votes. If you see five up votes on your next comment, the chances are extremely high (above 90%) that those are the same people up voting your second comment. This means you “get” five up votes, not 10. All that said, however, the up and down votes are relatively meaningless these days because they are almost never on the content of a comment but are based on the commenter him or herself. Further, after a few weeks, the votes are not shown at all.

          As far as your “honest appraisal” goes: you could be less vitriolic and base, but as you’ve chosen not to be, don’t be surprised when others’ “honest appraisal” of you meets or exceeds your own in terms of rhetoric, tone, and content. That’s how these things go, right? “I kicked Johnny in the shin, and he then punched me in the face! He’s WRONG!!!”

          You can’t control Rags, but you can, one would hope, control yourself. You may be surprised at how rational and engaging our long-time readers are when not under a near-constant barrage of nastiness and ad hominem attacks. Yes, this does include Rags.

          legacyrepublican in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | August 25, 2016 at 3:37 am

          Fuzzy. I heartily agree about Rags. And I think your overall assessment is spot on.

          Rags has superb reasoning and his red flags have to be listened to because Rags is thorough and a thinker. He is not a robot.

          I like reading his posts because he makes me think and laugh and reflect.

          But I haven’t enjoyed Rags being attacked at all!

          And I haven’t been able to talk about my concerns because of the vitriol of the many Trumpsters lately who go after those they feel threatened by free speech.

          For example, I was very disturbed by Trump’s comment the morning after his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention about Ted Cruz.

          Trump said that if Ted Cruz endorsed him he would refuse it. That is plain petty and dumb. Trump looked small.

          The problem is that bullies like Secondwind act like Trump as well. They think they can just say the word Hillary and it erases everything.

          If Trump really wants to win, stop playing the bully all the time. Secondwind, if you want to win, stop playing the bully all the time.

          Start reaching out to the Ted Cruz people and building a bridge of support.

          Ted Cruz said what he wanted which was an apology for going after his dad and his wife. Then Trump should have gotten out the next day and say that it was wrong and that he should have left family out. Say kind words about what Ted did in trying to defeat the Washington establishment.

          Instead, Trump not only renewed his attack on Cruz, he slammed the door on him saying that there was no forgiveness.

          Telling Cruz that he is welcome to join him anytime would say volumes to someone like myself.

          Keeping the door open would have been presidential.

          Trump needs to show the people he is losing that he can mend fences in addition to building a wall.

          LegacyRepublican, thanks. 🙂 I’ve not enjoyed the attacks on Rags (or Jennifer, Edge, and others who “dare” to think ill of Trump), either, and I understand completely your feeling reticent about expressing your own viewpoint. That any reader feels this way saddens me, though; our LI community is composed of amazing thinkers and truly wonderful people, and I miss the days when divergent thoughts and ideas were engaged and explored rather than shouted down and their authors bullied into silence or backed into a corner and forced to fight back in ways that are not reflective of their long-established civility and thoughtfulness.

          As far as Trump’s childish “feud” with Cruz goes, that’s just . . . childishness on Trump’s part. He went too far, yet he clearly didn’t get that. He honestly believed that Cruz would forget the personal attacks and bizarre lies about his father and would rally behind Trump. This, to me, is indicative of a basic lack of human decency and a temperament that hasn’t developed beyond, as Trump has boasted, his first-grade self. Needless to say, such a person is, in my estimation, completely unfit for our great nation’s highest office.

          What really struck me, though, was when Trump went on a rampage against Bernie for “selling out” and endorsing Hillary at the Dem convention. Trump went on and on about how Bernie had let down his supporters by doing this and about how Bernie had “caved.” It was all said, mind, without the slightest hint of irony; he literally didn’t understand or even consider that Cruz had embodied all that Trump claimed he admired in his tirades against Bernie’s “sell out.” Trump claimed that Sanders “was not true to himself” and that he let down his supporters by selling out and endorsing Hillary. Cruz did not sell out, he did not let us down, and he remained true to himself by not jumping on the Trump train.

          Rather than hail Cruz’s principles and the very backbone he claimed Bernie lacked, Trump stomped around, sticking out his trademark pouty lip, and whimpered about how Cruz was so horrible and such a traitor. It was a bizarre spectacle, and I was particularly struck by how completely unaware Trump seemed that he was berating Bernie for doing exactly what Cruz refused to do (Bernie, Trump raged, in endorsing Hillary at the Democrat convention was not true to himself, sold out, caved, and let down his supporters; Cruz, in not endorsing Trump, remained true to himself and didn’t “sell out” or “cave” or “let down” his supporters).

          This went far beyond hypocrisy and landed firmly in some fantasy land where behavior that Trump instinctively sees as wrong (selling out, being untrue to oneself, etc.) is only so when it does not involve His Cheetoness. Everyone, of course, should sell out and cave in and let down supporters while being untrue to him or herself in the service of the Great Orange One.

          Anyway, Trump will never forgive Cruz for failing to forgive, unprompted and without an apology, Trump’s outrageous lies and mean-spiritedness. If I weren’t already #NeverTrump, this would tell me all I need to know about Trump’s character and his egomaniacal inability to empathize with or otherwise understand anything that does not comport to his childish view of his own greatness.

          That said, sure, if in some alternate universe Trump were a man of character and dignity and had acted as and said what you suggest–what most normal people would do and say, it would go a long way to dispelling many voters’ doubts. Sadly, I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for maturity, humility, or common decency from this man-child.

          I hope this shows up at the end as I intend it to.

          Do both of you really expect me to read through that extensive paragraph after paragraph, line after line after line of crap you’ve laid out? I repeat yet again, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.

          I don’t hate any of you. I don’t know what to do with you. I & others have tried to get through to you for months & you’ll have nothing to do with it. I’ll not go through all that again just to have you shoot it down again.

          I think you’re all scared. Year after year, decade after decade you’ve been able to slough off what’s been happening in this country. I think all of you now believe what I’ve told you about myself. From that perspective I’ve been warning people for the last 40 years & no one would listen.

          I’m mostly off the grid, I’ve been 40 years in preparation for what’s now coming to pass. None of you have. You talk big talk now, but if we continue as we are now, when final crunch does come, most of you will fold. You’ve folded to this point, why should you change?

          What the hell do you think you’re doing if it’s not another variation of folding? You’re helping elect a woman who is a lifelong criminal for Gods sake! You’re all scared out of your asses!

          I can’t do much more of this. If you’re hellbent on going through with this I can’t stop you so have at it. Bring it all on & spend the rest of your lives dealing with the realization of what you’ve done. My conscience is clear, I’ve fought the battle for my entire adult life. You can’t do a Goddamn thing to me.

          Live with Hillary Clinton & what will follow from it. I’ll be out there fighting her just as I’ve fought what you’ve been bringing on all my life. You built her, you’re helping to elect her, you own her.

Trump is doing a fine job exposing the media for what it is. It doesn’t help when #never T-rumper, “principled conservatives” both provide, echo, & amplify the media messages that are out there.
Trump is going with plan B. He’s given all you loser’s every opportunity to do what’s right. So he’s continuing to build a coalition in which you through your own choices play no part. There’s 2 1/2 months left & all of us that support Trump are all in with that goal.
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings & we will kill Candy Crowley. At this point it doesn’t really matter what you fellow travelers do.

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 7:39 am

    Ah, SAAAAwwweeeet. We can look forward to blissful silence from you and your fellow cultists!

    What a delightful prospect!

Short version: when faced with poor choices, you vote for the candidate that is not above the law.

If a President Trump gets out of line, the MSM will eviscerate him and the Establishment will begin impeachment hearings before his blood is dry.

If a President Clinton gets out of line, the MSM will censor the story and the Establishment will either cave or cover for her.

Hillary Clinton is above the law and thus should not be allowed to gain the power of the Executive Branch.

    Fen, this is the most convincing argument I’ve seen that a vote for Trump is not a vote for our Constitutional republic’s suicide:

    “If a President Trump gets out of line, the MSM will eviscerate him and the Establishment will begin impeachment hearings before his blood is dry.”

      Are you implying you have a certain sympathy with gutting Donald Trump? It certainly sounds like it. And you think you have the moral authority to pass judgment on me.
      Wow!

        You are becoming a parody of yourself, secondwind.

        You took a simple cliche and added your own special twist dealing with murdering a public figure. You wrote:

        “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings & we will kill Candy Crowley.”

        “It’s not over until the fat lady sings” is a cliche, a rhetorical device suggesting that one should hold out hope until there is no reason to do so any longer (the bitter end has been reached and loss is formalized). The cliche has nothing to do with murder or killing someone; you added that all by yourself. To make this an appropriate statement, one might conclude with “and we’ll make Candy Crowley sing.”

        Not genius, of course, but at least in line with the device you selected.

        Fen’s statement about the press “eviscerating” Trump is followed, logically and clearly figuratively, with the note about the GOP House impeaching him “before his blood”–from the press’s metaphorical “evisceration”–has dried. If the press were to literally eviscerate Trump, there would be no need for an impeachment because one cannot survive without one’s vital organs.

        “It’s not over until the fat lady sings” has nothing to do with death or murder or killing . . . until you make it so. Fen’s metaphor clearly has nothing to do with actual death, murder, or killing, and all I said was that she (or he) made a point that I found convincing in that Trump would definitely be held to account for whatever wackiness he chose to pursue from the WH while Hillary would not.

          I’ve obviously gotten to all of you. You’re turning yourselves inside out justifying what you’re doing, that’s all I ever try to do in what I do.
          Even if I disengage or you shut me out I’m essentially done. None of you can any longer be able to avoid what you’ve done & what you’ve become.
          Spend the rest of your lives living with that reality.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | August 25, 2016 at 7:50 am

          Poor old, broken nutter.

          I remember…it must be about two years ago…you coming on the site and openly declaring you were gunning for me. Me! Why, I’ve never understood, but you were out to break me and destroy my credibility. You said so.

          Just as a note, I demonstrate people are liars. If one of your cultists says I’m a “globalist”, I can easily return that lie by identifying it as a lie, and the teller a liar. I’m not calling names. I’m making a statement of fact.

          With you, I show you lie, and you know it. You warmly hate my guts for the demonstrations, but there’s a easy fix; stop lying.

          “I’ve obviously gotten to you…” If by “gotten to us” you mean making us sick and tired of your ignorant, juvenile, self-centered, unhinged, irrational bullshit, then yes, you have. Would you please just go away? I can’t speak for others, but I for one am sick and tired of you. And seriously, I think you need mental help. Given what you’ve said about your age, I would guess paranoid dementia might be setting in.

    dmi60ex in reply to Fen. | August 25, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    Fen
    I agree Trump would have to swim against too much resistance to do real damage . Hillary would go with the tide to more intrusive government and a packed Scotus.

    Republicans can keep him inline, somewhat , Hillary never . He is the lessor of two evils and that is all we have this year.

Trump was winning for the couple weeks after the R convention just like Hillary was “winning” for the couple weeks after the D convention.

Its called a “convention bounce”.

Really, Professor, you act like this is the first election you ever followed.

At this point in the cycle in ’08, McCain was winning – after the bump he got from naming Palin as VP.

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

And in other news, James Ussher has calculated that Creation began at 6 pm on Saturday, October 22, 4004 B.C.

The Most Reverend Archbishop arrived at that date via a respectably solid chain of reasoning … none of it involving polls.

From what I’ve seen, Trump supporters are very vocal so I’m not so sure I buy the argument that they’re not reporting their true preference to pollsters. But it is possible, I suppose.

Conservatives in the UK tend to outperform their polls because in general, Tory voters tend to be more likely to keep their preferences to themselves. And there have been a fair number of cases of non-white candidates underperforming the polls when running against white candidates (the so-called Bradley effect).

Also, David Duke voters were also known for outperforming polls, I’d assume because of the social stigma attached to him. (Just to be clear, no I don’t think Trump is David Duke.)

The thing is, there’s no way to prove a polling discrepancy exists until after an election, and there’s no way to know whether it will be there in the next election. So regardless of what Trump supporters are saying, its actually impossible for Trump to know if he’s outperforming or underperforming the reported poll numbers right now.

Who exactly is going to vote for HRC? The 10 people she has been getting to her rallies?

Trump isn’t Romney and the fact that Trump is getting such large attendances at his rallies in AUGUST should be a major concern to Democrats. This is August we are talking about here people…not October but August.

At the same time HRC isn’t Obama. People wanted to see Obama because he was popular. People aren’t going to see Clinton because…well…she just isn’t that popular.

Mind you people…this might all be a moot point if HRC…cough cough…doesn’t actually survive through to November! 🙂

    Trump has a relatively small core of enthusiastic supporters who like going to rallies. That’s awesome. But the YUUUUUUGE majority of American voters have never been to a political rally of any flavor, and have no desire ever to do so. There are far more of them than there are the die-hard screaming fanbois & girlz, and rally attendance is probably not a good proxy for divining their intentions come November.

My wife doesn’t Trump at all, but she said she is going to vote for him. Born the child of permanent residents in Cali who moved back to Mexico with her parents when she was two and moving back to the states at 26, she sees in Clinton the same kind of institutional corruption she grew up with in Mexico. In Trump she sees a potentially dangerous narcissist.

Not a hard choice. In Trump, the legislative branch and the Judicial branch will be forced to diminish the power of the Executive. In Clinton, the back of our dying republic is finally broken under the weight of corruption.

    amwick in reply to aerily. | August 25, 2016 at 8:47 am

    Look at that RCP national average number this morning. Hillary ahead 5.4 has dropped to 5. That is a 7% change in one day. What astounds me is that Hillary can go 265 without a press conference.. That is really hibernating.

Rick the Curmudgeon | August 25, 2016 at 11:37 pm

And we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate considered untrustworthy and dishonest, who also is one of the worst campaigners in history, someone who fails to inspire and epitomizes crony capitalism. How she got to the end of the 3rd Quarter with such a big lead was the result of repeated and devastating turnovers by the Trump side.

All the more mysterious when you consider the quarterback is playing with a trick knee and hasn’t seemed to be completely shaken off being sacked on the last play.

77 comments so far.
Lots of ‘I told you so’ from the #NT contingent.
Lots of glee at Trump’s impending loss.

But not one word from any of you geniuses on how you intend to deal with the disaster a Clinton presidency will be for the conservative cause you ‘claim’ to love. Not one word. Not – one – word.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | August 26, 2016 at 8:27 am

    Here’s two words….

    STUPID. Question.

    Here’s some more…

    It’s a vexed question, and as you phrase it insulting, accusatory, and you think it’s a killer. Which is laughable.

    What’s YOUR plan if Der Donald goes soft on immigration? Oh, wait….

    What if he goes Collectivst (he’s really already there) on gun control?

    What’s your plan? Hmm…??? Come on, right now, tell us. What?

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 10:27 am

      rags,
      if it’s necessary that I have a plan for what Trump MIGHT do, it’s far more necessary that you have a plan for what Clinton would CERTAINLY do. And you don’t have one. Do you deny that a Clinton presidency would be severely damaging to conservative causes? Do you deny that her supreme court appointments would be on the bench for decades and would negate conservative legislation? Are you in denial? Precisely how would Trump be worse than Clinton?

      You claim to love and cherish conservative values. If so, why don’t you have a plan to protect them from a Clinton presidency? Why is plan the only 4 letter word you disavow?

      Denial is NOT a plan. Denial by our side is how the left wins. I think you don’t have a plan because you can’t face the truth. If you start planning how to deal with a Clinton presidency, you come to the conclusion that the only effective way is to prevent it. And the only way to prevent it is to elect Trump. In any rational analysis, despite his flaws, Trump is always the better choice. But you are more interested in saving your pride than in saving conservativism. So you hide behind denial and pretend political suicide that gains us nothing is the preferred action. That’s what I think. And that’s why I asked you for your plan. And your unwillingness to answer tells me I’m right.

      Elections are not about perfect choices, they are about the best choice of what’s offered. Despite your claims, as of today, this election is binary – Trump or Clinton. You can’t make a case for Clinton. Your pride won’t let you vote for Trump. And you lack the courage to put aside your pride and vote to protect conservative interests. That’s why you don’t have a plan – you’re afraid to face the reality a plan forces on you.

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | August 26, 2016 at 10:38 am

        We disagree. And you’re full of shit.

        What’s your plan for when Hellary beats me Soft On Immigration?

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 11:15 am

          Unable to make an intelligent reply and lacking the courage to face the results of the policy he advocates, rags reverts to foul language and tries to deflect the discussion. What you advocate elects the worst candidate. That will have consequences. You lack the courage to address those consequences. You put yourself above the good of the conservative values you hypocritically claim to love. Conservativism can go to hell so long as rags sees Trump go down in flames.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 11:55 am

          Yah, no. Those are lies and you’re a liar.

          I don’t have time to help you beat your dead hobby horse. Your premise is stupid, and nobody is going to answer the question you keep stompy-footing around here with.

          Conservationism will survive EITHER of the stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist pukes this election cycle has stuck us with.

          Why? Because it works.

          What’s my plan? Wake up, be a good man, retain my rational mind, and teach.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 12:35 pm

          Six weeks ago, Trump was satan in the flesh. Worse than Hillary. Now, conservativism will survive either one. If you believe that, why not vote for Trump? Denying the enemy an easy victory is always good tactics. Conservatives would have more influence on court nominees than the 0 they would have with Clinton. Seems like a good idea. Can we count on you to do what’s right for conservative values? Or are hatred and denial still your motivations?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 12:38 pm

          For over a year, I’ve held the same position.

          I will NEVER vote for a Collectivist. Hate and denial are just your lies.

          Can we count on you ceasing to lie, and to beat your dead hobby horse?

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 1:10 pm

          What a self serving answer. All about you. But thank you for proving my point. You won’t vote for Trump even though it means Hillary wins. It’s not about conservativism, it’s about rags. You can’t describe how he is worse than Hillary because he isn’t, yet you’re willing to let her win. What principles are those? Your actions will elect the worst candidate. That’s not a lie, it’s a consequence. Your denial is the lie. You’re the liar, not me. I’m dealing in reality, you cling to your fantasy. A fantasy that says that political suicide is preferable to a partial victory.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 1:21 pm

          Well, how I vote is about me. It is about my conservative values. It’s my vote. Lying liar who lies.

          I won’t vote for EITHER Collectivist puke. You can. That’s on you.

          And you can’t bully me, or others like me, into running down your T-rumpian cattle chute with your lies, name-calling, and various other bullshit.

          And, another lie you told, I’ve NEVER suggested that T-rump is worse than, equal to, or any-other-flucking-thing as compared to Hellary. They are both Collectivists. That’s all I need to know. And I DO.

          I won’t vote for a Collectivist. You, apparently, will.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 1:59 pm

          “Conservationism will survive EITHER of the stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist pukes this election cycle has stuck us with.

          Why? Because it works.”

          Pathological only applies to your ignorance of reality.
          “Conservatism” is not winning, has not been winning, and damn sure isn’t getting a “win” with a Clinton at the helm.

          Was your vote for Romney because you thought he was a conservative, or was it because you thought he was at least marginally better than Obama? He sure as hell ain’t no conservative.

          I don’t care who you vote for, you’re a lost cause 🙂

          What you do here, however, is by default, acting as a Hillary cheerleader. You never, never ever mention the problems or difference of the Clinton crime syndicate. Bashing trump is all you do, and that leads to the crime syndicate having control of the largest lever in government, once again, should you get your way. There are only two choices that can win, and neither is named Johnson or cruz.

          Trump doesn’t wear a white toga. Boohoo. Reagan didn’t either. And we’ve not had a conservative since Reagan in office. Not one. But I’m quite sure you voted for every one of the republican shit sandwiches foisted upon us, Bush, Dole, Bush 2, McCain, + Romney. So cry me a river, it’s as hypocritical as one can get.

          You’ll enjoy president hellary. Her 1st, 2nd, and 3rd SC judges will be gun grabbers. And that is a fact. In the next 4 years at least 10million illegals will cross the border. Count on it.

          Conservatism will not recover.

          So thanks.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 2:03 pm

          You just keep proving my point.

          A man who attacks his opponents with the name calling that is your stock in trade has no standing to complain when those same tactics are used against him. You just continue to show what an immature child you are. You throw out the bully word after you use the tactic. Too bad, so sad, not buying it.

          You won’t vote for a collectivist. That policy elects the greater evil. It’s a policy that does maximum damage to the conservative cause. A cause you claim to love. You’re putting yourself above the cause. Some lover you are.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 2:24 pm

          Barry, you are a stinking liar. I’ve been posting NOTHING but bad stuff about Hellary for YEARS, and as recently as yesterday.

          VAPigman, you started this, and you can’t seem to let people well enough alone. Nobody…NOOOOOOOBODY…needs to jump to your demand for a plan, as I’ve explicated here.

          BOTH of you can’t keep shut about people who are not doing the GroupThink Polka with you. I won’t. Neither will others of principle. Suck me.

          Thanks, bois.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 3:31 pm

          “Barry, you are a stinking liar. I’ve been posting NOTHING but bad stuff about Hellary for YEARS, and as recently as yesterday.”

          Not 1/10th what you post about Trump. I might stink, but I’m not a liar. When you use that word it means as much as a leftie calling me a “racist”. It’s meaningless, just your signature.

          But yes, “never, ever” is incorrect. My mistake.

          “Neither will others of principle.”

          You’ve constantly confused principle with the voice in your head. You voted Romney because of principle I suppose…

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2016 at 4:23 pm

          You advocate an action that puts the worst candidate in office. That’s what demands that you produce a plan. To explain why letting Hillary win is the best course and how you deal with the fallout of the action YOU ADVOCATE. It’s called taking responsibility for your actions. It’s what adults do. That’s what demands an explanation and plan. No one forced you to come here and spew your vile filth on everyone who supports Trump. But you did. You voluntarily stuck your nose into the fight. Don’t blame me because you didn’t come prepared. Don’t blame me because you won’t face the consequences of your choices. Your problems are because you are in denial, not because I point it out.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend