So the Trumpistas in Reddit’s The_Donald are trying to figure out just why God Emperor Trump is plunging in the polls even though he continues to draw big crowds of scary and confused white people wherever he goes.
Apparently unable to conceive that Trump’s brand of belligerent narcisissism might be starting to wear thin for many people, many in the subreddit have concluded, as one much-upvoted comment alleges, that evil cuck pollsters “are over representing democrats to discourage Trump supporters.”
One commenter suggests that this eeevil alleged strategy may backfire, thus transforming Trump’s plunging poll numbers into something that’s … GOOD FOR TRUMP.
![o2toauUT 6 points 8 hours ago It will backfire on them unless they're planning on election fraud. If people think Hillary is a shoein they won't even bother to vote because most people who vote for her don't like Hillary, they just don't want Trump. If the news shows her up by 10 they will stay home. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]LhtfootUSA 4 points 2 hours ago Wait... So, this could be an example of Trump playing 84 dimensional interstellar Slovakian guerrilla warfare tactics?](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/trumpinterstellar.png?resize=498%2C387&ssl=1)
Yes, that’s right: Trump could be losing in the polls ON PURPOSE. Because he’s THAT SMART.
For those who want the good news directly, here’s 538’s current forecast.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I find 538 to be as reassuring as it eventually became in 2008 and 2012, but I hope this doesn’t end in Trump dropping out or being ousted for someone like Paul Ryan or Romney. Not sure how likely that is at this point, but we have a while to go! But meh, she could probably still beat them too.
This has nothing to do with Trump, but someone’s started a Change.org petition to ban fanboys from the internet after GamerGate and Ghostbusters: https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-ban-fanboys-from-the-internet?recruiter=582120476&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink
The debates can’t come soon enough
@Film Runner
Change.org needs some fuckin moderation…
Given how close to the election it is, I don’t think that they’d be able to pull off a switch. Some of the state deadlines have passed already, with most being in the next month. I’m not an expert, that’s what I found with a Google search. So, technically they could, just not in every state, which would really hurt their chances come fall. Honestly, Trump won the nomination, and if there’s Republicans mad about that, then maybe those people need to take a good long look at themselves and why they’ve been voting for a party that’s all about bigotry and fascism. So much easier to gloss over those code words but not easy to pretend you don’t notice it when it’s laid bare…
And I so very hope that there’s debates. If Trump doesn’t show up, Clinton should still be asked questions.
Don’t expect this to be enough to houst Trump from the race. Nate Silver had Obama Romney on 85%/15% for most of the campaign and that didn’t stop everybody in the GOP and the media from clamoring it “too close to call”. I would be surprised if the GOP strategists decided to do the unprecedented just based on that model when most political wonks don’t buy Silver’s model (because they don’t understand it).
Also, I think Trump is the best shot of the GOP.
That’s sad for them, of course. But they have slided into irrelevance, and reality is catching up to them.
I really hope they don’t keep screaming about “Election fraud”.
The last thing America needs is more Militias and Sovereign Citizens armed, angry and feeling justified in the use of violence against an “illegitimate” government.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.ca/2016/08/where-is-blue-lives-matter-when-white.html
A while ago I was talking about how worried about Trump I was.
I am no longer worried about Trump. While I’m not one for political dynasties, I’m very happy that Hillary is very likely going to be the next president, and I think she’ll do well, especially in fighting for equality and justice for the disenfranchised. I also hope that the progressives who don’t like her because of her corporate ties will put their shoulders into it and hold her to the promises that Bernie got onto the Democratic platform.
(I also hope the Republican party dissolves quickly, and either is reborn as an *actual* conservative movement, or that the Democrats split into progressive and conservative wings)
As for the Trumpistas in the OP, I hope they learn that their toxic petulance doesn’t win them any friends in the real world.
I am still worried about Trump. Trump appeal to voters who aren’t that numerous, but who do turn up to vote, so an accident is still well within the realm of the possible.
We can’t Dump the Mump soon enough!
I love how his name rhymes with so many other words.
@Scildfreja The fact that he got this far still troubles me.
Definitely made me think of Romney and all that correction factor nonsense from 4 years ago. Still I won’t feel comfortable until he goes down in orange flames.
Who would have thought that attacking the parents of a war hero, a baby, the leaders of his own party, saying incredibly dumb stuff about purple hearts, and generally acting like a tool instead of focusing on his opponent would be a bad strategy?
At this point I don’t just want Clinton to win I want a Nixon on McGovern or Reagan on Mondale level win. If Trump continues to act like Trump, I don’t think its outside the realm of possibility.
I think that Trump tries to weasel out of the debates, but if he does show up I am willing to bet 20 real American dollars that he calls Clinton a B or a C on live television.
@Sporkey
Honestly, nothing would be better for Hill than Trump ditching the debate and her just answering questions alone. Not only is she pretty good in a debate, but she’ll be able to lay out her agenda unchallenged. And the mods will be more likely to softball her, even unconsciously, cos they’ll hate that Trump left them in the lurch
It’s not a dynasty, though. Dynasties are multigenerational nepotism; the Clintons were two middle class kids who worked their way up to the top on their own merits and just happened to get married along the way.
Unskewed Polls was fucking hilarious (and a perfect example of what happens when right-wing yelling heads believe their own lies). I kinda hope it comes back for round two, maybe even with its own brand of popcorn.
Drumpf! Who else could be an expert on “The Art of the Deal” while losing money at it (and getting bad deals, to boot)? No wonder his losing tendency is being spun as a win. It’s literally all he’s ever known how to do: Fake it and don’t make it.
I can’t vote, but if I could I would vote for Hilary.
I doubt her integrity and her financial ties and yeah, I wanted Bernie to get it. But Hilary will likely maintain a form of the status quo in the states; also, she’s competent enough that I suspect she can quell the alt-righ fascist uprising (though who really knows how many/how organized they are, hoping for mostly bluster tho).
I hope minimal damage is ultimately done after election day
@Rainbear
I’m so tired of hearing how untrustworthy Hillary Clinton is. She had a better Politifact rating than Bernie Sanders did, far better than Trump could ever hope for and that “untrustworthy” lie has been raising its ugly head every time she tries to run for office for more than a decade. The worst part is I hear people who otherwise consider themselves progressive spitting these lies that have their origin in misogyny and mudslinging and not a single one of them has had a solid reason behind it. They’ve just heard it repeated and repeated until it sounds like the truth.
The same goes for her “financial ties”. The same ties Sanders has, and for longer than Clinton has, but somehow it doesn’t count because…? Because he’s a man??
Sorry to rant at you like this, but I’m sick to fucking death of having to swallow this sexist bullshit just so I don’t “offend” voters so delicate that they will butt vote for a literal fascist if they aren’t treated just so.
I feel like this question sort of answers itself.
RE: double standards involving Hillary Clinton
I definitely have my doubts about her but I agree she’s held to a whole different standard. For example, people love to yell about her superpredator comment from the 90s while promoting Bill Clinton’s anti-crime legislation. There’s no doubt it was a racist and awful thing to do. But she did it as first lady, with no actual political weight to throw around. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, used his actual political power as a congressman to vote in favor of that bill and nobody has anything to say about that.
@Loquora
Also, the nebulous “Corruption.”
Even though I’ve been asking ever since it first started making the rounds (the day the FBI told the right-wingers to stick their witch hunts up their ass), nobody’s explained to me yet exactly what this “Corruption” is. Only that it’s very, very corrupt. The most corrupt corruption in the history of Corruptopia. Hey look, there’s Elvis!
@leftwingfox
True. It’s scary the stuff he’s saying about ‘rigged elections’ and ‘fraud’ (in quotes, because, you know, not true), because it’s exactly what every tinpot warlord uses as an excuse to seize control of their country. And his followers haven’t exactly demonstrated any kind of cognitive consonance or the ability to critically challenge proven lies that feed their beliefs, so they’ll believe that’s the only way he could have lost. And then? Don’t even want to consider what would happen if they felt they had a legitimate reason to act out even a fraction of what they espouse on the Internet.
@SFHC, true enough! It’s not a dynasty proper. I just get sort of uncomfortable when the same names keep cropping up in politics. (This certainly applies for the Canadian PM, too.) Just because I’m uncomfortable about that thing doesn’t mean I can’t think it’s a net positive on the whole!
@Loquora, I’m utterly sick to death of the “untrustworthiness” thing, too. That’s public polling, based on a public that’s been swimming in Republican smears on her character for nigh-on forever. Has nothing to do with her actual trustworthiness.
I do think Bernie would have been less beholden to donors, just given the fact that his campaign was publicly funded and didn’t accept corporate money. He’s proved that public funding still works, and can work well if done right. That’s really important, I think.
But that doesn’t mean she’s going to be bad, or any more corrupt than the average politician – the whole system’s corrupt. Bernie pushed the fight against that into the public eye, and both he and Hillary agreed on it as part of the Democratic platform. And I think it’s something she’ll act on.
From all of the anecdotes and stories I’ve heard, many politicians are sick of having to be more concerned about donors than issues. Hillary strikes me as one of those. I think it’ll go well.
EDIT: By “corruption” I refer to the fact that Super PACS and corporations can basically pour unlimited money into politics, and the resulting findings by Standford showing that American federal politics are oligarchic, not democratic. I don’t think you can really point to individuals and say “this person is corrupt!”; it’s more that the whole system has been hijacked by corporate dollars.
I agree with what everybody have said on Hillary. In actual boring reality, Clinton is just a standard democrat, not really different from Obama while maybe a bit more centrist, and Sanders isn’t a saint without any stain.