The Person who took the skittles picture that was used in the Trump meme is a refugee

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada ... ow_twitter

pacino wrote:

Youseff wrote:she doesn't deserve all of the blame, but I think we should acknowledge she's not that good at running for President.

i get you FAM, but they seem to be taking a much different course of whipping up the base, young people, etc now. This past weekend and all the videos they've been putting out and ads they've put up have been pretty good stuff. She is trying to boost her numbers now, not just coast on Trump screwing up.

agree with all that, but...

I don't see the email things as particularly nefarious, but I really do have to question her judgement in doing something like that when she knew she was running for prez. same with the foundation, although I'm open to thinking that demonstrates a certain level of corruption. I don't get why she wouldn't have the foresight to see these are things that her political opponents could feast on. In that sense, I agree with Colin Powell- her hubris and all that represents (arrogance, sloppiness, stupidity) isn't too comforting.

Turns out there's a(n in)decent chance drumpf's besties bombed the Syrian aid convoy

Woody wrote:This is great. But he probably couldn't give a fuckkkkkkk

drumpf would make the fucker Treasury Secretary

Youseff wrote:she doesn't deserve all of the blame, but I think we should acknowledge she's not that good at running for President.

The democrats spent the last 8 years filling every high profile position with old people with no national ambitions besides Hillary. Not a shock that they couldn't come up with a decent challenger.

I've said this before, but there's a reason why it's so rare for parties to win more than 2-3 times in a row. The party is kind of stale and out of touch with much of the country (no not just because everyone else is racist) and probably needs a loss to recalibrate itself the way it did during Bush. Unfortunately Trump makes this not really an option.

See, e.g.

"We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they've ever been in before – ever, ever ever," the Republican presidential nominee said in Kenansville, N.C.

EVER

Jesus. And the people behind him were Southern old white women who looked like they may even still own slaves.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Upshot continuing to do really neat things getting behind the curtain and explaining how polling works - The Error the Polling World Rarely Talks About

I would make one bullet point addition to their takeaways, and that's in addition to the averaging polls, it can be instructive to look at shifts between polls conducted by the same pollster. There you still have the sampling error issues, but the methodology should remain constant.

Shameless self quoting here. If you obsess over polls and minor shifts in them, you really fucking need to read this, as well as the two prior pieces Nate (Cohn not Silver) did on this.

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:she doesn't deserve all of the blame, but I think we should acknowledge she's not that good at running for President.

The democrats spent the last 8 years filling every high profile position with old people with no national ambitions besides Hillary. Not a shock that they couldn't come up with a decent challenger.

I've said this before, but there's a reason why it's so rare for parties to win more than 2-3 times in a row. The party is kind of stale and out of touch with much of the country (no not just because everyone else is racist) and probably needs a loss to recalibrate itself the way it did during Bush. Unfortunately Trump makes this not really an option.

I'm not really familiar with the Governor landscape across the country so I can't say if I agree with the first paragraph, but I'd disagree pretty strongly with the second half. maybe they need to move further to the left to attract a younger audience but the Dems still represent pretty mainstream views when it comes to social issues & gov't programs. if she loses it literally is largely because a big part of the country is racist. the solution should not be to recalibrate to that.

cool, we were all wondering where Henry would end up!

Bucky wrote:cool, we were all wondering where Henry would end up!

Wrong thread, I think

Looks like I picked the wrong morning to quit sniffing glue.

Youseff wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:she doesn't deserve all of the blame, but I think we should acknowledge she's not that good at running for President.

The democrats spent the last 8 years filling every high profile position with old people with no national ambitions besides Hillary. Not a shock that they couldn't come up with a decent challenger.

I've said this before, but there's a reason why it's so rare for parties to win more than 2-3 times in a row. The party is kind of stale and out of touch with much of the country (no not just because everyone else is racist) and probably needs a loss to recalibrate itself the way it did during Bush. Unfortunately Trump makes this not really an option.

I'm not really familiar with the Governor landscape across the country so I can't say if I agree with the first paragraph, but I'd disagree pretty strongly with the second half. maybe they need to move further to the left to attract a younger audience but the Dems still represent pretty mainstream views when it comes to social issues & gov't programs. if she loses it literally is largely because a big part of the country is racist. the solution should not be to recalibrate to that.

Not really sure how you can say the Democrats are in touch with the country when they've just nominated in a relative landslide the 2nd most unpopular presidential candidate in history.

MoBettle wrote:
Not really sure how you can say the Democrats are in touch with the country when they've just nominated in a relative landslide the 2nd most unpopular presidential candidate in history.

Here's the thing: people who support the most unpopular presidential candidate in history are not "in touch with the country". They support a candidate who ACTIVELY advocates for ignoring such constitutional niceties as due process, among several other 'policy positions' that at any other time in our history would have meant he never got to compete for the job, much less have a decent chance to secure it. And yet they "support" him, though he's practically telling them he'd shit into their open mouths if it gave him a moment's relief. He, and they, are essentially "unAmerican".

I'd go into it in more detail, but reading the 1st 100 pages or so of Sapiens would explain the dilemma our form of government in particular confronts at present much more clearly than I probably would.

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:she doesn't deserve all of the blame, but I think we should acknowledge she's not that good at running for President.

The democrats spent the last 8 years filling every high profile position with old people with no national ambitions besides Hillary. Not a shock that they couldn't come up with a decent challenger.

I've said this before, but there's a reason why it's so rare for parties to win more than 2-3 times in a row. The party is kind of stale and out of touch with much of the country (no not just because everyone else is racist) and probably needs a loss to recalibrate itself the way it did during Bush. Unfortunately Trump makes this not really an option.

I'm not really familiar with the Governor landscape across the country so I can't say if I agree with the first paragraph, but I'd disagree pretty strongly with the second half. maybe they need to move further to the left to attract a younger audience but the Dems still represent pretty mainstream views when it comes to social issues & gov't programs. if she loses it literally is largely because a big part of the country is racist. the solution should not be to recalibrate to that.

Not really sure how you can say the Democrats are in touch with the country when they've just nominated in a relative landslide the 2nd most unpopular presidential candidate in history.

This seems like a poor metric for 'in-touch-ness'

drsmooth wrote:

MoBettle wrote:
Not really sure how you can say the Democrats are in touch with the country when they've just nominated in a relative landslide the 2nd most unpopular presidential candidate in history.

Here's the thing: people who support the most unpopular presidential candidate in history are not "in touch with the country". They support a candidate who ACTIVELY advocates for ignoring such constitutional niceties as due process, among several other 'policy positions' that at any other time in our history would have meant he never got to compete for the job, much less have a decent chance to secure it. And yet they "support" him, though he's practically telling them he'd shit into their open mouths if it gave him a moment's relief. He, and they, are essentially "unAmerican".

I'd go into it in more detail, but reading the 1st 100 pages or so of Sapiens would explain the dilemma our form of government in particular confronts at present much more clearly than I probably would.

Well yeah, Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. In fact that's probably more the reason that she's going to win rather than people liking her. That's kind of my point.

Democrats thinking that everyone that doesn't like Hillary is racist or an idiot is another example of them being out of touch with the rest of the country.

She currently has a -11 net favorability which for a woman who has been a GOP target for years...that's not really that bad. She has something around a 75% favorability rating among democrats.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... y-clinton/

MoBettle wrote:Democrats thinking that everyone that doesn't like Hillary is racist or an idiot is another example of them being out of touch with the rest of the country.

no one thinks that really though. "Everyone" knows HRC is no saint. It's easy not to especially like her, and easier to mistrust her.

At the same time, "everyone" thinks supporting an unhinged pig who may as we speak be wiping his ass with a copy of the constitution is idiocy or worse.

So theres a big, big, yuge distinction in attitudes that you seem set on ignoring.

drsmooth wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Democrats thinking that everyone that doesn't like Hillary is racist or an idiot is another example of them being out of touch with the rest of the country.

no one thinks that really though. "Everyone" knows HRC is no saint. It's easy not to especially like her, and easier to mistrust her.

At the same time, "everyone" thinks supporting an unhinged pig who may as we speak be wiping his ass with a copy of the constitution is idiocy or worse.

So theres a big, big, yuge distinction in attitudes that you seem set on ignoring.

I shouldn't have said everyone. it does seem like people are quick to make that assumption though.