heyeaglefn wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:expected to be 2.2 million early voters in GA. 1.6m in 2012. Good sign, I would think.

Are you and GA in a serious relationship? Seems like an odd state to focus on.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Wish you would post better

I am a hall of famer. Hard to get better than that!

Here is what I posted on the best baseball message board in America - MetsRefugees - yesterday.

If the election was held today, I have a pretty high degree of confidence Hillary would win. But it is closer than it was two weeks ago. And if something else happens to shake things up, I guess it's now close enough for her to lose. The NYT model has Trump at 15%. That feels about right.

Important to note that even in the good polls for Trump in these states where he needs to break through - NH/CO etc. - he's stuck in the low 40s. With Johnson and Stein unlikely to combine for much more than say 4-5% of the vote at this point, he's gonna need to get that up toward 47%-48% to win. I keep thinking if you haven't broken for Trump yet, what the hell is gonna make you do so now? And while I guess you could say the same about Clinton, she's often in the mid to high 40s in these states, so she doesn't need the same sort of movement in her direction.

And even if NH goes for Trump to cut into Hillary's 272 EV firewall, it sure seems like Nevada is replacing it. If he loses Nevada, he needs to chip off another good state for Hillary - CO/WI/MI/PA/NM/whatever. Could it happen? I guess. But I think it'd take another exogenous shock rather than just Trump being on reasonably good behavior for four more days.

My guess at the moment - Clinton 49.6-Trump 45.3-Johnson 3.8-Stein 0.9-McMullin 0.3. 322-216.

jerseyhoya wrote:Soooo much IVR garbage out there today.

JUburton wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Soooo much IVR garbage out there today.

(((Harry Enten))) ‏@ForecasterEnten 44m44 minutes ago
So we got John Yob's firm (the guy who tried to takeover the Virgin Islands GOP), Trafalgar Group, and Zia Poll with new state polls today.

Jon Favreau ‏@jonfavs 17m17 minutes ago
@ForecasterEnten are you guys concerned about how many garbage vs high quality polls are getting thrown in the model this week?

(((Harry Enten))) ‏@ForecasterEnten 7m7 minutes ago
@jonfavs I mean I am.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:So who can explain the senate filibuster in better terms to me. If the dems manage a 50 or better takeover I've heard that they would still have to "weaken" filibuster rules to get justices and other appointments through. I understand what that means and the consequences that it creates (for when they lose the majority in 2018) but don't understand how those rules are changed and what it takes to do that and what they would do to the rules exactly

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:So who can explain the senate filibuster in better terms to me. If the dems manage a 50 or better takeover I've heard that they would still have to "weaken" filibuster rules to get justices and other appointments through. I understand what that means and the consequences that it creates (for when they lose the majority in 2018) but don't understand how those rules are changed and what it takes to do that and what they would do to the rules exactly

A simple majority can pass a change to eliminate the filibuster or change senate rules. The Dems already eliminated the filibuster for exec branch nominations and judicial nominations other than the Supreme Court a few years ago. Could just extend it to the Supreme Court if they wanted to if they get the votes.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:So who can explain the senate filibuster in better terms to me. If the dems manage a 50 or better takeover I've heard that they would still have to "weaken" filibuster rules to get justices and other appointments through. I understand what that means and the consequences that it creates (for when they lose the majority in 2018) but don't understand how those rules are changed and what it takes to do that and what they would do to the rules exactly

A simple majority can pass a change to eliminate the filibuster or change senate rules. The Dems already eliminated the filibuster for exec branch nominations and judicial nominations other than the Supreme Court a few years ago. Could just extend it to the Supreme Court if they wanted to if they get the votes.

So again some reporters made it a bigger deal than it is

thephan wrote:Because they need something to talk about, CNN asking about a "tie" and the even number at the Supreme Court. We are just in fear mongering mode.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:So who can explain the senate filibuster in better terms to me. If the dems manage a 50 or better takeover I've heard that they would still have to "weaken" filibuster rules to get justices and other appointments through. I understand what that means and the consequences that it creates (for when they lose the majority in 2018) but don't understand how those rules are changed and what it takes to do that and what they would do to the rules exactly

A Democratic elector in Washington state said Friday he won't vote for Hillary Clinton even if she wins the popular vote in his state on Election Day, adding a degree of suspense when the Electoral College affirms the election results next month.

Robert Satiacum, a member of Washington's Puyallup Tribe, supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. He said he believes Clinton is a "criminal" who doesn't care enough about American Indians and "she's done nothing but flip back and forth."

He said he has wrestled with what to do, but feels that neither Clinton nor Republican Donald Trump can lead the country.

"She will not get my vote, period," he said in a phone interview with The Associated Press.