MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:That's kind of gross. (The ad)

the ad makes the point multiples of people have in the past in regards to his 'policy'. the ad takes the policy to the logical conclusion. maybe you think that's too far, and perhaps it is, but it's simply applying logic. he'll go for mexicans and muslims first, and he'll just stop? that's not how scapegoating works.

Trump invited this man on stage last night to pump up the crowd.

Well first of all it's just begging for someone to cut off the last two seconds and make it seems like he actually said that.

Even the actual ad is really quick with the clarification.

Idk I feel like if someone did the equivalent with having Obama or Clinton saying they're are going to take all the guns away or free up abortion laws people would be up in arms about it. He's said enough crazy #$!&@ there's no need to put words in his mouth.

i guess we could just watch his last ad where he highlights a bunch of jews running the world.

i get that it's dirty politics and it's cheap, but it's not really an incorrect message. i wouldn't have created it, certainly, but the point is what many have already made.

People *did* put words into Obama's mouth (you didnt build that), and into Clinton's with the message behind it also being false. I guess I just don't see how it's too comparable since the message behind this is, essentially, fairly correct. You don't just scapegoat one type of person.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:That's kind of gross. (The ad)

the ad makes the point multiples of people have in the past in regards to his 'policy'. the ad takes the policy to the logical conclusion. maybe you think that's too far, and perhaps it is, but it's simply applying logic. he'll go for mexicans and muslims first, and he'll just stop? that's not how scapegoating works.

Trump invited this man on stage last night to pump up the crowd.

Well first of all it's just begging for someone to cut off the last two seconds and make it seems like he actually said that.

Even the actual ad is really quick with the clarification.

Idk I feel like if someone did the equivalent with having Obama or Clinton saying they're are going to take all the guns away or free up abortion laws people would be up in arms about it. He's said enough crazy #$!&@ there's no need to put words in his mouth.

Well yeah, of course it's quick with the disclaimer. They can't make people think that he actually said it--he'd sue them, and he'd win. Other people can do what they want. In this day and age, it's not like it's hard to do that stuff (swap audio from another clip and overlay it). A 10 year old with a laptop and an internet could do it in under 30 minutes.

And abortion or gun policies aren't comparable to targeting immigrant minority groups.

I think the disclaimer is too quick, and arguably part of the reason it is so quick is to trick people into thinking that Donald wants to ban Jews rather than just making this broader point.

Well I think a lot of people would disagree with you on whether banning muslims is worse than taking guns away or (especially) having no restrictions on abortion Either way, it goes both ways then. Trying to trick people into thinking a candidate wants to attack their ethnic group is worse than trying to trick people into thinking they want to take their guns away or have no restrictions on abortion.

And btw, I would classify all 3 types of ads as "kind of gross"

I'm not talking about which is worse. Banning one group of people and substituting another group name doesn't alter the meaning of the original statement. Substituting one policy issue for another changes the entire message of the original statement. Example:

"I hate blue cars" to "I hate red cars" changes the adjective modifying the target, which is a certain type of cars.

"I hate bombs" to "I hate puppies" changes the entire point of the sentence.

I don't know, it just seems like a weird place to draw a line on political ads in this election cycle.

So Virginia crushed its previous record for absentee voting (which can be done via mail or in person), mostly led by insanely high late turnouts in Northern Virginia.

If Trump thought Virginia was back in play, he's wrong. I think we see HRC +6 here tomorrow night.

Last Fox News Poll out this morning has Clinton up four points...this is up two from the last poll taken last week and does not include yesterday(the Comey annoucement)

Really don't like that Trump/Jews/Mormons ad. I think it has too much potential to confuse people and make them think he actually said that despite the quick disclaimer at the end.

JUburton wrote:sorry, not literally stumping. he's going to win by 5-8 points. if he says, i cant vote for either of these people but i can be your voice in keeping them in check, i just don't think that margin disappears. of course i have no real data behind that but i cant see it sinking him. and if saying you're going to vote, and others should vote for someone you don't actually think is fit to be president isn't basically the definition of politically craven, then i dunno, man. it seems like we agree that he's doing everything in his power to get reelected without any regard to any principles he might hold so there's that.

But he's not compromising principles he holds. He's not softening his unpopular pro-life stance or favoring popular gun control measures or changing his hawkish tune on foreign policy. He's running on his issues, and if he gets re-elected he'll continue advocating for them in the Senate. Saying I don't support either of these people for president now like Toomey has seems like the worst of all options. It's easy enough for me to sit here and say I am not voting for either Trump or Hillary, but I think your constituents probably deserve an answer to who you prefer between the two people likely to be the next president (or if you're voting 3rd party say that). He doesn't think Trump should be president, he doesn't think Hillary should be president, one of them is going to be president. It is not like he has any good options. I do not understand the incredulity with which liberals seem to be treating Rubio's half hearted backing of Trump or Ryan's or anyone else who is just going through the motions. They're spinning a wheel where every slot is bankrupt or lose a turn.

Kasich gives me heart that there are still some adults left in your party.

Bucky wrote:Kasich gives me heart that there are still some adults left in your party.

Kasich bravely made sure no one could beat Trump in the primaries, and then bravely wrote in John McCain while not up for re-election risking nothing in the process. Good for him.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:sorry, not literally stumping. he's going to win by 5-8 points. if he says, i cant vote for either of these people but i can be your voice in keeping them in check, i just don't think that margin disappears. of course i have no real data behind that but i cant see it sinking him. and if saying you're going to vote, and others should vote for someone you don't actually think is fit to be president isn't basically the definition of politically craven, then i dunno, man. it seems like we agree that he's doing everything in his power to get reelected without any regard to any principles he might hold so there's that.

But he's not compromising principles he holds. He's not softening his unpopular pro-life stance or favoring popular gun control measures or changing his hawkish tune on foreign policy. He's running on his issues, and if he gets re-elected he'll continue advocating for them in the Senate. Saying I don't support either of these people for president now like Toomey has seems like the worst of all options. It's easy enough for me to sit here and say I am not voting for either Trump or Hillary, but I think your constituents probably deserve an answer to who you prefer between the two people likely to be the next president (or if you're voting 3rd party say that). He doesn't think Trump should be president, he doesn't think Hillary should be president, one of them is going to be president. It is not like he has any good options. I do not understand the incredulity with which liberals seem to be treating Rubio's half hearted backing of Trump or Ryan's or anyone else who is just going through the motions. They're spinning a wheel where every slot is bankrupt or lose a turn.

Hasn't Toomey basically said nothing about Trump? Rubio has given his full throated support. I agree Toomey has been an idiot about this and giving no answer to 'will you vote for Trump?' is far worse than 'one of these two people is going to be president and I just can't vote for either of them. what i can do is be a check on their power, so if you believe in x, y, and z then i can help be your voice in the ear of the next president'.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Bucky wrote:Kasich gives me heart that there are still some adults left in your party.

Kasich bravely made sure no one could beat Trump in the primaries, and then bravely wrote in John McCain while not up for re-election risking nothing in the process. Good for him.

i doubt he runs in 2020

Gimpy wrote:Really don't like that Trump/Jews/Mormons ad. I think it has too much potential to confuse people and make them think he actually said that despite the quick disclaimer at the end.

perhaps, but his campaign is being run by an anti-semite in charge of an anti-semitic website. it's hard for me to really feign too much outrage over this.

pacino wrote:

Gimpy wrote:Really don't like that Trump/Jews/Mormons ad. I think it has too much potential to confuse people and make them think he actually said that despite the quick disclaimer at the end.

perhaps, but his campaign is being run by an anti-semite in charge of an anti-semitic website. it's hard for me to really feign too much outrage over this.

I don't have a problem with it, but I will point out that they waited until the final day or two before airing it for a reason... to avoid the possibility of any backlash from it.

453,800+ Latinos voted early in Florida. Up 86% from 2012.

Just a quick reminder that Obama won Florida in 2012 by 70K votes.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:453,800+ Latinos voted early in Florida. Up 86% from 2012.

Just a quick reminder that Obama won Florida in 2012 by 70K votes.

Any idea how that compare to the increases in other demographic groups? Early voting in Florida is generally way up.

MoBettle wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:453,800+ Latinos voted early in Florida. Up 86% from 2012.

Just a quick reminder that Obama won Florida in 2012 by 70K votes.

Any idea how that compare to the increases in other demographic groups? Early voting in Florida is generally way up.

FL #earlyvote Race change vs 2012 via @electionsmith
Afr-Am +70.6K (+9.2%)
Hisp +453.8K (+86.9%)
White +900K (+27.2%)
Other +121.5K (+48.3%)

JUburton wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:453,800+ Latinos voted early in Florida. Up 86% from 2012.

Just a quick reminder that Obama won Florida in 2012 by 70K votes.

Any idea how that compare to the increases in other demographic groups? Early voting in Florida is generally way up.

FL #earlyvote Race change vs 2012 via @electionsmith
Afr-Am +70.6K (+9.2%)
Hisp +453.8K (+86.9%)
White +900K (+27.2%)
Other +121.5K (+48.3%)

Thanks for beating me to it.

Now what we don't know is whether the early voting will simply divert people who would've shown up tomorrow. Maybe Hispanic turnout on Election Day will be flat or down, and it'll only end up being a moderate overall increase in the final totals.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:453,800+ Latinos voted early in Florida. Up 86% from 2012.

Just a quick reminder that Obama won Florida in 2012 by 70K votes.

Early voting numbers only matter if a group is being systematically underpolled, because every pollster in the country wants to poll those who have already voted. The 2014 early vote numbers looked good for the Democrats as well. It was only real in Nevada.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:453,800+ Latinos voted early in Florida. Up 86% from 2012.

Just a quick reminder that Obama won Florida in 2012 by 70K votes.

Maria Teresa Kumar claims that there's a lot of first time Latino voters in FL, especially in Orlando, who came here from Puerto Rico in recent years.

but what does harold say