BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Yes, it's frightening that odds are that close. At 22.2%, if the election were held three times, Trump would be better than 50% to win at least once.

The NY Times has an interesting timeline of Trump's comments and the points at which different republicans publicly repudiated him: At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.

Not all of them will vote for Clinton, though.

The NY Times has an interesting timeline of Trump's comments and the points at which different republicans publicly repudiated him: At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.

Not all of them will vote for Clinton, though.

That assumes each election is independent.

If betting odds represent likelihood of an outcome (and I'm not saying they do), at this time Donald Trump is 22.2% likely to become President. Odds offered on a betting exchange are 4.50 (or 7:2 odds in English style)

Interesting psychological study on the worldviews of concervatives and liberals, and on Trump supporters in particular: https://jerclifton.c...ople-living-in/

Basically, conservatives see the World as fair, as getting worse, and they see dichtomies as largely good-vs-bad while liberals tend to see dichotomies as more often equally good/bad.

Trump supporters are not that different from typical conservatives, actually Cruz supporters are less typical.

Having declared 9/11 to be an attack on all Americans, Clinton soon discovered that the national response was not entirely united or favorable to struggling New Yorkers. The head of the EPA at the time, Christine Todd Whitman, repeatedly insisted the air at Ground Zero was safe even as early as three days after the towers collapsed, as did Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite worries within City Hall that they were facing thousands of liability claims.

Confronted by this wall of denial, Clinton was one of the most powerful voices warning of an impending health crisis. Ben Chevat, chief of staff to congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York on 9/11, recalls the impact.

“The Bush administration was saying, ‘There’s no problem, move along’,” he said, “and so it was hard work getting any traction in the media. Yet we knew there was a problem because people were getting sick with respiratory diseases and cancers.”

Chevat, now executive director of 9/11 Health Watch, said: “It took Clinton to put a spotlight on the issue and change the frame.”

The odds have shortened on a Trump victory. They currently stand at 29.4% -- odds on betting exchange are currently 3.40 (or 12:5).

The Guardian has an interesting piece about Hillary Clinton in action: 9/11 tapes reveal raw and emotional Hillary Clinton


Smart, serious, hardworking. "Likeable enough."

The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not like other charities. An investigation of the foundation — including examinations of 17 years of tax filings and interviews with more than 200 individuals or groups listed as donors or beneficiaries — found that it collects and spends money in a very unusual manner.

For one thing, nearly all of its money comes from people other than Trump. In tax records, the last gift from Trump was in 2008. Since then, all of the donations have been other people’s money — an arrangement that experts say is almost unheard of for a family foundation.

Trump then takes that money and generally does with it as he pleases. In many cases, he passes it on to other charities, which often are under the impression that it is Trump’s own money.

In two cases, he has used money from his charity to buy himself a gift. In one of those cases — not previously reported — Trump spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself.

Money from the Trump Foundation has also been used for political purposes, which is against the law. The Washington Post reported this month that Trump paid a penalty this year to the Internal Revenue Service for a 2013 donation in which the foundation gave $25,000 to a campaign group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi ®.

“Other than destroying every instrument of democracy in his own country, having opposition people killed, dismembering neighbors through military force and being the benefactor of the butcher of Damascus, he’s a good guy,” quipped Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) of Putin.

Dems could learn from this. Often what you hear is something like "Oh how awful, Trump said Putin is a strong leader." And listeners respond "He isn't?". Graham had the good sense not to dispute that Trump is a strong leader, rather he put this strong leadership in a correct context. Pay attention to this, Dems. It applies to a wide range of issues.

The WaPo quoted Lindsey Graham on the praise of Putin



Dems could learn from this. Often what you hear is something like "Oh how awful, Trump said Putin is a strong leader." And listeners respond "He isn't?". Graham had the good sense not to dispute that Trump is a strong leader, rather he put this strong leadership in a correct context. Pay attention to this, Dems. It applies to a wide range of issues.

It's not clear that sarcasm and subtlety works well in the context of political statements, especially with Trump involved. Consider his claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS. It wasn't clear how he intended it initially, and then in followup comments he seemed to flip-flop on whether it was meant seriously or sarcastically.

Clinton will go after this at the debates. She will have zingers ready that will sound good because they are harsh and accurate.

Oh and that noise you are hearing? It's the Clinton video team arguing who gets to script the Putin ad to be aired in the last 2 weeks before the election.