« Ross & Tabler on the desirability of attacking Syria | Main | "How a Secretive Branch of ISIS Built a Global Network of Killers" - TTG »

03 August 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Allen Thomson

> If there is an assassination attempt...

An interesting possibility that has been the topic of some off-line speculation. The Republican core (not base) constituency that Doesn't Like Trump has a lot of money and wide connections.


Looks like he is in his 50's? No, and he is overweight and doesn't seem to have gotten much exercise. Add to that his self-professed junk food diet and he really isn't so healthy after all. The letter from his MD that professed that he would be 'the healthiest person ever elected President' was so poorly written that it had to be bogus. And he seems to have gained weight over the campaign. And more than one observer had noted that his speech is much like someone in the early stages of Alzheimer's. That goes back to early in the primaries

As David Habakkuk said- they all are too old. One term for the winner.

Edward Amame


Most of the Blue Dogs are gone. They are no longer a force in the Dem Party which is marching steadily to the left (and dragging HRC along, maybe even a little willingly on her part). The Dem Party is now split along Sanders/Clinton lines, which now means between actual left wingers and moderate/center left wingers.

The GOP has me confused. I used to think mainstream GOPers were more ideological. Then the Trump nomination happened. Add in what just happened in Kansas (a lot Tea party electeds out and moderates in) and I'm not sure what the future holds.


What I think what would happen if Trump wins in his first six months:

In Syria, deconflictation with Russia would be kept as well as support for the YPG, and it would work, allowing the Syrian army and the YPG to inch closer to defeat the jihadis. In Iraq it would also be just the same, allowing the Iraqi army and the KRG to inch closer to defeat the jihadis.

Ukraine POTUS Trump would tell Kiev that Ukraine is none of America's business and they should deal it out on their own or with Germany and Russia.

With Russia Trump meets Putin and makes a deal to fight jihadi terrorism together.

Regarding Israel and Iran POTUS Trump would do nothing.

But a change would occur in Yemen where POTUS Trump would tell the Saudis that it's inacceptable for America that their war there strenghtens Al Qaeda in Yemen, so the Saudis must stop it or face unspecified consequences. The Saudis comply and do a deal with Saleh, which would also be acceptable for the Houthis, and thereby that stupid war comes to an end, while the forces of Saleh and Houthis go again on the hunt for Al Qaeda in Yemen.

So, surprising many, most of Obama's foreign policies would just continue under POTUS Trump, and even surprising more people, also Obama's domestic policies would continue.


PS (to the previous post about polls--sorry about going a bit OT):

While it might seem a bit suspicious to people looking in from the outside, there is nothing fundamentally specious about news organizations trying to adjust polling techniques: they do want to get "more correct" answers. But this runs into a few problems: besides the fact that actions like that seem suspicious and draws skepticism ("they are trying to cook the numbers that they don't like!") there is no way to tell whether the numbers are "wrong," other than it "feels" wrong, until, at least, the final polls are taken, the actual election takes place, and the polling numbers and the election results are compared. It is a lot better that people simply accept the fact that the poll numbers are educated guesses about the election outcome if the election were held whenever the polls took place, based on what people told pollsters and a whole mess of assumptions that may or may not be appropriate. The interesting questions are always about the "whole mess of assumptions," not whether the polls are "right" or not--because all polls will be, at least, a little bit wrong no matter what.



You imply that some American citizen who is a Republican is going to fund an assassin. I don't. There are plenty of vetted and un-vetted "refugees" from the Middle East and Africa as well as nuts like John Hinckley who took a shot at Reagan long ago.



"One term for the winner." That's probably the most accurate projection out of all them here.



It doesn't look like he wants to win. Did Bill really talk him into this to benefit Hillary?




The stalking horse story is about a year old. Now it is just part of the propaganda campaign.


"...I'm not sure what the future holds."

A return to common sense governance would be a damn good start.



Whatever could be the similarities!?



Get called on something you said, deny you ever said it.

A bold and daring maneuver.



I'm sorry you had a stroke over there and meant to write Clinton instead of Trump, because that seems to be who you're talking about.

It'll be okay. Life will go on.



The poll showing Hillary "ahead" by something like 9+ points oversampled Dems by double digits, eliminated the bracket of "18-34 year olds", under sampled independents, put all "undecided" into the Hillary bracket, and cut irregular swathes through geography in order to sample, it seemed, Dem heavy areas.

There's fine tuning your methodology, and then there's propaganda.



Do you see Nazis under the bed? "Fascism". Oh my sides.


As someone who has done some polling, I can tell you that there is absolutely no incentive to deliberately get the numbers wrong: your reputation depends on how reliably you can get the numbers, not necessarily if you could pump up, knowingly and falsely, the numbers for one side or the other. This is not, of course, to say that pollsters playing to the audience (especially for in-House polls) is not a problem, but it is really a source of annoyance rather than benefit: if I am a consumer of the polls, I don't want to know if what I am selling is great, I want to know where my "sell" isn't working so I can address them.

The interesting thing about polling this time around is that the polls are all over the place. I think it is dangerous to attribute this to a political bias, unless, that is, you believe that LA Times (whose poll, conducted via people at USC, shows Clinton with just 1% lead) is somehow biased against Clinton while McClatchy (whose poll, conducted via people at Marist, shows Clinton leading by 15%) is somehow biased against Trump. What is even stranger yet is that, when you look under the hood of different polls, the numbers when accounting for demographics look pretty much the same: even the McClatchy poll shows that Trump leads Clinton by huge margins (roughly 3-2 margin) among the whites without college degrees, for example (Although Marist shows Trump trailing by bigger margins than I've seen among the whites with college degrees. Without access to the data itself, I can't really tell how much of this is driven by odd sampling issues) At any rate, the undecideds are common enough in every survey, notwithstanding that everyone "knows" both Clinton and Trump (and presumably know that they are not thrilled about either), that it would be dangerous to take any of these as anything approaching final.

I suppose the question is, other than pointless trashtalk (for the partisans of one side or the other), what would pollsters have to gain by claiming that their side is doing so well when they really are not. All it'd achieve, if the reality turns out to be different, is to make them look ridiculous and no pollster wants to be in that position.



In a sense, notice that what I am suggesting is even bigger problem than outright lying.

If what I am suggesting is true, the MSM is messing with their numbers because they honestly believe that the numbers they see cannot possibly be true. If they wind up "lying" as consequence, they do not even realize that they are lying because they are clueless about the way the world is looking.

That is, assuming that the world really is crazy. It sure looks that way this year, though, so I wouldn't bet on anything, but I gotta confess that I'd been asking myself often enough: surely what I see really can't be going on? But, I also believe that, if the world looks too weird, then you might throw out the windows what you used to think is "common sense" and start believing what you see--however crazy they seem. That is not the worldview that most people--especially the "very serious people" subscribe to, though.


Prez Trump appoints several of his campaign economic advisory team to key posts in his administration. These experienced hedge fund experts (Steven Mnuchin, chief executive of the hedge fund Dune Capital Management, Steve Roth, Vornado Realty Trust and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson) Their "hedging" of govt assets sends a crashing tsunami thru wall Street within 6 .


Mark Kolmar

Trump is not likely to have long coat-tails. As in the Clinton scenario, I'll assume Democrats take a slim majority in the Senate, and Republicans hold the House.

In the first six months, Speaker Ryan sticks to the rule that legislation must pass with a majority of Republicans. As this will be an effort to unify Republicans, bills from the House will be modest tax and regulatory items. After some time, bipartisan bills from the House could result as new alliances form while Republicans realign. Trump would not necessarily fight on the same side as the Republicans in Congress.

After a public disagreement with Trump on some issue, Pence goes out of the public eye. Pence continues to have a crucial role in policy formation and negotiations with Congress. By the end of the six months, dissatisfied, Trump takes over.



These people are not "very serious people", we agree. They believe they are on the side of the angels, and anything they do is the "right" thing to do. They lied about Maidan, they continue to lie about Syria, about Muslim terror attacks, about illegal alien criminals in our midst.

Reuters LITERALLY rejiggered it polls to favor Hillary, and then went back and Ministry of Truth'd their old polls down the memory hole. You act like it's "just business" in the polling places, when it is obviously not. They have yoked themselves to an ideology, and they don't care if anyone finds out they were rigging the polls. Look at Journolist, look at the DNC emails where major figures were running collusion with the DNC on stories.

They just ignore it and pretend it never happened while talking nonstop about Trump eating KFC with a fork and knife. Its pretty obvious what they're trying to do by mangling polls and pretending Clinton has a +15 lead - they're trying to create an aura of inevitability around her, and barring that they want another Bush v Gore where they can wave their Very Scientific Polls around and claim that Clinton was ahead by a gorillion points! That dastardly Trump must have hacked the polls!

And then the talking heads can talk about the "illegitimate" President Trump and how Congress is obligated to stop everything he ever does because he's illegitimate.

Stop believing these people are impartial. They are not. They are evil.



You mean they deflate the Wall Street venture capital bubble that's based upon investing in companies who figure out ways to get you to click on ads and unicorn apps, blasting speculators out of the system and forcing people to invest in actual hard assets?

Great idea!


"All it'd achieve, if the reality turns out to be different, is to make them look ridiculous and no pollster wants to be in that position."

I like you Kao, I really do. But you're missing the point that the other side doesn't care if you're 'right' or 'wrong', since everything is relative. Its more about being in agreement, and if you're wrong but in agreement with the Left/Globalists, than everything is okay.

Nate Silver has been horribly, horribly wrong this entire election cycle, constantly rejiggering his own polling to show how Trump can never ever win.

How much has that hurt him? Obviously, no one cares about "looking silly" because they know the Borg will protect them.


Ahhh, Tyler, your on the $$ trail. Keep sniffin' the stuff trickling down from those Voodoo $$ changers and you'll dream well about being a 1%er! But only in your dreams...sleep well.


I would almost wish that they are lying knowingly, rather than lying unknowingly. People who know that they are lying can be expected to adjust when necessary. People who don't know they are lying lead children's crusades with conviction.

My take on polls is that one should never trust the overall numbers (which reflect a lot of guesswork on the part of the pollsters than anyone might think) but always look at how each demographic is trending and add up the numbers yourself within reason. Granted, this could involve rather more work than not, to figure out how to best piece together the numbers, but all the wild poll numbers suggest that the professional pollsters don't know what to do with them either. In contrast to the wildly varying aggregated numbers, though, the numbers by demographic subgroups have been far more consistent over time (if they are available). None of them suggests that who will necessarily win, but they do show how the election will shape up with much greater clarity.


How do you think Richard Dawkins would fit into a possible Clinton cabinet?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad