US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise

[Genivaria]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

Cue creepy conspiracy music.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So the other day Trump was ahead in Texas by only 4 points.
Now it's 3 points.
http://m.chron.com/news/politics/texas/ ... er-desktop

Within the margin of error?

Regardless that's striking.

I'd say that, even if Texas doesn't turn blue, Trump has managed what I hadn't seen in my time here as a resident of Texas.

He actually has made Texas competitive this election.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

Cue creepy conspiracy music.

This is the third video, illuminati confirmed.

[Freefall11111]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

How many times has O'Keefe recorded a highly misleading video, and how many of those times did he get everything wrong, often leading to court orders to take his videos down?

Oh, right. Every time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

HAVE been committing, or WILL commit upon suspicions of unethical behavior?

There is a distinct difference.

[Khadgar]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

How many times has O'Keefe recorded a highly misleading video, and how many of those times did he get everything wrong, often leading to court orders to take his videos down?

Oh, right. Every time.

Stop poisoning the well, I'm sure this time he's being totally honest and hasn't manipulatively edited his videos to make his victims err.. subjects, say things they didn't really say.

[Zurkerx]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

Oh goody, another unsourced video by a guy famed for lying in his unsourced videos? Well I believe that, down with Hillary!

Let's not forget that voter fraud isn't that common either is rather difficult to replicate on the national level.

[Galloism]

Apparently, the Democrats have been comitting voter fraud....

Oh goody, another unsourced video by a guy famed for lying in his unsourced videos? Well I believe that, down with Hillary!

Well, in the video, what the guy said is democrats bring in buses that go from polling station to polling station bringing people in to vote.

The implication is bringing in the same people to each polling station, but the guy didn't actually say that. You gotta look past the cropping and inuendo and try to see what was really said.

More likely, he was talking about a get out the vote effort.

[Cymrea]

Oh goody, another unsourced video by a guy famed for lying in his unsourced videos? Well I believe that, down with Hillary!

Let's not forget that voter fraud isn't that common either is rather difficult to replicate on the national level.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

[Khadgar]

Let's not forget that voter fraud isn't that common either is rather difficult to replicate on the national level.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

The people who count the votes are usually comprised of an even mix of people from both parties. There's a shitton of hoops to jump through to actually rig even a single state's election which Donald and his enablers just blithely ignore.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How many times has O'Keefe recorded a highly misleading video, and how many of those times did he get everything wrong, often leading to court orders to take his videos down?

Oh, right. Every time.

Stop poisoning the well, I'm sure this time he's being totally honest and hasn't manipulatively edited his videos to make his victims err.. subjects, say things they didn't really say.

Poisoning the well would make sense if the author of the video was being dismissed because he's from the alt-right or because he dresses funny.

Attacking the content of the videos by suggesting the author has a history of heavy editing of said videos is, while poisoning the well, not the formal fallacy. It is a rather relevant attack provided you can prove that the author does have a history of heavy editing, which in this case it does exist.

I did note the sarcasm before replying, but still worth to point out for future note.

[Corrian]

Wut, Rand Paul's chance in the senate tanked 15% in a day, and Kentucky is down to only 70% chance for Rand Paul to win.

Are we really seeing Trump tanking the party in action or what? It seems coincidental for Democrats chances to skyrocket after Trump made a war on his own party...

[Eol Sha]

Oh goody, another unsourced video by a guy famed for lying in his unsourced videos? Well I believe that, down with Hillary!

Let's not forget that voter fraud isn't that common either is rather difficult to replicate on the national level.

Not just difficult, but almost impossibly difficult. Like one in millions difficult.

[Freefall11111]

I'm honestly surprised O'Keefe isn't in prison for destroying ACORN over nothing.

[Eol Sha]

I'm honestly surprised O'Keefe isn't in prison for destroying ACORN over nothing.

Can a government agency sue for libel?

[Freefall11111]

I'm honestly surprised O'Keefe isn't in prison for destroying ACORN over nothing.

Can a government agency sue for libel?

ACORN was an NGO.

[Cannot think of a name]

Given the nature of this election, can their really be an 'October Surprise'*? And can it really be delivered as a film version of a one man show by Michael Moore?



*Granting that "grab them by the pussy" happened in October and actually had an impact on the race...so my premise is pre-defeated.

[Eol Sha]

Can a government agency sue for libel?

ACORN was an NGO.

Didn't they receive federal funding? Anyway, I didn't know that.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I actually asked an almost identical question in April of 2015, during the very beginning of the Primary Season. I didn't anticipate dead Scalia, so I missed that. Bernie Sanders was in the low single digits, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were battling for the #1 spot in the GOP Primary, and Barack Obama had approval in the 40s. It almost seems like an eternity ago. Anyway, something told me that this would be a strange election season and I thought it would only be because of the large GOP primary...but anyway, I was curious to how our views of the issues would shift as time went on. Here's a link to the original thread, and here are the results...

Healthcare: 14/400
Foreign Policy (ISIL,Iran,Yemen,Russia etc.): 134/400
Debt/Deficit: 22/400
Economy (Unemployment,Wages,Trade, Taxes etc): 119/400
Immigration: 15/400
Climate Change: 24/400
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties: 55/400
Other: 13/400

It's just interesting to look at the current poll and compare the results. See what groups have grown and others shrunk. There was also a separate question. Because the Thread was focused on the announcement of HRC.
Do you support Hillary Clinton?
Yes, I support Hillary Clinton: 172/472
No, I do not support Hillary Clinton: 300/472

Now that question was answered by Liberals and Conservatives, but given the lean of NS is pretty liberal, it seems clear the opposition to HRC started early and wasn't dependent on Bernie Sanders who was not yet in the race. Whether or not that opposition has subsided, that is...for another poll.

EDIT: wow, it's weird to go back and read that OP

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/exclusive-hillary-clinton-to-launch-presidential-campaign-sunday-en-route-to-iowa-source

Here it comes, what we've all been waiting for since she lost the nomination to Sen. Obama back in 2008. The suspense, the will she or won't she; will finally come to an end this Sunday. Everything she's done since 2008 has just been prep for 2016, and now....the blood bath begins. I'm currently supporting Sen. Paul in the primaries, but let's be real. It's seems like an inevitability that the 45th President of these United States will be Hillary Clinton. There isn't a Republican in America who could take her down. That's just my opinion after reading polls for 2 years, and looking over the crop of candidates from both sides. There isn't a young, charismatic, minority, articulate, fresh faced senator to come from behind and take the nomination. This is hers to win, and she's about to start the long journey to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But I could be wrong. I think it's unlikely, but we're overdue for a political earthquake. What does NS think? Will Lewinsky, White Water, Benghazi, Hillarycare, and the e-mails come back to bite Clinton?

[Freefall11111]

ACORN was an NGO.

Didn't they receive federal funding? Anyway, I didn't know that.

NGO's can receive federal funding. See Planned Parenthood.

[The Archregimancy]

Did he? Or did the other team have to change the rules because they got tired of losing?

Truman got it passed. And he was a democrat.

Truman played no role in the passing of the 22nd amendment, and it passed in part because of regional opposition to Truman within his .

FDR's opponent Thomas Dewey announced his support for a term limit amendment towards the end of the 1944 presidential campaign - while FDR was running for his fourth term and before Truman was president - and after Roosevelt's death it was then passed by the 80th Congress (controlled by the Republicans), sent to the States by the Speaker and the President pro-tem of the Senate (both Republicans), and then passed by the states in 1951.

The amendment passed with such ease (it was debated for a grand total of 2 hours in the House; the Senate did rather better with 5 days of debate) on the basis of a combination of Republican opposition to FDR's four election victories and Southern Democrat opposition to Truman's support for civil rights and resulting desire to weaken the power of the presidency; all eleven Southern delegations would go on to vote against Truman's candidacy in 1948, except for Mississippi - which simply walked out of the convention.

I can find nothing indicating what Truman personally thought of the amendment, but then it didn't really matter; it was carefully phrased so that it didn't apply to him.

[Zurkerx]

Wut, Rand Paul's chance in the senate tanked 15% in a day, and Kentucky is down to only 70% chance for Rand Paul to win.

Are we really seeing Trump tanking the party in action or what? It seems coincidental for Democrats chances to skyrocket after Trump made a war on his own party...

To be fair, the most recent poll only showed his opponent at 27% to his 33%, meaning the rest are undecided. I doubt Rand Paul will lose. If he does though, then Trump's effect will be felt tremendously among the Republicans everywhere.

[Socialist Nordia]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... st/senate/
The down ballot effect has been really substantial. Dems are at their highest odds to win the senate so far this year.

[Eol Sha]

I actually asked an almost identical question in April of 2015, during the very beginning of the Primary Season. I didn't anticipate dead Scalia, so I missed that. Bernie Sanders was in the low single digits, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were battling for the #1 spot in the GOP Primary, and Barack Obama had approval in the 40s. It almost seems like an eternity ago. Anyway, something told me that this would be a strange election season and I thought it would only be because of the large GOP primary...but anyway, I was curious to how our views of the issues would shift as time went on. Here's a link to the original thread, and here are the results...

Healthcare: 14/400
Foreign Policy (ISIL,Iran,Yemen,Russia etc.): 134/400
Debt/Deficit: 22/400
Economy (Unemployment,Wages,Trade, Taxes etc): 119/400
Immigration: 15/400
Climate Change: 24/400
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties: 55/400
Other: 13/400

It's just interesting to look at the current poll and compare the results. See what groups have grown and others shrunk. There was also a separate question. Because the Thread was focused on the announcement of HRC.
Do you support Hillary Clinton?
Yes, I support Hillary Clinton: 172/472
No, I do not support Hillary Clinton: 300/472

Now that question was answered by Liberals and Conservatives, but given the lean of NS is pretty liberal, it seems clear the opposition to HRC started early and wasn't dependent on Bernie Sanders who was not yet in the race. Whether or not that opposition has subsided, that is...for another poll.

EDIT: wow, it's weird to go back and read that OP

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/exclusive-hillary-clinton-to-launch-presidential-campaign-sunday-en-route-to-iowa-source

Here it comes, what we've all been waiting for since she lost the nomination to Sen. Obama back in 2008. The suspense, the will she or won't she; will finally come to an end this Sunday. Everything she's done since 2008 has just been prep for 2016, and now....the blood bath begins. I'm currently supporting Sen. Paul in the primaries, but let's be real. It's seems like an inevitability that the 45th President of these United States will be Hillary Clinton. There isn't a Republican in America who could take her down. That's just my opinion after reading polls for 2 years, and looking over the crop of candidates from both sides. There isn't a young, charismatic, minority, articulate, fresh faced senator to come from behind and take the nomination. This is hers to win, and she's about to start the long journey to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But I could be wrong. I think it's unlikely, but we're overdue for a political earthquake. What does NS think? Will Lewinsky, White Water, Benghazi, Hillarycare, and the e-mails come back to bite Clinton?

I'd like to know when you decided to switch from Paul to Sanders.

[Freefall11111]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/
The down ballot effect has been really substantial. Dems are at their highest odds to win the senate so far this year.

A shame 538 doesn't have a House forecast.