ChrisWeigant.com

Will 2016 Be A Nader Year, Or A Perot Year?

[ Posted Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 – 17:14 PDT ]

That question might not be immediately apparent or totally accurate, so please allow me to explain. The literal answer will probably be "somewhere in between," if the yardstick used is total percentage of presidential votes cast. But what I'm really asking is whether this year will follow the model of third-party support collapsing in the voting booth or actually holding firm on Election Day.

Both Ralph Nader and H. Ross Perot influenced the elections they ran in -- Nader in 2000, and Perot in both 1992 and 1996. Nader won 2.7 percent of the national popular vote. Perot won a whopping 18.9 percent in 1992 and a respectable 8.4 percent in 1996. Without their candidacies, the races might have elected different presidents (George H. W. Bush's second term, Bob Dole, or Al Gore). Or perhaps Bill Clinton would have won with more than 50 percent of the vote both times. You can endlessly speculate about what might have been, but the fact is that in three successive elections, third-party candidates had a measurable impact (whether good, bad, or indifferent depends on your political outlook, really).

Nader's effect on the 2000 race was the most keenly felt (by Democrats, at least), for a number of reasons. The Supreme Court case, the Florida "recount," the fact that Gore had won a half-million more popular votes, and the thinness of Bush's Electoral College victory (if Gore had managed to win his home state -- or even New Hampshire -- he wouldn't have had to care about Florida, one way or the other) -- these all contributed to the depth of feelings some Democrats had (and even now, still harbor) towards Ralph Nader. But Nader only got less than three percent overall -- nothing like the influence Perot had in either one of his runs.

Pollsters generally scoff at any third parties included in the pre-election polling, and not without reason. The pollsters have found that in a normal election year, many voters may say they're going to vote for third-party candidates, but when the votes are actually counted these candidates usually pull in a lot less than their polling percentage had indicated. Voters like to vote for a candidate with a chance of actually winning, perhaps. Or perhaps third-party voters just aren't all that motivated to get to the polls -- they may answer a pollster's phone survey but then fail to turn out to vote. For whatever reason, the safe bet for pollsters is to discount any third-party responses, since they almost never equate to actual votes.

That's "in a normal election year," mind you. This is, to put it mildly, quite likely not a normal election year. This means conventional wisdom may not be a reliable indicator of what might happen.

There are two third-party candidates this year who are polling far above the usual levels seen by minor political parties: Libertarian Gary Johnson, and the Green Party's Jill Stein. As of right now, Johnson is polling at a national average of 8.9 percent, and Stein is at 3.4 percent. Both are polling much better in some individual states, including states that might be big battlegrounds in November. The big question that not enough pundits are even considering right now is whether this support in the polls will translate into actual votes in November.

For the most part, and rather astonishingly, both Johnson and Stein taken together do not seem to be changing the dynamics of the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump all that much. This is astonishing because normally one party is more affected by third-party candidates than the other. Although it's not really true, a strong third-party candidate is usually said to be "stealing votes" from one or the other of the major party candidates. It's not really true because every vote must be earned -- if a third-party candidate wins it, it means there are some serious deficiencies in the two major party candidates that might mean that voter would just stay home on Election Day, if given the choice of only two names on the ballot.

Perhaps because Stein balances Johnson out ideologically (Stein might be drawing disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters, while Johnson pulls in "Never Trump" Republicans), their inclusion in pollsters' surveys doesn't seem to change the margin between Clinton and Trump all that much. Currently, Hillary is up 5.5 percent in polling that doesn't include third-party candidate names to choose from, while she's up 4.3 in polls which mention all four candidates. This stability has been fairly consistent for the past few months -- the third parties may lower both Clinton and Trump's absolute numbers, but they seem to be drawing fairly equally from both.

Of course, as any regular reader of this column knows, national polling is almost worthless when attempting to predict the race's outcome. Given our Electoral College system, state-level polling is necessary to see the true picture of the race. This is where third-party candidates could actually cause upsets, to put it another way. In Utah, for instance, disaffected Republicans won't just have Johnson on the ballot (if they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump), there will also be a local (and Mormon) name on the ballot to choose, as well. The two combined may shrink Trump's vote to the point where Hillary Clinton could actually win this deep-red state. The opposite may be true elsewhere, if Stein draws enough support from Clinton in a key battleground state (such as Ohio, perhaps).

National numbers are meaningless for another reason, as well. Voters in states that are comfortably in either Clinton's or Trump's column may feel a lot freer to choose a third-party candidate. "Hillary's going to win Vermont," they tell themselves, "so I can vote for Jill Stein and not worry about handing the election to Trump." Voters in states that are going to be close won't have that freedom, because they know full well that their state might be decided by a few hundred votes. Voters do indeed make these sorts of calculations, which the polling often entirely misses.

The outcome of the 2016 election may instill a certain amount of caution among those who watch polls for a living (or even as a serious hobby). Conventional wisdom about the possible turnout for third parties may shift, as the old model ("Let's just ignore them altogether -- their voters never actually make it to the polls") proves wrong. Having Donald Trump on a major party ticket sets up a rather unique situation (a "black swan event," to number-crunchers), but then every election has its own unique dynamics of one sort or another.

If Gary Johnson manages to even match H. Ross Perot's 1996 percentage, it will change the outcome of the race. It might not change the overall winner, and it may not even change any particular state outcomes, but it will be seen in the total percent of the nationwide vote the winner claims. Perot got almost 20 million votes in 1992, meaning Bill Clinton won the race with only 43 percent of the national popular vote. Clinton then went on to face the charge that he "hadn't won a mandate" because of his low vote total.

If 2016 turns out to be a Perot year, the total third-party vote percent may influence the "political capital" the winner can count on in his or her first term. If it turns out to be a Nader year, then this won't be as true, but if you define a "Nader year" as being one where certain states flip between the two major party candidates, then the third-party influence could be even greater than the percentage would have you believe. It'd have to be a pretty close race (as it was in 2000) for that to be true, of course. But one way or another, the conventional wisdom of just ignoring the third parties may turn out to be wildly wrong this November.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

193 Comments on “Will 2016 Be A Nader Year, Or A Perot Year?”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Too bad you won't inform voters of the opportunity that Voucher Vendetta provides for all the elections in 2016.
    Part of the approach for Voucher Vendetta is for citizens to be able to declare on the website who they will be voting for. This would be much better than polls that can be easily manipulated by the questions and interpretations of the results because these would be real numbers instead of estimates derived from a small sampling of voters in a poll.
    If for example, about 30% of registered voters in a congressional district (or state for a senatorial candidate) were committed to voting for a third party or independent candidate then that candidate would have to be considered a legitimate candidate and be included in any debates no matter what the easily manipulated polls said. And citizens would know that other citizens also intended to vote for that candidate so they wouldn't feel they are wasting their vote on a candidate that the manipulated polls say can't win.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How does Russian intelligence factor into either scenario? :)

  3. [3] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    I'd say that Johnson's eventual result has a chance of affecting the trajectory of the Republican party; but will have no real effect on the strength or weakness of Clinton's mandate (who at this point I'm assuming will be the winner of the general). So, in that sense, Johnson could a 'Perot year', but only for the R's - it won't affect the general outcome, but may affect the perception of who and what exactly the R's represent.

    Spend some time at RedState, NRO, etc. (but not Breitbart! ACK!!). For activists of those persuasions, a vote for Johnson is a real and principled protest (well, given that Ted Cruz dropped out). Amongst comparable 'lefty' sites (say, DailyKos or HuffPost), there's virtually no discussion of Johnson except how he affects the horse race.

    In contrast, Jill Stein has no chance of damaging the mandate of the Clinton administration. If Bernie had said on the convention floor "Vote your conscience!" a la Ted Cruz, well, maybe - but he didn't.

    And I think Clinton smartly decided that Bernie's very successful campaign required some real and public accommodations (see: platform, DNC leadership, etc.). Not a perfect outcome for either camp; but that's what compromise is about. And that seems to have satisfied the activists who form much of the D party structure.

    Nader got 2.5% (-ish) of the national vote in 2000. By 2004, it's hard to see that it had any real effect on the trajectory of the Democratic party (besides his frequent vilification in the narrative because - Florida! W!). Regardless of current polling, I seriously doubt that Stein will double that result in the general (I actually doubt she'll even match it); and she'll have 0 impact at the electoral college level or the local representative level. So she won't even be a 'Nader year' - Clinton's margin will be large enough that it won't matter in any case.

    That being said, the real danger for Clinton's mandate is the current sympathetic response to the Trump-promoted rhetoric regarding the validity of the voting process itself, amongst some of the electorate. I see this as a much greater national threat than the similar (and arguably far more justified) questioning of the process caused by the 2000 result.

    Also, oh - hello everyone! Very long time daily reader (since 2010), first time (-ish) caller.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, oh - hello everyone! Very long time daily reader (since 2010), first time (-ish) caller.

    You're brave, chas.

    Welcome to the site. :)

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3] chaszzzbrown: hello! Great comment!

    Re: your point about the validity of the voting process -- I think that's been a festering sore since 2000 and it needs to be addressed. The question is how?

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "The question is how?"

    Trump TV!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Say it ain't so!

  8. [8] 
    apophis wrote:

    [3]
    chaszzzbrown;

    Enjoyed your comment and welcome.

  9. [9] 
    MHorton wrote:

    How? It's pretty easy. You institute voter ID laws; but at the same time, each USPS becomes a DMV, and all fees for ID's are waived. Once ID saturation reaches a benchmark (95%+ish of registered voters) then they become required. This will soothe the (unfounded) fears of the right, while providing actual services that poor and underserved areas already need.

    Then, we do what the Germans did. Hand counted, paper ballots. You can't go wrong.

  10. [10] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    What is up with the endless self promotion? It's as bad as Michale spamming every right wing talking point and anti-left bandwagon...

    Aside from blowing up little pieces of paper in a Guy Fawkes mask, what does your site bring to the table? It's been active for little over a year, and it lists 10 people having registered. At this rate you will meet your stated low goal of 20% of the voting public in about 2.6 million years...

    I get limiting campaign contributions to low levels. Not too sure about an arbitrary $200 other than it's below reporting requirements. But why your site? It gives no information as to who is doing what without registering and I suspect not much even if you do. Seems like that information would be critical to know who is low level funding and who is not. Especially with third parties, otherwise the donations/votes are diluted to meaningless levels.

    The other problem with your site is I see nothing to enforce security or prevent gaming. Some of the more wretched hives of scum and villainy on the net could game your site in very short order. Except there seems nothing to game, so I guess you are safe...

    I also find irony in that you would accuse us of not understanding democracy for not agreeing with you and jumping on your bandwagon. Each person having their own opinion and the ability and legal right to act on that opinion via the ballot box is the basis of democracy...

  11. [11] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [5] Paula, in re: That Festering Sore by C. S. Lewis :)

    There are two different issues at play here.

    The first issue is purely a technical matter of measurement: given a particular method of recording hundreds of millions of votes (paper ballots with check boxes recorded by humans, paper ballots with chads recorded by machine, some future internet public-key/private-key based voting system, or whatever), there will be some natural error rate. How can we reduce that error rate? In particular, the technical question is not that there is no error; it is "how can we reduce that error rate to the point that it doesn't matter"?

    The second issue is purely a political matter: how can we as citizens trust, regardless of the method of recording votes, that when we are told by the Powers That Be 'Candidate A got more votes than Candidate B', that that is a true statement?

    In the "normal" world I grew up in, the error rate due to issues of the first type has usually been quite small, and so we have trusted it to be obvious when violations of the second type of issue occur.

    2000 was exceptional, in that the outcome in Florida was critical; and yet was within the technical error range. That brought issues of the second type to the fore.

    Gore did the country a tremendous service when he basically said: "we're within the margin of error, and we need a president, so I accept that in this case our system has chosen". Yes, we ended up with arguably the worst President in US history as a result; but he was the President we chose, and Gore supported the institution of voting, so he gets a hat tip from me!

    One could also look at Al Franken's Senate seat in 2008 similarly as a carefully scrutinized balance between small error margin versus politically motivated recounts.

    But what frightens me currently is the idea I see gaining currency (even in the Democratic coalition - see, e.g., Don Harris's comments) that issues of the second type are taken for granted to have prevailed, regardless of any abstract technical issues of the mechanics of voting, or empirical studies of how voting works.

    The thing is, the more recent cry of "the elections are rigged!" is not a critique of the finer points of error analysis of "hanging chads" being counted or not (as was the issue in 2000).

    What is new is a fundamental lack of confidence in the entire system of voting as a public institution, independent of whether that voting is carried out by paper ballots or punch cards or scanned votes or whatever.

    I would note that I think this lack of confidence in voting-technology is entirely unfounded when one looks at how it actually takes place; and is pretty much tin-hat territory.

    But that means that lack of confidence cannot be restored via some more reliable new technology; because it is not rooted in a lack of confidence in the existing technology to start with. It is rooted in a pre-existing lack of confidence the institutions of governance itself; and that's what scares me!

    So as a long winded answer to your question, Paula, "... but how?", I'd say: "Umm, outsource voting to Facebook...? Because, people trust Facebook, right? Or, okay maybe Google, then? Instagram?" :)

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    (if Gore had managed to win his home state -

    Which says a LOT about the quality of Gore as a leader.. :D

    That's "in a normal election year," mind you. This is, to put it mildly, quite likely not a normal election year. This means conventional wisdom may not be a reliable indicator of what might happen.

    Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying (and the WPG has been denying) since day one..

    Vindication, thy name is Michale!!!

    "No studying... hurrumph.."
    -Dr Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    Currently, Hillary is up 5.5 percent in polling that doesn't include third-party candidate names to choose from, while she's up 4.3 in polls which mention all four candidates. This stability has been fairly consistent for the past few months

    Those same months where the WPG claimed that Trump's numbers were "dropping like a stone"...

    But do ya think they would have the integrity to concede that they were full of shit??? Of course not!! :^/

    As usual, a thoroughly interesting and education commentary, CW.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    How does Russian intelligence factor into either scenario? :)

    It factors into Hillary and Demcorats dementia and wishful thinking...

    No where else.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chas,

    But that means that lack of confidence cannot be restored via some more reliable new technology; because it is not rooted in a lack of confidence in the existing technology to start with. It is rooted in a pre-existing lack of confidence the institutions of governance itself; and that's what scares me!

    Precisely.

    And, that is why what Donald Trump is doing is so dangerous. He is blatantly reinforcing a pre-existing lack of confidence in public institutions and of government itself for his own purposes, apparently without any regard for how his actions undermine American democracy.

    Of course, neither Trump nor congressional Republicans of late are solely to blame for this general erosion of confidence in the system. This malaise has been brewing for decades within an increasingly dysfunctional political and media culture and the responsibility for the consequences it brings is shared by an entire nation.

    As a citizen of the world and one who still believes in the promise of America and in the indispensable nature of its global leadership role, this general lack of American confidence in its own democracy is beyond disheartening.

    The pertinent question here, especially for those seeking to lead America and the free world, is how to restore public confidence in governance and the media. Because, without it, effective and visionary leadership - domestically and internationally - will continue to be an increasingly difficult proposition with disastrous implications for America and for the rest of us out in the world.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, we have nothing to worry about from Russia.. They are are BFFs.. Odumbo said so and Hillary gave the Russians an OVER-CHARGED button..

    Just the facts.. :D

    OK, OK, one funny hyperbole and one fact.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    MHorton,

    How? It's pretty easy. You institute voter ID laws; but at the same time, each USPS becomes a DMV, and all fees for ID's are waived.

    Excellent idea.. Truly excellent.. I should know because I have been saying the EXACT same thing for years. Well, except for the USPS part. I don't think that would fly...

    But instituting Voter ID laws and waiving fees?? Pure Michale..

    But the Left Wingery (and the WPG) would STILL be against it..

    Because it would eliminate (or severely curtail) they Left's ability to cheat..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama and the Demcorats CARE about illegal immigrants??? Of course not. They just want to mint tens of millions of fresh new Demcorat voters..

    Photo Voter ID would put a severe dent in the Demcorat minting process...

    Credit where credit is due, though... Your's is a damn fine idea...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You don't seem to be the least concerned about the prospect of Russian intelligence working to manipulate the outcome of a general American election.

    That surprises me ...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And, that is why what Donald Trump is doing is so dangerous. He is blatantly reinforcing a pre-existing lack of confidence in public institutions and of government itself for his own purposes, apparently without any regard for how his actions undermine American democracy.

    You mean like Hillary does and Bernie did??

    The only difference is Trump is RIGHT and Hillary and Bernie were wrong...

    Of course, neither Trump nor congressional Republicans of late are solely to blame for this general erosion of confidence in the system.

    Thank you!! I have been saying that for YEARS and it's been resoundingly denied by the WPG..

    Nice to have vindication.. AGAIN.. :D

    The pertinent question here, especially for those seeking to lead America and the free world, is how to restore public confidence in governance and the media.

    That's easy...

    Get rid of the incompetent Establishment Insiders who CAUSED the problem and bring in someone who is totally, completely and unequivocally an outsider...

    Hillary is the incompetent Establishment Insider and Trump is the totally completely and unequivocally outsider...

    Problem solved...

    . Because, without it, effective and visionary leadership - domestically and internationally - will continue to be an increasingly difficult proposition with disastrous implications for America and for the rest of us out in the world.

    Couldn't possibly agree more with this...

    Which makes your support for Hillary completely incomprehensible..

    Hillary doesn't represent "visionary" and "effective" leadership..

    Hillary's incompetence is well-documented and undeniable.. That rules out "effective"...

    Hillary represents the status quo... That eliminates "visionary"....

    Logically, if you truly believe what you said, then TRUMP is the ONLY logical choice for change....

    What it all boils down to is this..

    If you are perfectly happy with the last 8 years and have NO COMPLAINTS about Obama and his leadership, then you vote Hillary...

    If you TRULY want to change the direction this country is heading (as upwards of 80% of Americans do) then you vote Trump...

    "Simple logic"
    -Captain Spock, STAR TREK VI, THE VOYAGE HOME

    :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    @elizabeth miller, @apophis

    Thank you for your welcome! I have enjoyed your voices.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary Clinton

    The Democratic Party often warns us that mixing big money and politics will corrupt democracy. They must have nominated Hillary Clinton to prove it.

    The Clinton Foundation was ostensibly set up to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Though it’s done some fine work, its most fruitful program has been leveraging Clinton’s position in the State Department to enrich her family, friends and cronies.

    It’s against federal law for charities to act in the interests of private business or individuals. Yet the Clinton Foundation secured high-paying gigs for its namesakes and helped for-profit corporations with family ties set up lucrative deals.

    As it turns out, that’s probably the least corrupt part of the story.

    It is becoming clear the foundation was a center of influence peddling. Rock stars. Soccer players. Conglomerates. Crown princes. All of them paid in. All of them expected access to the US government.

    Want a seat on a government intelligence-advisory board even though you have no relevant experience? The Clinton Foundation may be able to help.

    Recently released e-mails prove the charity’s officials had sought access to State Department personnel while Hillary was in charge. Folks like the prince of Bahrain, who donated $32 million to the foundation, needed to get in touch.

    An Associated Press investigation finds that more than half the private citizens who met or spoke with Clinton while she was secretary of state also happened to donate to her foundation. What are the odds?
    http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-under-hillary-clinton/

    You see, Liz??

    Trump is not "re-enforcing the public perception" of government corruption..

    He is simply stating the facts...

    Look how bad Hillary was as SecState when it comes to corruption..

    How much worse will she be if she is POTUS!???

    PLENTY....

    Again, these are the facts that no one here wants to address...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't seem to be the least concerned about the prospect of Russian intelligence working to manipulate the outcome of a general American election.

    That surprises me ...

    I am not. Because there is no real evidence to support the claim...

    2 hacking programs are the SOLE evidence to implicate Russia.. Hacking programs that Russia have used in the past but are freely available to those who know to look. Iran and China for example...

    The accusation is simply Clinton's way of trying to "fade the heat" from the facts that these hacks have produced...

    Put it another way, I would be more inclined to believe that the TRUMP Campaign is behind these hacks, more so than I believe Russia is..

    Russia WANTS Hillary to win.. Russian intelligence likely has so much blackmail on Hillary, they are salivating at a Hillary Presidency...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't seem to be the least concerned about the prospect of Russian intelligence working to manipulate the outcome of a general American election.

    That surprises me ...

    As a retired LEO and trained investigator, the one thing we look at first is motive..

    What's the motive for Russian Intelligence to take down Hillary and the Demcorat Party??

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's another fact that no one wants to address..

    Camp Clinton has stated that, should Hillary win the election, the Clinton Foundation has stated it will ban donations from corporations and foreign countries... They cited that such donations would pose a conflict of interest..

    So, this begs the question.. Why didn't Clinton do THAT when Hillary was SecState??

    I mean, if it's a conflict of interest if Hillary is POTUS *AS CLINTON HAS ACKNOWLEDGED*, then surely it's a conflict of interest when Hillary was SecState.....

    Simple logic...

    Another one of those FACTS that will be ignored...

    I think I have proven unequivocally who has facts and who doesn't... Who addresses points and who doesn't.. :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqlTqW0XEAA9AZZ.jpg

    That says it all as to what a Hillary presidency will look like...

    Do we really want another cigar in the oval office?? :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    If you want to read about REAL Russian penetration activities..

    http://observer.com/2016/08/the-real-russian-mole-inside-nsa/

    I know you don't like to read links, but you will like this one, I promise..

    'Sides, CW has chided me about posting to many long articles.. :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    of course, as any regular reader of this column knows, national polling is almost worthless when attempting to predict the race's outcome.

    It's ironic that the national polls are showing a dead heat race... And now they don't matter.. :D

    I am sure it's just a coincidence.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Aside from blowing up little pieces of paper in a Guy Fawkes mask, what does your site bring to the table? It's been active for little over a year, and it lists 10 people having registered. At this rate you will meet your stated low goal of 20% of the voting public in about 2.6 million years...

    You see my point??

    You don't toe the Hillary/Demcorat Party line, you get personally attacked and vilified...

    The fact you are right be damned... :^/

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    For all you post counters...

    I just posted 14 of the last 27 posts in this commentary..

    There, I saved ya'all the trouble of whining and bitching that I post a lot..

    Maybe ya'all will have time to address the facts I put out...

    Yea and maybe pigs will fly out of my arse... :^/

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Keep the faith.. :D

    If it weren't for people like you and me, Weigantia would be a ditto-head wasteland.. An echo chamber with nothing but "yep"s, "yep"s, "ditto"s and "right on"s as far as the eye could see...

    :D

    That fact is what gets me thru the trying times when the WPG bullies gang up and attack... :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Actually, I don't mind being attacked. Even if it's only here it's progress.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you- then you win"
    -Ghandi

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I don't mind being attacked. Even if it's only here it's progress.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you- then you win"
    -Ghandi

    Good point...

    If Ghandi is right, then I got this in the bag!!! :D hehe...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi (10)-
    The endless self-promotion is because the approach I believe in has no other place promoting the approach. Shouldn't I be able to post about the approach I believe in ?
    But thanks for checking out the website.
    It is a new approach and I am only one person. It is a work in progress, as any and all movements or ideas are at some point.
    But it is difficult to get people to acknowledge that the earth is round when they have been taught and everyone around them confirms that the earth is flat.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    The endless self-promotion is because the approach I believe in has no other place promoting the approach. Shouldn't I be able to post about the approach I believe in ?

    Abso-frakin'-tively!

    But such independence of thought and deed tends to rile up the WPG....

    As you have learned...

    But it is difficult to get people to acknowledge that the earth is round when they have been taught and everyone around them confirms that the earth is flat.

    THAT brought a smile to my face.. :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shouldn't I be able to post about the approach I believe in ?

    "We are the Borg. Your ideological distinctiveness is not permissible. You will be assimilated or destroyed. Resistance is futile"

    :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Bashi-10

    In addition to the lack of security and gaming problems.....

    From the V.V. site

    "If Voucher Vendetta is growing or successful by then I will need to draw a survival sized salary ( a few hundred dollars per week ) or return to my old job. Please don’t make me return to my old job. I would much prefer working for you. While I don’t expect to ever approach this amount, I will never take more than 100 thousand dollars per year ( peanuts by political consultant compensation ) even if Voucher Vendetta were to receive hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in contributions because I want your money to be used for Voucher Vendetta."

    Is fraud protection especially lax in Jersey?

    D.H. - 1 You have Brass Balls! P.T. Barnum would be proud!

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    In addition to the lack of security and gaming problems.....

    "We are the Borg. Your ideological distinctiveness is not permissible. You will be assimilated or destroyed. Resistance is futile"

    :^/

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    She is not planning on sitting for another televised armchair confessional to rehash regrets about a private email server. Nor is the campaign setting up the kind of war room employed last year to discredit a book that aimed to expose a quid-pro-quo relationship between Clinton Foundation donors and State Department officials.
    With 75 days until Election Day and new emails once again casting a pall over her campaign, Hillary Clinton aims to “run out the clock,” confidants say, on the latest chapters of the overlapping controversies that have dogged her campaign since the start.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-trump-email-strategy-227347#ixzz4IG7vRlsN

    That's great!!

    Cede the battlefield to Trump... What could possibly go wrong.. :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From the Voucher Vendetta website

    "Voucher Vendetta will not be making contributions to or endorsing any candidates so contributions to Voucher Vendetta will only be used to maintain and improve the website, advertising, legal advice, representation and actions when necessary and reasonable compensation to myself and others"

    Legal advice. Good idea.

    http://www.njnonprofits.org/online_fr.html

    "non-profits that solicit over the internet may be required to comply with the charitable registration and reporting requirements of as many as 39 states."

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Stig (35)-
    Thank you for acknowledging that I have the balls to admit that I would take a few hundred dollars a week for the work I would do running Voucher Vendetta after investing my own money and volunteering my time to get it started.
    I suppose no one at MoveOn, Public citizen, Hillary's campaign, etc. gets paid for the work they do for their respective organizations. I bet some of them even get paid more than a few hundred dollars a week and some might even get more than 100,000 dollars in a year.
    Since when is being honest considered fraud?
    What kind of fraud would be set up so that the participants send their money directly to the candidates of their choice rather than funnel the money through the organization?
    Yes, it's true that there is no legal enforcement provisions for the candidates (if that's what you mean by security and gaming). Participants will have to rely on the media and activists to search out candidates that are not honest about being small contribution candidates. Then the participants will need to take the appropriate action. That is the whole idea- citizens can and need to take care of things themselves rather than rely on the corrupt politicians to pass legislation every time citizens don't like way the way something is done or someone is doing something they don't like.
    As stated earlier, I have limited resources which was enough to get it started and there will be auditing and additional protections to what there is now when the organization grows to make as sure as possible that one person does not sign up multiple times (if that's what you mean by gaming).

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Don Harris

    Other than fund raising at various small websites, you don't appear to be doing anything. How is what you are doing different than a tin cup with a (bad) website? In other words, why should a prudent person regard you as anything than a scammer? Buyer beware etc.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since when is being honest considered fraud?

    When you go against Crooked Hillary Clinton... DUH... :D

    I suppose no one at MoveOn, Public citizen, Hillary's campaign, etc. gets paid for the work they do for their respective organizations. I bet some of them even get paid more than a few hundred dollars a week and some might even get more than 100,000 dollars in a year.

    But those are Democrat organizations so they are entitled...

    Rules and laws don't apply to Demcorats, don'tcha know...

    Well, one thing has been proven beyond any doubt...

    It's not just posting a lot against Hillary and the Demcorats that earn the bullying and attacks by the WPG...

    It's posting ANYTHING against Hillary and the Demcorats that earn bullying and attacks by the WPG...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    You may have to re-think your strategy for gaining support for your efforts. And, not to beat a dead horse, but it has to start with changing the name of your campaign to something that actually might attract people.

    And, if you continue to harp on the false equivalency of both major parties today and how they have behaved over the course of the last few decades - policy-wise and otherwise - then I'm afraid you will find little support here or anywhere else. Because that line of 'reasoning' carries very little weight with people who care about the political process and who are reasonably well informed.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have little time at the moment for discussion but, for now, let me just say that there is ample evidence of the Russian government's actions to manipulate this US election. That should concern you as a former member of the law enforcement and military community. Full stop.

    http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

    This link provides details of an investigation into this matter by a cybersecurity company and its analysis reinforces the conclusions of CrowdStrike.

    You think that Putin has no motive for sinking the Clintons' campaign for the presidency? Seriously?

    Secondly, if Chris has chastised you for posting long articles or too many posts, then he's worried about all the wrong things. There is nothing wrong with posting long articles, so long as you properly attribute them, you know. :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Other than fund raising at various small websites, you don't appear to be doing anything. How is what you are doing different than a tin cup with a (bad) website? In other words, why should a prudent person regard you as anything than a scammer? Buyer beware etc.

    TRANSLATION:

    "We are the Borg. Your ideological distinctiveness is not permissible. You will be assimilated or destroyed. Resistance is futile"

    :^/

    I hate it when I am always right....

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have little time at the moment for discussion but, for now, let me just say that there is ample evidence of the Russian government's actions to manipulate this US election.

    What factual evidence would that be??

    According to my research, the ONLY facts that link Russia to the DNC hacks are the 2 hack tools used....

    From a politically agnostic investigator's point of view, that's pretty flimsy...

    Further why would Russia used such readily identifiable hacking tools that they KNOW would be traced back to them..

    Answer: They wouldn't...

    You think that Putin has no motive for sinking the Clintons' campaign for the presidency? Seriously?

    Seriously.. What motive would Putin have to sink Hillary and guarantee a Trump presidency??

    Secondly, if Chris has chastised you for posting long articles or too many posts, then he's worried about all the wrong things. There is nothing wrong with posting long articles, so long as you properly attribute them, you know. :)

    Actually, I think it was you who complained about "too much bold" in my comments.. :D I think CW just backed ya up on it.. :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, if you continue to harp on the false equivalency of both major parties today and how they have behaved over the course of the last few decades - policy-wise and otherwise - then I'm afraid you will find little support here or anywhere else.

    Exactly..

    Because it ISN'T a false equivalency as you yourself have stated...

    But you can't point that out around here with any consistency and/or passion without being attacked and bullied by the WPG...

    You may have to re-think your strategy for gaining support for your efforts. And, not to beat a dead horse, but it has to start with changing the name of your campaign to something that actually might attract people.

    "Do it our way or don't do it at all"

    While I am not speaking for Don, I know what *MY* reaction to that would be... :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because it ISN'T a false equivalency as you yourself have stated...

    You have misconstrued the meaning of my comment(s). It most decidedly is a false equivalency and I have never stated otherwise.

    To boil it all down to the essentials, Trump is an anti-Enlightenment candidate of a party that is essentially anti-science. The same cannot be said of Hillary and the Democratic Party.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Do it our way or don't do it at all"

    Again, you misconstrue the meaning of what I have said.

    Do it in a way that is effective (Don has already stated on several occasions that effectiveness eludes his efforts) or don't do it at all ...

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, I think it was you who complained about "too much bold" in my comments.. :D I think CW just backed ya up on it.. :D

    Nope. That wasn't me. I have no complaints about that kind of boldness in your comments. :)

    I have no complaints about the number of your comments, either.

    To believe otherwise is to completely miss the point of my criticism of your comments.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What factual evidence would that be??

    Didn't you read the link I provided. It's all about laying out the evidence you seek ...

  51. [51] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Don Harris

    No resume. Your photo looks like it comes from ShutterStock - as does the little girl with the flag. Try putting a newspaper headline in with a headshot.

    You want my name, and you want my money. Look, I don't more solicitation spam in my mailbox. I want my money well spent. Verify, THEN trust.

    Besides your manifesto, the only thing I really know about you is a web address and the address of your post office box. Nice boiler room. Do you move it often?

    https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9232985,-74.3070911,3a,75y,37h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skHDA9GMcRKVgZ2d5iFEgmw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkHDA9GMcRKVgZ2d5iFEgmw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D86%26h%3D86%26yaw%3D37.588013%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do it in a way that is effective

    In YOUR opinion..

    (Don has already stated on several occasions that effectiveness eludes his efforts) or don't do it at all ...

    Don has also given very solid and valid reasons why he doesn't WANT to change the name..

    While ya'all have given very solid and valid reasons why he SHOULD change the name, the fact is, it's HIS choice to make..

    You have misconstrued the meaning of my comment(s). It most decidedly is a false equivalency and I have never stated otherwise.

    Semantics.. You have stated that the Republicans are not "solely responsible" for the problems this country has..

    That is a decided statement in favor of equivalency..

    If money in elections is a problem and Hillary and the Democrats will "fix" the problem, why HAVEN'T they??

    Answer: Because there is no real desire on the part of the Democrats to actually "fix" something that they make HUGE amounts of money off it being broken...

    Anyone who actually BELIEVES that Hillary and the Demcorats WANT to "fix" this problem is someone who is totally wasted on the koolaid...

    Trump is an anti-Enlightenment candidate of a party that is essentially anti-science. The same cannot be said of Hillary and the Democratic Party.

    Moose poop!! Moose poop, I tell you!!

    The EXACT same thing can be said about the Demcorat Party...

    Because I have proven beyond ANY doubt that the Demcorat Party is anti-science when the science goes against their agenda..

    This is fact...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Further why would Russia used such readily identifiable hacking tools that they KNOW would be traced back to them..

    So, you think the Russian government is not hacking US institutions? Or, you think that they are but their methods just haven't been discovered yet?

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do it in a way that is effective. In YOUR opinion..

    No, I'm simply parroting Don's opinion.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    While ya'all have given very solid and valid reasons why he SHOULD change the name, the fact is, it's HIS choice to make..

    Absolutely!

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't you read the link I provided. It's all about laying out the evidence you seek ...

    The ONLY evidence it shows is Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.. It then expands on those two pieces..

    Those 2 hack tools are the *ONLY* evidence that links the hack to the Russians..

    The Russians aren't fools and they are not idiots.. They wouldn't use such readily identifiable tools...

    You have yet to outline a motive...

    Further, read the NSA article I posted. That gives you a clue as to how sophisticated the Russians are in espionage....

    The DNC hack was amateur hour compared to REAL espionage activities...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    While ya'all have given very solid and valid reasons why he SHOULD change the name, the fact is, it's HIS choice to make..

    Absolutely!

    And, since we agree that it is HIS choice to make, any further argument on that point simply escalates the discussion..

    He is not going to change the name.. Get over it..

    It's just like I tell ya'all when you complain about my excessive posting...

    I am not going to post less.. Get over it...

    :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you think the Russian government is not hacking US institutions? Or, you think that they are but their methods just haven't been discovered yet?

    I never said that.. I have no doubt that the Russians have their fingers in a lot of US pies...

    But their is absolutely ZERO credible or factual evidence to support the crazy theory that Russia is hacking Hillary and the DNC for the purpose of swinging the election to Trump..

    ZERO..... CREDIBLE..... EVIDENCE......

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    No resume. Your photo looks like it comes from ShutterStock - as does the little girl with the flag. Try putting a newspaper headline in with a headshot.

    "We are the Borg. Your ideological distinctiveness is not permissible. You will be assimilated or destroyed. Resistance is futile"

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If the DNC hack was so amateurish, in your opinion, then you should know exactly who the culprits are.

    Why don't you enlighten us? There must be something you can point to as to who the mystery hackers are, since they aren't that sophisticated ...

    Why would Putin want to disrupt Hillary's campaign. Because he has disliked Clintonian policy toward Russia that he perceives is all about decreasing Russian influence and encroaching upon Russian territory. Trump's policies toward Russia seem far more palatable to Putin.

    Putin should be very careful about what he wishes for, however.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's just like I tell ya'all when you complain about my excessive posting...

    I am not going to post less.. Get over it...

    Apologies, Liz...

    That "YOU" should have been a "ya'all".. I wasn't singling you out specifically...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have never complained about your excessive posting and I never will. Get over THAT!

    It's not good enough not to single me out - you shouldn't include me in that group at all!!!

    Your excessive posting is not the problem ...

  63. [63] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    The problem here is politics is moving people to your view point. Aligning with the local forum troll and insulting our intelligence is the express train to no supportville. Many posters on this forum support campaign finance reform. But that is a huge subject with many shades of gray. Should it be altruistic as you propose? Legislative? Through the courts? All at once? How much money should it be limited to? Who should have access? Those that don't have direct access, how to you propose they get their issues heard? Many possible paths and issues, why your path and only your path the correct one?

    As to your site: Where is the list? It seems the whole point of your site is to have a list of candidates that are small donation funded. That's interesting. Where is it? This is the 2016 web, I'm not paying you to built it, that would be Kickstarter. But I might support you if you offer something interesting and have a real there there. I'm not seeing the there there. What I am seeing is no new news since the day after you launched. Instead of promoting on other sites, how about a post once a week on why your idea is right? By now you would have over 50 posts and when someone asks why you can link directly to a well thought out argument on the subject. Many of us hate our day jobs. You have to work to change it. I'm not seeing the work...

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's it for me for now, Michale ... I'll be back ... much later this evening ...

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (40,51)-
    Not fundraising at this point. Apparantly in your cherry picking of the website you missed the part where it states that no contributions will be accepted until at least 1000 citizens are registered as participants.
    "why should a prudent person regard you as anything [other] than a scammer?"
    Because Voucher Vendetta provides a solution that could work.
    We agree (I assume) that Big Money is a Big Problem.
    Legislation passed by Big Money legislators has not and will not solve the problem. Citizens working together can accomplish a goal. This is a way citizens can work together to and be the ones that control who and what they support.
    Whether or not citizens will participate is not the question that I would like answered.
    The question I have often asked and never had answered is this:
    If 20% of citizens participated (not if they will, but if they did) could Voucher Vendetta work the way I say it will? If not, why not?
    As for trust, the CMPs have proven they can't be trusted- yet you still support them.
    My resume is the only one that should be needed- I am a citizen with an idea that could improve our political process.
    I guess you also missed the part about solicitations on the website.

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One more thing before I go, Michale ... :)

    But there is absolutely ZERO credible or factual evidence to support the crazy theory that Russia is hacking Hillary and the DNC for the purpose of swinging the election to Trump..

    That may be true enough if it was only a matter of hacking. For me, the hacking itself is not the real problem here, though cyber security is a very serious issue. No, the real problem is that what was hacked was leaked to third party and publically released. Why do you think the Russian government would wish to release such information to the public in the midst of a US election?

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Elizabeth-
    Thank you for your constructive comments. Stating that both parties are bad or corrupt is not equivalency. The point is bad and corrupt are not good, so who is worse or whether they are equally bad and corrupt is not important.
    The other point is I am working within the system, just not the two party system. But Voucher Vendetta can be used by those within the two party system to influence their parties and candidates.
    People need to stop thinking of themselves as reasonably informed and learn to think for themselves. People that can think for themselves realize when something isn't working such as the two party system, trying to legislate the Big Money out of politics, LEV voting, etc. and then find or create a different approach.
    When you are informed by people that have been wrong and/or deceived you, you are not well informed.
    The conventional political wisdom when I first came up with this idea was that small contributions could not raise enough money to be competitive and taking on establishment candidates in the primaries wouldn't work. Since then Bernie and the Tea Party have since proven me right and many internet campaigns have moved the public discourse in ways previously thought impossible.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Stating that both parties are bad or corrupt is not equivalency. The point is bad and corrupt are not good, so who is worse or whether they are equally bad and corrupt is not important.

    I disagree and think that distinction is critically important, especially with regard to whether or not progressive change is possible.

    If you are starting with a governing party that is anti-science and works to repress the very efforts you are trying to make effective, then I don't see how you can say that the difference between the parties is not important.

    People need to stop thinking of themselves as reasonably informed and learn to think for themselves...When you are informed by people that have been wrong and/or deceived you, you are not well informed.

    That's a very interesting statement and relies on assumptions that may not be accurate.

    What I mean is that thinking for yourself and believing that you are reasonably well informed are not mutually exclusive notions. I believe that the ability to think critically involves being well informed and able to discriminate between what is fact and what is fantasy and between fallacious arguments and reliable and trustworthy analyses.

  69. [69] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "But the Left Wingery (and the WPG) would STILL be against it..
    Because it would eliminate (or severely curtail) they Left's ability to cheat..
    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama and the Demcorats CARE about illegal immigrants??? Of course not. They just want to mint tens of millions of fresh new Demcorat voters..
    Photo Voter ID would put a severe dent in the Demcorat minting process..."

    MOOSE POOP I tell ya, MOOSE POOP!!!

    There, fixed it for ya!

    The Democrats and Left Wing were NEVER about "MINTING" new voters or "CHEATING." That is TOTALLY unsubstantiated partisanship on your part.

    The MAJOR concern always was and always has been DISENFRANCHISING legal voters because they don't happen to agree with YOUR ideology. In this case, Republicans deliberately taking steps that they know will prevent voters who are college students, poor or elderly etc. who lean towards voting for Democrats from participating in the process to begin with, in order to enhance the prospects of Republicans gaining and keeping political power. Nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with any kind of concern about voter fraud AT ALL. One only needs to compare what happened in the real world of two states side by side, Wisconsin and Minnesota, to see this.

    As for Democrats and the Left Wing, speaking for myself as a proud member of both, I would have NO problem with voter ID IF, and I stress IF, the conditions of making such ID both FREE and EASILY available to EVERYONE, were met. Which sort of puts the lie to your assertion.

    In other words, if African American housebound grandma, or struggling college student, can have an ID hand delivered to their residence free of charge, then by all means I am ALL FOR IT.

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    [69] John M:
    As for Democrats and the Left Wing, speaking for myself as a proud member of both, I would have NO problem with voter ID IF, and I stress IF, the conditions of making such ID both FREE and EASILY available to EVERYONE, were met. Which sort of puts the lie to your assertion.

    In other words, if African American housebound grandma, or struggling college student, can have an ID hand delivered to their residence free of charge, then by all means I am ALL FOR IT.

    Yep!

  71. [71] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "As a retired LEO and trained investigator, the one thing we look at first is motive..
    What's the motive for Russian Intelligence to take down Hillary and the Demcorat Party??"

    As I believe Elizabeth pointed out also, maybe it is because Putin PERSONALLY dislikes Hillary for a number of well founded reasons?

    To quote POLITICO, for example:

    "Former U.S. officials who worked on Russia policy with Clinton say that Putin was personally stung by Clinton’s December 2011 condemnation of Russia’s parliamentary elections, and had his anger communicated directly to President Barack Obama. They say Putin and his advisers are also keenly aware that, even as she executed Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, Clinton took a harder line toward Moscow than others in the administration. And they say Putin sees Clinton as a forceful proponent of “regime change” policies that the Russian leader considers a grave threat to his own survival."

    OR, according to NBC News:

    "It's because the former KGB operative hates Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, with such a passion that he wants to embarrass her personally and undermine — if not derail — her presidential campaign, they say.
    For a Russian leader who is considered as vain as he is ruthless, Clinton's criticism long ago crossed over from the political into the personal. He carries a grudge against a woman who has publicly compared him to Hitler and expressed doubts that he has a soul.
    In addition to the policy disagreements that they have, I think Putin himself sees some of Clinton's remarks as a personal attack against him and the way he governs his country and how he conducts his foreign policy," said Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia from early 2012 to 2014."

    It also seems to me that Putin and Trump sound a lot alike in that regard. Maybe that is why they have such a bromance going on between the two of them???

  72. [72] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "It's ironic that the national polls are showing a dead heat race... And now they don't matter.. :D

    I am sure it's just a coincidence.. :D"

    Oh really???

    The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday, shows Hillary Clinton LEADING Donald Trump by TWELVE percentage points among likely voters. The Aug. 18 - 22 poll showed 45 percent of voters supported Clinton, while 33 percent backed Trump.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    As I believe Elizabeth pointed out also, maybe it is because Putin PERSONALLY dislikes Hillary for a number of well founded reasons?

    Oh jeezus h christ.. This isn't a high school class president election..

    Do you SERIOUSLY think that a man of Putin's capabilities and leadership will want to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS because "he doesn't like her"!!???

    Putin has enjoyed an UNPRECEDENTED level of manipulation and freedom to act with the Obama Administration... He is going to want the next POTUS to continue that Obama tradition..

    And THAT is Hillary Clinton....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday, shows Hillary Clinton LEADING Donald Trump by TWELVE percentage points among likely voters. The Aug. 18 - 22 poll showed 45 percent of voters supported Clinton, while 33 percent backed Trump.

    What part of A SINGLE POLL DOESN'T MEAN DICK do you not understand!???

    I can give you TWO polls that show the race is a dead heat..

    Would you accept THOSE polls as "proof"???

    Of course you wouldn't..

    So why in the hell should I accept YOUR single poll that says what YOU want to believe???

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    That may be true enough if it was only a matter of hacking.

    Apologies.. I thought we were talking about the DNC hacking.. Let me readjust to the re-located goal posts. :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The goal posts have not been relocated and you have still not found them.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aligning with the local forum troll and insulting our intelligence is the express train to no supportville.

    AHA!!!!! I KNEW IT!!!!

    On my way home, I was thinking, "Maybe Don is being attacked because he expressed support for my viewpoint vis a vis there is no difference between Demcorats and Republicans.."

    But then I thought, "naaaawww, that's just my ego talking.. Surely the denizens of Weigantia would have a MODICUM of integrity and wouldn't bully and attack one Weigantian just because he acknowledged the validity of an unpopular Weigantian.."

    Apparently, I under-estimated the lack of integrity of the WPG..

    Something I would have not thought possible... :^/

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Elizabeth-
    If you are starting with a party and candidates that are corrupted by Big Money when that is the very thing you are trying to remove from politics as opposed to another party or candidate that is also corrupted by Big Money than what difference does any difference make?
    We obviously disagree about what is fact and fantasy. But I believe I am correct when I say that I have been proven right before when I was told I was wrong.
    Do you dispute that Bernie's campaign proved that small contributions can work? Do you dispute that the Tea Party and Bernie's campaign approach of taking on the establishment in the primaries exceeded the low expectations that conventional political wisdom put on them at their beginnings?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    insulting our intelligence

    This pre-supposes that ya'all HAVE intelligence...

    Surely assumes facts not in evidence..

    Ya'all have ideological slavery and dogmatic blinders up the ying-yang...

    But "intelligence"???

    Anyone who is a slave to ideology simply can't claim intelligence...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    The goal posts have not been relocated and you have still not found them.

    "OK.. Then lets brass some tacks.."
    -Metatron

    Are you advocating the theory that the DNC hack and the Hillary Campaign hack was the work of Russian Intelligence to sway the election in Trump's favor??

    A simple YES or NO is all that is required..

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    It also seems to me that Putin and Trump sound a lot alike in that regard. Maybe that is why they have such a bromance going on between the two of them???

    Yea.. And Trump's numbers are "dropping like a stone".. You still haven't fess'ed up to THAT piece of bullshit that even JOSHUA acknowledges was bullshit...

    Why should you have any credibility with this LATEST bullshit???

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You continue to miss the point, Michale.

    It is the transfer of the hacked material to a third party known for releasing hacked material to the public that is the "smoking gun" here with respect to the motivation behind the hack.

    And, I never said that Putin did it because he dislikes Hillary. I believe my exact words were, and I quote myself,

    "Why would Putin want to disrupt Hillary's campaign. Because he has disliked Clintonian policy toward Russia that he perceives is all about decreasing Russian influence and encroaching upon Russian territory. Trump's policies toward Russia seem far more palatable to Putin. [emphasis added by me for reasons that should be obvious. :) ]"

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, I never said that Putin did it because he dislikes Hillary. I believe my exact words were, and I quote myself,

    Then you dispute JM's assertion...

    Why don't you tell him that??

    Why would Putin want to disrupt Hillary's campaign. Because he has disliked Clintonian policy toward Russia that he perceives is all about decreasing Russian influence and encroaching upon Russian territory. Trump's policies toward Russia seem far more palatable to Putin.

    And yet it was Clinton's incompetence as SecState and her "OVER-CHARGE" button that gave Putin the opening to take The Crimea and set his sights on Eastern Ukraine and thereby fracturing NATO...

    So, LOGIC dictates that Putin would LOVE to have Clinton as POTUS...

    So, we are in agreement. Russia didn't pull the DNC hack to influence the US Election in favor of Trump...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, I never said that Putin did it because he dislikes Hillary. I believe my exact words were, and I quote myself,

    Then you dispute JM's assertion...

    Why don't you tell him that??

    I know why.. Because JM is ideologically pure... :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know why.. Because JM is ideologically pure... :D

    That was a joke.. Sorta :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to your site: Where is the list? It seems the whole point of your site is to have a list of candidates that are small donation funded. That's interesting. Where is it? This is the 2016 web, I'm not paying you to built it, that would be Kickstarter. But I might support you if you offer something interesting and have a real there there. I'm not seeing the there there. What I am seeing is no new news since the day after you launched. Instead of promoting on other sites, how about a post once a week on why your idea is right? By now you would have over 50 posts and when someone asks why you can link directly to a well thought out argument on the subject. Many of us hate our day jobs. You have to work to change it. I'm not seeing the work...

    "We are the Borg. Your ideological distinctiveness is not permissible. You will be assimilated or destroyed. Resistance is futile"

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I just love fucking with the clergy"
    -Loki, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't it funny how NO ONE wants to address the facts of Clinton's PAY-FOR-PLAY State Department???

    "Gee, I wonder why that is!!??"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Elizabeth-

    It is the transfer of the hacked material to a third party known for releasing hacked material to the public that is the "smoking gun" here with respect to the motivation behind the hack.

    There is another part to this story. Assange also has it in for Hillary and is destroying the credibility of Wikileaks to pursue it. With previous leaks including Snowden, he worked with competent journalists to redact whatever did not matter to the leak. With the DNC/Clinton stuff he has been just dumping all of it including names/email addresses/credit card numbers of Democratic donors. All the major donors are easily searchable as any donation over $200 is public information. This is just petty revenge and will kill what I view as an otherwise positive force in the world. I don't mind the Clinton or DNC leaks themselves as it's interesting to see how it all works but do it right if wikileaks wants to be relevant in to the future...

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    As a very reliable source has explained, Putin has weaponized WikiLeaks.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, I see no redeeming qualities in Assange or his WikiLeaks entity and I give it no relevance, now or ever.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    As a very reliable source has explained, Putin has weaponized WikiLeaks.

    Prove it.. With FACTS preferably....

    I can believe that WikiLeaks wants to destroy Hillary..

    But the idea that the Russian governments wants Trump as POTUS?

    That's just ridiculous and about as NON-SERIOUS an accusation as is possible..

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, I see no redeeming qualities in Assange or his WikiLeaks entity and I give it no relevance, now or ever.

    OK, now you are contradicting yourself..

    You claim that WikiLeaks is out to destroy Hillary and in the same breath claim it has no relevance..

    Considering the data that Wikileaks has exposed to date, the idea that it has NO RELEVANCE is nothing more than wishful thinking...

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chorus grows for Clintons to shutter charitable foundation

    The Clinton Foundation, the family philanthropy of Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, should shut down or transfer operations to another charity despite its good work to avoid perceptions of "pay-for-play", The Washington Post and USA Today said in editorials on Wednesday.

    Despite plans announced earlier this week to reorganize the Clinton Foundation if Hillary Clinton wins the Nov. 8 election, USA Today said the global charity must close for the Democratic candidate to avoid any appearance of unethical ties.

    "The only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs, starting today, and transfer its important charitable work to another large American charity such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation," the paper's editorial board wrote.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN10Z20Y

    HA!!!!!! :D SHUT DOWN THE CLINTON SLUSH FUND!!!!

    Clinton is going down!!!! :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I, personally, find no relevance in WikiLeaks. Period.

    Prove [that Putin has weaponized WikiLeaks].. With FACTS preferably....

    Here's some recent history for you:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/why-the-russians-hold-a-s_b_11283484.html?

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, so relevance was probably the wrong word.

    I have no use for WikiLeaks - never had, never will.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You have very successfully reduced the meaning of 'FACTS' to just more nonsense.

    That is my criticism of your comments here, by the way. Because it renders cogent discussions - about any issue - virtually impossible. I don't suppose that Chris has ever chastised you for that, has he?

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Here's some recent history for you:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/why-the-russians-hold-a-s_b_11283484.html?

    I said FACTS.. Not Left Wingery propaganda...

    Would you accept as FACT a Brietbart link?? Of course not...

    You have very successfully reduced the meaning of 'FACTS' to just more nonsense.

    No, FACTS mean the same.. I have simply proven that ya'all's definition of FACTS is not what normal people define FACTS as...

    I have no use for WikiLeaks - never had, never will.

    Personally, I don't imagine you would..

    It shows Hillary Clinton for the corrupt monster she is..

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That piece is chock full of facts and sound analysis, Michale. Which is the opposite of what can be found at Brietbart.

    Once again you have brought an end to a discussion because you cannot discern fact from fantasy.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there were a moment in this presidential race when Hillary Clinton could act on her stated outrage over the obscene amount of money in politics, it is probably now, having eclipsed her rival Donald Trump in terms of cash in the bank and blocked off his most direct paths to victory.

    But Clinton isn’t tapping the brakes. She is instead on an extended tour through the nation’s elite enclaves — from Laguna Beach to the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard to Magic Johnson’s house in Los Angeles – in an unrestrained fundraising blitz that makes even some supporters chafe.

    The price of entry at several of the stops, such as Monday’s dinner at the Beverly Hills home of entertainment mogul Haim Saban, is $50,000 per person. On the Vineyard on Saturday, Clinton netted roughly $2 million at a single cocktail party, then darted off to a small dinner event at a billionaire’s home that generated another $1 million.
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-hillary-clinton-fundraising-20160824-snap-story.html

    And THIS is the candidate ya'all expect to put the kibosh on Citizen's United???

    On what planet!???

    Hillary Clinton is *EVERYTHING* ya'all have "claimed" is wrong with out elections..

    yet, you are completely silent when Hillary does it because winning is more important to ya'all than anything else..

    Inegrity??? Bah!! Who needs it...

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I said FACTS.. Not Left Wingery propaganda...

    That reflects a profound misunderstanding of what the link I provided is all about.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    That piece is chock full of facts and sound analysis, Michale. Which is the opposite of what can be found at Brietbart.

    It's a political propaganda site...

    No more....

    It's only "chock full of facts and sound analysis" that YOU agree with....

    Just like the Right Wingery says that Brietbart is "chock full of facts and sound analysis"....

    Ya'all are the Catholics, the Right is the Protestants..

    Each believing in their one true god and declaring that the other side are heretics..

    That's all this is...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's a political propaganda site...

    I didn't refer you to the site. I referred you to a particular piece. Which you should take the time to read.

    You jump to conclusions far too fast, Michale, demonstrating a strange aversion to analyzing an issue with the complexity it demands.

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's a political propaganda site...

    I didn't refer you to the site. I referred you to a particular piece. Which you should take the time to read.

    You jump to conclusions far too fast, Michale, demonstrating a strange aversion to analyzing an issue with the complexity it demands.

  105. [105] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You thought that Lucy wouldn't pull the football this time?

  106. [106] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi (63)-
    As stated earlier it is a work in progress. The candidates will result from citizens participating. That is why I started with signing up participants.
    The work I do may not always be visible. You don't see me going to the Democracy Spring rally to pass out flyers (unless you saw me on The O'Reilly Factor). You don't see the many articles submitted to the many news outlets that claim to present all sides and ideas that no one else is covering because they don't publish the articles. It could be that I am a lousy writer but I wouldn't know because they never provide an explanation of why it's not published. I suspect it's because they don't really mean they want to present all sides- they just to want to present the side they agree with that they believe other media doesn't cover enough.
    You don't see all the politicians, activists, journalists, etc. that I contact because they also ignore it or dismiss it with superficial responses.
    You are right that there should be updates on the website. That was supposed to be part of getting the site set up but the company I was able to find and afford was not what they claimed to be. It was difficult enough to get what I got.
    At some point I will have find a better company that can do the job right.
    Have I made all the right moves so far? No. But the things that I have done are what the people I contact advise people like me to do and these people respond to much less effort from other people and ignore me.

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It should be clear by now, JFC, that I am a classic case of a sucker for punishment.

  108. [108] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don Harris,

    "doesn't it embarrass you that Michale seemed to be the only one that understands how democracy works based on your responses to my posts from Friday Talking Points?"

    I'll have to agree with Bashi that trolling is not a good idea. You've already attracted quite a bit of negative attention to your idea. I don't recall anybody bashing VV before this (except for maybe LizM).

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't refer you to the site. I referred you to a particular piece. Which you should take the time to read.

    So, if I referred you to a particular piece on Brietbart, would you be inclined to read it?

    of course not..

    You jump to conclusions far too fast, Michale, demonstrating a strange aversion to analyzing an issue with the complexity it demands.

    Once again, you want to make a simple issue complex to obfuscate the facts...

    Russia is not hacking the DNC and the Hillary campaign to manipulate the election so Trump will win...

    See.. Simple...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll have to agree with Bashi that trolling is not a good idea. You've already attracted quite a bit of negative attention to your idea. I don't recall anybody bashing VV before this (except for maybe LizM).

    Which proves unequivocally that Don is *ONLY* being attacked because he said that my point had merit...

    "We are the Borg. Your ideological distinctiveness is not permissible. You will be assimilated or destroyed. Resistance is futile"

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    Link to Salon. It's apparently OK.

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you are starting with a party and candidates that are corrupted by Big Money when that is the very thing you are trying to remove from politics as opposed to another party or candidate that is also corrupted by Big Money than what difference does any difference make?

    The difference becomes apparent when you look at the policies and each candidate would put in place and advocate for on a whole spectrum of difficult issues and challenges, domestically and internationally. And, not only are those differences critically important but they will impact - negatively or positively , depending on the candidate - the effectiveness of what you are trying to accomplish.

    We obviously disagree about what is fact and fantasy.

    I still don't know how that is possible and, yet, it happens all the time - here and elsewhere. Truth, reality and facts have been rendered meaningless. And, I have no idea where we go from there ... but, it is extremely disconcerting.

    Do you dispute that Bernie's campaign proved that small contributions can work? Do you dispute that the Tea Party and Bernie's campaign approach of taking on the establishment in the primaries exceeded the low expectations that conventional political wisdom put on them at their beginnings?

    I don't dispute that the influence of Big money in politics can and has been overcome. I've always said that effective and visionary leadership trumps big money.

    The example I like to look to is how Jerry Brown defeated Meg Whitman and her big spending campaign for the Governorship of California. Her campaign was the biggest spending non-presidential campaign in the history of US politics and, it was all for naught because she was up against a superior leader and human being.

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, if I referred you to a particular piece on Brietbart, would you be inclined to read it?

    It would depend entirely upon who wrote it.

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    I'll have to agree with Bashi that trolling is not a good idea. You've already attracted quite a bit of negative attention to your idea. I don't recall anybody bashing VV before this (except for maybe LizM).

    WHAT!?

    Unless by "bashing VV" you mean I have suggested a name change. Which I have done on numerous occasions. I believe the name of an organization is very important.

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Russia is not hacking the DNC and the Hillary campaign to manipulate the election so Trump will win...

    So, why are they doing it, then?

  116. [116] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Yes. I was just crackin' wise.

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I see.

  118. [118] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, if I referred you to a particular piece on Brietbart, would you be inclined to read it?

    It would depend entirely upon who wrote it.

    Bull...

    The fact that it was on Brietbart would label it in your mind...

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russia is not hacking the DNC and the Hillary campaign to manipulate the election so Trump will win...

    There is no concrete evidence that they ARE doing it...

    Haven't you been paying attention??

    It's only Clinton et al pushing that idea for political purposes...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes. I was just crackin' wise.

    Caught with his hand in the cookie jar.. :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not a Hillary fan and I don't count her campaign as a reliable source of information.

    Careful, Michale ... you are betraying a significant level of ignorance by sticking to that line ...

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know why you refuse to accept that I am not a slave to any party. That fact makes it far more difficult to respond to my comments with your own ideological bent.

    Try to get over it, Michale. And, accept that judging what motivates people is not your niche.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know why you refuse to accept that I am not a slave to any party. That fact makes it far more difficult to respond to my comments with your own ideological bent.

    OK, so what you are saying is that Hillary has many many faults and she is simply the lesser of two evils here..

    Would that sum up your position???

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Assuming that's the case, what's your take on Hillary and her PAY-FOR-PLAY State Department???

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Paula wrote:

    {125} The pay to play is one more attempt to create a scandal out of nothing. There's been pushback all day about the fact that, while the AP article in the end found absolutely NO evidence of anything wrong, the headline and set-up for the article IMPLIED there was wrongdoing. The AP has had to respond to criticism today and will probably be hammered for a few more days on this.

    Not that that matters to the world's idiots but then they swallow anything.

    [105] John: Good one!

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes, I think Hillary has many faults. I think she is taking the wrong approach to her campaign against Trump. Her saving grace and reason she gets elected is none other than Mr. Trump, himself.

    I've been saying for some time now that Americans have a choice in 2016 between two flawed candidates. However, I believe Hillary Clinton is the best choice.

    She shouldn't be running away from the Trump campaign's allegations of pay-for-play. She should be meeting them head on and be as transparent as she can about each and every meeting she had with a Clinton Foundation donor. She should also take the opportunity to highlight the good works of the foundation.

    I'm guessing she won't take that advice if anyone gives it to her.

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's the kind of advice that a Jack Ryan might give to a presidential candidate ... :)

  129. [129] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz has never bashed VV. she has offered constructive advice and disagreed, but never bashed.
    I hate when you people make me say this but Michale is right- the VV bashing started when I went with Stein after Bernie and didn't go with Hillary.

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    VV ... that right there is another good reason to change the name, Don ... :)

  131. [131] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    OK Don. I offered some constructive advice and I made a little joke that Liz understood. I'm a Green party member and Stein voter and I haven't criticized VV at any point. Troll on. I hope that alienating people works out for your organization. In fact, I recommend a VV comment section for your new buddy to spam.

  132. [132] 
    Paula wrote:

    [127] Elizabeth:

    She shouldn't be running away from the Trump campaign's allegations of pay-for-play. She should be meeting them head on and be as transparent as she can about each and every meeting she had with a Clinton Foundation donor. She should also take the opportunity to highlight the good works of the foundation.

    She's doing that on Social Media. I've seen several of her campaign communications on Facebook. There's a lot of action re: politics on Facebook, for those of you who don't have accounts. Paul Begala was on CNN pushing back and there's been a lot of articles and posts throughout the blogosphere.

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You think that's going to cut it, Paula?

    She needs to be pushing back on this much more aggressively than a phone call to the Anderson Cooper show. Which I just saw her do. And, which was a lame as could be.

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You think that's going to cut it, Paula?

    She needs to be pushing back on this much more aggressively than a phone call to the Anderson Cooper show. Which I just saw her do. And, which was as lame as could be.

  135. [135] 
    Paula wrote:

    I don't watch cablenews so can't comment on that. Why was it lame?

  136. [136] 
    Paula wrote:

    In terms of what she's doing on social media and in the blogosphere, I think it's the start and it will have an impact, especially on those (obviously) who already like her. Those who already hate her will believe every slur no matter what she or anyone says/does. People on the fence will probably not be affected much -- I don't think this will make or break anything. And Trump remains Trump.

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It was lame because she appears to see things the way you do in that she believe she really doesn't need to do anything more that she is already doing.

    Good luck to her with that strategy.

  138. [138] 
    Paula wrote:

    I think she'll be fine.

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope you're right, Paula.

    Because, as a trusted political analyst said, Hillary is all that stands between the Enlightenment ethic that animated the founders of the republic and aggressive know-nothingism.

  140. [140] 
    Paula wrote:

    [139] "all that stands....aggressive know-nothingness."

    Yep!

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    She shouldn't be running away from the Trump campaign's allegations of pay-for-play. She should be meeting them head on and be as transparent as she can about each and every meeting she had with a Clinton Foundation donor. She should also take the opportunity to highlight the good works of the foundation.

    I absolutely agree. And, if there was nothing there, she WOULDN'T be running away from her PAY-TO-PLAY State Dept..

    The fact that she IS running away indicates that, like her private insecure hacked email server, there IS something there...

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Almost 60% of the meetings that Hillary had with NG people and corporations "donated" to the Clinton Slush Fund..

    Only an ideologue would think that nothing is wrong with that..

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhhh JM???

    UPI/CVoter poll: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump remain within 1 percentage point
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/24/UPICVoter-poll-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-remain-within-1-percentage-point/1751472050339/

    Cat got yer tongue?? :D

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    OOoohh Here's another poll that "proves" your poll is bullshit.. :D

    Hillary Only Up By 43 Points
    https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/08/24/yougoveconomist-poll-august-19-23-2016/

    Some minor flunky here in Weigantia swears by The Economist so you KNOW this poll is accurate.. :D

    Like I said, ONE POLL doesn't mean dick around here...

    I only use them to show the WPG how wrong they always are.. :D

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    [37] Michale wrote: That's great!!

    Cede the battlefield to Trump... What could possibly go wrong.. :D

    Perhaps like Trump you are confusing the spotlight for the battlefield, perhaps missing the trees for the forest? Trump and his ilk seem blissfully unaware of the importance of a ground game and quite content with their earned media air war whereby running for the presidency equals running your mouth.

    Haven't you heard Napoleon's maxim, "Never interrupt your opponent when he's destroying himself"? You being a retired LEO, surely you understand the concept that the most successful cross-examiners rarely interrupt hostile witnesses but rather let them blather on unrestrained, indulging themselves in rhetorical flights of fancy, thereby letting them reveal themselves?

    In Texas we call this giving someone enough rope to let them hang themselves. In my opinion, HRC and her campaign have done a very good job of knowing when to "shut up" and when to "show up," and this clearly isn't their first trip to the rodeo.

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:
  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Only Up By 43 Points

    DOH!!!! Fat Fingers.. :D

    Hillary Only Up By 3 Points
    https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/08/24/yougoveconomist-poll-august-19-23-2016/

    :D

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    In my opinion, HRC and her campaign have done a very good job of knowing when to "shut up" and when to "show up," and this clearly isn't their first trip to the rodeo.

    I respect your opinion. But it's an opinion not borne of facts and reality, but rather of ideology and Party slavery...

    Clinton could have nip'ed the Email Server issue in the bud had she just came out and addressed it right at the start..

    She didn't and she saw her integrity and honesty numbers plummet to the cellar..

    Now she is doing the EXACT same thing (hiding) expecting a different result..

    The very definition of insanity...

    You see???

    I have facts and reality..

    You have Party slavery and ideology...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Cat got yer tongue?? :D"

    NOT at all Michale. You might want to cite the fact that the poll you referenced itself says the following:

    "Because the poll is conducted online and individuals self-select to participate, a margin of error cannot be calculated."

    Which means it is NOT a traditional poll where people are randomly sampled. It is a poll ONLY of people who DECIDE to actively participate.

    It would be like citing a poll of people who visit a blog site like NASA that is by definition biased towards those who support the space program and then claiming that because a majority of them support the space program, that that supports your already preconceived notion that a majority of Americans support the space program, when it in fact, shows NO SUCH THING.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOT at all Michale. You might want to cite the fact that the poll you referenced itself says the following:

    "Because the poll is conducted online and individuals self-select to participate, a margin of error cannot be calculated."

    It doesn't matter. It's STILL a poll.. If I were so inclined, I am certain I can find caveats with your polls as well..

    But the fact is, a SINGLE poll does not mean dick.. What part of that FACT do you not understand??

    It would be like citing a poll of people who visit a blog site like NASA that is by definition biased towards those who support the space program and then claiming that because a majority of them support the space program, that that supports your already preconceived notion that a majority of Americans support the space program, when it in fact, shows NO SUCH THING.

    Or it would be like citing a poll where the only respondents are Left Wingers.. Or citing a poll that has the question, "DO YOU THINK HILLARY IS AWESOME, REALLY AWESOME or STUPENDOUSLY AWESOME??" and then you use that poll to "prove" how awesome Hillary is..

    You used cherry picked polls to "prove" that Trump's numbers were dropping like a stone... You were completely and unequivocally WRONG, but you can't admit that...

    Let me repeat it to you since comprehension seems to be breaking down here..

    A SINGLE POLL DOESN'T MEAN DICK....

    And every other rational and logical person in Weigantia (all 2 of them) will tell you the exact same thing...

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC (131)-
    My comment on LIz not bashing VV was to show my appreciation for her comments, not meant to criticize you. My apologies if you took it that way.
    You have also not bashed VV so the rest of the comment was directed toward those that have bashed VV.
    I try to only mention VV when it is relevant to the article or comment thread. I may not always achieve this ideal , but I don't think it reaches the level of trolling (though I admit I don't know exactly what the definition of trolling is, though it is probably in the eye of the beholder).

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    (though I admit I don't know exactly what the definition of trolling is, though it is probably in the eye of the beholder).

    Around these here parts "trolling" is defined as "Posting comments that the accuser doesn't like or can't factually refute.."

    Hope this helps.. :D

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    One thing to remember about CW.com ...

    most of us here are quite sensitive souls, when you get right down to it ...

    :-)

  154. [154] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe they just need a cuddle.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Group hug!!! :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Cuddles and hugs!

    The new motto for Weigantia ... ?

  157. [157] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    I am not beating up on VV because of your green party affiliation, I did it because you mention VV too often and treat it as though it is some sort of self evident truth with more marketing speak than argument backing it up. Then go on to disparage those who disagree. I'm still waiting for the why. Why is VV better than other campaign finance reform? My view is money is like water, it will find every crack and crevice to flow through and when they do not exist, will create one. VV seems to be putting a rock in the stream, the money will flow right around it. Why is that view wrong?

    You then mention that Clinton and Trump are owned by big money. I have already addressed Trump and proven that he is actually funded by comparatively low level donations. Trump has many problems, but this does seem to be one of them. Clinton is the queen of big money, but she had many similar big money donors during her Senate days and voted yay on every single campaign finance reform bill to make it too a vote. Why will she do different once President? If you look at Clinton's and Stein's campaign website you will find Clinton has a section on campaign finance reform. Considering her proposed policy is quite close to Bernie's, what do you disagree with and why do you think she will not try to enact it? Stein's page on the other hand is quite Trumpesque. A short paragraph with general stuff and no details. What is her plan and why will it work?

    This is politics. There really is no right answer, only opinions. I might be convinced to share your opinion but they are not self evident and need to be backed up by good argument.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not beating up on VV because of your green party affiliation,

    Of course not..

    Bashi is beating up on you because you had the ultimate temerity to actually say that Michale was right about something...

    Irregardless of that, this begs the question..

    Why are beating up on ANYONE, Bashi???

    Should Don have the right to post what he feels without any "violence" from the denizens of Weigantia??

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cuddles and hugs!

    The new motto for Weigantia ... ?

    I'm down with that..

    Especially in light of the recently admitted "violence" SOLELY because of a difference of opinion...

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Great!

    I don't know anything about that last bit ... :(

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know anything about that last bit ... :(

    COmment #157

    I am not beating up on VV because of your green party affiliation, I did it because you mention VV too often

    So, if you say something too often that someone doesn't like, you get "beat up"...

    Now, if Bashi wants to admit that he chose his words poorly and that he was wrong to put it like that........

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    I was not being touchy. My hide is pretty thick. I was giving up, but it feels like Groundhog Day, so I'm going to try again.

    BTW - were you being sensitive in [114]? I thought not. I believed that you were just riffing off my comment.

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was giving up, but it feels like Groundhog Day, so I'm going to try again.

    Okay, now THAT was funny! I can so relate ... :)

    I am one of the more sensitive souls around here, by the way. I thought you knew that.

  164. [164] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    I try to only mention VV when it is relevant to the article or comment thread. I may not always achieve this ideal , but I don't think it reaches the level of trolling (though I admit I don't know exactly what the definition of trolling is, though it is probably in the eye of the beholder).

    I have no issues with you or your VV promotional activity. In fact, I think you should ask people to click your name when you talk about it. I was accusing you of trolling on only one occasion and I quoted it in my comment. When you said that the Trump fanboy "seemed to be the only one that understands how democracy works", what purpose did that serve? If you intended to make people angry at you, it worked. You got really negative responses and I recommended that you not troll in the future because you're trying to persuade people to join your thing and I don't see how it helps you realize your goal.

    The house troll's definition of trolling is self-serving and ridiculous (shocking!) as evidenced by the fact that you and I actually disagree on very little and I honestly don't care how much trolling goes on here. That's CW's problem, not mine. There are billions of internet comments that I don't look at. What's a few more?

  165. [165] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Yes, I thought that you sensed the joke.

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    [147] Michale wrote:

    I respect your opinion. But it's an opinion not borne of facts and reality, but rather of ideology and Party slavery...

    LOL :D Notwithstanding your opinion of my opinion, the fact is that you have no idea what informs me or from whence my views are "borne," and not that you need any encouragement from me, but by all means, please prattle on and on, while indulging in rhetorical flights of fancy and revealing yourself.

    Since you place such a value on "facts and reality," I should warn you that I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.

    Now flip, flop and fly
    I don't care if I die.
    Now flip, flop and fly
    I don't care if I die.
    Ah, don't ever leave me, don't ever say goodbye.

    Here comes my baby, flashin' her new gold tooth.
    Here comes my baby, flashin' her new gold tooth.
    Well she's so small, she can mambo in a pay phone booth.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you said that the Trump fanboy "seemed to be the only one that understands how democracy works", what purpose did that serve?

    Other than stating the facts, what purpose was it SUPPOSED to serve???

    If you intended to make people angry at you, it worked. You got really negative responses and I recommended that you not troll in the future because you're trying to persuade people to join your thing and I don't see how it helps you realize your goal.

    What did I tell ya'all..

    Don was only attacked.. was only beaten up... because he had the temerity... the unmitigated gall to say that I was right about something...

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Since you place such a value on "facts and reality," I should warn you that I know more about ISIS than the generals do.

    Yea?? What training, experience or expertise do you have that would allow you to make such a claim..

    My military, CT, LEO and Security bona fides are well-established..

    Put up or shut up... :D

    Believe me.

    Give me a reason to....

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    The house troll's definition of trolling is self-serving and ridiculous (shocking!)

    And yet it's perfectly accurate, as evidenced by YOUR'S and BASHI'S attacks on Don...

    and I honestly don't care how much trolling goes on here.

    And yet you comment on it incessantly..

    Me thinks thou doth protest TOO much...

    Face it, KFC... I had your number from day one.. Incoherent babble with not an ounce of intelligence...

    And, apparently, I am not the only one who has noticed.. I believe Bashi agreed with me that you should come with a translation matrix... :D

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet it's perfectly accurate, as evidenced by YOUR'S and BASHI'S attacks on Don..

    And Stig's... Can't forget him.. :D

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Sorry troll. I won't be responding to your predictably idiotic cut and paste spam. Puke up ten times more alt-right sewerage onto CW's site. I'm cool with that.

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry troll. I won't be responding to your predictably idiotic cut and paste spam.

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what you did.. :D

    Like I said.. I got you pegged from day one.. :D

    BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    More please.

  174. [174] 
    Kick wrote:

    [168] Michale,

    Yea?? What training, experience or expertise do you have that would allow you to make such a claim..

    I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things. In fact, in my book, in 2000, I talked about Osama bin Laden, and I do remember somebody putting the book in front of Joe and Joe saying, "No way he talked about it, no way he wrote about Osama bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down," and they said, "No, he really did." And I remember Joe looking at it in the book saying, "I don't believe it; that's amazing." Okay. So I know what I'm doing, and I listen to a lot of people. I talk to a lot of people, and at the appropriate time, I’ll tell you who the people are, but I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.

    Put up or shut up... :D

    I'm a leader. I'm a leader. I've always been a leader. I've never had any problem leading people. If I say do it; they're going to do it.

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Have you completely lost your sense of humour?

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because, the back and forth you're having with Kick is hilarious!

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things. In fact, in my book, in 2000, I talked about Osama bin Laden, and I do remember somebody putting the book in front of Joe and Joe saying, "No way he talked about it, no way he wrote about Osama bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down," and they said, "No, he really did." And I remember Joe looking at it in the book saying, "I don't believe it; that's amazing." Okay. So I know what I'm doing, and I listen to a lot of people. I talk to a lot of people, and at the appropriate time, I’ll tell you who the people are, but I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.

    Ahhhhh... So you "wrote a book" and that makes you more of an expert on ISIS than the men and women who are in the trenches and actually FIGHT ISIS...

    I wish I could say I was surprised but that is EXACTLY the kind of "expert" I thought you were..

    ALL about theory with absolutely NO practical experience.. :D

    I'm a leader. I'm a leader. I've always been a leader. I've never had any problem leading people. If I say do it; they're going to do it.

    wow.. And people call ME arrogant.. :D

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have you completely lost your sense of humour?

    Ahhhhhh Apparently, I have.. I didn't realize that Kick is being totally facetious and humorous...

    Now that I look at it with your take in mind, I see the humor.. :D

    Thanx for pointing it out.. :D

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Oh jeezus h christ.. This isn't a high school class president election..

    Do you SERIOUSLY think that a man of Putin's capabilities and leadership will want to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS because "he doesn't like her"!!???"

    In a word, YES.

    No, this is not High School Michale. It does just show, however, that Putin operates in the mode of a traditional dictator, both at home and abroad, when it comes to dealing with any kind of political opposition.

    Don't tell me that you are really going to pretend that the corruption, cronies, and oligarchy surrounding Putin does not exist? Or that Putin is an extremely vain individual? What about all those various shirtless pictures of Putin in the Russian press, from horseback riding to chopping wood, etc.?

    Do you also believe that there are that many constraints on Putin's personal power whims being translated into official Russian government action, as long as it doesn't endanger the Russian state or threatens the power and profits of those surrounding him?

  180. [180] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "What part of A SINGLE POLL DOESN'T MEAN DICK do you not understand!???

    I can give you TWO polls that show the race is a dead heat.."

    And what part of; I have been citing for you multiple polls, at least a half dozen in fact, since the end of the conventions, ALL showing the same thing, do YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

    Or the fact that at least one of the polls you supposedly cited, was NOT a poll at all??? It was simply an opinion piece of a lot of people who visited a particular web site, and not a true poll.

    Just because you can get a lot of Trump supporters to visit a particular site and log in and all register their opinion, and little to no Hillary supporters visiting the same cite, proves nothing about the opinions of the general public at large, and you know it.

  181. [181] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:
    "
    Or it would be like citing a poll where the only respondents are Left Wingers.. Or citing a poll that has the question, "DO YOU THINK HILLARY IS AWESOME, REALLY AWESOME or STUPENDOUSLY AWESOME??" and then you use that poll to "prove" how awesome Hillary is..
    You used cherry picked polls to "prove" that Trump's numbers were dropping like a stone... You were completely and unequivocally WRONG, but you can't admit that...
    Let me repeat it to you since comprehension seems to be breaking down here..
    A SINGLE POLL DOESN'T MEAN DICK...."

    And what you said, just EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT FOR ME.

    The poll you cited Michale, is one where, the respondents are overwhelmingly likely to BE right wingers.

    As for the rest, I have cited for you not JUST ONE, BUT at least 4 or 6 polls since the end of the conventions for you. Or do you know not even remember your previous criticism of me about how only "REAL POLITICS" polls matter??? When I cited the multiple previous polls for you.....

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    The poll you cited Michale, is one where, the respondents are overwhelmingly likely to BE right wingers.

    And the poll you cite ALSO has bias in it..

    THAT is my point.. ALL polls have bias.. That's why ALL polls are useless in and of themselves.. That's why the RCP POPs are really the only acceptable poll to quote. Because the bias and the errors usually cancel each other out and we get a true'er reading of what's what..

    Which isn't to say that even the RCP POPs are infallible. It's a poll, after all, so it's fallible..

    One only has to point to the polls that "proved" Brexit would fail, the polls that "proved" the Israeli Left was going to destroy Netanyahu, etc etc etc to show that often times, polls don't mean dick...

    For every poll you find that "proves" Hillary is going to win, I can find a corresponding poll that "proves" Hillary is going to lose and Trump is going to win..

    Put another way.. If an argument is solely based on polls, it's a weak and lazy argument with virtually no redeeming qualities...

    . Or do you know not even remember your previous criticism of me about how only "REAL POLITICS" polls matter??? When I cited the multiple previous polls for you.....

    You misunderstood.. A single poll cited on the RCP website is as useless as a single poll cited on HuffPoop or Breitbart... A single poll doesn't mean dick...

    The *ONLY* poll that has any POSSIBLE meaning in reality is the RCP Poll Of Polls....

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    UPI/CVoter poll: Donald Trump maintains slim lead over Hillary Clinton

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- The UPI/CVoter daily presidential tracking poll released Friday shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by less than 1 percentage point.

    The online poll shows Trump with 48.52 percent to Clinton's 47.73 percent after both candidates edged up slightly overnight. Correspondingly, the percentage of "other" voters, defined as anyone who did not select Trump or Clinton, fell to its lowest level to date, 3.74 percent.

    Friday is the second-consecutive day the poll shows Trump leading Clinton by a slim margin. Clinton had led in the poll since the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention.
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/26/UPICVoter-poll-Donald-Trump-maintains-slim-lead-over-Hillary-Clinton/4311472221679/

    Do you accept that poll, JM??

    Of course you don't.. You'll find all sorts of excuses to ignore the poll, but the simple fact is, you don't like what it says so you dispute it...

    And THAT is why polls are meaningless....

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ahhhhhh Apparently, I have.. I didn't realize that Kick is being totally facetious and humorous...

    I'll say!

    Kick was only parroting Trump! Didn't it sound familiar to you??

    :-)

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ahhhhh... So you "wrote a book" and that makes you more of an expert on ISIS than the men and women who are in the trenches and actually FIGHT ISIS...

    I wish I could say I was surprised but that is EXACTLY the kind of "expert" I thought you were..

    ALL about theory with absolutely NO practical experience.. :D

    That wasn't Kick - it was Trump who said those precious words.

    Are you still a fan, Michale?

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    That wasn't Kick - it was Trump who said those precious words.

    Are you still a fan, Michale?

    Of Trump? Of course...

    Trump's expertise is in the business/economy fields. That's where he is going to do the most good.. Trump not only wrote the book in those fields, he wrote it based on experience...

    Kick's claim of knowing more than the generals about ISIS because he wrote a book doesn't even compare to what Trump said...

    Once again, ya'all are claiming that Trump said things that Trump never said...

    It's TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again. Big on hyperbole and BS.. Not a fact to be found...

    That's why I didn't make the connection that Kick was full of kaa-kaa... He was speaking out of his ass.. :D

    He tends to do that a lot, so I figured this was more of the same.. :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Calm down and read Kicks comments again ... if you want a good laugh.

    Kick didn't write a book. Trump did!

    Kick doesn't know more about ISIS than the generals. Trump does!

    Kick is just pretending to be Trump. Do you get it now!?

    Michale, do agree with Trump when he says that he knows more about ISIS than the generals? He didn't even write a book about it. He simply knows more about ISIS than the generals. You must have missed this Trump rally.

    Are you still a fan?

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Kick's claim of knowing more than the generals about ISIS because he wrote a book doesn't even compare to what Trump said...

    Just to reiterate, that is exactly what Trump said, minus the bit about the book. :)

  189. [189] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    Kick's set-up was perfect and I'm not a fan of explaining the joke, but I have to admit that this has gone better than expected.

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  191. [191] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's why I didn't make the connection that Kick was full of kaa-kaa... He was speaking out of his ass.. :D

    Hah!

    Wait ... by 'He' you mean, Trump ... right?

  192. [192] 
    Kick wrote:

    Kick's claim of knowing more than the generals about ISIS because he wrote a book doesn't even compare to what Trump said...

    I didn't claim "knowing more than the generals about ISIS" because of any book. I just said: "Believe me."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Mjy9ETtRY

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Once again, ya'all are claiming that Trump said things that Trump never said...

    Oh, really? Follow along with the bouncing ball:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmplyntgns

    I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things. In fact, in my book, in 2000, I talked about Osama bin Laden, and I do remember somebody putting the book in front of Joe and Joe saying, "No way he talked about it, no way he wrote about Osama bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down," and they said, "No, he really did." And I remember Joe looking at it in the book saying, "I don't believe it; that's amazing." Okay. So I know what I'm doing, and I listen to a lot of people. I talk to a lot of people, and at the appropriate time, I’ll tell you who the people are, but I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.

    Word for word for word. All Trump.

    That's why I didn't make the connection that Kick was full of kaa-kaa... He was speaking out of his ass.. :D

    I agree Trump was speaking out of his ass.

    EM, JFC, and others all seem to know more about Trump than you, LOL, and they are correct:

    You've been "Trumped!" My game, my rules. :)

    "Trumped!" is a game I invented where you quote Trump in answer to questions, and then generally a Trump supporter will chime in to tell you how stupid and/or arrogant you sound. Good times!

    I have been known to play it at random and with no warning! LOL :D

Comments for this article are closed.