Hillary just rolled her eyes and smiled a lot. She was lucky she did not have to address her lying to Congress and the phony FBI investigation. I predict that Trump will hammer her in the next debate. He let her off easy.
Yup. I hope Trump keeps thinking is problem is that he didn't hammer Hillary enough. Maybe he can yell at her more next time. That will work.
13
And too bad Trump didn't have to address his long history of ripping off the little guy, making his products in China, inventing "facts" pretty much at random, betraying his first, second, and third wives (maybe the fourth too - after all, the pattern is clear), ducking the draft, and more. But at least he did get the chance to talk a little about his hatred for women, racist policies at his apartments, the "little" $14 million gift from Dear Old Dad, and other things that reveal his, um, character.
9
And what if Trump partisans strategically bet large sums on their candidate even if today this is a recipe to loose money ?
To create a bandwaggon effect ?
In that case predictions would change in favour of Trump, people currently unsure for whom to vote - and there are heaps of them - would consider to vote for Trump, more people would bet in favour of Trump, and the spirale of silence would start in favour of Trump in swing states.
Then consider the possibility of political desinformation. Today, it seems that right-wing activists at 4chan are preparing to influence online polling during the voting process with flooding the polling procedure with fake voters who pretend to have voted for Trump.
The same can influence online betting with a sort of crowd-funded online cheating of polling, to influence the voting of the American West.
There is last weak point in online electoral betting. Why should the better behave in a rational way ? What if he or she behaves in a moral way, i.e. according to his or her political values, and does not care if money is lost ?
In the heated political atmosphere numbers of poor US voters carry their favour for a may-be billionnaire of fringe behaviour against the poor.
So, voting against your own interests is a (well-known historical) fact, why not today betting against your financial interests if you think that wht counts is to influence public opinion?
To create a bandwaggon effect ?
In that case predictions would change in favour of Trump, people currently unsure for whom to vote - and there are heaps of them - would consider to vote for Trump, more people would bet in favour of Trump, and the spirale of silence would start in favour of Trump in swing states.
Then consider the possibility of political desinformation. Today, it seems that right-wing activists at 4chan are preparing to influence online polling during the voting process with flooding the polling procedure with fake voters who pretend to have voted for Trump.
The same can influence online betting with a sort of crowd-funded online cheating of polling, to influence the voting of the American West.
There is last weak point in online electoral betting. Why should the better behave in a rational way ? What if he or she behaves in a moral way, i.e. according to his or her political values, and does not care if money is lost ?
In the heated political atmosphere numbers of poor US voters carry their favour for a may-be billionnaire of fringe behaviour against the poor.
So, voting against your own interests is a (well-known historical) fact, why not today betting against your financial interests if you think that wht counts is to influence public opinion?
"These changing prediction market prices don’t directly reflect who was more persuasive, but rather which candidate most exceeded expectations. Traders were already aware of the relative eloquence of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump before the debate. This means that the change in a prediction market price tells you how much each candidate overshot or undershot those expectations."
This isn't necessarily true. There's another element at play here: the reduction of uncertainty. In other words, Clinton was already leading in the markets, but it was unclear how she would fare in the debate. That uncertainty is reflected as a regression toward the mean (e.g., an improved Trump chance). Once the debate happened, there are now less chances for Trump to make up ground and this will be reflected in improving odds for Clinton. Thus I would expect a debate in which Clinton performed exactly as expected to result in improved prediction market odds of her winning.
This isn't necessarily true. There's another element at play here: the reduction of uncertainty. In other words, Clinton was already leading in the markets, but it was unclear how she would fare in the debate. That uncertainty is reflected as a regression toward the mean (e.g., an improved Trump chance). Once the debate happened, there are now less chances for Trump to make up ground and this will be reflected in improving odds for Clinton. Thus I would expect a debate in which Clinton performed exactly as expected to result in improved prediction market odds of her winning.
6
I have a different thought -
The reason this was the most watched debate is because of Trump, not Clinton. (Imagine Bush vs Clinton if you have any doubt!) The same phenomenon happened during primaries. Trump = ratings!
People were watching Trump, not Clinton. The day after the debate, Trump still attracted 100x more people to his rally in FL.
Trump did not self destruct during the debate. That might be good enough for the voters!
Clinton is a known quantity and there has been little voter excitement for a reason.
The reason this was the most watched debate is because of Trump, not Clinton. (Imagine Bush vs Clinton if you have any doubt!) The same phenomenon happened during primaries. Trump = ratings!
People were watching Trump, not Clinton. The day after the debate, Trump still attracted 100x more people to his rally in FL.
Trump did not self destruct during the debate. That might be good enough for the voters!
Clinton is a known quantity and there has been little voter excitement for a reason.
1
Ok, people were more interested in watching the debate. As one of those folks who wouldn't have been interested in Bush vs Clinton, I can say it was because I wanted to see if: (1) Was Trump "Presidential"? (most folks thought not) (2) Did Clinton cough or show signs of illness? (she did not, perhaps part of debate prep was resting from pneumonia) (3) Did Clinton become flustered and trip up because of attacks from Trump? (no) (4) Was Trump able to stay focused for 90 minutes in particular, in a debate with other candidate to deal with? (no) (5) Would Trump introduce any details to how he will fix things versus blaming non-whites for everything that has gone wrong? (no details, just believe me); (6) Would Trump or Clinton exceed expectations (Trump bar set quite low, but he still managed to limbo under it while Hillary did even better than the high expectations set for her).
8
People also like to watch the clowns at the circus, cat videos, natural disasters, and so on. Every summer, the biggest blockbuster with the biggest audience is the one with the biggest apocalypse. That doesn't mean, though, for most of us, that we'd actually like it to happen.
4
Didn't the prediction markets get it wrong re: Brexit? It ain't over until the 400 lb. hacker sings!
11
It was good to see Donald finally come clean about not paying any federal taxes "Hey if I had paid, they'd have wasted it, so I treated myself instead!"
11
Very insightful piece, ... but I think one does well to think even one level deeper.
That is, while Mr. Wofers gets to "expectations" in a big way, I don't think it's unreasonable for these gamblers (however much political savvy they possess) to be thinking, "What did the VOTERS expect?"
Obviously, there isn't a world of difference between the gambler thinking, "Man, is Trump off his game tonight?" and "Boy, if I were an undecided voter who just heard Trump boasting about his temperament, I might very well move from undecided to HRC-supporter."
But there IS a difference, I think, and I also think that Hillary benefits in another way.... She can ill-afford blacks, Hispanics and young people deciding that it's not worth an hour of their time.... All 3 groups WILL tilt from "Ah, why bother" to "How could I live with myself if?! ..." right up until E-day, and I despair of the pollsters doing a good job with this imponderable. (Some will be ashamed to admit that they're such "bad citizens," and others will think they owe it to Bernie to say they're voting for Stein, even though they've decided that they "have to" vote for Hillary.)
Yes, the pct turnout may vary hugely for the 3 groups, but I have to think that a big chunk of each group is considerably more likely to vote (and vote for her, of course.)
That is, while Mr. Wofers gets to "expectations" in a big way, I don't think it's unreasonable for these gamblers (however much political savvy they possess) to be thinking, "What did the VOTERS expect?"
Obviously, there isn't a world of difference between the gambler thinking, "Man, is Trump off his game tonight?" and "Boy, if I were an undecided voter who just heard Trump boasting about his temperament, I might very well move from undecided to HRC-supporter."
But there IS a difference, I think, and I also think that Hillary benefits in another way.... She can ill-afford blacks, Hispanics and young people deciding that it's not worth an hour of their time.... All 3 groups WILL tilt from "Ah, why bother" to "How could I live with myself if?! ..." right up until E-day, and I despair of the pollsters doing a good job with this imponderable. (Some will be ashamed to admit that they're such "bad citizens," and others will think they owe it to Bernie to say they're voting for Stein, even though they've decided that they "have to" vote for Hillary.)
Yes, the pct turnout may vary hugely for the 3 groups, but I have to think that a big chunk of each group is considerably more likely to vote (and vote for her, of course.)
"If you have to keep telling people that you are winning, one thing is certain -- your aren't!"
Robert McNamara, re: Vietnam War
Can you hear me Donald?
Robert McNamara, re: Vietnam War
Can you hear me Donald?
Nice analysis.
You know how I know she won? He is whining about unfair questions and a broken mike.
Also because I watched.
You know how I know she won? He is whining about unfair questions and a broken mike.
Also because I watched.
What surprised me most was that neither Trump nor Clinton did much to improve their "likability" quotient. Clinton was skillful in turning around the basic dynamic, which is that while he was in the private sector, Clinton was there, in Washington, the whole time, right there, but made it sound as if their decisions about the direction of the nation during this time had equivalent impact.
I agree. Furthermore, although Trump supporters are not big on factual information, and so do not read, or listen to, a variety of media, they ALL tuned into the "debate." This may be the basis for such predictions, where even these voters cannot ignore the horrendous weaknesses of the their beloved Donald. BTW, after Lester Holt's performance, last night, I think NBC should revisit his position on the Nightly News. I like the guy, but he's a real lightweight.
I can't wait to see how a Clinton Administration is going to crack down on my "implicit biases"!
Look forward to those narcissistic millennialist shutting down universities to soon be stationed over your shoulder advising what's problematic about your worldview!
Look forward to those narcissistic millennialist shutting down universities to soon be stationed over your shoulder advising what's problematic about your worldview!
Huh?!
Campuses are already engaged in backlash against "trigger warnings" and "safe zones". Hillary's presidency will have little bearing on any of that.
But we do know that Trump calls it being "p.c." when people point out or speak out against racist remarks! He wants to make it fine to be publicly racist again. And, that's not good at all!
Campuses are already engaged in backlash against "trigger warnings" and "safe zones". Hillary's presidency will have little bearing on any of that.
But we do know that Trump calls it being "p.c." when people point out or speak out against racist remarks! He wants to make it fine to be publicly racist again. And, that's not good at all!
Why would you insist upon staying married to your "implicit biases" if you are shown scientifically/factually to be wrong?!? Embracing the ignorance inherent within one's own "backlash effect" or "cognitive dissonance" isn't something to be proud of. So, whomever challenges your implicit biases, may you restrain your first inclination, to verbally assault their morals to justify your bend towards illogical intransigence. Rather, may you confront your implicit biases like we all should hope to do.
The capacity to acknowledge we have failings, including ones we have a hard time seeing in ourselves, is key. How often do you meet folks who admit to being racists. The only ones I have met are people trying to not fall prey to those feelings. Perhaps a better term is pre-judging (prejudice), when one attributes characteristics to an individual because of their membership in a group (race, ethnic, religion, country of origin) based on (1) limited experience; and/or (2) what others you interact say about that group. In that the exception proves the rule, not being open to the possibility that the individual you are evaluating might not be at all like your pre-judgment (pre-conceived notions) of the group is lazy thinking.
I was appalled of Trumps defense of his remark about "blowing the Iranians out of the water". When Hillary was chiding him about it he interjected, "They were TAUNTING us!" Really? That is a reason to engage militarily? What a puerile defense. What is next? They stuck out their tongues at us? He looked at me cross-eyed? I was very disappointed in Trumps showing. I am a Jill Stein supporter. I planned on voting for her until I saw Donald debate last night. It was too much. I cringe visualizing him representing America on the world stage. I will have to vote for Hillary despite knowing she will drag us into a war with Syria. Trump will be pulled into a war with Syria, vis a vis Russia, because he is too weak intellectually and morally to resist.
Don't despair-- she may be a hawk, but she will want to get re-elected and won't risk alienating the left and producing an even more credible progressive challenger than Bernie!
Her militarism will be tempered. Plus, she and Kaine really are committed to a host of progressive policies!
I applaud your decision to switch from Stein to Hillary-- we have to stop Trump!
Her militarism will be tempered. Plus, she and Kaine really are committed to a host of progressive policies!
I applaud your decision to switch from Stein to Hillary-- we have to stop Trump!
Bravo. A voice of reason rather than self-indulgence. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I and those of us of my generation can never forget that Gore lost to Bush in 2000 in part because Nader got 98,000+ votes just in Florida. Those votes swung the State and the 2000 election. Without them the Supreme Court could never have declared Bush the winner (although he lost the popular vote by over 500,000 nation wide.
The perfect is often the enemy of the good. Sticking to principle matters but protest votes merely mean shooting yourself in the foot and the rest of the Nation in the head.
Can you imagine a President Trump 265 days a year for 4 years??? A Blow Hard, Uneducated, stupid bully.
The perfect is often the enemy of the good. Sticking to principle matters but protest votes merely mean shooting yourself in the foot and the rest of the Nation in the head.
Can you imagine a President Trump 265 days a year for 4 years??? A Blow Hard, Uneducated, stupid bully.
I Thank you, my 13 year old daughter thanks you.
Clinton's lead is small but steady. Trump has not been able to overtake her and with this debate it will not help him..
Trump may have scored with references to the Rust Belt without naming it as such. That name may come up yet, together with the fact that it's a term at least as old as the 1984 campaign of Mondale vs. Reagan. The decline in coal-miner jobs began in 1922 when warships were decommissioned, and later, when ships and trains converted to diesel; and continuously thereafter, with mechanization of mining.
Let's not get overexcited. This has just limited value for ... let's say 3 days. After that, it's back to the salt mines. The fact that Trump is getting closer in Penn, and other REALLY blue states in New England, the fact that he already passed her in Ohio and Nevada and is even in Florida, means something else is going on. I can hardly imagine it, but it seems that Clinton stands a good chance of losing the election. Which is bizarre to say the least. There are several causes:
1 Media especially the NYT have NOT attacked Trump in the same over his lack of tax records, his swindling, scamming and grifting as they have attacked Clinton over her emails. The phrase "these are BOTH unpopular candidates" is indicative of a COMPLETELY double standard which is negative for her, not him.
2 Voter fatigue. After 8 years people want something else (Which would've been understandable if it was Kasich, Bush or even Rubio, but TRUMP??)
3 Clinton isn't focusing on the possibility of three neo-Scalia's on the Supreme court. A missed opportunity.
But yes, he IS getting closer. She can do something about it, like step up registration in Florida, because Ohio seems out of reach. But whites in Florida seem to mobilize around Trump, however bizarre and insane that is to us liberals.
And the fact that we liberals can't imagine losing, is an indication we really will lose. Wisconsin could flip red because of Voter ID effects.
1 Media especially the NYT have NOT attacked Trump in the same over his lack of tax records, his swindling, scamming and grifting as they have attacked Clinton over her emails. The phrase "these are BOTH unpopular candidates" is indicative of a COMPLETELY double standard which is negative for her, not him.
2 Voter fatigue. After 8 years people want something else (Which would've been understandable if it was Kasich, Bush or even Rubio, but TRUMP??)
3 Clinton isn't focusing on the possibility of three neo-Scalia's on the Supreme court. A missed opportunity.
But yes, he IS getting closer. She can do something about it, like step up registration in Florida, because Ohio seems out of reach. But whites in Florida seem to mobilize around Trump, however bizarre and insane that is to us liberals.
And the fact that we liberals can't imagine losing, is an indication we really will lose. Wisconsin could flip red because of Voter ID effects.
Colored...: Right. Firstly: since the 1830s, US voters have not given three or four consecutive terms to Democrats (barring an assassination or death in office: FDR, JFK). Thus, the odds were against any Democrat before the campaign even began. Secondly: no matter what Trump or his surrogates say, racism has been part of politics since Reagan advised the GOP to make a major change (1964). The change they made, endorsed by Reagan, was the Southern Strategy--acceptance of white southern supremacy.
Baloney, in every way.
FDR won a FOURTH term before dying. The Dems held the White House for five terms (1933-1953).
In my 60 years , I have never been so obsessed with a presidential election. But this one is consuming all my free time. I check your poll results daily, because I believe the NY TIMES is the most accurate, on many subjects. Keep up the good work.
Lois Gilich
Lois Gilich
So I guess the media spin is now "well he was embarrassing and he lost, but America is really looking for an embarrassing loser, so he won ... "
While this is encouraging, please remember that the betting markets did *not* predict Brexit's vote outcome. According to the Economist, it also did not predict Trump's nomination as the head of the Republican party.
Please correct me if I'm wrong . . .
It ain't over til it's over.
We all need to go knocking on doors in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Ohio. Florida too.
Please correct me if I'm wrong . . .
It ain't over til it's over.
We all need to go knocking on doors in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Ohio. Florida too.
Who was that guy who said you can't fool all of the people all of the time? Hey, shout out to Don the Con. In the end, all that matters is this stunning marketing move which increased the value of brand Trump by billions.
Far too many people will never set foot in a Trump property now or buy anything Trump branded. His future is toast!
Most of his fans (remember he said he likes the uneducated?) probably will never be able to afford to even cross the threshold of a Trump branded property.
The people he's losing - college educated WASPs and Jews as well as EVERY minority- will never buy his brand again now that they know all about him.
The people he's losing - college educated WASPs and Jews as well as EVERY minority- will never buy his brand again now that they know all about him.
1
He has said that all publicity is good publicity. He probably counted on the run for President, win or not, would increase the value of "Trump". Yet, look at the early losses for him with respect to his Media contracts. While plenty of the Trump supporters will continue to value his brand, almost none of them have the money to spend on Trump. For many of us, being exposed to Trump's true nature compromises his brand. Moreover, the controversy will keep many from doing business with him in the future. He is so full of himself he does not yet realize this - and when he struggles in the future in business, he will not blame himself, but others - because as he said, he will apologize if he ever makes a mistake, but so far, he has not (Jimmy Fallon's first interview with Trump).
[He lives in a bubble where anyone who disagrees with him, or tries to tell him the truth - is "Fired". He is so dumb that he actually believed he could trademark "Your Fired"]
[He lives in a bubble where anyone who disagrees with him, or tries to tell him the truth - is "Fired". He is so dumb that he actually believed he could trademark "Your Fired"]
For this entire election season pundits have been writing Trump off in one way or another, but he keeps winning (remember how he trounced all of the other republican candidates?). I am terrified of a Trump presidency but I do not find any solace in the polls and "prediction markets" that claim a victory for Hillary. It seems that the majority of people voting for Trump will not be captured by a regular poll or a "prediction market."
Two differences between primaries and now
1. GE public is the basket of deplorables that voted during his primaries
2. He hasn't REALLY, reliably led in the polls, while he was far ahead in the polls during ALL of primary season.
1. GE public is the basket of deplorables that voted during his primaries
2. He hasn't REALLY, reliably led in the polls, while he was far ahead in the polls during ALL of primary season.
The primary field helped to beat themselves. They didn't take Trump seriously, and they were seen as "everybody else." No individual candidate stood out as an alternative.
3
The polls actually accurately predicted Drumpf's victory in the primaries ... it was just that the talking heads/pundits couldn't bring themselves to believe the polls.
A bet on Donald is a bet against the essential decency of the American people. The smart money says that's a bad bet.
I have lost every bet I've ever wagered. Therefore I'm betting everything I own on Donald trump ..
Well get ready to keep your streak going. Your gonna lose again. Hope you keep your money in your pocket
Lois, he was joking! His point was that every time he bets on something he loses, so if he bets on Trump, she's sure to win. (Which is what he wants!) Given what he wrote, we have to hope that he does bet on Trump, even if it's only a quarter!
Sorry for belaboring the obvious...
Sorry for belaboring the obvious...
Paula -- I loved your comment - I so needed to read something positive. And I agree with you!