Sunday, October 02, 2016

The second scientific poll post-debate also shows a big Clinton bump

The second scientific poll post-debate also shows a big Clinton bump

What makes it really bad for Trump is that the polling organization is Fox News!

The new poll shows Clinton with a 5-point edge. That represents a 6-point Clinton bump, since that organization's previous poll showed Trump up by a point.

Trump retains his lead among likely voters who are white men with no degree, beating Clinton 62-13 in that demographic. (In fact, even Gary Johnson beats Clinton within that demo!!) Trump also dominates the rural vote 56-27, and the male vote 49-32.


Regarding the debate:

Among likely voters, 60% of debate watchers felt Hillary came out on top, compared to a mere 22% for The Donald. In fact, Trump could persuade no more than 34% of Republicans to say he won.


Here's some depressing shit:
Do you think Donald Trump is trustworthy? 31% yes, 62% no.
Do you think Hillary Clinton is trustworthy? 35% yes, 61% no.

In other words, my fellow Americans, no matter what the final result may be, we are about to elect someone who is considered trustworthy by only about 1/3 of our citizenry. If we were hiring somebody to manage a convenience store, we would not hire either of them, yet we will hire one of them to perform the most difficult and powerful job on our planet. These are troubling times.


  1. Uncle Scoopy, I daresay truer words were never written! It is a scary time in our history and the next 4 years will be even scarier. If we make it through the next 4 years unscathed, we can truly say that we can handle anything.

  2. If you had two people competing to be the manager of the convenience store and each one of them campaigned against the other, the person doing the hiring also probably wouldn't think either was honest.

    That aside, the claims both alleged and verified against Trump are stunning and suggest he is likely one of the most evil people alive, if not of all time, while most of the negative allegations against Hillary Clinton seem to be mostly based on half-truths or outright lies.

  3. Drinking the Kool-Aid, Adam T?

  4. Seriously Adam T, there is just as much actual and in some cases video evidence that Trump is a warm-hearted, caring family man and an upright businessman who cares for his employees and customers, a man who hires more women and minorities to be in supervisory and management positions than anyone else. If you take only his bad points, sure he's as evil as they come, but that can be applied to anything. Food; if you think about food in only one way - that's going to cause you to gain weight and that weight will kill you, you'll never eat. But you also have to consider the other side, that the food will provide the nutrition that you need to actually stay alive. As they say, there are two sides to any story.

  5. I hate the phrase given its origin, but I think you've drunk way too much Kool-Aid.

    He is clearly an extremely corrupt and in most cases not even all that competent businessman.

    I don't believe it can be applied to anything or even anyone, the evidence against Trump, both proven and claimed suggest he's a deranged psychopath. He's clearly not an ordinary human.

    Psychopaths can act warm-hearted, they just don't mean any of it. The evidence is pretty clear that all of Trump's alleged warm-hearted public acts were all dishonest put-ons.

  6. His hiring of women and minorities was most likely one of his few verifiable smart business practices: he recognized that with most managerial positions being taken by white men that there were a lot more women and minorities with capable management skills available.

    By the same token, his verifiable discrimination (though he thinks its important that he made no admission of guilt) in refusing to rent an apartments in a complex of his to black people shows how he regards all of these things as 'just business.'

    His excuse, not made 43 years ago, but just a few days ago in the debate was he wasn't racist because "many, many other companies were doing this" indicates to me that he made a business decision there that in renting those apartments to black people, that he feared losing white tenants in that complex to other companies that also discriminated.

    So, it seems clear to me he regards all race relations (and the same thing with women) as some kind of business transactions.

    He may or may not be personally racist (I think he's clearly completely sexist) but the evidence to me shows that if as President, he things pandering to racist sentiments would advance his Presidential causes (whatever they may be) he would have no hesitation in doing that.

    I think, and I think I have solid evidence to back it up, that he's a deranged psychopath, but, at the very least, he's certainly no 'profile in courage.'

  7. things = thinks in second to last paragraph.

  8. All this is just a sideshow, follow the money. Trump is a proven success at one thing: choosing his parents well.
    By his own numbers, he has made less money with all his dealings than if he had just parked that money in a good index account.
    Scoopy, I think (for once) you have it wrong. It's not that he doesn't need to release his taxes, it's that he can't. There's something disqualifying in there. Maybe it undermines his claim that he is a smart businessman, maybe some weird foreign alliance. (Not just that he is taxed at a low rate; no one cares.)He wins without releasing his returns or he doesn't win.

    The racism, sexism, jagoffitude - it's all a distraction from this.

  9. I agree with what you said. My only point was that if I were Trump, I would not release my tax returns. It's a lose-lose proposition. If there is something damning in there, he's screwed, and if there is something slick in there (which there undoubtedly is, given that he probably employs an army of lawyers), his opponents will make it seem damning anyway. I think he's better off toughing it out.

    I wonder why nobody has asked him this question, "OK, your most recent return is under audit. Fair enough. So why aren't you releasing the most recent year which has already been audited?"

    In fact, he could release the one year which makes him look best, and say everything else is still in negotiation, but he obviously doesn't want to do that because something in there is a political talking point. Maybe his income was unimpressive. Maybe his taxable income was negative and he paid no taxes. Maybe he has foreign activity which he wants to keep quiet. Whatever it is, it may be 100% legal and just standard practice for every rich dude, but it's tinder for a political conflagration.

  10. Is this REALLY the best forum for this?

  11. >>John Foelster said... Is this REALLY the best forum for this?<<
    Yeah. Why? Politics, as far as I am concerned - and Scoop agrees or at least does not disagree because he hasn't dumped the chain - is probably the very best definition of "Other Crap"!

  12. But to refute Adam T's assertion that Trump is "extremely corrupt and a deranged psychopath", please cite your sources for your accusation and I sincerely hope it is not the Huffington Post!

  13. Also, why is it that Trump, who has been photographed with women he admires, Mohammed Ali (Muslim) and Rosa Parks (black semi-activist) and yet he was never accused of being misogynistic, Islamophobic or racist BEFORE he went up against the Clintons?

  14. Citing sources for Trump's extreme corruption is easy:

    As for showing he is both deranged and a psychopath, they would involve putting together numerous pieces of evidence from different sources.

    However, since you used the Trump enabler lie of "he was never accused..." you've shown to me you aren't the fair minded observer you claimed to be earlier in your previous post defending Trump, but are, in fact, an idiot Trump supporter.

    If anybody else asks me to cite evidence to back up my assertions I'd do so, but it would take time to put together and it would be a worthless effort if you were the only one interested.

    In response to your other post though,
    1.I never claimed he was a racist, evidence of his discriminatory practices goes back to the 1973 settlement with the government.

    I said that showed he had no trouble pandering to racists if he thought that would benefit him more than the alternatives, we've already seen a number of cases in this campaign with his anti-illegal Mexican alien rhetoric at the start of the campaign "they're rapists...", his fearmongering of Syrian refugees, and his prejudiced comments regarding the 'Mexican judge' who was actually born in Ohio.

    The claim that he is a misogynist was first brought up in this campaign in the first Republican debate, so it was not just BEFORE he went up against the Clintons.

    I think clearly the reason much more was not made about these things earlier is that he was a private businessman and so covered by either the business press which tends not to do stories on the vile behavior of business leaders until they're actually charged with crimes or in the entertainment media which, prior to say Perez Hilton, tended to produce only sympathetic stories.