Gary Johnson

If Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Other Close States, She Can Thank Gary Johnson

25% of the Libertarian's current supporters are Republicans compared to 10% Democrats

|

Thanks, Gar! ||| Human Flower Project
Human Flower Project

Today's big election news is that Hillary Clinton has built (in the words of CNN) "what could be an insurmountable edge in Nevada at the end of early voting," including a 72,000-vote advantage in Clark County alone. Nevada, which selected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, is nevertheless close to a must-win for Donald Trump, and the polling there has been so close that even as of this afternoon FiveThirtyEight estimated the Republican's chances of winning there at 50.4 percent.

There are many people Clinton can thank for eking out a win in Vegas—get-out-the-vote operatives, highly motivated Latinos, Steve Aoki, etc. But the future Mrs. President may want to save a bouquet of desert roses for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

For much of the past half-year, Johnson's support was about equally comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Given his consistently impressive showing among Millennials, a key part of the Obama coalition, it's no wonder that Democrats were freaking out about and throwing millions at their perceived Johnson problem. "Vote for Johnson, elect Trump" warned lefty sourpuss Harold Meyerson. Well, that turned out to be almost exactly wrong.

If you look at a dozen national polls with detailed Johnson numbers over the past three weeks, a striking new pattern, which I first flagged here, has emerged: No longer is the Johnson coalition anything like a 33-33-33 split among Dems, Reps, and indies. Now, amidst the Libertarian losing around half his support over the past two months, his remaining base is consistently 10 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican, and 65 percent independent. This ratio has been stable not just throughout national polls, but in the half-dozen or so detailed battleground state polls I've checked out.

What does that mean in, say, Nevada? Well, Johnson is at 5.3 percent there, according to FiveThirtyEight's poll average, while Trump and Clinton are tied at 46.7. If you add 10 percent of Johnson's totals to Clinton, and 25 percent to Trump, the Republican would have a lead of 48.0 percent to 47.2. The potential Johnson Effect here is worth about 0.8 percentage points in Clinton's direction.

Yes, yes, there is no such thing as a spoiler, votes do not inherently belong to anybody, and so on. It is plausible, I suppose, that 100 percent of Johnson's voters in Nevada would have just stayed home if his name was not on the ballot. But it's also possible that consumers change behavior when presented with more options (especially palatable ones), altering the shape of the overall market.

As mentioned before, the 10/25/65 D/R/I ratio of Johnson's support is stable across battleground states where polling is sophisticated enough to check. So where else could there be a Johnson Effect, if you choose to believe in such things? Basically, wherever it's close, or possibly in some Johnson-friendly states that don't look close now but might end up that way.

After the jump, and with the caveat that Johnson's eventual numbers will likely be lower than those shown below (given his current trajectory, and the history of third-party underperformance on Election Day), take a look at some possibilities of the Libertarian nominee's impact on states. Polling numbers were culled last night, averaged out between FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics with the exception of the not-very-well-polled Alaska in which I just used the former. Numbers do change fast, so please do your own follow-up calculations at home!

Florida

Current spread: Zero (DT 47.9, HC 47.9)

538 odds: DT 54.5, HC 45.5

GJ polling: 2.4% (it's one of his worse states)

Johnson Effect: 0.4 percentage points

New Hampshire

Current spread: 0.1 percentage points (HC 44.3, DT 44.2)

538 odds: HC 60.8, DT 39.2

GJ polling: 6.6%

Johnson Effect: 1.1 percentage points

North Carolina

Current spread: 0.6 percentage points (DT 47.6, HC 47.0)

538 odds: DT 54.7, HC 45.3

GJ polling: 3.3%

Johnson Effect: 0.5 percentage points

Iowa

Current spread: 2.8 percentage points

538 odds: DT 71.7, HC 28.3

GJ polling: 5.0%

Johnson Effect: 0.8 percentage points

Ohio

Current spread: 3.0 percentage points (DT 47.5, HC 44.5)

538 odds: DT 70.3, HC 29.7

GJ polling: 4.5%

Johnson Effect: 0.6 percentage points

Arizona

Current spread: 3.8 percentage points (DT 47.4, HC 43.6)

538 odds: DT 75.8, HC 24.1, GJ 0.1!

GJ polling: 5.2%

Johnson Effect: 0.8 percentage points

New Mexico

Current spread: 6.9 percentage points (HC 44.1, DT 37.9)

538 odds: HC 82.1, DT 17.4, GJ 0.4

GJ polling: 14.0%

Johnson Effect: 2.8 percentage points

Colorado

Current spread: 3.2 percentage points (HC 45.8, DT 42.6)

538 odds: HC 73.7, DT 26.3

GJ polling: 6.4%

Johnson Effect: 1.0 percentage points

Alaska

Current spread: 7.8 percentage points (DT 48.4, HC 40.6)

538 odds: DT 78.8, HC 21.1, GJ 0.1

GJ polling: 9.4%

Johnson Effect: 1.3 percentage points

Michigan

Current spread: 4.3 percentage points (HC 47.3, DT 43.0)

538 odds: HC 76.7, DT 23.3

GJ polling: 5.2%

Johnson Effect: 0.8 percentage points

Wisconsin

Current spread: 4.8 percentage points (HC 47.6, DT 42.8)

538 odds: HC 78.5, DT 21.5

GJ polling: 5.2%

Johnson Effect: 0.8 percentage point

Georgia

Current spread: 4.9 percentage points (DT 49.3, HC 44.4)

538 odds: DT 85.7, HC 14.3

GJ polling: 4.7%

Johnson Effect: 0.6 percentage points

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

358 responses to “If Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Other Close States, She Can Thank Gary Johnson

  1. And William Weld’s presence on the ticket becomes clearer still.

    1. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site… http://www.Trends88.com

      1. Paige, you keep making this argument here and on other threads, but I still say Weld dragged down the Johnson ticket. You have yet to refute what I’m saying.

            1. You. You’re actually Tulpa.

    2. Also, she can suck my cock. On second thought, no. Huma, on the other hand…

  2. I thought we were done with this whole concept of spoilers, etc.

    1. I put the caveat in there!

      1. Yes, you put in the caveat, but you did it in a Yes, but manner. *shrug* just sayin

      2. And the numbers are what the numbers are, and a vote for Johnson is a 0.1 vote for Hillary in practice.

        Libertarians, helping get Socialists elected for 30 years.

        Ooo, this actually hurts.

    2. Good question. Reason vehemently denies the validity of strategic voting, taking the lesser of two evils and all that. What is the point of playing spoiler and bragging about it other than to get the victimized party to move towards your position to capture your votes next time or in other words get you to engage in strategic voting?

      Beyond that, the polls for a long time showed.Johnson hurting Hillary. I don’t recall reason once ever bragging about that. Do you? It is almost like reason only wants to divide de the right and help elect Democrats or something. Nah, that is just crazy talk there.

      1. Good thing he chased all those disaffected BernieBros, BernieBabes, and Millennials, whose passions were stroked by Free Shit and Debt Free College, no?

        They certainly stuck around until the Anti War, First World Problems rhetoric was displaced by Third and Fourth wave Man Bun Feminism.

        1. If there is a cohort more libertarian than SJWs I have yet to see it!

          1. Yes, it’s those great libertarian works that SJWs love. You know, like Atlas was Triggered, The (stolen) Wealth of (imperialist) Nations, and (Common sense regulation of) Capitalism and Freedom (to be tolerant)

            1. ^this times 1000

      2. I don’t recall reason once ever bragging about that. Do you?

        Yeah

      3. “But the future Mrs. President may want to save a bouquet of desert roses for”…

        …Matt Welch and friends at Reason. By supporting Johnson they are giving us Queen Kriminal Klinton.

        Thank you and fuck you!

    3. Everything in the USA is spoiled. Je suis spoiler.

  3. So if Trump loses, we can hear about how it’s because of those “libertarian purists who refuse anyone who deviates even 1% from their views and have made the perfect the enemy of the better” like we heard about with that governor race a few years back? That would be fun.

    1. No. Johnson daughter isn’t going to get enough votes to incur much of that. And the Trump supporters and Never Trump conservatives have too much bad blood with each other to ever get around to Libertarians.

      1. I assure you that the NeverTrump conservatives hate the old libertarian wing of the GOP with a burning passion.

        1. And the new wing.

          1. True and True

            Let nothing get in the way of the New World Order.

    1. You should have stuck with Matthew, because then it would have rhymed.

      This is why your side lost the Skeleton War.

      1. THE SKELETONS SHALL RISE AGAIN!

        1. +1 bag of dragon’s teeth

      2. LOST? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WE TOOK THEIR SKELTALS AND MADE THEM OURS! FUCCBOIS ALWAYS PERISH IN THE END!

          1. If he sets foot in Eastern Euro-landia…

            1. Oh come on, ladies of a certain age lay their eyes on him and you’ll never get past their protective cordon! That boy is guaranteed all the tea he can drink and fattening food he wants (to build up his strength).
              Actually, probably more food than he wants and they won’t take “no” for an answer.

              1. Oh come on, ladies of a certain age lay their eyes on him and you’ll never get past their protective cordon!

                Ha! Impotent twerps like him are a dime a dozen. I have way more money than he does, and Dr. ZG would easily kick past those whores will little problem.

                “Hostel,” is not only a documentary, Panny Z, but a how-to guide as well. I imagine his organs would fetch a fine price on the donor market, and his mane alone would put us on Easy Street from those seek a hair transplant.

                1. I meant more like…not exactly babushkas but ladies in late 40s-early 50s whose maternal instinct he’d trigger so hard. They’d want to defend him from all the bullies and make sure he’s well fed, because look at how skinny he is, it’s not healthy!

                  1. They’d want to defend him from all the bullies and make sure he’s well fed, because look at how skinny he is, it’s not healthy!

                    They can be bribed, Panny Z, with cash and medical care. Quite easily. I’ll them smother him with love than would make Monte Crusto burn aglow with envy, and then they hand his scrawny carcass over to us.

                    Again, “Hostel,” is a how-to guide, not a definite rulebook.-)

                    1. Yes, if you bring out the big guns, then yes, Robby is fucked. I just didn’t think you had it in for him like that. What did he do, say Bogdan Hmelnitski was a Russian or something? 🙂

                    2. FUCCBOIS MUST PERISH! WE MUST HAVE GOOD BONES AND CALCIUM!

                      Besides, we can transplant that fine, fine head pelt of his to some wealthy, fat slob, greasy Oligarch for a tidy, tidy sum. My children gotta eat, Panny Z.-)

                    3. Don’f forget about the free babysitting for their spawn.

  4. I thought over the last couple of days Reason has been suggesting that GayJay had drawn more from Hillary than Trump, and thus, as these same people started abandoning GayJay, they would return to Hillary in greater numbers than to Trump.

    1. Haha! Suckered you, didn’t they!

    2. I thought that was me who said that.

  5. And yet, oddly, for the last 6 months, an analysis of the polls, by RCP avg, have indicated that when Johnson does well, Trump benefits from it, not Hillary.

    1. I guess that’s what I was trying to say.

    2. I’d guess it’s that more of the people who had been supporting Johnson until recently have started looking at the “OMG!!! We need to stop the evil other candidate from winning!!!” and that these people were disaffected TEAM BLUE supporters. That would explain Johnson’s poll numbers going down, as well as the seemingly no longer pulling evenly from both TEAMS.

      1. The Left is serious about power

        1. Perhaps you should ask politicians tough questions and post their answers to youtube.

          *footnote – Amazing fact: Lonewacko is not a Trump fan

          i don’t know what to think anymore.

          1. I never did get his silly disclaimer hurled my direction whenever he was posting here. I did manage to get in a, “Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko!” a couple of times.

            1. I just think its super-sad that this guy was accusing Mexicans of being lepers and communists and rapists and that we needed walls etc. BEFORE IT WAS EVEN COOL….

              …and then along comes Trump, and what happens? Apparently he dug deep into the fine-print of Trump’s proposals and found them wanting.

              It seems he thinks he’s a big fake, and that his Illegal-Immigrant-bashing is insincere

              1. Presidential candidate whore’s himself out to get votes – no, that’s not fair, prostitutes give you what you paid for. Candidate lies like a rug to garner votes. Imagine that.

          2. Heh.

            Good to know he’s still in business.

            All due respect to our diminutive friend Joe, but the Lonewhacker remains my favorite H&R troll.

            1. This. My favorite too. Nothing like getting in the ” Shut the fuck up, Lonewhacko.”

          3. If you can’t count on lonewacko, what can you count on?

  6. I rest easy knowing my Deez Nutz write-in leaves me morally uncompromised.

    1. Until President Nutz is ushered into office and becomes corrupted by the power and money and expands the PPACA to get votes for another term.

  7. If this is so, about three years into the Hillary administration Johnson and Weld will be begging for new identities and a slot in something like a witness protection program.

  8. What is most important is looking in the mirror and patting yourself on the back for your purity, results be damned!

    1. Not my fault Team Stupid picked Hillary’s dream opponent. I’m doubly resentful because Trump has turned AZ into a swing state which means for the last week we’ve had both assholes and their entourage come to Phoenix.

      1. To be fair to Team Stupid, Jeb Bush was her dream opponent. Come on, refight of 2000 election but with Clinton this time?
        Also, I don’t think Dr Carson would do very well against her. And Cruz and Paul would have been on point for “gay cakes and abortions” treatment. But oh boy, would Kasich handle her roughly…

        1. Susan M. (who seldom posts lately) had the best comment on Carson during the primary debates (I paraphrase):

          “I wish someone would ask him a question about brain surgery so he wouldn’t sound stupid at least once.”

            1. I’m so old I remember when a Saturday Night Live sketch involved people acting, rather than just several people standing in line reading cue cards.

              Good grief, do they even rehearse anymore? You can follow their eyes reading the cards, and they don’t even bother to put any inflection on what they are reading.

              1. I’m so old I remember when a Saturday Night Live sketch involved people acting, rather than just several people standing in line reading cue cards.

                SNL has always been more hype than substance. I think that 80% of the sketches are just an annoying character with a funny voice doing stupid things. Maybe if they branched out from that mold, they’d have more than one good sketch per season.

              2. I’m so old I remember when a Saturday Night Live sketch involved people acting and improvising

                FTFY, Dr. Anacreon. Bill Murray was legendary for going off script (and corpsing).

                1. Bill Murray, but even more so John Belushi, was legendary for going off script (and corpsing).

              3. Yeah, it is pretty bloody awful

              4. There’s a reason any time Christopher Walken is on he makes the rest of the cast look like children. Even when (I should say even though) given absolute garbage of the script.

        2. According to Wiki Leaks, Clinton was wary of facing Rubio, Bush, and Paul (maybe Kasich too, I forget if he was mentioned), but wanted to face Trump, Carson, or Cruz FWIW.

          1. She was most concerned about Paul. Rand Paul would have been by far the most dangerous opponent. Bush and Rubio were not trusted on immigration and would have been even worse than Romney.

            Paul would have wiped the floor with her. They would have of course tagged him as a Klan loving racist, because that is all they have. But his views on the war and privacy would have destroyed her with younger voters. And Paul would have appealed to the GOP base much more than any of the other three mentioned.

            1. I hope the republicans read that for next time.

              1. Republicans that can read are a microminority.

                1. Especially in regards to the Constitution. Almost as bad as the Democrats.

            2. But Paul is bad on abortion! And gays! And he’s a bleeever!!!

            3. Of course then we’d also have to deal with the fallout when the inevitable Aqua Buddha rituals and orphan sacrifices stories came out.

              1. Look, you have to sacrifice orphans or Aqua Buddha won’t grant you your wish.

                1. Is that a problem?

            4. “But his views on the war and privacy would have destroyed her with younger voters.”

              Just like with Ron Paul, those two issues are what would’ve killed Rand Paul with the Republican talking heads and talk show hosts. People like Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, and so on would’ve brought their influence to bear against him just like they did for his father for not towing the hawk line on foreign policy and security. They’d do everything they could to label him as a crazy isolationist in the minds of the average Republican voter, just like they so successfully did to Ron Paul.

              1. Meh, i think Ron is a little further from the center than Rand. In fact, if it wasn’t for the orange clown, I think Rand would’ve, or at least could’ve, won the whole shooting match.

    2. Or social signaling your purity on Derpbook.

      1. A friend just posted on Derpbook his concern that Trump seems to be surging in the polls — explaining the phenomenon as
        “I can’t believe there’s that many stupid people in our country.”

        This same guy also has told me the only reason men wouldn’t vote for Clinton is that they don’t want to see a woman President.

        1. IOW, he doesn’t know jackshit about the candidates or the issues, he’s just regurgitating the leftist talking points. Useful idiots are useful.

  9. Bill Weld’s statement on the morning of 11/9:

    “I went out and got some chicken
    and shrimp and french fries and buns
    and mashed potatoes and gravy and
    cole slaw,and we ate.she told me
    how good she felt and I told her
    how good I felt and we
    ate the chicken and the shrimp and the
    french fries and the buns and the
    mashed potatoes and the gravy and
    the cole slaw too.”

    1. That’s the part you went with?!?

      1. I like the thought of someone putting in the effort to google what I typed, reading the rest of them poem and then resenting me. It’s so much more fun to make them earn the resentment.

        1. Well I’ll come out and say you got at least one.

          1. Make it two.

            *shakes resentful fist at Crusty*

        2. And here I thought you were parodying Raymond Carver.

    2. How dare you make light of 11/9!

      -Truther Englishman

  10. So my vote doesn’t matter unless it does. This blog sucks at telling me what to think.

  11. OH GOD I HOPE TRUMP WINS.

    1. Me too. Mostly just to shut you idiots up.

  12. We’ll see what happens Tuesday when fear of the other really sinks in.

  13. “Democrats were freaking out about and throwing millions at their perceived Johnson problem.”

    I see what you did there, Matt.

    1. “their perceived Johnson problem.”

      Don’t worry, Democrats… it happens to everyone sometimes.

    2. “Johnson Effect”

    3. NEEDZ MOAR VIAGRA!

  14. The Left has been importing big government voters for decades now. Their Victory is almost complete. Hillary will be able to amnesty and import her way to a permanent big government electoral majority.

    It would be fitting if Open Borders “libertarians” provided the final nail in the coffin to The Republic; they will have demonstrated that people are too stupid to be free.

    1. All we have to do is look at the statistics. How many new immigrants from 3rd world countries become libertarians? Or even right leaning free market advocates? Sure, there are a few. But now the government is trying to stamp that completely out by getting new immigrants hooked on government aid as soon as they arrive. There is no possible way the USA can continue on it’s current course and remain anything that even remotely resembles the country we once were. Fundamentally change America, yes we can.

      1. Libertarians and conservatives love to talk about freedom but they never seem to understand why people find freedom appealing or might not find it so. Freedom is not all wine and roses. Freedom also involves risk and personal responsibility. If your culture doesn’t value personal responsibility or even if it does, sees the risks associated with freedom as being too great to assume, they won’t support freedom.

        Someone’s commitment to personal responsibility doesn’t come from nowhere. It is a product of their culture and morality. People who buy into tribalism don’t believe in personal responsibility. They believe in the collective responsibility of the tribe. Importing millions of immigrants from third world countries, many of whom come with a tribal mentality serves only to erode this culture’s commitment to personal responsibility and make the people who are here more insecure about their economic position and thus more risk adverse and more adverse to freedom. It is easy to talk about the glories of the free market when you have a secure job talking out of your ass about such subjects and have little worry of ever suffering the vagaries and misfortunes necessarily associated with freedom.

        1. If your culture doesn’t value personal responsibility or even if it does, sees the risks associated with freedom as being too great to assume, they won’t support freedom.

          Even beyond that, we need to understand why cultures develop a value for personal responsibility. In the West, it was the Protestant Reformation that kicked it off. The shitcanning of the whole idea of the Roman Catholic church being an intermediary to God created a massive focus on the individual. With that focus came the Enlightenment, and a valuing of personal responsibility. It’s not surprising, at all, that the Catholic countries tend to be more socialist, because their culture never developed that value (this isn’t to say that there is no Catholic tradition of personal responsibility at all).

          In areas that didn’t have to deal with a Reformation or Enlightenment (the ME, the far east, etc.), personal responsibility is almost always framed in the “duty to society” ideal.

          1. It took hundreds or maybe thousands of years for the west to develop its value of personal responsibility. It doesn’t come from nowhere and if it continues to decline, it will take centuries to get it back.

          2. Or you could argue that those states which centralized *before* the Reformation were able to bludgeon the Popes into granting control of the Catholic Church in their countries. See, eg, Spain. Lots of de facto control over Church patronage and Church wealth went to the Spanish crown.

            Countries which centralized later had to worry about Catholic opposition since they hadn’t “tamed” their local churches. So at the Reformation, they didn’t bother trying to get greater influence over the local Catholic Church, they created their own churches and took the Catholic Church’s property. See England and the ambitious German states, etc.

            Meanwhile, countries like Spain with their comparatively tame local Church didn’t need to adopt the Reformation as an excuse – they’d already gotten much of the Church wealth, and Church patronage, that they wanted. So they could be noble Champions of Orthodoxy. After a serious struggle, France managed to set up its own centralized state with a “Gallican” Church where the French King had a lot of de fact power.

            And then Protestants got to blame, Spain and France’s cultural and economic problems on Romanism.

          3. “Protestant Reformation that kicked it off.”

            Yes. Individuals reading the Bible rather than the monopoly by the clergy was a big influence.

            1. Or you might just say “Individuals reading”.

              1. Which brings us back full circle to what i wanted to comment on:
                Even if you import tribal thinking people, the schools used to teach the American ethos to second generation Americans. They don’t, anymore, and that is a large part of the problem with our society, and not just with regards to immigrants.

                1. Right DJ, instead of admiring the FF for their intellects, the schools ridicule them for their skin tone.

              2. Not just reading, but having the freedom and encouragement of their religious leaders to think about what they were reading.

      2. Actual Facts on Hispanics in the US, immigrants and otherwise:

        PEW Research on Hispanic Americans

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        1. a rebuttal made previously

          your subsequent retort was even dumber = if the hispanics already here are the source of your (mis)perceived future-problem… what’s the solution? Mass deportation? Its already pointed out that “a wall” does nothing to address your (baseless) fears.

          1. My rebuttal to your previous non rebuttal is below. When you’re not too tired to make an actual argument, let me know.

            “what’s the solution? Mass deportation?”

            Yes, deport. Enforce the law.

            ” Its already pointed out that “a wall” does nothing to address your (baseless) fears.”

            The wall prevents further illegal immigration, and prevents those deported from returning.

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6510958

            “first of all, we don’t even face a significant increase in the net “immigrant hispanics” at the moment.”

            We face a huge net increase in hispanic *legal* immigration, numbering 10-30 million, if Hillary wins and amnesties the illegal immigrants already here.

            ” I could go on but i’m tired.”

            Whatever you need to tell yourself to make it through the night. Cognitive dissonance is so soothing when you don’t have an actual argument, isn’t it?

            1. You really think repetition makes what you said the first time any more clever?

              The nut of your case amounts to =

              “unless we forcefully deport 10s of millions of people (*most of whom who would already be here legally), the political balance in America is somehow doomed to a huge leftward swing.”

              Even if your assumption was true (its not; see below), that’s a ridiculous proposition for ‘solution’.

              I pointed out before (which you didn’t address) that projecting “current opinion-polling” into the future in perpetuity is a gross misunderstanding of demographic analysis.

              Even your own source-data points out that “current” 2nd generation-attitude drift rapidly towards the mean. 3rd generation opinions are barely distinguishable from the mean.

              Basically, you don’t even understand the data you think is so terrifying.

  15. To say that Johnson was a “spoiler” is to assume that the people who voted for Johnson would have all voted for Trump or Hillary rather than say voting for Stein or that guy who looks like a Minion or not voted at all. That seems like a pretty big assumption. Moreover, if you are going to say “Johnson spoiled it and lost these states for Trump” that buys into the premise that by not voting for one or the other major party candidate, you are in effect helping the other major party candidate. In every other context, reason denies that and says that since you don’t owe anyone your vote, you are not denying it to a major party candidate or in anyway enabling their opponent by voting LP.

    If Libertarians want to tell Hillary to claim credit for spoiling it for Trump, if that is in fact what happens, then they need to stop claiming that voting for a third party is in effect helping to elect whichever major party candidate wins. You can’t claim you never helped Hillary win because you didn’t owe anyone your vote and then turn around and brag about spoiling it for her opponent. The two positions are not logically compatible.

    1. You can’t claim you never helped Hillary win because you didn’t owe anyone your vote and then turn around and brag about spoiling it for her opponent. The two positions are not logically compatible.

      What has logic to do with politics? It doesn’t matter which one wins, the LP damn well better be pushing the idea that they were instrumentall in securing the win.

      1. ETA: The LP damn well better be pushing the idea that they were instrumental in securing the win to both parties – if Hillary wins they need to be telling the Dems “you owe us” and telling the GOP “see, you could have won if you’d been more libertarian.”

        1. The Dems won’t give a shit and they won’t give you anything. Why should they? The last thing they want is for Libertarians to be happy. They want Libertarians unhappy and taking votes from Republicans.

          What are you going to do if the Democrats continue to treat you like shit? Vote Republican? Hah, Good luck with getting anyone to believe that. And the Republicans are not going to give you anything because they will hate your guts and know just like the Democrats that you would never vote for them anyway.

        2. ‘ if Hillary wins they need to be telling the Dems “you owe us” ‘

          I bet Hillary would look almost human laughing herself silly over Libertarians demanding “you owe us”.

          Hillary: “You screwed yourselves, morons. You made possible the final victory of Big Government in the US, and now you’re making demands! We’ll have to keep you around as court jesters.”

        3. It would be pointless and utterly ridiculous for the LP to reach out to either the Dems or the GOP.

          The Dems have no reason to feel any debt whatsoever to the LP for any contribution that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld made on the behalf of Hillary. Sure Weld may get that Mexican ambassidorship, and the Clinton DoJ might tread lightly on Johnson’s weed business, but Hillary’s election will mean only bad things for genuine libertarians. The Dems have been explicitly anti-libertarian for quite some time.

          The GOP used to have a libertarian wing back in the late 70s and early 80s, but its embers were extinguished with the final campaign of Ron Paul. The GOP has become explicitly anti-libertarian. A libertarian wing has no place in a coalition with either the neo-cons (who used to run the GOP) or the alt-right, Trumpetarian clown circus.

          1. “Hillary’s election will mean only bad things for genuine libertarians.”

            And the little ls like me also.

              1. “l”‘s

      2. Okay, what does that accomplish other than giving people a reason to blame the LP and loath them? And when you do that, fine. But understand that when you come looking for votes in the next election and switch to claiming “there is no such thing as a spoiler”, you will have no credibility.

    2. Maybe different writers have different opinions.

  16. Beijing not happy with pair of pro-HK independence lawmakers who altererd their oaths while being sworn in.

    Leung and Yau of the radical Youngspiration party altered their oaths to insert a disparaging Japanese term for China. Displaying a flag reading “Hong Kong is not China,” they vowed to defend the “Hong Kong nation.” Leung crossed his fingers while Yau used the F-word in her pledge.

    Also the one who curses, the chick, is hot. I’d do things to her that I wouldn’t confess to a Catholic priest.

    1. They also got into a fight when they tried to read their oaths to the legislative council

      http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pro-independ…..th-1589478

      Asian lawmaker brawls are the best. I wish our Congress was like that.

      1. It’s hard for things to break out into a brawl when there’s effectively only one party is the USA.

        1. There is that. But allow me to dream. Wouldn’t a Rand Paul Chuck Schumer throw down in the well of the Senate be awesome?

          1. Until Schoomie smothers him with his gynaecomastic superiority, even if Dr. Paul blinds him first.

            1. I bet Ted Cruz could kick Pelosi’s ass !

              Or Reid if she is to frail to make it over to the Senate building.

          2. When I see the occasional reports/videos of representatives in other countries’ congresses, parliaments, etc. coming to fisticuffs on the floor of the senate or whatever, I don’t laugh at their inferiority as many do. My immediate thought is that, “Jesus, these people are serious about their stances,” and I long for the day when the U.S. sees fist fights in Congress; that is when we’ll know that the real work of governing is taking place and that we indeed have more than a single party with two wings fighting for their beliefs.

            1. I feel the same way.

            2. There’s no point. How do you top this? And if you can’t top it, don’t bother?

          3. Rand Paul is gonna throw Chuck Schumer down the well?

      2. When the Verkhovna Rada has a donnybrook, John, it’s always good for a laugh. The MPs here are a feisty bunch, given to fight at the drop of a hat.

      3. Agreed – other places seem to have actual competing ideologies. Here, it makes it appear that there’s really just broad elite consensus about the major things and only some minor bickering about meaningless details around the edges. Funny, that…

        1. If they are going to claim the right to run everyone’s life, they could at least pretend it matters to them.

          1. That should be a criteria for winning office. “Are your principles important enough to you to get into a fistfight about it, even though you were taught at Harvard that such things are uncouth?” If the answer is anything but an immediate, “Of course!”, you’re ineligible.

            1. Read a story a few years ago (Richard Morgan the author, I believe) where people competing for certain contracts were on a ‘first guy to get to the office gets the contract’ plan – competition rules were simply ‘do whatever it takes to get their first’. Up to and including killing your competitor.

              I’m also in favor of the Thunderdome style of elections. Everyone who wants the office enters into a ‘last man standing’ fight. Then the winner is placed backwards on a horse and sent off into the desert to die.

          2. It’s hard to have a fistfight with someone who is colluding with you to keep yourselves out of the cluthes of Obamacare like Hoi Polloi suffer.

    2. “the radical Youngspiration party”

      Radical meaning that they aren’t communist party hardliners? I mean here in the US, that means you aren’t a leftist. So I’m just guessing.

      1. They’re pro-HK independence, so I don’t think it’s a misuse of the word “radical” in the context of Chinese politics. Nowhere else in the PRC has an open, legal secessionist movement with MPs elected on that platform. They had a flag that said, “Hong Kong is Not China”, which ideology my wife’s mother’s side of the family adheres to.

        1. Does your wife’s mother’s sister make $1600 a week only working a few hours on her laptop?

      2. If it was anywhere on the mainland they would have been disappeared already.

    3. Kinda flat chested, but “would”able.

    4. So many wumao in the comments over there, calling for Beijing to put them away. How dare they act like they aren’t being ruled!

      The worse thing would be if they weren’t wumao, but true bleevers.

  17. http://observer.com/2016/11/da…..l-know-it/

    He was particularly agitated about what he believes was Clinton’s role in leaking a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Republican nominee Donald J. Trump and TV personality Billy Bush. “What I heard on that tape was gross,” Chappelle said. “But the way I got to hear it was even more gross. You know that came directly from Hillary.” He stated this had put him off a candidate he had already known was “not right.” He likened voting for her to a hypothetical situation of actress Halle Berry breaking wind in his face during sexual relations. “I’m still going to go for it,” he said. “But I wish she hadn’t done that thing.”

    Chappelle further shocked the New York crowd by defending Trump. He took issue with the media stating as fact that Trump had admitted committing sexual assault in the recorded conversation. “Sexual assault? It wasn’t. He said, ‘And when you’re a star, they let you do it.’ That phrase implies consent. I just don’t like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned it.”

    Good for Dave.

    1. And he’s still voting for Hillary, cuz Rethuglicans!

      1. I don’t know, Dave Chapelle is one of those black people who seems to think for himself and thus scares the living shit out of white progs. White Progs have no idea what to do with or think of a black man who doesn’t let White progs do his thinking for him.

        1. Of course they know, they call them Uncle Tom and say they aren’t ‘real’ blacks. Shit, you can be a real black even if you’re not black, as long as you vote Democrat.

          1. +1 first black President

    2. That honestly doesn’t surprise me that much. I know Democrats have been able to count on the black vote for decades but come on….”Hey, we know how many injustices you guys have experienced…so here, vote for this elitist old white hag who can get away with murder” Really?

      1. It’s the brainwashing. The media. The total progressive control of the political discussion. It doesn’t matter that the Dems were the party of the KKK and segregation. It doesn’t matter that the Dems policies have made the average inner city black person much worse off.
        It doesn’t even matter that Lincoln was a Republican, that the Republican party started as an anti slavery party, or that their (stated) economic policies would vastly improve the life of the average person of any race.
        Republicans are racist and evil, thus goes the narrative, and this is what the sheople believe.

    3. “Sexual assault? It wasn’t. He said, ‘And when you’re a star, they let you do it.’ That phrase implies consent. I just don’t like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned it.”

      Thanks, Dave.

      The media again and again makes statements about Trump’s “admission of sexual assault”. Nice to see that there are a few sane and honest people left in the world.

      1. Legs-spread rape!

  18. There’ll be a big difference between what Johnson polls and what he actually gets. Shy Tory syndrome likely applies the Trumpers as well. They might say they’re voting for Johnson but they’ll pull the lever for Trump when the time comes.

    1. #neverhillary

    2. So many euphemisms. So very very very many euphemisms.

  19. “If Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Other Close States, She Can Thank Gary Johnson”

    I knew I should have listened to SIV and voted for Trump…

    1. It’s all a big IF. It’s pretty much a statistical tie right now. No one knows who is going to win. There are dummies over at WaPo saying that it’s already over because of early voting. I asked one of them what does that mean, post a link to where you’re getting this info. Of course, they can’t.

      I think it comes down to PA. If Hillary wins PA, she wins, if not, she loses. Unless the Donald can pull off CO, OH, FL, NV, NC, and NH, and maybe one surprise, like MI. Then maybe he has a chance. But I think he needs PA, OH, and FL.

      1. RCP’s no toss-up map has Trump at 241 electoral votes, without Pennsylvania. The State 28th the smallest Clinton lead is… Florida, where she leads by 1.2%. Those 29 electoral votes would give Trump exactly 270.

      2. I’m afraid Colorado’s going for Hillary. I mean, is totally “I don’t know how Nixon win; I don’t know anybody who voted for him.” But, my friends (all 4!) Are a pretty diverse bunch, and the vibe I’m getting is that Hillary wins metro Denver, Aurora, and Pueblo. Lakewood, Colorado springs, and the rest of the state is going to vote Trump, but the numbers are on Hillary’s side, I think.
        I agree, therefore, that Trump needs PA, OH, and FL.

      3. There are dummies over at WaPo saying that it’s already over because of early voting.

        That’s the thing, though–early voting doesn’t mean much unless it’s an overwhelming advantage, and even at that you don’t know right away how independents are going to break.

  20. “Hillary Clinton has built (in the words of CNN) “what could be an insurmountable edge in Nevada at the end of early voting,” including a 72,000-vote advantage in Clark County alone. Nevada, which selected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, is nevertheless close to a must-win for Donald Trump, and the polling there has been so close that even as of this afternoon FiveThirtyEight estimated the Republican’s chances of winning there at 50.4 percent.

    I’m not even sure what’s being alleged here.

    Does Hillary Clinton have an insurmountable edge?

    Is it so close that Donald’s chances of winning are 50.4% 50.7%*?

    ?

    Obama got 53% of the vote in Nevada in 2012.

    Silver is showing Hillary’s support in Nevada at 47% That’s about what Romney got in 2012.

    Casino workers’ unions are the big Democrat supporters in Las Vegas. It’s no surprise to see them dominate the early voting. That’s their get out the vote campaign. That’s almost certainly about the union rather than Hillary.

    Meanwhile, if the voter turn out is the same size for this election as it was in 2012 and Hillary gets 6% less of the vote than Obama did (as Silver is projecting), then Hillary will get about 70,000 votes less than Obama did.

    She’s still neck and neck with Trump, but if Trump supporters are more dedicated to show up to the polls (without a union giving them a ride in a bus), she’ll be in trouble.

    *Nate just adjusted it up to 50.7% chance of Trump winning.

    1. what could be an insurmountable edge

      That is monumentally poor writing and thinking on Welch’s part. That is a void assertion. “Could be an insurmountable lead” means nothing. The “could be” voids what follows. Moreover, if Trump still has a better than 50% chance of winning the state, Clinton doesn’t have a lead or an edge of any kind. Trump does.

      Where did the reason staff go to school? Did they ever take an advanced rhetoric and writing class? A basic formal logic course? The things they do and what passes for decent thinking and writing is just appalling sometimes.

      1. Someone posted a couple of days ago, that in early voting, Trump had about a 70,000 vote advantage in FL. But no mention of that. Maybe it isn’t true. I haven’t seen any of this data posted online about any state. So I don’t know where it’s coming from.

        1. I don’t know how they tell that. Do they start counting them as soon as they come in?

          Even if it is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean much. It may be that more Trump voters are enthusiastic and wanted to mail in their vote early. That is nice but that doesn’t mean there are more Trump voters overall.

          1. I believe (I could be wrong) that they know if Republicans or Democrats are voting, but not who they are voting for.

            1. Yes.

              Nobody actually knows the vote totals, they just assume based on party affiliations.

    2. I haven’t paid too much attention to odds makers and all that. I just watch the polls. I would say that right now, Hillary would win by the smallest of margins. If the polls continue their current path until Tuesday, she loses by that same margin. And then we could get the nightmarish situation where neither of them get 270 and Congress decides who is president. In which case, there will be massive turmoil and unrest. I can see Trump supporters posting means stuff online and Democrats burning down several major cities to the ground.

    3. She’s still neck and neck with Trump, but if Trump supporters are more dedicated to show up to the polls (without a union giving them a ride in a bus), she’ll be in trouble.

      See my comment below – CNN is engaging in voter suppression, calling it early for Clinton when they have no possible way to claim they know wtf they’re talking about – deliberately to discourage Trump voters from bothering to show up on Tuesday.

      1. I seriously doubt they’ll discourage Trump voters since at this point, everything they have pulled out of their ass only seems to encourage them instead. And I don’t know a single right leaning person who has even watched CNN in years. I cannot stand their bullshit anymore than I can Fox or MSNBC. The conservatards watch Fox, but not CNN. So how does CNN think this can even work? Desperation.

        1. I think the “Hillary has it in the bag” talk might backfire and get Democrats who loath Hillary but were willing to vote for her if it were necessary to stop Trump to either vote Stein or not vote at all. I agree with you that it is not going to discourage Trump voters and it might motivate them more. The whole point of voting for Trump for a lot of people is to tell the media to fuck off. So the more the media says he can’t win, the more a lot of his supporters want to vote for him.

          1. The media are in rapid decline. They know it and they’re freaking out. This stuff about Russia is seriously the dumbest fucking shit they have ever pulled out of their stupid asses. I look for the FCC under Clinton to go on a full out attack against alternative or right leaning online news sources. The effect of this will be to seriously piss people off even more than they’re already pissed off. Which will lead to more talk about how if we could only get rid of evil whiteys, all our problems would be solved. The country is now so divided, there is no hope of a reconciliation.

            1. The media has no idea the forces they are messing with. If it ever does come to a point where people in this country start taking matters into their own hands and we have real political violence, one of the first groups of people who are going to get shot is the media. They think it is all fun and games to totally sell out to one side of the political isle and stick it to half of the country and laugh while they do it. It never occurs to their dumb asses that if political violence ever breaks out, they are now the most visible and loathed supporters of one of the sides. I don’t think they would like that very much.

              1. How does the media get by with being so partisan over the public airways.

                The net I get. But why are they allowed to be so partisan over the public airways ?

                Aren’t there some controls over that like I once heard the left bitch about in the early days of conservative talk radio ?

            2. That bit about the FCC I think is important. It’s the executive-branch agencies becoming a law unto themselves that’s the big story of the transformation of this country. It’s not just that We the People no longer control Washington, as Trump would have it, it’s that our elected representatives no longer control Washington, either. Between the Auer deference crap and the militarization of the enforcement arms of the alphabet agencies, they’re making, interpreting and enforcing their own laws. There’s no separation of powers and no effective oversight or accountability for the EPA, the FDA, the FCC, the IRS, the NSA, Education, DoJ, and all the rest. Hell, look at all the stories in Reason that relate to unelected bureaucrats making decisions that carry the force of law without any sort of public input other than after-the-fact protests and demonstrations and outraged phone calls to congressman and newspaper editorials.

              1. You got it Jerryskids. That sums it up pretty well.

              2. “It’s the executive-branch agencies becoming a law unto themselves that’s the big story of the transformation of this country”

                I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been railing on against our rogue agencies for years now. The EPA, IRS, etc, are now just their own little fiefdoms who have somehow become immune to Congressional oversight. It’s like there’s the big mafia gang in DC, and then there’s all the little colluding mafia gangs in our agencies.

                1. Pretty sure George Washington earned is about the imperial presidency, among others.
                  We were warned about the military-industrial complex, too.
                  And them there’s Ben Franklin with his “a republic, if you can keep it.”
                  But, this is America, and it could never happen here.

  21. I thought they didn’t actually count those votes until election day. CNN (and everybody else) may know how many registered Republican voters requested mail-in ballots and how many registered Democrat voters requested mail-in ballots, but actually knowing how they voted would require them looking at the ballots in some illegal way, wouldn’t it? So is CNN admitting they’ve committed voter fraud? Of coure not! But might it be fair to suggest the miserable pig-fuckers are engaging in the same sort of “voter suppression” they accused Trump of by calling the election early for Clinton in the hopes the LIV Trump supporters can be dissuaded from going to the polls on Tuesday? In a completely fair and non-partisan and transparent manner, of course.

  22. When I work out the national election maps, I think it’s all about Pennsylvania–regardless of which way Nevada goes.

    Silver has Hillary with a 75% chance of winning Pennsylvania.

    Weather forecast for Philadelphia: 66 F. Chance of precipitation: zero.

    Survey says advantage to the crook.

    P.S. Hillary’s campaign manager might not be a Satanist, but his sister is so fuckin’ weird, if you had to choose between Anthony Weiner and her to be your babysitter, you might go with Weiner.

    1. Weather forecast for Philadelphia: 66 F. Chance of precipitation: zero.

      That’s a beautiful fall day – they expecting voter turn-out to be well over 100%, then?

      1. It’s Philly, could be up to 150% turn out even with rain.

    2. Silver made that claim before this came out

      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..tied-in-pa

      Trump and Clinton each have 46 percent support, while Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson gets two percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein has one percent, the poll found.

      Then you go and look at the meat of the poll and you find out this

      With signs of the race trending Trump in the waning days of the campaign, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are tied in the Keystone state (46-46%, 2% Johnson, 1% Stein, 4% Undecided). Clinton has a steady lead with women (49% Clinton-44% Trump) while Trump has expanded his advantage with men (43-49%, 9/22: 42-44%). Independents prefer Trump (26-46%) but self-identified Moderates choose Clinton (57-31%).

      Trump is ahead in every area of the state by a wide margin except for Philadelphia. Hillary is up by 32 points there.

      If Hillary doesn’t get a huge turnout in Philadelphia, she is in a lot of trouble in PA.

      1. Isn’t Nate Silver still giving Hillary an 80% chance of wining the election? Admittedly, I just saw that a while back on a Drudge link, I don’t pay any attention to the prognosticators.

        1. I think he has it at 65% Hillary and 35% Trump. Democrats are freaking out and calling him an apostate Trump supporter trying to throw the election over it. He is definitely on the shit list.

        2. http://projects.fivethirtyeigh…..6-forecast

          Yeah 65/35

          I wouldn’t bet my life on those odds either way.

          And there’s always the chance that the polling is all terribly flawed somehow.

          I was on Skype with the family unit yesterday when Gallup called. I could hear their answering machine (yeah they still use land lines) pick up and say it was Gallup. She says they call there four or five times a day.

          I thought it might be scammers trying to poll them for demographic data on an identify theft scam, but why would they keep calling like that.

          Anyway, she’s never talked to them.

          She’s voting for Johnson.

          I’ve always imagined that the people who don’t screen their calls are either obsessively social or lonely as hell. Answer the phone for strangers has got to be unusual now. They may be polling some strange slice of the demographic.

          1. Shut up, Trumpet.

          2. They are polling people who have land lines. What percentage of the population still have land lines? I’d guess I large percentage of that percentage is well over 60.

          3. ‘ Answer the phone for strangers has got to be unusual now.’
            This! With the scammers and cold callers, the answer to a stranger calling is usually ‘Fuck you!’.
            I think I’ve seen figures that suggest there is a 90% none response rate to poll calls.

      2. Here’s the link:

        http://projects.fivethirtyeigh…..nsylvania/

        He has Hillary with 49%

        Trump with 46%.

        And he has Hillary with a 75% chance to win.

        When I look at the consistency of the polling there for Hillary it makes sense, too.

        If that extra 4% is coming from a place of stability in inner city Philadelphia or something.

        If they’ve got their districts gerrymandered in the right way, . . .

        It isn’t just the percentage of the vote.

        I want Trump to beat Hillary. But Trump polling 47% doesn’t mean he’s got a 47% chance of winning.

        There could very well be a 75% chance that his 47% support won’t be enough to win the state.

        1. I’ve been tying the race to PA for months now. I still believe it. But Hillary is only 2.5% up in PA now in the RCP avg. That is by no means a sure thing, it’s a statistical tie.

        2. If the Redskins have a 75% chance of scoring 21 points.

          And the Cowboys have a 75% chance of scoring 28.

          The Cowboys may have a 75% chance of winning.

          1. Yeah, but the Cowboys aren’t just like Hitler and they aren’t in cahoots with the KGB. So your point is moot.

          2. See below Ken. To put it in sports terms, Team Hillary just lost its quarterback and Silver’s betting projections assume the quarterback is healthy. So they are not reflective of reality.

            1. I’m not saying that’s what’s going to happen.

              If the percentages change and Trump polls higher than Hillary for the first time since the summer, that changes the calculation.

              But if Trump is polling 47% of the vote, that doesn’t mean he has a 47% chance of winning.

              He may have a 75% chance of of coming in a few percentage point behind Hillary.

          3. If the Redskins have a 75% chance of scoring 21 points.

            And the Cowboys have a 75% chance of scoring 28.

            The Cowboys may have a 75% chance of winning.

            That last “may” certainly makes that a true statement, but I’m pretty sure the math otherwise is not correct. Assuming you meant the Redskins have a 75% chance of scoring at least 21 points and not exactly 21 points, it doesn’t say anything about their chances of scoring any specific number of points. Within the parameters of your hypothetical, it may be entirely true that the Redskins have never in their lives scored more than 24 points in a game and the Cowboys have never in their lives scored fewer than 24. Which means the Cowboys have rather more than a 75% chance of winning the game.

            /can’t resist math brain-teasers, sorry not sorry

            1. 75% chance that Redskins score 20 points.

              75% chance that the Cowboys score 21 points.

              That means there’s a 75% chance that the Cowboys win by one point.

              There are variables based on whether the Redskins have a higher upper limit, and there are variables based on whether the Cowboys have a lower limit.

              But those variables are already apparent in the point predictions when you make your predictions on those point totals.

              A normal distribution (30/40/30) might give you a lower number on the Redskins points, but then maybe you didn’t use a normal distribution. The Cowboys are missing a starting CB, the Redskins’ TE is coming back from injury, etc. When you’re making your prediction about the point totals, you’ve already crunched those numbers.

              This isn’t a bet where you say, “I’ll take certain odds if the Redskins score less and other odds if they score more”. You’re looking at who’s going to win and who’s going to lose–based on how much each team is going to score in the future.

            2. Nate is saying that he’s correcting for potential upside and low side and various distributions, and there’s a 75% chance that the Hillaries are going to win the game by three points.

              Given what we know today, given all the probability distributions:

              If there’s a 75% chance that Trump will get 46%

              And if there’s a 75% chance that Hillary will get 49%.

              Then there’s a 75% chance that Hillary will beat Trump by 3%.

              Now you’re saying that there’s more information to come out in the future that people will react to, that the surveys are under-counting Trump in some way, etc., then you’re talking a different story.

              But I think you’re talking about intangibles now. If people don’t respond to phone surveys anymore, I don’t know how anybody’s supposed to account for that.

              I tried to account for weather.

              1. For what it’s worth, Silver is also saying that the chance that:

                1) Hillary will get 45% or less

                +

                2) Donald will get more than 49%

                +

                3) Donald will get more than Hillary and they’ll both miss those numbers

                =25%

        3. The problem with going with averages is that an average is only meaningful if the race is relatively stable. If the race is stable, the average rounds off the errors of the various polls and tells you what is going on. If the race is not stable and is shifting one way or another, averages are worse than useless. The average takes polls that were conducted over time. So if the race is shifting, the average is going to miss it because it is including polls that were done when the electorate was different than it is now.

          This is the fatal flaw of Silver’s model. He can’t account for a last minute surge or change in the electorate. His method is, though sometimes effective, fairly primitive. He basically takes the results of the various polls and calculates the their margins of error and the chances of reality deviating from their averages. That only works if all of the polls are polling a constant state of the electorate. If opinion is shifting, his model won’t account for it until after the shift has occurred and the electorate has stabilized long enough for the polls to again cumulatively reflect the state of the race.

          There is no denying that there has been a very significant and nationwide shift towards Trump over the last week. So, basically, throw everything Silver is saying out the window because his methods can’t account for that.

          1. If Trump has another week, I think he’d win for sure. But he doesn’t and tomorrow is Sunday. So effectively, one more day of momentum may not be enough.

            1. That is the question. How big is the surge and will it be enough to overtake Hillary. I don’t know what the answer to that is. But whatever the answer, Silver’s averaging and calculating of what are now dated polls isn’t going to help you figure it out.

              1. Silver’s methodology is flawed because he doesn’t include polling information that includes Jill Stein, who is siphoning off Hillary voters and not Trump voters.

                Which means his polling inflates Hillary numbers by what could be a decisive 1% to 2% of voters.

                Oh, and I think the election gets decided in New Hampshire. If Trump wins Pennsylvania, then it’s not gonna be close.

    3. “Weather forecast for Philadelphia: 66 F. Chance of precipitation: zero.”

      Is the SEPTA strike still on?

  23. Remember, remember!
    The eighth of November,
    The Hillary treason and plot;
    I know of no reason
    Why the Foundation treason
    Should ever be forgot!

    Hillary and her companions
    Did the scheme contrive,
    To blow the Electoral College
    All up alive.

    Thirty thousand emails, laid below,
    To prove old D.C.’s overthrow.
    But, by Comey’s providence, her they catch,
    With a hammer and a cloth to match!

    A stick and a stake
    For Freedom’s sake!
    If you won’t give me one,
    I’ll take two,
    The better for me,
    And the worse for you.
    A rope, a rope, to hang the dope,
    A Weiner to choke her,
    A Podesta to wash it down,
    And a jolly impeachment to learn her.
    Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! the charges are piling up!
    Holloa, boys! holloa boys! Our system is all fouled up!
    Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

    1. Do you have a rap video for that up on Youtube?

  24. Will I be able to buy the hillary inauguration on DVD?

    1. Are you planning on torturing yourself to death? Why don’t just jump off a bridge, it’s quicker and less painful.

    2. Hillary’ll e-mail you a copy.

  25. No doubt, Hillary will thank us by being gentle the first time she fucks us. Nah, just kidding.

    1. She has an enemies list a mile long and she’s going to be behind the bully pulpit, shreeking and pointing and railing against deplorables and irredemables, with her eyes darting around wildly. 4 years of that. Fun times it will be. Cheers!

      1. Damnit. I’m already drinking, and now I really need a drink. Thanks, Hyperion.

  26. FiveThirtyEight brings the data-driven facts: Why We Don’t Know How Much Sexism Is Hurting Clinton’s Campaign

    Being a woman may not hurt you in an election, but it definitely seems to have an impact on the process of getting to that election ? largely because women themselves are reluctant to run. And there’s reason to believe that reluctance could have a lot to do with how some women who do run experience a sort of sexism that scientific research isn’t really documenting.

    Science! Wait…

    But experimental research and analysis of actual elections have failed to find any evidence of this. Instead, over and over, Schneider told me, studies have found that, while Americans hold gender stereotypes about women’s traits and they hold gendered ideas about certain political issues, neither of those things seems to affect the way people vote. “On the whole, sexism doesn’t have a huge impact on whether women get elected,” she told me. Instead, political party is the primary factor people consider when voting, followed by incumbency.

    1. But that doesn’t mean there is no sexism, said Schneider, Dolan, and other political scientists. And it doesn’t mean sexism isn’t having an impact on elections. Instead, sexism may be inconsistently affecting women who run for political office, depending on factors such as which job a specific woman is running for, what’s happening in the world when she runs, and her personality and history. In current U.S. society, sexism doesn’t often take the form of a mustachioed villain cackling about his refusal to vote for any woman ever. It’s more likely to play out in nuanced and complex ways.2 And those nuances are difficult for the current science to capture.

      Conclusion: science is sexist.

      1. Subject science to some enhanced interrogation until it produces better answers.

        1. Grab science by the P-U-S2-Y alloy.

      2. Just because there isn’t any evidence that supports the hypothesis, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I guess if you adopt a really radical form of Humeian skepticism that is true. I seriously doubt that the half wit who wrote this article even know who Hume is much less has adopted a radical form of his skepticism about scientific facts and logical imperatives. So, I am going to go with the writer of this article is an idiot who doesn’t understand the relationship between observation and reality.

      3. Look, the sexism is internalized. Women know men are sexist pigs so female politicians tailor their image and their message in a way to blunt that sexism so the sexism becomes hidden and undocumentable. It’s sexism to force a woman to change in such a way so as to avoid sexism. See how easy that is? If you see sexism, well, there it is. If you don’t see any sexism, well, it just proves how well hidden it is.

      4. We were talking about Nate Silver and the popularity of his punditry-website the other day.

        he’s effectively leveraged some good-press he got from doing some number crunching in prior elections? to giving himself the imprimatur of credibility to talk about everything and anything…while handwaving about ‘studies’ and throwing a few charts around to give the impression that these folks are very scientistic and experty, because numbers.

    2. On the whole, sexism doesn’t have a huge impact on whether women get elected,” she told me. Instead, political party is the primary factor people consider when voting, followed by incumbency.

      Isn’t that saying we do know how much it is hurting Clinton’s campaign? Which part of “sexism doesn’t have a huge impact on whether women get elected” does the 538 people find so difficult to understand?

    3. “Why we don’t know how much sexism is hurting Hillary’s campaign”

      I suppose there might be some people who don’t like Hitler just because he was a vegetarian

      1. I have personally talked to 3 women voting for Hildog because “Girls have to stick together.”

        Women are more sexist than men.

        1. Would those same women be voting for the woman if it was Bernie vs Fiorina?

          1. Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

    4. + 1 Ma Ferguson

      Her husband was Governor of Texas and was a crook. He was impeached.

      She ran under her name all the while letting everyone know that Bill, I mean Pa Ferguson, was actually going to be handling the money.

      She won easily.

  27. So, here’s my libertarian voter’s guide.

    If you live in Utah, vote McMillan. Yeah he sucks. He sucks less than Trump or Clinton. He also has enough support that with *your* support he might take Utah. He’ll only take Utah and has no chance at the Presidency BUT might be enough to keep Trump/Clinton from getting 270 EC votes, throwing the election to the House. Each state gets 1 vote, the GOP is favored and McMillan has been saying that he might bow out in favor of a Romney or Ryan – which would allow the House to dump Trump without any further hassle. Ain’t a fan of Romney, but he’s a damn sight better than the other two options.

    Plus, the House gets to pick the VP also – and I’d love to see an R/D administration again. The screaming would be sooooo amazing.

    Vote Johnson everywhere else. Yeah he sucks. But if we stop thinking about *President* Gary Johnson and start considering that 5% gets automatic ballot access everywhere for (L)ibertarians in the next election . . . well Johnson will have served well advancing the LP and 3rd parties in general despite his other missteps.

    1. That’s not a “libertarian guide”. It’s a #NeverTrumpNeoConEstablishmentarian guide.

      You’re outed dude. Romney…lol!

  28. FBI graffiti

    If the person responsible would have just scrawled the same graffiti on every government agency in DC, I would 100% agree with them. Can they increase the font at least for the capital building and the Whitehouse? But looks like this is a case of ‘Oh muh gawds, the FBI failed to agree with us this time’.

  29. What kind of asshole votes? You could be doing something productive instead, like shooting heroin into your balls or sacrifice your enemies to Tyr. Get your priorities straight.

    1. Does drinking top shelf gin and figuring out ways to increase your levels of evil testosterone count? If so, where do I sign up?

      1. Booze increases estrogen, brah.

        Eat more red meat and other things with a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol, eat your vegetables, take 5000 IUs of Vitamin D a day, get more sleep, lift heavy things, reduce stress. If all else fails, go to the shady endocrinologist in your area who caters to pro athletes and get yourself a prescription for Vitamin T shots.

        1. I know that, bro, but I don’t drink booze every day. I’m doing LCHF diet now. Taking 10k of vitamin D a day, along with lots of other supplements and other stuff that should increase T and block estrogen. Doing lots of research. I’ve already lost 20 lbs of fat and doing better in only 2 months.

          To be honest, when I was doing T gel, that was the best I have ever felt since I was in my 30s. Seriously considering seeing an HRT specialist.

          And yeah, I need to add the lifting and other exercise to this.

          1. Zinc is supposed to be useful too. And Vitamin B…6? Maybe?

            But yeah, get the fucking T gel again. It’s absurd that shit isn’t sold over the counter.

            1. T gel is sold OTC in almost every other country besides USA. I take a supplement named KLB6 right now that I like, but there is nothing that I’ve found so far, that will make you feel like T supplementation once you’re into your mid 50s. I take DHEA also and DIM and a couple of other estrogen blockers.

              The DEAs blocking of T is Nazi type shit. A natural hormone. No other country does this, it’s insane. Is estrogen a controlled substance? Or any other hormone? No.

              1. Masculinity is toxic, brah.

                1. Toxic masculinity, it’s all the rage.

                  1. it’s all the ‘roid rage

                    FTFY

                    1. ROID RAGE IS A FUCKING MYTH FUCK YOU IT DOESN’T EXIST I’LL FUCKING KILL YOU

              2. Is estrogen a controlled substance? Or any other hormone? No.

                I’m pretty sure you need a prescription for oral contraceptives in the U.S.

                Jus’ sayin’

                1. Even so, it is incredibly easy to obtain. Getting a script for Test requires a lot of jumping through hoops and usually multiple doctors before one finally sets you up.

                  1. Oral contraceptives/female hormones=easy to obtain. Testosterone=very difficult

          2. When I had T gel I was screwing 3 times per night. Nice!

            1. The injections are much better for me.

              I hate that sticky gel that you have to let dry every day.

              I take 1 ml shot every 2 weeks.

              I’m 60, fit, and full of energy.

              I’m also married to a 30 year old ballerina for 6 years now.

        2. Booze increases estrogen, brah.

          So, you’re saying that drinking makes me fat? You’re such a pig!
          *Runs of sobbing to call sister

    2. Don’t forget shooting and cleaning guns.

  30. If I ever got divorced again, which I seriously doubt, my wife is the sweetest and sexiest little woman I could possibly ever hope for, the only woman left on the planet that I would even consider marrying, and I don’t like blondes”

    Lauren Southern

    1. Jeffrey Robinson: Gun control works in Canada!

      Lauren: You do realize those are two very different situations with different populations?

      Robinson: *screeching* NO THEY AREN’T! *denies reality*

      1. Isn’t Canada the place where they abandoned their gun registry because everyone ignored it?

        1. Sort of. It seems they tried it, and gave up because it was enormously expensive, and by the time they got the thing into any workable order? the same items would have changed hands and required ‘updating’, creating a perpetual massive investment which yielded info of 95%-useless value.

          The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

          The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports… overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada … the government was spending the bulk of its money …trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

          and more

          1. That’s 600 jobs created or saved! We’d be crazy not to apply the same job-creating effort to health care.

          2. Note that this was for “long guns” (i.e. shotguns and rifles). Handgun registry has existed since the 30s and is still going strong.

            1. Very. Strong.

        2. Not sure. I just look at Brazil, a place I actually know more about than Canada. Some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. And yet, they have 23 cities listed in the top 50 cities of gun related homicides on the planet. Yeah, gun control does not work.

            1. Who cares, I can buy an actual AK-47 or AR-15 type rifle in under one hour in Brazil even if I’m starting with no leads at all, as long as I have 1K dollars, or even less. And for the record, this is not a complaint, it’s a complete ridicule of gun control advocates.

              1. 1k? SMDH. In the 90’s after the USSR had fallen, HKs were going for less than one hundred dollars American.

            2. Polish resistance was producing submachine guns while under German occupation.
              For the record, Nazi gun control measures in Poland during WW2 could be described as “rigorous” rather than “lax”.

              1. Really? The Nazis? They seemed like such easy going people.

          1. Gun Markets of Pakistan

            A bit dated but still a good video.

        3. It also was eviscerated in an Auditor-General report. Basically, it cost $2 billion for basically nothing.

    2. I think Irish claimed dibs on her.

    3. Looking at the roots of her hair, I’m not certain she’s a natural blonde.

      1. I was wondering who dyed her roots.

  31. I’m going to make on bold prediction. If Hillary wins, the anti-government movement is not going away. You heard it here first. Also, if Trump wins, same.

    1. *Adds Hyperion to mailing list for Tin Foil Hat Monthly

  32. So. How many of you are pulling out Huntington’s ‘Clash of civilization’ again?

    Also. Just watched a report about ebola in Liberia and the interview with a Liberian doctor came with subtitles because, you know, thick ‘wtf did he say?’ accent. Anyway, isn’t that racist according to the SJW retard-handbook?

    1. Often, when the BBC interviews people from Africa who speak English, they introduce the interview with “owing to the poor quality of the ‘phone line, [name’s] words are being spoken by someone else.” It’s amazing: all the ‘phone interviews from Africa are poor quality.

      1. Ms. Crabapple says, Ha!

  33. Hey PapayaSF… you planning to answer where you got the impression that Clinton’s margin in California is ~1/4th of what every poll reports? I want to understand where one locates information that is so powerfully wrong.

  34. Any Aussies here? Is it true that there’s no crime in Sydney???

    “The wife of ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos declared that if Donald Trump wins, the couple is moving to Australia. That’s according to the Hollywood Reporter in a piece from Tuesday on how celebrities will react to the election. She declared, “If Trump wins, we’ll start looking at real estate in Sydney, Australia. No crime, no guns.””

    1. There are Aussies here. There is crime in Sydney. I remember one mentioning that there are areas in the Sydney Metro area where ambulances don’t go because of hooligans throwing rocks at the ambulances.

      1. I only know of two Aussies around here: IFH and RN.

        And the Tasmanian Devil. Because.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTlNOZB4Zo

        1. Yeah, but I’ve been here so long I don’t keep up on things like crime stats. IFH lives in the Sydney area.

          Here’s a story that documents an increase in gun crime in the last year AND an increase in firearm ownership since the ban.

          Still not US levels but it does suggest Stephie’s wife is either ignorant or just virtue-signalling.

          1. IFH might have been the one talking about the hooligans. I remember reading about on H&R. I forget how long ago.

          2. “Still not US levels but it does suggest Stephie’s wife is either ignorant or just virtue-signalling.”

            Both ?

            1. Probably

    2. Canada breathes a collective sigh of relief.

      1. Yeah, you’d think they’d be shoo-in for Zoolander refugee status.

        Maybe they are concerned about Trump’s planned Invasion of Canada (coming sometime in 2018)?

      2. Is that what that was. I thought it was an early chinook.

      3. For the love of God please stop trying to dump your trash up here.

        This is for Bieber and Dion isn’t it?

        1. Yup. Send us some more of the same, and see what happens. We’re ready to nuke you just over Bieber, alone.

    3. All I know is I have a cousin from Melbourne who hangs out in the Outback. Dude is a sot and when he came here back in the 1980s he was so drunk he smashed a windshield with his hand and laughed it off.

      Me and the other cousins looked around nervously and laughing at the same time it was so ‘out there’.

    4. Well, there’s thought-crime.

      A group of students walked into a QUT computer lab only to be told it was an “aboriginal-only” computer lab and made to leave. Apparently, aborigines have an entirely different Windows operating system. So the guys went back to their rooms and made a few sardonic comments on Facebook, such as “I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is.”

      For reacting to neo-segregationism with droll self-mockery, they were dragged into a three-year legal nightmare. My pal Tim Blair is celebrating this as a landmark victory against the totalitarian thought-police of the Australian “Human Rights” Commission, but, as I always say, the process is the punishment:

      Some of them choose to pay $5000 just to make the whole thing go away, so afraid of being labelled racists are they. Others choose to fight this patent injustice, even though they’re being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      1. And remember that the current crop of university students so afraid of free thought? They’re going to be going into NGOs, going to Washington, running for office, working very hard to make this a reality in the US.

      2. Awful.

        Aboriginal science!

        You know, I’m actually starting to dislike the term ‘aboriginal’.

        RUFUS IS AN ORIGINAL TOO!

        1. I’m actually starting to dislike the term ‘aboriginal’

          The correct term is now ‘indigenous’ anyway.

        2. “RUFUS IS AN ORIGINAL TOO!”

          Abnormal aboriginal.

          1. /examining pubic hair. Hears something. Looks up.

            What?

  35. Well, I just changed my Maryland party registration to Libertarian from Independent.

    Never had a problem in over 30 years.

    This year I was told that I must use a handwritten provisional ballot and ” your vote will be counted.”

    How reassuring.

    1. Sweet, now there’s five of us!

    2. Opposite here. When i got back to CO i registered libertarian for the first time. Then i moved. Last week, I changed my address with the sec of state online, was assured that “if you register or change your address within 8 days of the election, you will receive a mail in ballot in the mail.”
      I thought, bullshit, and started making plans to stop by somewhere and get my ballot/vote.
      Thursday, 5 days before election day, I received a ballot in the mail. Did not get blue book explaining stuff, but can Google (in the voting booth[!] if I really want to take the procrastination thing to the edge).

    1. Winter is coming, so I decided to exercise some local patriotism.

      1. I’ve had Granville not bad. Creemore Springs out of Little Commieville Ontario too.

      2. Hmm… I probably can’t get any of their beer in the US. Dammit.

        I note they distribute in Alberta, like every other Canadian brewer.

        A year or two ago I took a road trip to Nova Scotia. I looked up brewers and their distribution area. “Nova Scotia and Alberta”, “All Maritime Provinces and Alberta”, “Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Alberta”, so on and so forth.

        1. List of breweries in Canada:

          http://bit.ly/2eAx00p

          1. So many beers, so little time.

  36. So I held my nose and mailed my ballot today voting for the Ls as I have every election since 1992. After Weld made an ass of himself again by endorsing Clinton I had decided to write in Rob Zombie, clearly the best choice. But I guess I’m just a hard core partisan and in the end voted for the party, not the candidates. I doubt the ticket will top 2% but I live in Illinois so it’s a throw away in any case. The fact that these clowns could blow this opportunity and alienate a guy like me is pretty amazing. Yeah they’ll get a few protest votes from people who have no idea what libertarianism actually is. But in the end most, particularly millennials, will sit this one out. What the ticket spoiled was any hope that the uninformed would learn anything about the principles of liberty. The overall impression will be that Libertarians are just another brand of dissembling politicians. Pretty fucking sad.

    1. Cheer up, buddy. At least a few people read up on libertarianism, and some percentage of those decided they were down with that.
      The longest journey begins with a single step.

  37. Trump landslide. Pro heads explode because the polls were scientific proof Hillary is the rightful president. Gary Johnson’s role as a useful idiot failure of the neocon establishment will make him more of a laughingstock than he already is, if that’s possible.

    1. If Trump loses, who will you blame? The Jews, right?

      1. Oh look, it’s Morris Dees !

      2. Now run along and call someone a racist…

        1. You’d better watch out, SIV. We’ve got a meeting tomorrow where they pass out Jew gold and we pick the President. Go away or I’m going to tell my Rabbi to have you framed for some crime. We’re good at that, you know.

          1. And please finish up on time, my Opus Dei chapter rented the room to use after you.

              1. That’s what he does in the woods, right?

          2. Oh snap, any chance I can borrow some of that Jew gold for a couple of days? I just set up direct deposit for my white privilege dividends but in the meantime I’ve got to run to the bank to deposit the check and wait for it to clear, you know how it is.

    2. “Trump landslide”

      Before pussygate, I was expecting Trump to win by 5-6 as momentum built. Now I think he will win by less than 2, and lose the EC by 10-15. Very sad.

  38. On another thread, The Last American Hero alerted me to this story

    “1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

    “A Democratic presidential elector in Washington state has declared he will not support Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College even if she wins the vote here.”

    The state party is dominated by Bernie Bros and [insert equivalent female term for Sanders supporters], who designated Bernie people as the electors, and one of them is a Native American angry over the thing in North Dakota.

    “”I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me,” he said. “Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up.””

    1. Of course, if it “comes down to a swing vote,” there’s the possibility that some Republican elector will be a “statesman” and vote Hillary to “make sure that the Will of the People is respected.”

      1. (I mean in response to the defection of a Democratic elector)

    2. [insert equivalent female term for Sanders supporters]

      Sanderistas?

      1. Bernie Bras, duh

        1. Well yeah, if you want to be boring.

        2. Bernie Bras

          Warning: The link leads to a picture of Bernie Sanders in a bra.

          “Dubbles says that members of Congress should come together to pass legislation ensuring that every American man and woman has access to a Bernie Bra.

          ‘They pay sugar farmers to grow sugar and teachers to teach, so why not pay bra makers to make bras?’ he said. ‘Last I heard, we spent 68 trillion dollars on a helicopter that doesn’t even work, and do we really need to send another person to Mars?

          Let’s withdraw troops from the Middle East and sign a treaty to end this awful war with ISIS,’ he added. ‘Our nation’s breasts are hanging the balance, and if we don’t act now, we may find ourselves in a real slump.'”

          1. …and do we really need to send another person to Mars?

            …wait…there’s already someone up there? Elon is gonna be heartbroken!

              1. Are you referring to thisPZ?

                1. More to the books that inspired it (and, oh, just about half the SF writers of Golden Age ,and lots of those who came after). John Carter series.

                  Half the books are public domain and available at Project Gutenberg. As are the early Tarzan books, to boot.

                  1. In honesty, I wondered if that is what you meant (I was loaned one of the books wherein the main character pummeled his way to freedom, if I recall correctly).

                    Also this – the reference of yours is quite the opposite of what some individuals might label the misandronisitic tendencies of modern entertainment.

  39. On the plus side, I saw my first Christmas ad on TV today so we got the next seven months worth of that to look forward to for the next two months. Assuming they don’t cancel Christmas in favor of a do-over on the disputed election if they can get all the various rebellion leaders to agree to a cease-fire.

    1. The electors meet on December 19 this year, and if a majority of them don’t pick a President we have the House proceedings.

      Probably too much to hope for, though, since with our luck Hillary will win easily.

    2. On the plus side, I saw my first Christmas ad on TV today…

      I hope you’ve overlooked my convoluted attempt at a jest a while ago, Jerryskids, and will be able to enjoy this (perhaps equally bizarre) attempt to replace that memory with a song and dance routine in keeping with the part of your comments which I quoted: It’s Christmas.

  40. Let’s just get down to brass tacks, shall we? What are the odds that the election and ensuing horseshit results in violence? I’m not necessarily talking about outright revolt, but political violence, maybe some rioting, etc.? Personally, I’m not quite at the point of buying a few crates of 7.62 on cheaperthandirt and digging a well in the back yard, but I am planning on stocking up on coffee, whiskey, and tp. And sure, maybe I’m moving the scheduled routine gun maintenance up a skosh and placing knives strategically around the house.

    1. Well, if Hillary wins, then nothing but protests and anger. If Trump wins, every big city in America will burn… so that’s one more reason to vote Trump.

      1. Including Denver?

        1. Yo, troll, I said “big” city.

          1. Don’t sell yourself short. Denver is a great town and big in spirit. But hey, I was sure you just hoped it was someone else’s city with a problem. Not surprised at all!

            Enjoy your weekend!

            1. Who “hoped” for shit, you disingenuous idiot?
              Denver doesn’t riot, because, hey, go outside to riot, get lost in the awesomeness that is Colorado.
              Now, Aurora, being further east, and darker complexion, well who knows? They might go outside to riot and say, “shit, I already have a flat screen TV, because, not only is Colorado beautiful with a mild clime, but the economy is booming, and everybody who wants a job has one, oh, and, weed is legal”.
              So, if Trump wins, better stay out of Aurora.
              You dumbass.

              1. Still…enjoy your weekend!

        2. People only riot in Denver when the Broncos win the Super Bowl. Boston, however, will blow up faster and easier than a marathon bombing.

  41. That’s it? The libertarian moment? In its final analysis, it’s only the Dem candidate thanking them for allowing her to win close states?

    Yikes.

    1. Ace,

      I haven’t seen you post in a while.

      In its final analysis, it’s only the Dem candidate thanking them for allowing her to win close states?

      I know you’re being facetious here, yet if Hillary and her supporters are sufficiently crafty I don’t think they should mention, much less thank, any candidate/alternate party for “helping” her/their candidate get elected. Among other possible outcomes, such an admission might give their opposition talking points to always vote Republican every time in future presidential elections – all of which will likely be touted as “the most important election of your lifetimes!”.

      Such an admission might also be construed to indicate that their current candidate is so distasteful to her own party-affiliated voters (and non-partisan voters alike) that she needed all the help she could get to get elected.

      Any thoughts?

      1. Hi Charles. Always good to hear from someone at a Reason who isn’t telling me to shove something.

        Yeah, just being snarky. Hey, I’m not voting for her. Even though I am sure Trump would be a catastrophe. I think it remains to be seen who Johnson draws more from. By the same token, I am absolutely sure that Stein voters are probably mostly those disgruntled Dems you speak about, and no GOPers, so at the end of the day it just might be a wash from third parties.

        Hope you are well!

        1. I am well, thank you.

          Regarding most of your response to my question and especially this part of it I’m not voting for her. Even though I am sure Trump would be a catastrophe. I think you might have fit in well with most of the commentators at this website.

          In my opinion, most of the commentators aren’t nearly as misanthropic as myself or several of the other commentators here at H&R, so you’ll miss out on a lot of what you’re familiar with experiencing here. In fact, I think you’ll find common cause with a lot of the individuals who post there. I regret the timing of events (my not seeing one of your posts until now), since I think you would have been a good “voice” there when the debates/arguments were raging over “Vote Hillary unless you want a Trump presidency which means The End of The world!” versus “Evil is Evil and I’m not voting for the perceived Lesser of two Evils – Go Jill Stein!”.

          There are other sites, yet I won’t mention them since I think you’d enjoy Common Dreams more so than the others.

          1. Truthout is also good. It’s interesting there…quite a few articles would find commonality with Reason. But of course,quite a few wouldn’t as well.

  42. Great now I have another reason to thank Johnson/Weld for having to listen to that shrill, arrogant bitch for the next four years.

    1. Jimmy,

      you can also thank the republican primary voters for offering up Trump as “the” alternative to Hillary Clinton. Perhaps they deserve more of your thanks, no?

      1. No shit. I mean, Rand Paul was running! He was right there, just asking to be nominated. Never underestimate the criminality of the Dems, or the stupidity of the Republicans.

  43. Here is a story that says Trump is dead in Nevada.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/11/5/1…..ting-polls

  44. There are many people Clinton can thank for eking out a win in Vegas?get-out-the-vote operatives, highly motivated Latinos, Steve Aoki, etc. SEIU

    FTFY

  45. What’s going on? These guys https://www.charitywatch.org/home look reputable and say that the Clinton Foundation spends only 12% on overhead, while I’ve seen numerous pundits say that the figure could be as high as 94%.

  46. Will reason report on Maria Santos at all?

    Of course not since it demonstrates yet again Hillary’s unfitness for office.

  47. So what is the impact of my writing in Willie Nelson?
    If your thesis is that we must vote for a party that will increase the federal government, cause the economy to continue to falter, muddle through a foreign policy based on reactions and focus groups, and continue the attack on individual constitutional freedoms; I disagree.
    And that is my description of both the major US parties. The only difference between the republican party and the democratic party is which part of the federal government they will increase, which taxes they will raise, and which amendments they will ignore.
    Sic semper tyrrannis.

  48. Podesta e-mail about a pool party


    >> With enormous gratitude to Advance Man Extraordinaire Haber, I am popping
    >> up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to
    >> the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes:
    >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be
    >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and
    >> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in
    >> that pool for sure
    . And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun,
    >> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever
    >> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so
    >> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).

  49. Wouldn’t it be something if Johnson did pull enough votes to get Hillary elected. Because if he did, then there would be a lot more anger and hate directed at him than there presently is, by a large majority of Americans. Gary Johnson was never a serious candidate, his VP choice was a farce, and on many of the issues, neither of them had a true Libertarian stance. In fact, many of the older Libertarians, who like myself have been members of the Libertarian party for decades, couldn’t believe how deep in the bucket the Libertarian party had to dig to find such reprehensible representatives of their party to nominate for the challenge of a presidential race. In an election cycle when the Libertarian party might have laid inroads into becoming a viable contestant, in a race that has had all the trappings of being a once in a lifetime election, the candidates the Libertarian party picked have failed miserably. Worse yet, Reason has done nothing to stop the bleeding, and failed miserably by encouraging younger libertarians to vote for a candidacy that neither represents the Libertarian party, or the platform that libertarians have embraced for a very long time. , .

  50. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  51. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.