In case you haven't noticed, there have been some major
disturbances in the Force,
er, interruptions in the Internet today. Several of you have commented
at my blog, and I have not replied because Disqus is down. Not just there, but
most every site I've visited. The Disqus site itself is accessible, but
comments are down. (LCR is an exception)
Twitter is down, along with other random sites. It has been called a Distributed Denial of Service attack. The Feds are aware of it and are trying to track down those responsible for it.
There's is nothing wrong with your set. We control the vertical. We control the horizontal.
If you are suffering from Extreme Twitter Withdrawal, please call 1-800-Get-a-Life. Operators are standing by...
In case you haven't noticed, there have been some major
[Note: In a few previous posts on my own blog, I've analyzed some of the impacts of the polls and where I thought the race was actually at. There's some good background on the analysis below here and here and here].
The final debate is today. Going into it, I thought the exercise below would be useful, since I suspect the polls will change in the next week. Rather than looking at the race today, I thought I'd take a look at the polls themselves and see if there's any accounting for the Hillary Clinton October surge that is seemingly suspect. A couple of things have jumped out.
Another thing that should be factored in is that the polls don't all share their weighting of polling participants. They are black boxes and those methodologies definitely can skew results. Not making that methodology available makes a poll suspect in my eyes, as a hidden methodology allows the opportunity to manipulate results. In turn, I have also not had the time to review most polling crosstabs where they are available, so there's some culpability on my part as well.
|Rasmussen: Click to enlarge|
|LA Times: Click to enlarge|
|CNN: Click to enlarge|
|CBS: Click to enlarge|
|Fox: Click to enlarge|
|NBC: Click to enlarge|
|Reuters: Click to enlarge|
|Monmouth: Click to enlarge|
|Quinnipiac: Click to enlarge|
The establishment in Washington D.C. extends far beyond the White House and Congress. The establishment extends even beyond the various self-serving government bureaucracies. It includes lobbyists, the beltway establishment media, wealthy political donors seeking crony capitalism and supposedly philanthropic foundations. It probably includes a lot of others as well. Power and wealth has become clustered around a small number of people and institutions to the exclusion of everyone else in the country. That's not to say you cannot do well outside of that cabal, but the glass ceiling to real wealth and power is real, and it's not made of glass, but rather steel.
In the face of all of this stands Donald Trump. A loud, obnoxious, pompous, petty, foul-mouthed, blowhard who clearly has alienated women and many minority communities. Yet he stands up for correcting the ills that have become entrenched in American government and have already entrenched a national downward spiral of American exceptionalism, and will be the death knell of the American dream - not of home ownership but rather liberty and justice for all. And by that justice I mean not the equality of outcome for all, which inevitably will lead to an ersatz outcome, but equality of opportunity, that is key.
Bill Clinton is the Democrats' favorite president. You might get a "ho-hum" about Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama can fill a room, but no one excites the hearts and minds of Democrats like Bill Clinton, even if most of what they remember of his presidency is obscured by too many bong hits and not enough sleep. Whatever.
I heard one commentator on the scandalous Trump 'hot mic' tape say, that it wasn't the locker room talk so much as the idea that Trump was projecting, that someone famous enough, rich enough, powerful enough could commit a sexual assault on a woman and get away with it. Much like, say, a former President. But, then, this isn't about Bill!
Instead, imagine if you will, that Trump had gone a little farther than what he said on the hot mic, and been even more disgusting. What if he'd told Billy Bush that he'd actually raped a 12 year old girl. That he "raped her so hard, he put her in a coma!" Billy Bush would no doubt stop laughing. As would we all.
But let's say Trump hires an attorney to get him off. Specifically a female attorney, who might be able to attack his accuser with more impunity. One who believed he was guilty, and said that when her client passed a lie detector test, she "stopped believing in lie detectors after that." In Trump's defense, she attacks the teenage rape victim as a slut who pursued older men. That's right! She wanted it! And after managing to get the physical evidence thrown out, her client goes free after only time served.
Now, before you get your habeas corpus in a uproar, yes, I believe that every person, even the guilty ones are entitled to a defense under the law. That's not the problem here. It's that in an interview years later, the attorney laughed about it.
Can you please tell me what could possibly be funny about the brutal rape of a twelve year old girl, browbeating her over supposed prior sexual activity, blaming the victim, and getting a child rapist set free, perhaps to rape again? Are any of you laughing now?
Now tell me how that attorney, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is supposed to be more respectful to women than a man who made a crude and childish remark not to a woman, but about a woman, over ten years ago? We'll wait.
"Goes to character?" Yes. Doesn't it?