A stroke of good fortune--Trump's decline is accelerating

[BabaVoss]

As sleazebag Steven Bannon said, ‘Trump is our blunt instrument.’

 

[Linuxcooldude]

General Mark Milley;

Trump is ‘fascist to the core’​

Changing it to 51 ex-military officers doesn't make it any better. Just more anecdotal evidence. Which is just personal opinion.

 

[BabaVoss]

Trump is looking very tired. Old, weak, and tired.

 

[Callen]

If you are a Harris supporter and have an ounce of logic in your brain, snapping out of feeling fairly hopeful sure makes sense. There is literally NO data or trend looking positive for Harris right now. Now, certainly surprises can and have happened in previous elections - but that's all a logical liberal has for hope at this moment.

Given they are virtually tied nationally and in the battleground States the same could be said of Trump. They are both bascially stalled. Her moves up and down are small as are his. I'm speaking of polls not betting markets which I think move on the events to the day and are emotion based not fact based.

 

[Callen]

Well, part of this is logical. At least you recognize they have to be "way off" in order for Harris to win.

Tha is true for Trump as well. They are in a dead heat well within the margin of error.

 

[HumblePi]

Take note of the pronoun, 'we' -- 'used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.'

"There were no guns down there; we didn't have guns," Trump said, before repeating: "The others had guns, but we didn't have guns."

 

[HumblePi]

Changing it to 51 ex-military officers doesn't make it any better. Just more anecdotal evidence. Which is just personal opinion.

From an expert.

 

[Slavister]

538 shows it even in PA, D +1 in MI, D +1 in NV, even in WI, R +1 in NC, R +1 in GA, R +2 in AZ.

Yes but these top-line summary numbers use their own voodoo formula that reflects not just polls but also "incumbency bonus", economy, and other factors. If you look at just their polls in each state, you will see Trump doing better than these "adjusted" values claim. Also, Harris used to have a bigger lead on 538 (and elsewhere) just 1-2-3 weeks ago. Momentum appears to be shifting to Trump.

For example, here is "even" WI:

 

[redbeer]

Not for long if this keeps up, unless the American people want a certifiable nutjob handling the nuclear codes.

We already have a certifiable nutjob handling the nuclear codes.....clueless Joe and his prodigy. Two nuts of another mother.

 

[gbg3]

I believe there may indeed have been a recent shift in the race towards Trump. But you also know I believe in the "reversion to the mean" concept.

So with that said, I'm going to go on the record to say I strongly suspect Harris' slide may abate a bit these last two weeks, with her gaining some ground - even if slight

There has been a now undeniable recent shift towards Trump. But polls do tend to tighten at the end, and she may yet gain some ground. Time is running short though. The next week will be a big deal because I think that's when we'd need to see her begin to come back up a bit in the swing states. If the trend of the last 2.5 weeks or so continues, I think it will take a "surprise" for Harris to win. It's not been a positive few weeks for Harris.

And I think you will likely disagree (based on what I've read of your recent comments) but, in my very strong opinion, that interview with Bret was not as the Dems are desperately (some on this forum have gotten truly comical in that effort) trying to change it with narrative. That interview was a continuation of the strategy problem she's clearly experienced since the beginning of her media blitz. Refusing to (actually, being utterly unable to) answer any questions about her views, her record, her plans, her concerns about the current issues in the country - and instead going 100% into bashing Trump mode (because she had nothing else to offer). It is a terribly desperate/loser type of strategy. All while, conversely, Trump has moved into his holding the office mode and can't stop talking about what he'll tackle, the various issues he thinks are causing the biggest problems and are at the core of other problems, etc. His mind (and talk) is actively starting the job. Sure, he's tough to shut up and goes on and on to 100 different subjects, but he's in 100 steps forward mode right now. He's ready to roll.

Harris showing her one trick pony (Kavanaugh) routine with nothing but her angry filibuster bashing, is not going to help her. What she uses that routine to avoid is what became all the more clear in that interview. She's empty and spun up attack angry doesn't mask that she's got nothing. She didn't somehow beat Baier. That's ludicrous. It was crystal clear he was after actual and substantive answers to questions she has now avoided time and time again. And those answers were what the audience was hoping to hear. Bret is good at what he does and he wasn't beat by her typical defensive/angry filibuster. He was visibly frustrated by it. He well understood what the audience hoped for - a scenario where she'd finally actually answer important questions. She couldn't, didn't, wouldn't - as always.

 

[Nickyjo]

Point of fact:
Dems and their MSM propaganda organ have in fact invented false push narratives. Take a look at their track record.

• 'The Steel dossier is real'?
• 'Hunter's laptop was Russia disinformation'?
• 'Inject bleach'?
• 'Joe's just fine'?
• 'Joe's on top of his game'?
• 'Russian Collusion'?
• 'Trump's a Russian asset'?
• The assassination attempt was staged.
• Trump was not actually injured by a bullet or at all.
• the “Muslim ban” that wasn’t?
• the mantra that the 2017 tax cuts were only for the “rich”
• the Ukraine impeachment of Trump, a creative fiction based on a complaint from an anonymous member of the swamp who never testified
• The Capitol Hill riot on Jan. 6 was an “armed insurrection”
• President Trump referred to Nazis and White supremacists as “very fine people.”
• President Trump “incited” the riot
• President Trump wanted to End NATO

What's surprising is that you continue to believe their propaganda as being the truth.
You'd think that you'd have learned by now, but oh well.

I repeat, none of the above -not all false by the way- needs to be mentioned. Just list the bigoted insults, the repeated refusals to accept election results, the various crooked dealings (university, foundation, even steaks!) the accusations of assault by several women, the judgement against him and that suffices to show what a low life you seem to support. Make America Hate Again has been his motto for quite a while.

And Trump did suggest a complete Muslim ban. A partial ban was instituted. Andas to Russian collusion: 1- Trump himself suggested Russia get involved; 2- they did; 3- Putin denied it and Trump wasn’t outraged that they did, believing Putin over US intelligence agencies - and tho cleared of any coordination, he was found to have obstructed the investigation a number of times.

 

[eohrnberger]

I repeat, none of the above -not all false by the way-

See now, that's where you are wrong, and are starting down the wrong path.

needs to be mentioned. Just list the bigoted insults, the repeated refusals to accept election results, the various crooked dealings (university, foundation, even steaks!) the accusations of assault by several women, the judgement against him and that suffices to show what a low life you seem to support. Make America Hate Again has been his motto for quite a while.

How many of these opinions of yours were formed in isolation of, and independently of, what the Dem's MSM propaganda smear merchants were pushing?
I'm to hard a single one.

And Trump did suggest a complete Muslim ban.

So what?

A partial ban was instituted.

As is appropriate when all things are considered.

Andas to Russian collusion: 1- Trump himself suggested Russia get involved;

Check the context of this quote, the live video.

2- they did;

3- Putin denied it and Trump wasn’t outraged that they did,

This would be a so what? Meaningless and irrelevant.

believing Putin over US intelligence agencies - and tho cleared of any coordination,

Given that 51 Intel officers signed a bogus letter saying the Hunter laptop was 'Russian disinformation', it's pretty clear where they staked their political position. Given that bogus politically motivated letter, why should there be any credibility attributed to them?

he was found to have obstructed the investigation a number of times.

Was he? Can you cite the passage of Mueller's report which makes this claim / accusation?

 

[Jack2aTee]

We already have a certifiable nutjob handling the nuclear codes

So we sure as hell don't need another one named Donald J Trump.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Trump is looking very tired. Old, weak, and tired.

Yeah, he's looking forward to being president again when he can do nothing but play golf and tweet on the pot all day. He needs that four-year vacation.

 

[Chomsky]

I am skeptical. As the VP candidate, he has gone some places, particularly on women's issues, that he didn't need to. He appears far more aligned with Project 2025 than Trump is. I fear he's letting his freak flag fly and enjoying. If this is the real Vance, we'd better watch out.

Well, we really don't know. He's clearly an opportunist - suggesting he may not be a MAGA ideologist.

But yes - his intrinsic ideologies may even be worse. We simply don't know.

 

[Nickyjo]

See now, that's where you are wrong, and are starting down the wrong path.


How many of these opinions of yours were formed in isolation of, and independently of, what the Dem's MSM propaganda smear merchants were pushing?
I'm to hard a single one.


So what?


As is appropriate when all things are considered.




Was he? Can you cite the passage of Mueller's report which makes this claim / accusation?

See now, that's where you are wrong, and are starting down the wrong path.


How many of these opinions of yours were formed in isolation of, and independently of, what the Dem's MSM propaganda smear merchants were pushing?
I'm to hard a single one.


So what?


As is appropriate when all things are considered.




Was he? Can you cite the passage of Mueller's report which makes this claim / accusation?

Just search under “Mueller claimed Trump obstructed the investigation”. There apparently were ten instances.

 

[Chomsky]

Given they are virtually tied nationally and in the battleground States the same could be said of Trump. They are both bascially stalled. Her moves up and down are small as are his. I'm speaking of polls not betting markets which I think move on the events to the day and are emotion based not fact based.

Well, yes & no. Trump's ascending trend going into the election is a positive sign for him.

Oddly enough, I'm expecting the polling to revert back toward Harris slightly - after this recent two or three-week Trump run.

 

[Chomsky]

Yes but these top-line summary numbers use their own voodoo formula that reflects not just polls but also "incumbency bonus", economy, and other factors.

If you look at just their polls in each state, you will see Trump doing better than these "adjusted" values claim. Also, Harris used to have a bigger lead on 538 (and elsewhere) just 1-2-3 weeks ago. Momentum appears to be shifting to Trump.

For example, here is "even" WI:

View attachment 67538294

Excellent insight in the bolded.

Those additional factors are my concern with 538's probabilities.

 

[Chomsky]

There has been a now undeniable recent shift towards Trump. But polls do tend to tighten at the end, and she may yet gain some ground. Time is running short though. The next week will be a big deal because I think that's when we'd need to see her begin to come back up a bit in the swing states. If the trend of the last 2.5 weeks or so continues, I think it will take a "surprise" for Harris to win. It's not been a positive few weeks for Harris.

And I think you will likely disagree (based on what I've read of your recent comments) but, in my very strong opinion, that interview with Bret was not as the Dems are desperately (some on this forum have gotten truly comical in that effort) trying to change it with narrative. That interview was a continuation of the strategy problem she's clearly experienced since the beginning of her media blitz. Refusing to (actually, being utterly unable to) answer any questions about her views, her record, her plans, her concerns about the current issues in the country - and instead going 100% into bashing Trump mode (because she had nothing else to offer). It is a terribly desperate/loser type of strategy. All while, conversely, Trump has moved into his holding the office mode and can't stop talking about what he'll tackle, the various issues he thinks are causing the biggest problems and are at the core of other problems, etc. His mind (and talk) is actively starting the job. Sure, he's tough to shut up and goes on and on to 100 different subjects, but he's in 100 steps forward mode right now. He's ready to roll.

Harris showing her one trick pony (Kavanaugh) routine with nothing but her angry filibuster bashing, is not going to help her. What she uses that routine to avoid is what became all the more clear in that interview. She's empty and spun up attack angry doesn't mask that she's got nothing. She didn't somehow beat Baier. That's ludicrous. It was crystal clear he was after actual and substantive answers to questions she has now avoided time and time again. And those answers were what the audience was hoping to hear. Bret is good at what he does and he wasn't beat by her typical defensive/angry filibuster. He was visibly frustrated by it. He well understood what the audience hoped for - a scenario where she'd finally actually answer important questions. She couldn't, didn't, wouldn't - as always.

I'm not fully sure Trump's recent ascension is only the inevitable tightening, though. If Trump's recent run reverts a bit like I expect it may, then - yes it was tightening.

But in a way, this feels a lot HRC's collapse in 2016. I hate to go by feelings, but I can't shake it even as I try to rely on objectivity and technical analysis.

As to the Fox interview, I think the cake is pretty much baked. It will matter little. In fact, I don't see anything anymore that can change the trajectory of the race.

 

[Callen]

Well, yes & no. Trump's ascending trend going into the election is a positive sign for him.

I'm sorry but we have different ideas of ascending trends. According to RCP.....

Trump was 46.2 Sept 1 st and now he is 47.8 .....that's plus 1.6
Harris was 48.1 Sept 1st and now she is 49.4 ...that's plus 1.3

That is a .3 gain for him in a month and a half.

Even if you look at it from Oct 1st, which was a high point for her, he has only gained .4 nationally. When you look at the swing states the difference is <1 in all of them in terms of gain. All of that is well within the margin of error to the point that there has been no significant movement. A change but not significant at all in my view.

NOTE: I just eyeballed the battlegrounds but I'm pretty sure all are less than a 1 point move. I just cant get to excited about the shift given almost a 100% is spoken for . It's way to close for comfort but it always was. Nothing has changed significantly....it's a nail biter

EDT...Wisconsin shows a larger shift that 1 point......

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Well, yes & no. Trump's ascending trend going into the election is a positive sign for him.

It could be, but it could also be that so many Dems have already mailed in their votes (as we see by early result numbers of mail-in votes) that Dems are losing interest in answering polls.

Oddly enough, I'm expecting the polling to revert back toward Harris slightly - after this recent two or three-week Trump run.

 

[eohrnberger]

Just search under “Mueller claimed Trump obstructed the investigation”. There apparently were ten instances.

I'll cite Mueller's report, rather than media misrepresentations.

CONCLUSION​

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.​

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

"President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice"

 

[Slavister]

538 shows it even in PA, D +1 in MI, D +1 in NV, even in WI, R +1 in NC, R +1 in GA, R +2 in AZ.

Yes but these top-line summary numbers use their own voodoo formula that reflects not just polls but also "incumbency bonus", economy, and other factors. If you look at just their polls in each state, you will see Trump doing better than these "adjusted" values claim. Also, Harris used to have a bigger lead on 538 (and elsewhere) just 1-2-3 weeks ago. Momentum appears to be shifting to Trump.

And since our messages this morning, even the top line numbers are moving Trump way - here is the current 538 picture - way different than +2/+3 points for Harris in all the Blue Wall states and some others:

 

[Linuxcooldude]

From an expert.

Just as 51 ex-Intel agents were wrong with the Hunter laptop and Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that started a war.

 

[gbg3]

But in a way, this feels a lot HRC's collapse in 2016. I hate to go by feelings

I agree with both of these. I think it feels the same too, but I don't discount the possibility of Harris winning. I do, however, think the current Trump momentum is visible and real.