Another interesting aspect of the trump sex tape is just how much Melania could potentially take him for. Trump has repeatedly given values for his brand and the naming rights of trump.
Melania could probably argue that he should be bound to those values... Which would mean that if Melania had a reasonable position of not wanting it, and trump routinely values his name as up to if not more than half of his net worth, Melania could get literally everything but his name in a divorce proceeding.
Thats assuming they dont have a prenup.
It's Trump, I'd assume she not only signed one but also an NDA before they got married.
No it does not assume no prenup; infidelity would negate the prenup. That is why a sex tape is leverage in the first place. That is why Trump was so adamant in divorce proceedings with his first wife that he was not having an affair.
Infidelity does not negate a prenup, it only does so if the prenup has an infidelity clause which covers that eventuality. Which I wouldn't in the slightest put past Trump to leave out.
There was a thing on Twitter a few days ago where they were comparing Obama's internal polls to the public tracking polls. The public tracking polls swung wildly all over the place in 2012, while the Obama polls had an extremely stable race with Obama around 51-52% for the entire race except for after four events:
the RNC, the DNC, the 47% tape, and the first debate. After each such event (except the RNC because the DNC was the next week) the race returned to that stable point. And then Obama got 51.1%.
Nothing I have seen from the Clinton campaign indicates they lack confidence and they're the same people. Also, GOP pollsters are telling reporters they see Trump behind, though they increasingly think they can keep the Senate (I doubt this).
Early voting also backs this up. The only issue is black turnout, which is down a little. In Ohio and North Carolina, this is recovering to 2012 levels. Florida needs some work. Making up for that is unprecedented Hispanic turnout. Historically, they have have < 50% turnout and this year it looks in the early voting data like that might change, which should make up for a drop in black turnout.
The problem is that it's pretty much impossible to make sure a single pollster is making all the correct assumptions, no matter how many dollars you throw at it. You can hire the best people and run weekly polls with a confidence interval of 99% and a MOE of +/- 1 and you can still be off by 5 if your likely voter screen makes a wrong assumption.
At best you can be sure that you're tracking the changes accurately. You can be pretty sure that you're five points up from last month, but it's very hard to know if every poll you've run is off by a few in the same direction.
Clinton's team acts confident? Good, they better, because they're professionals and that's what they're paid to do. They nailed the outcome in 2012? Awesome, there's a sample size of one.
I don't doubt that her team is the best in the business, but the unfortunate truth is that polls are, at best, a proxy measurement that tries to predict a complex future behavior. The election is not decided based on what the majority of people would like to see happen, it's decided based on actual votes. And that necessarily requires an element of guesstimating and finger crossing.
Just a minor technicality - it's not a exactly a sample size of one since the National top line doesn't matter, just the individual state results. What would be more important is how close they got to the actual votes state by state, since it's likely they were tracking 20 or more. And they have run two national elections like this and 2 national primaries, so they've had multiple opportunities to vet and correct their model.
i've been loving watching him lately. though also walking away infuriated.
As always with Olberman... while I love what he does, I feel the combination of bombast, speech tempo, and elevated vocabulary can tend to put him out of the attention span or listening capacity of the people who most need to hear his message.
On the other hand, she's been outperforming Obama with Latinos, who make up a larger percentage of the electorate in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado among other states.
They also make up a fast growing percentage of NC populace.
On the other hand, she's been outperforming Obama with Latinos, who make up a larger percentage of the electorate in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado among other states.
They also make up a fast growing percentage of NC populace.
Right. Even in states where the black population is higher, the Latin population is not insignificant--especially if she's outperforming Obama with Latinos more than she's underperforming him with African Americans (I think this is true but I'm not sure).
+1 for Clinton in Iowa. It felt good to vote against every R on the ticket. Now I need to find a way to get my wife, who is pregnant with twins and ready to pop any day, to the local library so she can vote. I should check and see if it's too late for a mail in ballot.
This means her vote counts as three, right?
One of the twins is a Trump supporter so it negates the Hillary vote of the other.
Yeah, my kids are biracial, my wife is black and I'm white, so there's no way in hell they'd ever support a republican.
i've been loving watching him lately. though also walking away infuriated.
As always with Olberman... while I love what he does, I feel the combination of bombast, speech tempo, and elevated vocabulary can tend to put him out of the attention span or listening capacity of the people who most need to hear his message.
My feelings on Olberman are now what they were back in the day:
--One really good Olberman rant is fucking amazing every once in a while.
--Lots of Olberman rants happening all the time is really monotone and easy to turn off. Like it's easy to just go, "yeah, yeah, Olberman pissing and moaning in a righteous fury again, WAIT IS THAT A CAT VIDEO I HAVEN'T SEEN?!" *watches cat video*
WordLust on
+3
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
+1 for Clinton in Iowa. It felt good to vote against every R on the ticket. Now I need to find a way to get my wife, who is pregnant with twins and ready to pop any day, to the local library so she can vote. I should check and see if it's too late for a mail in ballot.
This means her vote counts as three, right?
One of the twins is a Trump supporter so it negates the Hillary vote of the other.
Yeah, my kids are biracial, my wife is black and I'm white, so there's no way in hell they'd ever support a republican.
Doesn't matter. One of the twins is white and the other is black. They're voting how you'd expect.
+1 for Clinton in Iowa. It felt good to vote against every R on the ticket. Now I need to find a way to get my wife, who is pregnant with twins and ready to pop any day, to the local library so she can vote. I should check and see if it's too late for a mail in ballot.
It's almost certainly too late at this point. The way it works here is you print out a form and mail it to your county auditor's office, then they mail you the ballot, then you fill it out and mail it back. Best case scenario there's 3 days of back and fourth in the mail assuming the bureaucracy is humming efficiently and there is roughly zero processing time on their end.. It's highly unlikely. Just get her to the polling station. Bring a bucket.
That's what I thought. I'll just see if she's up to going tomorrow. On the plus side our polling place is in the public library so we can chill and read books to our three year old after she votes.
Survey USA is a huge outlier to literally ever other poll out of NC, where as the michigan number seems about right?
Sure, but the volitility is enormous and trying to find the signal through the noise is like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles. In theory these states should move at least sort of similarly. I wonder if the LV screens are just insane, since that's what has to have happened with the ABC poll as well, 13 point swing in less than a week.
That said, if the Wisconsin poll from Marquette that comes out tomorrow is also in the +5-7 range, I will feel a lot better about the great lakes states. Locking up WI/MI/MN after comeygate removes Trump's imo most plausible map, wherein his white support comes out hard and flips those states which should theoretically be strongish for him demographically.
Also I feel like Sarah Kendzior has gone off into the weeds a bit. I don't blame anyone for it in this election, but I think her experiences wrt to authoritarianism in Central Asia seem to be cause her to go full Cassandra right now.
So how far are are the likely voter screens looking, thus far with early voting? Depending on that number, Clinton could be on track to do very well. Last I heard those tend to favor the GOP, so if they are off, chances are pretty good that they are off in a way that indicates the democrats are having better turnout than anticipated.
As for black turnout being down. How bad and is this in comparison to where it was in 2012? I'd like something fairly solid to work with. Also since we still have a little over 7 more days, it could hit or outpace 2012 levels. Granted, I don't expect Clinton to have the same coalition as Obama, we're in a different time with a different candidate. Granted it's disappointing that not all of Obama's previous supporters are voting for her. Not sure what they expect given that the Greens have a snow ball's chance in hell of winning any of note (not that they can't as a serious party). Write in for POTUS are pretty dumb IMO. If they are voting Trump or Johnson, I don't know what the hell is wrong with them because they really aren't voting on issues (both are far removed from Obama's positions).
Anyways about another week of this madness. I really want to see the Democrats out perform the polling though. It would be nice to have a bigger coalition from this year so the democrats can get stuff done in the next two years and maybe that will prevent 2018 from being fuck awful and put us in a better spot going into 2020. Though with the Senate, we could get the vacancy on SCOTUS filled and the court does seem to be moving to the position of fuck gerrymandering and it's proponents. So the GOP could get an ass whooping in the courts and told they'll have to legitimately start winning control of the House instead of being a bunch of dishonest, cheating rat fuckers about it.
Also I feel like Sarah Kendzior has gone off into the weeds a bit. I don't blame anyone for it in this election, but I think her experiences wrt to authoritarianism in Central Asia seem to be cause her to go full Cassandra right now.
How can she not know what "dump" means in politics. "Document dump" and "dump" when it comes to information has a clear meaning in Washington.
Confirmed with my local campaign office that I will be knocking on doors to GOTV on Election Day from 8:00-2:00. Going to have to remember to wear my most comfortable shoes because that's going to be a long day! I'll need to figure out when I'm actually going to cast my ballot though; I don't want to drive downtown to early vote, so I'll probably stop there when they first open up the polls on my way into the campaign office.
There was a thing on Twitter a few days ago where they were comparing Obama's internal polls to the public tracking polls. The public tracking polls swung wildly all over the place in 2012, while the Obama polls had an extremely stable race with Obama around 51-52% for the entire race except for after four events:
the RNC, the DNC, the 47% tape, and the first debate. After each such event (except the RNC because the DNC was the next week) the race returned to that stable point. And then Obama got 51.1%.
Nothing I have seen from the Clinton campaign indicates they lack confidence and they're the same people. Also, GOP pollsters are telling reporters they see Trump behind, though they increasingly think they can keep the Senate (I doubt this).
Early voting also backs this up. The only issue is black turnout, which is down a little. In Ohio and North Carolina, this is recovering to 2012 levels. Florida needs some work. Making up for that is unprecedented Hispanic turnout. Historically, they have have < 50% turnout and this year it looks in the early voting data like that might change, which should make up for a drop in black turnout.
The problem is that it's pretty much impossible to make sure a single pollster is making all the correct assumptions, no matter how many dollars you throw at it. You can hire the best people and run weekly polls with a confidence interval of 99% and a MOE of +/- 1 and you can still be off by 5 if your likely voter screen makes a wrong assumption.
At best you can be sure that you're tracking the changes accurately. You can be pretty sure that you're five points up from last month, but it's very hard to know if every poll you've run is off by a few in the same direction.
Clinton's team acts confident? Good, they better, because they're professionals and that's what they're paid to do. They nailed the outcome in 2012? Awesome, there's a sample size of one.
I don't doubt that her team is the best in the business, but the unfortunate truth is that polls are, at best, a proxy measurement that tries to predict a complex future behavior. The election is not decided based on what the majority of people would like to see happen, it's decided based on actual votes. And that necessarily requires an element of guesstimating and finger crossing.
Just a minor technicality - it's not a exactly a sample size of one since the National top line doesn't matter, just the individual state results. What would be more important is how close they got to the actual votes state by state, since it's likely they were tracking 20 or more. And they have run two national elections like this and 2 national primaries, so they've had multiple opportunities to vet and correct their model.
Fair point about having two elections. I don't know if I would count the primaries, because the dynamics of a general versus those of a primary are very different.
As to the state polls, I don't know what goes into the poll modeling precisely, but I'm imagining it basically works out to one trial administered 50 times at once. Like, if I ask a question to 10 groups of 1000 people at once, that's not 10 polls. That's just one poll with a really big sample size. So if there was a particular trend that year - say, blacks were really motivated - you would expect it to affect all states in roughly the same way.
That's the power of an aggregate poll model like 538's, in theory. You assume a lot of the bad assumptions will average out, while the goods ones will reinforce each other.
The risk is that some erroneous conventional conventional wisdom will be sick in there too, especially due to stuff like herding. That's largely a phenomenon that you can't identify until the post mortem.
I mean, bottom line, I'm optimistic. But it's based more on a hunch, and not that I think any of the polls or models are definitively the One True Model. I'm wagering the GOTV effect is substantial, but that's something that's hard to really measure until after the election.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
i've been loving watching him lately. though also walking away infuriated.
GUMP
Make America like a Box of Chocolates Again
Infidelity does not negate a prenup, it only does so if the prenup has an infidelity clause which covers that eventuality. Which I wouldn't in the slightest put past Trump to leave out.
Just a minor technicality - it's not a exactly a sample size of one since the National top line doesn't matter, just the individual state results. What would be more important is how close they got to the actual votes state by state, since it's likely they were tracking 20 or more. And they have run two national elections like this and 2 national primaries, so they've had multiple opportunities to vet and correct their model.
*puts cyanide capsules back in the JUST IN CASE drawer*
As always with Olberman... while I love what he does, I feel the combination of bombast, speech tempo, and elevated vocabulary can tend to put him out of the attention span or listening capacity of the people who most need to hear his message.
They also make up a fast growing percentage of NC populace.
Right. Even in states where the black population is higher, the Latin population is not insignificant--especially if she's outperforming Obama with Latinos more than she's underperforming him with African Americans (I think this is true but I'm not sure).
My feelings on Olberman are now what they were back in the day:
--One really good Olberman rant is fucking amazing every once in a while.
--Lots of Olberman rants happening all the time is really monotone and easy to turn off. Like it's easy to just go, "yeah, yeah, Olberman pissing and moaning in a righteous fury again, WAIT IS THAT A CAT VIDEO I HAVEN'T SEEN?!" *watches cat video*
Doesn't matter. One of the twins is white and the other is black. They're voting how you'd expect.
This is basic genetic science, people. #VoteStein
You know what, maybe I just give up. Numbers have lost all meaning.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Godspeed, brave soldier.
Big Brother is Swatching.
Knight left out the most important tweet in that series.
Sure, but the volitility is enormous and trying to find the signal through the noise is like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles. In theory these states should move at least sort of similarly. I wonder if the LV screens are just insane, since that's what has to have happened with the ABC poll as well, 13 point swing in less than a week.
That said, if the Wisconsin poll from Marquette that comes out tomorrow is also in the +5-7 range, I will feel a lot better about the great lakes states. Locking up WI/MI/MN after comeygate removes Trump's imo most plausible map, wherein his white support comes out hard and flips those states which should theoretically be strongish for him demographically.
Do you plan to vote on Election day?
"No, I alre-"
*click*
This always happens. Lots of polls in the final week, many cheap.
In 2012, Romney had a tied poll in PA at this point (lost by 5.4) and a +3 in Colorado (lost by 5.4 as well).
Large numbers of polls are meaningful. Single polls are not. Clinton isn't really winning Alaska.
Reason: Altgator
Control is as much an effect as a cause. The idea that control is something you exert is a handicap to progress.
Harraitmsp
Hey now, that's still one closer >50%!
Smoked nova bits can fix that.
Also I feel like Sarah Kendzior has gone off into the weeds a bit. I don't blame anyone for it in this election, but I think her experiences wrt to authoritarianism in Central Asia seem to be cause her to go full Cassandra right now.
As for black turnout being down. How bad and is this in comparison to where it was in 2012? I'd like something fairly solid to work with. Also since we still have a little over 7 more days, it could hit or outpace 2012 levels. Granted, I don't expect Clinton to have the same coalition as Obama, we're in a different time with a different candidate. Granted it's disappointing that not all of Obama's previous supporters are voting for her. Not sure what they expect given that the Greens have a snow ball's chance in hell of winning any of note (not that they can't as a serious party). Write in for POTUS are pretty dumb IMO. If they are voting Trump or Johnson, I don't know what the hell is wrong with them because they really aren't voting on issues (both are far removed from Obama's positions).
Anyways about another week of this madness. I really want to see the Democrats out perform the polling though. It would be nice to have a bigger coalition from this year so the democrats can get stuff done in the next two years and maybe that will prevent 2018 from being fuck awful and put us in a better spot going into 2020. Though with the Senate, we could get the vacancy on SCOTUS filled and the court does seem to be moving to the position of fuck gerrymandering and it's proponents. So the GOP could get an ass whooping in the courts and told they'll have to legitimately start winning control of the House instead of being a bunch of dishonest, cheating rat fuckers about it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/democrats-north-carolina-early-voting-230573
How can she not know what "dump" means in politics. "Document dump" and "dump" when it comes to information has a clear meaning in Washington.
These final seven days can't end soon enough.
Seeing more and more Trump signs, makes me feel queazy.
Fair point about having two elections. I don't know if I would count the primaries, because the dynamics of a general versus those of a primary are very different.
As to the state polls, I don't know what goes into the poll modeling precisely, but I'm imagining it basically works out to one trial administered 50 times at once. Like, if I ask a question to 10 groups of 1000 people at once, that's not 10 polls. That's just one poll with a really big sample size. So if there was a particular trend that year - say, blacks were really motivated - you would expect it to affect all states in roughly the same way.
That's the power of an aggregate poll model like 538's, in theory. You assume a lot of the bad assumptions will average out, while the goods ones will reinforce each other.
The risk is that some erroneous conventional conventional wisdom will be sick in there too, especially due to stuff like herding. That's largely a phenomenon that you can't identify until the post mortem.
I mean, bottom line, I'm optimistic. But it's based more on a hunch, and not that I think any of the polls or models are definitively the One True Model. I'm wagering the GOTV effect is substantial, but that's something that's hard to really measure until after the election.