Red Mosquito

Things will probably level off going into the finish, but that nose dive was pretty steep.

Are those bubbles from the debates?

BurtReynolds wrote:Anyone who thinks you can vote by text probably shouldn't have the right to vote anyway.

Ads are all aimed at minorities. Poorer and not as well educated

Self wrote:Are those bubbles from the debates?

They semi-correlate with those events, as well as some of the bigger Trump scandals.

BurtReynolds wrote:Things will probably level off going into the finish, but that nose dive was pretty steep.

It actually looks to be produced almost exclusively by a normalization trend. And candidates nearly always experience a small rebound 2 to 3 weeks after a scandal hits (see: the same fucking graph).

As I said before, barring some additional major event, this still looks like a Clinton win. So the outcome of the American election is going to be decided by the quality of information acquired by international electronic espionage. And that is insane.

I think the first big separation was the DNC, and the second was the pussy grabbing thing.

McParadigm wrote:

Self wrote:Are those bubbles from the debates?

They semi-correlate with those events, as well as some of the bigger Trump scandals.

Yeah, and the only place they converge is the Republican Convention.

bune wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Was the monkey male or female? And yes, it matters.

Like I would stop to check a monkey's skirt.

Bi_3 wrote:It's going to be funny when nothing happens but temporary stock fluctuations.

You mean like the last three elections that had everyone promising something big is coming?

I'd agree with you but the events happening this cycle seem angrier than usual. Even more so than when the "angry black man" ran and won twice.

The exposure of the disgusting corruption that has long been suspected certainly has some people upset. But there is a big jump from "angry brietbart comments section guy" to armed insurrection. I'm sure CNN will be terribly disappointed

McParadigm wrote:Absent from all of this is any discussion about the cost of this to Wikileaks. Historically, their supporters in the US trended young and college educated. Tech workers in particular skewed more favorable than the average.

These are groups that are, in general, supporting the candidate they are currently pursuing.

If there was a time for Assange to exercise some discretion, this was fucking it. What a gigantic, attention-whoring twat.

Bi_3 wrote:

bune wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Was the monkey male or female? And yes, it matters.

Like I would stop to check a monkey's skirt.

Bi_3 wrote:It's going to be funny when nothing happens but temporary stock fluctuations.

You mean like the last three elections that had everyone promising something big is coming?

I'd agree with you but the events happening this cycle seem angrier than usual. Even more so than when the "angry black man" ran and won twice.

The exposure of the disgusting corruption that has long been suspected certainly has some people upset. But there is a big jump from "angry brietbart comments section guy" to armed insurrection. I'm sure CNN will be terribly disappointed

I'm more concerned with what trump is capable of (or incapable of ) if he becomes president

join me on November 9th in celebration of Hillary's victory:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Absent from all of this is any discussion about the cost of this to Wikileaks. Historically, their supporters in the US trended young and college educated. Tech workers in particular skewed more favorable than the average.

These are groups that are, in general, supporting the candidate they are currently pursuing.

If there was a time for Assange to exercise some discretion, this was fucking it. What a gigantic, attention-whoring twat.

The ironic thing is for the Wikileaks e-mails to work, many of the 'scandals' are predicated upon people not actually reading the e-mails. There was one I read today where WikiLeaks framed it as a reporter asking for 'permission' from the Clinton campaign to run a story. Anyone who takes 30 seconds to read the e-mail will see that it's the reporter asking the campaign for comment on a story. Now, I'm not saying Wikileaks' strategy is bad; most cable television is based on the idea that people won't look too closely beyond the headline. But it's still pretty ironic for Assange to be applying those same moves.

It's honestly a strange move for Assange to have gone so all-in on one candidate. As McParadigm said, this really does nothing for him in the future. Prior to this, Assange was viewed, for whatever faults he had, as not being pinned in by a partisan agenda. The truth of the e-mails aside, it's hard to argue that there hasn't been one now.

digster wrote:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Absent from all of this is any discussion about the cost of this to Wikileaks. Historically, their supporters in the US trended young and college educated. Tech workers in particular skewed more favorable than the average.

These are groups that are, in general, supporting the candidate they are currently pursuing.

If there was a time for Assange to exercise some discretion, this was fucking it. What a gigantic, attention-whoring twat.

The ironic thing is for the Wikileaks e-mails to work, many of the 'scandals' are predicated upon people not actually reading the e-mails. There was one I read today where WikiLeaks framed it as a reporter asking for 'permission' from the Clinton campaign to run a story. Anyone who takes 30 seconds to read the e-mail will see that it's the reporter asking the campaign for comment on a story. Now, I'm not saying Wikileaks' strategy is bad; most cable television is based on the idea that people won't look too closely beyond the headline. But it's still pretty ironic for Assange to be applying those same moves.

It's honestly a strange move for Assange to have gone so all-in on one candidate. As McParadigm said, this really does nothing for him in the future. Prior to this, Assange was viewed, for whatever faults he had, as not being pinned in by a partisan agenda. The truth of the e-mails aside, it's hard to argue that there hasn't been one now.

You bring up a good point: at what point does the lack of major revelation in these emails start to turn around and get perceived as a refutation of all the Clinton conspiracy silliness? Not among Trump supporters, of course. But the other 60% of the nation.

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Absent from all of this is any discussion about the cost of this to Wikileaks. Historically, their supporters in the US trended young and college educated. Tech workers in particular skewed more favorable than the average.

These are groups that are, in general, supporting the candidate they are currently pursuing.

If there was a time for Assange to exercise some discretion, this was fucking it. What a gigantic, attention-whoring twat.

The ironic thing is for the Wikileaks e-mails to work, many of the 'scandals' are predicated upon people not actually reading the e-mails. There was one I read today where WikiLeaks framed it as a reporter asking for 'permission' from the Clinton campaign to run a story. Anyone who takes 30 seconds to read the e-mail will see that it's the reporter asking the campaign for comment on a story. Now, I'm not saying Wikileaks' strategy is bad; most cable television is based on the idea that people won't look too closely beyond the headline. But it's still pretty ironic for Assange to be applying those same moves.

It's honestly a strange move for Assange to have gone so all-in on one candidate. As McParadigm said, this really does nothing for him in the future. Prior to this, Assange was viewed, for whatever faults he had, as not being pinned in by a partisan agenda. The truth of the e-mails aside, it's hard to argue that there hasn't been one now.

You bring up a good point: at what point does the lack of major revelation in these emails start to turn around and get perceived as a refutation of all the Clinton conspiracy silliness? Not among Trump supporters, of course. But the other 60% of the nation.

Assange's motivation for going after Clinton must be personal, at least to an extent, if he sees her as complicit with the Obama administration that launched a criminal investigation against him.

So weird that such a rogue element like him has been allowed be such a major factor. But in elections media will take anything they can to suit their agenda.

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

bune wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Was the monkey male or female? And yes, it matters.

Like I would stop to check a monkey's skirt.

Bi_3 wrote:It's going to be funny when nothing happens but temporary stock fluctuations.

You mean like the last three elections that had everyone promising something big is coming?

I'd agree with you but the events happening this cycle seem angrier than usual. Even more so than when the "angry black man" ran and won twice.

The exposure of the disgusting corruption that has long been suspected certainly has some people upset. But there is a big jump from "angry brietbart comments section guy" to armed insurrection. I'm sure CNN will be terribly disappointed

I'm more concerned with what trump is capable of (or incapable of ) if he becomes president

The stuff I'm seeing about his news network is stuff I've never considered: What if he is elected, and he still goes through with the network, and it turns into a state-sponsored deal. That's frightening.

Bob Loblaw wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Absent from all of this is any discussion about the cost of this to Wikileaks. Historically, their supporters in the US trended young and college educated. Tech workers in particular skewed more favorable than the average.

These are groups that are, in general, supporting the candidate they are currently pursuing.

If there was a time for Assange to exercise some discretion, this was fucking it. What a gigantic, attention-whoring twat.

The ironic thing is for the Wikileaks e-mails to work, many of the 'scandals' are predicated upon people not actually reading the e-mails. There was one I read today where WikiLeaks framed it as a reporter asking for 'permission' from the Clinton campaign to run a story. Anyone who takes 30 seconds to read the e-mail will see that it's the reporter asking the campaign for comment on a story. Now, I'm not saying Wikileaks' strategy is bad; most cable television is based on the idea that people won't look too closely beyond the headline. But it's still pretty ironic for Assange to be applying those same moves.

It's honestly a strange move for Assange to have gone so all-in on one candidate. As McParadigm said, this really does nothing for him in the future. Prior to this, Assange was viewed, for whatever faults he had, as not being pinned in by a partisan agenda. The truth of the e-mails aside, it's hard to argue that there hasn't been one now.

You bring up a good point: at what point does the lack of major revelation in these emails start to turn around and get perceived as a refutation of all the Clinton conspiracy silliness? Not among Trump supporters, of course. But the other 60% of the nation.

Assange's motivation for going after Clinton must be personal, at least to an extent, if he sees her as complicit with the Obama administration that launched a criminal investigation against him.

I never understand those people who commit criminal acts and then marvel at everyone's interest in said acts. Like, really?

above all else, this election has shown us that roughly 40% of the voting population of the united states is fundamentally irresponsible

it doesn't matter if jesus h. christ were president, they could foul it up

crucify him for dumping bread and fish on the market

after being convinced by hyper-aggressive advertisements paid for by the bread and fish lobby that he is a "liberal" insider who hates them

McParadigm wrote: You bring up a good point: at what point does the lack of major revelation in these emails start to turn around and get perceived as a refutation of all the Clinton conspiracy silliness? Not among Trump supporters, of course. But the other 60% of the nation.

Unfortunately, my admittedly cyncial view of it is that even among that 60 percent, few will be going in for a close read. They'll hear 'Clinton' and 'e-mails' and won't bother to go forward. The scandal has become that the e-mails exist; I think the content is by and large irrelevant, which works to Trump's favor.

The volume of this stuff has become overwhelming in the last couple of days. It's almost hard to catch anything of substance, as it all gets buried under an avalanche of the absurd.

ha ha that "spirit cooking" one sure did blow up overnight. What a bunch of weird fucking people.