When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

You're still attacking trumpet, while ignoring the elephant in the room.

Clinton Surges Past 270 Electoral Votes in NBC News Battleground Map
by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann

NBC Battleground Map: Clinton Surges Past 270 Electoral Votes


After releasing our seven battleground-state polls last week -- and seeing several other state surveys -- we've updated our NBC battleground map. The states in Hillary Clinton's column now add up to 288 electoral votes, which exceeds the 270 needed to win the presidency. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is at 174 electoral votes, and an additional 76 are in the Tossup category. Our last map, back in July, showed Clinton with a 255-190 advantage — so Clinton's tally has gone up since the conventions, while Trump's has declined.
NBC News

Likely Dem: CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, ME (3 EVs) MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (200 electoral votes)
Lean Dem: CO, MI, NE (1 EV), NH, NC, PA, VA, WI (88),
Tossup: FL, GA, IA, ME (1EV), NV, OH (76)
Lean GOP: AZ, KS, MO, SC, UT (41)
Likely GOP: AL, AK, AR, ID, IN, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE (4 EVs), ND, OK, SD, TN, TX, WV, WY (133)

The significant changes in our map: We've moved Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Nebraska's one electoral vote (Omaha area) from Tossup to Lean Dem. (And you could make a good case for placing Colorado and Virginia in Likely Dem instead of Lean Dem with Clinton's double-digit leads there.) We've also moved Florida from Lean Dem to Tossup. (While Clinton is ahead there, her margin in the NBC/WSJ/Marist poll is smaller than it was a month ago.) What's more, Georgia moves from Lean GOP to Tossup. And we've changed Kansas and South Carolina from Likely GOP to Lean GOP. Our regular caveat here, of course: These designations are subject to change as we get more poll numbers and reporting.

Recapping Last Week's NBC/WSJ/Marist Polls and the Four Gaps Between Clinton and Trump

In case you missed them, here are the seven battleground-state polls we released last week. The percentages are among registered voters:

Colorado: Clinton 46%, Trump 32% (was Clinton 43%, Trump 35% a month ago)
Florida: Clinton 44%, Trump 39% (was Clinton 44%, Trump 37%)
Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 37% (was Clinton 42%, Trump 39%)
North Carolina: Clinton 48%, Trump 39% (was Clinton 44%, Trump 38%)
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 38% (was Clinton 39%, Trump 39%)
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 37% (was Clinton 45%, Trump 36%)
Virginia: Clinton 46%, Trump 33% (was Clinton 44%, Trump 35%)

The polls also revealed four consistent gaps between Clinton and Trump -- the Education Gap (between Clinton's support among whites with college degrees and Trump's support among whites without), the Geographical Gap (Clinton ahead in the cities and suburbs, Trump ahead in the rural areas), the Gender Gap (Clinton leading among women by a bigger margin than Trump leading among men), and the Party Unity Gap (with Democrats backing Clinton by a larger margin than Republicans being behind Trump).

From Russia With Love?

Ahead of Donald Trump's national-security-themed speech in Ohio today, the New York Times reports that Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort received nearly $13 million in "undisclosed cash payments" from Ukraine's pro-Russia political party. "Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych's inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin."

Clinton Camp Pounces on the NYT Story; Trump Camp Pushes Back

The Clinton campaign pounced on the New York Times story. "Given the pro-Putin policy stances adopted by Donald Trump and the recent Russian government hacking and disclosure of Democratic Party records, Donald Trump has a responsibility to disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort's and all other campaign employees' and advisers' ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump's employees or advisers are currently representing and or being paid by them," Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook said in a statement. The Trump camp pushed back on the NYT article, releasing this statement from Manafort, per NBC's Hallie Jackson: "The simplest answer is the truth: I am a campaign professional. It is well known that I do work in the United States and have done work on overseas campaigns as well. I have never received a single 'off-the-books cash payment' as falsely 'reported' by The New York Times, nor have I ever done work for the governments of Ukraine or Russia. Further, all of the political payments directed to me were for my entire political team: campaign staff (local and international), polling and research, election integrity and television advertising. The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/clinton-surges-past-270-electoral-votes-nbc-news-battleground-map-n630851

With just 9% of the American voters interested in this theatre event, why are you so excited, Blinkers?

Many more than 9% will vote Builder. Maybe stick to Aussie politics.

Evidence please.



Heard of the ANZUS treaty? This is Aussie politics.




source

The path to possible victory for Trump gets more and more narrow. As it stands right now, if all the undecided states went to Trump, he still loses. There are states here like North Carolina that are usually in the Republican column that now are leaning toward Hillary. And to top it all off, with Trump behind in all these states that Romney won, (but still lost the election), know where Trump was campaigning today? Connecticut. With a Democratic governor, two Democratic Senators, all five Congressmen Democratic, the State Senate is Democratic, and the State House is Democratic. Needless to say, Obama won the state twice. And Trump spent a day in Connecticut, when he's losing all these states a Republican MUST win.

Looks like Trump is lost in almost every way.

He really is. And the bad news just keeps piling up for Trump. He isn't cracking 40% in the polls-that's bad. It looks like his support just peaks at 40% or under. Of course, the more extreme he gets, the fewer will vote for him.

Time is Trump's enemy. He opens his big mouth without understanding who he's insulting.

I agree with everything you say here. Your points are all valid. I would also ad that I suspect everyone us probably have something to hide that is NOT RELEVENT, including every Presidential candidate to had ever run for office. That is only my suspicion.

Donald Chump is a gift to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. Donald Chump will gift wrap the White House as a gift to Hillary Clinton. Donald Chump will also gift wrap control of Senate to the Democrats. Who knows, maybe Donald Chump might gift wrap control of the House to the Democrats. That last gift might be a stretch, but you never know. We Democrats thank you for these wonderful gifts. Maybe we Democrats might all send Donald Chump thank you cards.

Send those thank you cards to Trump University.
Thank you.

How many times have I had to explain to you that particular treaty/agreement is only one of the treaty's that involve 5 eyes. Actually New Zealand no longer belongs to ANZUS, although the US and NZ have patched up one of the sticking points. Just stating that there is an ANZUS does not mean both our nations share everything, the US and Australia cooperate on issues that are mutually beneficial and have been negotiated years past. Ever so often both countries will discuss changes as Intell needs change and sometimes things are added.

These agreements are made to protect both counties national security needs. It doesn't mean we are entitled to meddle in each other's domestic policies or
elections. Your definition of ANZUS is fanciful and deeply flawed. Oh well!!

I would send the thank you cards to the instructors and teachers at Trump University, if they could read and write.

Well, there's the fact that the general election has drawn massively more voters than the primaries every single previous time...

You cite a number of 9%, which you got from that MintPress article you link to. But that number refers to the percentage of people who voted for Clinton or Trump in the primaries. There were just 30 million of those. But that very same article you use as source itself already says that "an additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election." So that alone will more than triple that number of 9%. And that's not taking into account the 30 million who voted in the primaries, but for other candidates. According to the polls, the vast majority of those will vote for Clinton or Trump in the general election as well. So then we're already up to quadruple that number of 9%.

The number of 9% is also calculated on the basis of "American residents in general", rather than eligible voters. The latter, of course, is the more standard metric, and in the last three presidential elections, at least 58% of eligible voters turned out in November. Now I don't at all mind any effort to highlight how many Americans are excluded from the eligible voter population by voter disenfranchisement laws, for example laws that bar (former) felons from voting. There's about 6 million of those alone, according to the NYT piece quoted by MintPress. So that should be taken into account when looking at those 58%+ numbers. But your MintPress link takes this to the extreme.

For example, when it touts how "there 103 million people who are essentially banned from voting" [sic], and you repeat that as proof that the US electoral system is hopelessly corrupted (if I may paraphrase), keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of that number, 76 million of them, are children. Now it may just be me, but I don't think we learn much about, say, the legitimacy of Clinton's nomination from the fact that we don't know how 7-year olds would have voted.

Another 21 million of them are non-citizens. This gets trickier, I suppose - I wouldn't mind opening up the vote to some of those, for example long-time legal residents. Where I come from, people who have legally resided in the country for at least five years can already vote in local elections. But for better or worse, barring non-citizens from voting in general elections is the law in every country I can think of.

Anyway, in short: there is plenty of evidence that "many more than 9% will vote" in the general election. Your own link already says that "an additional 73 million .. will most likely vote in the general election", and polls are showing that a large majority of a further 30 million will vote for Clinton or Trump as well - and that's all still without getting into discussions about felons, children and non-citizens.

You think Builder will simply acknowledge that you thoroughly, thoroughly answered his request for evidence?

That would show class and maturity, wouldn't it?

What's your evidence of 9% only turning out.

http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101

Voter Turnout

ResizedImage230230-Voter-voting.jpgRobust voter turnout is fundamental to a healthy democracy. As low turnout is usually attributed to political disengagement and the belief that voting for one candidate/party or another will do little to alter public policy, "established" democracies tend have higher turnout than other counties. However, voter turnout in the U.S. is much lower than most established democracies. In this section we present research on voter turnout in the United States and the steps we might take to increase voter turnout. FairVote's most recent report examines voter turnout in the 2016 presidential primaries.

Voter turnout in the United States fluctuates in national elections. In recent elections, about 60% of the voting eligible population votes during presidential election years, and about 40% votes during midterm elections. Turnout is lower for odd year, primary and local elections.

Voter turnout also varies considerably from state to state. In 2014, smaller, less urbanized states in the northern part of the country tended to have higher voter turnout than other states. The same pattern presented in the 2014 presidential election, with small states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire having the highest voter turnout.

Turnout also varies much within states. For example, in California in 2014, voter turnout ranged from 22.6% in Imperial County in Southern California to 65.0% in Sierra County up in northern California.



By international standards, voter turnout is a little low. In countries with compulsory voting, like Australia, Belgium, and Chile, voter turnout hovered near 90% in the 2000s. Other countries, like Austria, Sweden, and Italy, experienced turnout rates near 80%. Overall, OECD countries experience turnout rates of about 70%.

Let alone that voting in national elections in Oz is mandatory. And they still don't get 90% turnout.

Well, he did provide a link for his number. It's just that his link is about turnout in the primaries, only counting those who voted Clinton or Trump, calculated as percentage of the entire population, including everyone from 0 through 17 years old and non-citizens. But you know, other than that...