Trump slammed for not promising to honor election results

T. Belman. Just because the MSM jumped on Trump’s remarks, doesn’t mean they are right. Of course, if there is nothing untoward, Trump will accept the results. But should there be substantial fraud affecting the results, Trump is signalling that he may contest. Of course Trump will wait for the election before announcing whether he accepts the results. Its only prudent. Had he replied, “Barring no fraud, of course I will accept the results.”, he would not have been subject to the same attack. But it means the same thing.

GOP senators, Republican National Committee scramble after candidate’s comments, promise to ‘respect the will of the people’

BY JONATHAN LEMIRE AND BILL BARROW, TOI

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump takes the stage for the third presidential debate at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Donald Trump’s allies struggled late Wednesday to defend his refusal at the final presidential debate to say he will honor the results of the November election should he lose, with condemnation arriving from both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Sean Spicer, the chief strategist of the Republican National Committee, which is supplying much of the Trump campaign’s get out the vote and voter outreach efforts, said the national party would “respect the will of the people.”

“I cannot speak for what he thinks,” Spicer said.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement that “Mr. Trump is doing the party and the country a great disservice” by suggesting the election is rigged, while Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake called the New York billionaire’s statements “beyond the pale.”

After spending the past few weeks claiming without evidence that the November election will be “rigged” in favor of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump was asked directly by Fox News anchor and debate moderator Chris Wallace if he would concede should he lose to Clinton.

“I will look at it at the time,” Trump said. When pressed moments later, Trump added simply: “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense.”

Clinton called Trump’s comments “horrifying.”

Billionaire Mark Cuban, one of Clinton’s top supporters, called Trump’s words “a slap in the face of every American in the history of this country, the Constitution and our democracy.”

“That’s what we’re proud of,” he said. “So, for him to question that, that’s disqualifying.”

Trump’s remarkable comments came just hours after his running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, said on CNN “that we’ll certainly accept the outcome of this election.” And Trump’s daughter Ivanka, arguably his most influential adviser, said earlier Wednesday that her father would “do the right thing” when she was asked if he would concede after a defeat in November.

The debate answer left his own team scrambling in the aftermath of the debate. Kellyanne Conway, his campaign manager, at first responded to questions about the comment by saying he “would accept the results, because he’ll win the election.”

“So, you know, absent widespread fraud and irregularities, then, we’ll see,” Conway said. “What he’s saying is we have to see what happens.”

She later rejected the outcry over Trump’s comment, saying it’s “not fair” to suggest Trump is undermining the prospects of a peaceful transfer of power.

“You’ve got to listen to everything he said,” she argued. “Al Gore did not accept the results of the elections and he said he would. He actually conceded to George W. Bush on election night in 2000 and then called and retracted his concession.”

Gore pulled back his concession only after updated vote count results in Florida showed the state too close to call, throwing the outcome of the election into doubt. When the U.S. Supreme Court later halted a recount, leaving Bush ahead in Florida and giving him the election, Gore conceded and asked the country to accept Bush as the nation’s next leader.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, another of Trump’s top allies, said the Republican nominee had good reason to be suspicious about potential fraud. “There are indications of a lot of fraud around by the Clintons,” Giuliani said.

In fact, there is no proof that voter fraud is a widespread problem in the United States. A study by a Loyola Law School professor found that out of 1 billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 known cases of impersonation fraud.

October 20, 2016 | 74 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 74 Comments

  1. mar55 Said:

    Her only thoughts are about lying. What lie she is going to use in the next response.

    If only she and bill were the problem there would be no problem, trump would not even be running. There is an entire massive corrupt network of the “elite”, media and politicians in BOTH parties.
    Much more telling about why we are in a mess was Rubio’s statement that GOP should ignore wikileaks dump on hillary because in the future they might expose GOP corruption. The dems could not have got this far without the collaboration, collusion and complicity of GOP politicians and donors. We are here because we beleived they opposed each other but they always have us arguing about trivia while they quetly pass and implement the big stuff.

    When I read donalds 28 promises there are a number of things I do not agree with but I vote for him for the major security issues. I am not sure he will go beyond reagan on the economy and I thought Reagan devastated the economy. I was also not convinced that he had a solution to obamacare and the general american medical debacle that brought obamacare in the first place… the health savings account sound like a typical bs conservative ideological “solution”. He might implement the tariffs which I want but I am not sure on cutting taxes until after the tariffs kick in. I dont want another reagan and i dont want the globalists. I have some right wing positions and some left wing… for me both parties suck.

  2. @ mar55:
    All true though from age 8 to 11 or 12 he lived in 90 percent Muslim Indonesia, where he was registered and trained in school as a Muslim*, which makes it even worse.

    *In Islam, the child of a Muslim father is a Muslim and the penalty for converting out is death. It’s pure sophistry to call him a Christian when his version of Christianity is in line with Dhimmitude. We fought the Barbary Wars because, unlike the ever-craven and cowardly Europeans, we refused to pay ransom. Boy, has that changed.

    That’s where: “Millions for Defense; Not One Penny For Tribute” comes from.

  3. @ bernard ross:
    Agreed. With all the knowledge this Administration has in
    Information Technology the entire world knows even more than the four minutes.
    What it is so appalling is her telling the entire world in a public debate how incompetent she is. She does not think. Her only thoughts are about lying. What lie she is going to use in the next response.

  4. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    I agree Caroline is wonderful but, Chicago is famous for its corrupted politicians. The Daley machinery still exist.
    When Trump gets elected you will see how many of these “but kissers” from the media will change coats. Others will continue trying to destroy him in order to defend their corrupt interests.
    Remember the old saying: Work as if everything depends on you and pray as if everything depends on G-d.
    Obama grew up in Hawaii under the tutelage of communist mother and grandparents becoming an Alinsky pupil in his youth. All his friends were lefties. He and the Hillary are disgusting characters. Only two weeks from Tuesday we will know.

  5. @ honeybee:
    @ bernard ross:
    I found this in today’s WSJ. One of the letters to the editor said: (paraphrasing)

    “I just finished giving instructions to my executor that,  when I die, I want to be buried in Chicago so I can remain politically active.”

  6. @ bernard ross:
    I agree. Arutz Sheva and also the Jewish Press here in the U.S. http://www.jewishpress.com/. for catching the lies in the enemdia, CAMERA can’t be beat: http://www.camera.org/ and imra.org.il, memri.org, and palwatch.org are indispensable. Still, I read many of the major Israeli and Jewish papers available in English online. Not everything is controversial and I do learn things. eg., Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, Israel Today, Ynet News, the Forward, The Tablet, Jewish Telegraph Service. Also Sultan Knish, U.N. Watch, Caroline Glick, Pamella Geller, Jihad Watch. Haaretz is usually just a headline, the only one that requires a paid subscription. Oh, and Unitedwithisrael.organd StandwithUs are terrific. DEbka File. Memri.org. There’s a lot. Stephen Plaut and Caroline Glick are two of my favorite satirists. Latma was created by Caroline Glick.

    Oh, really indispensable http://verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com/: http://www.israel21c.org/ http://nocamels.com/

    I think the best Hasbara (and the kind our enemies couldn’t dispute or get legally pulled down) would be big Billboards Just with the last three. It could just say, “Israel 21c”. and nothing else. Let them google it. Curiosity is the most powerful engine.

    Not to mention bumber stickers, hats, buttons, shirts, ties, cocktail napkins

    cigarettes, (just kidding. In the ’60s, MAD Magazine had a spoof Ad for the film, “Dr. Zhivago,” saying buy all this merchandise and at the end — oh, and you might want to read the book (as an afterthought) I wonder if Mel Brooks was consciously doffing his hat to that in “Space Balls” (he quotes filims non-stop, High Anxiety – Hitchcock plus “High Society” with Frank Sinatra – “Blazing Saddles is a spoof of “Destry Rides Again” with Jimmy Stewart and Marlene Dietrich (with lots of other quotes thrown in – like Bugs Bunny.http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cp8u5_destry-rides-again-1939-james-stewart-marlene-deitrich_shortfilms The Birth of Music skit in “History of the World Part One” is a spoof of a ’50s B movie starring Victor Mature, I think, In which three clean shaven tenors in cave man suits sing in perfect harmony.

    And the IDF home page: http://www.idf.il/english/

    Caroline Glick has her own web page plus she writes for Jerusalem Post and other publications

    oh, Frontpage Magaazine is terrific and it’s subsidiaries. David Horowitz

  7. honeybee Said:

    @ Bear Klein:
    @ yamit82:

    Dear Sirs: I subscribe , on line, to the ” Times of Israel”. I have discovered the it a decidedly Liberal newspaper. Can you suggest a more balance newspaper to which I can subscribe too , on line.

    Thank you, Honeybee
      

    they are in the bag for the dems…. its now obvious.
    try this
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

  8. @ mar55:
    the french are fools like the USA. I lived in a country that every few years gave the police the “license” to kill, just for crime waves. It worked well, they would enter the “ghettos” do house to house, round up the criminals, confiscate the weapons, lots would die “resisting arrest”
    It is impossible to tell what the event is in your video, I think it is local muslims rioting. they throw objects that could maim or kill a cop and the cops dont use guns to kill them…. they miss the opportunity to thin the herd. When people have had enough they elect a guy like Duterte or Pinochet and then it begins. Its better to deal directly with criminal and terror elements harshly in the beginnning before people elect a harsh dictator and everyone suffers. Those who defend the criminals in the beginning will end up victims of elected tyrants.

  9. @ honeybee:
    Hi! how are you doing? Do not be surprised. I have a subscription as well and, they have been liberal for sometime now. In some cases even more than Haretz. Try the Jerusalem Post. I think it is about time I write to the editor of the Times of Israel. Something has changed at the Times.

  10. yamit82 Said:

    My gut tells me he will win even win big…… Since it’s a gut feeling I won’t try to explain it but my gut has been correct more than not.

    What does your gut say about prune juice.???

  11. @ Bear Klein:
    @ yamit82:

    Dear Sirs: I subscribe , on line, to the ” Times of Israel”. I have discovered the it a decidedly Liberal newspaper. Can you suggest a more balance newspaper to which I can subscribe too , on line.

    Thank you, Honeybee

  12. Bear Klein Said:

    This is what happen the last week debate Carter v. Regan. Polls did not reflect that Regan kicked his butt big time. There is a lag of about 4-7 days when polls can start reflecting events.

    you did not read the linked article I posted which said last Reagan debate did not win it for him… his debate was so so…….
    the pollsters were covering their butts
    the conclusion: the prior polls were BS
    the hostage crisis won it for reagan, they were sick of carter, voters decided prior to that debate… the media and pollsters tried to fix that one too.

  13. @ Bear Klein:
    I have it on very good authority that Trump has an ace in the hole that he will show at the appropriate time. Evidently what he has to disclose will seal the deal for him.

    This info comers to me via a very close friend of his from New York. Let’s hope its true.

  14. @ bernard ross:So I hope that Trump pulls off the upset Presidential race of this century.

    By the way if one wanted they see where the pollsters where on Romney which what I was placing link above. Perhaps you believe he won. Anyway have a good weekend.

    By the way the number one pollster in the last race is one of the three who is showing Trump ahead nationally. But then maybe they are being payed off to report this by some camp or other.

    A last week event could change the election and the polls and the forecasters will not have time to respond. Hillary could have a stroke. A Syrian refugee turns out to be ISIS and blows a major building. This is what happen the last week debate Carter v. Regan. Polls did not reflect that Regan kicked his butt big time. There is a lag of about 4-7 days when polls can start reflecting events.

  15. @ Bear Klein:
    did you buy into the narrative that Jewish settlements are illegal or illegitimate when almost every news service has made that statement?

    BTW I saw a video of soros in europe saying that Trump wins the popular vote but the electoral votes will go to hillary because they are not tied to the popular vote but to hillary. I didnt print it because I thought the video might have been edited. Perhaps a fix is in and the polls are massaging our acceptance. Once I beleive folks are crooks I beleive anything is possible. I certainly beleive it is possible to rig it. We have electoral fraud in the millions and no one is doing anything about it including the GOP Why would Soros be invested in voting machines????????????????

  16. Bear Klein Said:

    @ bernard ross:Ross said:

    bottom line is you have faith in polls, I dont,

    No I look at forecasters who weight the polls based on past performance and how recent the polls are.

    your faith is that they are not manipulated in the same way that the media is being manipulated. If I had not witnessed the behavior of the media i would have more faith that the polls were not bought. I am not at all looking at their stats… I am just asking myself if I beleive they are honest…. I know the media who is hiring them is not honest. For me it does not matter how many polls or news sources agree…. its whether they are manipulated or not… I am certain the news sources are being manipulated. thats why I am not swayed by the numbers of polls nor the numbers of news sources…. they all agreed that Israel stole the land too.
    They may or may not be right, I dont know, but I would not invest in their honesty.

  17. @ Bear Klein:
    I still didnt get an explanation for reagan…. and silvers was innacurate… did you read my post and article on reagan… they all got it wrong… silvers explanation was wrong.
    unless all you are doing is giving me the bookies odds

  18. @ bernard ross:Ross said:

    bottom line is you have faith in polls, I dont,

    No I look at forecasters who weight the polls based on past performance and how recent the polls are. There others also rate pollsters based on past performance. They then do a calculation. This has proven to work I have researched this to my satisfaction. This however is not saying the forecasting is 100%. This is why they assign a statistical likelihood of outcome. Trump still has chance it is anywhere from about 11 to 16% or so.

    In the past I have been known to do sports wagers based on stats and factoring injuries and not betting on my teams unless they were statistically likely to win. I did not do perfectly but won around 5 out 6 bets. By the way 538.com is now owned by ESPN and also does sports forecasting.

    Pollsters ranked based on 2012 Presidential race showing if their polling reflected a GOP or DEM in their polling reflects. This will answer your prior question about who is biased or not (it does for me anyway).

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/11/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1-blog480.png

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

  19. Bear Klein Said:

    Polls associated with some of the organizations that are biased are actually performed by third party organizations.

    who pays the piper calls the shots…. do you beleive in the tooth fairy?
    Bear Klein Said:

    The question should be are their formulations for polling with a certain of data accurate or not (e.g. how many Dems, GOP, demographics of likely voters). These are the same factors why with the same set of data 5 pollsters will get swings in their polls.

    exactly are they accurate and are they reliable
    no answers were given on the reagan landslide…
    yep, data swings with same data….
    Bear Klein Said:

    Trump right now is losing in all the swing states. Even if he wins in the ones he is in striking distance he come up short by 4 votes.

    according to polls?
    would you bet your child on a poll?
    bottom line is you have faith in polls, I dont, not where big money is present and being used in ALL the media… the same who hire the pollsters. It makes no sense to present another poll to someone like me who cannot be sure of their “formulations” and “data”

    we shall see who wins but the dems, the media AND the GOP all seem hysterically trying to destroy Trump….. with such agreement and money nothing is reliable. If he was the big loser they keep saying they would not need to be so frantic.

  20. N@ bernard ross:
    The forecasts Nate Silver has done have a historical proven record that can be checked easily via the internet. I myself have done this and that is why I believe he does a very good job.

    Polls associated with some of the organizations that are biased are actually performed by third party organizations. The question should be are their formulations for polling with a certain of data accurate or not (e.g. how many Dems, GOP, demographics of likely voters). These are the same factors why with the same set of data 5 pollsters will get swings in their polls.

    The most important thing as you know I believe is the electoral college. Trump right now is losing in all the swing states. Even if he wins in the ones he is in striking distance he come up short by 4 votes.

    He would need to win either Colorado or New Hampshire plus all the states he is close but behind in Ohio, Florida, NC, Iowa, NV to win the election. Even months ago I was skeptical but hopefully that he could pull two to a straight flush and win a victory as a true outsider.

    He is registering GOP and called a populist but is sort of like the old Blue Dog Democrats. Anyway labeling does not matter as it changes nothing. If he does lose as I believe looks likely. Will he go the way of Barry Goldwater or will a movement of the disenchanted with the establishment continue. I believe the hard core original Trump supporters are largely disenchanted with both the Democrats and GOP for reason or another.

  21. Bear Klein Said:

    I agree with you Nate Silver is biased. His forecasts are better than his articles because of the bias.

    I cannot know until it is over that his forecasts are better than his bias. When I speak of bias I am not just talking about having a position but I am talking about the influence of money and power.
    You either agree or you dont about the corruption of most of the MSM… for me it was proven by the MSM reporting on Israel which I do not beleive was error or mistake but intentional.

    Here is my question to you, which of those on your list are NOT connected with a media outlet OR known to have a pro hillary bias?

    I already said that media and polls are closely related and media is proven biased, manipulated, with goals and agenda… there is no valid reason to assume that those transparently biased media to not find a way to issue skewed polls. Even with my little knowledge I am aware that those small pool polls are easily tweaked to desired outcomes.

    the purchasing of a poll with a past good record is simply a matter of price. I did not know that Silver also was a media operative with a bias but the article made it clear that he intentionally skewed facts and intentionally omitted contrary info. Surely a person who does that will do other things too… for the same reasons.

  22. I have been for the first time been closely following Trump on the stump…. Never did this before with any other candidate in any other election.

    Trump won his primaries using earned media even though being outspent by his rivals especially Bush by hundreds of millions of $$$$.

    Once being nominated he has like Bernie received over a hundred $ million from small donors stopped relying on MSM and focused on alternative media Twitter, FB and friendly blogs to push his message and get support. I have never seen such a media saturation with pro Trump messaging as I hae seen since the convention. It’s HUGE!~~~~

    All polls and surveys say Americans want change in the direction of the country…. For most it’s the economy for middle America the big issue dwarfing all other concerns. Trump still leads in all MSM polls on the economy.

    His appeal to most is the perception he can right the economic ship for middle America and to an extent the poor.

    My gut tells me he will win even win big…… Since it’s a gut feeling I won’t try to explain it but my gut has been correct more than not.

  23. @ bernard ross:
    I agree with you Nate Silver is biased. His forecasts are better than his articles because of the bias. We all have bias. Yours maybe that you are pro Trump and his is that he is Pro Hillary. I am biased because the thought of Hillary winning is not palatable.

    The Real Clear Politics Average shows the following Hillary up 6 and see all the entries that led to this average.
    Hillary is also up in all the swing states.

    RCP Average 10/10 – 10/20 — — 45.2 39.2 6.4 2.5 Clinton +6.0
    IBD/TIPP Tracking 10/15 – 10/20 789 LV 3.6 40 41 8 4 Trump +1
    Quinnipiac 10/17 – 10/18 1007 LV 3.1 47 40 7 1 Clinton +7
    Rasmussen Reports 10/18 – 10/20 1500 LV 2.5 41 43 5 3 Trump +2
    Economist/YouGov 10/15 – 10/18 925 RV 3.9 42 38 6 1 Clinton +4
    FOX News 10/15 – 10/17 912 LV 3.0 45 39 5 3 Clinton +6
    Bloomberg 10/14 – 10/17 1006 LV 3.1 47 38 8 3 Clinton +9
    Reuters/Ipsos 10/13 – 10/17 1190 LV 3.3 42 38 6 2 Clinton +4
    Monmouth 10/14 – 10/16 726 LV 3.6 50 38 5 2 Clinton +12
    CBS News 10/12 – 10/16 1189 LV 3.0 47 38 8 3 Clinton +9
    NBC News/SM 10/10 – 10/16 24804 LV 1.0 46 40 8 4 Clinton +6
    Boston Globe 10/11 – 10/14 845 LV 3.4 46 36 5 2 Clinton +10
    ABC News/Wash Post 10/10 – 10/13 740 LV 4.0 47 43 5 2 Clinton +4
    NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/10 – 10/13 905 LV 3.3 48 37 7 2 Clinton +11

  24. The election will be decided by the success of the US gov, the dem machine and the GOP in keeping the facts of wiki leaks and the obama hillary corruptions from the major portion of the public.
    The recent state party blocking of Assange indicates that he may be silenced. Although he has released more stuff it might contain nothing damning in order to give the appearance that he has not been muzzled.

    Things are pretty bad when Rubio advises the GOP to ignore wiki leaks facts of corruption on the basis that the same can be done later to expose GOP corruption.

  25. Tempest in a teacup, indeed. He said nothing inappropriate. Why should he have to commit himself and then lie about accepting the results like Gore?
    He also could have mentioned Egypt. She supported Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and then wanted to embargo Sisi — so Did, McCain to his dis-credit. Despots have usually come to power legally, initially, invoking some legal mechanism, like emergency powers – usually getting it handed to them in a vote. Julius Caesar, Cromwell, Both Napoleons, Hitler, to name a few. She still grumbles about Sisi who is fighting Jihadists as we speak, even if he is not an ally on other issues like the Temple Mount or the so-called Saudi Plan.

  26. Bear Klein Said:

    Nate Silver of 538.com wrote an article which may be realistic.

    Clinton’s win will have come by rather conventional means. Her big surges in the polls came following the conventions and the debates. She got the largest convention bounce of any candidate since at least 2000, and she won the debates by a clearer margin than any previous candidate in the six elections in which there were three debates that CNN polled.

    the 3 words at the end are a game breaker for me in silvers article. I cant imagine anyone who is literate citing a news article or a poll from CNN….. a proven fabricator of news in major events.

    Certainly, clinton can win, there are only 2 competitors and one must win…. but Silver article is chock full of signs of bias which make his article appear like most in the MSM wrt trump…… and Israel.

  27. Bear Klein Said:

    Ronald Reagan had a significant late surge against Jimmy Carter in 1980, but he was ahead beforehand

    here is my repost

    WILL THIS ELECTION DAY BE REPEAT OF 1980?

    Reagan trailed Carter 47-39 just 10 days before vote

    Reagan did not take the lead in the Gallup polls until the very last poll taken at the end of October, when just days ahead of Election Day, Nov. 4, 1980, Gallup had Reagan ahead 47-43 percent. [fake polling?]

    Reagan won by a landslide, capturing 50.7 percent of the popular vote to 41 percent for Carter

    no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened,”

    “Most published polls just before last Tuesday’s election said the race between Reagan and Jimmy Carter was “too close to call,” but Reagan trounced the incumbent by 10 percentage points in the actual vote,”

    The review of Reagan’s performance in the last debate with Carter, held Oct. 28, 1980, gave no indication Reagan’s performance was responsible for a last-minute surge. [no last minute surge, the polls lied until the final day, like today]

    “There may have been no clear winner in Tuesday night’s presidential debate, but the focus of the discussion was pretty much where President Carter wanted it, on the issue of war and peace and not on the economy,”

    Ronald Reagan, who had said he wanted to focus in the closing days of the campaign on Carter’s ‘economic record of misery and despair,’ let pass several opportunities to say how he could do better than Carter

    “Reagan spent much of the 90-minute debate seeking to portray himself as a man of peace to offset the warmonger image that Carter has tried to tag him with. He wanted to come across as presidential, and he may well have succeeded,

    What Reagan’s landslide showed was that Carter’s failures weighed heavily on voters President Richard Nixon had termed the “silent majority”

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/will-this-election-day-be-repeat-of-1980/#6ks7psAhJxbsSHco.99

    sound familiar?

    My own view is that most election polls up until the last week are crooked and I cant tell which ones are not….. so I avoid taking them at face value Too much money available for pollsters to pass up. By adjusting the figures to reality in the last days they can claim next year that they predicted correctly.

  28. Bear Klein Said:

    The other possibility is a massive polling failure. There aren’t really any direct precedents for a candidate coming back from this far down to win an American presidential election,…Ronald Reagan had a significant late surge against Jimmy Carter in 1980, but he was ahead beforehand — and the surge came in large part because of a debate that occurred just one week before the election, whose impact was too late to be fully reflected in the polls. If Trump was going to have a Reaganesque surge, in other words, it probably would have started with a commanding performance in last night’s debate — and not another loss.

    Actually Silvers innacurate portrayal of the Reagan scenario was a clear indicator of his attempt to propagate a false perspective or his ignroance.
    I just recently posted excerpts of an article, which gives a very different picture than Silver portrays. I repost it below again and I suggest you read the details in the article from the link I posted

  29. Bear Klein Said:

    That said Nate Silver of 538.com wrote an article which may be realistic.

    as you know, I do not think much of polls in major elections. I subscribe to the view that they are extensions of the media and as such likely to be bought. The wild divergence and volatility reflect their unreliability. The money available for bought polls is enormous and supply side economics indicates the likelihood of corruption in general. The indisputable evidence of the corrupted media in this election is for me the greatest indicator of the likelihood of bought polls. However, I have noted that you have a particular faith in nate silver and thus read your post and the article. After reading it I came to the conclusion that nate silver is basically on the same track as the rest in terms of presenting a biased perspective and censoring out the contrary envidence.Bear Klein Said:

    the morning headlines, which focused overwhelmingly on Trump’s refusal to say whether he’ll accept the election results, are potentially worse for Trump than the debate itself. In YouGov’s poll of debate watchers, 68 percent of voters said they think the candidates should pledge to accept the results of the election.

    this was simply a clone of the rest of the media, he appears to have joined the chorus attempting to make a trivial lie into a serious issue… he is part of the propaganda machine. Any literate reader who also watched the debate knows that elections are contested when results are close and indications of fraud are present. Furthermore, the dems contested the bush and reagan elections up to the courts. Therefore it is disingenous to suggest that Trumps intelligent and realistic reply indicates anything “sinister” as those who propagate this canard are attempting to do. More importantly, the expert poller chooses to publish a result of the yougov poll but intentionally omits a much more relevant result in that same poll which found that more undecideds were for Trump. Anyone attempting to cite facts as evidence could not have missed that in the same poll. I went to it and saw it there due to Silvers quote.
    Bear Klein Said:

    He’ll probably spend a significant chunk of the remaining news cycles quarreling over his contention that the election is rigged, and with the numerous women who have accused him of sexual assault. He doesn’t have an obvious — or even a not-so-obvious — path to the presidency.

    I think the above statement shows Silvers perspective best and I take the notion that biased folks end up with biased polls. I see no reason to include that comment in an article trying to pretend to be fact based.

    So we’re left to argue about the probability of an unforeseen event, or a significant polling error. It’s perhaps significant that almost no matter what news has occurred, ……Clinton has almost always led Trump in the polls,

    Therefore, all the conclusions of his prognosis are based on the accuracy and honesty of the polls…. which in my opinnion is the same as saying that all of my facts are based on the honesty and accuracy of the MSM……… which I have not one shred of doubt is proven to be biased and outright dishonest… the best example is Israel but this election has proven it to me beyond a doubt
    (continued next powt)

  30. As the regulars on Israpundit know I do NOT want Hillary Clinton to be President. That said Nate Silver of 538.com wrote an article which may be realistic.

    I’m not sure I need to tell you this, but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president. It’s just a question of what “probably” means.

    Clinton went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday with a lead of about 7 percentage points over Donald Trump. And according to the only two scientific polls we’ve seen, voters thought that Clinton won the debate. Occasionally, the initial reaction to a debate can differ from the way it’s perceived days later. But in this case, the morning headlines, which focused overwhelmingly on Trump’s refusal to say whether he’ll accept the election results, are potentially worse for Trump than the debate itself. In YouGov’s poll of debate watchers, 68 percent of voters said they think the candidates should pledge to accept the results of the election.

    There are less than three weeks left in the campaign, and there are no more guaranteed opportunities for Trump or Clinton to command a huge public audience, as they do at the conventions and the debates (although, they’ll get plenty of attention, of course). Millions of people have already voted. Trump has had a significant advertising deficit, and an even more significant deficit in terms of his turnout operation. He’ll probably spend a significant chunk of the remaining news cycles quarreling over his contention that the election is rigged, and with the numerous women who have accused him of sexual assault. He doesn’t have an obvious — or even a not-so-obvious — path to the presidency.

    So we’re left to argue about the probability of an unforeseen event, or a significant polling error. It’s perhaps significant that almost no matter what news has occurred, and there’s been a lot of it — terrorist attacks, mass shootings, foreign crises, her email scandal, the Wikileaks dump, her Sept. 11 health scare — Clinton has almost always led Trump in the polls, although there have certainly been times when the election was close. What if her State Department emails are sitting on one of Julian Assange’s servers? That would be interesting, I suppose. But there are also October (or November) surprises that could work against Trump: more accusations from women, more damaging videotapes, further leaking of his tax records.

    The other possibility is a massive polling failure. There aren’t really any direct precedents for a candidate coming back from this far down to win an American presidential election, although you can make a few loose analogies. Harry Truman’s comeback over Thomas Dewey in 1948 almost works as a comparison, but Truman wasn’t coming from as far behind as Trump is, and there was much less polling in 1948. Ronald Reagan had a significant late surge against Jimmy Carter in 1980, but he was ahead beforehand — and the surge came in large part because of a debate that occurred just one week before the election, whose impact was too late to be fully reflected in the polls. If Trump was going to have a Reaganesque surge, in other words, it probably would have started with a commanding performance in last night’s debate — and not another loss.

    Brexit? Even that comparison doesn’t really work. The final polls showed a toss-up between the United Kingdom leaving the European Union or remaining in it, and “leave” eventually won by 4 points. If the polls were biased against Trump by that much in this election, he’d still lose, by a margin approximating the one by which Mitt Romney lost to President Obama four years ago. The primaries? They’re a reminder that one ought to be humble when making predictions. But the polls pegged Trump just fine — in fact, slightly overestimating his performance in many early states such as Iowa. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/

  31. One of the questions was about social security, medicare and medicaid and how to rescue them and donal never mentioned that the millions of refugees coming in on welfare will make that task much more difficult… why burden the economy with another massive drain at a time it is in trouble?

  32. Ted Belman Said:

    he should have that she started the war in Libya,

    the libya events show all her crimes, incopetncies and low character… not a word about it
    the shipping of arms to aq, the denial of security for stevens, the stand downs, the moving of african command, the release of stevens itninerary over her illegal server to the russians or mb, the murder of 4 americans, the cover up lie of a video, the false incarceration of the innocent video maker, the fbi cover up of her espionage violations…. that was just in libya alone….. her one great chance to demonstrate her character, competency to function as a president was then as SOS
    She failed more miserably than anyone can imagine and should even be investigated for the server under the espionage act…. someone who should be in jail is running for president.

    Sessions was more articulate this morning
    Trump does better lately at his own rallies
    the debates always have trivial distractions, not worth doing except to reach the undecided, those on the fence
    Trump needs to find a way to get his message around the dishonest press directly to the undecided…
    Hillary corruption is the most effective approach
    the US gov is trying to keep Assange from releasing the hillary and obama admin corruption secrets, donald should concentrate on asking the public why they are preventing the release of their crimes?
    wkii leaks needs to be played up and distributed… this is where the GOP proves they are trying to sabotage the election of trump ….. rubio came right out and said the GOP should ignore wiki leaks because in the future they might reveal GOP corruption…. in other words the cooks protect each other… the GOP should be carrying wikileaks to all their constituencies instead the GOP crooks are trying to sabotage the election on behalf of the dems.

  33. I agree with you. Trump is not an Oxford debater. He is not smooth and he is rough around the edges.

    He missed many opportunities to score points. He seemed unprepared.

    When mentioning Putin, he should have said that while Hilary was Secretary of state she hit a reset button with Putin. Who then promptly took Crimea and part of Ukraine.

    When mentioning the states that she screwed up he should have that she started the war in Libya, she deposed long time friend Mubarak, she started negotiations with Iran, she opened door to Syria for Putin and so on. Just naming the country was not enough.

  34. a storm in a teacup… it just means he will want to see all the votes counted and all fraud dealt with before conceding… which is how elections should run

    IMO, trump may have lost the election by driving away undecideds with his apparent support for deposing roe vs wade. Pro lifers were never going to vote for hillary anyway and undecideds do not want roe wade deposed. the deposing of roe wade is a rar right conservative position already decided by those on th eright and left. He should have pivoted to defunding planned parenthood on basis of selling body parts instead.

    he also wasted energy pandering to nra and pro lifers both of whom are NOT voting hillary

    He failed to take the opportunity to hammer hillary failure at benghazi when hillary repeatedly mentioned “espionage”. He should have pivoted to her violations of espionage with the server which may have given stevens itinerary to MB and russians, killing 4 americans.. then leading to her not providing requested security, her cover up lies of video which put an innocent man in jail and the further cover up of her espionage violations by the FBI. All contained in one event. Her greatest failure as SOS was in libya and benghazi. It was her policy, execution, espionage violations, lying that showed she cannot handle a higher position than one she already failed at.

    He also failed to bring up during the economics section the incrediible drain on resources caused by the immigrant influx when entitlement programs were raised by moderator. he should have said that those drains will deprive americans of their entitlements in an already deteriorating situaton

    Trump failed to seize the opportunities of which voters he needed to sway with this debate… the undecideds.