Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

The thing that pollsters need to explain though, which may come when we do more LV models, is are these people voting or not? There's a difference between meh engagement and someone who typically does not vote. If they typically do not vote, what reason do we have to suggest they will this year?

How likely is it that there will be a verdict today?

That's completely unknown lol. if you'd like my subjective guess, 25% chance today, and if not today then tomorrow is 50-50.

How likely is it that there will be a verdict today?

Never try to predict the timing of a jury. Maybe they'll walk into the room and agree on a verdict in the first ten minutes, maybe they'll spend 3 weeks going over every piece of evidence and testimony ten times over. The judge can't ask them for a status report or anything. If they're deadlocked, have a verdict, or (in some jurisdictions, like mine...not sure about New York) have a question they'll alert the judge but otherwise there's no way to know how close they are.

How likely is it that there will be a verdict today?

My money is on tomorrow afternoon (based solely on my own jury experiences).

1. There's probably too much to finish it up today.

2. They'll really try to get to a verdict before the weekend if possible.

3. But they won't do it in the morning, so they can get another free lunch from the state.

That would be the mother of all Friday news dumps.

Kansas and Utah might make that list. The trends in Johnson county seem brutal for Trump and it's filled with affluent educated white suburban women - probably his worst tending demographic. Rs might be close to maxed out in rural Kansas as well.

Utah is harder to be single digits, but the caucus result was really bad for Trump, and he likely loses Utah to Haley in an actual primary. But I think Utah could absolutely be within 15 points though.

[The case is incredibly weak because it relies on a number of assumptions which everyone has kind of pretended are true but are absurd]

Of course the allegation is not that it was a random clerical error but done deliberately and repeatedly to hide their attempts to affect the election through unlawful means.

You and I have a very different definition of what "affecting the election through unlawful means" is. Nothing criminal about trying to suppress embarrassing stories from coming out.

Paying tens of thousands to suppress embarrassing stories is an illegal in-kind campaign contribution, though.

It is not, which is what makes the case tricky. Nothing Trump did is alleged to be illegal. It was failing to file the reimbursement which was. Had he done what most other campaigns like Tim Scott's do, which was to setup a front and spend $80 million in "consulting services" he would have been fine.

That is why the critical issue is not whether Trump paid off the National Enquirer to bury stories for him. But whether

1. He did it for reasons of winning the election(which is why the best defense argument - one Trump wouldn't allow to be made, is that no one, including Donald Trump thought he could win in 2016)

2. The bookkeeping irregularities were the result of Trump hiding a legal expenditure rather than Cohen, who has admitted to stealing money multiple times before in this manner, embezzling on his own.

The case is incredibly weak because it relies on a number of assumptions which everyone has kind of pretended are true but are absurd


However, running the line "the voters were insane to vote for me, this whole campaign was a producers sketch which got out of hand, and I hire incompetent lawyers who steal from me" would have destroyed his ego much like going after Stormy would have.

They instead hit Cohen for being a liar and a thief. The former was entirely irrelevant, the latter was potentially relevant, but they never properly made clear why.

Once again, this is wrong. Many of the accusations in this case have borne out with different types of evidence. Why are some of you so intent on acting as if there is no "there" there here?

The story of US politics since 2016

If this guy was under a 20 year NDA that would mean he would be forbidden from even mentioning or talking about the tape, so he only could now if the NDA has now expired, in which case...release the tape. Stop with the talk about it, just give it to us.

I've never heard of a hyped up tape before actually being released. Ones that were actually relevant and made an impact like the Access Hollywood or Jeremiah Wright's sermons were released without warning or a hype up, they just dropped immediately.

How likely is it that there will be a verdict today?

My money is on tomorrow afternoon (based solely on my own jury experiences).

1. There's probably too much to finish it up today.

2. They'll really try to get to a verdict before the weekend if possible.

3. But they won't do it in the morning, so they can get another free lunch from the state.

Trump will win it.

[The case is incredibly weak because it relies on a number of assumptions which everyone has kind of pretended are true but are absurd]

Of course the allegation is not that it was a random clerical error but done deliberately and repeatedly to hide their attempts to affect the election through unlawful means.

You and I have a very different definition of what "affecting the election through unlawful means" is. Nothing criminal about trying to suppress embarrassing stories from coming out.

Paying tens of thousands to suppress embarrassing stories is an illegal in-kind campaign contribution, though.

It is not, which is what makes the case tricky. Nothing Trump did is alleged to be illegal. It was failing to file the reimbursement which was. Had he done what most other campaigns like Tim Scott's do, which was to setup a front and spend $80 million in "consulting services" he would have been fine.

That is why the critical issue is not whether Trump paid off the National Enquirer to bury stories for him. But whether

1. He did it for reasons of winning the election(which is why the best defense argument - one Trump wouldn't allow to be made, is that no one, including Donald Trump thought he could win in 2016)

2. The bookkeeping irregularities were the result of Trump hiding a legal expenditure rather than Cohen, who has admitted to stealing money multiple times before in this manner, embezzling on his own.

The case is incredibly weak because it relies on a number of assumptions which everyone has kind of pretended are true but are absurd


However, running the line "the voters were insane to vote for me, this whole campaign was a producers sketch which got out of hand, and I hire incompetent lawyers who steal from me" would have destroyed his ego much like going after Stormy would have.

They instead hit Cohen for being a liar and a thief. The former was entirely irrelevant, the latter was potentially relevant, but they never properly made clear why.

Once again, this is wrong. Many of the accusations in this case have borne out with different types of evidence. Why are some of you so intent on acting as if there is no "there" there here?