Contemplating A Landslide
Back in May, I wrote an article that laid out five optimistic paths to victory for Hillary Clinton. Two of these paths were quite close, one was the equivalent of Barack Obama's 2008 win, and two were wildly optimistic (at least, at the time and given the available polling data). The last two projected Clinton winning with either 401 or 471 electoral votes.
Today, I'd like to update that last map. Because the possibility of an absolute blowout landslide for Hillary Clinton is growing by the day. The Washington Post ran an article today which spurred me to redraw this map, since it pointed out that Hillary Clinton is closer to catching Donald Trump in seven traditionally blood-red Republican states than Trump is to catching her in several traditional swing states.
Recent polling shows Hillary Clinton with the following single-digit gaps: Arizona (down 2 percent), Missouri (2), South Carolina (2), Georgia (4), Kansas (5), and Texas (6). An internal Democratic poll showed her tied with Trump in Indiana, as well. Now compare all of those to Trump's deficit in the following swing states: New Hampshire (down 8 points), Florida (9), North Carolina (9), Pennsylvania (9), Wisconsin (9), Virginia (10), and Colorado (11). As the Post concludes: "we're getting to the point where the Democratic presidential nominee is closer to winning red states than she is to losing swing states."
The article does go on to point out that Clinton probably won't win in places like Texas and Kansas, and indeed would be foolish to devote any campaign resources to such longshot states. At the same time, however, this certainly would redraw the map of battleground states, if Clinton's lead in the previous swing states holds firm. If states like Florida and North Carolina become reliably blue, then it would shrink the map of battleground states. But if the battlegrounds expand into formerly-red bastions like Texas and South Carolina, it opens up the possibility of a blowout not seen on the Democratic side since Lyndon Johnson's sweep in 1964.
My earlier map was based on nothing more than toss-caution-to-the-winds optimism. What could the largest Clinton win look like, I wondered, and then I put it together (on the 270toWin web site, which I highly recommend for its ease and usefulness). Now, however, we have an actual list of states which are -- shockingly -- within reach of Clinton.
So I redrew the map. I assumed Clinton will win all the previous battleground states, which would likely happen if such a landslide develops. I then added in all seven of the states in the Post article, which could happen if Trump's campaign absolutely craters in the polls (or if third-party candidates get stronger). I also added in Utah, after reading a different article in today's Post, where Republican politicians are reportedly handling Donald Trump "much like one would handle radioactive waste or a rabid porcupine." And for fun, I threw in one Nebraska district that Hillary could win if she's doing so well elsewhere. Here is the map I came up with:
[Click on map to see larger-scale version.]
This isn't as enormous a landslide as I drew back in May -- Hillary only has 455 electoral votes, down from 471. But it is a lot more grounded in possible reality than the previous one. If Trump, to paint just one scenario, goes down in flames in the first debate and then refuses to debate again, then this map could become reality in November. Hillary Clinton isn't trailing Trump by insurmountable margins in those seven red states, so one bad downturn in the polls for Trump could actually flip them.
It's still a pretty wildly optimistic projection, I'll fully admit. And even if it did somehow come to pass, it wouldn't exactly mean that Democrats could count on these states in any future election. Trump is such an aberration to the normal election situation that most of these states would almost certainly revert to form and start voting Republican again in future presidential elections. So even if Hillary does pull off such a stunning landslide, it wouldn't even guarantee that she herself could win any of these states to get re-elected (assuming, of course, that Republicans don't nominate Donald Trump again in 2020).
Republicans wishing for victory this year are -- as usual -- struggling to put together any plausible path to the 270 Electoral College votes Donald Trump will need to win. If Virginia and Pennsylvania remain out of reach for Trump, then he may not have any path to victory at all, in fact. Even winning Florida and Ohio might not do it for him, to put this another way. Donald Trump has to win almost all the traditional battleground states to put together 270 votes. Hillary Clinton might win only one and claim victory. But if she runs the table of the traditional battlegrounds, it's not that far-fetched to contemplate what would happen if she managed to flip all the Republican states Trump only has a very weak hold on right now. If this happens, the above map could be closer to what we see in November than anyone might now expect.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Something that may make a big difference is early voting, which will start happening in some states in September and others in October. I stopped by the HRC office near my house yesterday and they will be doing everything they can to get Democrats to vote early. Those votes get "banked" and are done deals even if something goes kablooey late in the game.
And per Josh Marshall, the odds of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein hitting the 15% threshold to be in the debates is looking really slim. That means it will be HRC vs. Trump, or HRC by herself -- or HRC getting to inform the world that she was game but Trump was chicken,
So, don't want to be complacent, but it IS starting to look like we might be in for a biggie.
I seem to recall that a week is a very long time in politics. Part of Secretary Clinton's lead right now is that she's managed to stay out of the news amid some bad news for her only because Mr. Trump seems to one-up the news cycles. If that were to change at all, Clinton's unfavorability ratings are already such that we might see the third-party candidates creep up in importance.
Or Democrats start staying home like Republican votes are predicted to. If Democrats stay home too at any appreciable rate, this becomes a horse race again pretty quickly. The real downside of that outcome is that the lowest ever percentage of eligible-to-vote Americans may determine the leader of their nation. And this will accelerate the erosion of confidence by citizens in our national American political leadership and institutions.
Not to be that sullen fellow at the party, but this feels like having a good run at the blackjack table (or stock market or the 2005 housing market) and falling into the trap of thinking it will continue as it recently has. All Trump has to do is be quiet for a while and all Clinton has to do is step in it again in her commonly exasperating way and this good run evaporates. Personally, while I too predict a Clinton win is very likely based on current models, I'm not at all comfortable assuming the present dynamics will stay in effect through even early October when early voting gains the most momentum. We might just be in the midst of a Clinton bubble due for correction. The question is when will the bubble be let out? Before the election or after?
grrr.. wish the preview matched the final display...
/whinyrant
Having led the way in blogging this topic, I'd like to point out that the polls are actually overstating Trump's eventual support. Clinton is 'banking' ballots and doing GOTV where Trump isn't. She's running ads and he isn't. Trump pretty much refuses to do any hard work, and the things that made him succeed in the primary race now work against him.
If current trends continue -- and I see no 'pivot' of any kind coming from Trump -- then this time next month, we are going to be talking about how these states are realistically in reach for her. We've already seen Clinton pull ads in Virginia, and no doubt other places, freeing up resources to target Georgia and Missouri. So I'm going out on a limb here to say that Kansas and Texas are now *on the cusp of the realm of the possible* for Clinton and will likely break her way even more in the next 83 days.
... barring any known unknowns or, God forbid, unknown unknowns, Matt ...
How much money do you think Trump is going to wind up making off of this campaign? I'm curious how much he's paying his kids for their roles in his campaign. I just read that Manafort got replaced by a mega-"yes Donald, your ideas are perfect, Donald" tush-smoocher. Trump feels like he works best when everyone agrees with him. His drop in the polls are obviously due to his staff telling him he needs to change, and definitely not his refusal to listen to them!
Contemplating A Landslide
Didn't you just write a commentary last week warning about Democrat complacency?? :D
Michale
There is one fact that ya'all fail to consider when ya'all are dreaming of your Hillary landslide..
Hillary Clinton sought out the stability of just about anything during a visit to Joe Biden’s Scranton, Pennsylvania boyhood home.
Video from Clinton’s appearance showed her grasping for a railing, a chair and the kitchen table on Monday.
Standing outside the home, Clinton embraced the owner with one arm while holding onto the railing on the front walk. Moments later, she pivoted — and grabbed the railing with the other hand.
Then she pivoted back, only to reach for the railing again with the other hand.
Inside the house, she held onto a chair and moved to lean on the kitchen table.
Earlier in the day, she was caught on camera stumbling while trying to make her way from the podium during a rally with Biden.
http://theamericanmirror.com/steady-goes-hillary-holds-onto-railing-table-chairs-home-visit/
Hillary isn't going to make it to election day....
Michale
I wish ya'all would understand that this is a REALITY based forum..
If one looks at the RCP Poll Of Polls (the ONLY poll acceptable to REALITY based people) you will see the following..
In a 4-way matchup, Trump's numbers HAVE slid slightly. But Hillary's numbers have gone down a LOT more..
In a matchup of Trump/Hillary, Trump's numbers have plateaued after a large bump and Hillary's numbers have taken a nosedive...
These are the FACTS of the pollings, whether ya'all acknowledge them or not..
Michale
You see, ya'all have to ask yerselves one question... If you have the courage..
Ya'all and conventional wisdom and the polls have been wrong about Trump over and over and over and over again..
WHY do ya'all think that THIS time, ya'all will be right??
Michale
I seem to recall that a week is a very long time in politics. Part of Secretary Clinton's lead right now is that she's managed to stay out of the news amid some bad news for her only because Mr. Trump seems to one-up the news cycles. If that were to change at all, Clinton's unfavorability ratings are already such that we might see the third-party candidates creep up in importance.
Yep.. And that is exactly what is happening.. 3rd Party candidates' numbers are rising, Trump's numbers are slightly rising or leveling off and Hillary's numbers are going down..
Not to be that sullen fellow at the party, but this feels like having a good run at the blackjack table (or stock market or the 2005 housing market) and falling into the trap of thinking it will continue as it recently has. All Trump has to do is be quiet for a while and all Clinton has to do is step in it again in her commonly exasperating way and this good run evaporates. Personally, while I too predict a Clinton win is very likely based on current models, I'm not at all comfortable assuming the present dynamics will stay in effect through even early October when early voting gains the most momentum. We might just be in the midst of a Clinton bubble due for correction. The question is when will the bubble be let out? Before the election or after?
And SPLAAASSSHHHHHH!!!!!!
A huge dose of reality hits Weigantia like a tidal wave!!! :D
Michale
Trump feels like he works best when everyone agrees with him.
Now WHO could that possibly remind you of?? :D heh
Michale
My first reaction to this column was:
"Hmmm, looks like CW has gotten into some medical marijuana...good on CW...can he get more?"
After statistical reflection, I have to admit that a 455 EV Clinton electoral landslide is not completely fantastic.... If this years election is an uber strong "wave election" - that is states tend to stampede in the same direction. My own models (of other peoples state data)show the probability of Clinton picking up 450 (or more)EV is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% to as much as 25%. Keep in mind that the above range of estimates are conditioned upon the assumption that 2016 is a tidal wave election, and that the wave breaks in Clinton's favor. It's not clear that this is the case... may not be clear until the morning after.
We are also dealing with distribution tails, and things get fuzzy at the tails. My instincts tell me strong wave elections are pretty rare, but it's hard to tell, there have been few Presidential Elections since high quality sampling and appropriate statistics first shook hands (maybe post 1948).
There is an "on the other hand" that needs to be addressed. Trumps overall chances of winning seem best (but not great) in a strong wave scenario. Strong waves give Clinton a better chance of winning BIG, but also increase Trump's chances of winning by a narrow margin at or somewhat above the 270 margin.
Bottom line, my models show Clinton to be a strong favorite at this point in time. She is a better than 3:1 favorite. The chance of her getting 450 or more EV is small, probably very small.
Bottom line, my models show Clinton to be a strong favorite at this point in time.
And your models showed that Trump would NEVER be the GOP nominee...
I'll re-iterate what I asked above..
What makes you think your models are right THIS time when they have been wrong over and over and over again???
Michale
Clinton Up By A Single Point
http://www.latimes.com/politics/
Howz that "landslide" werkin' out for ya'all?? :D
Michale
Interesting...
“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”
That pledge from Hillary's website has been scrubbed... Completely erased...
Geee, I wonder why... :D
Michale
At this moment in time, Trump is up .2 points and Hillary is down .4 points..
And yet, ya'all believe that Trump's numbers are "dropping like a stone"???
On what planet??? :D
Michale
@15,
putting aside for the moment the question of its predictive validity, the LA Times/USC poll is different from other head to head polls in a number of major respects.
first, it questions voters based on perceived likelihood of voting for a candidate, leading to more robust numbers from people who may think of themselves as somewhat undecided, and perhaps also from those who don't want to admit who they're planning to vote for.
second, it samples "likely voters" rather than "registered voters," which excludes people who are less reliable about getting to the polls. this method tends to skew a bit republican, and be most accurate when turnout is low.
third, it keeps older data to increase sample size. this may limit the impact of temporary bounces, but also makes the poll slow to respond to trending changes.
finally, the poll is weighted based on voters' reports of who they voted for in the last presidential election. none of the other polls weight their sample this way, which may make the poll more or less accurate, depending on the extent of people's memory or honesty about who they voted for last time.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-polling-differences-20160809-snap-story.html
finally, the poll is weighted based on voters' reports of who they voted for in the last presidential election. none of the other polls weight their sample this way, which may make the poll more or less accurate, depending on the extent of people's memory or honesty about who they voted for last time.
In other words, Trump could actually be ahead by 20 points and the poll would not accurately reflect that.. :D
But it IS a poll and it DOES say something different than all ya'all's polls say..
In there, lies it's value to my point..
Anyone can find a poll that "proves" what they want to say...
I'll make the offer again..
If ya'all want to restrict the poll-gazing to RCP poll of polls, just say the word... :D
Michale
RCP polling data have been pretty consistent since two weeks ago, which i expected would mark the last day of hillary's DNC bounce. hillary has the exact same number today that she had on august 3rd (47.3), and has stayed within the statistical margin of error over that entire span. donald's numbers continued to fall for a short while, but rebounded and are now (41.2) almost back where they were on august 3rd (41.6).
my short-term guess is that these numbers will stay fairly consistent at least until the first debate. afterward, unless donald legitimately implodes on stage, the press will give him favorable coverage in order to market a closer horse race and keep up ratings.
JL
In other words, Trump could actually be ahead by 20 points and the poll would not accurately reflect that.. :D
the probability of that drastic a measurement error is extremely low. my sense based on the comparison with other RCP polls is that they may not all be accurate, but they're pretty good at providing a floor and a ceiling. i.e. it's extremely unlikely at this moment that hillary is leading by less than one point or more than nine.
it's extremely unlikely at this moment that hillary is leading by less than one point or more than nine.
:D
Michale
. afterward, unless donald legitimately implodes on stage, the press will give him favorable coverage in order to market a closer horse race and keep up ratings.
Ahhhhhh
So, it COULDN'T be that the press would give Trump favorable coverage because he DESERVES favorable coverage..
It *HAS* to be a nefarious ploy.... :D
Michale
M-14
What you put in your mouth is up to you. But don't put words or results in my mouth.
I haven't built any Nomination Models for this or any other election cycle (huge number of candidates requires too much computer power). Anything I cited concerning the 2016 nomination was either a poll, a market price, or a forecast by somebody else.
I did post my own model predictions of the 2014 senate races based upon raw NYT and WAPO data. I predicted the Democrats were fighting uphill to retain senate control (30%-40%) and were most likely to lose 6 seats. They did worse than that, but 9 was well within my 95% prediction limits.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/election/article/Poll-Three-out-of-five-Texans-support-secession-9146807.php
If the worst happens, I know where we're moving too... :D
Michale
I haven't built any Nomination Models for this or any other election cycle (huge number of candidates requires too much computer power).
I was referring to the generality of you quoting markets and polls that "proved" Trump would not be the GOP nominee rather than your current use of modeling..
Forgive me for the error... I'll be more clear and specific in the future...
Michale
donald's numbers continued to fall for a short while, but rebounded and are now (41.2) almost back where they were on august 3rd (41.6).
In other words, the claims that Trumps numbers are "dropping like a stone" is 1000% bovine excremental feces....
Which is what I have been saying... :D
Michale
If current trends continue -- and I see no 'pivot' of any kind coming from Trump -- then this time next month, we are going to be talking about how these states are realistically in reach for her.
Tell ya what....
Lets meet back here on 17 Sep and compare notes... :D
Michale
So, it COULDN'T be that the press would give Trump favorable coverage because he DESERVES favorable coverage.. It *HAS* to be a nefarious ploy.... :D
not at all. it's very possible that donald will perform very well in the debate on his own accord. my point was that debate coverage always tends to slant toward whomever is losing in the polls, due to the desire of news services for higher ratings. although a significantly less likely scenario, if donald leads in the polls i'd expect debate coverage to be biased in favor of hillary.
JL
not at all.
Hokay... :D
Michale
NYPoet22-29
"my point was that debate coverage always tends to slant toward whomever is losing in the polls, due to the desire of news services for higher ratings"
The short attention span news media built Trump up, but if they sense he's near peak, it make more more sense to revel in his collapse. The old Fortune's Wheel morality tale. "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley.
RIP John McLaughlin.
in his own immortal words, "Bye-bye!"
http://the405media.com/2016/08/16/rip-john-mclaughlin-snl-mclaughlin-group-sketches-video/
really interesting article on politico:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/political-parties-are-super-resilient-is-that-bad-for-america-214165
What's the gist of it?
@liz,
the democratic party is a party of process. the republican party is a party of ideology. this has been true to varying degrees since the 1800's. the cool thing about the article is it fairly concisely traces both party identities through practically their entire histories.
JL
Hmmmm ... sounds like a good read ... I just may click on it! :)
[25]
Michale wrote: If the worst happens, I know where we're moving too... :D
====================
I remember watching my daddy having a drink and a belly laugh with the 45th Governor of Texas about that very prospect {good times}. She, yes SHE, freaked out the menfolk too back in her time when she was elected. You see, the right fringe and their ilk in Texas have been blowing smoke about secession for a long, long time. It didn't happen then and certainly won't be happening any time soon since they are a vocal minority and getting smaller every year.
Demographics! See map above.
When the 45th President of the United States is sworn in, it won't be the "bubbas" first female leader. Oh, sure they'll be whining about secession, as per usual, but it also won't take them two seconds to start whining about "Poor Donald," what a lousy candidate and how smart they were for not voting for "Clownfish Von Trump" and for Texas being smart enough to vote for the only guy with the cojones to stand up to "Benedict Donald." By the time of the inauguration, good luck finding anyone in Texas who will even admit they voted for "Con Don."
When people think of Texas, formerly known as Mexico, it would serve them well to remember it is a land of diversity including millions of people who didn't really cross the border... the border crossed them.
There now... I saved you some packing. :D
Kick,
It didn't happen then and certainly won't be happening any time soon since they are a vocal minority and getting smaller every year.
3 out of 5 doesn't sound like a "minority" to me...
I am also constrained to point out that Texas hasn't faced such a huge catastrophe as a Hillary Presidency in the past..
There now... I saved you some packing. :D
In a manner of speaking. You just re-affirmed what I know to be true..
Come January, we'll be swearing in President Trump.. :D
Michale
3 out of 5 doesn't sound like a "minority" to me...
Of course it doesn't... because you have this ever present tendency toward misinterpretation of data and an amusing yet endearing penchant for false equivalency. You are comparing apples and oranges. I could write a few dozen paragraphs of instruction about data and false equivalency, but you've heard some of it already and it likely wouldn't matter since it won't fit on a bumper sticker.
Hey, now there's an idea!
Okay, picture this. You're driving down a Texas highway and reading automobile bumpers.
"SAVE THE GOP, VOTE DEMOCRAT"
"REPUBLICANS FOR HILLARY"
"DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR CRUZ"
"VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE... OR DON'T VOTE"
Does that help? If it doesn't, you could follow your own posted link and reread the data that states "three out of five Texans who support Trump want secession if Hillary becomes president"... operative words there being "who support Trump." You can't miss it there as long as you read the big bold headline at the very top of the page... pretend like it's a bumper sticker if that helps. In case that doesn't help, you can actually read the article at your posted link in its entirety, and pay close attention to the words/data stating: "According to the polling results from PPP, only one out of four Texans support seceding from America generally. But when faced with the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton, a majority of Trump supporters said they'd rather leave"... operative words being "Trump supporters."
I am also constrained to point out that Texas hasn't faced such a huge catastrophe as a Hillary Presidency in the past..
"YOU DON'T KNOW TEXAS"
Fits on a bumper sticker! LOL
Reminder: That dumbass who Trump said knowingly lied us into war in Iraq and cost us trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars was the 46th Governor of Texas.
In a manner of speaking. You just re-affirmed what I know to be true..
Come January, we'll be swearing in President Trump.. :D
Let me FIFY: Come January, we'll be swearing. :D
Operative words being "Trump supporters." LOL
Not saying you are one, but you should know that a person who assumes all proponents of secession are Trump supporters would be a risky proposition in Texas, something that might cause someone with little sense to meet an early demise, if you know what I mean. Texas is not one of those states that, shall we say, suffers fools gladly, and so many of the happy people that venture into Texas aren't actually aware that they're senseless.
"IGNORANCE IS BLISS... ANYWHERE BUT TEXAS"
Cole: I'm ready to tell you my secret now.
Malcolm: Okay.
Cole: I see dead people.
Malcolm: In your dreams? [Cole shakes his head no] While you're awake? [Cole nods] Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?
Cole: Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.
Malcolm: How often do you see them?
Cole: All the time.
THE SIXTH SENSE
Of course it doesn't... because you have this ever present tendency toward misinterpretation of data and an amusing yet endearing penchant for false equivalency. You are comparing apples and oranges.
That's your claim..
But you have nothing to back it up with, so.....
:D
Michale
Reminder: That dumbass who Trump said knowingly lied us into war in Iraq and cost us trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars was the 46th Governor of Texas.
Yep... More name-calling..
A wise man once said "name-calling is an ad-hominem argument, and not to be considered seriously. "
I'm just sayin'.. :D
Michale
Kick,
Ergo, I cannot consider your argument to be a serious argument...
Sorry, Charlie... :D
Michale
"Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
-Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK
:D
Michale
That's your claim..
But you have nothing to back it up with, so.....
Oh, sure, as long as your definition of "nothing" is this website and your multitude of posts to which you generally sign your name... :D ... That "nothing"? Also too, if you had actually read the article at the link before you posted it, you might not have mistaken a "minority" of "3 out of 5 Texans who support Trump" for a majority "3 out of 5 Texans," like you did, which basically is like comparing apples to oranges, statistically speaking, of course. Either one can assume you read the article at the link you provided, or one must conclude you simply misinterpreted the data. The additional data stating only 25% of Texans generally support secession was also a dead giveaway too (assuming one had read versus simply misinterpreting that nugget).
A wise man once said "name-calling is an ad-hominem argument, and not to be considered seriously. "
Oh, really? Good thing I am not running for President of the United States... what with all my name calling! I mean, really, who in their "right" mind would consider seriously a candidate like that? See map above, a very nice map!
Besides, are you sure this "wise man" isn't just actually a "wise guy"? A truly wise man is aware that not ALL name calling is "ad hominem argument." I mean, I happen to agree with Trump on this debate point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10z4f61zHDw
And while I concede that Trump did not actually use the actual word "dumbass" to describe Bush 43 a/k/a the 46th Governor of Texas, Trump did say it was a "big fat mistake" when debating this point and also argued "you call it whatever you want." So I certainly agree with Trump's basic premise there and additionally agree that lying us into war in Iraq and costing us trillions of dollars is good solid evidence of "dumbassery." Oh, sure, one might be on firmer ground if they cried "post hoc ergo propter hoc," but just like "argumentum ad hominem," that wouldn't exactly actually apply to that statement I made about Bush the "dumbass" either.
A wise man once said that a wise guy shouldn't confuse "insult" with "ad hominem argument," especially and particularly when that insult is backed up by the wise guy's presidential candidate's own reasoning and substantive debate criticism (what little there actually is of it, I concede) contained within said candidate's condescension, name calling, and actual argumentum ad hominem. LOL
Cole: They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.
- THE SIXTH SENSE
Besides, are you sure this "wise man" isn't just actually a "wise guy"? A truly wise man is aware that not ALL name calling is "ad hominem argument." I mean, I happen to agree with Trump on this debate point.
You'll have to take it up with our own NYPoet22, as he was the one who said that..
Michale
And while I concede that Trump did not actually use the actual word "dumbass" to describe Bush 43 a/k/a the 46th Governor of Texas,
Of course he didn't... Because, when it comes to Trump, ya'all constantly lie about what Trump says...
Michale
Besides, are you sure this "wise man" isn't just actually a "wise guy"? A truly wise man is aware that not ALL name calling is "ad hominem argument."
if the name-calling is used in any way to support or detract from the credibility of someone's point of view, then it's ad-hominem. i'm the wise-guy. that's ad hominem too, by the way.
i'm yer huckleberry.
~doc holiday (val kilmer), tombstone
"Billy. I love you. I just fell in love with you."
-Eddie Murphy, BEVERLY HILLS COP
:D heh
Michale
if the name-calling is used in any way to support or detract from the credibility of someone's point of view, then it's ad-hominem. i'm the wise-guy. that's ad hominem too, by the way.
Okay, first off, nypoet22 has just supplied ample proof of wisdom with the usage of a quote from what I consider one of my favorite movies, Tombstone, but as for the issue of "argumentum ad hominem," it's not uncommon for people (especially on blogs) to label an argument as an ad hominem attack in order to entirely dismiss and avoid addressing their opponent's argument.
An "argumentum ad hominem" is a logical fallacy that occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. "Name calling," "insult," and/or "criticism" are not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument.
Michale made the statement:
I am also constrained to point out that Texas hasn't faced such a huge catastrophe as a Hillary Presidency in the past..
My statement in response was:
"YOU DON'T KNOW TEXAS"
Fits on a bumper sticker! LOL
Reminder: That dumbass who Trump said knowingly lied us into war in Iraq and cost us trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars was the 46th Governor of Texas.
Now, If one wanted to argue that my response of "YOU DON'T KNOW TEXAS" was an ad hominem attack, they'd be on much firmer ground, since this was actually directed at my opponent; although, in defense of that argument, Michale's posting about Texas was the actual subject of our argument, and Michale and I both had given ample proof through our debate that he was misinterpreting data about Texas because he was assuming that "3 out of 5 Trump supporters" was actually "3 out of 5 Texans" generally (apples and oranges, statistically speaking).
I wasn't having a debate with George W. Bush and decided to call George a "dumbass" in order to undercut my debate with George. I was having a debate with Michale about Texas and called the 46th Governor of Texas a "dumbass." While it is "criticism" and "name calling" about a person related to the topic we were discussing, it doesn't meet the definition of argumentum ad hominem.
Rather than addressing my argument related to Texas and its 46th governor, Michale quoted nypoet22 and dismissed the merits of my argument as an ad hominem attack. It is classic yet transparent to use ridicule, conjecture, and accusation, say anything in an attempt to try to prove yourself valid while discrediting others by saying absolutely nothing, shouting things like "you have no argument, that is just ad hominem," which is ironically, exactly what he himself is doing. The classic con. Calling this tactic a "con" is not an ad hominem attack, it's simply criticism regarding the subject I'm discussing.
Of course he didn't... Because, when it comes to Trump, ya'all constantly lie about what Trump says...
Now here is a true ad hominem attack against your opponent. Michale accuses me of "constantly" lying about what Trump says, although I have only quoted Trump and used his debate answer to explain my reasoning for the usage of the word "dumbass" to describe the 46th Governor of Texas in response to a debate about Texas and Texans and additionally provided a link where one can witness Trump using the words I quoted. That's the truth.
Not content to attack just a singular opponent's argument, Michale's ad hominem attacks generally extend to everyone by using a broad brush to dismiss everyone's arguments through the use of the term "ya'all," which is incorrect usage, as "you all" undoubtedly already know... the term is "y'all."
Having said all that, I stipulate that I have and will continue to use "name calling" and "criticism" of Donald Trump. One of my favorites is "Poor Donald" because it reminds me of the Texas Governor who inspired it; kudos to its author. I'm also fond of using some of the names I came up with like "Benedict Donald" and "Clownfish Von Trump." Kudos to Michale as the inspiration for that one since we had been discussing nicknames for Trump (which by the way was the actual subject matter) and playing with his little fish, and so the name "Clownfish Von Trump" just naturally popped in my head.
Now, I could sit here all afternoon and write a hundred paragraphs about debate tactics, rhetoric, name calling, criticism, etc., but I'm busy hosting a pool party and making margaritas and Tex-Mex. Cheers, y'all.
Kick,
Now here is a true ad hominem attack against your opponent. Michale accuses me of "constantly" lying about what Trump says,
Actually, it was a general "ya'all" accusation..
You really need to keep up.. :D
Having said all that, I stipulate that I have and will continue to use "name calling" and "criticism" of Donald Trump.
Of course you will.. That is why your arguments are not serious and generally useless.. :D
Michale
Having said all that, I stipulate that I have and will continue to use "name calling" and "criticism" of Donald Trump.
Because ALL you have is immature name-calling and childish personal insults..
No facts or substance to be found..
It's a shame that THIS is what passes for "serious" around here..
Michale
Not content to attack just a singular opponent's argument, Michale's ad hominem attacks generally extend to everyone by using a broad brush to dismiss everyone's arguments through the use of the term "ya'all," which is incorrect usage, as "you all" undoubtedly already know... the term is "y'all."
Grammar lame..
Color me shocked.. :D
Michale
Now, I could sit here all afternoon and write a hundred paragraphs about debate tactics, rhetoric, name calling, criticism, etc., but I'm busy hosting a pool party and making margaritas and Tex-Mex. Cheers, y'all.
Can't be much of a party if yer here reading my comments and responding.. :D
Michale
So... A crappy party... :D
Michale
"Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
-Ensign Hikaru Sulu, STAR TREK
:D
If yer not gonna run the race.... better you just stay in bed... :D
Michale