The Adelsons contributed $500,000 to a PAC that is supporting Doug Herndon for the Nevada Supreme Court. That PAC is also running advertising supporting Judge Michael Villani, Carly Kierny, Jacob Reynolds, and Bita Yeager in their races. [TNI]
Chalk up another anti-SLAPP win for Marc Randazza–this time against the Sahara on behalf of blogger VitalVegas. [News3LV]
Unlicensed employees could cost marijuana company its license. [RJ]
Governor Sisolak did not announce any directives, but did warn Nevadans to remain vigilant against COVID-19.
Steve Yeager is not just another Democratic Assembly member. He's chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and may be Jason Frierson's successor as Speaker. Adelson may find a relationship with Yeager helpful.
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2020 5:13 pm
And I am supporting Susan Bush, who is not taking contributions. With your judicial candidates, you get what you pay for.
Susan Bush is not taking contributions because no one is giving her contributions. Saying she is not accepting donations because of the pandemic is not a clever tactic, it's misleading, disingenuous and insulting to every serious candidate for judicial office. If she's so great, how come she hasn't gotten endorsed by any serious labor, law enforcement, veteran, first responder, or political groups either? Her opponent has more than 60 — and they're free.
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2020 8:29 pm
Kudos to Mr. Randazza on the anti-SLAPP motion. That being said, the Sahara hires a lawyer for a consulting group out of California to litigate its (crap) case in Nevada? C'mon Sahara – I know you were just trying to harass Vital Vegas but you should know better.
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2020 9:38 pm
My rant concerns these clowns known as "undecided voters", who the networks assemble into groups, so they can be interviewed both before, and after the debate, to determine if they have now made up their mind.
The media and the candidates treat these undecided voters as rock stars, as the perception is they will decide the election(which, obviously, there is some truth to if they truly fit in the category of undecided voters who have no pre-inclinations toward a candidate).
So, they are sucked up to, and treated with such admiration and deference–e.g. they are so broad-minded, and are waiting for more information to absorb and analyze before they reach their highly informed, highly principled, objective decision untainted by politics or personal preferences and prejudice, and blah, blah ,blah.(All of which means all of us who have long since decided on a candidate are blithering, but also highly prejudiced, morons.
But this is all malarkey. How could these voters actually be waiting for more information? They can simply google each candidate's positon on a given issue and be bombarded with 32 detailed websites, including hundreds of pages of prepared boredom and discussion.
Long story short, these are not highly principled people who simply want to be fair and analytic and obtain more info.They are either unconcerned and non-engaged with the process and what is happening in the world beyond their narrow, insulated life, or, far more often, they have decided and are just bullshitting.
Why? To get on television, to get attention, to get their 15 minutes.
If I haven't convinced you, then try this test. The next time they interview some of these undecided clowns before the next debate ask yourself, based on what they say, who you think each one of them will ultimately support.
Then , after the debate, a few of them will claim they have made their decision based on the debate. And when they say Trump or Biden, look at what you wrote next to that voter's name before the debate occurred.
You are likely to score 100%. What you predicted before the debate, as to who they will ultimately choose, is who they invariably choose.
Which will mean one of two things. One thing it could mean is that you are incredibly perceptive at predicting events and almost invariably being correct in your forecasts. And that means you should quit the practice of Law, move to Wall Street and make a gazillion dollars per year.
Or the other possibility is that these undecided voters are lying varmints.
You decide whether you are really that ingenious, or whether these voters are playing the media so they can get on the tube.
BTW, what would it actually say about someone's intellect if, after living through these highly tumultuous, highly polarized times which are profoundly affecting all of us, if they cannot decide who to vote for and are instead relying on one of these absurd, farcical so-called debates before deciding who should be the leader of the Free World?
2:38. I agree that many of them are bullshitting about being undecided, so they can get attention and appear on TV..
But some truly are undecided. But as to these people, I agree with your point that it is perplexing that they claim to need more info. before they make up their mind, and even more perplexing that they rely on the debate in order to decide.
The debates usually don't change many voter's minds, but just tend to reaffirm and cement a person's choice. And that explains why FOX news polls show that Trump easily won the first debate while CNN, and other outlets, show Biden easily winning.
That all said, sometimes there is a transformative moment at a debate, where someone does show a hint of their true colors, or says something so outrageous and mind-numbing, that it does seem to move the needle quite a bit, at least for the day or two after such debate.
Funny stuff.
The interesting part is I've shown this to someone in our office who is GOP leaning and one who is DNC leaning and each said the other side's candidate was the one who did not go to medical school.
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2020 9:57 pm
2:44–such as Mike Dukakis(1988 Election), when asked if he would change his anti-capitol punishment stance if his wife was raped and murdered, gave a monotone, rambling, sterile, boring answer centering on supposed studies to the effect that capitol punishment serves as no real deterrent, etc.
Even voters who agreed with his position were quite put off by his cold-fish,technocrat type approach to a question(albeit a somewhat unfair and inflammatory question)that most people expect to be answered with some initial degree of emotion, indignation and anger based on the question's premise that their souse has ben brutally murdered.
There was a definite swing in the polls after that.
Going back even further–way back to 1976, President Ford declared there never has been, and there never will be, any Soviet domination of Eastern Europe under a Ford administration. Jimmy Carter dryly responded that Eastern Europeans living under the boot of Soviet aggression will be surprised and pleased to learn from President Ford how free and well-treated they have been all along.
This debate could have an impact as it is specifically designed to hurt trump. Kristen Welker is a known partisan and clearly will press Trump and give softballs to Biden. Furthermore, she actually had a hot mike moment back in 2016 or 15 where she was heard giving questions to a Hillary staffer before going on air. So I would not doubt if she gave the Biden team the questions ahead of time.
Furthermore, just look at the topics for the debate. Clearly designed to favor Biden. Economy suspiciously absent. Gun control is also absent, which is not surprising given the gun control proposals on Biden's website are so far to the left he would certainly take a hit in the rust belt if pressed on the matter.
Also, the muting microphones thing is clearly a ploy to prevent any mention of the current scandal involving both Joe and Hunter Biden that the media/big tech is working so hard to supress.
3:13 nails it. 3:22 misses the point: Trump has outsmarted his enemies time and again, but the sheeple still repeat the establishment talking points. Trump is a genius, and he is fighting for the USA. The cowardly Democrats are so terrified, they are rigging polls, rigging elections in key states, and rigging (again) the debates.
I don't refer to Trump as a Republican. He is a revolutionary.
1. The only one Trump has outsmarted is you, 3:48;
2. Describing Trump as "a genius" is only appropriate if done sarcastically;
3. Claiming Trump is "fighting for the USA" means that you don't understand who Trump is fighting against; and
4. Claiming the polls, elections in key states, and debates are "rigged" just means that you are having a hard time coming to grips with reality — The emperor has no clothes and the emperor is about to be asked to leave.
First of all, do you remember 2016? What the polls showed? Mainstream media claiming Trump's chances of winning were approaching 0?
Second of all, which is it? Because I feel like the media spends 50% of the time creating a "Trump is a dangerous idiot" narrative, and the other half of the time on the "Trump is an evil genius" narrative.
Mainstream media is liberal fanfiction. Glad you enjoy it though!
4:32, your point #3 intrigues me. I love Trump for cutting taxes; cutting regulations; pulling out of the suicidal Paris Climate Accord; advocating for clean, beautiful fossil fuels; boosting our economy; relentlessly seeking peace deals across the globe; relentlessly seeking trade deals across the globe; prison reform; police reform; unprecedented outreach to LGBQT and Black voters; appointing judges to the federal bench who nominally believe the judicial branch and legislative branch are SEPARATE AND APART; and so on.
What policies (not his hair, his style, his inner most thoughts, his braggadocio) do you dislike?
The man advocated for testing as to whether the injection of bleach into the human body could be an effective means to kill COVID-19. This, by definition, makes him a dangerous idiot. Attempting to paint him as anything but a buffoon is nothing more than an attempt to change the narrative.
4:55 did you not watch that entire press conference in context? JK, I know you did not. Trump was clearly asking a sarcastic question to reporters. The Trump derangement syndrome is real.
Too funny. He wasn't asking questions to reporters (that's not how press conferences work). He asked the White House coronavirus task force to investigate whether disinfectant could be injected as a treatment for coronavirus victims. Dr. Birx sat there is complete disbelief. (She was probably wondering, like the rest of us, "How did this idiot become President.) I don't know what's worse: That Trump thought he could explain away his moronic question by claiming it was sarcasm or that you believe him . . . .
I watched the press conference live and in recordings from C-Span. He turned to Dr. Birx and said "You said you're gonna look into that, right?" She looked distinctly uncomfortable as she watched the dumbassery on full display and from a front row seat.
Not a single ounce of sarcasm. Not directed to reporters.
Careful now. Don't confront a Trump supporter with facts!! They still dispute that Trump admitted to sexually assaulting women when he told Billy Bush: "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
As far as Trump colluding with Russia, I'll accept the findings of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report that concluded that: (1) the Russian government disrupted an American election to help Trump become president; (2) Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated; (3) and some of Trump's advisers were eager for help from an American adversary.
Me too! They concluded there was no collusion and Hillary Clinton paid a British spy to pay a Russian spy for a fake dossier that became the basis of the both wiretapping the Trump campaign, and instigating a coup attempt after he was lawfully elected.
As a proud American I support MY president against the libtards who cower in fear over the prospect of four more years with The Donald. Sure, he may grab a few crotches every now and then…and he may have gone a little soft on Russia when they put out a few contracts on our fighting men and women…and he may fight with his own medical experts over common sense measures like wearing a mask and not having confirmation parties where everyone is hugging and not wearing a mask… and he may outright lie about proven scientific facts like the effects of human activity on climate…and he may alienate half the population of America by equivocating when asked to denounce white supremacists…and we may have the highest unemployment rate ever…and we may have alienated our allies making the world less safe…and he may just spread misinformation like democrats are baby killing pedophiles…and he may have sought to break down trust in American institutions like the government and the press…and at least six members of his administration and campaign committee may have been indicted for various crimes…and he may have broken from decades of tradition by not releasing his tax returns…and he may have pressured his attorney general to drop charges against his national security advisor who twice pled guilty to lying to the FBI…and he may have commuted the sentence of Roger Stone for no good reason…and he may have received back channel payments from foreign governments…and he may have $800m in debt coming due during his next term to unknown entities…and he may have been ordered to pay $2 million for illegally using his charity to benefit himself…and he may have been impeached…and he may have lied about even things as mundane as the size of his inauguration crowd…and he may have made fun of a disabled reporter…and he attacked a war hero like John McCain as a loser…and he may have called veterans who died in world war II suckers and losers…and he may have appointed an antiabortion advocate to oversee family planning funding for low-income communities…and he may have told Bob Woodward that COVID was very serious but told everyone else that it was overhyped and would just disappear by May…and he may have separated kids from parents and deported the parents and now we can't find the parents…and he may have tear gassed protesters and tried to use a heat ray on them so he could stand in front of a church while holding up a bible…but really what else has done that's bad, and That is why I am a proud Trump supporter!
4:36, the 2016 polls didn't show a 0% chance of a trump win. Nate Silver had it at a 66/34 matchup leading into election night based on the polls. Some people ignored the large number of undecided voters and projected a Hillary win in the range of 95% to 98%, but those who understand statistics knew that there was a huge amount of variance because there were a ton of undecided voters. Like way more undecided voters compared to most elections in recent history. Some outlets ignored that but people who knew and understood polling and stats (people like Silver) understood that there was something to the new trend and realized there was a huge amount of variability to the 2016 election. Sure, the polls leaned Hillary, but there was such a huge middle/undecided vote that you couldn't (or shouldn't) say what was gonna happen. So yeah, a lot of the media outlets misinterpreted the polling numbers, but the polls definitely didn't say there was zero chance of Trump winning.
Like always, you just need to find the smartest people on a subject and listen to them. And according to the people who know this kind of thing, the polls don't show the same large amount of undecideds this time around, and I, for one, really hope they're right.
-A Nevada GOP lawyer who sees his party losing its mind.
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2020 10:19 pm
2:57, and a couple others come to mind.
The Town Hall debate focusing on the economy. Candidates were asked questions about how bad economies, past and present, personally affected the candidates.
Bill Clinton, who grew up poor and thus had some ammunition he could use for such an answer, did okay. But Bush 41,who was wealthy and raised with wealth, seemed disinterested during the entire debate, and even checked his watch a couple times, really struggled to provide any sensible, cogent answer. He simply failed to connect with struggling Americans.
And let's not forget that classic Vice Presidential debate–"You Sir, are no Jack Kennedy."
Interesting that Adelson (BIG GOP supporter) is supporting Kierny against Scotti when Scotti was chairman of the Clark County Republican Party. https://www.reviewjournal.com/uncategorized/scotti-elected-clark-county-gop-chairman/
Gives me another reason to vote for Scotti, on top of the fact that he has been and will continue to be an excellent judge.
Are you his lawyer?
I am a lifelong Republican but there is ZERO chance I will vote Scotti as I have unfortunately been in front of him a number of times.
10:40 here. I'm not his lawyer, but I have appeared before him, and that is why I will vote for him.
Addendum from 10:40: I'm also not a Republican and Scotti may very well be the only Republican who gets my vote.
Another sign the GOP is dead in Nevada.
Also supporting Bita Yeager whose husband Steve Yeager is a Democrat Assemblyman.
Steve Yeager is not just another Democratic Assembly member. He's chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and may be Jason Frierson's successor as Speaker. Adelson may find a relationship with Yeager helpful.
And I am supporting Susan Bush, who is not taking contributions. With your judicial candidates, you get what you pay for.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Susan Bush is not taking contributions because no one is giving her contributions. Saying she is not accepting donations because of the pandemic is not a clever tactic, it's misleading, disingenuous and insulting to every serious candidate for judicial office. If she's so great, how come she hasn't gotten endorsed by any serious labor, law enforcement, veteran, first responder, or political groups either? Her opponent has more than 60 — and they're free.
Kudos to Mr. Randazza on the anti-SLAPP motion. That being said, the Sahara hires a lawyer for a consulting group out of California to litigate its (crap) case in Nevada? C'mon Sahara – I know you were just trying to harass Vital Vegas but you should know better.
My rant concerns these clowns known as "undecided voters", who the networks assemble into groups, so they can be interviewed both before, and after the debate, to determine if they have now made up their mind.
The media and the candidates treat these undecided voters as rock stars, as the perception is they will decide the election(which, obviously, there is some truth to if they truly fit in the category of undecided voters who have no pre-inclinations toward a candidate).
So, they are sucked up to, and treated with such admiration and deference–e.g. they are so broad-minded, and are waiting for more information to absorb and analyze before they reach their highly informed, highly principled, objective decision untainted by politics or personal preferences and prejudice, and blah, blah ,blah.(All of which means all of us who have long since decided on a candidate are blithering, but also highly prejudiced, morons.
But this is all malarkey. How could these voters actually be waiting for more information? They can simply google each candidate's positon on a given issue and be bombarded with 32 detailed websites, including hundreds of pages of prepared boredom and discussion.
Long story short, these are not highly principled people who simply want to be fair and analytic and obtain more info.They are either unconcerned and non-engaged with the process and what is happening in the world beyond their narrow, insulated life, or, far more often, they have decided and are just bullshitting.
Why? To get on television, to get attention, to get their 15 minutes.
If I haven't convinced you, then try this test. The next time they interview some of these undecided clowns before the next debate ask yourself, based on what they say, who you think each one of them will ultimately support.
Then , after the debate, a few of them will claim they have made their decision based on the debate. And when they say Trump or Biden, look at what you wrote next to that voter's name before the debate occurred.
You are likely to score 100%. What you predicted before the debate, as to who they will ultimately choose, is who they invariably choose.
Which will mean one of two things. One thing it could mean is that you are incredibly perceptive at predicting events and almost invariably being correct in your forecasts. And that means you should quit the practice of Law, move to Wall Street and make a gazillion dollars per year.
Or the other possibility is that these undecided voters are lying varmints.
You decide whether you are really that ingenious, or whether these voters are playing the media so they can get on the tube.
BTW, what would it actually say about someone's intellect if, after living through these highly tumultuous, highly polarized times which are profoundly affecting all of us, if they cannot decide who to vote for and are instead relying on one of these absurd, farcical so-called debates before deciding who should be the leader of the Free World?
2:38. I agree that many of them are bullshitting about being undecided, so they can get attention and appear on TV..
But some truly are undecided. But as to these people, I agree with your point that it is perplexing that they claim to need more info. before they make up their mind, and even more perplexing that they rely on the debate in order to decide.
The debates usually don't change many voter's minds, but just tend to reaffirm and cement a person's choice. And that explains why FOX news polls show that Trump easily won the first debate while CNN, and other outlets, show Biden easily winning.
That all said, sometimes there is a transformative moment at a debate, where someone does show a hint of their true colors, or says something so outrageous and mind-numbing, that it does seem to move the needle quite a bit, at least for the day or two after such debate.
If you haven't seen the Youtube video from CollegeHumor on "What undecided voters look like to everyone else" take a gander….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjbDSOmeiM
Funny stuff.
The interesting part is I've shown this to someone in our office who is GOP leaning and one who is DNC leaning and each said the other side's candidate was the one who did not go to medical school.
2:44–such as Mike Dukakis(1988 Election), when asked if he would change his anti-capitol punishment stance if his wife was raped and murdered, gave a monotone, rambling, sterile, boring answer centering on supposed studies to the effect that capitol punishment serves as no real deterrent, etc.
Even voters who agreed with his position were quite put off by his cold-fish,technocrat type approach to a question(albeit a somewhat unfair and inflammatory question)that most people expect to be answered with some initial degree of emotion, indignation and anger based on the question's premise that their souse has ben brutally murdered.
There was a definite swing in the polls after that.
Going back even further–way back to 1976, President Ford declared there never has been, and there never will be, any Soviet domination of Eastern Europe under a Ford administration. Jimmy Carter dryly responded that Eastern Europeans living under the boot of Soviet aggression will be surprised and pleased to learn from President Ford how free and well-treated they have been all along.
This debate could have an impact as it is specifically designed to hurt trump. Kristen Welker is a known partisan and clearly will press Trump and give softballs to Biden. Furthermore, she actually had a hot mike moment back in 2016 or 15 where she was heard giving questions to a Hillary staffer before going on air. So I would not doubt if she gave the Biden team the questions ahead of time.
Furthermore, just look at the topics for the debate. Clearly designed to favor Biden. Economy suspiciously absent. Gun control is also absent, which is not surprising given the gun control proposals on Biden's website are so far to the left he would certainly take a hit in the rust belt if pressed on the matter.
Also, the muting microphones thing is clearly a ploy to prevent any mention of the current scandal involving both Joe and Hunter Biden that the media/big tech is working so hard to supress.
But a stable genius has nothing to fear from these trivial excuses for poor performance.
3:13 nails it. 3:22 misses the point: Trump has outsmarted his enemies time and again, but the sheeple still repeat the establishment talking points. Trump is a genius, and he is fighting for the USA. The cowardly Democrats are so terrified, they are rigging polls, rigging elections in key states, and rigging (again) the debates.
I don't refer to Trump as a Republican. He is a revolutionary.
I almost crapped myself laughing at that one!
1. The only one Trump has outsmarted is you, 3:48;
2. Describing Trump as "a genius" is only appropriate if done sarcastically;
3. Claiming Trump is "fighting for the USA" means that you don't understand who Trump is fighting against; and
4. Claiming the polls, elections in key states, and debates are "rigged" just means that you are having a hard time coming to grips with reality — The emperor has no clothes and the emperor is about to be asked to leave.
4:32 what monumental ignorance.
First of all, do you remember 2016? What the polls showed? Mainstream media claiming Trump's chances of winning were approaching 0?
Second of all, which is it? Because I feel like the media spends 50% of the time creating a "Trump is a dangerous idiot" narrative, and the other half of the time on the "Trump is an evil genius" narrative.
Mainstream media is liberal fanfiction. Glad you enjoy it though!
4:32, your point #3 intrigues me. I love Trump for cutting taxes; cutting regulations; pulling out of the suicidal Paris Climate Accord; advocating for clean, beautiful fossil fuels; boosting our economy; relentlessly seeking peace deals across the globe; relentlessly seeking trade deals across the globe; prison reform; police reform; unprecedented outreach to LGBQT and Black voters; appointing judges to the federal bench who nominally believe the judicial branch and legislative branch are SEPARATE AND APART; and so on.
What policies (not his hair, his style, his inner most thoughts, his braggadocio) do you dislike?
The man advocated for testing as to whether the injection of bleach into the human body could be an effective means to kill COVID-19. This, by definition, makes him a dangerous idiot. Attempting to paint him as anything but a buffoon is nothing more than an attempt to change the narrative.
4:55 did you not watch that entire press conference in context? JK, I know you did not. Trump was clearly asking a sarcastic question to reporters. The Trump derangement syndrome is real.
Ha ha ha, I bet 4:55 thinks Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. When's Mueller going to wrap up his coup, er, I mean "investigation."
Too funny. He wasn't asking questions to reporters (that's not how press conferences work). He asked the White House coronavirus task force to investigate whether disinfectant could be injected as a treatment for coronavirus victims. Dr. Birx sat there is complete disbelief. (She was probably wondering, like the rest of us, "How did this idiot become President.) I don't know what's worse: That Trump thought he could explain away his moronic question by claiming it was sarcasm or that you believe him . . . .
I watched the press conference live and in recordings from C-Span. He turned to Dr. Birx and said "You said you're gonna look into that, right?" She looked distinctly uncomfortable as she watched the dumbassery on full display and from a front row seat.
Not a single ounce of sarcasm. Not directed to reporters.
Careful now. Don't confront a Trump supporter with facts!! They still dispute that Trump admitted to sexually assaulting women when he told Billy Bush: "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
As far as Trump colluding with Russia, I'll accept the findings of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report that concluded that: (1) the Russian government disrupted an American election to help Trump become president; (2) Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated; (3) and some of Trump's advisers were eager for help from an American adversary.
Me too! They concluded there was no collusion and Hillary Clinton paid a British spy to pay a Russian spy for a fake dossier that became the basis of the both wiretapping the Trump campaign, and instigating a coup attempt after he was lawfully elected.
It feels good to agree on something.
As a proud American I support MY president against the libtards who cower in fear over the prospect of four more years with The Donald. Sure, he may grab a few crotches every now and then…and he may have gone a little soft on Russia when they put out a few contracts on our fighting men and women…and he may fight with his own medical experts over common sense measures like wearing a mask and not having confirmation parties where everyone is hugging and not wearing a mask… and he may outright lie about proven scientific facts like the effects of human activity on climate…and he may alienate half the population of America by equivocating when asked to denounce white supremacists…and we may have the highest unemployment rate ever…and we may have alienated our allies making the world less safe…and he may just spread misinformation like democrats are baby killing pedophiles…and he may have sought to break down trust in American institutions like the government and the press…and at least six members of his administration and campaign committee may have been indicted for various crimes…and he may have broken from decades of tradition by not releasing his tax returns…and he may have pressured his attorney general to drop charges against his national security advisor who twice pled guilty to lying to the FBI…and he may have commuted the sentence of Roger Stone for no good reason…and he may have received back channel payments from foreign governments…and he may have $800m in debt coming due during his next term to unknown entities…and he may have been ordered to pay $2 million for illegally using his charity to benefit himself…and he may have been impeached…and he may have lied about even things as mundane as the size of his inauguration crowd…and he may have made fun of a disabled reporter…and he attacked a war hero like John McCain as a loser…and he may have called veterans who died in world war II suckers and losers…and he may have appointed an antiabortion advocate to oversee family planning funding for low-income communities…and he may have told Bob Woodward that COVID was very serious but told everyone else that it was overhyped and would just disappear by May…and he may have separated kids from parents and deported the parents and now we can't find the parents…and he may have tear gassed protesters and tried to use a heat ray on them so he could stand in front of a church while holding up a bible…but really what else has done that's bad, and That is why I am a proud Trump supporter!
4:36, the 2016 polls didn't show a 0% chance of a trump win. Nate Silver had it at a 66/34 matchup leading into election night based on the polls. Some people ignored the large number of undecided voters and projected a Hillary win in the range of 95% to 98%, but those who understand statistics knew that there was a huge amount of variance because there were a ton of undecided voters. Like way more undecided voters compared to most elections in recent history. Some outlets ignored that but people who knew and understood polling and stats (people like Silver) understood that there was something to the new trend and realized there was a huge amount of variability to the 2016 election. Sure, the polls leaned Hillary, but there was such a huge middle/undecided vote that you couldn't (or shouldn't) say what was gonna happen. So yeah, a lot of the media outlets misinterpreted the polling numbers, but the polls definitely didn't say there was zero chance of Trump winning.
Like always, you just need to find the smartest people on a subject and listen to them. And according to the people who know this kind of thing, the polls don't show the same large amount of undecideds this time around, and I, for one, really hope they're right.
-A Nevada GOP lawyer who sees his party losing its mind.
2:57, and a couple others come to mind.
The Town Hall debate focusing on the economy. Candidates were asked questions about how bad economies, past and present, personally affected the candidates.
Bill Clinton, who grew up poor and thus had some ammunition he could use for such an answer, did okay. But Bush 41,who was wealthy and raised with wealth, seemed disinterested during the entire debate, and even checked his watch a couple times, really struggled to provide any sensible, cogent answer. He simply failed to connect with struggling Americans.
And let's not forget that classic Vice Presidential debate–"You Sir, are no Jack Kennedy."
"Who am I and why am I here?"