Our election polls are getting close, with the momentum behind Donald Trump. At this point, it’s unlikely that a “November surprise” would be absorbed quickly enough to make a difference. When the polls were not this close, Trump claimed that his victory would be due to the “Brexit effect,” referring to the vote in Britain to “exit” from the European Union. Most people, around the world, expected the referendum to go down to defeat, just as Scotland’s referendum to leave the United Kingdom had lost.

The prevailing rational has been that British voters were embarrassed to say they supported “Brexit,” since it was not considered “civilized” to be in favor of leaving Europe. But is that rational correct? Maybe, maybe not.

The truth is the Brexit polls weren’t awful for Remain in the European Union movement. In fact, The Economist’s tracker concluded that Remain and Leave the EU were tied. Other aggregations showed larger leads for Remain but clustered around a one- or two-point Remain win. . .

What happened in England was instead a failure of prognostication. Betting markets showed Remain as a heavy favorite. Most columnists thought Leave would lose. Even analysts looked at the data and came up with rationales as to why Remain would emerge victorious.

The problem, in retrospect, was that the socioeconomic class to which columnists, analysts, and speculators in political markets belonged had a heavy pro-Remain tilt to it. This infiltrated their analysis, as the supposedly objective measurements that they chose turned out to be massive exercises in confirmation bias.

In other words, it’s not true that the UK polls were wrong. It was just the “talking heads” whose heads were up their. . .er, um, did not see the light of day. That’s because “common sense” was that Britain would cause too much chaos by reversing a half-century of improved involvement with their neighbors. And that “common sense” was among the pundit class.

It was not the polls that were wrong. It was the poll readers.

THE final update of our poll tracker is similar to the first. As the public head off to vote, opinion is split evenly and a tenth still say they have not decided. While Wales wavers, most other components of our tracker have stayed persistently stubborn in their relative positions. For all the campaigning neither the Remain nor the Leave camps have convinced voters of their cause. A high overall turnout will likely benefit Remain, as young people and richer old folk are keener on the union, but a big turnout is far from guaranteed.

The polls showed a tie. The Brexit vote really shows that “Remain” supporters were overconfident, and just stayed home.

The Scottish turnout was particularly disappointing. Three in five Scots backed Remain and they were expected to have the highest figure after “referendum fever” saw 85 per cent of Scots vote in the 2014 independence vote.

But in the end they had a lower turnout than every region except Northern Ireland.

Not to mention “those dang kids.”

Before the referendum, Remain campaigners feared that lazy youngsters would cost Britain its future in the EU, leaving others to vote for Brexit on their behalf.

Now that Britain has voted to leave the EU, with a national turnout of 72.2 per cent, this fear seems to be realised. Those areas with the highest share of older voters also enjoyed the highest turnout, helping to shift the referendum.

Then, there was the undecided vote. As you can see from this chart, polls showed the public sentiment tied, 44% for, 44% against, 9% “don’t know,” and presumably, 3% who don’t know that they don’t know. Thus, the issue was really decided by the “undecideds.”

uk-ref

However, the real difference was in the betting markets. According to John Stossel, Fox News contributor, founded a website to report on movement of the betting markets, ElectionBettingOdds.com. He feels that they are a better forecaster of events, because perople have “put their money where their mouth is.”

Why trust these odds?
Studies find that political prediction (betting) markets tend to be better at predicting elections than polls. Some reasons:
– Bettors take into account important factors besides polls.
– Unlike pundits, bettors put their money where their mouths are.
– People involved in the event might trade before news breaks publicly
– The “wisdom of crowds.”

Again, maybe, maybe not. Here’s where the real disparity occurred between forecasts and the final vote.

. . . one group of people have been steadfastly consistent over the outcome of the EU referendum: the bookies. . . over the last week, they have shortened their odds dramatically, going from 4-6 (implying a 60 per cent chance of winning), to as much 2/9 with an 82 per cent chance of victory – while in the past 10 days the polls have swayed between a 10-point Brexit lead and a narrow two-point margin in favour of Remain.

So while some polls actually showed a lead by the “Leave” side, the bookies were saying Brexit would fail, with an 82% chance of certainty. The article goes on to say that the gamblers did get the Scottish referendum right, but that they were far off, predicting a large win for the Tories in the most recent election—which did not materialize.

Once again, THE POLLS WERE RIGHT. The Brexit vote was mostly due to low turnout by the “Remain” camp, caused by overconfidence from listening to the pundits. But why were the gamblers so wrong?

Matthew Shaddick, head of political betting at Ladbrokes. . . wrote in his blog post: “The truth is that bookies do not offer markets on political events to help people forecast the results. We do it to turn a profit (or at least not lose too much).”

. . . Ahead of voters going to the polls, all the bookies warned that favourites sometimes lose. (They might be more likely to win, but their victory could not be guaranteed.) And the bookies all agreed that while three-quarters of the £40 million eventually gambled on the referendum was placed on Remain, when it came to counting individual flutters, bets on Leave far outnumbered punts on staying in the EU. . .

But as he had earlier explained to The Independent, one problem with betting was the vast amount of wishful thinking that went on. And in this contest, he said: “I think there’s something to be considered in the fact that the most affluent sections of society were generally behind Remain.

“Maybe there just aren’t enough dispassionate investors out there to correct that possible bias, even in a multi-million pound market like the EU Referendum.”

So while John Stossel claims that bettors will be more reliable than pundits, because they have real money on the line, he overlooks people’s desire to change events by wishful (positive) thinking. To some degree, bettors even think if they run up the price of a market, they can have an effect on the outcome. Magical Thinking: like when people pray to God for their team to win, thinking they can tell the universe what to do.

OK, so where do we stand in this 2016 United States presidential election? Well, Stossel’s site says bettors give Hillary Clinton a 70.7% chance of winning.

But as he had earlier explained to The Independent, one problem with betting was the vast amount of wishful thinking that went on. And in this contest, he said: “I think there’s something to be considered in the fact that the most affluent sections of society were generally behind Remain.

“Maybe there just aren’t enough dispassionate investors out there to correct that possible bias, even in a multi-million pound market like the EU Referendum.”

Meanwhile, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com gives her a 64.9% chance of winning, according to the polls, and his “polls-plus” analysis, which includes historical, economic, and other factors.

What about the actual polls? Well, RealClearPolitics does an average of recent reliable polls, and they say Hillary is now up by only 1.7%, which is within the margin of error. More importantly, put in terms of probability, she’s given only a 47% chance of winning, to Trump’s 45.3% chance. And just like Brexit, it will be up to the “undecideds” to decide this election.

Then. . .what about the “Brexit effect”? Well, as it turns out, Hillary has her own “Brexit effect.”

One would expect voters from the heavily Democratic Brooklyn neighborhood of Cobble Hill to pick presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 general election. Just don’t expect them to advertise it.

Like lawns and windowsills in liberal pockets across the country, much of the neighborhood is bereft of pro-Clinton signage in the final weeks before the election. It’s a stark contrast to the 2012 and 2008 campaigns, when President Barack Obama whipped up a frenzy of support from Democrats and his signature “Hope” and “Forward” signs were ubiquitous.

The scarcity of lawn and window signs is an indication of the Democratic nominee’s struggle to generate enthusiasm among left-leaning voters, a challenge that’s borne out in polling data, and could potentially haunt her if voters fail to turn out on election day.

I am not surprised. I’ve seen more than a half-century of presidential elections, and this is the only one in which people don’t seem to want to show for whom they are voting. I don’t remember seeing a single yard sign in the city where I live, nor in my travels. Everybody seems to hate both candidates. And that has made voting in this election a real “Sophie’s Choice” (from the movie of the same name).

And, finally, the “Brexit Effect” has also been described as the “Shy Voter.” The idea is that many voters are embarrassed to say they’re voting for Trump. Is that true? Not according to a new study.

The “shy Trump” theory centers around a basic premise: Given Trump’s controversial candidacy — which has featured attacks on electoral norms he derides as “political correctness,” provocative policy proposals like a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and vulgar comments about women — some voters may perceive it is socially undesirable to admit support for the Republican nominee. . .

“Donald Trump performs consistently better in online polling where a human being is not talking to another human being about what he or she may do in the elections,” Conway said. “It’s become socially desirable, especially if you’re a college-educated person in the U.S., to say that you’re against Donald Trump.”

. . .[However,] According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult study conducted by Morning Consult this past weekend and released Thursday, a hidden army of Trump voters that’s undetected by the polls is unlikely to materialize on Election Day.

The study — which was composed of interviews with likely voters conducted over the phone with a live interviewer, and other interviews conducted online without a personal interaction — showed only a slight, not-statistically-significant difference in their effect on voters’ preferences for president. . .

We don’t know who’s going to win. But if Trump wins, it’ll be because the polls were right (within the margin of error), it won’t be because of a “Brexit effect. And if he loses, it won’t be because of some hokey “rigging.” In the United States of America, elections are run by honest people in each of the 50 United States, and their integrity should not be impugned.

38 COMMENTS

  1. Citizens are seeing through all the fabricated lies and unjustified slander and now see a true leader in trump. Whereas the curtain of OZ has fallen on a no issue socialist hillary. Lets hope all usa citizens show these do nothing pokiticians the exit door. Trump 2017 the Unifier

  2. UPDATE: This page was written before FBI chief, James Comey, flip-flopped again–saying that the emails they found suspicious were really duplicates of ones they’d seem before–so the investigation of Hillary was off again.

    John Stossel’s ElectionBettingOdds.com probability of Hillary being elected jumped from the 70.7% likelihood to the current 82.9%. And, again, that’s just based on betting odds, not polls, or any objective data.

    • That may be true, but let’s not forget:

      “The FBI’s findings from its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s secret email server were a damning and unprecedented indictment of her judgment. The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about her reckless conduct. None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton should never be president.”

      • Which is merely hearsay and argument from authority fallacy. The evidence and outcome is what matters. No evidence, no wrongdoing, cleared again. How many more wasteful and costly investigations are we going to see before Republicans realize the futility of it? Or are they simply going to continue with their conspiracy theorist nonsense ad nauseum?

        • What might bring anyone to the conclusion there is a “conspiracy” going on when, indeed, Hillary Clinton did all of the things she was investigated for? It is HER fault there were millions of dollars spent to get what she hid/destroyed/bleach bitted when they should have been turned over after the subpoena was served. Had she followed the law, we could have wrapped this up months ago. The only reason not to produce “everything” is because the info was more damming than taking that risk. I am so sick of people projecting HER misdeeds in every direction but the direction that fits….right back at her.

          Also, she has NOT been cleared of ALL wrongdoing. No matter who wins or loses the election…she will still be under investigation for allegations of selling access to state department via Clinton Foundation and MANY other things that were happening that the FBI DID find out about including “Classified information getting into a NONclassified setting” and this is a mess that ONLY Hillary Clinton created. She, for her OWN personal convenience, DECIDED to put EVERYONE ELSE at risk and caused this mess. Not comey, not the republicans, Hillary Clinton.

          A person to be elected president under FBI investigation. It does not compute. And, just because she has not not been held “accountable” for her actions as you or I certainly would have, does not mean justice will not “be” served.

          If she is found innocent of all wrongdoing I will come back to this post and apologise for any ad nauseous you had to endure. Deal?

          Much Love

          • Nobody is ever “found innocent.”

            And even when people are “found not guilty,”
            some will never let go.

            Suspicion is self-perpetuating.
            And self-destructive.

          • Yep, cleared of all wrongdoing with regards to the email “scandal”, which is precisely what I was referring to. Her charity is a five star charity (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478) which does a tremendous amount of good work around the world. You’re reaching, big time. And its financial data is entirely out there to be scrutinized at will.

            Which is more than can be said for Drumpf’s taxes (which he still will not divulge)… I don’t see anyone complaining about that and asking hard questions about it, given that he has in all likelihood been engaging in tax evasion for many years and welching on paying his workers and contractors, given the vast amount of litigation and out of court settlements he’s been involved in.

            Or the monstrous level of racism, misogyny and xenophobia he exhibits on a daily basis for that matter. Amazes me the number of people who are perfectly willing to align themselves with racism and misogyny. I really thought that America was better than that by now. Apparently not 🙁

            • Racist? Please give facts he is a racist. The apartment issue is when his dad was running things 40 years go. His has no actions of his own that prove or even remotely show he is racist. People that believe he is a racist WANT him to be a racist. There would NEVER be intelligent black men and women supporting him if they thought he was a racist. He was NEVER called a racist before running for Prez. Ask yourself “why”?

              Hates Mexicans? No. Intelligent people realized that Trump was over exaggerating when he made that comment and they know WHY he said it. A MEXICAN man who was undocumented killed US citizen. The man accused of firing the deadly shot — 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez — again, an undocumented immigrant was also a REPEAT felon who had been deported 5 times to Mexico, according to immigration officials.
              Trump was speaking with passion, he wants laws to be followed and he was not being racist.

              Xenophobe? No. Look up that word. He works with, employs and is/was MARRIED to people from other countries who became LEGAL citizens (countries different than his own).

              Misogynist? Not according to all of the women who know him best and are supporting him. Don’t you think they know better than you or I? Even with the bus dirty talk… there is no evidence he “physically” did anything that a woman did not want him to do.

              Of MORE importance to keep OUT of the WH is Clinton. She has RECORDINGS of subject matter that actually MATTERS to America.

              “Hillary Clinton’s secret speech to the Brazilian bankers for $225,000, where she says her “dream is a western hemisphere without Borders”–
              If that happened 600 million could come to United States–including murderous MS-13 gangs from El Salvador, drug dealers from Columbia, people from Haiti who make $3.00 day suddenly saying “I can go to Miami and make $15 a day” (which would obviously oversaturate the market and greatly decrease job opportunities for the current residents).”

              She also wants taxpayers to fund abortions. NO MAS!!! I am for Choice, yes. But I should NEVER be forced to pay for someone’s abortion with my money.

              Trump has the support of most law and order, military, etc.

              Those are the issues important to ME so I voted on POLICY not “dirty talk” which is the ONLY true negative the dems have had this entire political season.

              Much Love.

            • The cognitive dissonance is just too much for you, isn’t it? His OWN WORDS. Racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Not anything that’s being claimed. His OWN WORDS. Most Mexicans are rapists and criminals. Building a wall to keep them out. Disrespecting the first amendment regarding his treatment of Muslims. Sexual harassment and sexual assault. All by hist own admittance out of his own mouth. Read a paper or turn on your TV once in a while. Jeez.

            • He NEVER said “most” ever ever ever. I point you to my last comment about the Mexican undocumented murder. That is the only time me made a harsh comment and it was driven from passion about the death of Kate, US citizen.

              Wall – to keep ALL CRIMINALS out coming across that border to better enforce the laws we already have but are unable to enforce because of so much coming across the border… hence the wall.

              He appreciates Muslims and works with many in his business. The Islamist Extremists are the issue, ISIS—not peaceful law-abiding Muslims. Totally different ballgame. People cannot seem to grasp the truth and that is due to Dems spreading BS. We have an obligation to our citizens to properly VET anyone coming from a country with soldiers whose main reason for living is to kill western life. Hope you agree.

              Sexual “allegations” and the bus was dirty talk and not important to me for the important issues facing our country.

              You do not seem to be concerned about those important items. Are you an American?

              Being rude, even on a comment site, is not a good look. I have been very kind in my comments and sharing of information/ideas.

              Much Love.

            • Wow. READ it.

              “Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When
              Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not
              sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have
              lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re
              bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I
              assume, are good people.”

              And some, I assume, are good people. Some are good. He ASSUMES. He’s stating that most of them are rapists and criminals. And that maybe, just maybe, SOME are good people. It’s a typical racist subscript that comes immediately after a ludicrous racist statement in a vain effort to not look racist. I cannot believe that anyone could possibly act as apologist for this kind of remark. It’s despicable and goes against so many of the greatest American values.

            • I get what you are saying and I know what he said. I am able, however, to look at a man’s WORKS as a WHOLE without plucking out a few did-bits he may have said out of passion or anger or the lOSS OF A LIFE. He is NOT A smooth talking POLITICIAN who has learned over 30 years how to get a point across without “offending” anyone. That takes masterful skills in LYING and Hillary is a master at that. She gets our minority vote but does NOTHING for minorities. NOTHING. I feel ACTION is more important that WORDS.
              Hillary did SHIT in NY but help get some aid during 9-11 but NO JOBS and the rest of her years she did a great job at enriching herself. She is the epitome of white privileged and a HUGE LIAR.

              Trump, yeah, he said some stuff that turned people off… but the intelligent people know he wants to clean up the CRIMINAL ELEMENT that we know IS COMING ACROSS THE BOARDER in all shapes, sizes and nationalities. k? You cannot pull out 1, 2 or 3 items in a person’s lifetime of NOT being racist and deem them RACIST. Again, as I wrote previously, He simply OVER EXAGGERATED on that item for the reasons I outlined above… the man who continued to come back to america and finally KILLED SOMEONE. Trump obviously KNOWS good people exist in all nationalities as he works with them and EMPLOYS them. SOMETHING Hillary, who only knows how to live off taxpayers dime, knows NOTHING about.

            • Because it has been blown up and out of the realm of reality by the media. I have given you mature and excellent reasons as to why he is NOT those names you toss about. As you can see, more of America is with HIM.

            • As far as “cleared of all wrong doing” — that is jumping the gun a bit.

              The FBI’s findings from its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s secret email server were a damning and unprecedented indictment of her judgment. The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about HER reckless conduct. None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. There is already evidence she sold access to the State Department as well as SO many other shady things she could keep a lizard cool in the Sahara!

              much love

            • Sold access to the State Dept? LOL. The conspiracy theorists are out in force today. No evidence of this whatsoever beyond your own fevered imagination. No evidence of any wrongdoing in the Clinton Foundation despite the desperation of Republicans to find something. And no evidence in the email “scandal”. It’s all ludicrous reaching. Sure, she was careless, but nothing she did amounted to anything illegal in any sense. If having a private email server and not keeping up to date on patches, etc, is a crime, then almost every organization would be in jail.

            • You say “conspiracy theorists” and I say “evidence she sold access to the State Department”

              The fact we are discussing anything regarding an “illegal server” should give you pause to go further with how innocent she is. Our NATIONAL SECURITY was put at risk. That is much more than what you mention above. Much more.

            • You’re assuming guilt without evidence. That’s not a rational approach. Evidence is what counts, not mere belief. And there has been multiple investigations by Republicans. All resulting in a complete absence of evidence or wrongdoing, except for mere carelessness. Which is not a crime. No leaking of any confidential info was found. And the amount of genuinely classified emails among the entire lot was miniscule. It’s a huge mountain of a molehill scenario. It is sheer desperatism on the part of Republicans. They simply wish to imagine without evidence that she’s some form of villain, when there is nothing remotely there to suggest that scenario. Hence, conspiracy theory. If you don’t base your world view on skepticism and evidence, then there’s precious point discussing it any further. I don’t debate with those who disregard the need for reasonable evidence.

              Good day to you.

            • I won’t even bother requesting evidence for that additional claim. I have realized it is futile. Your belief regardless of the absence of evidence is rigid. You clearly are not bothered by the requirement for evidence so it is pointless.

            • I have not expressed any thought on these comment boards for you to come to the conclusion that I am “rigid”, not in any way. I have provided a great deal of detailed and constructive thought which is rational and fair. There is plenty of “evidence” in regards to Clinton and “illegal” doings. The fact she has been skating free without being held accountable does not exonerate her. I am a great fan of evidence and we’ve had GOBS of it. We will wait, however, for future evidence that has been held from our view. If that evidence does not materialize, I will kowtow to the facts at that time. Much Love
              p.s. Stop getting “personal” with me. I do not hang out with Trump and you do not dine with Clinton. lol

            • You continually speak of evidence and yet none actually transpires. Clinton has been cleared (once again) of wrongdoing in the email “scandal”. You genuinely have nothing, not a thing, except sheer conspiracy theory regarding the Clinton Foundation, and now, the entire Justice system itself, again without a scrap of evidence to support either assertion. So, feel free to dwell in your delusions. I won’t join you in that state of being. I demand reasonable evidence for truth claims, as should we all, not mere belief or “no smoke without fire” attitudes and assumptions based on hearsay and conjecture.

              Not sure how you think that’s being “personal” though, merely requesting evidence for claims. If you have no evidence to support these assertions, then you don’t need to say any more. Just say I have no damning evidence to support my claims, with intellectual honesty, rather than the hoops you’re jumping through to justify and apologize for racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Or continue with your unreasonable assertions without evidence. Up to you. It is moot at this stage anyway given that America is clearly dumber, more hateful and misguided than I thought it was.

            • Do you think he’ll keep his promise to prosecute Hillary? No way. He always does things that will help him in the future.

            • The use of “always” isn’t typically realistic, especially in regards to what a person will or will not do in a situation that has not yet materialized.

              If evidence is unearthed which prompts prosecution then yes, I believe he would allow justice to prevail.

            • No one cares about his taxes. We want:

              Military back to strength with up to date equipment/supplies for the men and women risking their LIVES for our country

              Health Reform-people are going BROKE with the Affordable Care Act

              Law & Order back on our streets so CRIMINALS don’t keep killing our people.

              Borders Controlled – Enforce current laws (is that so much to ask).

              JOBS JOBS JOBS – Trump employ thousands of people. Clinton never created a job in her life. She’s lived a lavish life style off the backs of hard-working Americans, taxpayers have been her personal piggy bank (and her husband) for TOO LONG.

              Apologies for the caps, feeling passionate. Much Love.

            • No one cares about his taxes? Really? Many Americans do, including myself. He’s setting a terrible precedent and it looks very bad for him. You’re willing to overlook this, yet still continue to rant and rave that Clinton is somehow “crooked” without a scrap of reasonable evidence. SMH.

            • First of all, I am not going on a “rant”, I am giving my facts/opinions on a comment board. I believe that is the point. When you use disparaging words in an attempt to make your point more valid, trust me, it does not. 🙂 Stick to the subject matter and leave personal attacks on the floor. We can go father that way in regards to the important things we are trying to discuss. If, of course, that matters to you. It may not.

              As far as “taxes” — It is not that I would typically overlook the item altogether. However, it is NOT REQUIRED to run for the presidency and Clinton has a great deal MORE SERIOUS issues that I personally deem HORRIBLE and DANGEROUS for America. If it wasn’t Clinton with her myriad of malicious mischief , the taxes might be of interest.

            • I have covered these items in other replies. I can’t keep wasting my time as you are not receptive to anything that has actually been “found” in regards to Clinton. Good Day

  3. Trump is a liar through and through. You people can’t possibly believe everything that man spews. Fact checkers have got him lying more than Hillary. Why don’t you ever read them. They are non partisan.

    • Betsy, One thing for sure he has not lied about national security issues, lied to bereaved mothers at Benghazi . She lies on every corner. Lies are also not her only problem, not by any means.

  4. This last FBI investigation into the emails didn’t matter. We already know she deleted the 33,000 emails. Trump was gaining before this on the announcement of ObamaCare.

    *The true FBI investigation is still ongoing….the one into the Clinton Foundation! Duh! That’s were the real corruption is as per a letter written by one of B. Clinton’s personal aides.

  5. This article says that the British talking heads were pro-remain and had their head up their you know what. The talking heads in the US are for the most part pro Clinton. Let’s hope that they also have their heads up their you know what and Trump will crush the Wicked Witch this coming Tuesday.

    Even if Comey said in his letter today that there is nothing in the emails to proceed on this subject. He did not rule out things like the CLINTON FOUNDATION, PAY FOR PLAY and on and on. Do people want to vote for such a flawed candidate?

  6. As an institution of democracy, the media has failed in its
    obligation to provide fair and unbiased coverage of this election campaign.

    And to the extent that one party has been so deliberately and obviously
    discriminated against, the burden of responsibility to redress this corruption lays
    with the voting public, that the torch of democracy, justice and liberty may
    remain aloft upon the earth.

    • Don’t worry. Republicans will lose royally over their bizarre choice of hateful monstrosity in Trump. No reasonable human being could vote for a confessed racist, misogynist, xenophobic, tyrannical despot like him. Except for those who resemble him. And if that were to happen, then America has fallen.

  7. The last email issue was a set up. It is an age old trick to create that under dog image…. “poor Hillary she has falsely accused and see she is innocent.poor Hillary vote for her.” what a sham she has pulled but she screwed up on her timing. Too bad Hillary win or lose justice will be coming after you, Old Gal

Comments are closed.