KorbenDallas

Trauma bonding is a common method used by cults for control, or less than that, by narcissists and the dark personalities in general:

• Perceived threat to one's own life - This can be real or imaginary, and the life threat can be physical, mental, or spiritual (identity, way of life, etc.).  Example:  Trump, "We either have a country or we don't."  And paraphrasing, "People are pouring into our country and we don't know who they are or what they want to do."  Trump's comments on crime.  Also a paraphrase, "If we don't do something now we won't have a country anymore."
• Acts of perceived kindness - The person giving the trauma is actually the same person who can help.  Example:  Trump, "I alone can fix it."
• Isolation from outside perspectives - This is often handled indirectly, to limit perspectives that might kick them out of it, with the goal of isolation from any outside perspectives so that the victim will only go to the abuser for perspective.  This often involves effort and continual maintenance by the abuser.  Example:  Trump seeking to discredit and/or destroy anyone who doesn't share his perspective.  Also, the "fake news media."
• Perceived inability to escape - Real or imagined, the person giving the trauma influences the victim/target so they will believe there is an inability to escape their situation, or condition, etc.  Example, living in the USA and Trump's statements of what the American condition is.

Is there a Trump cult?  Is it cult-like?  Cult-ish?

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Bannon out at Breitbart! Nobody saw that coming ...

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish

On 1/4/2018 at 10:27 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Perhaps this article is a first glimpse of a defense by him.

In an act of journalism, CNN's Jake Tapper and Jeremy Diamond have more about Bannon's unreleased statement:

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/06/politics/steve-bannon-donald-trump-michael-wolff-white-house/index.html

[...]

__________

Sad!

An article from The Hill (here) said (bolds are mine),

Breitbart News chairman Stephen Bannon on Wednesday was about to issue a statement praising Donald Trump Jr. and disputing his quotes in a book from Michael Wolff, but the statement was spiked after President Trump went nuclear on his former chief strategist.

Multiple sources with knowledge of the situation say that Bannon’s aides sought to impress upon him the need to put out a statement quickly. The aides had crafted a statement, which was pending Bannon’s approval, when the White House beat him to the punch. 

In the unreleased statement, Bannon had planned to call Trump Jr. a patriot and dispute the account in Wolff’s book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," in which Bannon described Trump Jr. as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic” for setting up a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer. 

Bannon and his allies did not see a need to release the statement once Trump accused his former top campaign aide of having “lost his mind.” They believe the president’s statement effectively ended the relationship between the two men. 

“He was literally just about to respond but backed off when the White House issued the statement,” said one source.

Bannon had a lengthy window to respond after the book excerpt was first released early Wednesday morning. It was a missed opportunity for Bannon, as the statement might have been enough to salvage his relationship with the president, those close to the Breitbart News chairman say.

[...]

And The Washington Post has reported that the wealthy conservative donors Robert and Rebekah Mercer are furious with Bannon and choking him off financially. Rebekah Mercer owns the majority stake in Breitbart News, Bannon’s flagship conservative publication. 

[...]

Now, Trump and his allies are looking at ways to discredit Wolff, alleging that he misquoted them, made-up scenes and broke agreements that events he attended and information he was given would remain off the record.

A personal lawyer for the president has threatened to sue Bannon, Wolff and the book’s publisher and demanding that the book release be canceled.

There could be more efforts like that from others close to Trump.

“We are going to tie him up in litigation for years, until he’s spent more on legal fees than he makes on the book,” said one person quoted in the book.

------------------

Of course, Bannon is a sleaze and I don't believe a word that he was ever going to release a counter statement to the book.  Perhaps this article is a first glimpse of a defense by him.

This is a good identification.  It seems that a snarl word would have a connotation/denotation difference, or can perhaps become 'fuzzy'.

Rand did seem to 'snarl' at enemies, and perhaps that's one reason why her enemies despised her so much.

Is it okay to use them?  I'd just say to not lose sight of the denotative meaning, not lose sight of essences.  And for whatever/whoever the term is being applied to, to keep objectivity in mind, that the term actually fits.  This goes back to what Rand says about language, that it's primary function is for cognition, not communication.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But just for fun, I tried to watch the video of the dude in this thread. I could only get through a couple of minutes. He sounded an awful lot like an auctioneer at a cattle show.  

I stopped at 31 seconds with the jar of dirt analogy

I think emotions are tools for valuing, and they can give you something to think about but aren't tools of cognition themselves.  The problem occurs when an emotion conflicts with a person's values, in which the emotional antecedental chain, causal chain, influences, assumptions, etc. might not have came from a conscious process of thought, but if someone were to think about it, they could change their value premises and correct their emotional response.  So I see the need for a primacy of reason, to properly think about emotions and values.

People are supposed to have both a reason and emotion faculty, both a necessary for proper human functioning.  So when Rand stresses a primacy of reason, reason is man's tool of survival, and that emotions aren't tools of cognition, what I don't think she is saying is that emotions are unnecessary.  In VoS she says emotions are the basic barometer for a person to indicate whether something is for him or against him.  So taking the example of Elliot, when he is presented with a simple task he is unable to readily determine whether that is for him or against him, so he doesn't readily know what to do.

WSS, I've added this book to my reading list.  When on the Amazon  page for this book, a related book "The Sociopath Nextdoor"  appeared, which I have already read.  I am currently reading "In Sheep's Clothing", and also with my first hand experiences I can comment.  I think people can be born with aggression, the aggression being on a spectrum.  Other animals exhibit this, an aggressive dog, cat, monkey, bird, etc., and I don't think we're any different in this area.  We are different in that we can have morality, but I do not feel that morality is available to everyone.  And I don't think that that can be predicted, due to the factors of experience and culture.  These people born with aggression (again a spectrum) will always have an inner aggression throughout their life, which is more biological and affects their thoughts and actions throughout their entire life.  In the video, Peterson said around 1:25 that we would have to explain the entertainment motivation, and I would say that it's because it is who they are, they enjoy doing it, they are different than us, and are born different than us.

More about Florida, from Politico: "How Trump won his map:"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/anatomy-of-trumps-election-231154

[...]

1. Miami-Dade County

As much as any other place in the nation, Florida’s biggest county drove the pre-election storyline that the nation’s biggest swing state was seeing an epic surge in Hispanic turnout, one that would all but ensure Clinton’s path to victory.

Without Florida, Trump had no path to the White House. And the way things looked in Miami-Dade — with its long lines and early vote that was up 80 percent above 2012 -- there seemed to be no path for him to overcome the county’s expected margins for Clinton.

In the end, it was indeed a blowout here. Clinton won Miami-Dade by a slightly bigger margin here than Barack Obama did in 2012, and roughly 100,000 more votes were cast.

But it didn’t matter because of Trump’s own margins in the rest of the state. He crushed in north Florida and the panhandle -- exit polls put his margin at 58-37 in an area that cast roughly 20 percent of the vote. He ran even better in the Gulf Coast/Mid-Florida area, with its many Midwestern retirees, 63-37.

As evidenced by those regional breakdowns, Trump won a greater share of the white vote than Mitt Romney in 2012: Trump won 64 percent, compared to Romney’s 61 percent. Hillary Clinton managed to win exactly one out of three white votes in a state where, for all its diversity, white voters still cast 62 percent of the vote.

[...]

This WSJ article just came through, I selected parts that talk about the Latino vote across the US and then Florida:  "Latino Turnout Up From 2012 Nationwide, But Not Enough to Stop Donald Trump"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/latino-turnout-up-from-2012-nationwide-but-not-enough-to-stop-donald-trump-1478733888

PHOENIX—This was supposed to be the year that Latinos made their mark on a presidential race, motivated by Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. But their vote totals in key states weren’t enough to counter the tide in favor of the antiestablishment Republican candidate.

“It appears the angry white vote washed out most of the Latino surge,” said Joe Rubio, lead organizer at Valley Interfaith Project in Arizona, part of a 14-group coalition that conducted a registration and get-out-the vote drive in the southwestern state.

[...]

Latino Decisions, which specializes in Hispanics, said that it estimates 79% of Latinos supported Hillary Clinton and 18% backed Mr. Trump, a forecast that it says is corroborated by analysis of results coming in from Latino-majority precincts in states across the country.

“As we went from Rio Grande Valley in Texas to Miami to Milwaukee, the actual precinct results are showing that it was very close to a 20-80 distribution,” in favor of Mrs. Clinton, said Matt Barreto, managing partner of the polling firm.

In three majority-Latino precincts in Kissimmee County in Central Florida, between 78% and 80% of Hispanics voted for Mrs. Clinton.  [...]  in Miami-Dade County majority-Latino precincts, turnout was up six to 16 points compared with 2012.

In Florida statewide, according to the firm, Mrs. Clinton garnered 67% of the vote compared with 58% for President Obama in 2012.

[...]

“There is no question that more Latinos showed up than ever,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group, citing their impact on Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. “Their vote was enough in some states and not enough in others.”

[...]

Latinos in Florida couldn’t counter the white force for Trump, said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group. “Latinos did their part,” he said.

[...]

MSNBC has a good, quick summary on how Trump won, "First Read: How Rural America Fueled Trump's Win"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-how-rural-america-fueled-trump-s-win-n681316

How Rural America fueled Trump's win

One of the biggest reasons Donald Trump shocked the world last night was that he overperformed -- big league -- in Rural America, especially in the previously blue Midwest states he flipped to surge above 270 electoral votes. Just look at these numbers:

• Michigan: Per the exit polls, Trump won rural and small towns by a 57%-38% margin -- up from Mitt Romney's 53%-46%.

• Pennsylvania: He won rural and small towns by a whopping 71%-26% -- versus Romney's 59%-40%.

• Wisconsin: He won rural and small towns by 63%-34% -- up from Romney's 53%-46%.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton slightly underperformed in these states' urban areas. Still, she carried Philadelphia by about 450,000 votes, which was the same margin Obama won in 2012. In the waning days of the 2016 election, so much of the talk was about Latinos in Florida and Nevada, or college-educated white voters in the suburbs. But the story of last night was white voters coming out in droves for Donald Trump.

Obama's coalition didn't turn out as much when he wasn't on the ballot

On Tuesday, we wrote how Election Night 2016 was going to be the final Obama battle. And guess what, his coalition didn't come out in the numbers it previously did:

• African Americans broke for Clinton, 88%-8% -- down from Obama's 93%-6% in '12

• Latinos broke 65%-29% -- down from 71%-27% in '12

• Millennials went 55%-37% for Clinton -- down from 60%-37% in '12.

Those might seem like small changes, but they matter in a close race. Indeed, Trump's popular vote total (59 million and counting) is going to similar to Mitt Romney's in 2012 (61 million), but Clinton's total (and equal 59 million -- she just over took Trump in the popular vote)is going to be far short of Obama's 66 million in 2012. Those are 5-7 million Obama votes that didn't go for Clinton. In the eight years of Obama, Democrats won big the two times he was on the ballot (2008, 2012), but they lost big the times he wasn't on the ballot (2010, 2014, 2016).

[...]

I found the election results of Florida from 2012, the county map:

Looks eerily similar to the polling map posted earlier.  I checked Wikipedia to see how Romney lost FL in 2012, here is the analysis (italics and bold are mine):

Obama won the state and its 29 electoral votes on Election Day by a margin of 0.88%, down from the 2.82% margin in 2008. Florida was the closest race in the country at the presidential level. Throughout the night, Obama and Romney exchanged the lead, but the networks avoided calling the state for Obama until November 10 because long lines in the larger urban areas of the state meant that the vote count was delayed.

According to exit polling, Obama won 95% of the African-American vote (13% of voters), 60% of Latino voters (up 3 points from 2008 and 17% of all voters), and 50% among Independents (who accounted for 33% of all voters). Mitt Romney won white voters by 24 percent. In addition, both Democratic and Republican strategists agreed that the President’s ground game and early voting leads played a huge role in such a tight race. Despite laws that curbed early voting, more than 4 million Floridians cast a ballot before Election Day (almost 50% of all voters), and reports showed that Obama was leading by about 104,000 among those voters.

The political geography of Florida is largely divided in thirds: South Florida (around the Miami metropolitan area) is heavily Democratic, North Florida (the Florida Panhandle, and the Jacksonville metropolitan area) is heavily Republican outside of Tallahassee and Gainesville, while Central Florida is a “swing” area of the state, where Democrats have made inroads in recent years.

Mirroring the results of the 2008 presidential election in Florida, Obama dominated South Florida, winning Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties by comfortable margins, and actually increased his vote share in Miami-Dade and Broward counties from 2008. However, Romney's performance in Palm Beach County was notable considering he is the first Republican presidential candidate in over a decade to receive over 40% of the county's vote. Obama’s gains in South Florida have been attributed to increasing his vote share among Cuban Americans, a large demographic in and around Miami who have reliably voted Republican, from 35% in 2008 to 48% against Romney's 52% in 2012. Combined with his large margins of victory among non-Cuban Hispanics in the state, Arian Campo-Flores at the Wall Street Journal noted that, “Together, both trends are accelerating a realignment of the state's Latino vote, from once solidly Republican to now reliably Democratic.”^[26]

Although Obama lost large swaths of North Florida, he was able to keep the margins relatively close along the Eastern Seaboard. He lost to Romney in Duval County, anchored by Florida’s largest city, Jacksonville, by only 3%, and Volusia County, home to Daytona Beach, by less than 2%. Where the state tipped into the Obama column was in Central Florida, the site of enormous growth in the last two decades. Obama was able to deliver big wins in the Orlando and Tampa Bay areas, where George W. Bush won in 2004. In the former, Obama carried Orange County (which includes Orlando) by 19 points and Osceola County near Orlando by a 24-point margin (Bush won it in 2004 52%-47%). In both counties, he was able to tap into a growing Puerto Rican community, which overwhelmingly broke his way.

In the Tampa Bay region, Obama once again carried Hillsborough County, home to Tampa, by a 6-point margin, receiving over 13,000 more votes than he won in 2008. Obama also won Pinellas County, home to St. Petersburg, by a 52%-46.5% margin. Bush had narrowly carried the county by about 0.1% in 2004. In all, Obama won the three largest counties in Central Florida – Hillsborough, Orange, and Pinellas – while keeping his losing margins low in other populous counties – Polk, Seminole, and Manatee County.

Here is how Obama did it in 2008, and the link to the Wikipedia analysis for FL in 2008: 

I'm calling Florida for Clinton.  People are saying (Nov 4th) that she isn't getting as many black voters compared to 2012, but I'm predicting we'll see a huge Hispanic voter turnout that will win her the state.

Here is some county by county polling for November 2nd from Shareblue's Benchmark (thanks to William for the resource):

Last Friday (October 28th) was the day Comey reopened Hillary's e-mail case, and the only change was for Duval (top right, 2nd county down), it was blue on Friday before the Comey effect.  An important thing to notice is Dem counties are many of Florida's main population centers: Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa, then Tallahassee and Gainesville.  Did any other counties flip since Wednesday?  Nope, the map is the same:

So only Duval changed from the Comey effect.  Look at Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties (the solid blue counties bottom right).  These three have a high Hispanic voter population, so how is early voter turnout looking for those counties?  Steve Schale is a political strategist in Florida and provides in-depth numbers and analysis for the state.  Here is what he's said recently:

Schale is confirming my suspicion.  I live in Florida and during the 2012 election I was friends with who pollsters would categorize as 'educated Hispanic'.  They had friends, both with college education and without, and the general consensus was they disliked Romney's 47% and liked Obama's 2012 amnesty.  My friends voted for Obama---oh, did I mention they were conservatives?  Most of their friends, conservative or liberal, voted for Obama, or changed their vote to Obama.

Back to 2016, November 3rd from Politico, "Clinton’s 30-point lead in Florida Hispanic poll is ‘terrifying’ to GOP nationwide"

MIAMI — Hillary Clinton is besting Donald Trump by an historic 30-point margin among Florida Hispanics, according to a new bipartisan poll that indicates Latinos could play an outsized role in delivering the White House to a Democrat for the third election in a row.

Clinton’s 60 percent to 30 percent advantage over Trump with Florida Hispanics overall is fueled by outsized support from voters of Puerto Rican descent, who favor her 71 perccent to 19 percent, according to the survey of 800 likely Hispanic voters jointly conducted for Univision by Republican-leaning Tarrance Group and Democratic-leaning Bendixen & Amandi International.

Trump, meanwhile, has relatively weak backing from Cuban-Americans. They historically vote Republican but only support him over Clinton by 49 percent to 42 percent, the poll shows. And Hispanic voters of other national origins heavily prefer Clinton over Trump by 71 percent to 20 percent. The overall margin of error for the poll is 3.5 points.

“These Florida numbers are not only ominous for Donald Trump — they’re downright terrifying for Republicans nationwide,” said Fernand Amandi, Bendixen & Amandi’s pollster, who called Clinton’s 30-point margin “historic.”

“The share of the Hispanic vote is growing every election and this will be the third presidential election in Florida where Hispanics trend heavily against the GOP,” Amandi said. “And if that continues, it could turn Florida into the next California in future presidential elections, a blue anchor state.”

Without Florida’s 29 Electoral College votes, Republicans generally can’t win the White House.

[...]

If the poll is right and if Hispanics cast 16 percent of the ballots in an election with 72 percent overall turnout, Clinton would build a margin of 437,000 more votes than Trump.

So far, Florida Hispanics have cast about 14 percent of the nearly 4.9 million early and absentee votes as of Thursday morning — far outpacing their 2012 share of the vote five days before Election Day.

So how about nationwide?  November 4th, from TalkingPointsMemo.com, "Latino Early Vote Surges From Florida to Nevada"

Latino voters are already showing up to vote this election and could cast ballots in larger numbers than Democrats saw in recent elections.

On a call with reporters Friday, Latino Decisions– a polling group focused on Hispanic voting patters– said that Latino turnout is on track to make history next week.

On the call, Gabriel Sanchez, a principal at Latino Decisions, pointed to early voting trends that show Latino early voting is up 100 percent in Florida, 60 percent in North Carolina and up 25 percent in Colorado and Nevada.

Sanchez said at this point, Latino Decisions is projecting that between 13.1 million and 14.7 million Latinos will vote on or before Tuesday– a major increase from 2012 numbers when the group estimated 11.2 million voted.

[...]

"Her lead over Donald Trump was larger than Obama's over Romney for the entire year," Sanchez said.

Sanchez argued that higher Latino turnout seems to be fueled by two things. First, he said Latino voters desperately want to reject Trump's disparaging rhetoric against Latinos, which has been a major piece of his campaign. Second, Sanchez said Latino Decisions has seen a steady increase in support for Hillary Clinton.

Here is some of the rhetoric:

In case you missed the source of #TacoTrucksOnEveryCorner → https://t.co/4vnpZY2cQw #inners #reiders

— AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) September 2, 2016

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDI

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 5, 2016

Hispanic voters aren't voting for Trump, they are voting against him and in large numbers.  Polling and early voting numbers are showing this, and one of the main reasons is his rhetoric.  I predict Trump will lose Florida, and without Florida he loses the election.

Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office includes suing the women accusing him of assault https://t.co/MSWui8Fc7C

— Vox (@voxdotcom) October 22, 2016

Trump looks forward to his first 100 days, vowing to use his power to sue his women accusers. Way to inspire America, Donald.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) October 22, 2016

Vox provides more perspective in the article: "'Nasty woman' becomes the feminist rallying cry Hillary Clinton was waiting for"

[...]

During the third debate, Trump fired off his most respectful attack when he leaned into his mic and blurted out that Clinton was “such a nasty woman.” Well, he did say no one respects women more than him.

And that’s when Donald gifted women everywhere the “binders full of women” of 2016, prompting many to take to social media to reclaim an insult Trump lobbed at Clinton and, unknowingly to him, at all of them too. The hashtag #ImANastyWoman spread like feminist wildfire, launching a conversation about the way successful women are often treated differently than their male counterparts.

In that moment, Trump did for Clinton what she hasn’t been able to do with female voters: He made her relatable. Nearly every woman sitting at home has experienced a version of the nasty woman moment, though probably not on national television. Whether it was being called nasty by an ex-boyfriend or bossy at work, women immediately picked up on the insult, and knew exactly what it was like to be in Clinton’s shoes. Although much of the sexism against Clinton has been slightly implicit, her opponent, for whom subtlety is an entirely foreign concept, has made his gendered condescension toward her crystal clear.

How can being the target of a sexist attack help Clinton? It effectively chips away at her likability issue. Many women say they felt lukewarm about her, but last night they had sympathy. It’s really hard not to like someone when you empathize with them.

And the beauty of Trump’s comment is that it was so blatant that it requires absolutely no response — Clinton didn’t even seem rattled by it. She continued to explain her plan for Social Security, demonstrating her strength as a leader.

[...]

Trump has many unforced errors, the taco bowl tweet, his surrogate not liking taco trucks, "bad hombres".  "Look at my African American over there!"  "Blood coming out of her, wherever."  Standing on stage in the 1st debate and denigrating Rosie.  The 3rd debate at the end to what might have been a tie, he says Hillary is "such a nasty woman".  In sports, players get benched for too many unforced errors, sometimes just one.  Their head either isn't in the game or perhaps it's human fallibility.  Trump can't claim the latter.  The unforced error is when the opposing team isn't responsible for the error, but gives them advantage.  Hillary had a lot of barracuda smiles during the debate and had reason to.  Trump is his own problem, he didn't efficate.  "Non-PC" language or hyperbole was supposed to subside at some point once he got everyone's attention and provided his explanation---the problem is that it wasn't "non-PC" language or hyperbole, he was being himself the entire time, a probable narcissist.  This once-was Trump supporter expected more from him.  I didn't expect him to "pander" to people, rather he shouldn't piss off people he should have voting for him.  Trump can't help himself, though, it's a method of narcissistic control.

Teh polls!  Teh polls!  I heard it in 2012 from Rush and Hannity: don't trust the polls, it doesn't reflect election day turnout.  Polls are only snapshots in time.  Look at Romney's crowds.  The Tea Party folks are pissed and will vote against Obama---but it didn't happen.  And for 2016 there is no indication a Brexit style mass voting event will occur, or even exists.  This is a normal election, opinion polling can be done.  They weren't wrong about Romney and won't be this time.
 

...

Another reason, unforced errors.  Last night's debate neatly encapsulates two, "bad hombres" and "such a nasty woman"---Trump needs the Latino vote and women's vote and does himself no favors here:

"Donald Trump Abandons the Ground Game" (Oct 14):

A good ground game claims more early votes, and as an example Obama in 2012 won Ohio because of early voting, even though Romney won election day turnout.

"Early voting reveals warning signs for Trump" (Oct 16th):

Democrats appear to be outpacing their 2012 early vote performance in several critical swing states, giving Hillary Clinton a head start on Donald Trump in some of the most important presidential battlegrounds.

In two must-win states for Trump, North Carolina and Florida, Republicans are clinging to narrow leads in the total number of mail-in ballots requested. Yet in both states, Clinton is ahead of President Barack Obama’s pace four years earlier — and the GOP trails Mitt Romney’s clip.

Any diminishment of the GOP’s mail-in ballot lead is a matter of concern for Republicans because Democrats typically dominate early in-person voting in both states, which will begin over the next 10 days.

“Democrats have narrowed already the advantage that the Republicans had in 2012,” said Michael McDonald, whose United States Election Project offers detailed analysis of early and absentee voting patterns.

[...]

The problem for Trump is that Ohio (18) and Iowa (6) have just 24 electoral votes between them, while North Carolina (15) and Florida (29) together offer 44.

So far, women are requesting ballots at a far faster rate than men in both North Carolina and Florida. That works to Clinton’s advantage — according to the most recent Fox News poll, Clinton had a 19-point advantage over Trump with female voters.

And Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters in a press call Thursday that 180,000 Hispanic Floridians who didn’t vote in 2014 had requested mail-in ballots. (Clinton leads Trump by 24 points among likely Hispanic voters in Florida, according to a recent poll conducted for the conservative-leaning Associated Industries of Florida business group.)

In North Carolina, 57 percent of early absentee voters have been women in a state where the electorate has traditionally been about 53 percent women, according to Michael Bitzer, a Catawba College political scientist who studies the state’s early voting patterns.

[...]

________

Hillary has a superior ground game, and this will prove to be another reason why Trump lost.

Echoing my thoughts, including the crowds:

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You didn't contradict me.

--Brant

No, I didn't, because I'm not a strawman for MSK's assumption #1 made earlier in this thread 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

And what Trump might have had with a Brexit style unaccounted voter (both men and women) is neutralized by the women that won't vote for him now. 

Korben,

I don't know how you arrived at that to be able to state it as a fact.

I, for one, don't have such faith in the establishment media, which I assume is your main source of information. If you are personally talking to some women, I assure you they do not represent all American women. If you are disgusted with Trump because of his pussy comment 11 years ago while macho posturing with a dude, that is not a reliable statistic about women.  

I'm looking at things like search engines and Trump is killing it. Here's one example. Granted, it comes from a pro-Trump site, but it's still about Google searches:

What Media Won’t Tell You: ‘How to Vote Trump’ Is Crushing “How to Vote Hillary’ on Google

Also, here's a Twitter search limited from Oct 1 to now and including all three of the following words: women for Trump. There are hashtags about women who are voting for Trump all over Twitter.

I can give you other sources of info, too.

This is one election the establishment will not steal at the last minute with sleaze. They didn't get Romney on women (the couldn't) but they got him on torturing his dog and shit like that. This time too many people are awake.

You set up a frame here that abstracts away polls and Romney from the argument.  I think some polls can be used as estimates, and the 2012 pre-election polls showed Romney wasn't doing well with women and the post election statistics reflected this.  I weighed that (edit: Romney) into my prediction.
 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I expect your sources to be contradicted even more after the Wednesday debate.

I don't think the 3rd debate will change the election outcome, I think it's all up to Assange now to come up with a smoking gun.
 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, read this and see what you think (from American Lookout, but linked to from The Gateway Pundit):

I looked at all the graphs, overall they imply a recovery after the Access Hollywood tape, which I don't think will happen.  I don't think he can recover from this.

10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The ladies are more man than you're giving them credit for.

--Brant

Men and women are political demographics.