Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[San Antone]

Did that LA Times poll include the teen black Trump voter?

I don't know why, but the LA Times poll has consistently had Trump higher than others.  But now other polls are showing him up.

Takeaway: polls are tightening, with momentum shifting to Trump.

[San Antone]

Post-ABC Tracking Poll: Trump 46, Clinton 45, as Democratic enthusiasm dips (Washington Post)

Turn out is crucial, and if Clinton's disclosures about unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders during primary (the Donna Brazile story), as well as Wikileaks about TPP, Wall Street and other issues that compromise her credibility with the leftwing of the Democratic party, her turnout numbers will suffer.  Good news for Trump.

Trump Closes on Clinton as Election Day Nears

Donald Trump is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton after new revelations about the FBI's investigation of the Democratic candidate's private email server have come to light. WSJ's Gerald F. Seib discusses the new dynamic and if Trump has a chance on Nov. 8.

More good news for Trump.

[Karl Henning]

Those who deny the rough accuracy of either of these pictures — and there are plenty of Americans who would — are partisans. They not only hold a set of political opinions, they also are determined to live in their own version of reality, from which inconvenient facts are banished by edict. They have already made up their minds, perhaps already voted.

But how about the rest of us? It does not help to point out that there has been a massive failure of the presidential nomination process in both parties; one candidate stale and tainted, the other vapid and vile.

[Karl Henning]

Post-ABC Tracking Poll: Trump 46, Clinton 45, as Democratic enthusiasm dips (Washington Post)

Turn out is crucial, and if Clinton's disclosures about unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders during primary (the Donna Brazile story), as well as Wikileaks about TPP, Wall Street and other issues that compromise her credibility with the leftwing of the Democratic party, her turnout numbers will suffer.  Good news for Trump.

Trump Closes on Clinton as Election Day Nears

Donald Trump is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton after new revelations about the FBI's investigation of the Democratic candidate's private email server have come to light. WSJ's Gerald F. Seib discusses the new dynamic and if Trump has a chance on Nov. 8.

More good news for Trump.

Yes, although, the electoral college challenge remains fairly robustly bad news for El Tupé.

Meanwhile, a CBS poll taken after the news came out found that in 13 battleground states, 71 percent of respondents either say the news won't change their vote or that they've already voted. And CBS also found: "Most of those who say they're less likely to vote for Clinton are Republicans, who are not supporting her anyway." This finding also came up in Post/ABC tracking released yesterday: Only one-third of voters say the news will impact their vote, but the vast majority of those are Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.

(Greg Sargent is a frankly leftist blogger, so factor that in, as you wish.)

[San Antone]

Those who deny the rough accuracy of either of these pictures — and there are plenty of Americans who would — are partisans. They not only hold a set of political opinions, they also are determined to live in their own version of reality, from which inconvenient facts are banished by edict. They have already made up their minds, perhaps already voted.

But how about the rest of us? It does not help to point out that there has been a massive failure of the presidential nomination process in both parties; one candidate stale and tainted, the other vapid and vile.

Agree with this 100%. 

[Herman]

I guess we need another debate, to break the approaching tie.

[Karl Henning]

Not that a Clinton victory requires it, but El Tupé is due for his next periodic meltdown tomorrow or Thursday.

[Herman]

Not that a Clinton victory requires it, but El Tupé is due for his next periodic meltdown tomorrow or Thursday.

except Kellyanne is holding a pillow over his face to keep him quiet  -  I mean, "on message".

Ivanka is there, too. "Dad, you shut the f*ck up, or else..."

[André]

In Canada, blue is the color of the conservatives and red is that of the liberals. Both parties are generally centre-oriented, sometimes to the point of being labeled "extreme-centrists". The 10-year long Harper governement was an exception (definitely leaning to the right). A lot of its heritage has been debunked or repealed  in the first 12 months of the Liberal government. The centrist Liberals currently enjoy a 64% approval rating. In the end, the right is always on the losing end of History.

[Karl Henning]

Forget conspiracy theories. This is why Trump's Russian connection is actually a problem.

[...]

There used to be some doubt as to whether Russia was behind the hacking of various people and organizations close to Hillary Clinton and the dump of their private emails to WikiLeaks.

No longer. The evidence that Russia is behind the two most significant hacks, of the Democratic National Committee and top Clinton aide John Podesta, is beyond any reasonable doubt.

The hacker who claims to be behind the DNC hack, Guccifer 2.0, is quite clearly a Russian cutout. His name is a reference to Marcel Lazăr Lehel — a now-jailed Romanian hacker who famously claimed to have hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server. Lehel's nom de plume was, you guessed it, Guccifer.

So what's the evidence he's a Russian cutout? For one thing, Guccifer 2.0 doesn't actually appear to speak Romanian. Vice's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai interviewed him, mostly in English but with a few Romanian questions peppered in. Guccifer tried to dodge chatting in his allegedly native language, and, per Franceschi-Bicchierai, "the few short sentences he sent in Romanian were filled with mistakes."

For another, three cybersecurity firms investigated the hack and found direct evidence that two Russian-linked hacking groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, did the DNC hack.

Perhaps most compellingly, they found that the malware infecting the DNC used an IP address that had previously been used in a hack targeting the German parliament. The German hack was — you guessed it — linked to Russian intelligence. It's very unlikely that some other hacking group would use such similar code.

"The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong," Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College who studies cybersecurity, wrote at Vice. "The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys."

There's similarly strong evidence linking Russian operatives to the Podesta hack.

The attack that got Podesta is something called "phishing." In a phishing campaign, hackers send emails that are dressed up to look like something from a trustworthy source — in Podesta's case, Gmail security. The emails tell the recipient to click on a link or attachment, which seems authentic but actually contains some nasty code that gives the hacker access to the target's email account. Podesta fell for the phishing scam, hook, line, and sinker (if you'll pardon the pun).

Generally, these attacks are highly effective, because they rely on human gullibility: our willingness to trust things that basically look legit. They're also hard to trace, because there's usually nothing in the email to give away the source.

But the Russian hackers messed up. The link they got Podesta to click on used an account from a public link-shortening service, Bitly, which the cybersecurity firm SecureWorks had been tracking. That Bitly account, according to SecureWorks, belonged to Fancy Bear.

The hackers' laziness, or lack of caution, exposed their operation, negating one of the core advantages of a phishing attack.

"Unless you screw up and make your phishing campaign linkable like this group apparently did, it is very hard to attribute to any given actor," Nicholas Weaver, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley's International Computer Science Institute, wrote to me via email in October.

In short: Russian operatives were sloppy enough to link themselves to two different hacks of Democrats. The idea that they're not interfering in the US election is, at this point, just not credible.

[San Antone]

Most interesting information in that blurp is that John Podesta was gullible enough to be the victim if a phishing scam.  This is who is Clinton's lead adviser?

More good news for Trump.

[Karl Henning]

http://www.youtube.com/v/Oy8HRdlLGCQ

[kishnevi]

Forget conspiracy theories. This is why Trump's Russian connection is actually a problem.

[...]

There used to be some doubt as to whether Russia was behind the hacking of various people and organizations close to Hillary Clinton and the dump of their private emails to WikiLeaks.

No longer. The evidence that Russia is behind the two most significant hacks, of the Democratic National Committee and top Clinton aide John Podesta, is beyond any reasonable doubt.

The hacker who claims to be behind the DNC hack, Guccifer 2.0, is quite clearly a Russian cutout. His name is a reference to Marcel Lazăr Lehel — a now-jailed Romanian hacker who famously claimed to have hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server. Lehel's nom de plume was, you guessed it, Guccifer.

So what's the evidence he's a Russian cutout? For one thing, Guccifer 2.0 doesn't actually appear to speak Romanian. Vice's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai interviewed him, mostly in English but with a few Romanian questions peppered in. Guccifer tried to dodge chatting in his allegedly native language, and, per Franceschi-Bicchierai, "the few short sentences he sent in Romanian were filled with mistakes."

For another, three cybersecurity firms investigated the hack and found direct evidence that two Russian-linked hacking groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, did the DNC hack.

Perhaps most compellingly, they found that the malware infecting the DNC used an IP address that had previously been used in a hack targeting the German parliament. The German hack was — you guessed it — linked to Russian intelligence. It's very unlikely that some other hacking group would use such similar code.

"The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong," Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College who studies cybersecurity, wrote at Vice. "The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys."

There's similarly strong evidence linking Russian operatives to the Podesta hack.

The attack that got Podesta is something called "phishing." In a phishing campaign, hackers send emails that are dressed up to look like something from a trustworthy source — in Podesta's case, Gmail security. The emails tell the recipient to click on a link or attachment, which seems authentic but actually contains some nasty code that gives the hacker access to the target's email account. Podesta fell for the phishing scam, hook, line, and sinker (if you'll pardon the pun).

Generally, these attacks are highly effective, because they rely on human gullibility: our willingness to trust things that basically look legit. They're also hard to trace, because there's usually nothing in the email to give away the source.

But the Russian hackers messed up. The link they got Podesta to click on used an account from a public link-shortening service, Bitly, which the cybersecurity firm SecureWorks had been tracking. That Bitly account, according to SecureWorks, belonged to Fancy Bear.

The hackers' laziness, or lack of caution, exposed their operation, negating one of the core advantages of a phishing attack.

"Unless you screw up and make your phishing campaign linkable like this group apparently did, it is very hard to attribute to any given actor," Nicholas Weaver, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley's International Computer Science Institute, wrote to me via email in October.

In short: Russian operatives were sloppy enough to link themselves to two different hacks of Democrats. The idea that they're not interfering in the US election is, at this point, just not credible.

The above presumes the Russian "mistakes" are not red herrings purposefy placed to direct suspicion at Russia and away from the true miscreant.
Of course, then one would need to suggest who the true miscreant is, and at this point,  I can't think of any.

BTW, I did my early voting last Friday.  As I like to say, I voted for the actual Republican in the race, Gov. Johnson. (In Florida, a write in for McMullin is effectively a vote thrown away, since he's not registered for the ballot here.)

[drogulus]

     The Russians can't hide their activities, partly because they need to use the cutouts they have, not ideal ones that don't exist. The good news for them is they don't need to deflect suspicions from Trumpists, who are too addled by their hatreds to properly see the larger context.

     The question should be who would point the finger at Russia, and do it so effectively, with the evidence so unambiguous, that no credible alternative has been proposed. There are too many zombie Repubs who remember what it was like to be human, and they can't make themselves into witting Russian agents.......yet.

[Karl Henning]

BTW, I did my early voting last Friday.  As I like to say, I voted for the actual Republican in the race, Gov. Johnson. (In Florida, a write in for McMullin is effectively a vote thrown away, since he's not registered for the ballot here.)

I applaud you, sir.

[San Antone]

BTW, I did my early voting last Friday.  As I like to say, I voted for the actual Republican in the race, Gov. Johnson. (In Florida, a write in for McMullin is effectively a vote thrown away, since he's not registered for the ballot here.)

Gary Johnson seemed ignorant of foreign policy issues ("Aleppo?  What exactly do you mean?").  I am hoping Bernie's lefties will do as you do and vote for Jill Stein, or stay home. 

[Karl Henning]

Gary Johnson seemed ignorant of foreign policy issues ("Aleppo?  What exactly do you mean?").

Still compares favorably to El Tupé, in the view of some friends of mine who are voting Johnson/Weld.

[San Antone]

Still compares favorably to El Tupé, in the view of some friends of mine who are voting Johnson/Weld.

Of course people are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.  However, the next president will be either Clinton or Trump. 

[San Antone]

I just read this in the Snopes book I have been reading and it is relevant, imo, to this thread - and something I also believe.

"They'll always be wrong. They think they are fighting Clarence Snopes. They're not. They're not faced with an individual nor even a situation: they are beating their brains out against one of the foundation rocks of our national character itself. Which is the premise that politics and political office are not and never have been the method and means by which we can govern ourselves in peace and dignity and honor and security, but instead are our national refuge for our incompetents who have failed at every other occupation"

William Faulkner, The Mansion

[Karl Henning]

Of course people are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.  However, the next president will be either Clinton or Trump. 

Yes.

Apropos of this question:

New poll numbers from Gallup highlight what I think remains the central question for [El Tupé] with just one week to go until Election Day. And that's this: Will enough voters who don't think he's got what it takes to be a good president decide they would still like to make him president?