- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

Most Pro Trump Eph?

natemergency

Most (70%? 90%?) Ephs would probably agree with Jon Lovett ’04 that Trump would make a very bad president. But who is the most pro-Trump Eph (other than your humble author, of course)?

Andy Grewal ’02, a law school professor, liked Trump’s speech.

gewal

By the way, if you don’t follow Grewal’s twitter feed, you should.grewal

Hah!

But I have not see Grewal endorse Trump. (Yet?) Oren Cass is a proud member of #NeverTrump but he at least recommends that conservatives not destroy themselves over the issue.

Can you ever again support Ayotte or Jindal, given that they are Trump supporters? If not, how about someone who does support them—how far does toxicity spread? And if you declare support for Trump not just incorrect but wrong, then aren’t the protestors shutting down his rallies on the side of justice? If supporting Clinton is wrong, are you prepared to go to bat for The Donald no matter what he says about her?

Disagreement is healthy. It sharpens and strengthens and teaches. Condemnation we should use only with extreme care. By all means, condemn the candidates; they are accountable for themselves. But spare those forced to grapple with the same terrible choice as you. For some, the balance tilts another way.

Mike Needham ’04 has said many kind and insightful things about Trump and, to an even greater extent, Trump’s supporters, but I don’t think he has formally endorsed anyone. I still hope for him to be the Chief of Staff in a Trump Administration.

What other Ephs are (publicly) pro-Trump?

Facebooktwitter
Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Most Pro Trump Eph?"

#1 Comment By Frank Abagnale Jr. On July 23, 2016 @ 12:17 pm

What is with your obsession with Trump? Isn’t this supposed to be a blog about Williams College? You seemingly make a new “which Ephs are Trump supporters?” post every week.

#2 Comment By David Dudley Field ’24 On July 24, 2016 @ 9:40 pm

Frank: What sorts of posts would you like to see more of? Please be as specific as possible. We aim to please.

#3 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On July 25, 2016 @ 1:41 pm

FYI: Nate Silver’s 538 now-cast model shows Trump’s chance of winning in November is now 57.7%

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/fivethirtyeight-trump-winning-226114

Out of 11 battleground states, Silver says that Colorado, Virginia and Michigan would go to Clinton, while Trump would win Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa.

A few weeks ago, Silver had Trump’s chance of winning at 20% or about the rate at which the away team wins if it is behind in the 8th inning.

#4 Comment By Guy Why Gets Methodology On July 25, 2016 @ 5:22 pm

Why are you going to Politico to cite 538 when 538 is easily accessible? Is it because at 538 they in fact have Hillary leading comfortably in two of their three forecasts and that they lay all of this out? Were you really a social scientist, or is it all a big troll job?

Here is what 538 actually says as of 5:22 Eastern time July 25th:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Short Version: It’s not that Trump wins. What they do say is the Trump has received a post-convention bounce. Which happens after every convention. Hillary is in trouble if the polls are this close, or if trump has the lead in some, 30 days after the conventions. Until then, it’s more noise than signal.

#5 Comment By JAS On July 25, 2016 @ 11:28 pm

Nate Silver’s 538 now-cast model shows Trump’s chance of winning in November

Umm, the NOW-cast is a model for if the election were held today, not in November.

#6 Comment By Alum On July 25, 2016 @ 11:43 pm

(JAS + Guy Why Gets Methodology) = in denial

JCD = seeing clearly

JCD > (JAS + Guy Why Gets Methodology)

#7 Comment By anon On July 26, 2016 @ 4:34 am

Well, at least Wasserman Shultz has a lot of experience for her new job: working for Hillary. I wonder how much that pays?

Also cool, we got to learn how much you need to pay for a cabinet position. So 1990s… like a time warp to the good old Clinton/ Bush days of the past.

“Heckofva job…”

More DNC emails to follow…

Oh, and that blackberry, hacked as well.

The more the Bernie supporters learn that they got robbed, the worse this gets for team Clinton.

Election fraud? Probably. Perhaps that is the next shoe to drop?

Enjoy the ride. Clinton corruption at its finest. Only now, we all get to read about it (well, accept those 30,000 emails that were deleted and the still classified stuff, of course.)

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

#8 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On July 26, 2016 @ 2:46 pm

I was in a hurry. The Nate Silver model which shows Trump winning is the now-cast model which indicates what would happen if the election were held today.

See, http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

Bottom line, the folks who were predicting a massive failure for Trump are out of touch with reality.

Trump is doing well despite spending very little money.

I imagine things will only get worse for Democrats as more e-mails are released and they realize that not only was the system rigged against Bernie, the DNC was also violating campaign finance laws.

I’m not surprised even Democrats were chanting “lock her up” this week.

#9 Comment By Guy Why Gets Methodology On July 26, 2016 @ 3:32 pm

Yes, you were careless and sloppy and wrong, and of course careless and sloppy and wrong in a way that just happens to conform with your own views of the world.

#10 Comment By Alum On July 26, 2016 @ 3:40 pm

JCD just PWND “Guy Who Gets Methodology” (aka sigh) and he cannot accept defeat nor the central premise of JCD’s point – Trump could very reasonably our next president!

#11 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On July 26, 2016 @ 5:06 pm

Thx. Alum. Some folks just don’t get it when there is an electoral realignment taking place. Trump is owning Hillary despite the fact that she is outspending him 15 to 1.

See, http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ad-spending-update-clinton-outspends-trump-57m-4m-n607981?cid=sm_tw

#12 Comment By anon On July 26, 2016 @ 5:46 pm

I think there is a real chance Trump can win. No doubt about it.

Drew’s point is well taken. The parsing of it in the meta… well, so what?

People are not happy with Hillary. The emails, the pay to play, the deals…

Trump has made racist statements. Not just dog whistle stuff… but blatant racism. So, there’s that!

A lot depends on how Trump performs in the debates, and mere chance. The expectations for Trump in the debates will be low, but if he does well- watch out!

What else will be leaked on Clinton or Trump? Will we suffer a large attack in the United States? What if it is done by refugees? How can Clinton defend her immigration and safety narrative if we get attacked here?

Still early… but the debates and the surprises are going to rule the day, because this is an election based on who we dislike less.

#13 Comment By Guy Why Gets Methodology On July 26, 2016 @ 9:01 pm

Trump’s free media ride is over, and the 15-to-1 spending literally means nothing. We’re down to two candidates now, and anything either does will be framed in terms of the other. Don’t you claim to have been a politics professor? This is Poli Sci 101 type stuff.

#14 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On July 27, 2016 @ 3:49 pm

The new Los Angeles Times and the USC Dornsife Center poll shows Trump with an amazing 7% lead over Hillary.

See, http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-clinton-poll-los-angeles-times/2016/07/27/id/740785/?ns_mail_uid=19070354&ns_mail_job=1679556_07272016&s=al&dkt_nbr=zzaucafc#

Post-convention, Trump is now doing much better with female voters.

#15 Comment By Alum On July 27, 2016 @ 5:31 pm

Seems like a perfectly reasonable methodology to me….

Anything to say, “Guy Why Gets Methedology” or has JCD blown your mind yet again? And you’re right, JCD hasn’t won any awards for political science research, oh wait…..yeah he has!

#16 Comment By Guy Why Gets Methodology On July 28, 2016 @ 12:59 am

Huh. Award-winning. Perhaps I was mistaken. Where did he get tenure? Is he retired? I can’t find any indication that he’s teaching anywhere now. I can’t find any books at Amazon or articles on Google, though I imagine there are databases that I cannot access?

One poll has Trump up by 7 right after his convention? Color me unconvinced.

#17 Comment By Fendertweed On August 5, 2016 @ 9:38 pm

It is Aug. 5 and Trump’s odds are at less than 20% thanks to his incorrigible verbal diarrhea.

And surprisingly (?), nothing but crickets here from the Trumpsters.

Hateful demagogues, like cockroaches, can always pop back up but the trend is not Trumpy this week.

#18 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 5, 2016 @ 9:48 pm

Fendertweed: Not so fast. 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll shows Trump and Hillary still neck and neck after post-convention bounces.

http://cesrusc.org/election/

This is amazing when you consider that Trump has virtually the entire media gunning for him and that he is being outspent by Hillary and her Wall Street donors at a rate of 15 to 1.

What you find most annoying about Trump is a refreshing change of pace for those of us sick of our nation’s toxic, politically incorrect discourse.

#19 Comment By dcat On August 6, 2016 @ 1:36 am

1) Trump’s rise has been based on nothing but the media holding him up. The idea that they are gunning for him is a fiction. Some might say a lie, a concept Trump supporters know well.

2) The USC/LA Times poll is an outlier, and today it too had Hillary in the lead.

3) Conservatives who discuss political correctness are the biggest bullshit artists of all. Politically correct like whining about the war on Christmas? Politically correct like complaining about the war on Christians? Politically correct like whining about reverse racism?

4) A conservative bitching about a liberal outspending them is the richest form of hypocrisy. But let’s agree that Citizens United was wrongly decided.

#20 Comment By anon On August 6, 2016 @ 10:19 am

Hillary Clinton is a to a liberal.

#21 Comment By anon On August 6, 2016 @ 10:20 am

… is not a liberal.

She is a pro choice/ gun control neoconservative

#22 Comment By anon On August 6, 2016 @ 10:23 am

or neoliberal…

However you want to slice that pie.

A globalist for sure… a strong proponent of preemptive war and regime change doctrine.

#23 Comment By fendertweed On August 6, 2016 @ 10:41 am

Keep on cherry picking. You posted a source, I’m merely pointing out that source now sees it much differently.

This is so typical of Trump and the Trumpisticates — spew polls like projectille vomit when they’re good, but run to hide behind something else when they’re bad … the mark of pseudo-intellectual relativistic shape-shifting.

There will likely be a swing back and perhaps the hate mongers may even swing the election to a know-nothing like Trump. He certainly appears to be the preferred candidate of Putin (and his little helper, Assange).

It’s remarkable that so-called (self-labeled) “conservatives” are so interested in electing someone who sucks up to repugnant authoritarians like Putin and who will effectively be his Mini-Me. Sounds like you may not really believe in democracy after all … Trump doesn’t. Putin doesn’t.

We’ll see what tune you then sing when Trump’s trashed the economy, compromised national security (maybe even start a little nuclear war just so we can use those nukes we have).

So you find it refreshing to have an ignorant, hateful moron as President?

That IS a different take, but still a totally repugnant one. You do, however, have the right to be as misguided as you like (at least until Trump is elected, then it looks like the First Amendment and any dissenting views may be crushed. Heaven forbid you might disagree with Herr Drumpf at some point and be in his sights).

#24 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 6, 2016 @ 5:09 pm

One of the awesome things about being a trained political scientist is that you understand that it is normal for a presidential candidate to receive a temporary bounce after their party’s convention.

According to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, Hillary’s lead over Trump has shrunk to just three points among likely voters.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s lead over Republican rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly eight points on Monday.

About 42 percent of likely voters favored Clinton, to Trump’s 39 percent, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 online poll of 1,154 likely voters. The poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points, meaning that the results suggest the race is roughly even.

Link

The most important things to pay attention to right now are the economy and the percentage of Americans who believe we are on the wrong track which is about 65% of us. Neither of these variables look good for Hillary.

#25 Comment By dcat On August 7, 2016 @ 2:13 am

Ah, yes, the trained political scientist whose expert training allows him to lie about the poll he cherry picks, a poll that has Hillary ahead by 4 points, not 3? That poll?

I love the citing of the political science expertise, by the way, as if that provides expertise on polls that the political science expert didn’t conduct.

Let’s see what 538 says, as of Saturday night:

The polls only forecast: Hillary 81.5% Trump 18.5%

The Polls Plus format: Hillary 74.9% Trump 25.1%

The Nowcast: Hillary 91.5% Trump: 8.5%

Hmm, yes. Trained political science indeed.

But keep picking those cherries! You have, after all, identified a poll that indicates that your candidate is losing! (Albeit by misrepresenting the amount by which he is losing.) That IS powerful evidence that your candidate is actually winning!

That awesome political science training is quite overwhelming. After all, the lay audience would believe that a candidate losing in the polls was losing in that poll. Not John Drew, with his political science mastery — he knows that losing in a poll is actually a sure sign of winning. That’s just pure social science math.

#26 Comment By Ephalum On August 7, 2016 @ 8:52 am

Apparently the “trained political science” was utterly oblivious to the convention bounce effect in this very thread on July 25 and 26, when polling indicated a tied race for about a two-day period between the two political conventions. And now, over a week after both conventions have concluded, suddenly his tune changes. So Trump was “owning” Hillary when they were tied after his convention but it’s just a bounce when she is up eight more than a week after her convention. Do you realize how stupid you are making yourself look? You can’t even keep your own story straight!!!. Hilarious. The fundamentals of this race are that Trump can’t crack 42 in polling averages and hasn’t been able to for six months. He is going to lose by between five and eight points in November. Nothing in polling for the past six months suggests a contrary outcome. And he’s doing worse in swing states than in national polls.

#27 Comment By Ephalum On August 7, 2016 @ 9:16 am

A “trained political scientist” would see that this race is remarkably consistent. Other than when the GOP primary ended while the Democratic primary was ongoing, and during the period between the conventions, when the race was basically tied, Clinton has maintained a steady lead between around 3 and 10 points. Nothing has really changed, we’ve just returned to equilibrium. And as Trump continues to self destruct and hermorage mainstream GOP support, while Dems stay united around Hillary, it’s only gonna get worse:

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-2016

#28 Comment By Ephalum On August 7, 2016 @ 10:28 am

Morning Consult poll today: plus nine. Clinton was up plus three in the same poll right after the DNC. That ain’t no convention bounce friends. That’s a Trump being Trump bounce.

#29 Comment By Fendertweed On August 8, 2016 @ 7:06 pm

“Trained political scientist” indeed … That’s a keeper. ;-)

#30 Comment By Williams Alum On August 19, 2016 @ 2:06 pm

DDF – Responding to your first question back to Frank Abagnale. I would like to see fewer posts related to race, class, and presidential politics. I would like to see more posts related to Williams College, and the incredible things its students and alums are achieving. See http://ephblog.com/2016/08/18/atrocious/#comment-171229 for ideas.

#31 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 20, 2016 @ 5:06 pm

New Rasmussen polls shows Trump only two points behind Clinton now that her post-convention bounce has faded away.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

I expect Trump to do well as Libertarians come back to the Republican side as we near election day.

Accordingly, the worst news for Hillary is that she is still lagging behind Trump among independent voters. As more information comes out about Hillary’s affinity for Saul Alinsky, I think independent voters will see she is dangerous.

I expect the buzz created by this new documentary, The Enemies Within, will wake folks up to the decay in our country.

#32 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 20, 2016 @ 5:49 pm

More good news for Trump fans. The newest L.A. Times poll shows that he has retaken the lead from Hillary.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/20/la-times-poll-trump-takes-half-point-lead-clinton/

This news will make it easier for Trump to raise the money he needs to win this election.

#33 Comment By Ephalum On August 21, 2016 @ 5:49 am

I really can’t wait until after the election when Drew is nowhere to be found here after Trump loses, and loses badly. For that is the level of insight a PhD in poly sci buys, you sure wasted a lot of years of your life. A reminder: you are crowing about a Republican pollster who had Romney beating Obama in 2012 who still has Trump losing.

Let’s look at polls that actually matter: Trump is down double digits — double digits! — in swing states Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado. If he loses those four, the election is over. He’s also losing by significant margins in Florida and Ohio — if he loses either, the election is over. I don’t know if you understand basic concepts like electoral math, but that is how actual political scientists evaluate elections, not cherry picking on any given day whatever pollster happens to show your favored candidate doing least-bad. Just a few weeks ago you were crowing about Reuters — now Trump is down big even in that poll. Trump’s campaign is totally falling apart and the RNC is gonna pull all support in October in a desperate plot to save as many House seats as possible (the Senate is likely a lost cause). Every endangered Republican is doing their best to run as far and as fast from Trump as possible. Unlike John Drew, those people are neither stupid not willfully ignorant of reality.

The state of this election is best summed up by the fact that Hillary is running closer to Trump in deep red states like Kansas, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and Arizona than he is in swing states that he has to win. She will break 300 electoral votes, with ease, and Drew will not show up here for a month or so and when he does he will pretend like every pathetically inaccurate prediction he made never happened while extolling his own purported genius. He’s a fraud and a phony just like his hero Trump.

#34 Comment By EphAlum On August 21, 2016 @ 5:58 am

Trump is losing.

Says who?

The polls. All of them. Election experts. All of them.

No, Trump is winning.

Says who?

One purported political “scientist” who lost his job in the 1980s, has published nothing of relevance on this topic, has been whining about losing his job for 30 years, and convinced himself that he would single-handedly bring future two-term (and still enormously-popular) President Barack Obama to his knees way back in 2007.

I’ll go with the pollsters and the actual experts — you know, all of them.

#35 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 21, 2016 @ 2:57 pm

– EphAlum

1. Job: I’m surprised as anyone else that the way I was treated as a young faculty member at Williams is still newsworthy 30 years later.

2. Bounce: You misinterpreted Clinton’s temporary bounce as a sure lead. That was a rookie mistake.

3. Popularity: Obama’s approval rating is only at about 50% right now. I think you sound ridiculous when you assert he is “enormously popular.”

4. Approval: It is normal for a president’s approval rating to climb slightly during their last year in office.

5. Insight: I’m still amazed that my take on young Obama’s radicalism was not weaponized by either the McCain or Romney campaigns. Nevertheless, I’m pleased that the fellow running Trump’s campaign, Steve Bannon, saw fit to publish my writing at Breitbart.com

6.Credibility: Come back and impress me after you get a job teaching at a place comparable to Williams or when your ideas are repeated in multiple books or when you become the topic of a documentary film.

For now, however, I think it is clear that the marketplace of ideas doesn’t value your insight any more than I do.

#36 Comment By EphAlum On August 21, 2016 @ 4:05 pm

It’s been a MONTH since the convention. Clinton is still dominating every poll of consequence. Read it and weep, fool.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/clinton-rises-to-348-electoral-votes-trump-drops-to-190/

#37 Comment By EphAlum On August 21, 2016 @ 4:08 pm

What was W’s approval rating in his final year in office? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Your opinions are as utterly worthless as they are when Williams canned you.

#38 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 22, 2016 @ 3:32 pm

It is hopelessly naive of you to assume that the polls publicized by media sources completely dominated by anti-Trump pro-Hillary folks are producing honest polling numbers.

See, https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/21/media-manipulation-of-u-s-politics-under-increased-scrutiny/

At this point, the mainstream media (along with most of our academic institutions) are little more than propagandist for the Democrat party and its globalist agenda.

If you ever took a political science course from me one of the first things I would teach you is to follow the money. The people who will make money off of a Hillary Clinton victory are not a reliable source of polling data.

#39 Comment By dcat On August 22, 2016 @ 5:03 pm

Wow. Just … wow. Even after the Unskewed Polling nonsense was revealed for what it was in 2012 when 538 had their projections 100% right both nationally and at the statewide level, we have some charlatan here asserting that all of the polls are corrupt because they are beholden to the “mainstream media,” an empty phrase if ever there was one. (What does the latest WSJ poll say? The latest Fox poll? The latest Rasmussen poll?)

And if, when teaching polling methodology, you taught students to “follow the money,” then you really did not belong in a classroom of any sort. What money? Following it from where? To where? Again — the polling, especially the aggregated polling, in 2012 was spot-on, and Republican operatives were saying the same thing about their corruption then.

Meanwhile, all I’ll say about your “If you ever took a political science course from me” hypothetical is that no one born after the LBJ administration has ever had that option.

#40 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 22, 2016 @ 7:46 pm

– dcat

You make me laugh. You are paid out of taxpayer money for services which, according to Rate My Professor, are substandard even compared with your peers at your obscure, West Texas, campus. Of course, you have a stake in defending the inefficient, wasteful government system which pays your pathetic salary.

Based on the complaints I read about your teaching, I don’t think you would last long in the real world. You certainly wouldn’t last a minute at a high-end elite school like Williams College.

Can you even imagine how little you would earn if your students were customers who had to pay out of pocket for the crappy, self-serving bullshit you dish out to them?

If you haven’t figured out that the media and academia are in the tank for Hillary yet, then there is no hope for your objectivity. Meanwhile, Trump is maintaining his lead in the new, LA Times poll.

See, http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-gains-ground-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html

#41 Comment By dcat On August 22, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

Oh Christ. This again.

Rate My Professor (Where I’ve had four ratings in this decade.) My “crappy” West Texas school! Wouldn’t last long in the “real world” (because three years at Williams is more “real world” than Odessa, I guess).

As to the actual issue at hand, we are getting that one outlier poll again with its dubious methodology. A poll produced by a media organization. One poll.

You know, I will say — sometimes you go to see a band, and you just want them to play the hits. These are John Drew’s greatest hits. I suppose we should define “greatness.” And “hits.” But the point stands. Sometimes you just want to hear Frankie Goes to Hollywood play “Relax,” because like John Drew, they had their one moment that mattered in 1985.

#42 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 23, 2016 @ 2:44 am

– dcat

You are just being silly right now.

I lead a successful, growing business in the highly competitive Southern California marketplace. I routinely raise millions of dollars a year by managing a team of writers that consistently win highly competitive state and federal grants.

I live in a city by the Pacific Ocean that offers extraordinary recreational and cultural amenities, including a world-class concert hall. If Trish and I sold our place in California, we could buy six homes just like yours in West Texas.

I don’t think you know what it takes to lead a team of people or to succeed, under pressure, at the highest possible levels of achievement in either the academic or business world. At best, you’re a fan, not a player.

Without your modest government paycheck you would be lost. You would be a bad waiter, at a bad Dennys, on a lonely road in the West Texas plains.

#43 Comment By Williams Alum On August 23, 2016 @ 8:51 am

JCD –
You are a clown. Sorry for the ad hominem, but you are doing it, so I thought I might too. A BIG clown.

– WA

#44 Comment By Alum On August 23, 2016 @ 11:46 am

JCD,

Give dcat a break. No need to tear someone down.

#45 Comment By dcat On August 23, 2016 @ 11:51 am

In order to be a player, you have to get into the game. Instead you got cut from the game and joined a profession for people who fail at my profession.

And I’m curious why you would brag about winning state and federal grants if getting government checks is so bad. But that’s John C. Drew, Ph.D. He contains multitudes. No publication record to speak of. But multitudes.

#46 Comment By EphAlum On August 23, 2016 @ 1:16 pm

Don’t sweat it DCat everyone knows Drew is a sad pathetic clown who has to brag about how great he is to try to obscure his own failures. People who are actually successful and secure don’t need constant affirmation from random people on the Internet. His utter lack of even a scintilla expertise is facially obvious from his laughable “analysis” of an election that ignores any data that undermines his story (which at this point is virtually all of it). Every pollster save Rasmussen (which is weighted towards the GOP) predicted almost exactly Obama’s electoral victory margin in 2008 and 2012 despite similar unsubstantiated wishful-thinking claims of bias by Drew and his other uninformed, racist and hateful friends on the alt-right. Note that he’s not even smart enough to understand a poll methodology and try to critique it on the merits. To him (like Trump) if he personally doesn’t like the outcome, it must be biased — kind of like his career failings, all of which he also blames on nonexistent bias.

Meanwhile in the reality based community, a new poll has Hillary up 16 in Virgina. 16! She is tied with Trump in Missouri, which at this point should be a deep red state. She’s winning every swing state save Iowa which is tied, most of them by a lot, and she is essentially dead even in four red states (SC, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri). She’s up by an average of 5-6 nationally but that dramatically understates her massive electoral advantage, which is insurmountable barring a massive October surprise of some sort. You just can’t overcome double-digit leads in PA, CO, VA and NH in two months barring a total catatastophe. Now of course when for the third election in a row Drew has proven not just wrong but catastrophically wrong it won’t stop his claims to brilliance and expertise. It’s like a basketball team losing 20 straight games and still insisting that they are the best in the league. Must be nice to live in a fact-free world.

#47 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 23, 2016 @ 1:23 pm

– dcat

You don’t get it. I left teaching after winning my profession’s highest possible award for new Ph.D.’s and teaching at the #1 school in the nation.

The fact that I am one of the only scholars at Williams College to ever be denied the opportunity compete for tenure is still so historically significant that 30 years later researchers contact me to hear my story.

In contrast, you are an embarrassingly weak teacher at an state school that only graduates a third of its students after six years of study.

If you got fired tomorrow, I don’t think anyone would care – not now, not in 30 years, not in a thousand years.

#48 Comment By dcat On August 23, 2016 @ 1:39 pm

You won a PhD dissertation award in your subfield. And you did not publish anything when you were at Williams. So Williams did not even let you go up for tenure. And you seem to think that your circulating around the right-wing echo chamber matters somehow. If it weren’t for self-promotion, you’d have no promotion at all. Why no academic career after Williams? Because with your publication record three years in, you also would not have gotten tenure at my school, which you continue to deride in ways that would get your ass kicked were we in the same room.

You know nothing about my teaching. You keep using Rate My Professor where four people have evaluated me in this decade. It’s pathetic.

#49 Comment By ephalum On August 23, 2016 @ 2:28 pm

Trump down 14 in Florida:

http://polls.saintleo.edu/survey-florida-looks-like-it-will-support-clinton-for-president/

This follows another Monmouth poll which has him down 9.

These are both non-partisan polls.

Needless to say, if Trump loses Florida he has zero chance of winning the general election, and that looks increasingly likely. If your appeal is confined largely to white men, in particular, white men without a college degree, in a country in which more than 30 percent of the electorate is non-white and over half is women, needless to say, you are going to be in big, big trouble in any diverse state.

#50 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 23, 2016 @ 2:28 pm

– dcat

I have tear in my eyes right now from laughter. The image of you trying to kick my ass is too comic. :-)

You are as dopey as a guy who threatens to shoot me with a gun he chewed out of a Pop Tart.

On a more relevant point, I finished my dissertation during my first year at Williams College. The decision to deny my opportunity for tenure took place 1.5 years later, based, supposedly on the low quality of my dissertation.

My perception at the time is that it would require a ton of work to turn my dissertation into a publishable book.

(I planned to turn it into a book during my sabbatical year).

After I quit teaching, I persevered and managed to get my dissertation published without the normal advantages of having a either a low-stress academic job or a free sabbatical year.

In retrospect, it is a miracle that I found an editor and a publisher who would work with me despite the fact I was no longer an academic.

I don’t think you appreciate how difficult it is to get published in a prestigious academic press when you are not working in a low-stress academic job.

Go finish the rest of your Pop Tart. Leave the fighting to the real men who know what it is to work hard and succeed under extreme pressure.

#51 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 23, 2016 @ 8:37 pm

FYI: The UPI/CVoter daily presidential tracking poll released Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by less than 1 percentage point for a second consecutive day.

See, http://www.breitbart.com/news/upicvoter-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-hold-steady-in-virtual-tie/

The UPI/CVoter online tracking poll surveys about 200 people each day, leading to a sample size of roughly 1,400 people during any seven-day span.

Because the poll is conducted online and individuals self-select to participate, a margin of error cannot be calculated. The poll has a credibility interval of 3 percentage points. This seven-day span includes data collected from Aug. 15-21, when 1,795 individuals were surveyed. Of them, 1,259 identified themselves as likely voters.

This is interesting, in part, because there may be a Bradley effect impacting polling based on phone interviews. It turns out that highly educated people are more likely to report they support Trump in anonymous on-line poll than in telephone interviews.

Not everyone is brave about their preferences for voting for Donald Trump.

#52 Comment By Ephalum On August 23, 2016 @ 9:36 pm

What I find “interesting” is that Barack Obama was elected twice despite the so called “Bradley effect” which doesn’t actually exist. Just like Trump is losing by double digits in swing state polls conducted both online AND via phone — there is no demonstrable difference and if you actually read anything about the election that wasn’t sourced from Trump’s campaign manager you might have a clue about just how badly your historically incompetent candidate is losing. Also, there is this thing called the electoral college which it appears you are entirely ignorant of because you have the political knowledge of an eighth grader (putting it generously).

#53 Comment By Ephalum On August 23, 2016 @ 9:55 pm

The Florida poll I cited above was an online poll. Fourteen points. Trump can’t win without Florida. The only thing more certain than a Trump loss is that you will continue to tout your own brilliance despite a third consecutive election in which your prognostication was proven egregiously wrong. But like a true conservative you will blame everyone but yourself for your own failures.

#54 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 23, 2016 @ 11:44 pm

-Ephalum

Please. You have no scientific credentials. Your comments show no evidence that you’ve ever taken a course in survey research, or taught such a course, or even conducted you own survey and data analysis.

It is naïve for you to think that the media is not manipulating these polls to hurt the candidate they despise.

It is even more naïve of you to think that Hillary did not leverage her status as Secretary of State to enrich herself by linking access to her to speaking engagements for Bill and gifts to the Clinton Foundation.

Again, if you want to know what is really going on remember that 99 out of 100 times the answer to your most important questions is “It’s the money.”

#55 Comment By Ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 2:28 am

Once again your presence here proves one, and only one, thing: why no academic institution would hire you after Williams thankfully jettisoned your useless ass.

You can’t seem to make up your mind: you alternate between obsessively citing to the least-bad poll for Trump on any given day and claiming without any evidence (an actual political “scientist” would at least attempt to make an argument, you don’t even bother) that the 99 percent of wholly non-partisan polls, which have no incentive to cook the books because their entire credibility and business model (follow the money) is dependent on one and only one thing — demonstrated accuracy over time — are just made up numbers. So which is it, should be care a whit about polls or not? Your answer seems to be “only the polls which favor my candidate.” Which may be the stupidest thing written in the history of the Internet, although every other thing you’ve ever written is a close second. Why not get your head out of your ass to at least attempt to analyze the polling history of all of the many immensely respected pollsters, all of whom have a long track record of success using established and transparent methodologies, and explain by actual analysis of their quantitative methods why they are wrong? I’ll answer: because that would be too hard for your itty bitty brain to handle. You also laughably ignore the fact that among the pollsters who have Hillary crushing Trump are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. I’ll say this really slowly so you can comprehend: those aren’t liberal pollsters. Neither is Quinnipiac, which has traditionally favored Trump and not favored liberal candidates, yet has Hillary absolutely murdering Trump in several key swing states. If he’s losing there in October, he’s toast because he has no chance of outperforming those numbers.

You made the same bullshit claims in 2008 and 2012 about skewed polls, fed by the same reality-oblivious right wing troll factories. You were egregiously wrong then. And you offer no reasons why anyone should listen to someone with such a proven track record of spewing 100 percent bulllshit. Much like your claims about Barack Obama were all 100 bullshit, fabrications of an infantile, diseased, and deeply jealous psyche.

#56 Comment By Ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 2:42 am

To give one example: the Roanoke Poll has Romney beating Obama in Virginia 2012. That’s my proof that it does not have a liberal bias. What’s yours that it does? Trump is down 16 in Virginia in that poll of what was once considered a swing state and is now safe Clinton. Much like Colorado, PA and NH are all now safe Clinton.

#57 Comment By EphAlum On August 24, 2016 @ 2:58 am

Here is an online poll (not a very useful one in my view, but that isn’t the point) that John Drew, alleged political “scientist”, has repeatedly cited to. Suddenly, he acts as if the poll never existed. I wonder why?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10Y28J

This guy is a total joke people. You can’t repeatedly rely on the same polls that you suddenly claim are meaningless as soon as you don’t like the results. Even a fifth grader understands that much.

#58 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 24, 2016 @ 1:09 pm

-EphAlum

Wow! You are such a lame amateur. Do you even research what you think to back it up? Even your fellow Democrats think this poll is inaccurate. See,

Clinton holds a five point lead over Trump, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average.

Political strategist Pat Caddell recently criticized the Reuters polls for being “cooked” to favor Clinton during an appearance on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 with Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow

The bottom line is this poll reportedly shows 22% claim they will not vote for either Hillary or Trump. No one with the slightest understanding of political science believes that whopper. Check out the statistics on third party voting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

I guarantee that the actual results in November will reflect historical norms, not your wildest fantasies of Hillary’s dominance.

FYI: Aren’t you the least bit bothered that Hillary was making money off of her role as Secretary of State?

#59 Comment By Dick Swart ’56 On August 24, 2016 @ 1:10 pm

Dear boys,

Back in the dim days before the current resurrection of Ephblog. we had the John Drew problem plus one other constant annoyance . I simply banned them both.

This could be dome now.

However, in that dim past, the readership was larger and far more diverse than it seems now. Dave also was not the sole communicator.

You may wonder what I was doing on the blog. I was President for awhile and then editor. I was trying to make the blog more diverse. I also had interesting communications with the college, one of which actions “The UNOFFICIAL Voice of Williams College” is still on the masthead.

However, it does appear that with 57 comments so far, the blog has become a forum for the few who really enjoy ranting.

As for me. i simply enjoy dropping in the occasional piece of sarcastic comment.

#60 Comment By dcat On August 24, 2016 @ 1:20 pm

Once again, John Drew would not have gotten tenure at my allegedly low stress academic job (with both a higher teaching load and a far great number of students in any semester than virtually anyone at Williams has). In my university’s political science department in order to get renewed in the third-year assessment you would need at least one academic article, preferably more to assure continuing appointment, and to get tenure a minimum of three, and as a senior faculty member I don’t ever encourage anyone to go in with the minimum, because people have not gotten tenure with that minimum. In book disciplines, a scholarly book will get it done, though articles would likely go with it. John did not have an article three years into his tenure at Williams. To this day he does not have three articles, some three decades after he could not pass the one article threshold. And he has all kinds of excuses. My favorite? He was at TOO good a school to publish a book, which is, of course, why no Williams junior faculty members ever publish books. I must admit, I’ve never heard THAT one.

Literally every single full-time member of my university’s political science department has a better publication record than John Drew did when he was booted from Williams, despite the fact that he’s a self-anointed genius political scientist too good for my university.

Anyway, back to my article revisions. (John: There is something called a “revise-and-resubmit” process that those of us who are not geniuses, like yourself, almost always have to go through. You see, what happens is that you send an article submission to a journal. And then the editor reads it and if they think it is worth pursuing they send it off to usually between one and five outside reviewers in the field. Those people, plus sometimes the editor if they are a content expert, write reader’s reports and recommend rejecting, publishing, and most commonly, revising-and-resubmitting, which asks the author to respond to a series of comments, suggestions, and criticisms. The author does that, and it usually goes back to the same readers who then decide if the revisions are sufficient. If so, it goes to press in an issue of the journal that will appear sometime down the road — and will eventually end up in a database when people can find it. If not it might meet with rejection or another round of revisions. But Williams must be too good of a school to enable this process to happen, because you didn’t manage to get any articles done in your time there during the same time that you didn’t manage to get your book under contract.)

#61 Comment By EphAlum On August 24, 2016 @ 1:34 pm

John Drew, YOU were the one who was citing the Reuters poll just a few weeks ago. You. Could you possibly be any more of a dishonest joke of a human being? Do you realize how sad you are, or do you just enjoy trolling so much that you don’t care?? The only thing that has changed in the period of time between you slobbering over the Reuters poll like a dog in heat and today when you argue that it is worthless (despite it being an Internet poll, which YOU claim — falsely — are more accurate) is the top line result. If tomorrow the poll showed Trump ahead, you’d be the first person saying that it’s the only poll that matters, and pretend as if this conversation never occurred. Listen I’m sure you will still be blaming a convention bounce in November after Hillary wins over 300 electoral votes. You truly are the perfect Trump supporter: stupid, angry, bigoted, fact-immune, and will believe anything you read on Breitbart, which is the communications branch of his campaign and as such is utterly worthless as a source. I’m sure you also believed it earlier this month when Breitbart posted a photo of a Cavs rally as evidence of Trump’s crowd size. I can’t wait to hear all of your excuses after Trump gets embarrassed badly in November.

As for the Clinton Foundation, Hillary did absolutely nothing wrong. I’ll post a link that you won’t read because it contains analytical nuance above your limited reading comprehension level:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting

#62 Comment By EphAlum On August 24, 2016 @ 1:45 pm

Dick, your tenure as blog President was easily the golden age of this blog, before it was destroyed by two unhinged, hateful trolls (from opposite ends of the political spectrum, oddly enough). The recent Time cover story is instructive. Now alas it has descended basically into an alt-right hate speech forum full of inaccurate facts, lazy / outright dishonest analysis, beating dead horses further to death, and deeply ingrained racist underpinnings. It’s sad to me that anyone might judge Williams based on this blog, as it in no way represents the vast majority of the school or its alumni.

#63 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 24, 2016 @ 2:47 pm

– EphAlum

Your ideological bias is showing. Why aren’t you addressing the fact that this new poll you love shows 22% claiming that they won’t vote for either Hillary or Trump. You are so ideologically blinded that you aren’t open minded enough to see the most obvious flaws in this Reuters poll.

The Vox article confirms that about half of the private citizens that Hillary met with as SOS were Clinton Foundation donors. This is why Trump calls her corrupt Hillary. People pay a ton of money for meetings like that…

– dcat

You don’t have any experience at teaching at an elite school, much less the most elite school in the nation.

Your lack of experience blinds you from the fact that my publishing status at Williams College was entirely appropriate for a young scholar seeking tenure.

The quality of my work was unquestionably the best of my generation.

Everyone’s expectation is that I’d spend my sabbatical turning my thesis into a book, and that if I published that book in time, I would be given tenure…all things being equal. Leftists at Williams sabotaged that plan, but I got my dissertation published despite extremely difficult to surmount barriers.

Dozens of elite young academics were in the same boat as me since Williams College and other elite schools were OK hiring exceptionally creative and innovative people — like me — who were still working on their dissertations.

Like I’ve said, you are a loser who has never showed the talent or persistence needed to succeed in the big leagues. You are pathetic. Finish up that Pop Tart you are aiming at me and get to work teaching the students your crappy state school attracts from the ten mile region surrounding your West Texas address.

#64 Comment By ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 3:15 pm

For the umpteenth time, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CITES THE REUTERS POLL. You, not me. You just stop citing it when it stops supporting your narrative. As for the “flaw” you are citing, perhaps you haven’t been keeping up on the news, but in EVERY SINGLE POLL a significant — often huge — percentage of voters are not supporting either Hillary or Trump — you’ve probably never heard of Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, or simply people who say they won’t vote at all. But there is no polling that adds up to 100 percent for Clinton plus Trump, because, duh, a lot of people are supporting NEITHER Clinton nor Trump for President. Which is obvious to anyone with half a clue. But again, this is the poll that you cited as definitive proof that Clinton and Trump were in a close race just a few weeks ago.

But forget YOUR favorite pollster Reuters … How about Roanoke? And NBC Wall Street Journal? And Quinnipiac? And Fox News? And on and on and on, all polls you haven’t even addressed. Trump is down by MORE THAN NINE points in AGGREGATED polling in enough states to give Hillary an electoral majority, even if Trump won EVERY single state that is a toss-up or in which he trails by fewer than 9 points. And this is across a wide variety of pollsters. Oh, and to make matters worse, Trump underperformed his polls (especially online polls, you can look it up, it’s called a “fact”) in the primaries, and will almost surely do so again in the general because he has zero ground game and negligible GOTV apparatus. Things which if you were an actual political scientist you would understand.

You haven’t rebutted any of that, because you simply can’t, because there is no rebutting facts. The only poll you DO rely on is one that actually IS heavily flawed, the laughably bad L.A. Times Poll which is full of all sorts of methodological flaws as professional pollster from all ends of the political spectrum have continually pointed out (starting with the fact that it keeps polling the same group of people, failing to correct for any initial sampling error, and also almost surely is not accurately representing the partisan breakdown of the electorate due to its outlier methodology). And even in THAT poll Trump is losing.

Man, at least provide me with a challenge, your arguments are so weak and instantly eviscerated, it’s a wonder you ever graduated college, let alone taught at one (albeit short-lived, a mistake that no other accredited institution would ever repeated, fortunately for the students who were spared from you laughably weak “analysis” which solely consists of endlessly spewing talking points with no rhyme or reason).

#65 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 24, 2016 @ 3:49 pm

You are so dull and repetitive. I doubt you make a living in any profession which requires you to hold an audience’s attention.

You are just being so silly right now. Look at the Real Clear Politics average. It plainly shows that the two media polls, the ones conducted by NBC and ABC News, are the outlying polls. They show a ridiculous advantage for Hillary right now.

What will it take to convince you that the liberal, leftist Democrat run news media cannot be trusted to run a poll right?

#66 Comment By ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 3:58 pm

I’ve spoken in front of hundreds of people, all far, far, far, far, smarter than you (a low bar, to be fair) to rave reviews, but whatever, that’s not really relevant to this.

How about polls by the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and Fox News? Or are they part of the leftist Democratic run news media. More importantly, what you are saying is DEMONSTRABLY, EMPIRICALLY FALSE. It’s not my opinion, or speculation, you are simply lying. Here is MY proof — in 2012, the very samy “leftist” pollster who you are now bitching and moaning about pegged the election almost EXACTLY right, and to the extent they erred, they erred in favor of the Republican candidate. Almost EVERY poll predicted the elction popular vote within the margin of polling error. One of the worst was Rasmussen, which as a GOP pollster unsurprisingly missed by four points in favor of Romney. So, when Rasmussen has Clinton up two (as they currently do), that really means she is up six, based on ACTUAL PAST EXPERIENCE, rather than your stream of bullshit, unsupported, drivel. How many days did you cry in 2008 and 2012 when your bullshit theories about skewed polls were proven incorrect? How many days will you be crying when Trump loses by between 5-8 points in the popular voter? That’s the only poll I’m interested in learning about from your diseased, pathetic mind.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

#67 Comment By ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

Note that in hundreds and hundreds of comments here, you’ve made not one — NOT ONE — supported by actual analysis. Because you are either incapable or unwilling of doing actual rigorous intellectual analysis. THAT is why you are not employed by Williams, and why no other accredited college or university in the country would hire you for the last 30 years. It has nothing to do with your race or your political identity. It has everything to do with your lack of brainpower. Which you’ve helpfully demonstrated here, so thanks for undermining entirely your own tale of woe.

#68 Comment By ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 4:33 pm

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ed-rollins-trump-lose-227363

Yet another hit job from the liberal …. errr, never mind …

#69 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 24, 2016 @ 4:53 pm

– EphAlum

LOL. Trust me. You have no sense of drama or dramatic expression. I defy you share with us a single video of you entertaining a crowd of hundreds. Just one.

I’m more than smart (and intuitive) enough to tell you are an emotionally immature, low IQ and political amateur simply by judging the quality of your writing.

In the meantime, ask yourself a life-changing questions: How can Hillary possibly win when she can’t even draw a crowd?

If you were truly smart, then you would be more cautious in your statements. You would be wondering, in part, about the possibility that Trump is pulling in large numbers of white non-voters who have been previously alienated by both the Republican and Democrat parties.

Does that blow you mind? Good. That’s why I post here, to expand the consciousness of liberals who don’t realize they are painfully out-of-touch with reality.

#70 Comment By ephalum On August 24, 2016 @ 5:02 pm

Once again, you have proven unable to respond to my actual arguments, instead trying desparately to change the subject. You can’t actually answer anything I have to say because eitehr (a) you are too stupid or (b) you know I am right so you are desparately trying to change the subject. I ask you, again, to back up your claim that the polls are skewed towards Clinton in light of the fact that THOSE VERY SAME POLLSTER YOU CLAIM ARE LIBERALLY BIASED ALL EITHER GOT THE ELECTION EXACTLY RIGHT IN 2012 OR ACTUALLY ERRED ON THE SIDE OF ROMNEY. Why would they be liberally biased now, but not in 2012, or in 2008? Did the liberal media hate Barack Obama but love Hillary Clinton? And by the way, these pollster are not the media — their entire economic model, entire reputation, depends on accuracy. You can’t respond, because there is no possible response you can come up with. You are simply not smart or informed enough. Plus, the facts are not on your side. In short, I win, you lose, argument over. Thank you for implictly acknowledging that I’m correct and you are wrong by failing to respond.

No, my mind is not blown, because what you are saying is of no consequence. Crowd size at rallies has precisely zero correlation with voter turnout. Obviously. Here is my only question for you: if Trump loses, and loses badly, will you return here and admit that everything you have posted (including your laughable “crowd” analysis, which is utterly meaningless — drawing crowds of 5000 has absolutely NOTHING to do with turning out 60 MILLION people on election day) here is wrong? If you are so confident in your analysis, here is all I ask of you — if Trump loses, you will promise to return to this blog, and admit that you are a fraud and admit that I was right, and you were wrong. That’s all I ask. If you won’t make that promise, then what use are you?? You throw out all these bullshit claims KNOWING they are bullshit and you won’t own up to it when you are wrong.

Since you have requested a video, I dedicate this video from me to you, which is my future response to anything you have to say, because frankly, nothing else is deserved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY

#71 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 24, 2016 @ 5:23 pm

– EphAlum

Frankly, I knew that you weren’t very bright the second I saw you use all caps.

We both know that you lack the sensitivity needed to entertain an audience or become a beloved professor. Let me show you how it is done.

Check out me tearing down Barack Obama.

https://youtu.be/HEQ6L2QIMUo

#72 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 24, 2016 @ 11:07 pm

More good news for Donald Trump fans. Here’s a great USA Today article which will update you on Hillary’s pay to play scandal involving her, the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/24/clinton-foundation-emails-donations-server-payforplay-trump-glenn-reynolds/89205512

It turns out she lied about having only one extra server. There were two. The FBI now has under its control an addition 15,000 or so e-mails that she failed to turn over. Hillary is a bad example to all the kids out there looking for good government.

#73 Comment By Williams Alum On August 25, 2016 @ 8:55 am

JCD –
Frankly, I knew you weren’t very bright the second I watched that video.

We both know that you lack the pizzazz to entertain a crowd, or become a beloved professor. You didn’t show us how it was done.

That was a lame video.

WA

#74 Comment By EphAlum On August 25, 2016 @ 1:21 pm

#75 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 25, 2016 @ 1:24 pm

You have bad taste. At 11:00 p.m. today, I’ll be performing my comedy routine at the Main Street Bar and Grill in Laguna Beach, CA. You should come out and see the show.

As a contributor to Breitbart.com I will be curious to see what Hillary Clinton has to say about this website today. Apparently, she think it does not have a right to exist.

Here’s a description of what is up.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/24/breitbart-hillary-clinton-attack-attack-freedom/

Here’s a copy of an article I wrote for Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/07/18/compressed-marxist-ex-girlfriend-dreams-obama-socialist-marxist-exclusive-vetting/

It looks like Hillary Clinton is prepared to declare war on conservatives. She’s not so bright for an attorney.

#76 Comment By EphAlum On August 25, 2016 @ 1:45 pm

It’s funny that someone “not very smart” like Hillary has been a United States Senator, Secretary of State, and is two months away from being President of the United States, while you, the brilliant John Drew, is somehow stuck being a lowly nobody grant writer begging anonymous people to attend his comedy open mic on a Thursday night in Laguna Beach. I guess smarts must be overrated …

#77 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 25, 2016 @ 1:54 pm

Hillary’s only real skill is staying married to Bill Clinton despite his consistent cheating and rapes.

Without that skill she’d be as anonymous as you.

Maybe I should use that line in my act tonight? If you haven’t done an open mike at a gay bar in Laguna Beach, you really haven’t lived.

#78 Comment By ephalum On August 25, 2016 @ 2:30 pm

That’s absolutely hilarious — as you would write, “LOL”! Honestly, my chest is still heaving from convulsions of laughter. I will stand down — you have demonstrated that your comic wit is truly incomparable. Definitely use it tonight, I’m sure it will bring down the house. Married to a rapist … Wow, how ever do you come up with these original, incisive gems?

#79 Comment By dcat On August 25, 2016 @ 2:47 pm

EphAlum and Dick —
All I’ve done to “troll” is defend myself and my institution. John is lording his expertise over all of us, despite it being unearned. I don’t appreciate the false equivalence.

#80 Comment By ephalum On August 25, 2016 @ 3:20 pm

dcat I wasn’t speaking of you, I was talking about a liberal troll from back in the previous incarnation of EphBlog, someone who was often at odds with Drew (and in fact created a webpage devoted to debunking him) but was just as much of a malign, poisonous presence. I’m sure it rings a bell :) It has nothing to do with ideology, but rather with nonsensical, disturbed individual who feel a need to dominate any conversation they enter (typically via irrelevant personal invective and/or self-aggrandizement, see this thread) while totally ignoring every single point made by anyone with a contrary viewpoint, not even pretending to address actual arguments, and just generally being an a**hole. My point was that it has nothing to do with ideology, but rather it’s about serving a deep need for venting of anger and finding desparately-needed affirmation in any small corner of the internet where it might be offered.

#81 Comment By ephalum On August 25, 2016 @ 3:37 pm

Yes, Hillary clearly has NO IDEA what she is doing highlighting Breitbart’s racist, sexist, alt-right poison in her speech. There is no way that, say, the 52 percent of voters in this country who are women (a substantial majority of whom are already dead-set on voting against Trump, but hey, a little overkill isn’t so bad) could possibly find anything in these headlines objectionable. And voters in this country just HATE Gabby Gifford. After all, she went and got herself shot — voters like politicians who don’t get shot.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/768893816053071872

#82 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On August 25, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

– ephalum

Your talking about one Ken Thomas. Thomas was a sad guy. It took him five years to graduate from Williams College.

I think he displayed his personal problems clearly when he started bragging about his unfinished doctoral dissertation.

Here are my comments from 2011:

Amazingly, Ken Thomas has been working on his Ph.D. for about 18 years now. You could tell that he was deep in his own bullshit when he posted about how it was a good thing for his life that he was still working on his Ph.D. and how his standards were so much higher than mine that it made sense for him to spend 18 years on his Ph.D. I could not believe the madness I was reading. I’m only a “near genius” and I still finished my Ph.D. in about four years.

I recommended that he be removed as the administrator of this blogsite.

Eventually, I refused to engage him after I figured out how ill he was in real life. Unfortunately, the ravings of a truly ill individual can pass for brilliance as long as they mouth the liberal line-of-the-day.

#83 Comment By anon-liberal On August 25, 2016 @ 4:29 pm

It’s good to know that Ephblog Derangement Syndrome has been diagnosed and treated before. It’s a shame that the Trump variety has been so infectious (and successful).

Since there are many other places to dissect the Trump phenomenon (and the art of political prognostication in general), and there’s no evidence that Ephblog past or present is any better on this issue, heeding Comments 30 and 59 might be best.