Friday night Chesstock

Anyone heard of Lejzor and Fiszel Czyż?

The immigrated from Poland to Chicago, changing their names to Leonard and Philip Chess. They worked in a family junkyard within hearing distance of a black Baptist church.

“On a Sunday, man, they’d get going with that groove and you couldn’t help but stand there and dance. Really, that’s, that’s how good it was. We gradually got a feel for this black blues. And thank God it took off.”

They later bought a record label, renamed it Chess, and their first recording was of someone called Muddy Waters.

Phil Chess died this week, aged 95, having left a legacy through making a significant contribution to the promotion and proliferation of blues, rock and roll, rock and jazz.

Chicago Tribune: Phil Chess, co-founder of blues label Chess Records, dies

Guardian: Phil Chess, the Polish immigrant who brought blues to the world

Donald roasts Hillary roasts Donald

At the AL Smith charity dinner in New York Donald Trump mostly attacked Hillary Clinton, sometimes to boos.

Clinton returned fire.

Trump on full term abortions

Donald Trump has made many preposterous claims in his campaign. Some of his most troubling and ridiculous came out in the third and final presidential debate, on abortion.

Trump said he would make Supreme Court appointments that would overturn Row v. Wade.

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Would Overturn Roe v. Wade

Donald Trump said during the third presidential debate Wednesday night that his Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision that protects a woman’s right to end her pregnancy until the fetus is viable outside the womb. 

“If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen,” the Republican nominee said. “That will happen automatically in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.” 

Openly saying he would stack the Supreme Court must be a concern.

Trump also pandered to conservatives but annoyed votes he desperately needs to pick up on his Supreme Court comment.

Trump saying he will appoint SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe v. Wade caused his numbers with independents to tank.


More from Huffington:

Trump said earlier this year that if abortion were illegal, women should “face some sort of punishment” for having one. When Clinton criticized him for that comment in the debate Wednesday night, Trump fired back with the misleading claim that Clinton supports abortions “on the final day” of pregnancy.

“If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother,” Trump said. “Just prior to the birth of the baby. You can say that that’s OK, and Hillary can say that that’s OK, but it’s not OK with me.”

“Because based on what she’s saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.”

Birth happens on the final day. It is ludicrous to suggest that babies are ripped out at all let alone aborted at full term.

90 percent of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

Dr Jennifer Gunter at Huffington Post: Donald Trump Confuses Birth With Abortion. And No, There Are No Ninth Month Abortions

To put it in perspective, 1.3 percent of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks and 80 percent are for birth defects.

Put another way, 1 percent of abortions that are at or after 21 weeks and are for birth defects and 0.3 percent of abortions are at or after 21 weeks and are not for birth defects (some of these will be health of the mother and a very few will be for other indications).

Birth Defects

This could range from Down syndrome to anomalies incompatible with life. The generally accepted limit of viability is 24 weeks.

After 24 weeks, birth defects that lead to abortion are very severe and typically considered incompatible with life. These procedures are either a traditional induction, just like labor, or something that requires instrumentation. Because of the nonsensical partial birth abortion law women who wish to have a dilation and extraction (a modified technique for more advanced procedures) need to have fetal cardiac activity stopped with an injection into the uterus. Either way, it’s a two or three (or even four) day process to get the cervix to dilate enough.

The further along in the pregnancy, the more likely the procedure will be an induction of labor. But a skilled practitioner can do a dilation and extraction at 32 or 34 weeks. I’ve never heard of a dilation and extraction for any other reason than severe birth defects, and often, it is for a woman who has had two or three c-sections for whom inducing labor might pose other health hazards, like uterine rupture. Are we to force women to have c-sections for a pregnancy that is not compatible with life?


Some of the 0.3 percent of abortions after 21 weeks will be for personal reasons. Often these are called elective abortions, but I don’t like that term. Usually this happens when it took too long to find a clinic and raise the money. These abortions happen before 24 weeks. There is no ninth month action here either.

The Facts

There are no ninth month abortions. Really. A ninth month abortion is a unicorn and so it’s ridiculous to even discuss it. Terminations after 24 weeks are for severe fetal anomalies.



Standard gang bans CV 2/2

Yesterday Colonial Viper was singled out by  Standard moderator TRP to comply with ‘;site rules’ despite them often being ignored by regulars – see Colonial Viper’s “extreme right wing views” 1/2.

Tensions must have risen there later in the day. Apparently a pro-Trump post by CV has been deleted, and there is a claim on Clinton vs Trump: Debate 3 that “much of the thread has been removed”. And on that thread CV has been banned.

Leading up to it:

Colonial Viper 27.3

Hey Sabine, the US kept selling arms and Treasuries to Saudi Arabia during the Obama/Hillary Clinton years, and is providing military support in their war against Yemen. What’s the Saudi record on abortions and the treatment of women?

Sabine 27.3.1

Go away Colonial Viper.

go the fuck away. Go have your Donald Fucking Trump make America Great again just like Hitler made Germany great for a while.

In the name of all those that perished during the great fucking time of the third reich Fuck off.

In my books you are useless, you serve no purpose, you have no champion and that is why you want to see the world burn.

And just for what its fucking worth, the US American Women and girl have as much value as any other Women and Girl on this planet.

Fuck off.

Only a select few get away with that sort of attacking at The Standard. It is somehow seen as acceptable but expressing a different opinion is ‘bad behaviour’.

marty mars

+ 1 well said – Kia kaha


Exactly. Don’t play his game. Call him out on his trolling and derailing.


+1, 2, 3

Great response Sabine.

Some of the usual mob joins in.

Colonial Viper

Do you think Clinton will return the tens of millions of dollars that horribly misogynistic women stoning Gulf States like Saudi Arabia have donated to the Clintons (like Trump suggested), or will she keep all that money?


Go the fuck away, man who supports and promotes a sexual predator and rapist into a place of power and then tries to make out he cares about women being abused in other places so that he can score political points.

Your constant derails are really, really obvious, CV. You have no answer for the fact that your preferred candidate is a vicious bully, a sexual predator, a liar, and an unrepentant misogynist.

Literally no one is saying, “Hillary is the best person in the whole wide world and has no flaws.”

But on the issue of protecting the rights of women, there is absolutely no fucking contest between Clinton and Trump.

Stop exploiting other women as meat shields to deflect attention away from that fact. You’re just making it more and more clear that fundamentally, your problem with Hillary Clinton stems from her gender.

Someone dared defend:


That’s just nasty abuse. CV may have been a loud Trumpet lately but he doesn’t deserve that.



He’s trolling, repeatedly. And his politics are vile. I’m not talking about him thinking Trump should be president, I’m talking about the weeks of rape apology, support for fascism and oppression and then misusing women’s pain to score political points as he has just done in this subthread. If any RWer was doing this people would be all over them with far worse.

At some time during that CV copped his ban (that isn’t time stamped):

Colonial Viper

The Clintons and their big money donors use exactly the same tax write offs available in law as Trump’s companies do. They’re such hypocrites.

[No they don’t. Different parts of the US tax code as has previously been pointed out.

CV, you were asked to substantiate some other bit of bullshit earlier today and you ignored the request. The policy around responding to requests for cites was pointed out to you as was the section covering trolling. However, you seem relentlessly intent on posting provocative bullshit as often as possible, presumably to troll and start flame wars.

You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.

Trolling, ignoring moderation, starting flame wars, wasting mod time. Lets call it a week. Come back next Friday. TRP]

That’s what can happen if you challenge Standard group think and dare to raise controversial issues.

Some discussion followed, which included some defence of CV.

In Vino23.

TRP – he said Hitler BRIEFLY made Germany great again. I suggest you go look at a map of who held what in Europe in 1942, and see if CV was right.

There is nothing offensive about this, except in your eyes for some obscure reason. CV did not directly praise Hitler – yet you leap eagerly to the conclusion that he did so.

An impartial moderator should be impartial. You appear to have lost the ability to be dispassionate.

[CV didn’t get banned for a single instance. It was multiple issues, and he had already been warned about them. That is clear in the moderator’s note, please reread it – weka]

In Vino

Sorry Weka, but much of the thread has been removed, and in the note you refer me to, which, conveniently, is the only one left on the thread, TRP still makes this unjustified assertion:

“You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.”

CV’s word ‘briefly’ is omitted. I hold that entire assertion in contempt, regardless of whether it has been uttered by a moderator.

Of course TRP won’t be required to retract and apologise.


I’m not sure if anything has been removed. Most of the moderation before the ban happened in the Daily US discussion thread.

If you can be more specific about deletions please do so.

Irrespective of what one might think about TRP’s moderation style (and I have my own reservations), CV has been causing a problem, and IMO it was only a matter of time until he got a ban. He’s had one before for similar behaviour (in the winter?). I agree the omission of the word ‘briefly’ misrepresents what CV said and was a mistake for the moderator to say that. However even if a moderator got that one paragraph wrong, there are still enough other reasons to issue a ban.

Commenters pointing out mistakes is useful IMO, thanks for that. I disagree with your assessment of the overall issue with CV. As bad as his politics are to many, it’s his behaviour that has copped him the ban (IMO).

I have seen some fairly bad behaviour given a free pass over the years at The Standard, including from Weka and TRP. Especially when getting into mob attacks and trying to exclude views they want to gag. They and others have blatantly broken their own rules.

Bizarrely I was brought into the conversation.


Nope, I’m not playing. Your trouble is that like your idol saying “Nobody respects women more than me”, you don’t make a very convincing feminist. The insincerity sticks out enough to be a hazard to aviation.

People see what you’re saying as trolling and deliberate distraction from the actual point that anyone’s trying to make.

You’re not actually trying to have an honest discussion, you just want to continue your narcissistic and spiteful little martyr’s game. Pete George lives in Dunedin. Call him and the two of you can have a pity party together. Take lots of chocolate.


I was just thinking about PG and what happened when it got to this point with him as a troll and someone who was damaging the community. Methinks it’s time to adopt the same response.

They still obsess about me and I rarely bother commenting there now.

It’s sadly ironic for Weka to say “a troll and someone who was damaging the community” given how much she has been involved in shutting out opinions she disagrees with. She has been a prominent part of the mob censorship that the Standard is well known for.

I only have to comment once there for “the community” to pile in and disrupt the thread, and then blame me for it. Much like CV has been blamed, shamed and banned for annoying the perpetually annoyed.

I see The Standard as a symptom of the intolerance of the left, Labour and the Greens to anyone deemed an enemy of their group think and therefore labelled extreme right. One of the few things I have in common with CV politically, condemned and labelled because we express views beyond their narrow and bitter alleyway.

While the mob rules at The Standard they will fly a flag of discontent, intolerance and abusiveness.

A late comment:


“When CV makes comment on social policy, I see them as left wing, not extreme right.”

His views on identity politics, and rape and rape culture suggest is he alt-right. His views on Trump suggest he is in some weird no-mans land, but I definitely wouldn’t call it left wing. His views on the political spectrum in NZ suggest he is centrist (hence his praise of Peters). And yes, some of his views are left wing. I actually think it’s not possible to know what he thinks now, because his naked hatred of the left clouds most of the things he says. It’s not him challenging the centre-left, it’s him burning bridges with every natural ally he has who doesn’t see the world in the way he does.

The recent accusations of him being right wing are a lot to do with his promotion of Trump. As I’ve said, it’s possible to have a left wing analysis of the groups of people in the US who’ve been disenfranchised and thus vote Trump, but CV insists on throwing others under the bus as he tries to do that and he actively supports the right at times.

In case that’s not clear, there is the problem with his political shift in the past year, and then there is his behaviour. I think we’ve reached the point of intolerance for both because of how they intersect.

“We’ve reached the point of intolerance” may be telling.

Colonial Viper’s “extreme right wing views” 1/2

Colonial Viper has been one of the most frequent and prolific commenters at The Standard for as long as I have been observing there. He has been quite provocative at times and has ruffled feathers often. Alternative views are often dumped on there.

Yesterday he was accused of having “extreme right wing views” and ended up copping a ban. He has been an author at The Standard but either may not have had moderation rights, or never exercised them. Regardless, he has been dumped on then dumped.

I have met CV once, during the 2011 election when he stood for Labour in Clutha. He seemed nice enough and was easy to talk to. Our political views are quite different but he has seemed willing to debate on a wide range of issues – and that is something that ‘The Standard’ has often been uncomfortable with from what I have seen.

CV has been annoying a few of the Standardistas lately due to his support of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. He has been more of a Sanders fan, but Bernie is now out of the running.

CV has strongly condemned Clinton on a range of issues – there is quite a lot that Clinton can be justifiably criticised for. But this and CV’s preference for Trump as the least worst candidate blew up at The Standard yesterday, with moderators Te Reo Putake (TRP) and Weka dumping on CV and ending up banning him.

Apparently a post by CV has been deleted, as have a number of comments. As far as i can see this is where it started.

Colonial Viper 6

Scott Adams: People who believe Trump is the new Hitler, have fallen for a Mass Delusion

Here’s a little thought experiment for you:

If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?

Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.

Let’s try another one.

If a friend tells you that you were both abducted by aliens last night but for some reason only he remembers it, which one of you hallucinated?

Answer: The one who saw the aliens is hallucinating.

Now let’s add some participants and try another one.

TheExtremist 6.3

Your other buddy in the Philippines is the one who likes to compare himself to Hitler

Colonial Viper 6.3.1

You still pushing for regime change in the Philippines? You should look up how many people the US sponsored Marcos got rid of during his term in power. And stop being so gullible to the corporate/imperial MSM.


Yesterday I told you “no” when you asked if I supported regime change in the Philippines yet today here you are lying through your fucking teeth about what I said.

As to me “being so gullible to the corporate/imperial MSM” it was fucking Duterte himself, in his own words, that compared himself to Hitler.

So in one comment you flat out lied followed by smearing me as gullible for reporting on what someone actually said.

Can a mod please reign CV’s lies in? Isn’t flat out lying about someones POV, when they know they are lying, against policy somehow?

[It’s reasonable for a commenter to be asked to substantiate a claim. In this case, CV should do so or withdraw and apologise. TRP]

It’s not common for Standard commenters, especially regulars, to be asked to ‘withdraw and apologise’.

Colonial Viper

Oh, so now you now finally accept that Duterte is the legitimate and democratically elected head of the Philippines Government?

Good to hear. Last thing we need is the US starting destabilising regime change/colour revolution operations in the Asia Pacific.


Please point to any comment where I a) supported regime change in the Philippines and B) refused to accept Duterte is the legitimate and democratically elected head of the Philippines Government.

It was only yesterday in a single place where I discussed Duterte so it should be easy for you. If you can’t you should withdraw. Otherwise you are just a liar.

(EDIT: Thanks TRP for the above)

Colonial Viper

I apologise and withdraw my comment – but believe that TheExtremist should also withdraw his BS about Duterte being my “buddy” unless he can substantiate some kind of friendship between Duterte and myself.

[Cheers, CV. Appreciated. I think it’s obvious that the friendship line is hyperbole rather than a claim of fact. Given that you’ve just stated your belief that Hitler made Germany great again, there’s probably no way you can be slandered now anyway 😉 TRP.]


Now you’re just being silly.

Colonial Viper

Just as long as you are seen to be applying your rules equally to everyone TRP…

[Quite. But then, they aren’t my rules, they are the site rules. And your regular ad homs and unsubstantiated claims need to be seen in the light of some the first words in the Policy:

But TRP and others at The Standard have a long record of not applying ‘the site rules’ evenly. A few regulars there get away with break the rules frequently without repercussion.

The rules tend to be applied to remove opinions that challenge or oppose their group speak. And the rules are ignored when resident trolls try to abuse, discredit and drive away opinions and people that are deemed to be unwelcome.

“What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.”

You are generously tolerated here, despite your extreme right wing views, but that doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to abuse the rules or, indeed, other commenters. TRP]

Labour people like Andrew Little and TRP seem to have something in common – if they disagree with people, especially ex-Labour party members and supporters, they label them things like “extreme right wing“. From what I have seen in general CV is far from extreme right wing, in fact he is closer to the opposite.


Media watch – Friday

21 October 2016


Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

As usual avoid anything that could cause any legal issues such as potential defamation or breaching suppression orders. Also remember that keeping things civil, legal and factual is more effective and harder to argue against or discredit.

Sometimes other blogs get irate if their material is highlighted elsewhere but the Internet is specifically designed to share and repeat information and anyone who comments or puts anything into a public forum should be aware that it could be republished elsewhere (but attribution is essential).

Open Forum – Friday

21 October 2016

Facebook: NZ politics/media+

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised unless obviously malicious from anyone breaching site protocols, or spam.

Gable Tostee not guilty

A Brisbane jury has just found Gable Tostee not guilty of both the murder and manslaughter of New Zealander Warriena Wright.

This doesn’t surprise me much. It was an unusual situation, but I thought it would be difficult to prove culpability.

During the trial, the court was told Mr Tostee restrained Ms Wright and locked her on his balcony.

The Crown argued that when Mr Tostee locked her out, Ms Wright felt so intimidated she died trying to escape.

The Crown argued Ms Wright “probably” unlawfully assaulted Mr Tostee, but the force used in response was unreasonable.

The defence said Mr Tostee was trying to de-escalate the situation after a violent and drunken altercation, in which Ms Wright apparently threw rocks at the accused and tried to hit him with a telescope.

It argued Ms Wright’s actions were not rational or foreseeable and Mr Tostee acted lawfully to defend himself.

Tragic for Wright , but Tostee found to be not guilty.

3rd debate verdict

The verdict of the 3rd US presidential debate will be known in about three weeks, after the voters have been counted.

Reaction during and after the debate indicate that few voters are likely to have had their minds changed. Donald Trump was better in  ways but still controversial at times. Hillary Clinton didn’t do much wrong and deflected most of the tricky questions.

It is unusual, some say alarming, to see an American presidential candidate praise and defend the Russian president and appear to support the Syrian leader overseeing the destruction of his country.

As most polls are fairly strongly favouring Clinton, in the overall vote and in key states, Trump faces an uphill battle to recover his campaign – unless something favourable happens to help him or seriously damage Clinton’s chances outside his control.

A balanced summary of the debate at NBR:

Trump saying he will appoint SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe v. Wade caused his numbers with independents to tank.

That won’t help him win back support from women voters, one of his biggest problem demographics.

When Trump focuses on the failures and absurdities of Clinton/Obama foreign policy, even Hillary-leaners give him solid scores.

Voters want the candidates to support the election results. No excuses. Hillary did. Trump did not.

That last tweet refers to probably the biggest talking point of the debate – Trump’s failure to rule out accepting the election result if he loses.

TPM Livewire: Trump’s Refusal To Commit To Election Result Dominates Post-Debate Headlines

He didn’t need that, he needed positive headlines. Even Fox News went with this: Trump won’t commit to accepting election results, at fiery final debate with Clinton

Donald Trump would not commit Wednesday night to accepting the results of the presidential election if he loses on Nov. 8, in a striking moment during his final debate with Hillary Clinton that underscored the deepening tensions in the race – as the bitter rivals defined the choice for voters on an array of issues not three weeks from Election Day.

The most pointed moment came when Trump – who for weeks has warned of a “rigged” election – was asked whether he will commit to accept the results of the election.

“I will look at it at the time,” Trump said, citing his concerns about voter registration fraud, a “corrupt media” and an opponent he claimed “shouldn’t be allowed to run” because she committed a “very serious crime” with her emails.

Clinton delivered a sharp rejoinder: “That’s horrifying.”

“That is not the way our democracy works,” she said. “He is denigrating, he’s talking down our democracy and I for one am appalled.”

Pressed again whether he’s prepared to concede if he loses, Trump again said: “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”

RNC Chair Reince Priebus says Trump WILL accept the results of the election

The mess in the Republican Party continues, and could get even uglier if Trump loses.

And a comment that won’t help him turn things around:

Trump called Clinton a “nasty woman.”

This is a common view:

Clinton called Trump the “most dangerous” person to run for president in modern history.

Throughout this campaign, Donald Trump has fashioned himself as the “law and order” candidate. In Las Vegas on Wednesday night, in his third and final presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, he showed himself to be an agent of lawlessness and disorder.

Asked by moderator Chris Wallace whether he would concede the election in the event he loses, Trump confirmed the fears he has sown for weeks. “I will look at it at the time,” he said. “I will keep you in suspense.”

It is tempting to view this statement in the context of Trump’s long history of reckless utterances. But his refusal to abide by an election result is of a very specific, and disqualifying, character. It strikes at the heart of American democracy. Neither the nation’s government nor its politics can function if losing presidential candidates do not concede defeat and facilitate the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump, enemy of democracy:
1) My opponent shouldn’t be allowed to run
2) If I lose, I may dispute outcome
3) If I win, she will go to jail.

Even the numbers on a Trump friendly website went against him (albeit an unreliable online poll):


A CNN post-debate poll had Clinton clearly in front too.

Polls vary from about even to a double figure lead to Clinton, averaging around the 6-7% mark.

It would take an unprecedented turnaround for Clinton to lose from here.

Final presidential debate

The final debate in the US presidential election will be held today (2 pm New Zealand time).


Wallace has announced the topics, which will be discussed in six 15-minute segments.

  • Debt and entitlements
  • Immigration
  • Economy
  • Supreme Court
  • Foreign hot spots
  • Fitness to be President

The chosen topics may be altered depending on news events leading up to the event.

Donald Trump’s path to the presidency has narrowed considerably in recent weeks amid campaign trail controversies, with the latest Fox News electoral ratings showing reliably red states coming into play – a trend that only ups the pressure on the Republican nominee to tilt the race at the third and final presidential debate Wednesday night.

The debate in Las Vegas, moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, will mark the last face-off between Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the home-stretch of the presidential campaign.

Both candidates are dealing with their share of controversies – Trump, facing multiple allegations of groping dating back decades; and Clinton, grappling with embarrassing revelations from leaked emails and now the allegation in an FBI file that a top State Department official offered a “quid pro quo” with the bureau to alter a Clinton server email’s classification.

Trump has seized on the latter revelation in the run-up to the debate. But so far, his poll numbers have taken a bigger hit than hers – and the latest Fox News Electoral Scorecard reflects this.

In a significant shift, the scorecard shows the rating for Texas being changed from “solid Republican” to “lean Republican.”

According to the latest Fox News ratings, if Clinton won all the “solid” and “lean” Democrat states, she’d have 307 electoral votes – well over the 270 needed to win.

If Trump won all the “solid” and “lean” Republican states, he’d have just 181 electoral votes. That means even if he won all the pure “toss-up” states – Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah – and their 50 electoral votes, he’d still be short of 270.  He’d have to flip some states currently leaning Democrat back into his column.

The pressure now is on Trump to not only win the toss-up states and turn blue-ish states red, but to prevent states like Utah and Texas from abandoning the Republican ticket for the first time in years.

Will Trump be in damage control? Or will he try to inflict as much damage as possible? The former will be a virtual concession, the latter high risk, as he has damaged his own chances significantly over the last few weeks.


It’s probably far too much to expect Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be fair and balanced, given how their campaigns have been run, regardless of how the debate is moderated.