[nugget]

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been investigated and cleared of all charges, just as Trump's supporters will argue that he has a 40 year history of helping women and minorities shatter glass ceilings in the construction industry, and therefore is likely not a racist or a misogynist, rather just an ''equal opportunity asshole''. I think this election cycle is much more about voting against the candidate you hate, than for the candidate you love, which should make election day all the more exciting since the normal polling and turnout models could be totally off the mark.

[beachstartup]

i agree, and believe many trump voters will privately and reluctantly vote for him, and publicly say they voted for someone else for this very reason.

i also believe many others will vote for trump simply to push the country toward a breakup of the 2-party system into a 3 or 4-party system. they very well could have voted for bernie if that were an option.

[protomyth]

I was told in another thread that was "Shy Tory Factor"[1]. I get the feeling polling is going to need to really look at what they do since they got Brexit and 2014 US wrong.

1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977911

[chourobin]

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

[hellbanner]

So Clinton Cash is 0% truth then? https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Busi...

[Bartweiss]

I think the point is that in context, that doesn't matter. If everyone believed that, Hillary would be polling at 70%.

Starting an argument from "this is ok because we're right and they're wrong" means that you have to expect the other side to use the exact same argument. I'd rather not see us go down the road of firing people for supporting popular candidates, if only because everyone can do it.

[rfrank]

"hasn't been a single shred."

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

[zimpenfish]

Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which, coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP.

Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.

[rfrank]

Do you have an actual comment on the content of the report, or just low level FUD about its source?

This comment is actually pretty hilarious given the fact that Teneo Holdings, mentioned in the report, was founded by ex Bill Clinton staffers, and had Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as 2 of it's original 3 advisors. Huma Abedin is presently on the Teneo payroll.

If those sorts of ties between people are problematic to you, then you must ABSOLUTELY HATE the Clintons, because the same type of arrangement is how literally everyone close to them got there.

[anExcitedBeast]

Every political research product is funded by someone with an agenda. GAI, Brookings, Cato, Heritage, take your pick.

Funding should always be considered, but is not cause to discount otherwise valid methodologies and findings.

[psyc]

I think you must mean Unassailable Proof. There's certainly plenty of Bayesian evidence.

[beachstartup]

> hasn't been single shred of evidence to back up that claim

saying stuff like this doesn't help your cause. it really, really doesn't.