Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

But it's those damn stubborn Bernie/Gary Johnson supporting millennials' fault if Hillary loses

I think you're being sarcastic but the statistic actually kind of supports that.  56-20 means a quarter of that population is sitting out or voting third party (effectively the same thing).  If you increase the "full participation" number from 76% to 90%, Clinton would presumably win the lion's share of them based on the split and would have a decent lead.

Obviously millenials are not nearly to blame as other demographic groups, like the ones actually voting for Trump (us middle-aged white guys get the bulk of the blame here).  But it's still a reasonable point. 

It's also reason for some optimism in the Clinton camp- if she can bring more of those people into the fold down the stretch with some help from Obama, Sanders and Warren she can make some big gains.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I still agree with pantagrapher that Hillary is very likely to win.  It's disturbing that it's looking less and less likely that she'll win in a blowout, but she'll pull this off despite her best efforts to #### it up.  It's like Miami-Cleveland played out on the stage of a presidential election.  

Maybe tonight's debate changes things, but it's pretty much impossible for me even to envision Trump "winning" a debate.  I literally can't conceive of what that would even look like, short of Hillary passing out on stage or something.

 

[cstu]

But it's those damn stubborn Bernie/Gary Johnson supporting millennials' fault if Hillary loses

We all know it will be the fault old white people who will probably be dead before the end of Trump's term. 

 

[cobalt_27]

No offense but this post strikes me as a defense mechanism if loses. I get that it's tempting to distance yourself from this potential disaster, but you have a vote and a voice.  If Trump wins that means Clinton failed, but it also means we all failed.  It's not like she ran out onto the 50 yard line during an Ohio State game and pooped in the O.  She hasn't done anything egregious in the last week or two. Trump is making up ground because more and more people are coming under the spell of his scapegoating, sound bites and easy answers. We have to continue to expose that, and show people there's a better way

Well, first, you're playing from the wrong deck of cards if you are thinking Hillary has to "expose" Trump for all the wretchedness that he is.  When is it going to sink in with her camp and her supporters that she has to make a case for herself that is independent of Donald J. Trump?  

I'm voting for her, but it's still with much reservation and self-loathing.  I've had to pretty-much reframe my vote as one for Kaine, the Supreme Court, and anti-Trump.  But, to pull in votes, she has to do better than that.

 

[Zegras11]

I think you're being sarcastic but the statistic actually kind of supports that.  56-20 means a quarter of that population is sitting out or voting third party (effectively the same thing).  If you increase the "full participation" number from 76% to 90%, Clinton would presumably win the lion's share of them based on the split and would have a decent lead.

Obviously millenials are not nearly to blame as other demographic groups, like the ones actually voting for Trump (us middle-aged white guys get the bulk of the blame here).  But it's still a reasonable point. 

It's also reason for some optimism in the Clinton camp- if she can bring more of those people into the fold down the stretch with some help from Obama, Sanders and Warren she can make some big gains.

My statistic is Hillary sucks as a candidate.  It can never be her fault she doesn't win and she should have won this with Reagan type results. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well, first, you're playing from the wrong deck of cards if you are thinking Hillary has to "expose" Trump for all the wretchedness that he is.  When is it going to sink in with her camp and her supporters that she has to make a case for herself that is independent of Donald J. Trump?  

I'm voting for her, but it's still with much reservation and self-loathing.  I've had to pretty-much reframe my vote as one for Kaine, the Supreme Court, and anti-Trump.  But, to pull in votes, she has to do better than that.

I said "we," not "her." I was mostly talking about what we, the people who can see how truly awful and dangerous Trump is, can do. I like to talk about the process as a collaborative one, not one that's foisted upon us, because ultimately that's what it is.

I also said we have to show people there's a better way, which was my way of saying sell Clinton as a good candidate in addition to highlighting that Trump is an awful one.

Although the truth is that sometimes one candidate's virtues are dependent upon the flaws of the other.  Clinton would be a decent candidate for people who lean left on environmental issues, but not a spectacular one.  However when you compare her to a man who thinks climate change is a hoax and just employed a climate change denier to head up his EPA transition team, she looks like Rachel Carson.

 

[The Commish]

I'm trying to walk the walk, so I'm happy to try to convince you and anyone else that Clinton is not just the better choice of the two nominated candidates (duh) but a legitimately good choice, if you're open to listening.

I'm always open to listening.  I WANT to be wrong about this one.  Your SC argument as been your most compelling thus far with respect to Wall Street ties, but that's a double edged sword.  Yes, you convinced me that this was a valid position, but then you also educated me on all the other things that have to happen and it put me back pretty close to square one.  That would be about the only thing anyone's presented thus far that is compelling to me.

 

[Card Trader]

No offense but this post strikes me as a defense mechanism if loses. I get that it's tempting to distance yourself from this potential disaster, but you have a vote and a voice.  If Trump wins that means Clinton failed, but it also means we all failed.  It's not like she ran out onto the 50 yard line during an Ohio State game and pooped in the O.  She hasn't done anything egregious in the last week or two. Trump is making up ground because more and more people are coming under the spell of his scapegoating, sound bites and easy answers. We have to continue to expose that, and show people there's a better way

She'd get my vote if she would do that!

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm always open to listening.  I WANT to be wrong about this one.  Your SC argument as been your most compelling thus far with respect to Wall Street ties, but that's a double edged sword.  Yes, you convinced me that this was a valid position, but then you also educated me on all the other things that have to happen and it put me back pretty close to square one.  That would be about the only thing anyone's presented thus far that is compelling to me.

Not sure what you mean by "all the other things that have to happen."  You mean to reverse Citizens United?

On the Supreme Court subject, though- how about voting rights?  The current court split 4-4 on hearing the North Carolina case.  A Trump appointee means they probably grant that stay and a law literally designed to keep black people away from the ballot box possibly stays in place through the election.  A Clinton one- she and Bill have an excellent record on nominating and confirming great candidates- pretty much ensures nothing like that would ever happen.

How about environmental issues?  That's what I've been pushing today with the news about Trump's EPA transition guy being an obnoxious climate change denier criticized by the vast majority of the scientific community.  And his guy to head DOE transition is a lobbyist whose clients include Koch, Dow Chemical and two power generation companies. Clinton has a solid record on the environment from her time in the senate and will be endorsed by all the environmental NGOs.

Or perhaps character issues?  I know I'll never convince you that she's a decent person, but I'm happy to offer up plenty of testimonials like the ones I linked to earlier to hopefully at least convince you that she's not the awful monster you think she is.

 

[jon_mx]

Not sure what you mean by "all the other things that have to happen."  You mean to reverse Citizens United?

On the Supreme Court subject, though- how about voting rights?  The current court split 4-4 on hearing the North Carolina case.  A Trump appointee means they probably grant that stay and a law literally designed to keep black people away from the ballot box possibly stays in place through the election.  A Clinton one- she and Bill have an excellent record on nominating and confirming great candidates- pretty much ensures nothing like that would ever happen.

How about environmental issues?  That's what I've been pushing today with the news about Trump's EPA transition guy being an obnoxious climate change denier criticized by the vast majority of the scientific community.  And his guy to head DOE transition is a lobbyist whose clients include Koch, Dow Chemical and two power generation companies. Clinton has a solid record on the environment from her time in the senate and will be endorsed by all the environmental NGOs.

Or perhaps character issues?  I know I'll never convince you that she's a decent person, but I'm happy to offer up plenty of testimonials like the ones I linked to earlier to hopefully at least convince you that she's not the awful monster you think she is.

I will never ever understand liberals who hate Citizen United so much.  McCain-Fiengold went way too far at restricting legitimate free speech prior to an election.  Just a horrible law that any staunch supporter of free speech should be happy it was overturned. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not sure what you mean by "all the other things that have to happen."  You mean to reverse Citizens United?

On the Supreme Court subject, though- how about voting rights?  The current court split 4-4 on hearing the North Carolina case.  A Trump appointee means they probably grant that stay and a law literally designed to keep black people away from the ballot box possibly stays in place through the election.  A Clinton one- she and Bill have an excellent record on nominating and confirming great candidates- pretty much ensures nothing like that would ever happen.

How about environmental issues?  That's what I've been pushing today with the news about Trump's EPA transition guy being an obnoxious climate change denier criticized by the vast majority of the scientific community.  And his guy to head DOE transition is a lobbyist whose clients include Koch, Dow Chemical and two power generation companies. Clinton has a solid record on the environment from her time in the senate and will be endorsed by all the environmental NGOs.

Or perhaps character issues?  I know I'll never convince you that she's a decent person, but I'm happy to offer up plenty of testimonials like the ones I linked to earlier to hopefully at least convince you that she's not the awful monster you think she is.

Supposedly Peter Thiel is the sort of person that Trump wants for USSC justice.

I do not know much about the guy but I don't think he is a Cruz style conservative. I could very well see someone with pretty liberal social policies but very much about deregulating commerce while also strengthening the President's executive authority.

With Trump I would not be surprised if he appointed a non-lawyer at any rate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's not like she ran out onto the 50 yard line during an Ohio State game and pooped in the O. 

So this is how she could lose Ohio. Ok.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm really happy to hear that. I've put in a lot of time trying to argue that the "evils" surrounding Clinton as not as bad as they've been made out to be and that she has many good qualities that for whatever reason are underappreciated. Happy to keep doing that if people want to hear it.

And on the other point- yeah, really weird how bad Johnson and Stein have come across. The only guy who's impressed me is Weld.  They should have flipped that ticket.

I had a few responses typed out for this...but I'll just say its hard to get my head around it

 

[TobiasFunke]

I will never ever understand liberals who hate Citizen United so much.  McCain-Fiengold went way too far at restricting legitimate free speech prior to an election.  Just a horrible law that any staunch supporter of free speech should be happy it was overturned. 

Many people don't consider expenditures by non-media corporations to be "free speech." It's certainly a stretch as far as a "plain language" interpretation of the text.

I actually kind of agree with you, or at least I don't think it's that big a deal.  I'd like to see it overturned because I think it's bad for the process but it's fairly far down my list of priorities.  But I know it's important to many Sanders supporters, some of whom haven't been convinced to vote for Clinton, and I know she strongly supports overturning it, so it's part of the case to be made to them.

 

[The Commish]

Many people don't consider expenditures by non-media corporations to be "free speech." It's certainly a stretch as far as a "plain language" interpretation of the text.

I actually kind of agree with you, or at least I don't think it's that big a deal.  I'd like to see it overturned because I think it's bad for the process but it's fairly far down my list of priorities.  But I know it's important to many Sanders supporters, some of whom haven't been convinced to vote for Clinton, and I know she strongly supports overturning it, so it's part of the case to be made to them.

how?

 

[tommyboy]

I still agree with pantagrapher that Hillary is very likely to win.  It's disturbing that it's looking less and less likely that she'll win in a blowout, but she'll pull this off despite her best efforts to #### it up.  It's like Miami-Cleveland played out on the stage of a presidential election.  

Maybe tonight's debate changes things, but it's pretty much impossible for me even to envision Trump "winning" a debate.  I literally can't conceive of what that would even look like, short of Hillary passing out on stage or something.

i can imagine it:   hillary loses her ####,  hillary goes on 4 min coughing fit, hillary gets stuck on something from her past (email, libya, iraq, russia)

or   trump comes off as cool and presidential.

these debates mostly are optical.   you've got a guy that starred in a reality TV show vs a career politician.  Honestly not sure which has the advantage, just sayin'

 

[The Commish]

TF...let's discuss the environmental issues.  I think the voter ID thing is probably a fool's folly at this point as I don't believe Democrats OR Republicans really give two ####s about the average voter's rights.  They care about getting the votes for their side (or preventing votes from the other side).  I don't get the sense that any of them are genuinely concerned about disenfranchisement or protecting the process.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

how?

She has said repeatedly that she would make it a litmus test for Court appointees and has also said she supports a constitutional amendment to overturn it if that's what it takes.  It's on her website and she's made statements to the press on this.

I understand you don't trust her, but she's been consistent on this from the get-go.  If you are unwilling to believe her on anything no matter how often she says it and how unwavering she has been on her position, let me know and I can save myself a little time trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Will the young people get their heads out of their asses and vote for Hillary instead of the stupid 3rd party candidates?  If not, then I think Trump wins.

Most young people were Bernie supporters that got f***ed over by their own party. Can you blame them if they undertake a scorched earth theory out of revenge against the DNC? The DNC dug its own grave here.

 

[jon_mx]

TF...let's discuss the environmental issues.  I think the voter ID thing is probably a fool's folly at this point as I don't believe Democrats OR Republicans really give two ####s about the average voter's rights.  They care about getting the votes for their side (or preventing votes from the other side).  I don't get the sense that any of them are genuinely concerned about disenfranchisement or protecting the process.  

Voter ID is a big loser for Dems.  Polls show anywhere from 70 to 80 percent support voter ID.  Dems can try to spin it as a racial issue, but it will turn off undecided voters.  

 

[The Commish]

how?

She has said repeatedly that she would make it a litmus test for Court appointees and has also said she supports a constitutional amendment to overturn it if that's what it takes.  It's on her website and she's made statements to the press on this.

I understand you don't trust her, but she's been consistent on this from the get-go.  If you are unwilling to believe her on anything no matter how often she says it and how unwavering she has been on her position, let me know and I can save myself a little time trying to convince you otherwise.

What have her actions told you about her in this area?  

This is where I'm at after our last conversation on this. I think she's willing to appoint someone open to overturning it.  I don't think she'll make it a priority of getting it overturned.  I don't think she'll introduce the legislation necessary to get it back in front of the SC.  And no, I don't think the House or the Senate have any interest in overturning it either.  So we have a court that is willing to consider the overturn, but who's going to engage them?

 

[squistion]

Voter ID is a big loser for Dems.  Polls show anywhere from 70 to 80 percent support voter ID.  Dems can try to spin it as a racial issue, but it will turn off undecided voters.  

Only among people who would never vote for Democrats anyway.

 

[IC FBGCav]

i can imagine it:   hillary loses her ####,  hillary goes on 4 min coughing fit, hillary gets stuck on something from her past (email, libya, iraq, russia)

or   trump comes off as cool and presidential.

these debates mostly are optical.   you've got a guy that starred in a reality TV show vs a career politician.  Honestly not sure which has the advantage, just sayin'

He not going to come of presidential.   He is going to tell her she is fired and that will grab the headlines for a week.

 

[tommyboy]

He not going to come of presidential.   He is going to tell her she is fired and that will grab the headlines for a week.

while i think that would be funny, i think it would hurt him at this point in the race

 

[ShamrockPride]

He not going to come of presidential.   He is going to tell her she is fired and that will grab the headlines for a week.

Can we actually make this happen? I would fall out of my seat laughing.

 

[tommyboy]

Only among people who would never vote for Democrats anyway.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297697-ballots-cast-by-dead-voters-in-colorado-report

 

[TobiasFunke]

What have her actions told you about her in this area?  

This is where I'm at after our last conversation on this. I think she's willing to appoint someone open to overturning it.  I don't think she'll make it a priority of getting it overturned.  I don't think she'll introduce the legislation necessary to get it back in front of the SC.  And no, I don't think the House or the Senate have any interest in overturning it either.  So we have a court that is willing to consider the overturn, but who's going to engage them?

You asked me how I know she strongly supports overturning it, I gave you the answer. And here are more of her actions in this area, including voting for the legislation that was overturned in part by Citizens United.

I don't know if that means she can get it done.  Frankly I kind of doubt anyone can unless some other things change too, most notably the composition of the House. But it's a start, and it was a response to your question.

 

[BassNBrew]

So silver calls it a dead heat and people flood this board with links to his site and quote him left and right. Well played mr silver. 

 

[timschochet]

So silver calls it a dead heat and people flood this board with links to his site and quote him left and right. Well played mr silver. 

You think he's dishonest? He explains his methodology in detail.

 

[squistion]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297697-ballots-cast-by-dead-voters-in-colorado-report

Documentation shows actual voter fraud is rare:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

 

[T J]

No offense but this post strikes me as a defense mechanism if loses. I get that it's tempting to distance yourself from this potential disaster, but you have a vote and a voice.  If Trump wins that means Clinton failed, but it also means we all failed.  It's not like she ran out onto the 50 yard line during an Ohio State game and pooped in the O.  She hasn't done anything egregious in the last week or two. Trump is making up ground because more and more people are coming under the spell of his scapegoating, sound bites and easy answers. We have to continue to expose that, and show people there's a better way

There surely is, but it definitely is not Hillary's way.

 

[cstu]

You think he's dishonest? He explains his methodology in detail.

Given the polls I don't know anyone could disagree.  Admittedly it's hard to fathom that the polls are correctly tracking how people will actually vote, but Silver's conclusions appear to be correct mathematically.

 

[cstu]

Voter ID is a big loser for Dems.  Polls show anywhere from 70 to 80 percent support voter ID.  Dems can try to spin it as a racial issue, but it will turn off undecided voters.  

Voter ID is a stupid issue for both sides.  There's virtually no voter fraud going and the people who don't have ID's right now are not going to vote even if they had them.

 

[Willie Neslon]

 


Any thoughts on these debate props?
 

What will candidates do when greeting for first time?
Shake hand and no embrace -350
No physical contact with each other +350
Hug with NO kiss +400
Hug and kiss on the cheek +800
 
Number of viewers
Over 97.5 million even
Under 97.5 million -130
 
Will Trump mention Bill Clinton
Yes -185
No +150
 
Will Hillary mention Melania Trump
Yes +300
No -400
 
Will Trump say "Crooked Hillary"
Yes +150
No -200
 
Will Trump say "Build the wall" (or "Build a wall")
Yes -350
No +270
 
Total number of times the word Liar or Lying is used by either
Over 5.5 -140
Under 5.5 Even
 
Total number of times the word Racist or Racism is used by either
Over 2.5 -165
Under 2.5 +130
 
Total number of times the word Email or Emails are used by either
Over 7.5 -130
Under 7.5 Even
 
Total number of times the word Foundation is used by either
Over 4.5 -145
Under 4,5 +115
 
Total number of times the term Wall Street is used by either
Over 3.5 -135
Under 3.5 Even
 
What color jacket will Hillary wear
White +120
Blue +200
Yellow +400
Other Color +500
Black +1000
Brown +1500
Red +1500
 
What color tie will Trump wear
Red -300
Multiple Colors +300
Blue +600
Yellow/Gold +700
Other Color +1000
Black +1500

 
 
 
 

 

[soothsayer]

There are some fascinating numbers coming out of Minnesota. Keep in mind that MN is a very liberal state (think Wellstone and Franken) so it is interesting that nearly half of Trump supporters are "mostly voting against Clinton". Also interesting that the state is "in play" according to the local political science professor - I don't buy that at all.

http://kstp.com/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-presidential-race-2016-kstp-survey-usa-poll/4273632/?cat=12681

Due to the high disapproval ratings of the two candidates nationally, we also asked supporters of each candidate whether they were mostly voting "for" their candidate or "against" the opponent.  Among Trump supporters, 46 percent said they were mostly voting "against" Clinton.  Among Clinton supporters, 39 percent said they were mostly voting "against" Trump.

The KSTP/SurveyUSA poll also asked how "enthusiastically" Trump and Clinton voters are casting votes in favor of their candidate.  Among Trump supporters, 54 percent say they'll vote for him "enthusiastically." Among Clinton supporters, 52 percent say they'll vote for her "enthusiastically."

 

[culdeus]

Total number of times the word Email or Emails are used by either
Over 7.5 -130
Under 7.5 Even
Under to me has huge value.  It might not even come up once.  And she can talk about the situation easily without actually using the word Email, and does frequently use "correspondence" or "private dealings" do avoid using the word email.  It would be Donald that would need to really push this one.  

 

[Apple Jack]

Still -215 to win.

 

[squistion]

MonmouthPoll ‏@MonmouthPoll 1h1 hour ago

BREAKING: National likely voters

HRC 46

DJT 42

GJ 8

JS 2

75% will watch debate, but 87% won't change mind http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_092616/ …

 

[jon_mx]

Only among people who would never vote for Democrats anyway.

You realize over 50 percent of Dems support voter ID laws. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

MonmouthPoll ‏@MonmouthPoll 1h1 hour ago

BREAKING: National likely voters

HRC 46

DJT 42

GJ 8

JS 2

75% will watch debate, but 87% won't change mind http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_092616/ …

That's mildly reassuring, only because it pushes back against a really bad trend over the last two days.  Still way too close.

 

[cstu]

Total number of times the word Email or Emails are used by either
Over 7.5 -130
Under 7.5 Even
Under to me has huge value.  It might not even come up once.  And she can talk about the situation easily without actually using the word Email, and does frequently use "correspondence" or "private dealings" do avoid using the word email.  It would be Donald that would need to really push this one.  

Agree, I would put money on her not saying 'email' a single time.

However, I could see Trump saying the word 'email' 8 times in a single sentence.

 

[cstu]

Will Trump say "Crooked Hillary"
Yes +150
No -200

She won't say Crooked Hillary to her face.

 

[Sammy3469]

Given the polls I don't know anyone could disagree.  Admittedly it's hard to fathom that the polls are correctly tracking how people will actually vote, but Silver's conclusions appear to be correct mathematically.

The interesting thing (so far at least) is that all the Obama data people (who I sort of trust more than Hillary's, the public polls, or Trump if he had any) just denigrate all these public polls as being as inaccurate this year as they were in 2012 for a whole host of structural issues.  I'm sure they could be wrong, but at this point it's basically two different polling universes.  If they didn't have a track record, I'd be more inclined to say that are doing the Romney unskewing thing, but these guys have a history of knowing the electorate better than anyone.    

 

[Jackstraw]

TF...let's discuss the environmental issues.  I think the voter ID thing is probably a fool's folly at this point as I don't believe Democrats OR Republicans really give two ####s about the average voter's rights.  They care about getting the votes for their side (or preventing votes from the other side).  I don't get the sense that any of them are genuinely concerned about disenfranchisement or protecting the process.  

Except that....you know....one side defends voters rights routinely and the other side works constantly to disenfranchise them. Other than that EXACTLY the same. I swear to god both sidesism is completely off the rails. 

 

[Willie Neslon]

Isn't it a lock he says Build the wall? He says it almost as frequently as make america great again and we don't win anymore.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's mildly reassuring, only because it pushes back against a really bad trend over the last two days.  Still way too close.

That's a solid win right there and I think on election day she gets a bump because of her organization.

I'd keep an eye on that Stein number, now at 2%.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

MonmouthPoll ‏@MonmouthPoll 1h1 hour ago

BREAKING: National likely voters

HRC 46

DJT 42

GJ 8

JS 2

75% will watch debate, but 87% won't change mind http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_092616/ …

375-400 EVs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Will Trump say "Crooked Hillary"
Yes +150
No -200

She won't say Crooked Hillary to her face.

I'll go 'No' as well.

It's possible that Trump will say what everyone has been saying and wanting said to her face to her face. That would be good tv, I guess that's the argument why he won't fail to deliver because that's why many will be tuning in.

However my suspicion is that Trump respects and likes her and knows her, so I'm guessing no, he won't do it. I also suspect he wants to counter expectations and not fall into the stereotype that Hillary's campaign has set up for him.

 

[RCon]

Many people don't consider expenditures by non-media corporations to be "free speech." It's certainly a stretch as far as a "plain language" interpretation of the text.

I actually kind of agree with you, or at least I don't think it's that big a deal.  I'd like to see it overturned because I think it's bad for the process but it's fairly far down my list of priorities.  But I know it's important to many Sanders supporters, some of whom haven't been convinced to vote for Clinton, and I know she strongly supports overturning it, so it's part of the case to be made to them.

I don't see how one can suggest with a straight face that Coca-Cola isn't allowed to endorse candidates, promote policy, publish political ads, etc, but that Fox News can.

 

[BassNBrew]

You think he's dishonest? He explains his methodology in detail.

I suspect he has tons of data and could easily cherry pick the data needed to shift the narrative.