is well worth the time. It's really helped keep me sane this election season. LOTS of good info in this most recent episode.

https://theringer.com/keepin-it-1600-podcast-politics-election-jon-favreau-dan-pfeiffer-220924af4c94#.j5ohy9vqx

A Totally Real, 100% Valid Theory | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee | TBS

?list=PL0hKMB1-xkc_5ES_PEDgr8VjMpQ5haPD6

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/newsweek-bombshell-why-russia-is-backing-trump-and-why-the-kremlin-feared-he-was-too-nutty-to-win/

by Kurt Eichenwald.

While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound “guy sitting on their bed” or even a child.

Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments “quite disturbing” because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Trump’s behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race. As a result, Moscow put its hacking campaign temporarily on hold, ending the distribution of documents until Trump stabilized, both personally and in the polls, according to reports provided to Western intelligence.

America’s European partners are also troubled by the actions of several people close to Trump’s campaign and company. Trump has been surrounded by advisors and associates with economic and familial links to Russia. The publicized connections and contacts between former campaign manager Paul Manafort with Ukraine have raised concerns. Former Trump advisor Carter Page is being probed by American and European intelligence on allegations that he engaged in back-channel discussions with Russian government officials over the summer. Page did travel to Moscow, but he denies any inappropriate contact with Russian officials. The allies are also uneasy about retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a Trump advisor who was reportedly considered a possible running mate for the GOP nominee. Last December, Flynn attended a dinner at the Metropol Hotel in honor of the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian news agency that has been publicly identified by American intelligence as a primary outlet for Moscow’s disinformation campaigns. Flynn, who was two seats away from Russian President Vladimir Putin at the dinner, has frequently appeared on RT, despite public warnings by American intelligence that the news agency is used for Russian propaganda.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/newsweek-bombshell-why-russia-is-backing-trump-and-why-the-kremlin-feared-he-was-too-nutty-to-win/

While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound “guy sitting on their bed” or even a child.

Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments “quite disturbing” because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Trump’s behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race. As a result, Moscow put its hacking campaign temporarily on hold, ending the distribution of documents until Trump stabilized, both personally and in the polls, according to reports provided to Western intelligence.

America’s European partners are also troubled by the actions of several people close to Trump’s campaign and company. Trump has been surrounded by advisors and associates with economic and familial links to Russia. The publicized connections and contacts between former campaign manager Paul Manafort with Ukraine have raised concerns. Former Trump advisor Carter Page is being probed by American and European intelligence on allegations that he engaged in back-channel discussions with Russian government officials over the summer. Page did travel to Moscow, but he denies any inappropriate contact with Russian officials. The allies are also uneasy about retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a Trump advisor who was reportedly considered a possible running mate for the GOP nominee. Last December, Flynn attended a dinner at the Metropol Hotel in honor of the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian news agency that has been publicly identified by American intelligence as a primary outlet for Moscow’s disinformation campaigns. Flynn, who was two seats away from Russian President Vladimir Putin at the dinner, has frequently appeared on RT, despite public warnings by American intelligence that the news agency is used for Russian propaganda.

Fresh off the presses:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/4/michael_moore_how_i_moved_from

With the U.S. election only days away, Michael Moore has released a surprise new film about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton titled "Michael Moore in TrumpLand." Democracy Now! sat down with the Academy Award-winning filmmaker and talked about how he moved from supporting Bernie Sanders during the primary to now supporting Hillary Clinton. "My hope was that on Tuesday we would have the great decision … between the socialist and the billionaire," Moore says. On Clinton, he notes: "She is a hawk. She is to the right of Obama. That’s the truth. … We’re going to have to be active."

There's also a segment on "Trumpland"

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/4/michael_moore_in_trumpland_filmmaker_on

Plus for Dems:
should help keep people motivated to get out to vote, interested in outcome

Negatives for Dems:
Looks like Trump has momentum
Give Rs a reason to get out to vote
If it ends up that the tightness was fake, and Hillary wins by a lot, then will cause R's to think she rigged it
If she wins after it being so tight, it will cause R's to think she rigged it

Neutral for Dems:
Drives more attention to election coverage, helps media

Bottom line
A slight net negative for Dems unless the Dems can really capitalize on the increased interest in the race and hammer home their argument.
-------------

Did I miss anything key?

I tend to think there's SOME tightening, with GOPers coming back to Trump, but I find it hard to believe the dynamic of the race has changed that much, with HRC the overall favorite.

Awww, life used to be so much easier for Donald before he ran for president, and all the scrutiny it caused:

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/11/cnn-not-only-unethical-pretty-stupid-too

CNN's Jeff Zucker thinks Donna Brazile's actions are "disgusting" and "unethical". Well, huh.

It seems he thinks so because some pundits have decide that Brazile was given questions by someone (some magical someone who evidently doesn't work for CNN, according to Zucker), in advance of one of CNN's rather anemic election events.

One would think that a news organization like CNN might actually take the time to make an in-depth investigation of the accusations against Donna Brazile. And perhaps even an internal investigation of its own people.

But not CNN. Zucker literally took emails stolen from Podesta, possibly edited, and then published at Wikileaks—all at face value.

I'm not a journalist, but this doesn't strike me as a journalistic viewpoint. Perhaps that's because CNN isn't about journalism anymore...it's about entertainment.

Let's do what CNN should have done. Let's take a closer look at the two emails containing questions that Brazile supposedly coerced out of someone to send to Podesta. I'm going to, for now, take the text at face value—that it hasn't been edited.

some really solid points in the rest of the piece

Even assuming she did get questions used in the debate and townhall and passed them on:

1) why didn't CNN have better control over their debate questions? They must have known Brazile is a partisan.

2) why on earth were they disseminating a question ahead of time that was supposed to be given by a townhall participant? Isn't the bigger news that they script the questions that much ahead of time?* (if the question was only revealed right before the event happened, it seems unlikely that it would be useful for the Clinton campaign)

3) has Brazil admitted that the emails are accurate?

*apparently the day before:
http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/10/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-000011#postid=00000158-1b21-dc91-affc-3ba196dc0000

Also this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/roland-martin-cnn-email-donna-brazile-wikileaks-229673