Is it too late to stop the Donald Trump machine?

[Scotwight]

Trump back on top.

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

You'll be interested to learn that 2 more presidential polls have just come out . PPP (ratings B+) give Clinton a 4 point edge. Reuters/Ipsos (rating A-) gives Clinton a 10 point lead.

I really think the polls in this election are as valid as they were for Brexit. My only point was if you are going to cover the negative trump polls you should cover the Trump positive polls.

I listened to the Director of the CIA say that one group was not responsible for terrorism this morning. What do you people (Globalists) think? We don't know?

Brexit was unpopular for the same reasons Trump is unpopular. He is unpopular with the media and most of the people who control the polls but not with the electorate that's why Silver only gave him a 5% chance of winning the nomination just a few months ago.

[ilostmypassword]

Trump back on top.

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

You'll be interested to learn that 2 more presidential polls have just come out . PPP (ratings B+) give Clinton a 4 point edge. Reuters/Ipsos (rating A-) gives Clinton a 10 point lead.

I really think the polls in this election are as valid as they were for Brexit. My only point was if you are going to cover the negative trump polls you should cover the Trump positive polls.

I listened to the Director of the CIA say that one group was not responsible for terrorism this morning. What do you people (Globalists) think? We don't know?

Brexit was unpopular for the same reasons Trump is unpopular. He is unpopular with the media and most of the people who control the polls but not with the electorate that's why Silver only gave him a 5% chance of winning the nomination just a few months ago.

Do you have any evidence at all that pollsters are distorting the results in order to downgrade Trump's chances? As you may recall, this was what the right wing was saying in the last election. Look up unskewedpolls.com in wikipedia or elsewhere. When the results came in, it was just as the aggregate of the polls predicted. Some people never learn.

[Scotwight]

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Wins Election Against Donald Trump

"This morning on ABC's “Good Morning America,” FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the presidential election against Donald Trump.

Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning, compared with Trump's 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast."

"We're at halftime of the election right now," Silver said. "She's taking a 7-point, maybe a 10-point lead into halftime."

"There's a lot of football left to be played. She's ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fivethirtyeights-nate-silver-predicts-hillary-clinton-wins-election/story?id=40213871

20%? Go home Donnie...

Nate Silver 99% probability that Clinton would win Michigan (she lost). Silver again predicted on May 3 with 90% probability that Clinton would win Indiana (she lost).

For 7 of 32 states, Silver completely flipped his opinion on which Republican would win and who would lose that state's primary.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/infallibility-nate-silver

In September, he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump had a roughly 5-percent chance of beating his GOP rivals.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html

As anyone who does polling knows, primaries are a lot more difficult to predict than general elections. One of the reasons being that there simply aren't as many polls done for each state. But for Presidential elections Silver has a fairly decent record. In 2008 he called 49 out of 50 states correctly. In 2012 he called all 50 states correctly.

What does Silver say about Presidential polls now? "It's far too early for so many polls that predict the outcome of a Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton showdown this November" Further, he said that there won't be enough "rich data" to look at the nation's Electoral College for a few months, as there will not be multiple recent polls of each state until that time.

The statistician pointed out that Clinton's lead is at about six percent over Trump nationwide, but it's still too early to predict what will happen months from now.

"Trump could win," Silver said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Nate-Silver-Trump-Clinton-Polls-Blast/2016/05/11/id/728222/

[ilostmypassword]

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Wins Election Against Donald Trump

"This morning on ABC's “Good Morning America,” FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the presidential election against Donald Trump.

Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning, compared with Trump's 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast."

"We're at halftime of the election right now," Silver said. "She's taking a 7-point, maybe a 10-point lead into halftime."

"There's a lot of football left to be played. She's ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fivethirtyeights-nate-silver-predicts-hillary-clinton-wins-election/story?id=40213871

20%? Go home Donnie...

Nate Silver 99% probability that Clinton would win Michigan (she lost). Silver again predicted on May 3 with 90% probability that Clinton would win Indiana (she lost).

For 7 of 32 states, Silver completely flipped his opinion on which Republican would win and who would lose that state's primary.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/infallibility-nate-silver

In September, he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump had a roughly 5-percent chance of beating his GOP rivals.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html

As anyone who does polling knows, primaries are a lot more difficult to predict than general elections. One of the reasons being that there simply aren't as many polls done for each state. But for Presidential elections Silver has a fairly decent record. In 2008 he called 49 out of 50 states correctly. In 2012 he called all 50 states correctly.

What does Silver say about Presidential polls now? "It's far too early for so many polls that predict the outcome of a Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton showdown this November" Further, he said that there won't be enough "rich data" to look at the nation's Electoral College for a few months, as there will not be multiple recent polls of each state until that time.

The statistician pointed out that Clinton's lead is at about six percent over Trump nationwide, but it's still too early to predict what will happen months from now.

"Trump could win," Silver said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Nate-Silver-Trump-Clinton-Polls-Blast/2016/05/11/id/728222/

I agree. A 1 in 5 chance is not no chance. But do you think Clinton would trade her current position in the polls for Trump's? Do you think Trump wouldn't trade his current position in the polls for Clinton's?

[Scotwight]

Trump back on top.

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

You'll be interested to learn that 2 more presidential polls have just come out . PPP (ratings B+) give Clinton a 4 point edge. Reuters/Ipsos (rating A-) gives Clinton a 10 point lead.

I really think the polls in this election are as valid as they were for Brexit. My only point was if you are going to cover the negative trump polls you should cover the Trump positive polls.

I listened to the Director of the CIA say that one group was not responsible for terrorism this morning. What do you people (Globalists) think? We don't know?

Brexit was unpopular for the same reasons Trump is unpopular. He is unpopular with the media and most of the people who control the polls but not with the electorate that's why Silver only gave him a 5% chance of winning the nomination just a few months ago.

Do you have any evidence at all that pollsters are distorting the results in order to downgrade Trump's chances? As you may recall, this was what the right wing was saying in the last election. Look up unskewedpolls.com in wikipedia or elsewhere. When the results came in, it was just as the aggregate of the polls predicted. Some people never learn.

Perhaps you should read my post again. I only suggested that both negative and positive polls be listed. I do think that CNN should be renamed the Clinton News Network but that is because of the subtle and not so subtle adverting done for Hillary in the guise of news. You can watch and judge for yourself. It's only my opinion. I don't watch Fox because I think they are too slanted the other way. I have solved my news coverage dilemma with an app called Haystack.

[NovaBlue05]

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

[ilostmypassword]

Trump back on top.

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

You'll be interested to learn that 2 more presidential polls have just come out . PPP (ratings B+) give Clinton a 4 point edge. Reuters/Ipsos (rating A-) gives Clinton a 10 point lead.

I really think the polls in this election are as valid as they were for Brexit. My only point was if you are going to cover the negative trump polls you should cover the Trump positive polls.

I listened to the Director of the CIA say that one group was not responsible for terrorism this morning. What do you people (Globalists) think? We don't know?

Brexit was unpopular for the same reasons Trump is unpopular. He is unpopular with the media and most of the people who control the polls but not with the electorate that's why Silver only gave him a 5% chance of winning the nomination just a few months ago.

Actually, the final polling for Brexit was virtually a tie so the polls weren't that far off. People seem to confuse what the pundits were saying with what the polls were showing. And there was massive flooding in London that probably reduced pro-brexit turnout somewhat.

Edited June 30, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Scotwight]

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

Ya that's a funny one. I wonder if it is obvious to everyone or if we are the only two people in the world who noticed?

[ilostmypassword]

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

The story is that Bill Clinton and Lynch met by coincidence at the Phoenix airport. One meeting. Not meetings. And not the Clintons. Bill Clinton. And there were lots of witnesses. Why would they personally meet at all if they were up to skullduggery? You ever heard of an invention called the telephone? Look it up.

[Scotwight]

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

The story is that Bill Clinton and Lynch met by coincidence at the Phoenix airport. One meeting. Not meetings. And not the Clintons. Bill Clinton. And there were lots of witnesses. Why would they personally meet at all if they were up to skullduggery? You ever heard of an invention called the telephone? Look it up.

hours before the public release of the Benghazi report, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton.

Sources tell ABC15 Clinton was notified Lynch would be arriving at the airport soon and waited for her arrival.

The private meeting took place on the west side of Sky Harbor International Airport on board a parked private plane.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix

[NovaBlue05]

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

The story is that Bill Clinton and Lynch met by coincidence at the Phoenix airport. One meeting. Not meetings. And not the Clintons. Bill Clinton. And there were lots of witnesses. Why would they personally meet at all if they were up to skullduggery? You ever heard of an invention called the telephone? Look it up.

If nothing else, you are a true believer

[ilostmypassword]

Trump was once so involved in trying to block an Indian casino that he secretly approved attack ads

Yes,” Stone answered each time, finally adding: “Nothing wrong with that, by the way.”

The agency, the state's Temporary Commission on Lobbying, disagreed. Trump paid $250,000 for violating state law on lobbying and was forced to make a rare public apology

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-anti-indian-campaign-20160630-snap-story.html

[ilostmypassword]

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

The story is that Bill Clinton and Lynch met by coincidence at the Phoenix airport. One meeting. Not meetings. And not the Clintons. Bill Clinton. And there were lots of witnesses. Why would they personally meet at all if they were up to skullduggery? You ever heard of an invention called the telephone? Look it up.

If nothing else, you are a true believer

Quite the opposite. I'm a skeptic. You're the one who believes that Bil Clinton and Loretta Lynch met in in airport where there were plenty of witness to their meeting in order to corrupt the course of justice. It takes a massive suspension of critical faculties to believe that.

[Publicus]

New poll Hillary 42 Trump 40 and Trump has the room for growth.

Quinnipiac is NOTORIOUS for being a worthlessly skewed right wing polling outfit. Disregard.

Not true at all. Fivethirtyeight gave Quinnipiac an A- for accuracy in presidential elections.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

and here Nate Silver explain their methodology:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2016/

Quinnipiac was reputable in 2012 but it has produced some outlandish results in 2014 and again in this campaign since early last year.

In Ohio Gov John Kasich's first campaign Q had him ahead by 20 points when he won by two percent. Q had Ben Carson winning the Florida Republican primary when Donald Trump in fact swept it. In Colorado Q had Republican Bob Beauprez ahead by ten points for governor when he lost by three points.

Some discussion of Quinnipiac polling for consideration in this election cycle.....

Quinnipiac did okay in our pollster ratings for 2014. That said, a longstanding (to say nothing legitimate) critique of their work is that they have numbers that tend to bounce wildly without much in the way of external explanation for the movement.

In fact, Quinnipiac's tendency to occasionally produce "holy shit" numbers that get contradicted pretty quickly has been a topic on Daily Kos Elections before.

What gives here? Well, they've either found a sample that is unusually filled with conservative Independents (the methodology pages seem to indicate a fairly plausible partisan split), or just one that has an odd level of animus for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/22/1404606/-Yeah-about-that-Quinnipiac-poll

Discount or outright dismiss Quinnipiac in this election cycle due to their unmistakable and ongoing anti Hillary Clinton animus.

Every poll they've created in this election cycle has had HRC behind the majority of reliable polls and Trump doing better than in the majority of reliable polls. RCP polling averages consistently and significantly contradict Quinnipiac in the present election cycle since early last year. In Q polling Clinton and Trump are almost always virtually tied.

Whatever has possessed Quinnipiac polling in this election cycle has got hold of 'em hard and fast.

[NovaBlue05]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

Yeah....yeah...The Hillary machine will win. Any hopes of an indictment, by either the Bernie or Trump people, is apparently history as the Attorney General is having private meetings with the Clintons at random locations.

The only thing we can hope for now is that karma takes over and a bolt of lightening takes her out

The story is that Bill Clinton and Lynch met by coincidence at the Phoenix airport. One meeting. Not meetings. And not the Clintons. Bill Clinton. And there were lots of witnesses. Why would they personally meet at all if they were up to skullduggery? You ever heard of an invention called the telephone? Look it up.

If nothing else, you are a true believer

Quite the opposite. I'm a skeptic. You're the one who believes that Bil Clinton and Loretta Lynch met in in airport where there were plenty of witness to their meeting in order to corrupt the course of justice. It takes a massive suspension of critical faculties to believe that.

Hey, I just read it. If you have a conflicting story, please share. You inferred the latter. Besides...a former POTUS having a private meeting the US Attorney General, who is currently investigating his POTUS nominee wife, happens every day right?

That really is skeptical on my part isn't it?

No need to worry, she's Teflon.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484110476/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-met-amid-email-investigation

Edited June 30, 2016 by NovaBlue05

[Publicus]

New poll Hillary 42 Trump 40 and Trump has the room for growth.

Quinnipiac is NOTORIOUS for being a worthlessly skewed right wing polling outfit. Disregard.

I'll disregard all of them until the one on November 8

Let's hope you're sitting down then too.

[ilostmypassword]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

If nothing else, you are a true believer

Quite the opposite. I'm a skeptic. You're the one who believes that Bil Clinton and Loretta Lynch met in in airport where there were plenty of witness to their meeting in order to corrupt the course of justice. It takes a massive suspension of critical faculties to believe that.

Hey, I just read it. If you have a conflicting story, please share. You inferred the latter. Besides...a former POTUS having a private meeting the US Attorney General, who is currently investigating his POTUS nominee wife, happens every day right?

That really is skeptical on my part isn't it?

No need to worry, she's Teflon.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484110476/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-met-amid-email-investigation

NO, a former Potus having a private meeting with the attorney general doesn't happen every day. In fact, it so unusual it calls attention to itself. Especiallly when they meet in a highly public place like an airport. And what do conspirators love most of all? Why, it's having attention focused on them. And why do they meet? So they can concoct their nefarious plans in person. Using telecommunications to undermine the rule of law is somehow so unsatisfying.

[Johpa]

And that says it all -the great neo-liberal globalisation experiment HAS GONE WRONG

And the (real) people have had enough. That Trump won the GOP nomination and that Brexit won is just the beginning.

Oh I agree that neo-liberal economic got it wrong. But it has never been an experiment but a calculated plan to capture the wealth of nations by a small economic elite, real class warfare. And your "real people" have felt the brunt of the economic pain and social dislocation that has accompanied this transition that started in 1971 with the Powell Memorandum and put into place by Reagan and Thatcher. Unfortunately far too many of your "real people" have joined with those who offer a simplistic solution that does not address the complex economic causes behind the nonsense of neo-liberal economics but instead diverts attention to other issues such as immigration. They rally behind the newest generation of "little Bavarians". Neither Trump nor Clinton address the failed structure of the political-economy but instead focus on nationalism and patriotism and a host of secondary social issues. In their attempts to divert not just your "real people" but everyone from the truth of the matter, Clinton takes a slightly higher road than Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

Edited June 30, 2016 by Johpa

[iReason]

^^^

Bravo!

Well said.

It's a scenario too complex for the simplistic Lemmings, ( of either side ) to embrace.

It's all diversionary parlour talk.

Period.

As it is designed to be.

Dunning Kruger.

Edited June 30, 2016 by iReason

[NovaBlue05]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

If nothing else, you are a true believer

Quite the opposite. I'm a skeptic. You're the one who believes that Bil Clinton and Loretta Lynch met in in airport where there were plenty of witness to their meeting in order to corrupt the course of justice. It takes a massive suspension of critical faculties to believe that.

Hey, I just read it. If you have a conflicting story, please share. You inferred the latter. Besides...a former POTUS having a private meeting the US Attorney General, who is currently investigating his POTUS nominee wife, happens every day right?

That really is skeptical on my part isn't it?

No need to worry, she's Teflon.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484110476/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-met-amid-email-investigation

NO, a former Potus having a private meeting with the attorney general doesn't happen every day. In fact, it so unusual it calls attention to itself. Especiallly when they meet in a highly public place like an airport. And what do conspirators love most of all? Why, it's having attention focused on them. And why do they meet? So they can concoct their nefarious plans in person. Using telecommunications to undermine the rule of law is somehow so unsatisfying.

When you work in an Administration that's given a free pass as often as this one, you sometimes get sloppy.

[Buzzz]

How is Trump gracefully going to get himself out of this fiasco?

He got into the race for the free publicity. Just a loudmouth New York shyster, pumping up his hotel biz.

You can tell by his ill-advised statements, he hasn't a clue about world affairs or given much thought on how the government works.

He wonders to himself, "who are these idiots voting for me?"

The demographic math says Trump can't win and you know how much he hates 'losers' or admitting to a mistake.

Most Republicans are convinced they are backing a loser but it might wreck the Party if they dump Trump at the convention.

A dilemma.

I predict Trump will choose a VP then come up with an excuse to bow out of the race before November.

The VP will take the slot. (Christy?)

[ilostmypassword]

How is Trump gracefully going to get himself out of this fiasco?

He got into the race for the free publicity. Just a loudmouth New York shyster, pumping up his hotel biz.

You can tell by his ill-advised statements, he hasn't a clue about world affairs or given much thought on how the government works.

He wonders to himself, "who are these idiots voting for me?"

The demographic math says Trump can't win and you know how much he hates 'losers' or admitting to a mistake.

Most Republicans are convinced they are backing a loser but it might wreck the Party if they dump Trump at the convention.

A dilemma.

I predict Trump will choose a VP then come up with an excuse to bow out of the race before November.

The VP will take the slot. (Christy?)

I don't think so. If he loses he'll blame it on voting by illegal aliens or something like that.

[Buzzz]

How is Trump gracefully going to get himself out of this fiasco?

He got into the race for the free publicity. Just a loudmouth New York shyster, pumping up his hotel biz.

You can tell by his ill-advised statements, he hasn't a clue about world affairs or given much thought on how the government works.

He wonders to himself, "who are these idiots voting for me?"

The demographic math says Trump can't win and you know how much he hates 'losers' or admitting to a mistake.

Most Republicans are convinced they are backing a loser but it might wreck the Party if they dump Trump at the convention.

A dilemma.

I predict Trump will choose a VP then come up with an excuse to bow out of the race before November.

The VP will take the slot. (Christy?)

I don't think so. If he loses he'll blame it on voting by illegal aliens or something like that.

If he does stay in the race, he can legitimately blame the loss on the women, mexicans, handicapped, blacks, hispanics, POWs, american indians, gays, minorities, educated and half the republicans not voting for him.

Trump even insulted the Pope.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Buzzz

[boomerangutang]

How is Trump gracefully going to get himself out of this fiasco?

He got into the race for the free publicity. Just a loudmouth New York shyster, pumping up his hotel biz.

You can tell by his ill-advised statements, he hasn't a clue about world affairs or given much thought on how the government works.

He wonders to himself, "who are these idiots voting for me?"

The demographic math says Trump can't win and you know how much he hates 'losers' or admitting to a mistake.

Most Republicans are convinced they are backing a loser but it might wreck the Party if they dump Trump at the convention.

A dilemma.

I predict Trump will choose a VP then come up with an excuse to bow out of the race before November.

The VP will take the slot. (Christy?)

I don't think so. If he loses he'll blame it on voting by illegal aliens or something like that.

If he does stay in the race, he can legitimately blame the loss on the women, mexicans, handicapped, blacks, hispanics, POWs, american indians, gays, minorities, educated and half the republicans not voting for him.

Trump even insulted the Pope.

You beat me to it. Yes, When Trump sees the numbers on Nov. 9th, he will be bursting with blame - scatalogically flinging it in many directions, like a hippo broadcasting poop with its flippy tail.

For Trump fans: as if the weekly news on The Divider isn't bad enough, take a look at this video, and have a hankie nearby to blotter the tears.......

[Boon Mee]

Hillary Spent $26 Million on Battleground Ads in June – Trump Spent $0 => Leads Hillary by 4 Points

Heh...

Embattled Democrat Hillary Clinton spent $26 million on ads in battleground states in June.

Donald Trump spent $0 on ads in battleground states in June.

Donald Trump leads Hillary by 4 points in the latest Rasmussen poll released today.

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

Wait for it...here it comes...Rasmussen isn't a qualified polling organization!

Yeah. Right.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Boon Mee

[Buzzz]

Hillary Spent $26 Million on Battleground Ads in June Trump Spent $0 => Leads Hillary by 4 Points

Heh...

Embattled Democrat Hillary Clinton spent $26 million on ads in battleground states in June.

Donald Trump spent $0 on ads in battleground states in June.

Donald Trump leads Hillary by 4 points in the latest Rasmussen poll released today.

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

Wait for it...here it comes...Rasmussen isn't a qualified polling organization!

Yeah. Right.

Silly.

[Boon Mee]

Heh...

Edited July 1, 2016 by Boon Mee

[ilostmypassword]

Hillary Spent $26 Million on Battleground Ads in June – Trump Spent $0 => Leads Hillary by 4 Points

Heh...

Embattled Democrat Hillary Clinton spent $26 million on ads in battleground states in June.

Donald Trump spent $0 on ads in battleground states in June.

Donald Trump leads Hillary by 4 points in the latest Rasmussen poll released today.

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

Wait for it...here it comes...Rasmussen isn't a qualified polling organization!

Yeah. Right.

Yes and on the same day that Rasmussen (C+ accuracy rating) gave Trump a 4 point lead IDB/TIPP (A- accuracy rating) gave Clinton a 4 point lead. As did PPP (B+ accuracy rating). And Reuters Ipsos (A- accuracy rating) gave Clinton a 10 point lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Chicog]

The man is unravelling.....

https://twitter.com/politico/status/748607650099781632

[Boon Mee]

Well, the following news can only be good for Donald, eh?

POLLS: Hillary underperforming Obama ’12 among women, millennials, blacks.