Trump goes on tear against media, not Clinton

[slipperylobster]

1 hour ago, Skywalker69 said:

 

You got to be kidding...what a moron show this is.

 

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, slipperylobster said:

 

Jimmy Kimmel !

The show for idiots !

Well sorry, I am not a fan.

 

 

What, no comment on the latest Reuters Ipsos poll?  Is that a cherry you don't want to pick?

[Si Thea01]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You want something more recent about Pennsylvania.

Here you go:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

 

Thank you for taking the time.

[Si Thea01]

39 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What, no comment on the latest Reuters Ipsos poll?  Is that a cherry you don't want to pick?

 

 

Just to give you something to respond to. Yes, gives her a lead but in just over a couple of weeks it has varied from 6 , 8 and 12 points. A considerable swing in such a short time, so which one is supposed to cause the Republicans undue worry so far out?  And of course people do take notice of polls but like in all elections, those behind rarely comment on them.  Those in front tend to gloat which is quite evident by Clinton and that annoying smile and head shaking.

 

Polls are strange animals.  Look at the last British election, the polls there showed Cameron losing but he won in a landside. During the lead up to the Brexit vote, the polls showed the remainers winning but they didn't and that was despite all the doom and gloom put out by everyone on the remainers side, including Obama, who had to stick his nose into another country's business, as did a number of world leaders.  Sad that they all ended up with egg on their face.   Australia's recent election had the Liberal coalition losing to labor, 52 to 48. The Libs won, not by a landslide but by a single seat.

 

The voters punished them and they actually lost around 16 seats for the treachery that they perpetrated on the previous Liberal leader. They have a female Trump, her name is Hanson.  Speaks her mind, tells it like it is, and the two major parties did to her what the Clinton campaign, press and many on here are doing to Trump.  The Australian voters were also sick and tired of this and the diatribe dished out, so now she s very powerful and they have to grovel to her given that she now controls four senators. 

 

So, as polls come and go, the only real poll that you need to worry about is the one that the voters will deliver on election day.  At that time you will either be able to gloat or skulk away and along with the other dislikers come up with all the negative comments of disdain should Trump win.

[thaihome]

8 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Just to give you something to respond to. Yes, gives her a lead but in just over a couple of weeks it has varied from 6 , 8 and 12 points. A considerable swing in such a short time, so which one is supposed to cause the Republicans undue worry so far out?  And of course people do take notice of polls but like in all elections, those behind rarely comment on them.  Those in front tend to gloat which is quite evident by Clinton and that annoying smile and head shaking.

 

Polls are strange animals.  Look at the last British election, the polls there showed Cameron losing but he won in a landside. During the lead up to the Brexit vote, the polls showed the remainers winning but they didn't and that was despite all the doom and gloom put out by everyone on the remainers side, including Obama, who had to stick his nose into another country's business, as did a number of world leaders.  Sad that they all ended up with egg on their face.   Australia's recent election had the Liberal coalition losing to labor, 52 to 48. The Libs won, not by a landslide but by a single seat.

 

The voters punished them and they actually lost around 16 seats for the treachery that they perpetrated on the previous Liberal leader. They have a female Trump, her name is Hanson.  Speaks her mind, tells it like it is, and the two major parties did to her what the Clinton campaign, press and many on here are doing to Trump.  The Australian voters were also sick and tired of this and the diatribe dished out, so now she s very powerful and they have to grovel to her given that she now controls four senators. 

 

So, as polls come and go, the only real poll that you need to worry about is the one that the voters will deliver on election day.  At that time you will either be able to gloat or skulk away and along with the other dislikers come up with all the negative comments of disdain should Trump win.

 

I think it would be  more pertinent to keep the discussion on US presidential election polls and not bring up others like the Brexit  (which I thought showed a tossup ).

 

US polls have correctly called US presidential elections since 1952, only missing the margin of victory.  The last incorrect one was in 1948, when Gallup (the only national pollster at the time) quit polling 2 weeks before the election as they thought Dewey was going going to win.

 

Stick with an "October surprise" and the hope that the Russians and Wikileaks can change the outcome. It's the only hope for the Trumpsters at this point. Attacking the accuracy of the polls in this day and age is not going to work.   

TH 

[Publicus]

 The right trying to impugn the integrity or the alleged motivation, intent or purpose of the polls won't work either.

 

The mainstream polling organisations and the several high profile seasoned political analysts have long standing reputations and their own personal and professional integrity to maintain and to uphold. They are respectable organisations and respectable people who are respected in their business.

 

Again to drive the point further to the fringe and desperate right, in 1964 Goldwater was far behind in all the polls all the way and he got clobbered. In 1972 McGovern was waaay behind in the polls all the way and he lost 49 states. In 1984 Mondale was out of it all the way and he too lost 49 states.

 

In this election it has come down to the welcome and expected fact that no respectable voter will vote for Donald Trump to be Potus. (And there is no secret silent mass of ten million, or of even five or one million out there holding their breath to spring and pounce on election day.) 

[Si Thea01]

28 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

I think it would be  more pertinent to keep the discussion on US presidential election polls and not bring up others like the Brexit  (which I thought showed a tossup ).

 

US polls have correctly called US presidential elections since 1952, only missing the margin of victory.  The last incorrect one was in 1948, when Gallup (the only national pollster at the time) quit polling 2 weeks before the election as they thought Dewey was going going to win.

 

Stick with an "October surprise" and the hope that the Russians and Wikileaks can change the outcome. It's the only hope for the Trumpsters at this point. Attacking the accuracy of the polls in this day and age is not going to work.   

TH 

 

So you have a problem If I draw comparisons.  You can think what you like but to point out something that is factual is not attacking the polls.  A conspiracy theorist hey, Russia, another assumed piece of fiction.  And yes, one can question any poll, we have not resorted to being called comrade yet and do not have to follow the same line.

 

WikiLeaks released what they has been given but it has yet to be proven that Russia was involved despite what the Democrats in power have to say.  But just keep telling yourself it was and you will believe it if you say it often enough.  Regardless of the history of polls, times are a changing and anything can happen.  I'd say anything that doesn't follow you train of thought, the one that I am always right, would be a toss up.

 

Don't forget that Hilary has been ordered by a Judge to answer a number of questions in writing and now has less than 30 days to respond.  I suppose Trump is responsible for this, he gets blamed for everything else.  There may be other matters that could come to the fore, who knows, we will all just to have to wait and see but like I said, those of you thought will either be crying in their milk or gloating on the 9th November. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Si Thea01

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Just to give you something to respond to. Yes, gives her a lead but in just over a couple of weeks it has varied from 6 , 8 and 12 points. A considerable swing in such a short time, so which one is supposed to cause the Republicans undue worry so far out?  And of course people do take notice of polls but like in all elections, those behind rarely comment on them.  Those in front tend to gloat which is quite evident by Clinton and that annoying smile and head shaking.

 

Polls are strange animals.  Look at the last British election, the polls there showed Cameron losing but he won in a landside. During the lead up to the Brexit vote, the polls showed the remainers winning but they didn't and that was despite all the doom and gloom put out by everyone on the remainers side, including Obama, who had to stick his nose into another country's business, as did a number of world leaders.  Sad that they all ended up with egg on their face.   Australia's recent election had the Liberal coalition losing to labor, 52 to 48. The Libs won, not by a landslide but by a single seat.

 

The voters punished them and they actually lost around 16 seats for the treachery that they perpetrated on the previous Liberal leader. They have a female Trump, her name is Hanson.  Speaks her mind, tells it like it is, and the two major parties did to her what the Clinton campaign, press and many on here are doing to Trump.  The Australian voters were also sick and tired of this and the diatribe dished out, so now she s very powerful and they have to grovel to her given that she now controls four senators. 

 

So, as polls come and go, the only real poll that you need to worry about is the one that the voters will deliver on election day.  At that time you will either be able to gloat or skulk away and along with the other dislikers come up with all the negative comments of disdain should Trump win.

" A considerable swing in such a short time, so which one is supposed to cause the Republicans undue worry so far out?  "

Looking at the comments coming from the Republican corner, it is the candidate that is worrying them.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Just to give you something to respond to. Yes, gives her a lead but in just over a couple of weeks it has varied from 6 , 8 and 12 points. A considerable swing in such a short time, so which one is supposed to cause the Republicans undue worry so far out?  And of course people do take notice of polls but like in all elections, those behind rarely comment on them.  Those in front tend to gloat which is quite evident by Clinton and that annoying smile and head shaking.

 

Polls are strange animals.  Look at the last British election, the polls there showed Cameron losing but he won in a landside. During the lead up to the Brexit vote, the polls showed the remainers winning but they didn't and that was despite all the doom and gloom put out by everyone on the remainers side, including Obama, who had to stick his nose into another country's business, as did a number of world leaders.  Sad that they all ended up with egg on their face.   Australia's recent election had the Liberal coalition losing to labor, 52 to 48. The Libs won, not by a landslide but by a single seat.

 

The voters punished them and they actually lost around 16 seats for the treachery that they perpetrated on the previous Liberal leader. They have a female Trump, her name is Hanson.  Speaks her mind, tells it like it is, and the two major parties did to her what the Clinton campaign, press and many on here are doing to Trump.  The Australian voters were also sick and tired of this and the diatribe dished out, so now she s very powerful and they have to grovel to her given that she now controls four senators. 

 

So, as polls come and go, the only real poll that you need to worry about is the one that the voters will deliver on election day.  At that time you will either be able to gloat or skulk away and along with the other dislikers come up with all the negative comments of disdain should Trump win.

You've got your facts wrong.  Here's a link to all the polls for the Australian Election. In fact the polling showed the race to be really close with the Liberals (who are the conservative party) slightly ahead. Which tallied with the final results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2016

 

As for the Brexit polling, it also showed a very close race.  The Economist, which kept track of the polling, declared it a tie with a sizeable number of undecided voters: 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum 

It wasn't the polls that failed but the pundits who disregarded the polls because of wishful thinking.

 

And for the UK general election here is the results of the BBC poll of polls

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/poll-tracker

And here is the result of that election

http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results

Not a very big difference at all. But the UK's parliamentary system tends to magnify small differences

 

Anyway, if you were trying to prove with these examples that the polls can be massively off, you've failed.

[Jingthing]

No candidate in modern U.S. history has won the election being so far behind in the poll average at this time point in the election. So yes trump can technically still win of course but highly unlikely. Think Leicester odds. 

[slipperylobster]

28 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No candidate in modern U.S. history has won the election being so far behind in the poll average at this time point in the election. So yes trump can technically still win of course but highly unlikely. Think Leicester odds. 

 

A bit early.

 

These polls are no indication of success or failure....

Wait another month...or until after the first debate is over.

 

 

 

[Michael8511]

Trump still have to say why he will be the best president. To call Clinton name will not be enough. The other thing with him is that he have a "former" adviser that are very much cut up in the Putin establishment and it may be good for trumps private business but not so much for USA unless he is thinking of turning the Republican Party into a communist party.

[ilostmypassword]

18 minutes ago, slipperylobster said:

 

A bit early.

 

These polls are no indication of success or failure....

Wait another month...or until after the first debate is over.

 

 

 

Of course they're indications.  They're just not infallible.

[Jingthing]

28 minutes ago, slipperylobster said:

 

A bit early.

 

These polls are no indication of success or failure....

Wait another month...or until after the first debate is over.

 

 

 

Not early .I was citing history based on polls this far out. Face facts. trump is officially a long shot.

[slipperylobster]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Of course they're indications.  They're just not infallible.

 

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Of course they're indications.  They're just not infallible.

 

They are in no way indicative of the outcome in November.  Perhaps, at best, indicative of how people would vote if the election was today. 

 

The debate is just one thing...but the daily revelations of Hillary's outrageous slush fund,  along with her terrible management of classified material will certainly bring the polls more in line.   I would say even within a month or so.

 

[Boon Mee]

7 minutes ago, slipperylobster said:

 

 

They are in no way indicative of the outcome in November.  Perhaps, at best, indicative of how people would vote if the election was today. 

 

The debate is just one thing...but the daily revelations of Hillary's outrageous slush fund,  along with her terrible management of classified material will certainly bring the polls more in line.   I would say even within a month or so.

 

They are even right now. 

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

You've got your facts wrong.  Here's a link to all the polls for the Australian Election. In fact the polling showed the race to be really close with the Liberals (who are the conservative party) slightly ahead. Which tallied with the final results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2016

 

As for the Brexit polling, it also showed a very close race.  The Economist, which kept track of the polling, declared it a tie with a sizeable number of undecided voters: 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum 

It wasn't the polls that failed but the pundits who disregarded the polls because of wishful thinking.

 

And for the UK general election here is the results of the BBC poll of polls

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/poll-tracker

And here is the result of that election

http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results

Not a very big difference at all. But the UK's parliamentary system tends to magnify small differences

 

Anyway, if you were trying to prove with these examples that the polls can be massively off, you've failed.

 

Not wrong at all and haven't failed. I was inferring that polls can be wrong, misleading and are not infallible.  It all depends on who's polled.  Anyone can conduct a poll and depending on what and how something is asked, one can get the desired result.  Yes, the Australian election was close but 13 polls showed Labor in front, others 50/50 (Hung Parliament) and a few others show the Libs in front. 

 

Here is a partial quote from the Guardian.  "Young, politically engaged Labour voters were over-represented in surveys while older Tories were under-represented.  A systematic bias in the way people were selected to take part in opinion polls before the general election is emerging as the most likely reason why the industry failed to predict an overall majority for David Cameron in May’s general election.

 

The findings come before the publication in January of the initial findings of an independent study for the polling industry, led by Prof Patrick Sturgis of Southampton University, to examine why so many failed to predict a majority win for the Conservative party in May."

 

So it does show that polls can be wrong, others can be right but no where did I suggest that Polls were massively off. Your doing what others are doing, using your own words to suggest something was said when it wasn't.  So sorry, you failed.

 

[Boon Mee]

Polls...anyone recall the Britext polls?

Heh...go Donald!  

 

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

They are even right now. 

Nope.

Quote

Electoral College	Clinton	Trump	Spread
RCP Electoral Map	272	154	Clinton +118
No Toss Up States	362	176

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[Neurath]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

You've got your facts wrong.  Here's a link to all the polls for the Australian Election. In fact the polling showed the race to be really close with the Liberals (who are the conservative party) slightly ahead. Which tallied with the final results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2016

 

As for the Brexit polling, it also showed a very close race.  The Economist, which kept track of the polling, declared it a tie with a sizeable number of undecided voters: 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum 

It wasn't the polls that failed but the pundits who disregarded the polls because of wishful thinking.

 

And for the UK general election here is the results of the BBC poll of polls

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/poll-tracker

And here is the result of that election

http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results

Not a very big difference at all. But the UK's parliamentary system tends to magnify small differences

 

Anyway, if you were trying to prove with these examples that the polls can be massively off, you've failed.

I was going to to this - but then thought 'why bother'.  It's not so much a lack of facts that bedevils our brother as it is an inability tell them apart from bullshirt. That ability is as much disposition as skill and it seems the disposition is lacking and the skill absent. Yep, why bother. Anyway, you can't reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into.

[Jingthing]

trump will be dumped.

 

 

Quote

 

Whoever’s leading the polls at this point usually ends up winning

Indeed, the authors looked at general election contests going back to 1952, and found that the candidate who was in the lead two weeks after the conventions ended went on to win the popular vote every single time.

Yup, you read that right. In all 16 of the most recent elections, the popular vote winner was the candidate who was ahead around this point in the campaign season.

 

 http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12426346/trump-polls-today

[iReason]

@Post 346

"they are even right now"

 

Oh Boon Mee, you are such a dreamer…

 

Or, just making things up. Again.

Which doesn’t make it so… 

 

Even? One? That one, that has even gone down?

Never ahead. More like consistently behind.

 

A short list:

 

Clinton leads Trump by 12 points in Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN10Y28J

 

Trump Faces Hurdle With Minority Voters as Clinton Maintains Lead, Poll Shows

“Hillary Clinton continues to hold a large national lead over Donald Trump, 50 percent to 42 percent, 

weeks after the Democratic National Convention.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-faces-hurdle-minority-voters-clinton-maintains-lead-poll-shows-n636061

 

Poll: Clinton up big on Trump in Virginia

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/virginia-poll-clinton-over-trump/

 

Poll: Clinton up 14 in battleground state of Florida

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/23/clinton-trump-florida-rubio-murphy-grayson-senate/89213904/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

 

And no, I don't recall any Britext poll.

Do you have a link for it? 

Edited August 24, 2016 by iReason

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Polls...anyone recall the Britext polls?

Heh...go Donald!  

 

Have you actually looked at the Brexit polls. According to the aggregates it was a virtual tie before going in.  So not that far off from the final result.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

 

trump will be dumped.

 

 

Quote

 

Whoever’s leading the polls at this point usually ends up winning

Indeed, the authors looked at general election contests going back to 1952, and found that the candidate who was in the lead two weeks after the conventions ended went on to win the popular vote every single time.

Yup, you read that right. In all 16 of the most recent elections, the popular vote winner was the candidate who was ahead around this point in the campaign season.

 

 

 

 

 http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12426346/trump-polls-today

 

Anyone who missed this post might go ahead to read it now because it's worth re-posting and probably should also be framed to see each day.

 

Anyone who did read it yet doubts the accuracy of it might read it again because it is a reality check.

 

Trump is the wildman who wants to turn the USA upside down and disassemble the world in to an ever more severe disorder and anarchy. The post reports the hard historical data concerning on why Trump is failing...and that he will continue to fail.

 

The focus of this election is as always on the voter(s). This is a historic election because it is demonstrating that no respectable voter in any respectable community will vote for Donald Trump to be Potus. 

 

That's not all the good news there is either. Also excellent and predictable is that the American political center continues to hold -- indefinitely. 

[PTC]

14 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I think this poster has crossed the line and is way off topic.  Show a little decorum but then that could be difficult given the style. 

 

It's on the internet, so it must be true. This is where Donald gets his 'information' http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/08/yes-melania-was-hooker-before-she.html

 

Since you have no actual authority to berate or admonish other posters the only basis for you presuming to draw any line is moral authority. As a Trump fanboy, you have none. Having moral indignation is not the same as having moral authority. The poster whom you abuse is owed an apology.

 

But of course none will be forthcoming.

 

This is what the news will look like under a President Trump and First Escort Melania http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/08/21/melania-trump-sex/

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, PTC said:

 

It's on the internet, so it must be true. This is where Donald gets his 'information' http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/08/yes-melania-was-hooker-before-she.html

 

Since you have no actual authority to berate or admonish other posters the only basis for you presuming to draw any line is moral authority. As a Trump fanboy, you have none. Having moral indignation is not the same as having moral authority. The poster whom you abuse is owed an apology.

 

But of course none will be forthcoming.

 

This is what the news will look like under a President Trump and First Escort Melania http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/08/21/melania-trump-sex/

on the final link click on the DM link in the article. It is very interesting Melania now suing the DM for the article. For what??? It will just make the water deeper! Goodbye Trumps!

[Ulysses G.]

Whoever’s leading the polls at this point usually ends up winning

 

Perhaps true, but this is a VERY unusual election. Nobody should be counting their chickens yet.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Whoever’s leading the polls at this point usually ends up winning

 

Perhaps true, but this is a VERY unusual election. Nobody should be counting their chickens yet.

 

Nobody's counting chickens yet cause it ain't over till it's over but Trump sure is laying a lotta eggs.

 

It's yoke now he wears on his face.

 

(When his crowds chant 'lock her up' I think of when the men in white coats will 'take him away'.)

 

I say again, observing the ongoing universe of polls but also by our own common sense, no respectable citizen of a respectable community will vote Trump for Potus. Trump is finally beginning to focus somewhat on HRC but he's just the wrong guy to do it. Ben Carson would have been just so much better

 

We can see, Trump will win 20 states, possibly 21 or 22, yet in any event, fewer than 200 Electoral College votes with 270 needed to win.

 

The R for Potus wins a dozen rural states with EC votes of 3 or 5 or 7, whereas the D wins the biggies, such as CA-55, NY-29, IL-20, PA-20, MI-16, NJ-14, VA-13 and, increasingly, OH-18, NC-15...and FL-29 among others.

 

This year four red states are definitely in play: GA-16, NC-15, AZ-11, MO-10. Five will get you ten Trump doesn't win a one of 'em. The two are tied in each red state except NC where HRC is up by 8 points. (In 2008, McCain won MO microscopically with 49.3% to Obama's 49.2%...Romney did a tiny mite better in '12.)

 

Republican women and children first as the line for the lifeboats forms at the right.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Publicus
Typo

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Whoever’s leading the polls at this point usually ends up winning

 

Perhaps true, but this is a VERY unusual election. Nobody should be counting their chickens yet.

 

So what's your shout for a Trump Hail Mary?

 

 

[piewarmer]

On 8/15/2016 at 11:04 AM, boomerangutang said:

I don't agree with conspiracy theorists who think Trump doesn't really want the presidency.  He's the ultimate egomaniac.  The ultimate ego-stroking job is prez of the US.   He's doing everything he can to win.  Unfortunately for him, he's doing everything wrong, and his true character is being exposed. 

 

Claiming it's actually a deep down failure-wish by him is a cheap conspiracy way out.  

 

The only true thing he's said in past weeks is he'll take a nice long vacation after he loses in Nov.  He certainly won't be lifting a finger to try and do anything worthwhile for others - he never has in the past, so why would he change his character now that he's an old man?   He's the opposite of Sanders in that way.  Though Sanders didn't get the candidacy, he will continue to work hard to better peoples' situations.  Trump will only expend calories to gain more money for himself.  That's all he's every done and, as he said himself, "I'm very good with debt."

 

 

Sanders should replace Trump immediately, certain victory.