All Things POLITICS 3.0

[GONYK]

Have at it

[King of Canada]

Vote for me!!!

[GONYK]

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

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads Republican rival Donald Trump by 12 percentage points among likely voters, her strongest showing this month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday.

The Aug. 18-22 poll showed that 45 percent of voters supported Clinton, while 33 percent backed Trump ahead of the Nov. 8 election.

Interesting, since this was the same poll being hailed 2 weeks ago that showed Trump was within 2 points. Trump supporters made the claim that this was closer to being accurate than all the other polls that had him down, since it was online and people could express their true feelings.

Does this week's result reaffirm that stance?

[BKlutch]

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

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads Republican rival Donald Trump by 12 percentage points among likely voters, her strongest showing this month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday.

The Aug. 18-22 poll showed that 45 percent of voters supported Clinton, while 33 percent backed Trump ahead of the Nov. 8 election.

Interesting, since this was the same poll being hailed 2 weeks ago that showed Trump was within 2 points. Trump supporters made the claim that this was closer to being accurate than all the other polls that had him down, since it was online and people could express their true feelings.

Does this week's result reaffirm that stance?

Experience in past elections has been that individual polls can vary, but more reliable results seem to come from those who aggregate a whole bunch of polls. I'd personally love to see this as being a highly significant turn of events, but I'm not certain how much this means without confirmation from other polls.

[CJackson]

Vote for me!!!

I will accept a Subway gift card or a used Camry in return for my vote

[BKlutch]

Vote for me!!!

I will accept a Subway gift card or a used Camry in return for my vote

I have an old invitation to meet Jared. Interested?

[GONYK]

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

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads Republican rival Donald Trump by 12 percentage points among likely voters, her strongest showing this month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday.

The Aug. 18-22 poll showed that 45 percent of voters supported Clinton, while 33 percent backed Trump ahead of the Nov. 8 election.

Interesting, since this was the same poll being hailed 2 weeks ago that showed Trump was within 2 points. Trump supporters made the claim that this was closer to being accurate than all the other polls that had him down, since it was online and people could express their true feelings.

Does this week's result reaffirm that stance?

Experience in past elections has been that individual polls can vary, but more reliable results seem to come from those who aggregate a whole bunch of polls. I'd personally love to see this as being a highly significant turn of events, but I'm not certain how much this means without confirmation from other polls.

That is my point exactly though. When this poll came out 2 weeks ago, there was a protracted debate about it. I, and others, were saying that one poll is meaningless. Especially when it is an outlier among the tidal wave of polls showing a different result.

Trump supporters were rebutting that by claiming that this particular poll was significant because it was an online poll where people could be honest without having any fear of being judged by a pollster or other people in a polling group. In essence, it is the true feeling of a likely voter.

Now that that very same poll shows an overwhelming lead for Hillary, I wonder if it is still a true signal of likely voter opinion.

For the record, I still think it is meaningless.

[BKlutch]

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



Interesting, since this was the same poll being hailed 2 weeks ago that showed Trump was within 2 points. Trump supporters made the claim that this was closer to being accurate than all the other polls that had him down, since it was online and people could express their true feelings.

Does this week's result reaffirm that stance?

Experience in past elections has been that individual polls can vary, but more reliable results seem to come from those who aggregate a whole bunch of polls. I'd personally love to see this as being a highly significant turn of events, but I'm not certain how much this means without confirmation from other polls.

That is my point exactly though. When this poll came out 2 weeks ago, there was a protracted debate about it. I, and others, were saying that one poll is meaningless. Especially when it is an outlier among the tidal wave of polls showing a different result.

Trump supporters were rebutting that by claiming that this particular poll was significant because it was an online poll where people could be honest without having any fear of being judged by a pollster or other people in a polling group. In essence, it is the true feeling of a likely voter.

Now that that very same poll shows an overwhelming lead for Hillary, I wonder if it is still a true signal of likely voter opinion.

For the record, I still think it is meaningless.

I'm in agreement on this. There hasn't been enough done with online polls to really know how meaningful they are, and in any event, an outlier poll is rarely the only right one. Of course, any candidate who is down will celebrate the one poll that offers them good news. I expect a pivot from the Trump team to discredit these results, regardless of what they said last time. That's just typical politician stuff.

Now if Trump really wants to be Trump, he could say that Hillary rigged this poll after it came out so well for him the last time. The NY Times today still has odds of a Clinton victory at 89% vs. 11% for Trump vs. 0% for others. They also give the Dems a 60% chance of retaking the Senate. The odds of a Clinton victory have been steady at between 86% and 89% for a few weeks. I think these numbers are more important than the polls, because they take into account individual state poll results and look at possible ways they can reach a minimum of 270 electoral votes. They are more statistically reliable.

[CJackson]

Vote for me!!!

I will accept a Subway gift card or a used Camry in return for my vote

I have an old invitation to meet Jared. Interested?

You saved everything from your childhood didn't you?

[GONYK]

Experience in past elections has been that individual polls can vary, but more reliable results seem to come from those who aggregate a whole bunch of polls. I'd personally love to see this as being a highly significant turn of events, but I'm not certain how much this means without confirmation from other polls.

That is my point exactly though. When this poll came out 2 weeks ago, there was a protracted debate about it. I, and others, were saying that one poll is meaningless. Especially when it is an outlier among the tidal wave of polls showing a different result.

Trump supporters were rebutting that by claiming that this particular poll was significant because it was an online poll where people could be honest without having any fear of being judged by a pollster or other people in a polling group. In essence, it is the true feeling of a likely voter.

Now that that very same poll shows an overwhelming lead for Hillary, I wonder if it is still a true signal of likely voter opinion.

For the record, I still think it is meaningless.

I'm in agreement on this. There hasn't been enough done with online polls to really know how meaningful they are, and in any event, an outlier poll is rarely the only right one. Of course, any candidate who is down will celebrate the one poll that offers them good news. I expect a pivot from the Trump team to discredit these results, regardless of what they said last time. That's just typical politician stuff.

Now if Trump really wants to be Trump, he could say that Hillary rigged this poll after it came out so well for him the last time. The NY Times today still has odds of a Clinton victory at 89% vs. 11% for Trump vs. 0% for others. They also give the Dems a 60% chance of retaking the Senate. The odds of a Clinton victory have been steady at between 86% and 89% for a few weeks. I think these numbers are more important than the polls, because they take into account individual state poll results and look at possible ways they can reach a minimum of 270 electoral votes. They are more statistically reliable.

Even without all that, I maintain that the only poll that matters is the one coming out of Florida.

[BKlutch]

That is my point exactly though. When this poll came out 2 weeks ago, there was a protracted debate about it. I, and others, were saying that one poll is meaningless. Especially when it is an outlier among the tidal wave of polls showing a different result.

Trump supporters were rebutting that by claiming that this particular poll was significant because it was an online poll where people could be honest without having any fear of being judged by a pollster or other people in a polling group. In essence, it is the true feeling of a likely voter.

Now that that very same poll shows an overwhelming lead for Hillary, I wonder if it is still a true signal of likely voter opinion.

For the record, I still think it is meaningless.

I'm in agreement on this. There hasn't been enough done with online polls to really know how meaningful they are, and in any event, an outlier poll is rarely the only right one. Of course, any candidate who is down will celebrate the one poll that offers them good news. I expect a pivot from the Trump team to discredit these results, regardless of what they said last time. That's just typical politician stuff.

Now if Trump really wants to be Trump, he could say that Hillary rigged this poll after it came out so well for him the last time. The NY Times today still has odds of a Clinton victory at 89% vs. 11% for Trump vs. 0% for others. They also give the Dems a 60% chance of retaking the Senate. The odds of a Clinton victory have been steady at between 86% and 89% for a few weeks. I think these numbers are more important than the polls, because they take into account individual state poll results and look at possible ways they can reach a minimum of 270 electoral votes. They are more statistically reliable.

Even without all that, I maintain that the only poll that matters is the one coming out of Florida.

Trump needs to win Florida to win, but Hillary can win without Florida. As we know, it helps to have a Republican governor if the vote in Florida is very close.

[guardplay320]

I'm in agreement on this. There hasn't been enough done with online polls to really know how meaningful they are, and in any event, an outlier poll is rarely the only right one. Of course, any candidate who is down will celebrate the one poll that offers them good news. I expect a pivot from the Trump team to discredit these results, regardless of what they said last time. That's just typical politician stuff.

Now if Trump really wants to be Trump, he could say that Hillary rigged this poll after it came out so well for him the last time. The NY Times today still has odds of a Clinton victory at 89% vs. 11% for Trump vs. 0% for others. They also give the Dems a 60% chance of retaking the Senate. The odds of a Clinton victory have been steady at between 86% and 89% for a few weeks. I think these numbers are more important than the polls, because they take into account individual state poll results and look at possible ways they can reach a minimum of 270 electoral votes. They are more statistically reliable.

Even without all that, I maintain that the only poll that matters is the one coming out of Florida.

Trump needs to win Florida to win, but Hillary can win without Florida. As we know, it helps to have a Republican governor if the vote in Florida is very close.

Exactly. Unless Trump can make significant ground back up to take one of the following, Hillary doesn't need to win Florida (she gets to 272 or 273 depending on the New Hampshire split if only getting the following):

Virginia - 12.8% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Colorado - 10.8% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Pennsylvania - 9.2% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
New Hampshire - 9.3% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Michigan - 7.3% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Wisconson - 9.4% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Minnesota - no recent polls, but the last one in April had Hillary up 13%

With everyone talking about Nat Silver, nobody has been more accurate than Larry Sabato. Right now, he has all of the above likely democrat at this point. Along with winning one of the above, Trump still needs to win all of the following, which are leaning dem:

Florida - 3.6% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Ohio- 4.8% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Iowa - 1.5% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
Nevada - 2.3% Real Clear Politics Average Lead
North Carolina - 1.8% Real Clear Politics Average Lead

Also, no surprises in Georgia (.3% average Hillary lead) and Arizona (.3% average Trump lead), which should go for Trump but are close.

If I had to be, I would say Georgia, Arizona and Iowa go Trump and North Carolina is a toss-up. I wouldn't bet on any of the rest going for Trump with confidence, although Florida, Ohio and Nevada very well could - toss-up at best for him.

[CJackson]

I propose this as the new Trump campaign song

Watch on YouTube

[King of Canada]

Vote for me!!!

I will accept a Subway gift card or a used Camry in return for my vote

How about a used Subway gift card?

[CJackson]

Vote for me!!!

I will accept a Subway gift card or a used Camry in return for my vote

How about a used Subway gift card?

[King of Canada]

I will accept a Subway gift card or a used Camry in return for my vote

How about a used Subway gift card?

[CJackson]

I was just driving listening to my hippie libtard NPR and they played a small portion of Trump's latest appeal to Black and Latino voters. It had the sound of curdled milk being dumped in the toilet.

Trump has the most insincere delivery I've ever heard. He is so fake sounding it is like listening to fingers on a chalkboard. I have never heard such a phony sounding human being in my life. At least when he wasn't following the Breitbart script he was authentic 100% purebred ass hole. Now he isn't even actually Trump, but a facsimile of his bloated self.

What was really galling was the script now is trying to invoke MLK's I Have a Dream speech with not so subtle references to children of all races growing up together.

He was gross before. Now he is gross and faker than ever.

[BKlutch]

I was just driving listening to my hippie libtard NPR and they played a small portion of Trump's latest appeal to Black and Latino voters. It had the sound of curdled milk being dumped in the toilet.

Trump has the most insincere delivery I've ever heard. He is so fake sounding it is like listening to fingers on a chalkboard. I have never heard such a phony sounding human being in my life. At least when he wasn't following the Breitbart script he was authentic 100% purebred ass hole. Now he isn't even actually Trump, but a facsimile of his bloated self.

What was really galling was the script now is trying to invoke MLK's I Have a Dream speech with not so subtle references to children of all races growing up together.

He was gross before. Now he is gross and faker than ever.

For many people, achieving true diversity is hard. It's actually easier for Trump - he can embrace diversity completely, as long as they're all behind a wall.

[CJackson]

I was just driving listening to my hippie libtard NPR and they played a small portion of Trump's latest appeal to Black and Latino voters. It had the sound of curdled milk being dumped in the toilet.

Trump has the most insincere delivery I've ever heard. He is so fake sounding it is like listening to fingers on a chalkboard. I have never heard such a phony sounding human being in my life. At least when he wasn't following the Breitbart script he was authentic 100% purebred ass hole. Now he isn't even actually Trump, but a facsimile of his bloated self.

What was really galling was the script now is trying to invoke MLK's I Have a Dream speech with not so subtle references to children of all races growing up together.

He was gross before. Now he is gross and faker than ever.

For many people, achieving true diversity is hard. It's actually easier for Trump - he can embrace diversity completely, as long as they're all behind a wall.

or in the back of the kitchen preparing his burrito bowl

[BKlutch]

I was just driving listening to my hippie libtard NPR and they played a small portion of Trump's latest appeal to Black and Latino voters. It had the sound of curdled milk being dumped in the toilet.

Trump has the most insincere delivery I've ever heard. He is so fake sounding it is like listening to fingers on a chalkboard. I have never heard such a phony sounding human being in my life. At least when he wasn't following the Breitbart script he was authentic 100% purebred ass hole. Now he isn't even actually Trump, but a facsimile of his bloated self.

What was really galling was the script now is trying to invoke MLK's I Have a Dream speech with not so subtle references to children of all races growing up together.

He was gross before. Now he is gross and faker than ever.

For many people, achieving true diversity is hard. It's actually easier for Trump - he can embrace diversity completely, as long as they're all behind a wall.

or in the back of the kitchen preparing his burrito bowl

I believe there was a disclaimer: "No actual Latinos were freed from behind the wall for the production of this burrito bowl."