Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

It's like they want Trump to win.

Possibly

All those people jumping ship to Trump over this, not remembering all his faults and not remembering Third Parties exist. If a Third Party was ever going to win, it would be with the detonation of the Democratic party.

We all have faults, it's called being human. Maybe some people like Trump because he's a man with a vision for America's future. Just a hunch.

His faults aren't being human, his are being an asshole unfit for the presidency, with terrible ideas and one hell of a bad history behind him. We all know if anyone other than Hilary were running, Trump would be slaughtered.

To be honest, this evidence really won't hurt Clinton. I doubt that this will effect her poll numbers(Now double digits post trump tapes) and if the wikileaks emails aren't busting her now near landslide amount of EVs due to polling numbers and early voting surges, then this is a simple fluke. If a leak or investigated report really damaged her campaign, it would've been when the DNC Emails got revealed back in august.

Scott Foval Fired

Bob Creamer Out

These are the two men featured most prominently in latest Project Veritas Action videos, in which they discuss a series of unethical and possibly illegal campaign activities on behalf of the DNC.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301612-trump-i-dont-believe-the-polls-anymore

even though he talked non-stop about polls 6 months ago, suddenly, for some strange reason, he no longer believes polls. Thats just sad.

I doubt that this will effect her poll numbers(Now double digits post trump tapes)

This thread is a mess in handling polling.

I really don't want to spend hours writing out essays on why the treatment of the polls in the past little while in this thread has been sloppy, but I'll just handle this one real quick, because it's simple.

Clinton does not have a double digit lead in the polls.

There have been two or three polls showing her in the double digits nationally (depending on how you want to view the polls). That is not a majority of the polls conducted since the WashPo story dropped. Two of them have likely voter samples of less than 1000 people. The one that does have a sample of over 1000 LV does not give Clinton a double digit lead when you pit her up against not only Trump, but Johnson and Stein too.

Looking at the polling aggregates, they vary from around a 6 to 8 point lead for Clinton nationally. I checked RCP, 538, Huffpost Pollster, and the NYTimes aggregator.

Here's what the polling says.

The polling says Clinton has a substantial lead. It says that there is a relatively high level of uncertainty, because of the huge undecided and third party vote. It says that despite this, things are looking pretty good for Clinton. However, at the moment, a landslide (double-digit seems to be how most people are defining landslide) win doesn't seem too likely. Possible – some argue more so than a Trump win – but it's more likely that it'll just be a ~7% margin.

Clinton can fall, if you assume the polls are 100% accurate, with no polling error or corruption or anything else. It's just very likely she won't.

(Also, your link isn't very helpful. It seems that it changes every now and then, and now what you intended to show isn't there.)

Edit:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301612-trump-i-dont-believe-the-polls-anymore
even though he talked non-stop about polls 6 months ago, suddenly, for some strange reason, he no longer believes polls. Thats just sad.

From the link:

"Even though we're doing pretty good in the polls, I don't believe the polls anymore," the GOP presidential nominee told a rally crowd in Colorado Springs, Colo., Tuesday.

I find the idea that he's "doing pretty good in the polls" more humorous and concerning than the idea that he doesn't believe in them. The two best polls I've seen for Trump are from Rasmussen (which has consistently trended Republican) and the LA Times / Daybreak poll, both of which are showing a close race.

He does point out something that I wish more people would notice, though, in that:

"If there's 10 [polls], and if there's one or two bad ones, that's the only one they show," Trump said.

People only wanna talk about the polls that show huge gains or losses. Saying "yep, it's the exact same as least week" is boring. That's why the polls with Clinton showing double-digit leads are getting the attention while those showing her at about her average (~7 point lead) are ignored.

{ We all know if anyone other than Hilary were running, Trump would be slaughtered. }

lmao name your alternate Democrat party candidate. The only reason this many Democrats are still interested is because Hillary is a woman. Trump v some random old white guy would cause the largest party turnout gap in history.

You can't genuinely think the Clintons' 30+ year history of political moves that have been devastating for this country, on top of the felonious revelations this year, are excusable because… what? Trump's investment record is less than 100% perfect? He's said things you don't agree with? What sort of bad history are you supposedly rejecting that hasn't already been so thoroughly disproved as a baseless attack that the MSM buries it completely (a la gangbanger beauty queen).

Ecuador Releases Official Statement On Assange Internet

-Did cut off internet temporarily
-Official reason is that it doesn't interfere with other nation's elections
-Still stands by decision to grant Assange asylum

The 3 polls that show her double digit numbers, have a better ratings by being accurate on election outcomes. They may have fewer LVs, but the more of them added also gives Clinton a better advantage. I'm only using the most reliable pollsters to prove a point. Plus, right now we are seeing a Republican Nominee polling at less than 40% with polls done by landlines, the bread and butter for the party.

I guess I need to clear up that my Link showed Clinton with at least more than 320 EVs, meaning that 330 is the legal amount of Electoral Votes to qualify as a landslide. Here's a better link with more pundits

Clinton can fall, but, there is no signs of her slowing down, even if Wikileaks and these guys are delivering.

I'll also argue that a landslide is more of a possibility with states like Georgia, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, and even TEXAS coming into close range of the campaign.

>lmao name your alternate Democrat party candidate.

[coughs uncontrollably]

Even Biden could take trump down if he'd ran.

I'm not making excuses for Clinton, I'm saying she is as bad as Trump is, which is why I can't vote for either of them. And I'm not talking about his investment history, I'm talking about how he proudly bragged about being able to get away with sexual assault because of his fame, among a lot of his personal history including heading a conspiracy theory.

Yes, Clinton is horrible, but so is Trump. And don't say "it doesn't actually matter regarding his campaign" The kind of person he is should matter, this is the guy people are voting to be the face and voice of the country, I don't think anyone should have to vote for people we despise just because we despise the other guy.

If you are voting for Trump because you agree with what he's been saying, fine. But if you are voting for Trump, even when you don't like him, or even hate his guts, because you hate Clinton more, you are part of the reason why we have these two horrendous human beings as candidates to begin with. I've seen more people say they are voting against Clinton than voting for Trump, and it saddens me to no end that we live in a system that has made third party wins nearly impossible, even in the face of this shitshow of an election.

To be fair, the greatest of all poll prediction upsets happened in those 6 months. Remember how every poll said bremain was going to win handily? Put a big dent in percieved reliability.

@Ryumaru Borike

The problem is the third party choices aren't so good either (especially not Johnson) and I really don't think "both sides are exactly as bad XD" logic really applies here. Trump being an asshole will never compare to the countless shady things Hillary has done as a public servant in the eyes of some people (myself included) and it really is as simple as that. I also agree with Trump on national security and on the border.

Also:

>If you are voting for Trump because you agree with what he’s been saying, fine. But if you are voting for Trump, even when you don’t like him, or even hate his guts, because you hate Clinton more, you are part of the reason why we have these two horrendous human beings as candidates to begin with.

This high and mighty "ur part of the problem if you disagree with me!" bullshit is the worst thing about this election imo, not the candidates.

What, you don't think this "The president has to be democrat or republican" didn't have anything to do with the fact we have terrible people about to become president? Stein ain't great, but she's not the personification of corruption that Clinton is or the personification of "please punch me in the face" that Trump is. The personality of the candidate should be a major deciding point, for me, the mentality of "I can get away with bragging about blatant sexual assault because I'm famous" becoming president scares me as much as "I will break any law I have to to win" does.

Like I said, if you actually agree with Trump, fine. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is people who actively disagree or hate him voting for him because they hate Clinton worse, because it's that kind of mentality that we have these two to begin with. After all, both parties don't actually have to nominate a good candidate if they only have to nominate on better than the other side.

People have the right to vote however they want, though. They can vote simply on party lines if they want. They can vote simply because they want "first x president" if they want. My grandma even used to vote based on which candidate was more handsome. It frustrates me that people would vote for Hillary but I recognize their right to vote however they please because that's how it's supposed to work, and it's not any one person's place to tell everyone how to vote.

Welcome to Democracy.

{ I’m talking about how he proudly bragged about being able to get away with sexual assault because of his fame }

"Women let me do whatever kinky sexual things I want to them because I'm extremely rich" is not bragging about sexual assault no matter which way you try to spin it. Your real problem with Trump is that you listen to the MSM instead of what he actually says, you let the MSM tell you about the "awful personal business" they dug up out of the archives instead of looking into it yourself. That's a common problem in this forum, as we see in threads like that one about AT&T supposedly using a loophole to deny cheap internet to rural users, and that's why you're still blabbering about a hypothetical sexual assault that never happened.

{ This high and mighty “ur part of the problem if you disagree with me!” bullshit is the worst thing about this election imo, not the candidates. }

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Vote third party if you want to vote third party man, just recognize that "I'm not voting for either of these people because they're both shit" is exactly the same logic as "I'm only voting for Hillary because Trump is shit".

{ [coughs uncontrollably] }

Bernie was a Democrat for all of six months, he immediately switched back to Independent after his campaign collapsed. They wont even let Bumbling Biden campaign for her, what makes you think Biden could inspire a larger Democrat turnout than Trump can inspire record setting Republican turnout, as he has been doing?

US gov threatened Ecuador to shut down their embassy's internet by telling them Assange is a willing participant in a Russian intelligence operation to undermine the US elections and they could be found liable for interfering. That's why Ecuador specifically said they didn't want to interfere in our elections when they admitted they cut off his internet lol.

Trump won't promise to accept the vote if he loses. That's literally the easiest question. Just say yes, numb nuts.

Clinton wins round 3. Trump is preaching his anti-establishment roles but has to make the moderator mention Wikileaks and only mentions the O'keefe videos once. He failed to cash in any gotchas on her and the people are only talking about "Bad Hombres" instead of any mistakes she made. Downvote me all you want, but get used to saying President Hillary Clinton after November 8th.

Edit:
To respond to lisa, Bernie lost due to DNC rigging and there is polls during the primaries on him stomping trump in the polls if he were the nominee. I'll still defend my Biden stance because he's just as appealing as Obama in 08' and is just as gaffe prone as trump was in the primaries. Biden would've been a stronger nominee with better favoribilities and had great polls as well.

Hillary takes all. This last debate was pretty handily the final nail in the orange coffin. You can only gaffe so many times before it catches up with you.

YouGov shows Clinton up 10 post-debate
CNN shows Clinton by 13

As Clinton says, if he loses, it's because the system's rigged, in his mind.

If he loses, then you know a lot of his supporters won't accept it, even if Trump says he lost fair and square (and I doubt he will).

If Clinton wins, I expect the validity of the results to be talked about for much longer than a day or two.

{ Bernie lost due to DNC rigging }

According to the same leaked docs that say they're still doing plenty of rigging, as Trump has been saying lmfao, you understand at least that much right? Media polls skew Democrat because they poll mostly Democrats in urban areas where people are more likely to be Democrat, which is exactly the opposite of where Trump's support is coming from, we've gone over it in this thread over and over and over your head it seems to go.

According to 538's post-election analysis, the IBD/TIPP was the most accurate poll in 2012 and it showed Trump +1 going into the debate. Your poll says vs my poll says.

Biden is as appealing as Obama in '08 who won because of the largest black turnout in history which Hillary also needs to propel herself to the presidency yet has not turned out to any of the primaries? Is that what you're trying to say? Ridiculous.

I didn't get to watch the whole debate, but for the first time ever, I actually though Clinton wasn't too bad. I still don't feel like I can trust anything she says, but i actually felt she did good this last debate.

Trump pledges to accept election as long as he wins

That was the punch line.

Here's what he also said, taken from the same article:

“Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result, right? And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always.”

Given the closeness of most US presidential elections since the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, that is not an unreasonable position to take.

Ah, the article'a been edited since I posted it. You're right.

unusedusername said:

…there is polls during the primaries on him stomping trump in the polls if he were the nominee.

Honestly, if Sanders were the candidate, I think Trump would have the lead right now. Sanders' tax policies were absurd, with the middle class taking a $4,300 hit. It's pretty much rule #1 of elections you don't raise taxes or talk about raising taxes on the average voter, just ask Bush Senior how well that goes.

Sure, you can argue all you want about how much everyone would save in healthcare costs, but detailed policy breakdowns don't equal "SANDERS WILL TAX YOU $5,000 IF HE'S ELECTED" headlines and soundbites. He would have been carved up by ads, debates, media appearances, etc. He never really had the GOP's attention because he wasn't the nominee. They were more than happy to sit back and watch the moderate and far left wings of the Democratic Party tear into each other, just as the Democrats kept their mouths shut when Trump fought with the establishment GOP.

Biden would probably be the strongest of the Dem's possible candidates. He's got the Obama legacy to leapfrog off of with none of the corruption/baggage Clinton's got, plus VP experience. Only downside is he's not a minority, but that's what the VP is for, after all. One has to wonder what would have happened if his son didn't die.

except Hillary also wants to raise taxes, but she isn't even clear where the taxes would go, its just sorta vague. Sanders made it incredibly clear where the taxes would be going.

Every fucking day this Hillary ad comes on my Pandora station about her economic "plan". Literally: Hillary will make corporations and the rich finally pay their fair share, and those who try to leave she will charge and exit tax which she'll invest in creating the most amount of jobs for Americans evaaa11!!1

okay so, our corporate income tax is already the highest rate in the world, and the rich already pay the majority of our personal income tax.

We also already have an exit tax, I think it's 35%. A one time tax of 35% because your outrageously high corporate income tax sends business fleeing from the country, whereas Trump wants to lower to corporate income tax to a competitive 15% and collect year after year after year. Because 15% of billions from thousands of companies every year is a shit ton more than 35% once.

If you need a compelling, legitimate reason to vote for Trump instead of Hillary, let it be based on the economy. There is no argument, Hillary will continue the policies and regulations that are ruining individuals and small business while allowing corporate profits and salaries to grow higher than ever.

Gettysburg Speech

> lower to corporate income tax to a competitive 15%

What do you mean by this? Competitive to who?

{ What do you mean by this? Competitive to who? }

The rest of the world. The average is ~23%.

Ours and Puerto Rico is 39%, the UAE has the only rate higher at up to 55% but they only charge that rate to oil companies. China's is 25%, Mexico's is 30%.

We want to undercut China and Mexico who also take advantage of slave/child labor/bad working conditions/etc on top of the lower rate. That's why Trump has chosen such a low number at 15%, because corporations and manufacturers still have to pay the much higher cost of doing business here on top of the income tax. Right now they have high wages, high taxes, high costs from burdensome regulations that don't exist elsewhere.

It's not hard to figure out why this has been allowed to happen, just follow the money. Corporations lobby for free trade deals, free trade deals let corporations manufacture their products for pennies by taking advantage of loose working conditions in developing countries where workers have no leverage, corporations then import those products penalty free into first world countries where they're bought at premium first world prices so the profits grow and grow and grow. The business world and the stock market reacts to growth, it doesn't react to maintenance. You could bring in $100 billion clear profit one year but the next year will have to be $120 billion, you can't maintain $100 billion and consider yourself successful after all! That mindset is genuinely 90% of the problem. If big executives weren't literally racing to be the first to amass $1 trillion in personal wealth, if they could be happy with what they have or reinvest the money instead of hording it in banks the economy wouldn't be stalling. Can't blame the people for only buying necessities when that's all they can afford because you're pinching every possible penny.

Been extremely busy but here's a late reply:

>According to the same leaked docs that say they’re still doing plenty of rigging, as Trump has been saying lmfao, you understand at least that much right?

The DNC does not control how general elections are ran. But they do control how their own party primaries are ran and they horribly handled mishaps in states such as Arizona, New York, California, and other places. Trump calling out "Media rigging" which is hilarious for him because he won the primary pretty much off of free media advertising. In fact, the Wikileaks emails showed that the media was propping up trump's behavior and block coverage of other Candidates so Clinton could win the election easier. This included blocking coverage of other republicans and there should I say it, Bernie as well. Polls show democratic "oversampling" is baseless because Party I.D. can change all time without updating registration. Some republicans for example won't identify with an incompetent lunatic as a nominee and will say that they are independent for example. It's why we see independents going more for Trump than Clinton in some polls. I also see your IBD/TIPP poll and looking at H2H, Clinton still leads by 3 points :/

>Honestly, if Sanders were the candidate, I think Trump would have the lead right now. Sanders’ tax policies were absurd, with the middle class taking a $4,300 hit. It’s pretty much rule #1 of elections you don’t raise taxes or talk about raising taxes on the average voter, just ask Bush Senior how well that goes.

That same article does not mention that it would moderately effect average tax payers while mainly effecting the higher income earners, as the actual report states. Another rule of elections is being likable. Sanders was the only major candidate during the primaries with being more liked than hated, unlike Trump who is the most hated republican nominee since Bush Sr. as well. Bernie is still loved 20% more than hated, even if he did endorse Clinton. Likability has always determined an election, and a Sanders v Trump election would be no contest. I also doubt those types of ads against him because Trump would probably still have the same, maybe weaker, infrastructure than Sanders, who used Phonebanking and canvassing to get his supporters rallied and organized.

{ Trump calling out “Media rigging” which is hilarious for him because he won the primary pretty much off of free media advertising. }

yah free media calling you a xenophobic racist at every turn while asking Hillary what her favorite ice cream flavor is during official campaign stops, that media is really rigged in Trump's favor!

Or maybe he means how editors have been colluding with Hillary's campaign to sabotage her opponents and make sure all media being published about her is acceptable, and how reporters have gone on air to tell people reading the leaked emails about her scandals is illegal, and how MSM polls have her ten points ahead (and showed him losing all the primary states he won) when all independent rolling polls show a much closer race.

& ignoring how you think likeability determines elections, IDB/TIPP has Trump +2 in the 4-way and +.9 head to head, dunno what you're looking at because you didn't source it, as is typical.

btw "rallied and organized" =/= the immediate campaign collapse that eventually lead to Bernie sucking Hillary's teats for the rest of the election.

el oh el

New Podesta email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through 'Oversamples'

email excerpts:

{ I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling. }

{ – General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
- Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
- Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed }

for Arizona specifically: { Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Over-sample Hispanics
- Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population }

More evidence of rigging the election

NYT makes a list of insult's Trump has made on twitter since announcing his presidency. Based on the following, this is how I imagine the conversation went:

"So, what do we write down?"
"Everything."
"…Everything?"
"EVERYTHING"

Also, I feel like he called Cruz gay.

Maybe it's just me tho.

haha he totally called Ted Cruz gay. I think this is my fav tho:

Hi, i'm a foreigner and i personally don't give much attention to the current american elections.
I'd like to ask:
What is Trump's policy regarding the turmoil and low quality of life in Mexico, which is causing immigrants to come to your country? Disregarding the wall he promises to build?
From what i can tell, just building a wall and locking the mexicans in their country will not work wonders for Mexico itself, who may only see a surge in violent activity and people joining shady jobs in the northern desert states because they have no other choice. It may also put an ugly strain on mexican-american relations until Trump's supposed term ends.
How does Trump cope with this? Is he just a fierce isolationist, considering his negative views on NATO?

He was invited to talk about such things with the President of Mexico and they met at the end of August to discuss a joint task force to deal with drug cartels and weapons trafficking, and both agreed they would work to secure the USA's southern border as well as Mexico's from the flood of Central American immigrants and agreed to disagree about who's paying for it.

I wonder why doesn't he further espouse that strategy of cooperation with mexico in order to stop the illegal immigrant problem and to allow mexico to patch itself up. It would possibly win him back some of the hispanic voter base and better up his reputation.
Now, it all depends on whether or not such an operation, with that military kind of approach, would be effective, as the old War On Drugs proved to be a failure.

He's been speaking about it in western states ever since, but the media isn't going to cover things that help him. That's why he's been giving almost daily speeches and stops even at this point in the race while Hillary and her media cronies are acting like she already won.

I like to think we've learned from that approach, and have also advanced greatly in the ways of transparency whether the politicians want it or not, and could put together a more coherent operation. But we don't know until we know.

Now, it'd be ignorance to say that literally all media is against Trump. If that was true, he'd have lost practically all support for his election and public surveys wouldn't show a votebase tie, considering how important and influential the media is to an election.
There's still time for trump to fix some of his past mistakes and put forth a less offensive public image (what with his manliness-espousing resulting in that little leaked audio tape, initial mexican-phobia, and naive knowlege on geopolitics like his controversial statements on Crimea), but the window of opportunity is short.

"we need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say
state.gov"

Immediately after President Obama went on national television and claimed he learned of Hillary Clinton's private server from public news reports, the preceeding email exchange took place between Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and John Podesta.

Weeks later, Mills and a Clinton lawyer spoke with Platte Rivers Network's Paul Combetta, who had asked Reddit users in 2014 for advice regarding the emails of a "VVIP." After talking with Mills and the lawyer, Combetta deleted Clinton's server archives using BleachBit.

But it gets more sordid.

On the same days Mills and Podesta discussed Obama's lie that he didn't know about the server, and in fact was actually using it to communicate with her, something else was going on.

Terry McCaullife, currently Virginia's governor and Clinton's 2008 campaign chair, met with an FBI agent. This agent's wife was running for state senate, and McCaullife promised 500,000 dollars towards her campaign. In all, McCaullife directed about 675,000 dollars towards her campaign. This agent, Andrew McCabe, is an FBI deputy director who served on the leadership team of the Clinton email investigation.

So:

a) The President lied to the pubic about his knowledge of an illegal server, when in actuality he was using it to communicate with a cabinet member. While unethical the lie itself is not illegal, he was aware of the illegal server and tacitly permitted its operation.
b) Clinton team members realized evidence "needed to be cleaned up" because it, in very least, placed the President in a bad light.
c) The evidence, now subject to Congressional subpeona, is "cleaned up" by an IT specialist who spoke directly with one of those team members.
d) Concurrently, on behalf of his wife's campaign an FBI agent builds deep political and financial ties to a member of the Clinton team .
e) That FBI agent plays a leadership role in an investigation which uncovers significant amounts of evidence against Clinton, but declines to pursue prosecution.

We're getting close to the election, so I'm curious what you guys think will happen. This is my current prediction. I'll probably revise it before November 8th.

Post your own, I'd like to compare. Make your own here. Just click on the states to change it up. This is the link for a map if you want third parties. I'm not expecting any third party wins myself, and thus opted to not use it. You can use this one for more nuanced maps that involve lean and likely states, as well as solid and tossup.

only swing state i'd bet on is Florida. I think it will go to Clinton.

There's no way I'm going to try to predict states other than my own, which I think will go Trump based on the ridiculous turnout his and Pence's events have when they've come to northern Nevada vs Clinton (who has barely been up here) and Kaine. Vegas is the only place relatively illegal immigrant friendly, we have a lot of legal Hispanic immigrant blue collar workers suffering from the manufacturing decline.

& based on how badly Rubio lost to Trump in the FL primaries and how even CNN's polls think he's ahead there, I think it'll go to him. Cubans apparently love Trump.

So Gary Johnson and Jill Stein definitely won't be winning any states but it will be interesting to see how well they do in the popular vote. On the other hand 538 says that Evan McMullin has a pretty decent shot at winning Utah. Now this still won't mean anything unless both Hillary and Trump fail to get the 270 electoral votes they need, which is extremely unlikely, but under those circumstances he would be among the three people selected from by the house of representatives to become president.