Rigging the Election

[Mrs. M.]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

 

[presonorek]

Nah. One of them will win. The other one will lose. It always happens that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is worried except those who are worried for you, Mrs. M.

 

[JQPublic1]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

 

[Mrs. M.]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

 

[skye]

"Election? What election? It has been clear from the beginning who is going to win. This is in effect, a power consolidation exercise."

(Wikileaks)


Beyond sad.

 

[Toro]

There have been 945 national polls. Almost all of them have had Hillary ahead.

And the losers are complaining that the election is rigged.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Will you leave the Board when he loses?

 

[Mrs. M.]

"Election? What election? It has been clear from the beginning who is going to win. This is in effect, a power consolidation exercise."

(Wikileaks)


Beyond sad.

That's up for "change." Wait and see. Hillary didn't realize that a professor had a primary model which has been proven 100% accurate going back approximately 100 years. Maybe Cardinal Dolan can help her do the right thing and cope with the aftermath of losing to Trump.

 

[Mrs. M.]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Here you are JQ Public 1 :

87% - 99% Certain of Trump Presidency - Prof. Helmut Norpoth

 

[Mrs. M.]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Will you leave the Board when he loses?

If Trump wins, I'll leave. Pray hard. God answers prayer, Jake.

 

[Moonglow]

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Will you leave the Board when he loses?

If Trump wins, I'll leave. Pray hard. God answers prayer, Jake.

God says leave him out of it...

 

[Desperado]

Great article on Rigging the Election
About that “pillar” of American democracy…
About that “pillar” of American democracy…

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Will you leave the Board when he loses?

If Trump wins, I'll leave. Pray hard. God answers prayer, Jake.

I bring my arm to the square and affirm your statement. I call him Lord and he calls me by my first name.

 

[HenryBHough]

I bring my arm to the square and affirm your statement. I call him Lord and he calls me by my first name.

However the failure to capitalize "him" and "he" suggests a false faith and, indeed, great disrespect for His omnipotence!

Or....maybe it's just that, at 12 years of tender age...the Sunday School classes haven't reached that point yet. And yet the Dr. Denton-clad Hillarybot is highly unlikely to refer to Mrs. Clinton without (to his mind) properly capitalizing "Her" or "She".

 

[Mrs. M.]

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Will you leave the Board when he loses?

If Trump wins, I'll leave. Pray hard. God answers prayer, Jake.

God says leave him out of it...

God isn't going to be left out of anything. This is my Op-ed and God is not only welcome but invited!

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Will you leave the Board when he loses?

If Trump wins, I'll leave. Pray hard. God answers prayer, Jake.

God says leave him out of it...

God isn't going to be left out of anything. This is my Op-ed and God is not only welcome but invited!

Does it come with a dance?

 

[JQPublic1]

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Here you are JQ Public 1 :

87% - 99% Certain of Trump Presidency - Prof. Helmut Norpoth

Norpoth isn' t the first political soothsayer we've seen. In August of 2012 ,the University of Colorado had been predicting electoral college selections of presidents since 1980. In 2012 their mathematical channeling conjured up a loss when their chosen man, Romney, lost.

I am not sorry to tell you that Norpoth is about to join the University of Colorado soothsayers in obscurity after he too falls flat on his face after Hillary sails to victory.

 

[Mrs. M.]

So you actually accept a SNAP poll as proof of Donald's likelihood of winning? BWHAHAHAHAHA! My dear , dear woman…are you mad?
One person can vote thousands of times in such polls, thereby skewing the results to such an extent the poll is useless except for the purposes of spewing propaganda. Your entire op is full of HOLES! BTW…those multiple Trump photos seem to be of the same rally taken from different angles. Don't think We didn't notice.

View attachment 94737

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Here you are JQ Public 1 :

87% - 99% Certain of Trump Presidency - Prof. Helmut Norpoth

Norpoth isn' t the first political soothsayer we've seen. In August of 2012 ,the University of Colorado had been predicting electoral college selections of presidents since 1980. In 2012 their mathematical channeling conjured up a loss when their chosen man, Romney, lost.

I am not sorry to tell you that Norpoth is about to join the University of Colorado soothsayers in obscurity after he too falls flat on his face after Hillary sails to victory.

Trying to defy the scientific evidence of Dr. Norpoth's primary model is like trying to defy the laws of gravity. What goes up must come down and there are no exceptions. Not even for Mrs. Clinton.