Will Rasmussen do it again?

[RandallFlagg]

Will NBC/WSJ, Reuters and ABC continue suck-holing Hillary and all liberal causes.?.. (answer) .. Definitely...

You've even started calling WSJ names. WSJ might as well be the print version of fox. You don't even know who the anti-liberals are, do you?

Ask yourself, who owns the politicians left & right...? .. Who owns Hillary in particular? Who opposes Trump, other than the sheep?

Sane people oppose Trump.

.. thanks, although I don't believe there's any proof of that...

Who supports him other that tea people and gun nuts who are preparing for a civil war?

And who supports Hillary other than liberal, socialist assholes like yourself?

 

[Treeshepherd]

The polls underestimated Bernie in several states.
The polls got Brexit wrong, even to the point of claiming that high turnout would benefit Stay.
The polls are run by pro-globalist organizations and it's human nature to confirm your own biases in surveys.

And of course no poll can account for the future mood of the country in November;
Hillary is the status quo candidate and voters will decide if the status quo is something they can swallow.

Trump was always a longshot. He doesn't fit any standard mold. He would benefit from nervousness about the economy, security concerns and negative fallout from Clinton's time at the State Department

 

[g5000]

Will Rasmussen polls once again incorrectly predict that a Republican will win the Presidency? Stay tuned.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The lower the voter turnout, the better chance Trump has of winning. And I anticipate the lowest voter turnout since 1924.

The elites of Britain just found out the "have nots" are much more discontented than the elites realized. The elites were completely out of touch with reality, and it is possible the elites of the US are equally out of touch.

The media definitely falls into the "elites" category. The media is no longer the watchdog of government, and hasn't been for a long time. They are in bed with the ruling class all the way. So their perception filters consider a Trump win to be inconceivable. They are so out of touch, they believe the only way Hillary can lose at this point is to be caught having sex with a chihuahua.

Don't underestimate Trump. He is the king of hucksters. A real P.T. Barnum of the 21st century. There are a lot of really pissed off people in America, and Trump has tapped into that. He has a large following of Chumps.

Rasmussen is biased and unscientific, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean Trump is going to lose. The Clinton camp would be very stupid to underestimate him, just as the pseudo-cons have been idiotically underestimating the Clintons for 25 years now.

A few well-timed domestic terror attacks and things can quickly tilt Trump's way. I'm sure deep inside their secret black hearts, quite a few of Trump's Chumps actually hope such events will come to pass.

 

[HappyJoy]

The polls underestimated Bernie in several states.
The polls got Brexit wrong, even to the point of claiming that high turnout would benefit Stay.
The polls are run by pro-globalist organizations and it's human nature to confirm your own biases in surveys.

And of course no poll can account for the future mood of the country in November;
Hillary is the status quo candidate and voters will decide if the status quo is something they can swallow.

Trump was always a longshot. He doesn't fit any standard mold. He would benefit from nervousness about the economy, security concerns and negative fallout from Clinton's time at the State Department

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

 

[paulitician]

Polls are wrong. It happens. These things aren't decided by Polls or the People anyway. Whoever the Globalist Elites want, is the President you'll get. Right now, the Global Banking Cartel's money is going to Clinton. Just follow the money. She will likely be the next U.S. President.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Will NBC/WSJ, Reuters and ABC continue suck-holing Hillary and all liberal causes.?.. (answer) .. Definitely...

You've even started calling WSJ names. WSJ might as well be the print version of fox. You don't even know who the anti-liberals are, do you?

Ask yourself, who owns the politicians left & right...? .. Who owns Hillary in particular? Who opposes Trump, other than the sheep?

Q. Who opposes Trump

A. Sane, sober, intelligent, anti fascists, Democrats, RINO's and real Conservatives, liberals, progressives, Latinos, Blacks, Asians & Women to start.

Q. Who supports Trump

A. The Trumpsters:, authoritarian neo fascists, racists, bigots, and very angry white guys who love guns and hate Sane, Sober, intelligent anti fascists, Democrats, liberals, progressives, Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Women, green and renewable energy and Obama.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

 

[HappyJoy]

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

I think it's more the case than it isn't. 3rd party will probably get a couple of percentage points more, Democrats and Democratic leaners will vote D and the same for the GOP. I don't see why polls won't pick up on this. They are still going to poll Ds, Rs and Is like they always do and if one group votes non traditionally then it should show up in the polling.

Other than your usual battleground states I'd add Pennsylvania and Arizona to that list with Texas and Georgia edging closer (but not quite) to toss up status. Like every other Presidential election, unless it is extremely tight then we'll know before election day who is going to win.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

I think it's more the case than it isn't. 3rd party will probably get a couple of percentage points more, Democrats and Democratic leaners will vote D and the same for the GOP. I don't see why polls won't pick up on this. They are still going to poll Ds, Rs and Is like they always do and if one group votes non traditionally then it should show up in the polling.

Other than your usual battleground states I'd add Pennsylvania and Arizona to that list with Texas and Georgia edging closer (but not quite) to toss up status. Like every other Presidential election, unless it is extremely tight then we'll know before election day who is going to win.

If I remember correctly the polls had Gore losing Florida by 7 points just a couple day before the election. The vote came out even.

Clinton was the presumptive favorite in 2008. The polls didn't tell us that Obama would gain momentum after Iowa in the primaries and go on the dominate the contest.

I don't think the polls predicted Reagan's landslide victories, but I can't remember those days clearly as I was an elementary school kid.

 

[JimH52]

You haven't begun to see the denial and vilification of the polls by the RWnuts, if Hillary Clinton maintains her lead.

That is what happens when you nominate a lunatic like Donnie...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

5 million conservatives stayed home in 2012..........Rasmussen didn't count on that. Zero chance the DUMs get the same turnout as 2012 and gotta figure at least 1/2 that 5 million will simply go to the polls to pull the **** HILL lever.

If those five millions did not vote in 2012 against President Obama then what really make you believe they will vote this election cycle?

Also the five million that stayed home were they in swing states or red states that they new Romney would win and if they were in Red states and are still in red states then it will not help Trump this November!

Electoral College is what Trump need to win and if he get five million extra votes in red states that he will win, well he still loses!

 

[HappyJoy]

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

I think it's more the case than it isn't. 3rd party will probably get a couple of percentage points more, Democrats and Democratic leaners will vote D and the same for the GOP. I don't see why polls won't pick up on this. They are still going to poll Ds, Rs and Is like they always do and if one group votes non traditionally then it should show up in the polling.

Other than your usual battleground states I'd add Pennsylvania and Arizona to that list with Texas and Georgia edging closer (but not quite) to toss up status. Like every other Presidential election, unless it is extremely tight then we'll know before election day who is going to win.

If I remember correctly the polls had Gore losing Florida by 7 points just a couple day before the election. The vote came out even.

Have a link? Not that going back 16 years to look at a single state doesn't already poke holes in your argument.

Clinton was the presumptive favorite in 2008. The polls didn't tell us that Obama would gain momentum after Iowa in the primaries and go on the dominate the contest.

Yep, Clinton was the favorite, I wouldn't use the word 'presumptive'. But what does that have to do with polling? Obama campaigned well and convinced most Democratic primary voters to vote for him, the polling followed that closely. You're confusing people making up their minds with flawed polls.

I don't think the polls predicted Reagan's landslide victories, but I can't remember those days clearly as I was an elementary school kid.

Reagan was predicted to win in both his elections before the voting began. Polls are also much more accurate now. Not sure why we are going back this far or even presenting an argument without any actual numbers.

I think the secret to polling is you don't look at single polls, you go to places like realclearpolitics.com or huffingtonpost.com who aggregate the polls to come up with a much clearer idea. fivethirtyeight.com also has it's general election ratings up and as of now they are the kings.

I don't claim all polls are accurate, sometimes things happen but for you to pull out a couple of instances over 3 decades should show you something about how accurate polls usually are. Don't ya' think?

Or bury your head in the sand and pout when the polls tell you that your candidate is losing, makes no difference to me.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

I think it's more the case than it isn't. 3rd party will probably get a couple of percentage points more, Democrats and Democratic leaners will vote D and the same for the GOP. I don't see why polls won't pick up on this. They are still going to poll Ds, Rs and Is like they always do and if one group votes non traditionally then it should show up in the polling.

Other than your usual battleground states I'd add Pennsylvania and Arizona to that list with Texas and Georgia edging closer (but not quite) to toss up status. Like every other Presidential election, unless it is extremely tight then we'll know before election day who is going to win.

If I remember correctly the polls had Gore losing Florida by 7 points just a couple day before the election. The vote came out even.

Have a link? Not that going back 16 years to look at a single state doesn't already poke holes in your argument.

Clinton was the presumptive favorite in 2008. The polls didn't tell us that Obama would gain momentum after Iowa in the primaries and go on the dominate the contest.

Yep, Clinton was the favorite, I wouldn't use the word 'presumptive'. But what does that have to do with polling? Obama campaigned well and convinced most Democratic primary voters to vote for him, the polling followed that closely. You're confusing people making up their minds with flawed polls.

I don't think the polls predicted Reagan's landslide victories, but I can't remember those days clearly as I was an elementary school kid.

Reagan was predicted to win in both his elections before the voting began. Polls are also much more accurate now. Not sure why we are going back this far or even presenting an argument without any actual numbers.

I think the secret to polling is you don't look at single polls, you go to places like realclearpolitics.com or huffingtonpost.com who aggregate the polls to come up with a much clearer idea. fivethirtyeight.com also has it's general election ratings up and as of now they are the kings.

I don't claim all polls are accurate, sometimes things happen but for you to pull out a couple of instances over 3 decades should show you something about how accurate polls usually are. Don't ya' think?

Or bury your head in the sand and pout when the polls tell you that your candidate is losing, makes no difference to me.

I don't have a candidate. I don't care who wins. I just follow the election for entertainment.

It sounds like we basically agree that polls can be wrong. The difference is a matter of degree with your faith being stronger than mine.

What if the polls are all wrong? - The Boston Globe

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

Will NBC/WSJ, Reuters and ABC continue suck-holing Hillary and all liberal causes.?.. (answer) .. Definitely...

You've even started calling WSJ names. WSJ might as well be the print version of fox. You don't even know who the anti-liberals are, do you?

Ask yourself, who owns the politicians left & right...? .. Who owns Hillary in particular? Who opposes Trump, other than the sheep?

Sane people oppose Trump.

Sane people realize that both Hitlery and Trump are crap.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I would like to take you seriously...

Are there any other groups that support Trump?

I figure if you don't know by now you're probably not that interested..sooooo eh

And you might have a hard time coming up with a list.

Just to be a smart ass and all, how would you know, you're fully dedicated to not knowing?

btw. I've noticed that the most lovely, intelligent and women with terrific personalities support Trump, the rest identify with Hillary or even Bill...

Yes. Trump keeps pretty women around him. I doubt they are hanging around him for his sparkling personality. There aren't enough gold diggers to elect him.

Your misogyny and lack of humor is duly noted...

 

[HappyJoy]

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

I think it's more the case than it isn't. 3rd party will probably get a couple of percentage points more, Democrats and Democratic leaners will vote D and the same for the GOP. I don't see why polls won't pick up on this. They are still going to poll Ds, Rs and Is like they always do and if one group votes non traditionally then it should show up in the polling.

Other than your usual battleground states I'd add Pennsylvania and Arizona to that list with Texas and Georgia edging closer (but not quite) to toss up status. Like every other Presidential election, unless it is extremely tight then we'll know before election day who is going to win.

If I remember correctly the polls had Gore losing Florida by 7 points just a couple day before the election. The vote came out even.

Have a link? Not that going back 16 years to look at a single state doesn't already poke holes in your argument.

Clinton was the presumptive favorite in 2008. The polls didn't tell us that Obama would gain momentum after Iowa in the primaries and go on the dominate the contest.

Yep, Clinton was the favorite, I wouldn't use the word 'presumptive'. But what does that have to do with polling? Obama campaigned well and convinced most Democratic primary voters to vote for him, the polling followed that closely. You're confusing people making up their minds with flawed polls.

I don't think the polls predicted Reagan's landslide victories, but I can't remember those days clearly as I was an elementary school kid.

Reagan was predicted to win in both his elections before the voting began. Polls are also much more accurate now. Not sure why we are going back this far or even presenting an argument without any actual numbers.

I think the secret to polling is you don't look at single polls, you go to places like realclearpolitics.com or huffingtonpost.com who aggregate the polls to come up with a much clearer idea. fivethirtyeight.com also has it's general election ratings up and as of now they are the kings.

I don't claim all polls are accurate, sometimes things happen but for you to pull out a couple of instances over 3 decades should show you something about how accurate polls usually are. Don't ya' think?

Or bury your head in the sand and pout when the polls tell you that your candidate is losing, makes no difference to me.

I don't have a candidate. I don't care who wins. I just follow the election for entertainment.

It sounds like we basically agree that polls can be wrong. The difference is a matter of degree with your faith being stronger than mine.

What if the polls are all wrong? - The Boston Globe

Your post, none of it denounces the overall accuracy of presidential polling in the United States.

It wasn't my intention to denounce anything.
But I'll add this; polling tends to be more accurate when voters fit neatly into traditional categories. That doesn't appear to be the case this year

I think it's more the case than it isn't. 3rd party will probably get a couple of percentage points more, Democrats and Democratic leaners will vote D and the same for the GOP. I don't see why polls won't pick up on this. They are still going to poll Ds, Rs and Is like they always do and if one group votes non traditionally then it should show up in the polling.

Other than your usual battleground states I'd add Pennsylvania and Arizona to that list with Texas and Georgia edging closer (but not quite) to toss up status. Like every other Presidential election, unless it is extremely tight then we'll know before election day who is going to win.

If I remember correctly the polls had Gore losing Florida by 7 points just a couple day before the election. The vote came out even.

Have a link? Not that going back 16 years to look at a single state doesn't already poke holes in your argument.

Clinton was the presumptive favorite in 2008. The polls didn't tell us that Obama would gain momentum after Iowa in the primaries and go on the dominate the contest.

Yep, Clinton was the favorite, I wouldn't use the word 'presumptive'. But what does that have to do with polling? Obama campaigned well and convinced most Democratic primary voters to vote for him, the polling followed that closely. You're confusing people making up their minds with flawed polls.

I don't think the polls predicted Reagan's landslide victories, but I can't remember those days clearly as I was an elementary school kid.

Reagan was predicted to win in both his elections before the voting began. Polls are also much more accurate now. Not sure why we are going back this far or even presenting an argument without any actual numbers.

I think the secret to polling is you don't look at single polls, you go to places like realclearpolitics.com or huffingtonpost.com who aggregate the polls to come up with a much clearer idea. fivethirtyeight.com also has it's general election ratings up and as of now they are the kings.

I don't claim all polls are accurate, sometimes things happen but for you to pull out a couple of instances over 3 decades should show you something about how accurate polls usually are. Don't ya' think?

Or bury your head in the sand and pout when the polls tell you that your candidate is losing, makes no difference to me.

I don't have a candidate. I don't care who wins. I just follow the election for entertainment.

It sounds like we basically agree that polls can be wrong. The difference is a matter of degree with your faith being stronger than mine.

What if the polls are all wrong? - The Boston Globe

I think there are polling companies that are nothing more than crap, they have a bad performance record or are nothing more than push polls designed to change public opinion. There are plenty of those and they should be ignored.

But I do agree, polls have gotten it wrong in the past however more often than not, looking at a large group of good pollsters will usually show you who is going to win. Of course it's July and I wouldn't look at polls now for anything but how people feel 5 months out.

 

[HappyJoy]

Are there any other groups that support Trump?

I figure if you don't know by now you're probably not that interested..sooooo eh

And you might have a hard time coming up with a list.

Just to be a smart ass and all, how would you know, you're fully dedicated to not knowing?

btw. I've noticed that the most lovely, intelligent and women with terrific personalities support Trump, the rest identify with Hillary or even Bill...

Yes. Trump keeps pretty women around him. I doubt they are hanging around him for his sparkling personality. There aren't enough gold diggers to elect him.

Your misogyny and lack of humor is duly noted...

Lighten up with your political correctness already.

 

[Slyhunter]

Hillary is going to win if you people don't get behind Trump.
If Hillary wins there will no longer be rule by law in America.

 

[HappyJoy]

Hillary is going to win if you people don't get behind Trump.
If Hillary wins there will no longer be rule by law in America.

But what would Alex Jones have to complain about then?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Will NBC/WSJ, Reuters and ABC continue suck-holing Hillary and all liberal causes.?.. (answer) .. Definitely...

You've even started calling WSJ names. WSJ might as well be the print version of fox. You don't even know who the anti-liberals are, do you?

Ask yourself, who owns the politicians left & right...? .. Who owns Hillary in particular? Who opposes Trump, other than the sheep?

Sane people oppose Trump.

Sane people realize that both Hitlery and Trump are crap.

... only slightly insane in my case...