Numbers will tell the story. They always do in National elections in the modern, electronic era. Anyone who is so firmly ensconced in their bubble, that they don't believe the numbers, will have egg on their face, like the Fox News Idiots and their sheep did in 2012, when they all swore Mitt was ahead, and was gonna win. The fools were actually shocked when he was smashed, while normal people who followed Nate Silver and the Numbers knew the truth.
And that's PRECISELY why the Idiot Drumpf is getting smoked among women, and Hispanics, among others.
Getting smoked by women & Latino's hardly:
SEPT 30 LATIMES POLL. latimes.com
Females: Clinton 48 Trump 40
Males: Clinton 35.3 Trump 54.7
If anyone is getting smoked it's Clinton, Trump definitely wins the gender differential
By the way Trump is doing better than Romney did in 2012 with gender differentials, Pew Research:
'PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012
election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, Romney won
among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%.
Romney W -12 Men +8= -4
Trump W - 8 Men =19= +11
Now for the Hispanics;
Romney 27%
According to LATimes today: Clinton 54.5% Trump 33.8% Undecided or 3rd party 12.7%
this can't be true-because guesser insists that media is in the bag for trump.Most biased news organizations based on independent media studies (I haven't seen any recent)
MSNBC
CNN
NBC
CBS
ABC
FOX, omg, how can that be?
Liberals just think the lone descending voice MUST be the biased one.
It's like they don't know the last time a poll was conducted, 90% of the political media called themselves liberal
90% of their political donations goes to Democrats
Walter Cronkite said "of course we're biased, because it's the right thing to do"
Dan Rather said "he'll stand by his fake documents because he thinks the story is true"
Editors for the NYT and Time have said they'd go to jail if they could illegally obtain and publish dirt on Trump
Never mind just ignoring editorial endorsements year after year after year after year. Nope, nothing to see there either
Lester Holt's questions weren't biased, because it's exactly what they liked, a shred of reasoning can't be found
They also have a tough time differentiating between news coverage (people pretending to be objective), and opinionated talk shows (people voicing OPINIONS). Butt why bother?
face)(*^%
there's a reason we're stuck with the political environment we're stuck with, something very few seem to like, but only a few people seem to know why !!!!!!!!!!
we get what we deserve, pure idiocy
Oc course they totally are. The media is the only reason he's on stage against a real, qualified candidate. Without the media, he's back in the WWE feuding with Mr McMahon.