Trump just pulled ahead of Clinton in a national poll for first time in more than a month

[Willie99]

so the OP points out it was the first poll in a month that had Trump in the lead

and the fucking idiots respond by pointing out the polls had Trump trailing for the last 30 days, somehow dumb enough to think they disproved what the OP said

priceless, libtarded reasoning at it's very best

face)(*^%


it's has if they don't know Obama lost the House, Obama lost the Senate, Obama lost state houses, Obama put 1,000 democratic politicians out of work (as well as the rest of the country)

it's all so damn surreal

 

[CHOPTALK]

so the OP points out it was the first poll in a month that had Trump in the lead

and the fucking idiots respond by pointing out the polls had Trump trailing for the last 30 days, somehow dumb enough to think they disproved what the OP said

priceless, libtarded reasoning at it's very best

face)(*^%


it's has if they don't know Obama lost the House, Obama lost the Senate, Obama lost state houses, Obama put 1,000 democratic politicians out of work (as well as the rest of the country)

it's all so damn surreal

No im not a liberal I'm a realist.
If trump was up in 49 polls and 1 poll came out that said Clinton was winning I would have said the same thing.

Im what they call a realist .

That means I don't try make myself believe something that's not reality even if that reality is not something I'm thrilled about .

But if you would like to continue to create your own fantasy world of believing Clinton is not the next president be my guest if it makes you happy.

 

[CHOPTALK]

All you people that think trump is gonna win is gonna be so rich in November .

Them sports books just giving money away.

What are y'all gonna do with all that money?

 

[The Guesser]

These polls are all skewed - they r only Trump versus Beast - when u add the green party and libertarian party it's tied between them

Not quite: The Presence of Jill Stein in the polls definitely helps Drumpf though. Gary is taking votes from Both, Jill is only taking votes from Hillary:

[h=3]Polling Data[/h]

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Clinton (D)	Trump (R)	Johnson (L)	Stein (G)	Spread
RCP Average	6/15 - 6/29	--	--	41.9	36.9	7.8	4.4	Clinton +5.0
IBD/TIPP	6/24 - 6/29	837 RV	3.5	37	36	9	5	Clinton +1
PPP (D)	6/27 - 6/28	947 RV	3.2	45	41	5	2	Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos	6/25 - 6/29	1247 RV	2.8	42	31	5	4	Clinton +11
Quinnipiac	6/21 - 6/27	1610 RV	2.4	39	37	8	4	Clinton +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	6/19 - 6/23	1000 RV	3.1	39	38	10	6	Clinton +1
ABC News/Wash Post	6/20 - 6/23	836 RV	4.0	47	37	7	3	Clinton +10
CNN/ORC	6/16 - 6/19	891 RV	3.5	42	38	9	7	Clinton +4
Monmouth	6/15 - 6/19	721 LV	3.7	44	37	9	4	Clinton +7

<tbody>
</tbody>

All General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Polling Data​

 

[GoSooners]

Is this the same Nate Silver that said Trump had about a 5% chance to win The Rep. Nomination?

Last I looked Nate Silver gives Trump a 20% chance of winning. But at this point, the amount of undecideds are so high that I'm not sure even a 7 point lead is safe. Especially when the lead candidate is drawing only 43%. Then you have the potentially high number of votes for "other" candidates that makes it even more unpredictable.

 

[carlspackler]

Last I looked Nate Silver gives Trump a 20% chance of winning. But at this point, the amount of undecideds are so high that I'm not sure even a 7 point lead is safe. Especially when the lead candidate is drawing only 43%. Then you have the potentially high number of votes for "other" candidates that makes it even more unpredictable.

I agree.

I would rather be a weather forecaster.

 

[bounceback]

All you people that think trump is gonna win is gonna be so rich in November .

Them sports books just giving money away.

What are y'all gonna do with all that money?

considering books at trump at prob 20X what he is now to win it all, in the beginning, shows that Trump shouldn't be taken lightly.

This is from a betting POV...I have no opinion in the actual election, yet.

 

[bounceback]

No im not a liberal I'm a realist.
If trump was up in 49 polls and 1 poll came out that said Clinton was winning I would have said the same thing.

Im what they call a realist .

That means I don't try make myself believe something that's not reality even if that reality is not something I'm thrilled about .

But if you would like to continue to create your own fantasy world of believing Clinton is not the next president be my guest if it makes you happy.

A self appointed realist posting on a gambling forum.....lol

 

[MullerRose]

Is this poll even reliable? Don't trust polls so much. Most of them are paid polls to make a certain candidate look good.

 

[MullerRose]

This poll is a paid poll to favor Trump.

 

[Willie99]

No im not a liberal I'm a realist.
If trump was up in 49 polls and 1 poll came out that said Clinton was winning I would have said the same thing.

Im what they call a realist .

That means I don't try make myself believe something that's not reality even if that reality is not something I'm thrilled about .

But if you would like to continue to create your own fantasy world of believing Clinton is not the next president be my guest if it makes you happy.

I wasn't referring to you with my "libtard" remark, hence it was not part of my response to your post which I quoted

I was mocking your "it happens every four years" quote, which is kinda laughable

D: 8 years
R: 8 years
D: 8 years
R: 12 years
D: 4 years
R: 8 years
D: 8 years
R: 8 years

the only thing that happens on a consistent basis is that the nation changes the party of the president on a regular basis, that's where my response to you was going and that's why I said you must be young

As for being a realist, the reality is polls can and do change, and they change frequently


in 1992, Poppy looked invincible leading into election season which led to a very weak democratic field (according to the experts)

in 2004, W looked very strong as well which kept Hillary on the sidelines. The election was much closer than initially anticipated

in 2012, Romney had the momentum and the polls were swinging his way until Sandy hit. Chris Matthews, as far left as one can be and someone with access to polling internals we don't have, even said as much and proclaimed "I'm glad Sandy hit the east coast", because the polling swung back to Obama after that

according to polls, 2008 was going to be between Hillary and Rudy, but that all changed too

Aside from all that, here's the reality

will African American turnout remain at or near all time highs? will white turnout remain at or near all time lows? If those trends continue, HC probably wins. If not, probably not

 

[VIEJODINOSAUR]

Sean Hannity spinning this stuff is too funny....he can go Fuk himself just like he did for the past 8 years....

51 per cent of Republicans hate trump....

Wouldn't be surprised to see Trump quit during the convention...when the polls show he is losing badly in about a month, it will give Trump a chance to quit and blame the Republican brass...Trump hates to lose....

 

[VIEJODINOSAUR]

All I can say is that I have money on Hillary and I will be surprised if I lose....in the end, the USA loses because each candidate sucks...it is all about who the lesser evil is....not like when JFK or Reagan was elected....

 

[NorthernStar]

I wasn't referring to you with my "libtard" remark, hence it was not part of my response to your post which I quoted

I was mocking your "it happens every four years" quote, which is kinda laughable

D: 8 years
R: 8 years
D: 8 years
R: 12 years
D: 4 years
R: 8 years
D: 8 years
R: 8 years

the only thing that happens on a consistent basis is that the nation changes the party of the president on a regular basis, that's where my response to you was going and that's why I said you must be young

As for being a realist, the reality is polls can and do change, and they change frequently


in 1992, Poppy looked invincible leading into election season which led to a very weak democratic field (according to the experts)

in 2004, W looked very strong as well which kept Hillary on the sidelines. The election was much closer than initially anticipated

in 2012, Romney had the momentum and the polls were swinging his way until Sandy hit. Chris Matthews, as far left as one can be and someone with access to polling internals we don't have, even said as much and proclaimed "I'm glad Sandy hit the east coast", because the polling swung back to Obama after that

according to polls, 2008 was going to be between Hillary and Rudy, but that all changed too

Aside from all that, here's the reality

will African American turnout remain at or near all time highs? will white turnout remain at or near all time lows? If those trends continue, HC probably wins. If not, probably not

You have the wrong race category that will swing the elections going forward.... the Hispanic vote. The census for white voters in 2010 was 75% and 12% Hispanic by 2014 it was at 63% and 16%. Until the republican party adopts a platform to be more inclusive to the Hispanic vote they will have a hard time winning the presidential election.

 

[Willie99]

Sean Hannity spinning this stuff is too funny....he can go Fuk himself just like he did for the past 8 years....

51 per cent of Republicans hate trump....

Wouldn't be surprised to see Trump quit during the convention...when the polls show he is losing badly in about a month, it will give Trump a chance to quit and blame the Republican brass...Trump hates to lose....

VD my friend, the only time I know what Hannity is saying is when someone from the left cites him

 

[Willie99]

You have the wrong race category that will swing the elections going forward.... the Hispanic vote. The census for white voters in 2010 was 75% and 12% Hispanic by 2014 it was at 63% and 16%. Until the republican party adopts a platform to be more inclusive to the Hispanic vote they will have a hard time winning the presidential election.

Hispanics are certainly a significant demographic and increasing in representation, but they are not nearly as one sided as the AA demographic and have been known to support Republican candidates (something the AA demographic has never done)

As for being inclusive, there are no Republican policies that exclude any demographic, it's just that minorities may not like such policy positions. For example, a policy of wanting to secure the borders against illegal immigration is not racist or exclusive (save for illegal immigrants), but that's how it's sold by the democrats and their media enablers.

If you don't believe in a larger federal government, if you don't believe in wide open borders, if you don't believe social assistance should be a family business / career choice, if you believe existing policies are creating poverty and despair and dysfunctional families and they're crippling our country, then how can you possibly espouse and support such policies under the (false) guise of inclusiveness?

 

[StevieRay]

All I can say is that I have money on Hillary and I will be surprised if I lose....in the end, the USA loses because each candidate sucks...it is all about who the lesser evil is....not like when JFK or Reagan was elected....

Which is the lesser of the two evils? thats the million $$ question

 

[NorthernStar]

Hispanics are certainly a significant demographic and increasing in representation, but they are not nearly as one sided as the AA demographic and have been known to support Republican candidates (something the AA demographic has never done)

As for being inclusive, there are no Republican policies that exclude any demographic, it's just that minorities may not like such policy positions. For example, a policy of wanting to secure the borders against illegal immigration is not racist or exclusive (save for illegal immigrants), but that's how it's sold by the democrats and their media enablers.

If you don't believe in a larger federal government, if you don't believe in wide open borders, if you don't believe social assistance should be a family business / career choice, if you believe existing policies are creating poverty and despair and dysfunctional families and they're crippling our country, then how can you possibly espouse and support such policies under the (false) guise of inclusiveness?

If you are living here legally but relatives of yours are not. One party wants to ship your relatives back to their home country and another is proposing a path for them to have citizenship....which way would you vote.

From a financial standpoint the military spending is a much larger problem than social assistance. It is estimated that it cost $1 million a year for every troop sent over seas. Our soldier gets paid maybe $25,000..... where does the other $975,000 go? I worked developing weapons for the military and the amount of waste is unheard of. All you need is some program that has jobs in nearly every state and funding will continue. I couldnt stand it any longer and quit.

 

[Willie99]

there will be a path to citizenship, but discussing such cannot even begin until the borders are secured

we cannot and will not deport 12 to 20 million illegals, not even plausible

but how can we waste time normalizing them if millions more can just walk across the border and we're right back where we started

and do you really think all the Hispanics are related to each other? that's racist

 

[NorthernStar]

there will be a path to citizenship, but discussing such cannot even begin until the borders are secured

we cannot and will not deport 12 to 20 million illegals, not even plausible

but how can we waste time normalizing them if millions more can just walk across the border and we're right back where we started

and do you really think all the Hispanics are related to each other? that's racist

My comment racist? Compared to your statement all blacks vote democrat? Or implying that the blacks are on the social program dole?

common be real here