Topic: Yo Metæ, Clinton just took a huge Jump in Four Polls and Trump takes a Dive
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #51,061
Four of the Five Polls have a very high accuracy history.Rassmussen reports with the low score of +5 Clinton over Hillary, is the only poll on the list with a poor history of accuracy.
For reference on 3-21-12 Obama was up +5.4 over Romney
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later[^] [v] #662,532
That's nice. I guess you can all stop worrying about Trump now.
Squeegee did you hear that? Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics and Betfair say there's nothing to worry about. You can hit the snooze button for another four years and go back to your space video games.
Squeegee did you hear that? Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics and Betfair say there's nothing to worry about. You can hit the snooze button for another four years and go back to your space video games.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,533
wait what about that creepy fuck cruz
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 27 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,534
@662,532 (Metæ)lololol
The only real worry I have currently is if - He ends up not running as the party's choice. That wood suck on so many levels.
Rogi !YhefPZis9A joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,535
It's like choosing which capital punishment method you'd prefer.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,536
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 51 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,537
@662,533 (Sheila LaBoof)> creepy fuck cruz
As he keeps saying he is according to him the more better choice and a quick glance at this and well this poll drives Trump bat shit crazy butttt hold on a momento
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,539
Kasich also points out he according to the polls beats everyone and yes he sure does and he has no chance in hell of showing off UNLESS a Cleveland miracle occurs This has dropped a bit because he had this and its a quality poll outfit
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 Kasich 49 Clinton 38 Kasich +11
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,540
@662,537 (A)
One interesting point: Trump does WAY better in open primaries meaning he draws YUUUGE numbers of Democrats/Independents. In 1980s there were Reagan Democrats. In 2016 there will be Trump Democrats.
Ted Cruz fire and brimstone Jesus stuff puts off a LOT of moderates. Trump isn't even religious, can swing to the left on Planned Parenthood.
One interesting point: Trump does WAY better in open primaries meaning he draws YUUUGE numbers of Democrats/Independents. In 1980s there were Reagan Democrats. In 2016 there will be Trump Democrats.
Ted Cruz fire and brimstone Jesus stuff puts off a LOT of moderates. Trump isn't even religious, can swing to the left on Planned Parenthood.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #662,543
@previous (Metæ)Yea no question Trump is drawing in a lot of White guys - Every rally and there have been many end up Lilly White. I suspect you have read at least one or more studies that show there are just NOT enough of those white Guys for Trump to win.
Today a very sad poll comparing Clinton and Trump
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton viewed unfavorably by majority - CBS/NYT poll 3-21-16
More than half of the states have held a primary or caucus, and registered voters nationwide now hold negative opinions of the political parties' current frontrunners. More than half of voters have unfavorable views of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump; each has a net negative rating in the double-digits.
Let me know if you need to see a couple of studies that show why Trump cannot get the 70% of White Guys to win the election for Prez
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #662,544
@previous (A)
I think Hillary is going to turn off a lot of white guys. And black guys. And brown guys. And just guys in general.
I think Hillary is going to turn off a lot of white guys. And black guys. And brown guys. And just guys in general.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #662,545
@previous (Metæ)
And my previous reply clearly shows she is turning off many. I must admit I never thought it wood come down to the AGAIN selection of the lesser of the two evils.
OK I do not think Hillary falls into the Evil category and its my personal opinion Trump leans Evil.
Now that said - Again the visual make up of Hillary Rally vs Trump - Clear distinction of who has black n browns and who does not - Need to find out how many legal registered Muslims are in USA - I see Muslims at Hillary rally's - Will er have to look at photos to see if I can find a Rag Head in crowd
And my previous reply clearly shows she is turning off many. I must admit I never thought it wood come down to the AGAIN selection of the lesser of the two evils.
OK I do not think Hillary falls into the Evil category and its my personal opinion Trump leans Evil.
Now that said - Again the visual make up of Hillary Rally vs Trump - Clear distinction of who has black n browns and who does not - Need to find out how many legal registered Muslims are in USA - I see Muslims at Hillary rally's - Will er have to look at photos to see if I can find a Rag Head in crowd
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #662,546
@previous (A)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/america-and-muslims-by-the-numbers/
70 percent of American Muslims identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party. — Pew Research Center
This reflects a significant change in voting patterns over the last decade — 78 percent of American Muslims voted Republican in the 2000 presidential election. Today, the percentage of American Muslims who “lean toward the GOP” is just 11 percent.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/america-and-muslims-by-the-numbers/
70 percent of American Muslims identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party. — Pew Research Center
This reflects a significant change in voting patterns over the last decade — 78 percent of American Muslims voted Republican in the 2000 presidential election. Today, the percentage of American Muslims who “lean toward the GOP” is just 11 percent.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,569
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,571
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,572
@previous (F)
He did say he would leave the USA if gay marriage was legalised. So maybe he is safe and sound in a more conservative country.
He did say he would leave the USA if gay marriage was legalised. So maybe he is safe and sound in a more conservative country.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,576
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,579
@662,572 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
He probably did. The guy was a conservative nut. That doesn't mean I don't miss him.
He probably did. The guy was a conservative nut. That doesn't mean I don't miss him.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 10 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,687
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-foundation-irs-complaint-221098
One of many and many more are going to come out - Soon - Odd how the donation was made just after his University was under investigation by the Florida Attorney General.
Trump Foundation admits error in donation to Florida attorney general campaign
One of many and many more are going to come out - Soon - Odd how the donation was made just after his University was under investigation by the Florida Attorney General.
Trump Foundation admits error in donation to Florida attorney general campaign
Trump donated $25,000 from his foundation, which as a nonprofit is not supposed to aid political candidates, to a group backing Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013. The money came under scrutiny at the time because:
Trump donated the money just days after Bondi announced she was investigating complaints surrounding Trump’s real estate school, Trump University.
Trump donated the money just days after Bondi announced she was investigating complaints surrounding Trump’s real estate school, Trump University.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,691
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,717
@662,687 (A)
> When the request came in, a clerk looked up the organization and mistakenly identified it as a Utah-based nonprofit by the same name, then issued the check from the Trump Foundation, she said
Total non-story. Let's talk about the Clinton Foundation and how Saudi Arabia got a 'YUGE weapons deal after donating tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
> When the request came in, a clerk looked up the organization and mistakenly identified it as a Utah-based nonprofit by the same name, then issued the check from the Trump Foundation, she said
Total non-story. Let's talk about the Clinton Foundation and how Saudi Arabia got a 'YUGE weapons deal after donating tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #662,721
@previous (Metæ)
> A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced weapons.
That is Exactly the same $29 Billion 84 F-15s that are currently striking ISIS.
Perhaps the reason Trumps not making a fuss. Of course there is no question Saudi Rag Heads got the attention of Hillary. Quid Pro Quo? No one will ever really no
What we do No is one current reason Trump has been holding back his Tax Audit and all returns albeit those audits were done years ago.
Bottom line is Trumps people fully admit they fucked up and will have to pay a price (currently unknown)
Now I have to add something personal to this - I have made very few business Mistrakes in my career. One is where I broke out in laffter in a meeting at Hughes Aircraft - The TOW wire guided missile. It ended up as one of the most successful in field products for Hughes - I just could not see it being used to go around trees and shit and not have that wire fuck up.
Another was when I ended up out of a fluke as the first person Saudi's came to - to discuss buying AWACS. Just happened to be the first person in a long line they sat down with. I wanted to break out in laffter - They ended up getting AWACS - They wanted something else at the same time - That they did not get - Still I wood have lost the bet. I did get a nice trip from them for my first visit to that Kingdom - Change of name on my passport and business card cause those were the laws of Saudi Arabia at that time.
As I understand it Trump is in total ok for Saudis to buy LOTS more US Weapons to go after ISIS. He can thank Hillary perhaps for lubricating the way?
> A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced weapons.
That is Exactly the same $29 Billion 84 F-15s that are currently striking ISIS.
Perhaps the reason Trumps not making a fuss. Of course there is no question Saudi Rag Heads got the attention of Hillary. Quid Pro Quo? No one will ever really no
What we do No is one current reason Trump has been holding back his Tax Audit and all returns albeit those audits were done years ago.
Bottom line is Trumps people fully admit they fucked up and will have to pay a price (currently unknown)
Now I have to add something personal to this - I have made very few business Mistrakes in my career. One is where I broke out in laffter in a meeting at Hughes Aircraft - The TOW wire guided missile. It ended up as one of the most successful in field products for Hughes - I just could not see it being used to go around trees and shit and not have that wire fuck up.
Another was when I ended up out of a fluke as the first person Saudi's came to - to discuss buying AWACS. Just happened to be the first person in a long line they sat down with. I wanted to break out in laffter - They ended up getting AWACS - They wanted something else at the same time - That they did not get - Still I wood have lost the bet. I did get a nice trip from them for my first visit to that Kingdom - Change of name on my passport and business card cause those were the laws of Saudi Arabia at that time.
As I understand it Trump is in total ok for Saudis to buy LOTS more US Weapons to go after ISIS. He can thank Hillary perhaps for lubricating the way?
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #662,790
@previous (A)
> That is Exactly the same $29 Billion 84 F-15s that are currently striking ISIS.
You're missing the point. It's a HUGE conflict of interest to be taking tens of millions of dollars for weapons deals.
If Qualcomm needed to buy more satellytes and the purchasing manager decided to buy Russian satellytes after taking $10,000,000 from Putin wouldn't it be a bit problematic?
> That is Exactly the same $29 Billion 84 F-15s that are currently striking ISIS.
You're missing the point. It's a HUGE conflict of interest to be taking tens of millions of dollars for weapons deals.
If Qualcomm needed to buy more satellytes and the purchasing manager decided to buy Russian satellytes after taking $10,000,000 from Putin wouldn't it be a bit problematic?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #662,797
@previous (Metæ)> Of course there is no question Saudi Rag Heads got the attention of Hillary.
> Quid Pro Quo? No one will ever really no
You realize she wood end up in clink if she took the money to make the deal.
So from your link
> Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Again no one has a clue if those nations gained anything for making those donations. I am guessing there were huge smiles when that money came in.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/trump-mob-mafia/
"The mob connections of Donald are extraordinarily extensive," New York investigative journalist Wayne Barrett told CNN in an interview.
Barrett, the author of the 1992 unauthorized biography "Trump: The Deals and the Downfall," wrote that Trump's life "intertwines with the underworld."
Barrett, the author of the 1992 unauthorized biography "Trump: The Deals and the Downfall," wrote that Trump's life "intertwines with the underworld."
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/donald-trump-buy/
Donald Trump Says He Can Buy Politicians, None of His Rivals Disagree
Donald Trump bragged Thursday night that he could buy politicians — even the ones sharing the stage with him at a Republican presidential debate.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”
Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”
Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #662,802
@previous (A)
> You realize she wood end up in clink if she took the money to make the deal.
Oh I'm sure President Obama would absolutely NOT interfere with any investigations of the former secretary of state and Democratic nominee.
> Barrett, the author of the 1992 unauthorized biography
Unauthorized biographies don't mean shit. I could write an unauthorized biography of Barrett and say he's a big dumb poopyhead who makes leather gloves from the hides of stray puppies and it would have exactly the same validity as his unauthorized Trump book from 1992 (no longer in print, btw).
> Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
This is exactly right. Trump is the only one speaking frankly about this. And the fact that he has actually participated in buying politicians gives him credibility.
> You realize she wood end up in clink if she took the money to make the deal.
Oh I'm sure President Obama would absolutely NOT interfere with any investigations of the former secretary of state and Democratic nominee.
> Barrett, the author of the 1992 unauthorized biography
Unauthorized biographies don't mean shit. I could write an unauthorized biography of Barrett and say he's a big dumb poopyhead who makes leather gloves from the hides of stray puppies and it would have exactly the same validity as his unauthorized Trump book from 1992 (no longer in print, btw).
> Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
This is exactly right. Trump is the only one speaking frankly about this. And the fact that he has actually participated in buying politicians gives him credibility.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #662,806
@previous (Metæ)
> And that’s a broken system.”
> And the fact that he has actually participated in buying politicians gives him credibility.
Bet you wrote that with a grin eh.
So you did not care for that investigative reporters work
How about this one
I doubt you wood suggest that if Trump were to win - All members of congress wood all of a sudden because Trump wood give some kind of order to end all Lobbying and all contributions from companies.
Actually with US Super court decision Trump cannot even consider doing that - Corporations are after all - all of a sudden counted as "Persons"
And Trump is not about to touch NRA - Probably wood put a set of offices in White House for NRA.
> And that’s a broken system.”
> And the fact that he has actually participated in buying politicians gives him credibility.
Bet you wrote that with a grin eh.
So you did not care for that investigative reporters work
How about this one
ABC went there, too.
Though he touts his outstanding memory, when Donald Trump was asked under oath about his dealings with a twice-convicted Russian émigré who served prison time and had documented mafia connections, the real estate mogul was at a loss.
Even though the man, Felix Sater (“Trump picked stock fraud felon as senior adviser”), had played a role in a number of high-profile Trump-branded projects across the country.
“If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn't know what he looked like,” Trump testified in a video deposition for a civil lawsuit two years ago….
Sater's alleged ties to organized crime were more widely publicized in December 2007 when The New York Times published an article featuring Sater’s ties to Trump and describing his “tangled past.” The article reported that Sater “had been an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ and a key figure in a $40 million scheme involving 19 stockbrokers and organized crime figures from four Mafia families.”
Sater told the Times that activity was in the past. “I’m trying to lead an exemplary existence,” he said then. “Old, bad luggage is not something anyone wants to remember….”
Trump had claimed earlier that week:
Trump only learned of Sater's troubled past when The New York Times reported details in December 2007. In the article, Trump distanced himself from Sater, saying: "I didn't really know him very well."
Though he touts his outstanding memory, when Donald Trump was asked under oath about his dealings with a twice-convicted Russian émigré who served prison time and had documented mafia connections, the real estate mogul was at a loss.
Even though the man, Felix Sater (“Trump picked stock fraud felon as senior adviser”), had played a role in a number of high-profile Trump-branded projects across the country.
“If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn't know what he looked like,” Trump testified in a video deposition for a civil lawsuit two years ago….
Sater's alleged ties to organized crime were more widely publicized in December 2007 when The New York Times published an article featuring Sater’s ties to Trump and describing his “tangled past.” The article reported that Sater “had been an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ and a key figure in a $40 million scheme involving 19 stockbrokers and organized crime figures from four Mafia families.”
Sater told the Times that activity was in the past. “I’m trying to lead an exemplary existence,” he said then. “Old, bad luggage is not something anyone wants to remember….”
Trump had claimed earlier that week:
Trump only learned of Sater's troubled past when The New York Times reported details in December 2007. In the article, Trump distanced himself from Sater, saying: "I didn't really know him very well."
I doubt you wood suggest that if Trump were to win - All members of congress wood all of a sudden because Trump wood give some kind of order to end all Lobbying and all contributions from companies.
Actually with US Super court decision Trump cannot even consider doing that - Corporations are after all - all of a sudden counted as "Persons"
And Trump is not about to touch NRA - Probably wood put a set of offices in White House for NRA.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #662,973
So, let's get down to brass tacks.
Trump has his whole "can't stump the Trump" saying surrounding him, and his memesters enthusiastically repeat it all over the Internet.
Does Hillary have something similar? Because, frankly, I'm thinking this could be a key weakness that might just cost her the presidency.
Trump has his whole "can't stump the Trump" saying surrounding him, and his memesters enthusiastically repeat it all over the Internet.
Does Hillary have something similar? Because, frankly, I'm thinking this could be a key weakness that might just cost her the presidency.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #662,977
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)The funniest (and most apt) I've seen was "Settle for Hillary" as seen in the picture (done by the same guys who did the Trump nazi arm band prank).
I don't see much excitement for Hillary. I guess partially because she's been in the political spotlight for almost 30 years now. As a first lady, then a senator, then Democratic candidate (in 08) then Secretary of State now Democratic candidate (again). She's basically next in line of succession and promises more of the same.
Bernie has been in politics forever too but mainly on a local/regional level so he's new and fresh for most of America and is a much more credible outsider.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 47 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #662,985
@previous (Metæ)
Hmm. No, it's weak. It doesn't rhyme. It's not any kind of play on words. And it's derogatory to her.
She really needs some sort of a good catchphrase. But not something like Jeb!. That simply made the man sound like a candidate aimed at toddlers.
Hmm. No, it's weak. It doesn't rhyme. It's not any kind of play on words. And it's derogatory to her.
She really needs some sort of a good catchphrase. But not something like Jeb!. That simply made the man sound like a candidate aimed at toddlers.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #662,992
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #663,063
@662,977 (Metæ)> "Settle for Hillary"
I think? I understand why the uptick of Hillary in polls
I currently do not see a reason why Trump is taking a dive in polls.
Nor can I make anywhere near the cold hard cash I expect to make if the Gap ends up something like this -
She has continued to rise on Betfair - Hillary 71% chance to win Trump 20% Sanders 4%
Trump on Betfair - Who will be the next Republican Nominee? Trump 78%
In USA Polls Trump is beating Cruz RCP Average 3/16 - 3/22 -- Trump 43.0% Cruz 30.3% The other guy 19.1% Trump +12.7
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #663,228
@previous (A)
> I think? I understand why the uptick of Hillary in polls
> I currently do not see a reason why Trump is taking a dive in polls.
The problem is Hillary's nomination is certain at this point and Trump's is not (Trump will get the most delegates but 1,237 not sure re: Kasich and Cruz). If it came down to Trump v. Hillary Trump's numbers would shoot up.
Polls aren't everything either. Unpredictable things (like Brussels) happen.
> I think? I understand why the uptick of Hillary in polls
> I currently do not see a reason why Trump is taking a dive in polls.
The problem is Hillary's nomination is certain at this point and Trump's is not (Trump will get the most delegates but 1,237 not sure re: Kasich and Cruz). If it came down to Trump v. Hillary Trump's numbers would shoot up.
Polls aren't everything either. Unpredictable things (like Brussels) happen.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #663,230
Can't bunt the cunt