(06-14-2016 04:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Trump had a pretty bad week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Too much other news drowning out the free publicity he had been getting. Or perhaps its a conscious effort. CNN seems to be in attack mode whenever he is mentioned. Pretty sad for a group that really had been the lone non-partisan network out there. They are probably the most biased right now (MSNBC excepted but they don't pretend to be balanced-at least prior to their most recent marketing campaign).

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

I do find that odd that the Greens are getting ignored.

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

Conspiracy theories don't carry much weight with me. Legitimate polling firms don't cook the books.

(06-14-2016 09:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

Conspiracy theories don't carry much weight with me. Legitimate polling firms don't cook the books.

you used "legitimate" in a sentence.....

you don't even understand the fight from the collage that is the 'college'....

(06-14-2016 05:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 04:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Trump had a pretty bad week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

He had a very bad week. And HRC had a great one. This poll probably doesn't show the impact of Orlando.

My guess is that Trump gets a third of it back next week. But Trump is gone WAAAAY out on a limb too. The teleprompter speech yesterday was actually pretty good, politically (although I disagreed with it). But throwing out the Washington Post, and going all-in on banning Muslims and giving the NRA a blank check is very dangerous, politically. And his comments on Obama were horrible too. Not just personally, but as a political leader.

Trump has, once again, shown that his standard response to anything is to speak without knowing all the information, overcommit, and then make gaffes. Just like we do in here. But we don't have much more at risk than rep points.

While I think he comes back a couple of points in the next poll, its somewhat likely that this just solidifies HRC's lead.

I can see him rashly bombing some country in response to something like this, and then having it turn out that the motivation wasn't what he bombed over.

Only in your delusional mind she did.

(06-14-2016 08:39 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 05:43 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm curious to see who the VPs are, and if that moves any needles...

Doubt it. The next thing that could move the needle is the convention. Trump is an entertainer and I suspect the GOP convention will have record ratings. If he pulls it off Hillary will have problems. Nobody is paying attention now.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You just said you didn't care. It appears you lied.

(06-14-2016 10:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

Conspiracy theories don't carry much weight with me. Legitimate polling firms don't cook the books.

you used "legitimate" in a sentence.....

you don't even understand the fight from the collage that is the 'college'....

What the heck stinky! You can't be writing in almost real sentences on here! Get back to your "normal" stream of consciousness self. You must be down to seeds and stems again.

(06-14-2016 09:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

Conspiracy theories don't carry much weight with me. Legitimate polling firms don't cook the books.

Ignorance truly is bliss in your world, right? Legitimate polling firms, such as Quinnipiac "cook their books" all the damn time. Usually in favor of the Democrat.

(06-14-2016 10:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

Conspiracy theories don't carry much weight with me. Legitimate polling firms don't cook the books.

Ignorance truly is bliss in your world, right? Legitimate polling firms, such as Quinnipiac "cook their books" all the damn time. Usually in favor of the Democrat.

Like I said, conspiracy theories don't carry much weight with me. Polling firms hurt themselves when they get it wrong. They aren't about to intentionally get it wrong. Clients don't want incorrect data. That would be counterproductive to developing good strategy.

(06-14-2016 05:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 04:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Trump had a pretty bad week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

He had a very bad week. And HRC had a great one. This poll probably doesn't show the impact of Orlando.

My guess is that Trump gets a third of it back next week. But Trump is gone WAAAAY out on a limb too. The teleprompter speech yesterday was actually pretty good, politically (although I disagreed with it). But throwing out the Washington Post, and going all-in on banning Muslims and giving the NRA a blank check is very dangerous, politically. And his comments on Obama were horrible too. Not just personally, but as a political leader.

Trump has, once again, shown that his standard response to anything is to speak without knowing all the information, overcommit, and then make gaffes. Just like we do in here. But we don't have much more at risk than rep points.

While I think he comes back a couple of points in the next poll, its somewhat likely that this just solidifies HRC's lead.

I can see him rashly bombing some country in response to something like this, and then having it turn out that the motivation wasn't what he bombed over.

You mean exactly Hillary's response to the shooting?

Quote:Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump reacted to the Orlando shooting with evidence that they can agree on at least one thing: bombing people. Both candidates called for an escalation of the U.S.-led bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

“We have generals that feel we can win this thing so fast and so strong, but we have to be furious for a short period of time, and we’re not doing it!” Trump complained on Fox & Friends Monday morning.

“Are you saying hit Raqqa right now?” asked host Brian Kilmeade. “We’re going to have to start thinking about something,” Trump replied.

Along the same lines, Clinton suggested during her post-Orlando speech Monday afternoon that “We should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/hill...nt-direct/

But, hey, who can argue with the woman who directed such a foreign intervention success like Libya?

People really didn't think Trump was going to win, did they?

He was probably the only candidate the Republicans could've nominated that would lose to this remarkably corrupt, morally devoid, incompetent idiot. She going to win by double-digits easily.

(06-15-2016 02:01 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  People really didn't think Trump was going to win, did they?

He was probably the only candidate the Republicans could've nominated that would lose to this remarkably corrupt, morally devoid, incompetent idiot. She going to win by double-digits easily.

Hence why the republicans aren't ready to govern. The establishment needs to make a break from the base and go after moderate voters that the democratics are getting. The democratics are moving farther and farther left making people like me uncomfortable. There is an opening. Moderates would vote for a Kasich or Bush but not with this crazy right wing base driven congress.

(06-14-2016 10:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 08:39 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 05:43 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm curious to see who the VPs are, and if that moves any needles...

Doubt it. The next thing that could move the needle is the convention. Trump is an entertainer and I suspect the GOP convention will have record ratings. If he pulls it off Hillary will have problems. Nobody is paying attention now.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You just said you didn't care. It appears you lied.

Excuse me? I have to care who wins to offer an opinion on how things could play out?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(06-14-2016 05:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Either way, we're screwed.

This.

(06-15-2016 02:01 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  People really didn't think Trump was going to win, did they?

He was probably the only candidate the Republicans could've nominated that would lose to this remarkably corrupt, morally devoid, incompetent idiot. She going to win by double-digits easily.

....out of 17

the numbers of morons in the swings far outweigh that tally wacker.....

who the hell wants to 'work' anymore?

that is also a "sin"

(06-14-2016 09:08 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

Johnson's the only third-party candidate that will be on the ballot in all 50 states. And the ticket featuring two former governors raises some (but not substantial) interest in this cycle.

only if one wakes and bakes....

and I love my go-to-bed good night kisses....

(06-15-2016 02:01 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  People really didn't think Trump was going to win, did they?

He was probably the only candidate the Republicans could've nominated that would lose to this remarkably corrupt, morally devoid, incompetent idiot. She going to win by double-digits easily.

This.

Nothing has changed. Sleazy, corrupt Hillary is about to line her family's nest with generational money in her new job.

I'm just going to do what I have for the last 5-6 years and tune out and keep my head down. Costa Rica is sounding better and better.

(06-15-2016 06:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:01 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  People really didn't think Trump was going to win, did they?

He was probably the only candidate the Republicans could've nominated that would lose to this remarkably corrupt, morally devoid, incompetent idiot. She going to win by double-digits easily.

This.

Nothing has changed. Sleazy, corrupt Hillary is about to line her family's nest with generational money in her new job.

I'm just going to do what I have for the last 5-6 years and tune out and keep my head down. Costa Rica is sounding better and better.

my fear is that too many figure out that option....my 14.1 'left-to-go' is in big fk'n trouble...

I may have to revert back to the back porch-shotgun-keg-guitar-hookers-in the woods thingy....

(06-15-2016 06:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:01 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  People really didn't think Trump was going to win, did they?

He was probably the only candidate the Republicans could've nominated that would lose to this remarkably corrupt, morally devoid, incompetent idiot. She going to win by double-digits easily.

This.

Nothing has changed. Sleazy, corrupt Hillary is about to line her family's nest with generational money in her new job.

I'm just going to do what I have for the last 5-6 years and tune out and keep my head down. Costa Rica is sounding better and better.

Did The Clinton's remember to put Their other Daughter on the beneficiary list ?

(06-14-2016 09:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:05 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  I think we all expect the polls to be manipulated in this election. There's some organizations that have a greater incentive to cheerlead Hillary than be accurate. Bloomberg, NBC, and maybe WSJ fall into this category. PPP oversamples democrats but I think tries to be accurate. Rasmussen is the most right leaning, but its also one of the most accurate. In a straight head to head, they have Clinton in the lead by 1 to 3 points, and haven't polled since the pulse shooting. In this sample, about 20% is undecided.

There is obvious fuckery afoot regarding Gary Johnson. Why include him in the poll and not the far more consequential Green party? You know why. They're trying to force a meme where he takes Trump votes, when in fact people who don't know who he is are choosing the "other guy" on surveys. An operation to mess Johnson up and promote Jill Stein is worthwhile. Edit: Need some real dirt of Johnson.

Jill Stein is basically Bernie. I'm still hoping Don picks a fight with her and makes her famous.

I do find that odd that the Greens are getting ignored.

You and maybe one other. I know the name Jill Stein, but I wouldn't even recognize her in public.