QuakerOats;1818198 wrote:Is that supposed to be a surprise; Rove is part of the establishment; he makes his living off it.

HRC will be our next President. Looking forward to you complaining every day.

SportsAndLady;1818058 wrote:You really wouldn't be surprised if he won? He's losing every major poll by A LOT.

Ronald Reagan was down 8 points on October 26, 1980, and won in a massive landslide. The recent major media polls have an oversampling of democrats, which is why there is such diversion between several of those and the polls which have Trump even or ahead. The major media is using the age-old tactic of making it look like a blowout in order to suppress Trump turnout.

QuakerOats;1818204 wrote:Ronald Reagan was down 8 points on October 26, 1980, and won in a massive landslide. The recent major media polls have an oversampling of democrats, which is why there is such diversion between several of those and the polls which have Trump even or ahead. The major media is using the age-old tactic of making it look like a blowout in order to suppress Trump turnout.

Right.

Where do you buy your tin foil?

The NBC/WSJ poll had a ratio of 44 dems / 37 repubs / 19 other

The Fox poll had a ratio of 43 dems / 36 repubs / 21 other


And Gallup had Carter up 8 on 10/26/80.



I can't help you further.

QuakerOats;1818212 wrote:The NBC/WSJ poll had a ratio of 44 dems / 37 repubs / 19 other

The Fox poll had a ratio of 43 dems / 36 repubs / 21 other


And Gallup had Carter up 8 on 10/26/80.



I can't help you further.

Trump won't break 200. I'm willing to bet on it; are you?

I've already stated I have no idea who will win.

I see a path to 269 (which would do it) or 270, but that is in the face of the Media/Democrat Party/Clinton Machine triumvirate.

QuakerOats;1818212 wrote:The NBC/WSJ poll had a ratio of 44 dems / 37 repubs / 19 other

The Fox poll had a ratio of 43 dems / 36 repubs / 21 other


And Gallup had Carter up 8 on 10/26/80.



I can't help you further.

You do know that shortly after that 1980 poll, there was another debate and in that debate, Reagan eviscerated Carter and essentially doomed his bid to repeat, right? Trump has no such opportunity and failed to take advantage of any of the ones he did have.

I'm starting to think reality much have one of those lib'rul biases you're always bitching about, as averse as you seem to be to it.

QuakerOats;1818212 wrote:The NBC/WSJ poll had a ratio of 44 dems / 37 repubs / 19 other

The Fox poll had a ratio of 43 dems / 36 repubs / 21 other


And Gallup had Carter up 8 on 10/26/80.



I can't help you further.

You sound like Dick Morris 4 years ago

When are you going to accept the fact that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and that's why the sample is the way it is?

bases_loaded;1818080 wrote:

Just found this browsing Reddit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you looked at the date on that email?

January 10th 2008

It's also in reference to doing polling research for advertising purchasing. There is a lot to go after in the wikileaks emails...this isn't one.

jedbartlet02;1818260 wrote:You sound like Dick Morris 4 years ago

When are you going to accept the fact that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and that's why the sample is the way it is?

Because the actual makeup is actually 29 dem / 26 repub/ 43 independent


Hope that helps

QuakerOats;1818198 wrote:Is that supposed to be a surprise; Rove is part of the establishment; he makes his living off it.

So is Pat Buchanan, yet you cite him with regularity.

Let's just say the left wing and media are involved in this brilliantly coordinated conspiracy to steer election results, as you suggest. Putting aside the fact that in order to be successful, literally tens of thousands would have to be involved and that no profit loving publisher would go rogue to expose it in order to sell copies, do you really believe that conservative voters are so stupid that they cannot decide which way to vote on their own? Are they too simple to see the giant conspiracy, which is screamed about from numerous right wing news and opinion sources? Can they not figure it all out - as you have been able to do - and then drag themselves to the polls accordingly?

sleeper;1818214 wrote:Trump won't break 200. I'm willing to bet on it; are you?

Seriously, we need to vBookie this stuff.

Who knows how to set up a vBookie bet?

QuakerOats;1818204 wrote:Ronald Reagan was down 8 points on October 26, 1980, and won in a massive landslide. The recent major media polls have an oversampling of democrats, which is why there is such diversion between several of those and the polls which have Trump even or ahead. The major media is using the age-old tactic of making it look like a blowout in order to suppress Trump turnout.

Exactly.

and with all the voter fraud that the democrats are rolling out for this election I expect more people to vote for hillary than the US actually has in population.

Just accept the fact.....both candidates are shit and its just that the democratic voters are going to vote for their shitty candidate more than the republicans are gonna vote for their shitty candidate.


Doesnt take a rocket scientist, or a Johnson supporter, to see that Hillary wins this one in a landslide.

Trump by 4

O-Trap;1818464 wrote:Seriously, we need to vBookie this stuff.

Who knows how to set up a vBookie bet?

Thats the only way sleeper would ever be held accountable on all his bullshit bets.

Spock;1818529 wrote:Trump by 4

As suspected.

bases_loaded;1818820 wrote:Thats the only way sleeper would ever be held accountable on all his bullshit bets.

?

My bets are solid. That is the reality. I'm certainly a huge advocate for logging any bets.

Spock;1818529 wrote:Trump by 4

Up also in latest Bloomberg poll in FL.

Unless Trump can flip some states that are currently blue by 5% or better, it may not matter. Clinton already at 272 when adding up all states in her favor by better than 5%...I know, rigged polls.

She could lose Ohio, NC, and Florida and still pull out a 272 to 265 victory.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

rocketalum;1818833 wrote:Unless Trump can flip some states that are currently blue by 5% or better, it may not matter. Clinton already at 272 when adding up all states in her favor by better than 5%...I know, rigged polls.

She could lose Ohio, NC, and Florida and still pull out a 272 to 265 victory.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

This would be the first time in (polling) history where an Ohio loser would win the presidency, correct?

ernest_t_bass;1818834 wrote:This would be the first time in (polling) history where an Ohio loser would win the presidency, correct?

I'm not 100% sure on your statement but safe to say it would be an extreme rarity. Ohio has voted for the winner in 28 out of the last 30 elections dating back to 1896.

ernest_t_bass;1818834 wrote:This would be the first time in (polling) history where an Ohio loser would win the presidency, correct?

gosh a ruddies Nixon beat Kennedy in Ohio

http://maps.ohioelectionresults.com/internal/P/1960

ernest_t_bass;1818834 wrote:This would be the first time in (polling) history where an Ohio loser would win the presidency, correct?

I believe no REPUBLICAN has won without carrying Ohio in a long time('44 maybe?)

bases_loaded;1818901 wrote:I believe no REPUBLICAN has won without carrying Ohio in a long time('44 maybe?)

For a Republican, it has never happened. In '44 Ohio voted Dewey who lost to Roosevelt. So it wasn't an instance of a Republican losing Ohio but winning the Presidency but it was one of the two times we've been wrong since 1896. The other Isadore mentioned was 1960 when we picked Nixon over Kennedy.