Willard did outdraw Obama in 2012 there is that, but if Trump can draw 2004 like numbers to the polls I think he will win. Off hand I think Maverick and Willard both came up short to Bushes 2004 vote totals. Hillary ain’t got no cool factor to help her.
Obama has proven that polls ARE often correct.
I’m sorry to say, but Americans DO like corrupt, big-spending, socialist, media-supported politicians.
I’ve seen the future, and its somewhere between Brazil and Venezuela.
I’ve never believed polls to start with
wait another month, and the polls will be more relevant...pollsters don’t make money by being wrong...
*
Trump can be on his way to victory AND be 4 or 5 per cent behind, currently, as the polls say.
I don’t understand the panic LOL!
Clinton vs. Trump? No, It’s the Media vs. America
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23800-clinton-vs-trump-no-it-s-the-media-vs-america
Liberal media bias has long been an open secret. But now it’s so bad that even a liberal mainstream newspaper notes that, in an effort to destroy Donald Trump, the media have jumped the shark.
Lots of FR didn’t believe the polls showing Obama winning, either. Might be prudent to assume we’re BEHIND and need to do better against an onslaught of bad media - which is NOT going to go away.
I sincerely hope and pray this is true, but everyone on handouts has been told long ago that Trump will take all their free stuff away. The folks with their hands out don’t have to get excited, but they will vote -— often more than once. If there is one more taker than producer, the takers will win -— at least for the moment until the money runs out completely. They will be fighting each other to get on the buses and go vote as many times as possible to make sure Trump doesn’t win. They don’t need no stinkin’ rallies to tell them what to do -— just pull the lever for Democrat and on to the next polling place.
The only purpose of these fake “polls” showing Hillary leading Donald is to allow the Democrat Party to steal the election for Hillary by the margin the fake “polls” show. For that, you need to be vert alert. And be prepared to do whatever necessary to see justice prevail.
Trump: 10,174,358 Likes Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes
The takers don’t have to be engaged -— they don’t have to do anything but vote. And vote they will, at every single opportunity presented to them. There is a heavy finger on the scale, and it gets worse each year as more and more takers climb into the wagon. We must do everything we can to try to continue to convince people, make them understand, because it will be a hard, uphill climb to take our Country back from the elites who consider normal red-white-and-blue Americans to be uneducated blue-collar rednecks -— and say so in those words.
It is a trademark of socialism/communism to trash reality and promote their own version of what they call "the truth". This is why their official newsrag is called "Pravda". That translates to "truth" from Russian.
There is no question the “polls” show Cankles ahead.
What do you expect when you routinely-—and I mean every single poll-—oversamples Ds by anywhere from 5-10 points? If you let me do a R+10 oversample, I’ll have Trump winning CT, MI, WI, MN, and so on.
An article out today said that if you just restrict polls to “likely” voters, it’s a 2 point Cankles lead-—but even THAT article admitted it didn’t adjust for D oversamples.
Now, as to social media, it’s just like what they always said about Russia: “Russia is never as weak as she looks, Russia is never as strong as she looks.” This data doesn’t mean a great deal by itself, but it cannot be ignored, either. In 2008, Obama had a massive social media lead over McCain that was completely ignored.
Serious questions: isn’t toting up the number of “followers” and “likes” just another poll? So, if we’re discounting polls we don’t like, what makes this “poll” any different, and not something that should also be dismissed?
How exactly do social media numbers translate into votes? Follower totals don’t really say much, if anything.
Polling now is irrelevant, IMO. Come Oct 1st they begin to mean something. Till then, IGNORE them & let the MSM indulge themselves in their made up world while Trump crushes her into dust right up to Nov 8th.
Vote Trump 2016
The corrupt news media are running fake polls and using cgi to make Clinton look younger to avoiding showing her deteriorating health to fake audiences now.
Media Photoshops Hillary Crowd to Make Her Audience Look Bigger
Only 171 people turn up for Clinton’s rally in Florida
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshops-hillary-crowd-to-make-her-audience-look-bigger/
I think we can do better than “Brexit”. And British people are more takers than makers (i.e., more dependent on their gubmint) than us.
Not saying that takers and outright fraud are not a big concern. But. The good stock is still there in the backbones of Americans.
I’ve got to have faith with my fellow citizens.
Over the years democrats have had great success in getting people to vote on non-sensical “touchy-feely” issues instead of the issues that affect their daily lives, well being and freedom.
Just look at the insanity and idiocy of falling for Obama’s undefined Hope N’ Change!!!
And in 2012 it was the accusation of a republican “War On Women”!!!
Now we have people upset over what they see as Trumps disparaging remarks to a muslim.
So in a fit of pique they are ready to turn to Hillary while ignoring the disaster a Hillary presidency will be for the nation.
And others are turning to Hillary because Trump is a little too blunt and outspoken for their likes. Yet at the same time they disregard Hillary’s demonstrated incompetence and criminality!!!
We are looking at the possibility of losing the republic because too many people are not capable of making an informed judgement call in their own best interest.
If the democrats win this election they will own the nation for at least the next two or three generations, and probably much longer than that.
Unless this happens:
Caution about being too exuberant.
In 2012, curtains were pulled to hide empty areas of gymnasiums were Obama was to speak, due to small turnouts. In larger gymnasiums with upper sections, those sections were darkened to keep cameras from seeing the empty seats.
In 2016, Clinton is having similar problems getting people to show up to her venues, so more camera tricks and curtains are used to hide empty areas.
Empty gymnasiums and venues do not necessarily mean that the candidate will lose. Obama who sought reelection in 2012 with one of the worst records in presidential reelection history won by a significant margin.
==
The real question is: how will social media numbers translate?
Are they silent votes for a certain candidate? or are they just the ramblings of the disaffected?
This is probably the first election in over a century where a political outsider even made past the convention and into the general, without being a 3rd party contender. How will that impact the anti-politician crowd and will it translate into votes?
It is still too early to tell. Many of the polls are just commissioned junk polls designed to produce an intended result. The general public are still not paying much attention, what with the Olympics and getting the kids ready and fixing dinner and getting the car fix, etc.