US Politics

Anubis said:

The best projection out there is Sabato's Crystal ball...no bias...they are equally praised by both left and right wing media.
Here there projection.

They give Clinton a clear majority.

Their projections for the previous elections were 97-100% accurate.

Click to expand...

Can you explain to me why almost all the MSM polls distort their polls consistently using much higher democrat representation beyond the actual prevalence in a state?

Nilgiri said:

Can you explain to me why almost all the MSM polls distort their polls consistently using much higher democrat representation beyond the actual prevalence in a state?

Click to expand...

Some are left leaning and they do.....but most don't...that's why most get it right.. The particular one I posted is very accurate...they have a track record...there will always be a general error. Besides ALL polling agencies have a bias...they have always had it....Rasmussen is one of the most respected polling agencies with a historic Republican bias...besides there are other factors too....there's a considerable chunk of Republican voters who are OLD or poor southerners who do not have access to/use the internet or telephones...they are almost always ignored....and more importantly unless it is a swing state it doesn't matter if the polls get the number of Democrats wrong by 5-10%....and the recent outcry about how everyone is skewed and biased is hugely due to rally effect....Sabato pointed it out in a recent interview too...as an example in the Nixon-McGovern election of the 70's McGovern had a huge rallies but lost to Nixon...The polls are not skewed in any meaningful way...Even Rasmussen shows Hilary leading Trump. Trump voters probably never cared about politics enough to know these historic biases of polls...when you are a new kid in the field these things will shock you.

Anubis said:

Some are left leaning and they do.....but most don't...that's why most get it right..

Click to expand...

Most don't?!?!?....beyond the LA times I haven't seen one that is not deliberately using a skewed representation (time after time - you would expect the representation to average out over time.....but nope!!! Goes to show just how badly Hillary is doing).

One needs to only look at the turnout for republicans and democrats for the primaries on a state by state basis to get an idea of just how badly skewed it is.

They either select democrat zones (like say using Atlanta to represent the whole of Georgia) or they completely distort the standardisation of it. Please watch the first 10 minutes of the video on post 1029 to get what I mean.

Anyways the MSM just continues to dig itself into a nice big hole which will be exposed come november....I guess its their last swan song as their reputation will get totally destroyed even among the fewer than 10% of the people that still believe they are honest.

https://therealstrategy.com/proof-new-polls-rigged-hillary-losing-7/

I mean when new jobs are being "created" on the basis of a strong paying old ones being replaced by 3 part time crap ones because of obamacare....then its not so strange to imagine this line of thinking dominates the desperate democrat elite and their MSM butt-buddies.

Statistics and lieing go hand in hand.

Nilgiri said:

Most don't?!?!?....beyond the LA times I haven't seen one that is not deliberately using a skewed representation (time after time - you would expect the representation to average out over time.....but nope!!! Goes to show just how badly Hillary is doing).

One needs to only look at the turnout for republicans and democrats for the primaries on a state by state basis to get an idea of just how badly skewed it is.

They either select democrat zones (like say using Atlanta to represent the whole of Georgia) or they completely distort the standardisation of it. Please watch the first 10 minutes of the video on post 1029 to get what I mean.

Anyways the MSM just continues to dig itself into a nice big hole which will be exposed come november....I guess its their last swan song as their reputation will get totally destroyed even among the fewer than 10% of the people that still believe they are honest.

https://therealstrategy.com/proof-new-polls-rigged-hillary-losing-7/

I mean when new jobs are being "created" on the basis of a strong paying old ones being replaced by 3 part time crap ones because of obamacare....then its not so strange to imagine this line of thinking dominates the desperate democrat elite and their MSM butt-buddies.

Statistics and lieing go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

It still doesn't matter.....there are other polls than MSMs......Gallup,Rasmussen,Sabato,Ipsos....Reuters is not American they don't have a dog in the fight...they wouldn't care if America self destructed tomorrow...And I have to question the credibility of your source....with news like this I expect a forumer of your caliber to question yourself whether they actually have a point to make or just website hits to sell.


US Air Force Officer Identifies CERN Human Sacrifice Victim

‘Modern Art’ Was a CIA Psych ‘Weapon’

It is a classic conspiracy theory website....I can site 5 times more online sources claiming 9/11 was an inside job..does not make it true.
Now that I have made a (what I think is deserving) ad hominem attack against your clearly horrible source let me address the points made by your source as some kind of discovery into the horrible underbelly of polling.
As I have pointed out Trump supporters are new to the game many ancient things seem new and shocking to them...the wording of the question has always affected the results of the poll...it is nothing new...it is as ancient as the art of polling itself....the very patriots who are jumping up and down from Trump today shot down the "ESTATE TAX" by having their pollsters call it the DEATH TAX....

This has been a well discussed issue in the world of polling.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9193/scientific-approach-question-wording-differences.aspx

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703384204575510272945083114

The wording issue is ancient....it was not devised by the "World Elites" in their secret meeting at the Bohemian Grove while they were sacrificing a baby to please the Rothschields to defeat Trump.
Come up with a better argument or accept the fact chances of Trump loosing fair and square is pretty high. And if you still hate the MSM be my guest...go ahead and see other historically accurate polls.

Anubis said:

Gallup,Rasmussen,Sabato,Ipsos.

Click to expand...

and they all suffer from the same exact issue to varying degrees.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-clinton-voted-most-admired-2013-2864068.html

http://www.davidwmoore.us/

According to former Gallup pollster David W. Moore, these polls mislead and drive a false public perception. Mr. Moore goes so far as to say Polls even undermine American democracy.

For years, we pollsters have systematically misled the Ameri-
can people about the accuracy of our polls, claiming a degree of
precision in assessing public opinion that is far removed from
reality. We do acknowledge, of course, a “margin of error” asso-
ciated with the size of our samples, that well-known “plus or
minus 3 percentage points” phrase suggesting that our polling
numbers are usually very close to what we would have meas-
ured had we interviewed every living adult in the country. And
just to cover ourselves, we add the not-so-innocuous fine print:
“In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical
difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias
into the findings of public opinion polls.” This phrase would
scare the bejesus out of poll users if they understood what it re-
ally means. In fact, when I included this phrase on a report to
one of Gallup’s bank clients, the astute contact at the bank in-
sisted it be deleted. “It essentially says you can’t trust any of the
numbers, What good is a report like that?”

---------

So like I said polls do not equal votes. Lets hope the voting isn't rigged too....there will be serious blowback against the establishment if so....one they probably will not survive. Best to cut the losses, accept hillary is going to prison and let the american people change their country....and go with the flow of popular sentiment and try to deviously come back at a later point when people are no longer so fed up.

Anubis said:

It is a classic conspiracy theory website....I can site 5 times more online sources claiming 9/11 was an inside job..does not make it true.

Click to expand...

But can you attack the content rather than the context?

Also you ignore what I posted in reply 1029. 10 minutes at the start of that video is all i ask.

Also worth checking out for everyone:

http://akdart.com/polls.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/369767/-

This election is going to be determined a lot by social media....not mainstream media.

Trump is way ahead on social media I have to say....its something that is so anathema and out of control to the establishment ....thats what has created a large part of the trump wave thats happening.

Nilgiri said:

and they all suffer from the same exact issue to varying degrees.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-clinton-voted-most-admired-2013-2864068.html

http://www.davidwmoore.us/

According to former Gallup pollster David W. Moore, these polls mislead and drive a false public perception. Mr. Moore goes so far as to say Polls even undermine American democracy.

For years, we pollsters have systematically misled the Ameri-
can people about the accuracy of our polls, claiming a degree of
precision in assessing public opinion that is far removed from
reality. We do acknowledge, of course, a “margin of error” asso-
ciated with the size of our samples, that well-known “plus or
minus 3 percentage points” phrase suggesting that our polling
numbers are usually very close to what we would have meas-
ured had we interviewed every living adult in the country. And
just to cover ourselves, we add the not-so-innocuous fine print:
“In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical
difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias
into the findings of public opinion polls.” This phrase would
scare the bejesus out of poll users if they understood what it re-
ally means. In fact, when I included this phrase on a report to
one of Gallup’s bank clients, the astute contact at the bank in-
sisted it be deleted. “It essentially says you can’t trust any of the
numbers, What good is a report like that?”

---------

So like I said polls do not equal votes. Lets hope the voting isn't rigged too....there will be serious blowback against the establishment if so....one they probably will not survive. Best to cut the losses, accept hillary is going to prison and let the american people change their country....and go with the flow of popular sentiment and try to deviously come back at a later point when people are no longer so fed up.



But can you attack the content rather than the context?

Also you ignore what I posted in reply 1029. 10 minutes at the start of that video is all i ask.

Also worth checking out for everyone:

http://akdart.com/polls.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/369767/-

This election is going to be determined a lot by social media....not mainstream media.

Trump is way ahead on social media I have to say....its something that is so anathema and out of control to the establishment ....thats what has created a large part of the trump wave thats happening.

Click to expand...

I know the wording issue...I did attack the content....I know the inherent problem with polls..I already pointed out how liberals were on the receiving end of poll skewing not a long time ago...I mentioned it at the last part of my response....I rarely post polls here to support any of my points....but there is another point that you haven't been able to see....The polls take public opinion...in the American electoral college public opinion does not matter in elections....Gore got a whole 1% more votes than Bush but he still lost because of the way the college is designed....that's why the only statistics I posted was Sabato's Crystal ball....that one analyzes the college not general public opinion....And social media...if the super enthusiast social media posters do not come from swing states their enthusiasm won't matter...Unless you are from a swing state your voice doesn't count....whether you believe MSM of Fox News or "alternative" news....
Rigging the election....If Trump looses I am cent percent sure Trump supporters are going to say it is rigged....because you can be sure those who just discovered how polling works don't know anything about the electoral college....the college in its essence looks fishy...and to a Trump fanboy this is going to be a gold mine of conspiracies...There is no conspiracy against Trump...we elected Bush twice..we can stand four years of Trump....to those who are unaware about how America works...everything will seem rigged and skewed.

And now let me point out another thing. Most of the polls you criticize now used the SAME methods 4 years ago and 8 years ago and they made the CORRECT predictions.

Bill Mitchell missed Rasmussen....which always has a R+ sample. He made another big mistake by saying that most polls are D+ and not R+...the problem is America is D+....there are more Democrats than Republicans..Gallup found out last year that there were around 3% more Democrats than Republicans..Thats a REALITY not a BIAS....there's nothing you can do about it....In recent history Bush V Kerry was the only popular election the Republicans won....they lost popular vote in Bush V Gore but won due to the electoral college. Obama and Clinton won popular elections.

So my point is either you accept the fact there are things inherently wrong with polling but most of the time the predictions they make is correct....or you dismiss the idea of polling altogether and stop paying attention to it...but when you try to find "conspiracies" you literally look like you are looking for excuses you are going to present when the results come out and you loose....Billy Mittchell's R=D isn't a proper polling technique either when the sample is inherently D+.
I will however stand by Sabato's model...he does take polling into consideration...normalizes them averages them and then implements in the map....and for now his maps show Hilary is wining.

@Nilgiri
Oh look this isn't even a new tactic

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/24/no-the-polls-arent-biased-clinton-really-is-leading-trump/

They said Obama was given unfair bias over Romney and came up with thei own Un-Skewed Polls to destroy the evil liberal elites...guess who won....

Anubis said:

The polls take public opinion

Click to expand...

They really don't.

Anubis said:

And now let me point out another thing. Most of the polls you criticize now used the SAME methods 4 years ago and 8 years ago and they made the CORRECT predictions.

Click to expand...

They never distorted the sampling and standardisation like they have now since it was always establishment vs establishment.

Anubis said:

Bill Mitchell missed Rasmussen....which always has a R+ sample.

Click to expand...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Rasmussen also does not do a state by state analysis. So a cpl % between the two does not reflect the swing performance (which you can see in the turnouts by republicans and democrats in these crucial states during the primaries).

With Hillary alienating sanders supporters, I think Trump will take a lot of these states convincingly and put real pressure on places like new york, michigan and california even.

It is the swing state polling by the MSM that is expressly duplicitous and outright wrong for the most part. They poll only in the major urban city, do not standardise (or do it poorly) and hope no one checks it. Not going to work in todays environment of social media like it has before.

Anubis said:

I will however stand by Sabato's model...he does take polling into consideration...normalizes them averages them and then implements in the map....and for now his maps show Hilary is wining.

Click to expand...

When the polls he takes are skewed and biased to begin with, a final model can only be so good no matter how much you normalise and standardise it (again which can be done with bad methodology). Its like that lipstick on a pig comment by Obama.....and it will be Hillary that gets to experience this now.

Anubis said:

@Nilgiri
Oh look this isn't even a new tactic

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/24/no-the-polls-arent-biased-clinton-really-is-leading-trump/

They said Obama was given unfair bias over Romney and came up with thei own Un-Skewed Polls to destroy the evil liberal elites...guess who won....

Click to expand...

I stopped reading when it said:

The fact is there just are more Democrats out there than Republicans, and this has largely been the case at least since the New Deal.

....implying that voter registration = voter Identification. Obviously whoever wrote it has not looked at the trend of registered democrats (who really are independents and have not changed their registration for a myriad of reasons mostly stemming from having to do the paperwork) supporting Trump/Republicans way more than the reverse. Significant numbers of people coming out for trump lie in the independent zone.

A full 73% of the US according to Rasmussen (and polls before it too) support the ban on muslims coming into the US.

Trump has put out a call sign and now he's telling them the story they want to hear....without any political correctness and sugar coating. Im sorry I just dont see Hillary having a chance unless she rigs the voting itself....the debates will just cement this.

Nilgiri said:

They really don't.



They never distorted the sampling and standardisation like they have now since it was always establishment vs establishment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/763737144896749568

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Rasmussen also does not do a state by state analysis. So a cpl % between the two does not reflect the swing performance (which you can see in the turnouts by republicans and democrats in these crucial states during the primaries).

With Hillary alienating sanders supporters, I think Trump will take a lot of these states convincingly and put real pressure on places like new york, michigan and california even.

It is the swing state polling by the MSM that is expressly duplicitous and outright wrong for the most part. They poll only in the major urban city, do not standardise (or do it poorly) and hope no one checks it. Not going to work in todays environment of social media like it has before.



When the polls he takes are skewed and biased to begin with, a final model can only be so good no matter how much you normalise and standardise it (again which can be done with bad methodology). Its like that lipstick on a pig comment by Obama.....and it will be Hillary that gets to experience this now.



I stopped reading when it said:

The fact is there just are more Democrats out there than Republicans, and this has largely been the case at least since the New Deal.

....implying that voter registration = voter Identification. Obviously whoever wrote it has not looked at the trend of registered democrats (who really are independents and have not changed their registration for a myriad of reasons mostly stemming from having to do the paperwork) supporting Trump/Republicans way more than the reverse. Significant numbers of people coming out for trump lie in the independent zone.

A full 73% of the US according to Rasmussen (and polls before it too) support the ban on muslims coming into the US.

Trump has put out a call sign and now he's telling them the story they want to hear....without any political correctness and sugar coating. Im sorry I just dont see Hillary having a chance unless she rigs the voting itself....the debates will just cement this.

Click to expand...

Umm...they really do...if they didn't nobody would use them.

There is no evidence that they are doing anything special this time....all you came up with was how wording effects polling...it always effected polling...it always will.
Before posting a tweet you should have checked Rasmussen's website
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Clinton 41 Trump 39

Again his final models always worked...because you have still failed to prove that there is anything nefarious going on against Trump....The present polls have all the weaknesses they always had and his models always worked.
A majority of Americans would not vote for a Muslim into office....they voted a guy who was marketed as a muslim by the right wing.
73% of Americans can support the ban on Muslims...but majority of Americans also have other issues to look at too...Hispanics can want a ban on Muslims....but they also don't want a wall...so just because one of Trumps issues has support does not mean he has support to be President....do not conflate the two things....You read "between the lines" from the article I posted...they did not mention how they found out that there are Democrats than Republicans....you cannot assume that until you research...It was found out by gallup in a phone in polling...they asked people what they identify with.....not based on numbers provided by the party based on primary registration.

At the end you sound like a religious Trump supporter....unfortunately religious people are usually the very worst to rationalize with...when you say if Hilary wins she must rig the voting you literally sound like Christian creationists who say Fossils were put on earth to test their faith....I will say it no matter who you support base your assumptions on evidence not faith...you can have all the faith you want on Trump...but there is pretty good chance the American people will choose Hilary and she will win fair and square....and then everything will be as they were...except for maybe a couple of tin foil hats in the deep south and one lone Canadian who will still think Trump actually won.

You usually come of as a very sane and rational poster who knows how to use data in other threads but here unfortunately you are quite the antithesis of your image...I wonder why.

Anubis said:

At the end you sound like a religious Trump supporter....unfortunately religious people are usually the very worst to rationalize with...when you say if Hilary wins she must rig the voting you literally sound like Christian creationists who say Fossils were put on earth to test their faith

Click to expand...

I judge it by the total number of democrats that actually came out to vote in the primaries in all the swing states that matter compared to republicans. You can look up the numbers yourself.

That too this was when there was a Sanders factor in the democrat side of things.

This is the clear qualitative data I want and base things on (actual physical turnout, not polling shenanigans).

Things will only add onto that base....as I see Hillary playing only a "me too" narrative instead of actually setting any new paths that gather public interest like say Trump and immigration.

So like I said Hillary is going to lose and lose pretty badly unless she and the crony elite rig it (and in which case you will not hear the end of it at that point).

Call me "religious" or "faith based" or whatever....but the physical turnout numbers in the actual voting do not lie.

If you believe the primaries do not include enough of the undecided voters and non-affiliated voters (who may be more likely to vote now)....well you can see how the MSM accounts for those in their "polling" and challenge that before debating it here.

So sorry I don't believe significantly in the polling....I would say the same even if Trump is ahead (though in that case its probably more closer to the actual truth in my opinion).

We can agree to disagree and move on and see what happens in November. It has been good interacting with you on something outside of Bangladesh for a change

Yes I do not fit the mould of a Canadian....but certainly am not a lone tin foil hat wearer in a crushing crowd of liberals. There is a significant crowd of people that say one thing among a group....but then reveal something else altogether when they are alone.....like in a polling booth

Nilgiri said:

I judge it by the total number of democrats that actually came out to vote in the primaries in all the swing states that matter compared to republicans. You can look up the numbers yourself.

That too this was when there was a Sanders factor in the democrat side of things.

This is the clear qualitative data I want and base things on (actual physical turnout, not polling shenanigans).

Things will only add onto that base....as I see Hillary playing only a "me too" narrative instead of actually setting any new paths that gather public interest like say Trump and immigration.

So like I said Hillary is going to lose and lose pretty badly unless she and the crony elite rig it (and in which case you will not hear the end of it at that point).

Call me "religious" or "faith based" or whatever....but the physical turnout numbers in the actual voting do not lie.

If you believe the primaries do not include enough of the undecided voters and non-affiliated voters (who may be more likely to vote now)....well you can see how the MSM accounts for those in their "polling" and challenge that before debating it here.

So sorry I don't believe significantly in the polling....I would say the same even if Trump is ahead (though in that case its probably more closer to the actual truth in my opinion).

We can agree to disagree and move on and see what happens in November. It has been good interacting with you on something outside of Bangladesh for a change

Yes I do not fit the mould of a Canadian....but certainly am not a lone tin foil hat wearer in a crushing crowd of liberals. There is a significant crowd of people that say one thing among a group....but then reveal something else altogether when they are alone.....like in a polling booth

Click to expand...

If you base your predictions on Primary Turnouts I have bad news for you.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

Even if the majority of Americans did vote for Trump...the college design could mean Hilary could win...just like Bush V Gore...she doesn't need to rig it...it doesn't matter how many people support Trump in gerogia be it 51% or 100% Trump will always have Georgia....the system is very different from other places.

Besides what makes you think Sanders voters will vote for Trump...from what I can see a majority will vote for Hilary and minority might go with Jill Stein....But Trump also has a vampire candidate on his side Gary Jhonson...and Gary is way ahead of Stein in sucking votes...specifically from Trump.

Anubis said:

If you base your predictions on Primary Turnouts I have bad news for you.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

Click to expand...

Not talking about the total turnout...but state specific turnout. Can you point me to the correlation between state primary/caucus turnouts (esp the swing states) and the way they ended up voting in the actual election? (I actually have not looked into this matter to be honest and will be interested to see the trends)

That is way more important to me in an analysis than aggregate turnouts since its the electoral college that wins (normally decided by specific swing states) and not overall popular vote (otherwise we woulda had Gore instead of Dubya even with florida going to the latter).

Anubis said:

Even if the majority of Americans did vote for Trump...the college design could mean Hilary could win...just like Bush V Gore...she doesn't need to rig it...it doesn't matter how many people support Trump in gerogia be it 51% or 100% Trump will always have Georgia....the system is very different from other places.

Click to expand...

OK you understand the system good. Same can be said about the massive hillary support base in states she already has comfortably that will not matter much to the electoral college system like you said.

Its why I am interested only in swing states and near swing states where the real battles will take place for the EC.

Anubis said:

Besides what makes you think Sanders voters will vote for Trump...from what I can see a majority will vote for Hilary and minority might go with Jill Stein....But Trump also has a vampire candidate on his side Gary Jhonson...and Gary is way ahead of Stein in sucking votes...specifically from Trump.

Click to expand...

The phenomenon I think will be more at play is the number of Sanders voters that will simply not vote at all. That will play quite a crushing blow to Hillary in several swing states I feel....especially with the hack stuff (perception wise and possibly factual wise too) coming out on how the democrats set the whole system up against Sanders from the get go. There is going to be a backlash, and while it may not be to the level that masses of the "bernie bros" vote trump just to stick it to hillary....I think voter depression among the demographic that really supported Bernie on will be a big factor.

Anyway thats my personal opinion on the matter. I am not going to be following so much on it (from democrat/MSM side of it) till the debates start.....because there is simply too little being put out there that passes my threshold of solid accurate data. My intention here is to cover any neutrals/near-neutrals that may be watching the thread....that there is another side of the story regarding these polls....and they can make up their own minds on the matter.

Full Event: Donald Trump Rally in Akron, Ohio (August 22, 2016)


powerful speech, Trump is doing two or three a day at times while crooked Hillary has cancelled virtually all campaign rallies till the debates. Have a look at her schedule here: https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/ only fundraisers, no campaigning, no press conferences (hasn't had one in 260 days or something) and she flew 20 miles in a jet just to get to a fundraiser. http://www.theamericanmirror.com/rich-hillary-flies-20-miles-private-jet-marthas-vineyard-nantucket/

unbelievable.

RabzonKhan said:

Oh my goodness, poor Donnie, I remember, once upon a time he used to brag so much about his poll numbers, the poor chap must be missing those days.



Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump in one new national poll and in two other polls measuring support in two key swing states.

An NBC News/SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll released Tuesday found that Clinton leads Trump nationally by 9 percentage points -- 50 percent to 41 percent.

"Clinton is also performing well in the key battleground state of Florida, according to a Monmouth University survey released Tuesday, in which she leads Trump by 9 percentage points. She leads him 48 percent to 39 percent."

Meanwhile, in Virginia, Clinton continues to maintain a double-digit lead over Trump. A Washington Post poll released Tuesday found that she leads him there by 14 percentage points -- 52 percent to 38 percent among registered voters. Read more






It is not an impossible task, if you do a little research you will find that Trump is doing worse than, McCain and Romney, both of them did far better with the women, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and whites with college degree. And then the man has a big mouth, hardly a week passes that he starts a new controversy and in the end loses more votes.



Really, nothing is impossible, check this out:

View attachment 326599




Hillary has already achieved some success by making these two red states competitive. See how close she is:

View attachment 326600




Yes, Utah, and you know who agrees with me, Trump:


"You’ve got to get your people out to vote, and especially in those states where we’re represented," said Trump, referring to religious populations. "[We're] having a tremendous problem in Utah. Utah’s a different place and I don’t know, is anybody here from Utah?... I didn’t think so. We’re having a problem." Link

Trump is facing numerous problems in Utah, first of all, he is not very popular there, in the Republican primaries, Ted Cruz won the state, Kasich came second and Trump was third, winning paltry 14% of the vote.

Second, Mitt Romney, who beat Obama there by nearly 48 points in 2012 is the leader of “Never Trump” movement, is really going to give hard time to Trump in his native state of Utah.

Third, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (a former Republican governor) is also very aggressively campaigning in the state.

Fourth, an independent candidate supported by ‘Never Trump”movement, McMullin, a former CIA officer and Republican house chief policy director, who is a Mormon and a native of Utah is also on the ballot there now. Many Mormon do not like Trump’s anti-religious and anti-foreign agenda.

And in the end of the day a divided Republican Party in the state will benefit Hillary.



Even if Hillary does not win any of these red states her strategy is still quite successful so far, you see the key point is that all these safe red states have become competitive, ultimately, Trump campaign will have to spend precious resources to defend them, when those resources could be spent on battleground states.


It’s fine with me, you made an allegation and failed to substantiate it.

Click to expand...

Trump screwed up heavily after the DNC.That's why she is doing well now...

At the end of the day,my intuition firmly tells me that even if he loses the swing states,the red states will stand beside him & that by some miracle/good campaigning he will win.

The anti-Hillary gang+ Supreme court judges will get them to him in the end, I feel

RabzonKhan said:

Clinton Surges Past 270 Electoral Votes in NBC News Battleground Map

by CHUCK TODD, MARK MURRAY and CARRIE DANN

After releasing our seven battleground-state polls last week -- and seeing several other state surveys -- we've updated our NBC battleground map. The states in Hillary Clinton's column now add up to 288 electoral votes, which exceeds the 270 needed to win the presidency. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is at 174 electoral votes, and an additional 76 are in the Tossup category. Our last map, back in July, showed Clinton with a 255-190 advantage — so Clinton's tally has gone up since the conventions, while Trump's has declined.

View attachment 326805
In case you missed them, here are the seven battleground-state polls we released last week. The percentages are among registered voters:

• Colorado: Clinton 46%, Trump 32% (was Clinton 43%, Trump 35% a month ago)
• Florida: Clinton 44%, Trump 39% (was Clinton 44%, Trump 37%)
• Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 37% (was Clinton 42%, Trump 39%)
• North Carolina: Clinton 48%, Trump 39% (was Clinton 44%, Trump 38%)
• Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 38% (was Clinton 39%, Trump 39%)
• Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 37% (was Clinton 45%, Trump 36%)
• Virginia: Clinton 46%, Trump 33% (was Clinton 44%, Trump 35%)

The polls also revealed four consistent gaps between Clinton and Trump -- the Education Gap (between Clinton's support among whites with college degrees and Trump's support among whites without), the Geographical Gap (Clinton ahead in the cities and suburbs, Trump ahead in the rural areas), the Gender Gap (Clinton leading among women by a bigger margin than Trump leading among men), and the Party Unity Gap (with Democrats backing Clinton by a larger margin than Republicans being behind Trump). Read more

Click to expand...

Hmm.... I think they are being too optimistic with Georgia..
According to me:-

I believe the swing states in this elections are going to be:-
North carolina,Virginia,Florida,Iowa,Pennsylvania,New Hampshire,Nevada,Ohio & that 1 seat in Maine.

Hilllary's best case scenario:-
All swing states+Georgia+Arizona+possibly that 1 seat in nebraska

Trump's best case scenario:-
All swing states except Nevada & Colorado(Hispanic+moderate vote will go against him) & Virginia(Tim kaine will get this)
Michigan & Wisconsin could be won by a narrow margin.

& if Trump plays the anti-establishment rebel card, he could even get Minnesota!! Dont forget they voted for jesse ventura

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure the Repubs will retain the house of representatives by a good margin & the Senate by a small margin.

I think Mark kirk will lose along with Kelly ayotte.

But the others could win. Mccain could just pull it through by playing Obamacare which has increased premium costs in healthcare insurance(I saw some ads & polls which indicated this).

Rubio & the senators from Pennsylvania & Ohio could make it too.

Colorado is going Democratic.

LA se Karachi said:

It's sad isn't it? Two of the most disliked Presidential candidates are running against each other this year:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...or-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/


And yet both of their supporters seem to brag about them. One can't help but chuckle...

Both parties voted for the least likable and least electable candidates that were running (although Sanders did win something like 45% of elected delegates) --- with turnout below 30% among all voters. Turnout in the general election will likely be low this year as a result. Hopefully, next time both parties won't choose terrible nominees. One can only hope that more people will turnout to vote in the primaries.

Click to expand...

A big LOL at the Bolded part.

It's sad when you have to choose between 2 hated people & not 2 good popular people

I wish them the best of luck:

Nilgiri said:

I wish them the best of luck:

Click to expand...

something very fishy went down there, did you notice how he was all frowning all through the convention and how much he was sweating when he endorsed her ? Its possible that they either shook him up gangster style, threatened his family or blackmailed him something.

I'll check this Molyneux vid later but nothing will come out of any lawsuit, the devil in the pantsuit operates above the law. Would be nice to see them #LockHerUp though.