Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One poll, 4 states polled of less than 1,000 each. And, in other polls, it is closer or tied. These conditions do not indicate any kind of win for the highly flawed candidate, Hillary Clinton. Hey, it isn't over until she is officially nominated, so maybe the Dems will get a break and she'll bow out showing she has integrity after all.
Democracy corps, Monmouth, and Fox have her up in several states as well. I wouldn't keep banking on the email scandal to sink her. The Clintons have weathered worse in the past and won. And that was running up against Bob Dole who was not as flawed as her opponent.
According to the latest NBC poll, Hillary leads in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado. Three of the four have been traditional red states for years until Obama won Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia in 2008. Colorado, Virginia and the Tarheel State have become purple states. If the election were held today, wins in these states would clearly mean a victory for Clinton and she would be our next president. Republicans can only blame themselves for voting for a flawed candidate in the primaries. One reason why North Carolina has become a purple state is because of the influx of northeastern democrats moving to North Carolina, particularly in the Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham areas. The state is becoming more and more urban and diverse. Democrats do well in states with large cities. Texas is really the only exception.
that was a poll taken last week, not this week and not all that many surveyed. Yesterday's polls show one thing, last weeks another and tomorrow's probably another. I don't think, at this stage, with world events changing daily any one poll means anything. I am guessing, if you know much about politics you see this as well, just want to believe your candidate holds a huge lead.
Democracy corps, Monmouth, and Fox have her up in several states as well. I wouldn't keep banking on the email scandal to sink her. The Clintons have weathered worse in the past and won. And that was running up against Bob Dole who was not as flawed as her opponent.
the scandal may not sink her but it is going to hurt her. There is no getting around that. There are people that probably were on the fence, but now, are fed up with the decision they may very well flip to Trump or just stay home. I have said it before and will again: this will be the poorest turnout in modern history.
I don't let polls effect who I vote for. Now pole cats like crooked Hillary do effect my vote. Won't support the stench that follows her.
And Donald Trump isn't crooked? He's a liar and a charlatan who does not have any experience in government office. He has not put forth any plan or proposal showing what will do as president. He plays on peoples emotions and fears. A president, he would do a far worse job than George W Bush.
I agree. Silver's predictions on Trump need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially given his performance/predictions from the primary. While minority voters will not turn out in the same numbers for Hillary as they did for Obama (and, interestingly enough, a few polls have shown Trump performing better with Hispanics than Romney did), Trump has awoken a sleeping giant with many white voters who typically don't vote or who have voted Democrat for generations (think coal miners, etc.) but who are now going to come out and support Trump. Silver, and others, are not properly accounting for that. And, note, the point about minority voters is especially important here as minority voter drop off in swing states like PA, FL, OH, etc., where a few thousand to hundred thousand votes would swing the state, coupled with the increased in white voter turnout, could very well tip things for Trump. Romney won a huge percentage of white voters in 2012 (and white voter turnout increased in 2012 vs. 2008). But, Romney's problem is that most of this white voter increase came in states that the GOP was going to already win (thus, Romney increased greatly the GOP's margin in states like TN, TX, etc.). Trump is different in this regard in that he's increasing white voter turnout in true swing states unlike Romney could ever do, thanks in large part to his position on trade.
Was Trump my first choice? No way in hell . . . and, if we went with my first choice (Rubio. . . though a number of candidates would've done so), the GOP would've had this election wrapped up already. But he won enough delegates to be the nominee fair and square and I stand behind him, especially over someone like Hillary Clinton.
What should be scary for Democrats is that about half of the polling that has come out over the last week continues to show Trump either leading nationally/in the swing states or tied. That's bad news for Hillary. Moreover, I fully expect many of Gary Johnson's supporters (who are undoubtedly taking votes away from Trump) to back Trump when its all said and done.
When it became apparent that Trump was going to be the nominee, I (if I was a Democrat) would have NEVER voted for someone (AKA Hillary) who was under federal investigation and who had such high negatives. If Sanders was nominee, he'd be the guaranteed victor.
And Donald Trump isn't crooked? He's a liar and a charlatan who does not have any experience in government office. He has not put forth any plan or proposal showing what will do as president. He plays on peoples emotions and fears. A president, he would do a far worse job than George W Bush.
You may have pegged him in many ways, but he isn't a crook. At least to our knowledge. As for worse job than Bush; that is a matter of opinion. Inexperienced he is; scary to many of us? yes, but who knows? There have been others that have been thought to be a bad choice and turned out to be top notch.
You may have pegged him in many ways, but he isn't a crook. At least to our knowledge. As for worse job than Bush; that is a matter of opinion. Inexperienced he is; scary to many of us? yes, but who knows? There have been others that have been thought to be a bad choice and turned out to be top notch.
After the display I've seen from Trump, I wouldn't want to take that chance, especially with all the the serious events that have taken place around our country and around the world the last couple months.
Thanks for reviving the thread. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE being right!
Sadly, for the Democrats, it does not appear from the current postings that they have learned a lesson. Ah, well, maybe in 2020, when Trump wins his 2nd term, it will clear their thought process!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
