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.
Possibly? 46,000 was a large enough number for one of our States leading newspapers to take notice. They had speculated that it was the Trump crossover; not me. I am simply reporting on the article and subsequent Goggle searches. Go fight with them; or simply wait and see what happens.
Actually, you are proffering your opinion as fact.
"By the way; those switching Democrats have nothing to do with trying to get Trump to run against Hillary and loosing. They are switching because they want Trump to win!"
Actually, you are proffering your opinion as fact.
"By the way; those switching Democrats have nothing to do with trying to get Trump to run against Hillary and loosing. They are switching because they want Trump to win!"
That is my opinion from reading that article. Reread the article yourself; I did not write it.
I have not received one dime for supporting Trump. I try to report the news when I see it and if it is a hoax; I will later disclaim that article and acknowledge that I made a mistake. You have not supplied one link to suggest otherwise on this subject. Feel free to post supporting links to your claims that it isn't about Trump winning.
People can speak for their own motivations. They can't speak for others unless those others tell them their motivations. Otherwise, there are no mind readers here and nobody who can tell us why 10s of 1000s voted as they did.
We crossed over and re-registered from Democrat to Independent because we intend to vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton. He has to be nominated first which is why we voted for him in the primary. It's nothing more complicated than that, and I'm willing to bet we are not alone in this.
If there was a vast conspiracy of Democrats voting for Trump because they want to see Hillary win, I've seen no evidence of it. And real conspiracies, of that scale, have a way of becoming very public. So where is the proof beyond opinion? It sounds more like sour grapes to me.
That is my opinion from reading that article. Reread the article yourself; I did not write it.
I have not received one dime for supporting Trump. I try to report the news when I see it and if it is a hoax; I will later disclaim that article and acknowledge that I made a mistake. You have not supplied one link to suggest otherwise on this subject. Feel free to post supporting links to your claims that it isn't about Trump winning.
Thank you.
I simply wanted you to acknowledge that your statement was not fact, but was in fact an opinion.
Trump has yet to win a state with a larger percentage than his predecessor four years ago--the high turnout is coming against Trump more than it is for him. They're NOT flocking into the arms of the clown, regardless of what his followers would have you believe.
Trump has yet to win a state with a larger percentage than his predecessor four years ago--the high turnout is coming against Trump more than it is for him. They're NOT flocking into the arms of the clown, regardless of what his followers would have you believe.
Romney did not have to deal with an idiotic political party intent on political suicide to protecting ideological purity, instead of listening of what a majority of Americans want.
Romney did not have to deal with an idiotic political party intent on political suicide to protecting ideological purity, instead of listening of what a majority of Americans want.
Trump of course transcends this nonsense.
I think you mean "what a plurality of GOP primary voters want", because the majority of Americans do not want this circus clown running the country, under any circumstance.
Trump is simply a terrible frontrunner in every conceivable way, right down to his inability to capture 50% of the vote in any of the states he has won. That has to be a record for a frontrunner this late in the election cycle.
He's fodder for Hillary Clinton, nothing more.
Political suicide would be giving a xenophobe half-wit like Donald Trump the GOP seal of approval. Republicans would lose the White House for a generation if they did that. No, they're doing the right thing disassociating themselves from this human punchline, even if it means losing the 2016 election. Trump is simply too weak and divisive a frontrunner to do battle with. Not worth it.
Romney did not have to deal with an idiotic political party intent on political suicide to protecting ideological purity, instead of listening of what a majority of Americans want.
I just heard Ted Cruz say on Fox News that he was ahead in New York by 15%. I'm wondering what poll he's talking about because the only one that I've seen recently, shows trump ahead by 52%. That was only one week ago.
Am I missing something? Is he just making numbers up out of thin air? Is he talking about a poll of his relatives that live in New York?
It's pretty odd looking over the national polls on Real Clear: both the Republicans and Democrats are about to nominate the candidate who performs most poorly in the election. The candidate who could win everywhere for the Republicans against either Democrat, according to these polls, is coming in last in the voting while the party big names endorse another. The candidate who loses everywhere is leading the Republicans.
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.
