[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[samurai8juice]

As an understudy in far-off-Broadway play of the life of Nostradamus, I'm working on my prophecy and apocalypse patois.

Nostradamus predicted this happening:

One man
One woman
crossroads
sometime in the future
'washingtown'

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with a 43% to 41% lead over his Democratic rival. Five percent (5%) favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein earns three percent (3%) support. Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

A new high of 88% of voters now say they are certain how they will vote in this election. Among these voters, it’s Trump 48%, Clinton 47%, Johnson three percent (3%) and Stein two percent (2%). Among voters who say they still could change their minds between now and Election Day, it’s Trump 38%, Clinton 25%, Johnson 21% and Stein 16%.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with a 43% to 41% lead over his Democratic rival. Five percent (5%) favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein earns three percent (3%) support. Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

I wonder how many unlikely voters will vote for Trump.

 

[Lain]

Just wait until he plays his Trump card...

...And Hilary responds by activating her Trap card. That's a mental image we all needed.

 

[McLaren]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21

How accurate are the Rasmussen Reports? I've seen a few Tweets that claim to pick apart how the current polling numbers shown by the media don't add up & reference this site as being more accurate. And then of course, the topic of most resorting to ThreeHundredEight instead.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I think Hiliary still has a huge arrow in her quiver.

There is a bombshell allegation against Trump still floating around. Plus a lawsuit was filed in June of this year on behalf of Jane Doe in New York.

The allegation may or may not be true. But the lawsuit is a fact. All the media has to do - and they can - is to report on the lawsuit.

I am expecting this to come out right before the election. The establishment media has spent months building this narrative that Trump is a sexual predator. This will be their icing on the cake.

 

[FoRiZon]

Seeing several things related to Trump, I can probably see why people lean towards him and blame "liberal" medias. Still, I dont see any confidence based on his recent speech and reactions. Not to say I support Hillary either tbh.

Strangely though, I find early Trump (before candidate presidency) interviews to be more intelligent. But that's my opinion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

At least one candidate in this election is "deeply" opposed to providing any services to illegal immigrants beyond public health emergencies and wants the president to stop the "flood" of illegal immigrants coming in to the United States. He really hates it when they hang around street corners too.

 

[ryzno]

At least one candidate in this election is "deeply" opposed to providing any services to illegal immigrants beyond public health emergencies and wants the president to stop the "flood" of illegal immigrants coming in to the United States. He really hates it when they hang around street corners too.

So him speaking in Spanish when Hillary announced him was just, pandering to the Hispanic vote... Two faced ain't it?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So him speaking in Spanish when Hillary announced him was just, pandering to the Hispanic vote... Two faced ain't it?

Considering how old that video is, it's quite easy for him to claim his view point has long since changed. That's if the media were to ever talk about it.

 

[Duke]

Expect the polls to continue showing a close race right up to the very end. The popular vote will be for Hillary by a substantial margin.

 

[Wolfe]

It seems completely pointless to me to give any weight to poll numbers with how manipulative and out-of-touch the coverage of this election has been.

 

[Duke]

It seems completely pointless to me to give any weight to poll numbers with how manipulative and out-of-touch the coverage of this election has been.

The poll numbers are a major part of the manipulation.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The poll numbers are a major part of the manipulation.

So would it be safe to say that positive poll numbers for Trump equals further negative media for Trump? Cause that's what I read when I think about your post. Not saying you're saying that, just it seems to be working that way, which makes it all the more hysterical.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The point of the tweets is to point the typical Liberal hypocrisy; throwing around the word "rigged" is fine for them, but not Trump. What exactly is rigged in Washington for the big guys? What is this rigged system Hillary is quoting? It wouldn't be this same system that screwed Sanders out of a nomination would it?

Well if we're talking about using the word "rigged" in any context then I guess it is hypocrisy, but the discussion here - and the most potent criticism Trump has been getting - has been specifically about suggesting a rigged election by voter fraud. Whether Washington is rigged or not - or whatever the heck that even means - is a different context and seems irrelevant.

Expect the polls to continue showing a close race right up to the very end. The popular vote will be for Hillary by a substantial margin.

At the moment (and for some time) the polls haven't really been showing a close race at all, though.

 

[Famine]

So would it be safe to say that positive poll numbers for Trump equals further negative media for Trump? Cause that's what I read when I think about your post. Not saying you're saying that, just it seems to be working that way, which makes it all the more hysterical.

At the moment (and for some time) the polls haven't really been showing a close race at all, though.

The concept here is that polls reported by the media are over-reporting Trump's numbers as a scare-tactic to get voters who would otherwise not be currently voting for Clinton - undecided, third party or write-in voters, non-voters - to vote for Clinton purely to stop Trump.

Both of the Obamas have actually come right out and said exactly that, in fact:

Here’s the truth: either Hillary Clinton or her opponent will be elected president this year. And if you vote for someone other than Hillary, or if you don’t vote at all, then you are helping to elect Hillary’s opponent. Remember it’s not about voting for the perfect candidate. There is no such person. In this election it is about making a choice between two very different candidates with very different visions for our nation. So the question is do you want Hillary Clinton to be your president, or do you want her opponent to be your president?

If you don’t vote, that’s a vote for Trump. If you vote for a third-party candidate who’s got no chance to win, that’s a vote for Trump.

Which is facile to say the least - but then that's how this election has been fought.

 

[McLaren]

Well if we're talking about using the word "rigged" in any context then I guess it is hypocrisy, but the discussion here - and the most potent criticism Trump has been getting - has been specifically about suggesting a rigged election by voter fraud. Whether Washington is rigged or not - or whatever the heck that even means - is a different context and seems irrelevant.

So, questioning a election as "rigged" is a no-no. But, the Democrats can sit & claim other parts of the govt. are rigged, and that's fine?

“The game is rigged,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said.

“They’ll do anything to rig the system,” Obama echoed.

“People say the game is rigged,” Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton declared on the campaign trail.

“A rigged economy,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) repeated throughout the Democratic primary and continues to do so.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/trumps-not-only-one-thinks-system-rigged/

It's not irrelevant in the least, esp. when you admit you don't even know what they're referring to. But, if we want to stick to elections, here's Hillary claiming Bush was not elected back in 2002.

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles
for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
told the crowd that President Bush merely had been "selected" president, not
elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue.

Though she and her husband had raised more money than any other Democratic
political team this year, Clinton said, Bush's machine has raised far more "to
try to ruin the reputations of our candidates or, if they can't, to depress
the turnout" by making campaigns unpalatably nasty. "But, you know, you have
got to hand it to them," Clinton said with what sounded like a rueful
appreciation. "These people are ruthless and they are relentless."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-reputations-of-our-candidates-76491792.html

The irony in the 2nd paragraph by Clinton considering that's exactly how she runs her campaign against Donald.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The concept here is that polls reported by the media are over-reporting Trump's numbers as a scare-tactic to get voters who would otherwise not be currently voting for Clinton - undecided, third party or write-in voters, non-voters - to vote for Clinton purely to stop Trump.

Both of the Obamas have actually come right out and said exactly that, in fact:Which is facile to say the least - but then that's how this election has been fought.

I'm confused why is it only one way, I mean if I don't vote at all that equally hurts Trump. It's a silly notion by those who support or are democrats for Hillary that claim this. Of course any vote for Hillary is a negative, just as it is for Trump, the potential of her having got that vote is the same as his.

 

[Famine]

I'm confused why is it only one way

It's a scare-tactic. The contention is that Trump is so awful he must be stopped at all costs, even if that means giving your vote away cheaply to someone that is, in some ways, marginally less awful (if you conveniently ignore the ways in which they are marginally more awful, including all the things the Obamas said about her 8 years ago).

I'm honestly surprised that they haven't yet suggested it'd be unpatriotic not to vote for Clinton...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's a scare-tactic. The contention is that Trump is so awful he must be stopped at all costs, even if that means giving your vote away cheaply to someone that is, in some ways, marginally less awful (if you conveniently ignore the ways in which they are marginally more awful, including all the things the Obamas said about her 8 years ago).

I'm honestly surprised that they haven't yet suggested it'd be unpatriotic not to vote for Clinton...

I mean I get that, but even someone half awake could come to stop and think "hey something is fishy here". It's not all that hard to see, but I'm glad the current President, his wife, Sanders, several other political officials and media think that people are that stupid.

As for the last line, I'm not surprised by that. It's usually a Republican calling card to bring a Nationalist argument to guilt trip people.

 

[Famine]

It's not all that hard to see, but I'm glad the current President, his wife, Sanders, several other political officials and media think that people are that stupid.

They're probably not wrong. After all, people have got the USA to the point of essentially choosing between two of the most appalling humans they could have possibly selected, through a series of public votes, based on little more than "she's a woman and her husband did it" and "he's anti-establishment and off the TV".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They're probably not wrong. After all, people have got the USA to the point of essentially choosing between two of the most appalling humans they could have possibly selected, through a series of public votes, based on little more than "she's a woman and her husband did it" and "he's anti-establishment and off the TV".

Yeah this is true. Though I feel what set Clinton up after 8 years was, this idea that "we must vote a Black person in office and then a woman". So by that standard it's shaping up nicely.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The concept here is that polls reported by the media are over-reporting Trump's numbers as a scare-tactic to get voters who would otherwise not be currently voting for Clinton - undecided, third party or write-in voters, non-voters - to vote for Clinton purely to stop Trump.

If that's what @Duke was implying then fair enough, I thought he was saying the polls, free from political/media spin, were showing a close race.

So, questioning a election as "rigged" is a no-no.

Questioning an election that hasn't happened yet and is considerably difficult to rig, to be precise........but I digress.

But, the Democrats can sit & claim other parts of the govt. are rigged, and that's fine?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/trumps-not-only-one-thinks-system-rigged/

It's not irrelevant in the least, esp. when you admit you don't even know what they're referring to.

Didn't say it's fine, just not relevant if, again, we're talking about elections and voter fraud.

No, I don't know what Warren and co mean specifically when they say "Washington is rigged", but I'd bet it's not reffering to elections.

But, if we want to stick to elections, here's Hillary claiming Bush was not elected back in 2002.

Fair do's, that looks a bit hypocritical............although as @huskeR32 was saying earlier the contention around the 2000 election was a very different situation to what's happening now.

 

[McLaren]

Questioning an election that hasn't happened yet and is considerably difficult to rig, to be precise........but I digress.

Hasn't changed the evidence that's been leaked out that the Democrats have considered it....

Didn't say it's fine, just not relevant if, again, we're talking about elections and voter fraud.

No, I don't know what Warren and co mean specifically when they say "Washington is rigged", but I'd bet it's not reffering to elections.

It remains relevant. Why do the Democrats get to bash Trump as a cry baby for throwing around the word, "rigged", but the Democrats throw it around against Washington & the system?

Elizabeth was claiming Washington is rigged for the big guys, but of course, now Elizabeth would never say such words because it would only support Trump's tirade.

Fair do's, that looks a bit hypocritical............although as @huskeR32 was saying earlier the contention around the 2000 election was a very different situation to what's happening now.

It doesn't matter. Hillary's calling out Trump because the election isn't going his way, yet she claimed in 2002 that not only was Bush not elected, but that Republicans achieved it by ruining the reputations against Democratic candidates & affecting the turnouts.

She's as big a sore loser as she thinks he's going to be.

 

[Biggles]

The entire electoral system may be "rigged", favouring incumbents & favouring the existing 2 party system, but voter fraud, in recent decades at least, has been a minor issue in US elections. More significant is the extraordinary district gerrymandering that takes place. Both parties, predictably, take part in this, although in recent years Republicans have elevated it to a science.

Take a look at this extreme example of a creative re-districting, North Carolina's 12th congressional district:

"... the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably."

Ostensibly, the NC 12th congressional district ensures a safe seat representing African-Americans, but the sub-plot is that by dumping a large number of likely democratic voters in a single, bizarrely irrational voting catchment area, it helps a number of surrounding districts deliver Republican representatives. This kind of district manipulation is widespread throughout the US.

 

[ukfan758]

The entire electoral system may be "rigged", favouring incumbents & favouring the existing 2 party system, but voter fraud, in recent decades at least, has been a minor issue in US elections. More significant is the extraordinary district gerrymandering that takes place. Both parties, predictably, take part in this, although in recent years Republicans have elevated it to a science.

Take a look at this extreme example of a creative re-districting, North Carolina's 12th congressional district:

View attachment 599817

"... the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably."

Ostensibly, the NC 12th congressional district ensures a safe seat representing African-Americans, but the sub-plot is that by dumping a large number of likely democratic voters in a single, bizarrely irrational voting catchment area, it helps a number of surrounding districts deliver Republican representatives. This kind of district manipulation is widespread throughout the US.

Don't forget Illinois' 4th congressional district, using the tri-state tollway to connect the two sides as well as various parks and even a railroad yard!

The purpose of the absurd design is to connect two primarily Hispanic areas of Chicago. Luis Gutierrez is the district's representative.

 

[Dotini]

US exceptional - rigged, corrupt, fixed and decadent - "The worst political system in the world except for all the others."

 

[samurai8juice]

US exceptional - rigged, corrupt, fixed and decadent - "The worst political system in the world except for all the others."

I say we institute a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Duke]

I am saying that the polls will be artificially "adjusted" to show the race as closer than it really is, as a belt-and-suspenders effort to scare the public into voting Clinton in, as planned.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I am saying that the polls will be artificially "adjusted" to show the race as closer than it really is, as a belt-and-suspenders effort to scare the public into voting Clinton in, as planned.

So yeah as we understood it, that's what I meant by negative media for Trump. Any media outlet trying to scare votes for Clinton is pretty deplorable.