It shows 268 electorates already basically a lock, 270 to win. LOL. Am I missing something here? If this is the case, why even have an election? There is no way that Republicans can ever win every other state to get to 270, now or in the future.
Just an observation. Maybe some adjustment be made to increase the value of some of the other GOP locked states? Or, is it based solely on population? Just seems like an absurd manner in which to have an election, appears far more predetermined when you have locked in regions that never vote otherwise.
There are some really great breakdowns of how the election could go on U-Tube. Some of those “locked” states aren’t so locked. For instance the coal industry is mostly democrat BUT just about all of the people there know that Dems killed the coal industry. They are all voting for Trump.
If this were so it would be shown in the polls, but I’m not seeing it.
It will end closer than I anticipated, I will give him that, the old college try, I think he will need a miracle. It’s the post-election fallout that will resonate for some time. Especially for the GOP if and when they try to pick up the pieces. The party will take on a different look I imagine.
If this were so it would be shown in the polls, but I’m not seeing it.
If your talking about the polls that are predicting, there’s some video’s on those too. It all depends on the criteria that they used for those polls. Remember dems want it to seem that Hillary is going to win. Very often their sample polls are made up of segments that Hillary does well in like women or democrats. If the poll has more democrats than republicans then one would expect Hillary to be in the lead. As I pointed out on another post there is a guy that examines the make up of their target people & those are often very slanted.
Check out “BornAgainLibertarian” on some of his videos he shows the breakdown of the people they poll. Very interesting.
No, it’s true. Trump has a big problem. He’s very close, but he really needs to flip a lean-Dem state or he’s going to come up a few votes short. Nevada is looking a lot better for him, so he has one other path that involves winning NH and that single vote in Maine, should he take NV.
Otherwise, he needs to flip PA. Which doesn’t look great from the polls. He’s never lead in one, and the average is Clinton +3. PA has no early voting, so all we can do is wait. Hopefully the enthusiasm gap is enough to cover the gap. Technically he can do it with Michigan too(which also has no early voting), but that one looks even worse.
I agree with silliessis. No results have been posted, only speculation. I think that Trump will do a lot better than people predict. Lets face it, there are a lot of states where people are suffering. And the democrats have been in charge for a long time without any improvement. Their anti business stance is at least starting to take a toll on those directly affected & oddly they are mostly democrats. Those democrats are either voting Trump or not voting. I saw one video where they interviewed 168 democrats, they found one of them not voting for Trump. Sure it was a small town tied to coal but there are more places exactly like that.
I believe that if all of the republicans voted for Trump, Hillary wouldn’t have a chance because she only has the rabid democrats supporting her & there aren’t as many of them as people think.
I’ve pointed this out about 5 times already but I still don’t understand it. The only way that it makes sense to me is that people need to believe negative stuff. Anyway here it is for the 6th time. These days all of the media (even Fox) is bias & therefore have agendas. Certainly as conservatives we surly have noticed the constant attacks on Trump from all angles & the downplay of Hillary’s “problems”. Knowing that people here still listen to all the polls that are released saying that Hillary is ahead & will win. Polls done by the same people & companies that have been touting Hillary all along. Well if I were a Hillary supporter I would be doing the same thing because I would want republicans to believe that Trump didn’t have a chance so that they wouldn’t go out & vote. Why bother to vote if he is going to lose anyway? The bottom line is don’t listen to polls, just go vote. Get your friends to vote & hope that the system isn’t as corrupt as it looks.
We know that this election is a long shot for Trump,
Oddly I don’t think that it’s a long shot. He is close to even in the polls that I’ve been looking at. I think that there’s a fair number of democrats turned off by the Clinton crime family & they either won’t vote or will vote for Trump. America’s businesses are suffering & Trump is a businessman. Trump just might be the best man to at least try to fix the damage done to our businesses by the democrats. Of course maybe he won’t be & maybe he will be a rotten president. Between Trump & Hillary I would much rather have a well meaning person that may screw it up rather than a crook that thinks I’m so stupid that they can lie to my face & I won’t figure it out.
And Karl Rove’s prediction that Romney would win in 2012 pretty much argues against relying on polls.
Any evaluation of a poll has to consider the manner in which questions were asked.
Does the media know how the question was asked exactly (more on that in a bit)? Noooooo.
Do they know if the respondents were being truthful? Nooooo.
The pollster’s “margin of error” is supposed to take care of the “truthful” part, but I think it’s more of a marketing tactic. I mean, who’s going to buy a poll where the margin of error is plus or minus, say, 50%? And the point of the whole thing is to SELL IT.
Pollsters are very good at phrasing questions that will get results necessary to SELL their polls . . . like the oft used example of this, “Are you still beating your wife“, with the result being maybe “39% percent say they beat their wives.” A poll like that can be honestly represented as accurate, but unless you know how the question was phrased, you can’t really evaluate it.
And pollsters are not compelled to reveal how the question was phrased. In the example above, they can say, “We asked 1000 Americans if they were beating their wife“. They can leave out the word “still” and yet consider that the question was honestly given to the media/reader . . . that’s what I mean when I say “Does the media know how the question was asked exactly?“.
Pollsters present RAW NUMBERS and fastidiously refrain from interpreting results.
In a poll, interpretation is left to the talking heads in the media, and the reader.
Yes, too often they’re seen as certainties, and not the guesses they really are. Pollsters DON’T draw conclusions, they just sell their polls to the media talking heads. The talking heads then say something like, “Polls/Statistics show . . .” and then portray their conclusion as a fact.
Now I wouldn’t deny that major polling organizations of any kind are not going to risk their reputations by inserting a bias. But only one that is NOT easily detected by such as the unwashed masses . . . which pretty much allows ANY poll except the most blatantly biased.
Finally, if these conclusions are indeed objective facts anyway, then we had a lot of contradictory “facts” election eve 2012, when the conclusions the talking heads drew were all over the map . . . some concluded from the polls that Romney would win (that would be the “Karl Rove school of poll interpretation“), and some talking heads concluded from the polls that Romney would NOT win (sometimes the very same polls were used to conclude just the opposite.)
That alone to me seems that conclusions drawn from polls are NOT necessarily . . . FACTS.
In closing, I leave you with this:
“Latest polls show that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the world’s population.”