Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[sr71plt]

I think you're very, very wrong in your analysis. Trump may be a better politician than Clinton. Certainly not much worse.

Yeah, what we certainly need is a pathological liar who steps on his crank at least once a day. I presume you are blind and live in a cave(?)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, what we certainly need is a pathological liar who steps on his crank at least once a day.

I suppose that is better than the pathological liar who's lining her pockets.

 

[toubab]

Yeah, what we certainly need is a pathological liar who steps on his crank at least once a day. I presume you are blind and live in a cave(?)

Funny how some of you see Trump's faults so clearly, but are apparently blind to Clinton's, which are even worse, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of others, obviously.

 

[sr71plt]

I suppose that is better than the pathological liar who's lining her pockets.

Oh, you don't think Trump isn't in this entirely to line his pockets in a whole different league to the Clintons--and entirely for himself rather than to provide an organized government? I can see that you aren't too bright. (But then I knew that already.)

Yes, Clinton has her baggage--some of it caused by herself; some of it from decades of Swiftboating. But if you can't see a significant gap between her as president of the United States and Donald Trump as president of the United States, you're just dumb as a rock.

I think you're going to be very disappointed in November too, as Trump is managing this campaign about as well as you manage your postings to the forum.

 

[sr71plt]

Funny how some of you see Trump's faults so clearly, but are apparently blind to Clinton's, which are even worse, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of others, obviously.

That "some of us" doesn't include me (as I've just posted). But then I can understand that you couldn't understand something like gradation of suitability.

 

[toubab]

That "some of us" doesn't include me (as I've just posted). But then I can understand that you couldn't understand something like gradation of suitability.

I think you're the one that doesn't understand which of the two is less suitable. But that's just my opinion. Millions agree with me, and millions agree with you. We'll find out come November which of us was in the majority.

 

[Pookie]

How would you investigate? What would you investigate? We only know the results of the first poll, at this point. There's nothing to compare, unless you compare daily results.

It's quite obvious you're a novice at polling. Google is your friend though.

Here's a good start - http://www.ncpp.org/

And a good blog article - http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/evaluating-polling-methods-and-results/?_r=0

Do your homework. There's a whole lot to learn.

Here's why this poll caught my interest. I noticed it has very different results on a daily basis from most being conducted presently. I wondered why, so I looked into it and discovered it's being done by the same people, using the same methodology, as the RAND poll from 2012, which I remembered as being very accurate.

You remember it as being very accurate. Was it accurate on days in the months before election day? Or was it just plain luck that the last poll done before election day was close to the result? Remember, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. At the moment, you don't know if it was luck or the result of a valid polling methodology. A wall clock stuck at twelve o'clock is "very accurate" at noon and midnight.

I'll ask you, why would the same people, using the same methodology, conduct a fraudulent poll this year when they conducted a very legitimate and accurate one in 2012?

I didn't say it was fraudulent. It may be the most accurate poll in the history of polls. But until someone checks the validity of the sampling/polling methodology, you don't know. Someone maybe has. I haven't found it yet. I'm withholding judgment. The article I posted earlier raised a serious issue regarding the validity. That alone gives me pause, especially considering that the results are so far out of line with other polls that were also very accurate on their last poll before election day in 2012.

 

[toubab]

It's quite obvious you're a novice at polling. Google is your friend though.

Here's a good start - http://www.ncpp.org/

And a good blog article - http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/evaluating-polling-methods-and-results/?_r=0

Do your homework. There's a whole lot to learn.




You remember it as being very accurate. Was it accurate on days in the months before election day? Or was it just plain luck that the last poll done before election day was close to the result? Remember, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. At the moment, you don't know if it was luck or the result of a valid polling methodology. A wall clock stuck at twelve o'clock is "very accurate" at noon and midnight.



I didn't say it was fraudulent. It may be the most accurate poll in the history of polls. But until someone checks the validity of the sampling/polling methodology, you don't know. Someone maybe has. I haven't found it yet. I'm withholding judgment. The article I posted earlier raised a serious issue regarding the validity. That alone gives me pause, especially considering that the results are so far out of line with other polls that were also very accurate on their last poll before election day in 2012.

Don't be ridiculous. I've been following polling seriously since the seventies, and very seriously since the eighties. I know how it's done, and what the vulnerabilities are. That NCPP shit doesn't impress me in the least regarding this particular poll, nor does your blog article.

I don't know what your problem is. I've made it crystal clear I have no idea whether this particular poll is accurate this year or not. Nobody can possibly know that, at this point. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool.

I think it's highly unlikely the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Times would be involved with a poll deliberately favoring Donald Trump.

 

[Pookie]

Don't be ridiculous. I've been following polling seriously since the seventies, and very seriously since the eighties. I know how it's done, and what the vulnerabilities are. That NCPP shit doesn't impress me in the least regarding this particular poll, nor does your blog article.

LOL, you didn't have time to even read it!

I don't know what your problem is. I've made it crystal clear I have no idea whether this particular poll is accurate this year or not. Nobody can possibly know that, at this point. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool.

I think it's highly unlikely the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Times would be involved with a poll deliberately favoring Donald Trump.

I'm asking questions you obviously don't want to answer, or can't, or both. You've obviously latched onto a poll you want to run with for this thread. Good for you.

It's cool though. I wasn't taking you seriously anyway. I knew you were lost in the woods many posts ago. I just wanted to expose your ignorance regarding polling.

Mission accomplished. Carry on.

 

[toubab]

LOL, you didn't have time to even read it!




I'm asking questions you obviously don't want to answer, or can't, or both. You've obviously latched onto a poll you want to run with for this thread. Good for you.

It's cool though. I wasn't taking you seriously anyway. I knew you were lost in the woods many posts ago. I just wanted to expose your ignorance regarding polling.

Mission accomplished. Carry on.

Holy shit, how long do you think it takes for me to read something? Do you read at grade school level?

Your questions are ridiculous. There's no possible way to know if this poll is accurate, day to day, same as every other poll.

You've made yourself look like a fool.

 

[Adre]

I think you're the one that doesn't understand which of the two is less suitable. But that's just my opinion. Millions agree with me, and millions agree with you. We'll find out come November which of us was in the majority.

Hmm, so you weren't taking sides, huh? I knew you were a liar from the jump. I think we all did.

 

[sr71plt]

I think you're the one that doesn't understand which of the two is less suitable. But that's just my opinion. Millions agree with me, and millions agree with you. We'll find out come November which of us was in the majority.

I'm pretty sure that a large proportion of this "let's pretend" really, really big millions of Trump supporters, like some of his kids, don't even realize you have to register to vote. Trump himself doesn't seem to realize that you have to do drives to register and bring out the vote. I'm not worried. Trump and folks like you have taken all the worry from me on this--more and more each day.

Now if it had been someone like Cruz, as crazy and as much an egomaniac as Trump, but with political organization and not living out here in lalalaland, I'd have a worry or two. But that didn't happen.

 

[Adre]

Holy shit, how long do you think it takes for me to read something? Do you read at grade school level?

Your questions are ridiculous. There's no possible way to know if this poll is accurate, day to day, same as every other poll.

You've made yourself look like a fool.

Dude, you're punching way above your weight class. Poonkie will lay you out with one hand.

 

[toubab]

Hmm, so you weren't taking sides, huh? I knew you were a liar from the jump. I think we all did.

Damn, some of you people are dense. I've made it as clear as humanly possible all along that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, under any circumstances. There is virtually no chance I will vote for Trump, either. Make of that what you will.

 

[RoryN]

if Clinton beats Trump in the popular vote by more than Obama beat Romney, I will not only be surprised, I will be shocked. So shocked, and so embarrassed at my foolishness at predicting a close race I will be forced to admit on this board that I was wrong, which isn't an easy thing for me to do, as I'm sure you've already surmised.

Quoted.

 

[Wrong Element]

LMAO. That was really funny. Let me put it this way, Adre, if Clinton beats Trump in the popular vote by more than Obama beat Romney, I will not only be surprised, I will be shocked. So shocked, and so embarrassed at my foolishness at predicting a close race I will be forced to admit on this board that I was wrong, which isn't an easy thing for me to do, as I'm sure you've already surmised.

It's too early to say how good a chance there is of this happening, but there's no question that Obama never led Romney in the general election polls by as much as Clinton has led Trump these last couple of weeks.

The consensus of the various polls (not necessarily each individual poll) has been very steady all month -- which is what most people figured would happen with attention turning to the Olympics.

 

[toubab]

Dude, you're punching way above your weight class. Poonkie will lay you out with one hand.

Not a chance of that. I had the impression previously she was fairly intelligent. Not so much now.

 

[Adre]

Damn, some of you people are dense. I've made it as clear as humanly possible all along that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, under any circumstances. There is virtually no chance I will vote for Trump, either. Make of that what you will.

Did I say vote? No. Did you express a more "suitable" side? Yes. Like Trump, you think words have flexible meanings.

 

[Adre]

Not a chance of that. I had the impression previously she was fairly intelligent. Not so much now.

I wouldn't post a poll on that if I were you.

 

[sr71plt]

Damn, some of you people are dense. I've made it as clear as humanly possible all along that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, under any circumstances. There is virtually no chance I will vote for Trump, either. Make of that what you will.

Actually, I don't think anyone here gives a shit who you vote for and whether you vote. Folks here just seem to enjoy encouraging you to bumble around in dumb dumb land.

 

[toubab]

Did I say vote? No. Did you express a more "suitable" side? Yes. Like Trump, you think words have flexible meanings.

Anybody on this board who didn't realize I'm anti-Hillary hasn't been paying attention.

 

[sr71plt]

It's too early to say how good a chance there is of this happening, but there's no question that Obama never led Romney in the general election polls by as much as Clinton has led Trump these last couple of weeks.

The consensus of the various polls (not necessarily each individual poll) has been very steady all month -- which is what most people figured would happen with attention turning to the Olympics.

My only fear at this point is that Trump will just shut up and not bleed himself in front of the cameras every day.

 

[toubab]

I wouldn't post a poll on that if I were you.

Do you think I give a shit what most of you fuckers think about that?

 

[toubab]

Actually, I don't think anyone here gives a shit who you vote for and whether you vote. Folks here just seem to enjoy encouraging you to bumble around in dumb dumb land.

And I don't give a shit who they vote for, or whether they vote. So we're even.

 

[Adre]

Do you think I give a shit what most of you fuckers think about that?

Yes, you spend hours every day defending your positions and opinions and favorite poll.