• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion

What percentage of the vote will third party candidates receive in total?


  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
They just want Trump to win. Any critique of their chosen one is inherently unfair to them.

If it was just the liberal media that was unfair, and not Trump's own actions actually being insane, then leading conservatives behind the scenes wouldn't need to stage an intervention, contemplate telling him to quit, and his campaigners wouldn't be on admitted suicide watch.

People trying to help him win aren't worried about media portrayal, they're worried about Trump's fucking mouth.

The thing is that many of the most fanatical partisans here genuinely do not believe in objective truth, and the media is pretty much the same. If you say that Jay Hieron is the greatest WW of all time, and the media has someone on to defend your claim and someone on to say that you're nuts, the media is biased in favor of you, even if lots of people are reported saying that you're an idiot.
 
Have you ever bet on a live sporting event? This is like betting on the team that last scored a touchdown when we're only in the second quarter.


Well...A metaphor like that is possible, but it would be more like this:

The other team just drove the ball 80 yards in a 13 play, 8 1/2 minute, soul crushing drive capped off by a touchdown and then on the ensuing possession, you threw a pick six on the first (only) play of the drive, to put the other team up 31-3 late in the third quarter.

In other words, crazy shit happens and anything is possible, but there is literally no historic precedent for a presidential candidate losing after having a poll spike of this magnitude.
 
how so?

the man has seemingly intentionally used the media for over a year. he says inflammatory things and says in the headlines. now all of the sudden it MUST be some sinister shadowy plot by the media to end his campaign? it couldnt be as simple as....he is the ratings grabber by saying and doing the more outlandish things, and many people dont like some of those things when they see it?

makes fun of handicapped guy
wants to kill families of terrorists
wants to go beyond waterboarding
talks shit about POW's and has a feud with muslim vet's family

how could for-profit media NOT focus on this stuff? you dont need shadowy figures to explain this.

Nothing shadowy...its right out in the open. Its so obvious in fact I won't entertain a discussion that suggests otherwise.
 
This is all just an elaborate plan from Tim Kaine. Hiring Trump to take out the republicans and leaking info of Hillary, so after Hillary wins the election she gets sent to jail and Kaine get to be the prez.
 
Well...A metaphor like that is possible, but it would be more like this:

The other team just drove the ball 80 yards in a 13 play, 8 1/2 minute, soul crushing drive capped off by a touchdown and then on the ensuing possession, you threw a pick six on the first (only) play of the drive, to put the other team up 31-3 late in the third quarter.

In other words, crazy shit happens and anything is possible, but there is literally no historic precedent for a presidential candidate losing after having a poll spike of this magnitude.
Where are you getting this shit from?? The election is over 3 months away. You just got the results of the most recent polls. Are you projecting this shit out on your own? You're exaggerating these polls like a typical MMA front runner.
 
Don't get mad at me. It's not my fault your boy's getting wrecked.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trumps-slump-deepens-in-polls/

Now he's losing in GEORGIA. Let that fucking sink in.
I don't know what's worse. The fact that you are posting links that support my argument, or that you would even post links without reading them.

Here is the conclusion to your linked article:
But you shouldn’t rush to judgment based on two days of polling (admittedly excellent though they were for Clinton) when there are still about 94 days to go.
 
Yeah, you posted one sentence from a very lengthy article detailing how brutally Trump has been getting his ass kicked the past couple weeks, including that he's losing big in Fox News polls now and even in Georgia which has only gone blue three times in modern history, twice for Bill Clinton who's from Arkansas and once for Jimmy Carter.
 
Yeah, you posted one sentence from a very lengthy article detailing how brutally Trump has been getting his ass kicked the past couple weeks, including that he's losing big in Fox News polls now and even in Georgia which has only gone blue three times in modern history, twice for Bill Clinton who's from Arkansas and for Jimmy Carter.
The context of our discussion was what these current polls mean in the context of the elections. The conclusion of that article gave you that answer. But now you want to cry because the article you selected (and didn't even bother to read) doesn't support your conclusion?? Fucking ridiculous.
 
WTF happened? He briefly held a lead after the GOP convention, got leapfrogged following the DNC, went on an absolute rampage of media blunders and inaccuracies.

It's almost hard to believe he even got nominated, and yet here we stand a couple weeks after he had a lead and the election looks all but lost. Hillary looks like someone who knows they've got this locked up and is just in cruise control now.


The same thing that happened when Trump dived in the polls after the Mexican judge controversy.

How long did that last again?

Give it two weeks, and his numbers will have rebounded.

This is what the media has done to us with their news cycles, and why the NSA story was on a slow leak, and why Assange is slow leaking the DNC E-mail stuff. Everyone knows that in two weeks everything will be forgotten, unless you take this approach.
 
The context of our discussion was what these current polls mean in the context of the elections. The conclusion of that article gave you that answer. But now you want to cry because the article you selected (and didn't even bother to read) doesn't support your conclusion?? Fucking ridiculous.

Once again, my conclusion is that there is no historical precedent for anyone in a hole of this size rebounding and winning, which is fact.

It's over. President Clinton. Get used to it. Learn to love it.
 
Once again, my conclusion is that there is no historical precedent for anyone in a hole of this size rebounding and winning, which is fact..
Yet you can't find a single article that says that. Pulling shit out of your ass....again.
 
It's more like Trump's campaign has always been a fad, and the novelty of his schtick is wearing off quickly.

Remember when Sarah Palin was going to be a long-term force in Republican politics? Allen West? Bob McDonnell? Alan Keyes? Rick Perry? Chris Christie? Marco Rubio?

Did the Enemedia take them out too? They must be ruthlessly efficient.
 
Yet you can't find a single article that says that. Pulling shit out of your ass....again.

There's literally thousands of them. The problem I'm having is finding one that was written after these latest debacles! So in truth it's even worse than I'm saying. There is now some concern that he may withdraw from the race entirely.

Tell you what, put your money where your mouth is and let's account bet on this election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
1,270,958
Messages
57,692,050
Members
175,808
Latest member
Banana&Coffee
Back
Top