Elections Clinton vs Trump Polls thread (Clinton's Bounce Larger than Trump's)

[TheComebackKid]

Talking about income. Trump inherited a lot of money.

He didn't inherit anything close to a billion dollars.

But again this is retarded. Trump is ad filthy rich as can be but wants to go through all of this not to be president...but be the next Hannity. Lol, stop it.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

See above. If you want to advance Sanders' policy goals, Clinton is the choice. If you want to maintain your left-wing hipster cred and make a statement about your personal style, Stein works better.

Clinton in a swing state, Stein in a solid state is a better choice, IMO

 

[Jack V Savage]

He didn't inherit anything close to a billion dollars.

$400M in the 70's, right? That's worth more than a billion today.

But again this is retarded. Trump is ad filthy rich as can be but wants to go through all of this not to be president...but be the next Hannity. Lol, stop it.

He's obviously benefiting from the run, as his "brand" is his most valuable asset (which is why the claims about his wealth are kind of dubious). But seriously, I'd bet that Hannity has a higher annual income.

Clinton in a swing state, Stein in a solid state is a better choice, IMO

Morally, I wouldn't feel right with kind of counting on others to make better choices than me. I get the idea of trying to send a message without actually electing Trump, but I'd be uncomfortable with that. I think direct engagement throughout the campaign and term is more important. Supposedly her best asset is her willingness to listen and learn.

I read an actual good criticism recently (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-13/clinton-heads-the-wrong-way-on-immigration), and I'd like to see her respond to that.

 

[TheComebackKid]

$400M in the 70's, right? That's worth more than a billion today.



He's obviously benefiting from the run, as his "brand" is his most valuable asset (which is why the claims about his wealth are kind of dubious). But seriously, I'd bet that Hannity has a higher annual income.

His "brand" has become toxic and less valuable, actually.

 

[kpt018]

If Trump started making Hannitys money he would be taking a pay cut. You guys aren't using logic.

You aren't. You're acting like 150 million people just isn't a big enough market, excluding business overseas.

Besides, he could actually do what they do and still have his other businesses, yes?

 

[kpt018]

Sean Hannity Net Worth = 35 million
Trump net Worth = 4.5 billion

Seems like simple math

Jack asked for evidence and there is none regarding Trump's net worth. We only know what he says he's worth and we also know he's a pathological liar, particularly about his ego.

 

[Prime Ang]

Jack asked for evidence and there is none regarding Trump's net worth. We only know what he says he's worth and we also know he's a pathological liar, particularly about his ego.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#4d5f9a78790b

Forbes even did a huge piece on his net worth, here you go.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You aren't. You're acting like 150 million people just isn't a big enough market, excluding business overseas.

150 million is a lot less than 300 million, right? And his name is truly disdained internationally so yeah...bad move if he's trying to grow his brand.

Besides, he could actually do what they do and still have his other businesses, yes?

If he is trying to make money as a conservative personality like say Rush or Hannity, well those guys work around the clock. He would not have time for real estate.

But again, this whole notion that Trump is trying to be the next Rush is patently retarded.

 

[kpt018]

150 million is a lot less than 300 million, right? And his name is truly disdained internationally so yeah...bad move if he's trying to grow his brand.



If he is trying to make money as a conservative personality like say Rush or Hannity, well those guys work around the clock. He would not have time for real estate.

But again, this whole notion that Trump is trying to be the next Rush is patently retarded.

No is claiming he is, although, his ideas are just as retarded. We are saying it's entirely plausible that his goals for running for president is to build his brand. You are saying that it hurts his brand but he is getting incredible exposure and everyone already knew he was a dick. It's not like he's new to the spotlight.

 

[kpt018]

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#4d5f9a78790b

Forbes even did a huge piece on his net worth, here you go.

That piece is a valuation of his assets and says nothing about debt. Net worth = Assets - Liablities.

Edit: It shows the debt when you click on the pictures. The article is painfully slow with the graphics.

 

[Prime Ang]

That piece is a valuation of his assets and says nothing about debt. Net worth = Assets - Liablities.

Edit: It shows the debt when you click on the pictures. The article is painfully slow with the graphics.

No point of talking with people like you and Jack, that's why I never come in here, put facts right in front of peoples face and they just find a way to spin. Have a good day

 

[kpt018]

No point of talking with people like you and Jack, that's why I never come in here, put facts right in front of peoples face and they just find a way to spin. Have a good day

I'm not sure why you're so angry, I edited my post to say the debt was in there and that I didn't see i (although there's no debt listed for the golf courses). The edit was in the post you quoted so I assume you saw it.

I also think you need a better definition of what you consider facts. While their valuations may be accurate (I don't know) they didn't say anything about their methodology and valuing businesses can be as much art as science.

And while we're on it, you guys get butthurt over completely reasonable posts. WTF?

 

[Jack V Savage]

No point of talking with people like you and Jack, that's why I never come in here, put facts right in front of peoples face and they just find a way to spin. Have a good day

The facts you put are not relevant to the point (which was about income rather than wealth--they're different). Hannity makes $30M a year. I haven't seen any evidence that Trump makes anything close to that, and I'd be very surprised if he did. And if he does, it would be from capital gains, which wouldn't be affected.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Two candidates, each with near 60% unfavorable ratings.
Clinton currently holding about a 4 point lead in the polls.
13 states are currently graded as leaning for either candidate.
Another 13 states are currently graded as toss-ups.
Two relatively well known third party candidates (Johnson is polling collectively between 10-14%).

I see these debates as pivotal. I think Trump either buries Clinton or himself.
It won't be going to the judges (well technically, we are the judges on Nov 8).

I'm expecting very low turnouts, it will be interesting to see how close turnout reflects the unfavorable ratings.
I doubt we'll see numbers as low as 1992 (the last time 2 candidates had similar favorable ratings).
That is when Ross Perot received 19% of the vote.
For the record, I'm not expecting that low a turnout or for either third party candidate, even combined, to see the same success as Perot.

 

[Mainez]

Two candidates, each with near 60% unfavorable ratings.
Clinton currently holding about a 4 point lead in the polls.
13 states are currently graded as leaning for either candidate.
Another 13 states are currently graded as toss-ups.
Two relatively well known third party candidates (Johnson is polling collectively between 10-14%).

I see these debates as pivotal. I think Trump either buries Clinton or himself.
It won't be going to the judges (well technically, we are the judges on Nov 8).

I'm expecting very low turnouts, it will be interesting to see how close turnout reflects the unfavorable ratings.
I doubt we'll see numbers as low as 1992 (the last time 2 candidates had similar favorable ratings).
That is when Ross Perot received 19% of the vote.
For the record, I'm not expecting that low a turnout or for either third party candidate, even combined, to see the same success as Perot.

I expect a low turnout among liberal college educated whites, Asians and 18-24, but a high turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women and lower educated white men.

I genuinely can't see any way trump gets to 270. And as far as the debates go, it'll be a much larger stage and Donald is going to look silly, he can't compete with Clinton and if you see the gop primary debates, trump consistently disappeared during foreign policy portions. He doesn't have enough substance to go through a lengthy debate with just one other person (for the record, I felt the same way about Sanders, that he wouldn't have been able to cover all the topics in a general debate effectively).

 

[Lead]

Trump is leading the polls in Pennsylvania and thats a Democratic State

Definitely has been turning purple the past few elections. Pittsburghs suburbs are turning more red.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I expect a low turnout among liberal college educated whites, Asians and 18-24, but a high turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women and lower educated white men.

I genuinely can't see any way trump gets to 270. And as far as the debates go, it'll be a much larger stage and Donald is going to look silly, he can't compete with Clinton and if you see the gop primary debates, trump consistently disappeared during foreign policy portions. He doesn't have enough substance to go through a lengthy debate with just one other person (for the record, I felt the same way about Sanders, that he wouldn't have been able to cover all the topics in a general debate effectively).

Trump is yet to win a single debate based on his knowledge of the issues. And knowledge of the issues is all Clinton has going for her (zero charisma, a billion controversies).
Trump should have had enough time between wrapping up the GOP and the first Presidential debate to not look completely retarded on most issues, including FP, and Clinton's issues are already ready to be exploited. Strong moderators are the only chance Clinton has in these debates, imo.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Trump should have had enough time between wrapping up the GOP and the first Presidential debate to not look completely retarded on most issues

Why do you think time was the limiting factor?

 

[Mainez]

Trump is yet to win a single debate based on his knowledge of the issues. And knowledge of the issues is all Clinton has going for her (zero charisma, a billion controversies).
Trump should have had enough time between wrapping up the GOP and the first Presidential debate to not look completely retarded on most issues, including FP, and Clinton's issues are already ready to be exploited. Strong moderators are the only chance Clinton has in these debates, imo.

Would you say Trump has truly won any of the debates? Most of the talk about him performing well in debates were when they were just hoping he wouldn't say anything else to tank his lead. I don't think he can skate by during these debates the way he did in the primary with him being behind on the polls and without that rabid fan base to win over. The people that will be duped by Trump are already firmly in his camp and his shtick isn't going to win him over mainstream Americans. I'm expecting Trumps poll numbers to take a hit after each debate and look forward to all the palinesque flubs that are on the way.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why do you think time was the limiting factor?

I think he probably has a company or 2 whilst campaigning to run and ad-libbed his entire campaign up to this point, which is easier to do when you're running in a pack.
Now he would have the spotlight for a series of 1 on 1 debates and he wouldn't be able to get away with that. I'd imagine he'd study up this time.