Trump whining about debate dates, clinton agrees to 3 debates

[silicavaginitis]

Fucking Hillary, controlling the debate schedule and the NFL schedule. It's treason.

Not that but the other shits she's done is sure suspect.
But lefty's really don't care how corrupt she is,do they?

 

[Letssnuggle]

Once again the Drumpfers show themselves to be brainless. Hillary didn't need debates with Sanders- she wasn't exactly mopping the floor with him. Trump needs debates with Hillary badly. No debate, no chance. Ducking debates would be a very stupid move on Trump's part- but I don't think that's actually what he is doing with these comments. He's just being a pain in the ass for its own sake, because that appeals to morons.

What polling data are you looking at that suggests trump "needs" the debate against Hillary?

In fact, isn't he currently leading?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Fucking Hillary, controlling the debate schedule and the NFL schedule. It's treason.

Maybe the Russians can hack the NFL and change their schedules

 

[Fawlty]

Not that but the other shits she's done is sure suspect.
But lefty's really don't care how corrupt she is,do they?

So, blah blah fart blah blah? Okay. Thanks for the random nonsense.

 

[Fawlty]

What polling data are you looking at that suggests trump "needs" the debate against Hillary?

In fact, isn't he currently leading?

No, he is currently losing by a slim margin. Hillary has her convention bump to come, which will put her 2+ points ahead. Hence, Trump needs a strong debate. Unless he wants to sit back and pray for Russian hackers to jump in, or whatever it is he considers campaign strategy. But like I said, Trump's not actually going to duck a big debate. He's just going to bitch about it.

 

[HereticBD]

trump vs. clinton will set records .. wait I would've said for sure before if it had its own night .. but it could lose some viewers to the games

You're looking at this the wrong way. The games will lose viewers to the debates.

How fucked up is that?

 

[Culombo]

lol@hillary supporters perfectly fine with less people seeing clinton in a debate .. yeah I would be too

 

[Culombo]

You're looking at this the wrong way. The games will lose viewers to the debates.

How fucked up is that?

well that's good then .. what's fkd up ? they should turn to the debates

 

[HereticBD]

they should turn to the debates

Said nobody during the Romney/Obama, Bush/Kerry debates.


This is like a Tyson fight, man. It's crazy at how many people are tuned in. If Trump loses, at least he got people into politics. That's pretty remarkable, regardless of what you think of the guy.

 

[Letssnuggle]

No, he is currently losing by a slim margin. Hillary has her convention bump to come, which will put her 2+ points ahead. Hence, Trump needs a strong debate. Unless he wants to sit back and pray for Russian hackers to jump in, or whatever it is he considers campaign strategy. But like I said, Trump's not actually going to duck a big debate. He's just going to bitch about it.

Let's assume your +2 prediction is accurate.

So last week when Trump was up by 7 Hillary "needed a strong debate"?

 

[Fawlty]

Let's assume your +2 prediction is accurate.

So last week when Trump was up by 7 Hillary "needed a strong debate"?

Trump was not up by 7 across a range of tracking polls, sorry bud. Come with the good stats if you want to have a serious discussion.

My +2 prediction is conservative, I think +3 is more likely. And yes, any candidate who is trailing or in a really tight race needs a strong debate. If +2-3 holds for Hillary into September, Trump would need a big showing. Avoiding a debate when trailing is a seriously weak move.

 

[HereticBD]

Has the "convention bump" actually bumped for Hillary, or is this just something Libs are gonna cling to until the middle of August?

 

[Lead]

How am I supposed to take you seriously, especially on foreign policy, when you believe that the Iraq War had anything to do with 9/11? News Flash: Project for the New American Century -- and if you want more of that, vote for Hillary.

You were making the point (I'm assuming with your example) that people voted for Bush who was running a campaign about less foreign involvement but then went into Afghanistan and Iraq after being elected. I was telling you why the change in policy was excused by the public.

 

[Fawlty]

Has the "convention bump" actually bumped for Hillary, or is this just something Libs are gonna cling to until the middle of August?

It's already happening. Trump pulled like 4+ points on his, putting him in the lead by a point. Hillary has taken the lead back in recent polls, and as Trump's top recent polls begin to drop off, Hillary's lead will increase. Then barring any craziness, her stronger polls from convention time will fade in the average, leaving her still ahead.

 

[Letssnuggle]

Trump was not up by 7 across a range of tracking polls, sorry bud. Come with the good stats if you want to have a serious discussion.

My +2 prediction is conservative, I think +3 is more likely. And yes, any candidate who is trailing or in a really tight race needs a strong debate. If +2-3 holds for Hillary into September, Trump would need a big showing. Avoiding a debate when trailing is a seriously weak move.

+7 was reported by Rasmussen. Sorry you don't like that.

The point I'm trying to make is obvious. Hillary will go up and down in the polls. Donald will go up and down in the polls.

They are both neck and neck. Claiming one or the other "needs a strong debate", the week after conventions, is just silly as neither campaign is in trouble.

 

[superpunch]

You were making the point (I'm assuming with your example) that people voted for Bush who was running a campaign about less foreign involvement but then went into Afghanistan and Iraq after being elected. I was telling you why the change in policy was excused by the public.

I was making the point that Bush ran on a policy of less foreign involvement even though he already had plans for more foreign involvement. So, his policies were actually just soundbites created by pollsters and weren't really his policies.

Anyone who voted for or against Bush based on his policies was retarded just like anyone voting in this election based on Hillary's or Trump's policies is also retarded.

 

[Fawlty]

+7 was reported by Rasmussen. Sorry you don't like that.

The point I'm trying to make is obvious. Hillary will go up and down in the polls. Donald will go up and down in the polls.

They are both neck and neck. Claiming one or the other "needs a strong debate", the week after conventions, is just silly.

+7 was July 12th. Talk about cherry picking. People who want to discuss something honestly don't seek out the highest variance and pretend that's reality. Truth is, it's very close. If they continue to be very close in September, they will both need a strong debate, obviously. If Hillary carries 2-3 points into it, Trump is going to need a really strong debate. It's pretty simple, you're just really biased and sounding foolish.

 

[Lead]

I was making the point that Bush ran on a policy of less foreign involvement even though he already had plans for more foreign involvement. So, his policies were actually just soundbites created by pollsters and weren't really his policies.

Anyone who voted for or against Bush based on his policies was retarded just like anyone voting in this election based on Hillary's or Trump's policies is also retarded.

Foreign involvement wouldn't have been accepted however if there wasn't 9/11 and the 2004 election would've gone differently with that if he still went into the Middle East. It's like his dad saying no new taxes. Were voters stupid to believe him or smart because they didn't reelect the following term?

I'm not really arguing that politicians don't adjust somewhat their policies with elections and I mentioned it through the primaries. Clinton for example is anti TPP right now solely for campaign purposes but I know that. Almost every candidate this year I can tell you an adjustment for the campaign.

My problem with trump is he barely has enough substance to his ideas to even be compared/contrast to the other candidates and it shows in debates when getting into details, he derails the conversation to avoid it showing.

 

[Letssnuggle]

+7 was July 12th. Talk about cherry picking. People who want to discuss something honestly don't seek out the highest variance and pretend that's reality. Truth is, it's very close. If they continue to be very close in September, they will both need a strong debate, obviously. If Hillary carries 2-3 points into it, Trump is going to need a really strong debate. It's pretty simple, you're just really biased and sounding foolish.

You're still missing the point. I'll try one more time.

Yes, the +7 was clearly cherry picked. But not to prove Trump will win as you seem incapable of comprehending. It WAS picked to show you there will be large fluctuations between now and November.

I mean you yourself are saying "it's very close". Then also saying " trump needs a strong debate".

Since it is close - they both need a strong debate.

And coming full circle it sounds like we've established you don't have any polling data to show Trump "needs a strong debate" anymore then Hillary.

 

[Fawlty]

You're still missing the point. I'll try one more time.

Yes, the +7 was clearly cherry picked. But not to prove Trump will win as you seem incapable of comprehending. It WAS picked to show you there will be large fluctuations between now and November.

I mean you yourself are saying "it's very close". Then also saying " trump needs a strong debate".

Since it is close - they both need a strong debate.

And coming full circle it sounds like we've established you don't have any polling data to show Trump "needs a strong debate" anymore then Hillary.

I was wondering how you would try to deflect from your really glaring mistake, rather than admitting it. Poorly done.

Hillary's numbers are going to increase in the short term, and I explained why (barring some new drama of course). If Hillary falls behind through August, it would then be foolish of her to start whining about debates. We only have the information we have. It doesn't make any sense to say that the polls will go wildly up and down over any particular period. They might, or they might not. As it stands, Hillary has bumped back ahead and is very likely to pull a couple points in the next week. Trump should not screw around complaining about the debates- it makes him look afraid (which he is, because he knows that bluster is his only shot against a much more knowledgeable opponent).