Poll: Clinton leads Trump by double digits

[Vic]

He did briefly bring to light the sickening power of superpacs. But that's yesterday's news. drumpf did do that.

And now, as he won't be getting much in the way of RNC money, Trump will be using super PACs to fund the bulk of his campaign.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rubio. He was going to be the GOP's Hispanic Obama.

Yeh, but he wasn't ready for prime time. Not nearly. Certainly not against a shrewd judge of human nature like Trump, a true social predator. In the Repub base, he saw people who craved somebody to believe in & knew just how to push their buttons so that they'd believe in him. It's what he does. All the people who invested in his casinos, Trump Baja pre-construction deals & Trump U all believed in Donald Trump. For those susceptible to his pitch, his persona, it's some kind of mystical experience.

 

[Balt]

Trump's message is very polarizing. He relies on exclusion and an "Us vs Them" mentality. His supporters love it, but that was never going to reach across the aisle, much less even the separate factions within the Republican party.
The irony is that the Republicans had a candidate this year who not only could have won against Hillary or Bernie, but could have made the GOP the dominant party for decades. But Trump killed that..

Rubio. He was going to be the GOP's Hispanic Obama.

I think you're exaggerating a bit, but I agree Rubio might have been a viable winner in a general election.

The problem wasn't just Trump though, it was also the other dozen+ dopes that were also running and splitting the vote (Santorum, Fiorina, Huckabee, Carson, etc.).

Really, though, Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for Trump. Their message and their rhetoric has gotten increasingly Trump-esque over the last 8 years with Obama being president. When you not only fail to condemn but also support that kind of vitriol, you make your voters think it's okay. Unfortunately even Rubio himself got caught up in that near the end of his campaign. He started imitating Trump and throwing out ridiculous shit like "Hillary Clinton has been disqualified from being president!", like that's something he can decide.

 

[buckshot24]

Well arguments based in emotion are not very persuasive. If you want to convince people of your way of thinking, it is better to appeal to reason.

I'm not trying to persuade you.

 

[emperus]

No, because they're both young and charismatic and have a unifying vision of the future. People really do prefer having someone to vote for rather than against.

I don't think Rubio is on the same level as Obama. Obama was charismatic and smart. I didn't find Rubio that charismatic or that smart.

 

[emperus]

You didn't understand my point but you know it is contrary to it? If you know what my point is, and it is wrong, then please explain yourself. Do you think I was saying we could ignore the poor because of this verse? If so that is simply preposterous. That wasn't my point at all and reveals your own biases more than anything I believe.

I told you why I brought it up but you won't believe me. Not very charitable of you. There isn't any huge point other than to say that there will always be poor that need help and that Christians are called to help them.

Yes, you think it should be done at the behest of armed policemen and I think we should freely do it because we love God.

I was trying to be charitable to you when I said I wasn't sure what you meant by that. I knew exactly what you meant but didn't want to call out your attempt at misquoting that verse. But you took that charity for granted.

You aren't the first person to misquote it and won't be the last.
Here is Rick Perry misquoting it.

Rick Perry Quotes Jesus To Justify Income Inequality and Poverty
...
In a reference to Jesus as a means of justifying the horrible plight of poor people in Texas, Perry said “biblically, the poor are always going to be with us in some form or fashion.” Perry’s message is clear; there is no reason to address poverty, income inequality, or make any effort to help those suffering, and people in Texas are suffering, but not because it is written in scripture. The state is ranked number one as having the nation’s highest rate of people who lack health insurance, and despite having so much wealth, it is in the top ten states with the highest level of poverty. Of course, Republicans cannot be bothered with the plight of the poor, but it is unusual that Perry would use Christ’s words to justify taking from the poor to enrich the wealthy, or reject the idea of spending even a minute, or a dollar, worrying about it.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12...stify-ignoring-income-inequality-poverty.html

And here goes a strongly worded(probably wouldn't have worded it the same) blog post. The title says it all.

Ignorant Christians need to STFU about ‘the poor you will always have with you’ until they can be bothered to understand what Jesus actually said
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackt...hered-to-understand-what-jesus-actually-said/

Honestly man, you should learn to move on when you are wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think Rubio is on the same level as Obama. Obama was charismatic and smart. I didn't find Rubio that charismatic or that smart.

After the debates, it's clear that the Rubio persona is a propaganda construct & a rather shallow one at that. He might be up to it in 8 years, but it'll take a lot of work. He's a lightweight.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

After the debates, it's clear that the Rubio persona is a propaganda construct & a rather shallow one at that. He might be up to it in 8 years, but it'll take a lot of work. He's a lightweight.

and less rebooting.

 

[emperus]

After the debates, it's clear that the Rubio persona is a propaganda construct & a rather shallow one at that. He might be up to it in 8 years, but it'll take a lot of work. He's a lightweight.

Agreed. That's why I was confused about the reference to Obama. They have little in common besides being minorities. There was a thoughtfulness about Obama even when he seemed green. I don't get that from Rubio. He reminds me of a Bush II if anything.

 

[disappoint]

yup, a single poll matter not. what does matter is the overall average of all the polls and what do we see?

one week ago Clinton was up by two and now she is up by five and a half with Trump's numbers going down quickly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Trump and the Republican party have screwed each other and ensured a Hillary victory.

That was the plan all along. Trump never wanted to be president. Why do you think he continues to make racist comments? He knows the nation has no appetite for racism. With the possible minor exception of teen troglodyte YouTube commentators.

He just wanted to take the Republican baby rattle scepter away from them just long enough to stop them from a win in Nov.

 

[Paratus]

Quit with the "according to you" crap.

Well you posted it, didn't attribute it to anyone else so whom should I attribute it to? Your parents? Your pastor? Your bible?

Where is your evidence that God is aborting these babies? I'd like you to support your assertion here. Why do you think God is actively making these things happen?

Well of course scientifically God has nothing to do with it. But you (or someone) who was arguing from a religious point of view. Most Christian Pro-Lifers believe in a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God. Who in Genesis created the world, Adam and Eve, then kicked them out of Eden and told them to be fruitful and multiply. In creating us he also created our ability to reproduce. So

• He's fine with all those spontaneous abortions and miscarriages because if he wasn't he wouldn't have created us that way or he's not a loving God to sacrifice the innocent in that way.
• Maybe he doesn't put souls in the ones won't make it to birth, but then that means there is no soul in the aborted fetus either, meaning no murder for abortions.
• If he does put a soul in a fetus that's going to be aborted so as to make the woman a murderer then he's hardly a loving God to knowingly sacrifice the innocent
• If he doesn't know which will survive then he's not omniscient.

So it appears in your judgement of abortion as murder you don't believe in the loving God that Christians do. (This is a problem shared by most hard-line fundamentalist Pro-lifers).

Maybe you have a rational argument for why the above isn't the case?

Therefore lets murder children?

Therefore let's make all parents guilty of child endangerment and manslaughter? No how about we accept that pregnancy and birth are best left to a woman her doctor and family as applicable and not to third parties who wish to implement relgious laws to pad their imaginary resumes.

Lots of hardship is being placed on mothers because of their maturex children, why not kill them?

Because they are live people and most are wanted and loved by their parents. In the event the parents are unable to / won't care for them others can easily care form them.

Also prove that my "resume" is imaginary. Can't? Quit making baseless assertions.

This link should provide all the information required to refute your well thought out defense of your "resume".

Resume Refuted ​

A completely horrible situation, what would you like me to say? Therefore perfectly viable babies can be ripped from their mother's womb simply because they "aren't ready" to have children? How many of the 3000 per day are anything like this?

Can we agree to allow only abortions of these types? You've already told me no so quit bringing these extreme cases up.

I've provided stats in other threads about why it occurs and don't feel like digging them up again.

Legally no children are being killed. Scientifically there's no possibility of a distinct person being killed until there is at least a functioning brain. Luckily the first amendment should protect us from relgious laws.

 

[Jhhnn]

Banning abortion is the great perma issue of the Repub Party. They love it, cuz it keeps the faithful in the pews to receive the greater message of Jerb Creator trickle down economics. The people preaching it don't give a damn about the sanctity of human life. If they did, they'd find ways to reduce the demand for abortion rather than doing everything in their power to the contrary.

They love abstinence only sex-ed.

They do their best to limit access to contraception.

Their economic & social policy creates the economic conditions that make abortion more likely.

It's clearly better to do nothing constructive so as to maintain a gut level talking point than to actually work towards better answers.

 

[Paratus]

Banning abortion is the great perma issue of the Repub Party. They love it, cuz it keeps the faithful in the pews to receive the greater message of Jerb Creator trickle down economics. The people preaching it don't give a damn about the sanctity of human life. If they did, they'd find ways to reduce the demand for abortion rather than doing everything in their power to the contrary.

They love abstinence only sex-ed.

They do their best to limit access to contraception.

Their economic & social policy creates the economic conditions that make abortion more likely.

It's clearly better to do nothing constructive so as to maintain a gut level talking point than to actually work towards better answers.

The things that really reduce the need for abortion aren't the things that most conservatives are willing to support, plus, as you said, if they made it a non-issue it wouldn't get butts to the voting booth.

Could you ever imagine conservatives broadly supporting:

• Sex Ed and Contraception so young women didn't have unintended pregnancies in the first place
• Stop shaming pregnant single women so they wouldn't feel a need to terminate an unitended pregnancy.
• Encourage pregnancy supportive workplaces and/or financial support so an unitended pregnancy wouldn't result in poverty.

At least if Clinton wins we can be sure of 1-3 Supreme Court justices that will continue shooting down religious laws.

 

[dullard]

Rubio. He was going to be the GOP's Hispanic Obama.

Sadly, putting a person in a race that looks like some voters will get some votes. Obama got votes simply because he looked black. Trump will get some votes simply because he looks white and more simply because he looks male. Rubio would get some votes simply because he looks Hispanic.

But, the voters aren't all that pathetic. There are a lot of Hispanic voters who care about how a politician will make their lives better. Not how the politician looks. The campaign of "I'll make you miserable but, hey, I look like you" is not as easy as it sounds. Especially, since then Rubio loses the votes of those who would never vote for someone who is Hispanic looking.

Obama didn't get many votes simply because he looked black. He would have already gotten those votes simply because he has a D after his name. Instead, Obama did well because he offered policies that actually appealed to blacks and whites alike.

Yes, Rubio would do better than Trump in a general election. But even Rubio never got over 50% in the polls. I don't see Rubio offering policies that are widely appealing.

To truly knock one out of the park, the GOP needs to learn to reach out to the young and Hispanic. Not in the "I look like you" way. But in a way that says how conservative views will make their life better in a specific way. The GOP can't likely do that without bending a bit towards Hispanic and the youth in their policies though.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oh conservatives. Will you never learn.

Let the unskewing continue. Am I the only one who always found the name of this website rather... ironic?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ut_in_front_of_clinton_at_national_level.html

 

[nageov3t]

this article was devestating -- The brutal numbers behind a very bad month for Donald Trump

 

[bshole]

I think you're exaggerating a bit, but I agree Rubio might have been a viable winner in a general election.

The problem wasn't just Trump though, it was also the other dozen+ dopes that were also running and splitting the vote (Santorum, Fiorina, Huckabee, Carson, etc.).

Really, though, Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for Trump. Their message and their rhetoric has gotten increasingly Trump-esque over the last 8 years with Obama being president. When you not only fail to condemn but also support that kind of vitriol, you make your voters think it's okay. Unfortunately even Rubio himself got caught up in that near the end of his campaign. He started imitating Trump and throwing out ridiculous shit like "Hillary Clinton has been disqualified from being president!", like that's something he can decide.

I agree that Rubio had a chance against Clinton. Trump/Cruz always had 0% chance. Jesus Christ what turds they are. They however reflect what the GOP base wants.

 

[soundforbjt]

Oh conservatives. Will you never learn.

Let the unskewing continue. Am I the only one who always found the name of this website rather... ironic?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ut_in_front_of_clinton_at_national_level.html

gravis, unbiased...lol, that is hilarious. I see another Rove meltdown this election.

 

[jihe]

Well arguments based in emotion are not very persuasive. If you want to convince people of your way of thinking, it is better to appeal to reason.

You over estimate people

 

[feralkid]

You over estimate people

Don't you mean "misunderestimate"?

 

[dullard]

Oh conservatives. Will you never learn.

Let the unskewing continue. Am I the only one who always found the name of this website rather... ironic?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ut_in_front_of_clinton_at_national_level.html

Like I said in the unskewing thread:
1) Unskewing historically does very poorly because polls are already unskewed before being published, You can't "unskew" twice and improve the results, instead that just adds your own personal bias to the results.
2) There actually ARE more democrats than republicans as has been measured by many different means (counting the actual registered voters, polls, or even counting votes in past elections).

But, even worse is the idea in that blog that the bias to "unskew" is additive. If you take a poll with more of one group than another, then of course all subgroups within that poll also favor that one group. But that doesn't make the poll worse for every subgroup you look at. Suppose the world has half vegetables and half fruits. Suppose a poll found that 500 oranges answered and 499 broccoli answered the poll. The skewing is then one extra orange that should be taken care of by the pollster (by weighting each orange answer by 499/500). You can't look into the subgroups and say that not only is there an extra orange, but it also has more reddish items and more citrus items and more round items and more acidic items and more juicy items. These don't add, there is just one extra orange no matter how many subgroups you look at in the poll.

And of course, why cherry pick just one poll that most favors your candidate to "unskew"? Oh yes, because you are the biased blogger, not the poll.

 

[jihe]

After the debates, it's clear that the Rubio persona is a propaganda construct & a rather shallow one at that. He might be up to it in 8 years, but it'll take a lot of work. He's a lightweight.

Rubio was shown up to be a 5 year old by Trump.

 

[bshole]

The establishment got their candidate yet again. I am sure we will be all the way back into the Middle East in a few years. When Clinton is done, there will be another 10,000 dead Americans in Syria/Iraq and we will make the problem exponentially worse. That is what America does after all. On a positive note, my company profits from war, so this may turn out ok for me. Mark my words though. Clinton == WAR. She is the most pro-war person running for president.

 

[dullard]

Hillary hasn't polled over 50 since the end of April.

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-national-polling/

If the poll data was reversed, I would reverse my posts and put Trump in the lead. Why do I suspect that you would say Trump is in the lead in both cases (polls as they are now or if they were reversed)?

 

[nageov3t]

+50% doesn't seem like a great bar to set.

Obama didn't surpass 50% in 2008 until the economic meltdown in October '08, and even then he just barely capped out at 52%... at no point in 2012 did either candidate hit +50%, and likewise for 2000 and 2004.

for Hillary to be +50% today, that would imply that she could win even if 100% of the undecideds broke for Trump.