The polls keep getting worse for Trump

[Sheik Yerbouti]

http://nbcpoll.com/nbc-poll-vote-future-president-2/

Current results:

Donald Trump 55%
Hildebitch 15%
Jill Stein 20%
Gary Johnson 10%

And so begins the birth of sp33dy, part deux.

 

[evident]

NBC doesn't host "real polls"?

you didnt link to a real nbc website.

 

[zinfamous]

I am not sure how Trump getting record number of primary votes in this election squares with your claim.

more people voted in the primaries because there were 16 candidates. Trump received about 30% of those popular votes overall. His actual supporters (the 12% that was claimed, and what you are responded to), are those that actually started with him. Not the sad people that had to shoot themselves and vote for him by the time their primary came around and their idiot Ted Cruz was already out.

Yes, his actual supporters are something like 12%. Then you have the rest of bitter republicans that will still vote for him because they pretty much hate themselves.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, do tell us Mr. Polling science about how scientific polls are so scientific and how so many of them were wrong this past year on both Trump and Bernie Sanders because of...ummm...some science thing or something, right?

you posted a fake site and claimed it was NBC.

And you still defend this poll as accurate, for some reason.

OK, please continue.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

you didnt link to a real nbc website.

you posted a fake site and claimed it was NBC.

And you still defend this poll as accurate, for some reason.

OK, please continue.

But it has the station call letters in the url!! It's gotta be real!!!

 

[feralkid]

It's OK, this is the internet not English 101. We can use slang words and common phrases that everyone knows the common use of even if it isnt proper English. http://i.imgur.com/HVwzVmo.png

Just try a little harder next time...for the children.

 

[First]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6093.html

Barry winning South Carolina. Yup, Trump is due for an epic beat down.

 

[brycejones]

http://nbcpoll.com/nbc-poll-vote-future-president-2/

Current results:

Donald Trump 55%
Hildebitch 15%
Jill Stein 20%
Gary Johnson 10%

For someone who must be in their late 50's to 60's you have all the real world intelligence of a damn rutabaga. In fact the massive stroke may have already occurred and rendered you incapable of higher brain functions. You should get to the doctor right away.

 

[umbrella39]

NBC doesn't host "real polls"?

Are you retarded? That's a serious question...

 

[Binarycow]

the average republican voter is ugly, stupid and fully ignorant. This election makes perfect sense when one accepts these facts.

 

[retrospooty]

the average republican voter is ugly, stupid and fully ignorant. This election makes perfect sense when one accepts these facts.

I wont say that about all republicans... But this is your Trump supporter right here http://i.imgur.com/ugaKjOx.png

 

[Muse]

RCP's average of 12 major pollsters has Clinton with a 7.7 point lead as of the time of this post, which in todays atmosphere is quite significant.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I just have a few questions for Trump supporters.

1. Does it worry you that even watching it all collapse, that he still cant keep his mouth shut and stay on message? The Anti Hillary message is quite strong, but he just cant stop saying batshit crazy things and he cant stop being combative with... pretty much everyone. DAMN YOU MEGAN KELLYYYYYY and also BROWN PEOPLE!!!

2. What did you think would happen if Trump won the republican nomination? Did you think he would suddenly start acting like a leader?

I do not expect DJT to change, in fact he loves being combative, attracting attention by being off-script. Problem is he doesn't have the mindset, the temperament, the experience, the self-discipline, the knowledge to pull it off without shooting himself in the foot (or whatever) repeatedly. He's going to continue with the zingers come hell or high water, be he the president or all-time-worst loser. Apparently becoming ready to be president (he never was) is not something he wants to or is capable of doing. The hell of it is that he'd be an even worse president than a presidential campaigner. I think the nation is waking up to that fact.

 

[evident]

"Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt suggested to the GOP nominee that he meant Obama’s foreign policy had created the conditions for ISIS to thrive, rather than that the president had actually participated in the terror group’s creation. Hewitt cited Obama’s policies in Libya, Egypt and Syria as potential culprits."

But Trump would not budge.

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award,” he said. “I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Da fuq? This friendly (to trump) conservative host gave him a meatball and an easy way to spin out his previous comments, but instead trump decides to double down on his literal saying.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Da fuq? This friendly (to trump) conservative host gave him a meatball and an easy way to spin out his previous comments, but instead trump decides to double down on his literal saying.

Weirdly, after doubling down on the "Obama as ISIS founder" theme, he has now reeled it back as "sarcasm." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-isis.html

 

[jackstar7]

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America. #JokingNotJoking

 

[sontakke]

more people voted in the primaries because there were 16 candidates. Trump received about 30% of those popular votes overall. His actual supporters (the 12% that was claimed, and what you are responded to), are those that actually started with him. Not the sad people that had to shoot themselves and vote for him by the time their primary came around and their idiot Ted Cruz was already out.

Yes, his actual supporters are something like 12%. Then you have the rest of bitter republicans that will still vote for him because they pretty much hate themselves.

Why more people would vote in the primary because there were more candidates? You seem to be implying that if there were fewer candidates initially, then Trump's number would have been static at 12% but the rest of them would have got more votes. What is the rationale behind that wishful thinking?

 

[jackstar7]

Why more people would vote in the primary because there were more candidates? You seem to be implying that if there were fewer candidates initially, then Trump's number would have been static at 12% but the rest of them would have got more votes. What is the rationale behind that wishful thinking?

If you don't understand math you should just try to avoid numbers at all costs.

 

[soundforbjt]

I am not sure how Trump getting record number of primary votes in this election squares with your claim.

Trump got the record number of votes in a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. Hillary got 3 million+ more votes than Trump and Bernie had almost as many as Trump.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why more people would vote in the primary because there were more candidates? You seem to be implying that if there were fewer candidates initially, then Trump's number would have been static at 12% but the rest of them would have got more votes. What is the rationale behind that wishful thinking?

I believe Zins point is Rubio, Jeb!, Kasich and arguably Carly all poached voters from each other but nearly none from Trump. Had 3 of them acted adult and make a compromise to leave the race all would have done better.

 

[dullard]

Why more people would vote in the primary because there were more candidates?

Lets break it down. Suppose there was one and only one candidate. That candidate will win the primary no matter what. So, there is very little reason to vote in that primary. Total votes tend to be low in that case. Similarly, total votes are low when the candidate is a lock, even if there are a few other candidates.

As you go to more and more candidates (and assuming none has a lock on the election) then the difference between winning and getting second place gets smaller and smaller. While it may take millions of votes to swing a two-person primary, it can only take a few thousand votes to change a 16-candidate primary. Each vote is very important when there are 16-candidates (again assuming none has a lock on it). Thus, more candidates tend to lead to far more votes.

Also, don't forget we have a growing population and a more partisan population. Both lead to more votes regardless of who is running. Thus, all-things-equal every coming election should keep getting record votes. Record votes, thus, don't tell you anything in of themselves.

Or another way to look at it is to look at modern day primary results:
* All Republican primary winners with less than 9 million primary votes won the election: Nixon, Ford, Reagan (both times), Bush Sr. (first time), Bush Jr. (2nd time).
* All Republicans with more than 9 million primary votes lost the election or at least lost the popular vote: Bush Sr. (2nd time), Dole, Bush Jr. (1st try), McCain, Romney, and now probably Trump.

So, if having more primary votes is so good, why do the ones with the most primary votes tend to lose? Because the number of primary votes is meaningless. At best, the number of votes might signal DISCONTENT with the choices (since there were 16 reasonably viable candidates) rather than desire to vote for any specific individual (where that individual would dominate, have few viable competitors and we'd be back to the situation of fewer voters since votes become meaningless).

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Those arguing for total votes FOR Trump as being some important measure seem to be missing the fact that a record number voters also voted against him in the primaries. Those opposed to his candidacy surpassed his vote total by several million.

 

[DrPizza]

It a way, it sort of demonstrates the dangers of voting third party. Had there only been two choices, Jeb! and Trump, it's quite likely Jeb would have won the primary - polls show that most Republicans which they had someone else. But instead of just a 3rd party siphoning off votes, you had over a dozen of them splitting up the "not Trump" vote.

 

[Pens1566]

It a way, it sort of demonstrates the dangers of voting third party. Had there only been two choices, Jeb! and Trump, it's quite likely Jeb would have won the primary - polls show that most Republicans which they had someone else. But instead of just a 3rd party siphoning off votes, you had over a dozen of them splitting up the "not Trump" vote.

This ^. If it would have been a similar situation as the Dems (Hillary vs Bernie), then the "other" candidate would have likely run away with it.

 

[retrospooty]

It a way, it sort of demonstrates the dangers of voting third party. Had there only been two choices, Jeb! and Trump, it's quite likely Jeb would have won the primary - polls show that most Republicans which they had someone else. But instead of just a 3rd party siphoning off votes, you had over a dozen of them splitting up the "not Trump" vote.

Its hard to argue with people that don't understand the difference between republican primary voters and national election voters. Its an entirely different set of voters with VERY different thoughts on how things should run.

 

[First]

Latest battleground state polls are ugly: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

HRC up 5 in FL
HRC up 9 in NC
HRC up 12-13 in VA
HRC up 12-14 in CO

I know this is piling on, and NBC/Marist/WSJ polls' house effect is left-leaning, but even if you split those vote totals in half Trump would get blown out in every swing state but one. What's worse, North Carolina appears to be going the way of VA's blue hue in 08.

Freaking nutty anyone thought this turd of a human being was going to win. My condolences your vision and decision making was and is so poor.