2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suedesi said:
If it takes a clown in her stead, so be it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the points you're making re HRC's dodginess on economic and foreign policy matters but it seems to me you vastly underappreciate what a "clown" Trump is.

The case against Trump has been well articulated here and even a brief recap of his idiocy on policy would be too lengthy for a reply. Wherever one stands on his policy agenda as a whole relative to HRC, almost every one of his proposals is absurd on its face.

Take, for example, his proposal to address the federal debt by forcing US creditors to take a haircut is beyond mind-bogglingly moronic. This is the kind of thinking that exposes the mind of an economic infant, a moron who really has no clue how the larger economy works. He knows real estate and Miss America pageants, but he doesn't know policy.

A political "clown" isn't someone who just makes us laugh during the day and allows us to sleep well at night knowing the family had a wonderful time at the circus. A political clown is a sinister feck, a demagogue who directly threatens our individual liberties and threatens economic order and risks encouraging our adversaries to go to war.

Hillary, as troubling as her record is, comes nowhere near Trump as the kind of demagogue the founders feared most.
 
Suedesi said:
On the economy - the US Congress/administration are so incompetent that they are arbitrarily handing $Billions of US tax revenue away. Take Google, Apple or Amazon; when they earn international profits, those are returns on R&D that was almost exclusively conducted in the US. Yet the bureaucrats in charge, have allowed these US companies to relocate their intellectual property abroad to Ireland, Bermuda, Cayman, Luxembourg and other tax havens through arcane and non-transparent accounting moves. So basically Google's IP (initially funded by the National Science Foundation) is actually claimed by the company to reside in Bermuda, out of the reach of IRS.

One example - Apple profits booked in a foreign country, say Germany, are shifted back to Ireland where there's prolly a sweet deal of 0-1% tax rate. Then the Irish profits are shifted further onward to Bermuda, where tax rates are zero. $100mm in profits in Germany, are paid as a royalty to an Irish based subsidiary of Apple. Then Apple pays no taxes in Germany (since gross revenues are offset by royalty payments) and the $100mm in royalty are booked in Ireland. Then these profits are brought back to the Caribbean tax heavens - the Irish subsidiary pays a "royalty" to the Cayman sub and voila, $100 mm is back in the Caribbean tax free (minus a small haircut in Ireland).

Now if all of Apple's overseas subsidiaries were to be consolidated into one corporate account, and all the company's profits earned on US intellectual property were consolidated into one bottom line, these accounting maneuvers wouldn't matter. Apple's $100mm German sales would hit the US corporate account bottom line where it belongs. But in fact, the opposite is true - un-repatriated "foreign earnings" of US Companies are deferred under the tax code, so that's untaxed. Basically, American companies are sitting on more than $2 TRILLION of accumulated profits that they've booked abroad in this manner to avoid US corporate taxes.

Take Gilead for example, which owns Sofosbuvir, a drug to cure Hepatitis C. Gilead bought the drug from drug developer Pharmasett, which did all the R&D in the USA. Yet the intellectual property on the drug is claimed by Gilead to be Irish for tax purposes. So, when Gilead fleeces US govt by charging $1,000 for a drug that costs $1 to manufacture, and the money is paid by the US Govt to pay for the treatment of a US citizen in the US, Gilead has the balls to book the US profits in Ireland. You can't make this shit up.

Trump has been the only one of the remaining candidates that has talked about the issue. He's talked about lowering the corporate tax, or an amnesty that would allow that money to be brought onshore. He's talked about "bad trade deals", and spoken about in protectionist terms as well, and how he wouldn't eat another Oreo. Fine, that's what the masses understand, as opposed to drawing the fecking diagram containing 50 subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles!!!

I'm not sure what Clinton's policy on the matter is, but I'm assuming as Obama MK2, she doesn't have a clue.
And Bernie is probably busy pontificating on just redistributing the wealth.

Also, while you mention regulations, Billary's close relations with Wall Stree helped stoke two financial bubbles (99-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great recession. In the 90's they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose financial fraud, manipulation and toxic assets and eventually collapse. In the process, Billary won elections and got mighty rich.

On national security - Clinton is always on the side of intervention. Foreigners always believe that GOP are the neocons and the Dems act as doves to counterbalance the warmongering. This is not true - both parties are divided between neocon hawks and doves who don't want the US involved in unending wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American force and war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Bill instituted an official US policy to support regime change in Iraq (see Iraq Liberation Act) which laid the foundations of the Iraq war in 2003. Of course by then, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq which caused thousands of lives, cost trillions of USD and caused more instability in the region than any other single decision in modern foreign policy.

As Secretary of State she was among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern US history. Let's talk about Libya and Syria.

On Libya, she's gotten flack over Benghazi, but her support in overthrowing Qaddafi has been far worse. She promoted regime change in Libya, which not only was in violation of international law but also counter to basic judgment. Libya descended into civil war and unsecured arms stashes quickly spread and fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, spawned war in Mali and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Of course, at the time she quipped on Qaddafi that "we came, we saw, he died".

In Syria she again promoted regime change, demanded that al-Assad be removed and thought this would be quick, costless and successful. Her declaration at the time was "Bashar must get out of the way" etc. Of course, no place on the planet is more fecked up today than Syria, and no place poses a greater threat to US security. 10 million Syrians are displaced, refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean and undermining the stability of Greece, Turkey and the EU. ISIS of course has moved in and used Syria as the base for worldwide terror attacks.

She's also supported NATO expansion (why?) at every turn, including Ukraine and Georgia, against all common sense. Of course, poking the Russian bear in the eye has led to counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine, so as Secretary of State she's presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia. Add that to her glowing CV.

Is it bad judgment? Does she blindly trust the CIA? Does she want to show that as a Democrat she will be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign backers? I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever the reasons, she's got an awful record and for that I don't want her to run the country.

If it takes a clown in her stead, so be it.
Click to expand...
Good post
 
Spock said:
I appreciate the points you're making re HRC's dodginess on economic and foreign policy matters but it seems to me you vastly underappreciate what a "clown" Trump is.

The case against Trump has been well articulated here and even a brief recap of his idiocy on policy would be too lengthy for a reply. Wherever one stands on his policy agenda as a whole relative to HRC, almost every one of his proposals is absurd on its face.

Take, for example, his proposal to address the federal debt by forcing US creditors to take a haircut is beyond mind-bogglingly moronic. This is the kind of thinking that exposes the mind of an economic infant, a moron who really has no clue how the larger economy works. He knows real estate and Miss America pageants, but he doesn't know policy.

A political "clown" isn't someone who just makes us laugh during the day and allows us to sleep well at night knowing the family had a wonderful time at the circus. A political clown is a sinister feck, a demagogue who directly threatens our individual liberties and threatens economic order and risks encouraging our adversaries to go to war.

Hillary, as troubling as her record is, comes nowhere near Trump as the kind of demagogue the founders feared most.
Click to expand...

He knows he can't do that but again the media swallow the bait and he's on the news all the time.
 
Raoul said:
Not necessarily. Many of Sanders supporters claim they will either stay home or vote for Trump
Click to expand...
For Trump to win he needs to change a lot and he really needs now to stop talking like everybody is a redneck, he needs to tell people whats on the plate to lead this country and stop with the fence and muslim ban, we want more security and we don't need a fence just penalize anybody who gives a job to an illegal.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
@barros being the voice of reason on electoral reality, Zlatan and Mourinho coming to United.

Am I in some sort of parallel universe? :nervous:
Click to expand...
No you still here, I'm not far right like some of the caftards think but I'm center right with some libertarian ideas, I wouldn't vote for Hillary and obvious Trump sometimes goes too far with his speeches which makes me uncomfortable to have him as a president.
 
Suedesi said:
On the economy - the US Congress/administration are so incompetent that they are arbitrarily handing $Billions of US tax revenue away. Take Google, Apple or Amazon; when they earn international profits, those are returns on R&D that was almost exclusively conducted in the US. Yet the bureaucrats in charge, have allowed these US companies to relocate their intellectual property abroad to Ireland, Bermuda, Cayman, Luxembourg and other tax havens through arcane and non-transparent accounting moves. So basically Google's IP (initially funded by the National Science Foundation) is actually claimed by the company to reside in Bermuda, out of the reach of IRS.

One example - Apple profits booked in a foreign country, say Germany, are shifted back to Ireland where there's prolly a sweet deal of 0-1% tax rate. Then the Irish profits are shifted further onward to Bermuda, where tax rates are zero. $100mm in profits in Germany, are paid as a royalty to an Irish based subsidiary of Apple. Then Apple pays no taxes in Germany (since gross revenues are offset by royalty payments) and the $100mm in royalty are booked in Ireland. Then these profits are brought back to the Caribbean tax heavens - the Irish subsidiary pays a "royalty" to the Cayman sub and voila, $100 mm is back in the Caribbean tax free (minus a small haircut in Ireland).

Now if all of Apple's overseas subsidiaries were to be consolidated into one corporate account, and all the company's profits earned on US intellectual property were consolidated into one bottom line, these accounting maneuvers wouldn't matter. Apple's $100mm German sales would hit the US corporate account bottom line where it belongs. But in fact, the opposite is true - un-repatriated "foreign earnings" of US Companies are deferred under the tax code, so that's untaxed. Basically, American companies are sitting on more than $2 TRILLION of accumulated profits that they've booked abroad in this manner to avoid US corporate taxes.

Take Gilead for example, which owns Sofosbuvir, a drug to cure Hepatitis C. Gilead bought the drug from drug developer Pharmasett, which did all the R&D in the USA. Yet the intellectual property on the drug is claimed by Gilead to be Irish for tax purposes. So, when Gilead fleeces US govt by charging $1,000 for a drug that costs $1 to manufacture, and the money is paid by the US Govt to pay for the treatment of a US citizen in the US, Gilead has the balls to book the US profits in Ireland. You can't make this shit up.

Trump has been the only one of the remaining candidates that has talked about the issue. He's talked about lowering the corporate tax, or an amnesty that would allow that money to be brought onshore. He's talked about "bad trade deals", and spoken about in protectionist terms as well, and how he wouldn't eat another Oreo. Fine, that's what the masses understand, as opposed to drawing the fecking diagram containing 50 subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles!!!

I'm not sure what Clinton's policy on the matter is, but I'm assuming as Obama MK2, she doesn't have a clue.
And Bernie is probably busy pontificating on just redistributing the wealth.

Also, while you mention regulations, Billary's close relations with Wall Stree helped stoke two financial bubbles (99-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great recession. In the 90's they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose financial fraud, manipulation and toxic assets and eventually collapse. In the process, Billary won elections and got mighty rich.

On national security - Clinton is always on the side of intervention. Foreigners always believe that GOP are the neocons and the Dems act as doves to counterbalance the warmongering. This is not true - both parties are divided between neocon hawks and doves who don't want the US involved in unending wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American force and war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Bill instituted an official US policy to support regime change in Iraq (see Iraq Liberation Act) which laid the foundations of the Iraq war in 2003. Of course by then, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq which caused thousands of lives, cost trillions of USD and caused more instability in the region than any other single decision in modern foreign policy.

As Secretary of State she was among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern US history. Let's talk about Libya and Syria.

On Libya, she's gotten flack over Benghazi, but her support in overthrowing Qaddafi has been far worse. She promoted regime change in Libya, which not only was in violation of international law but also counter to basic judgment. Libya descended into civil war and unsecured arms stashes quickly spread and fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, spawned war in Mali and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Of course, at the time she quipped on Qaddafi that "we came, we saw, he died".

In Syria she again promoted regime change, demanded that al-Assad be removed and thought this would be quick, costless and successful. Her declaration at the time was "Bashar must get out of the way" etc. Of course, no place on the planet is more fecked up today than Syria, and no place poses a greater threat to US security. 10 million Syrians are displaced, refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean and undermining the stability of Greece, Turkey and the EU. ISIS of course has moved in and used Syria as the base for worldwide terror attacks.

She's also supported NATO expansion (why?) at every turn, including Ukraine and Georgia, against all common sense. Of course, poking the Russian bear in the eye has led to counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine, so as Secretary of State she's presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia. Add that to her glowing CV.

Is it bad judgment? Does she blindly trust the CIA? Does she want to show that as a Democrat she will be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign backers? I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever the reasons, she's got an awful record and for that I don't want her to run the country.

If it takes a clown in her stead, so be it.
Click to expand...



You raise a lot of very reasonable points. I think the one big concern with Trump is, that he might do something overly stupid, because of his petty arrogance. His personality is not just an act. He is way too unstable to be president. He is the kind of guy, who might shoot down a Russian/Chinese jet. So while he might fancy a “US first” and non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, he also poses the real danger of a major screw up. With Hillary you know what you get. It is going to be terrible, but more or less in line with Bush/Obama.

I also doubt that he´ll address any of the important economic issues, that he talks about (despite being completely wrong about most of the stuff; nationalism and more state control is not the answer). That is simply not going to happen. So all talk aside he´ll be pretty much like Hillary when it comes to those issues.

He´ll also try to push executive power a lot further, undermine civil liberties and stoke xenophobia. Last but not least, he´ll appoint some stupid idiot to the Supreme Court. The idea that Trump “fixes” any problem is very optimistic.

The libertarian ticket looks reasonably good. Not some die-hard ideologues, but people with experience in government, who advocate good policies. They won´t win, but every vote would still support the cause. I hope, that a lot of the fiscal-conservative republicans are going to give them their vote.
 
Suedesi said:
On the economy - the US Congress/administration are so incompetent that they are arbitrarily handing $Billions of US tax revenue away. Take Google, Apple or Amazon; when they earn international profits, those are returns on R&D that was almost exclusively conducted in the US. Yet the bureaucrats in charge, have allowed these US companies to relocate their intellectual property abroad to Ireland, Bermuda, Cayman, Luxembourg and other tax havens through arcane and non-transparent accounting moves. So basically Google's IP (initially funded by the National Science Foundation) is actually claimed by the company to reside in Bermuda, out of the reach of IRS.

One example - Apple profits booked in a foreign country, say Germany, are shifted back to Ireland where there's prolly a sweet deal of 0-1% tax rate. Then the Irish profits are shifted further onward to Bermuda, where tax rates are zero. $100mm in profits in Germany, are paid as a royalty to an Irish based subsidiary of Apple. Then Apple pays no taxes in Germany (since gross revenues are offset by royalty payments) and the $100mm in royalty are booked in Ireland. Then these profits are brought back to the Caribbean tax heavens - the Irish subsidiary pays a "royalty" to the Cayman sub and voila, $100 mm is back in the Caribbean tax free (minus a small haircut in Ireland).

Now if all of Apple's overseas subsidiaries were to be consolidated into one corporate account, and all the company's profits earned on US intellectual property were consolidated into one bottom line, these accounting maneuvers wouldn't matter. Apple's $100mm German sales would hit the US corporate account bottom line where it belongs. But in fact, the opposite is true - un-repatriated "foreign earnings" of US Companies are deferred under the tax code, so that's untaxed. Basically, American companies are sitting on more than $2 TRILLION of accumulated profits that they've booked abroad in this manner to avoid US corporate taxes.

Take Gilead for example, which owns Sofosbuvir, a drug to cure Hepatitis C. Gilead bought the drug from drug developer Pharmasett, which did all the R&D in the USA. Yet the intellectual property on the drug is claimed by Gilead to be Irish for tax purposes. So, when Gilead fleeces US govt by charging $1,000 for a drug that costs $1 to manufacture, and the money is paid by the US Govt to pay for the treatment of a US citizen in the US, Gilead has the balls to book the US profits in Ireland. You can't make this shit up.

Trump has been the only one of the remaining candidates that has talked about the issue. He's talked about lowering the corporate tax, or an amnesty that would allow that money to be brought onshore. He's talked about "bad trade deals", and spoken about in protectionist terms as well, and how he wouldn't eat another Oreo. Fine, that's what the masses understand, as opposed to drawing the fecking diagram containing 50 subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles!!!

I'm not sure what Clinton's policy on the matter is, but I'm assuming as Obama MK2, she doesn't have a clue.
And Bernie is probably busy pontificating on just redistributing the wealth.

Also, while you mention regulations, Billary's close relations with Wall Stree helped stoke two financial bubbles (99-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great recession. In the 90's they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose financial fraud, manipulation and toxic assets and eventually collapse. In the process, Billary won elections and got mighty rich.

On national security - Clinton is always on the side of intervention. Foreigners always believe that GOP are the neocons and the Dems act as doves to counterbalance the warmongering. This is not true - both parties are divided between neocon hawks and doves who don't want the US involved in unending wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American force and war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Bill instituted an official US policy to support regime change in Iraq (see Iraq Liberation Act) which laid the foundations of the Iraq war in 2003. Of course by then, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq which caused thousands of lives, cost trillions of USD and caused more instability in the region than any other single decision in modern foreign policy.

As Secretary of State she was among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern US history. Let's talk about Libya and Syria.

On Libya, she's gotten flack over Benghazi, but her support in overthrowing Qaddafi has been far worse. She promoted regime change in Libya, which not only was in violation of international law but also counter to basic judgment. Libya descended into civil war and unsecured arms stashes quickly spread and fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, spawned war in Mali and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Of course, at the time she quipped on Qaddafi that "we came, we saw, he died".

In Syria she again promoted regime change, demanded that al-Assad be removed and thought this would be quick, costless and successful. Her declaration at the time was "Bashar must get out of the way" etc. Of course, no place on the planet is more fecked up today than Syria, and no place poses a greater threat to US security. 10 million Syrians are displaced, refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean and undermining the stability of Greece, Turkey and the EU. ISIS of course has moved in and used Syria as the base for worldwide terror attacks.

She's also supported NATO expansion (why?) at every turn, including Ukraine and Georgia, against all common sense. Of course, poking the Russian bear in the eye has led to counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine, so as Secretary of State she's presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia. Add that to her glowing CV.

Is it bad judgment? Does she blindly trust the CIA? Does she want to show that as a Democrat she will be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign backers? I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever the reasons, she's got an awful record and for that I don't want her to run the country.

If it takes a clown in her stead, so be it.
Click to expand...


First of all, if you look at the last time Trump actually showed his tax returns, he didn´t pay any tax. And now he doesn´t want to show his tax returns . . . hmmm. Either he still isn´t paying any or much taxes, or he isn´t worth anywhere near what he boasts about. More likely, it´s both - doesn´t pay taxes and isn´t worth what be boasts. So putting forward this idea that the Donald will be tough on tax dodgers and corporations is pretty laughable, and we all know you can take it with a grain of salt whatever this clown says.

As for he will be good for the economy . . . with what political experience??? Zero

Or should be measure it by his business failures:

- Trump airlines
- Trump beverages
- Trump the game
- Trump casinos
- Trump magazine
- Trump mortgage
- Trump steaks
- Trump travel site
- Trump university
- Trump vodka
- Trump tower Tampa

Failure after failure after embarrassing failure. Plus, you have to wonder how much business he lost from all the stupid crap he spouts. And then there´s the study that he´d be richer if he´d just have invested daddy´s money in index funds - http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Yeah, now there´s a guy you can trust on the economy who has zero political experience as well.

As for foreign relations??? Just cause he predicted Libya would be a mess after like 50 years of a dictatorship. Wow, that a genius. He has zero (ZERO) experience in foreign relations, no record of coming out against the Iraq war beforee it happened as he typically falsely claim. All Latin America can´t stand him and as most foreigners, gob smacked that the any country could possible elect this pompous douchebag megalomaniac with zero political experience. He´s already pissed off England, America´s staunchest ally.

How anyone could posit his economic or foreign relations credential is asinine at best.
 
I think that's a crap argument about him doing better in funds rather than property. He may not have made more money but he's employed a lot of people and his various companies have added to the economy overall. If everybody just invested in the market then there wouldn't be a market.
 
barros said:
He knows he can't do that but again the media swallow the bait and he's on the news all the time.
Click to expand...

Of course, but for voters who care about things like economic growth, reigning in the federal debt and national security the sum of his policy "suggestions" have to be relevant to them.

If I thought deporting 11 million illegal aliens would vastly improve the lives of 330 million Americans, I'd be all for it. But it wouldn't and I'm opposed it. If I thought shorting holders of US Treasurys would go along way toward solving the debt problem I'd be for that too.

My main problem with Trump isn't so much has lewd behavior toward women or his boorishness in general, but that he hasn't offered a single policy solution on any topic that makes much sense at all. It's bizarre that a candidate could offer proposals that he knows are completely absurd (cramming down debt holders, deporting 11 million people, banning Muslims from entering the United States, etc.) and yet still go as far as he has so far.

It's almost as if Bill got Trump into the race solely for the purpose of ensuring the election of Hillary.
 
I just got back from seeing Bill Clinton campaign rally here in Sac. The guy is phenomenol. he spoke for well over an hour without notes on all kinds of subjects. He is a formidable partner and will be a massive boost during the campaign.

Pretty cool to see my first POTUS in the flesh and be so close. He is looking old though.

zvalxh.jpg
[/IMG]
zvalxh.jpg
 
CSU Sacramento. cnut was over an hour late but it was well worth it. The bird taking the smartphone pic was this one:

m5m3RLAJ.jpg


Local news chick was standing right by me.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...-dislike-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-n578926

NBC/WSJ poll, Clinton 47 - Trump 43.

They have an A- rating on 538, same as ABC/WaPo. Interesting that two polls taken during the same time period has a discrepancy of -6.
Click to expand...

Makes sense since both results are more or less within spitting range of the margin of error. This race is currently a dead heat, which is very ominous for Hillary given that her negatives are now comparably as bad as Trump's.
 
Raoul said:
Makes sense since both results are more or less within spitting range of the margin of error. This race is currently a dead heat, which is very ominous for Hillary given that her negatives are now comparably as bad as Trump's.
Click to expand...

+4-6 is hardly deadheat. Even the ABC poll had her +6 amongst all adults (they report the result from registered voters, which is 82% of those polled).

There's work to be done, but no point freaking out over every single poll. Public sentiment changes a lot over half a year.

Also, while national poll is a decent indicator of the state of the race, it's not the be all and end all. 1 in 9 Americans lives in CA. There's little movement from swing states polls like FL and OH, which is reassuring enough, for now.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
+4-6 is hardly deadheat. Even the ABC poll had her +6 amongst all adults (they report the result from registered voters, which is 82% of those polled).

There's work to be done, but no point freaking out over every single poll. Public sentiment changes a lot over half a year.

Also, while national poll is a decent indicator of the state of the race, it's not the be all and end all. 1 in 9 Americans lives in CA. There's little movement from swing states polls like FL and OH, which is reassuring enough, for now.
Click to expand...


Swing state polling is sparse (and all the caveats about singe data points), but talking about movement...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html
 
berbatrick said:
Swing state polling is sparse (and all the caveats about singe data points), but talking about movement...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html
Click to expand...

Conversely...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html

There's simply not enough reliable data at this point to talk about trends/movements or anything like that. It's true that Drumpf number improved due to party effect/nominee bump, but there's no sign of him breaking through to an actual, much less consistent lead, yet.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
+4-6 is hardly deadheat. Even the ABC poll had her +6 amongst all adults (they report the result from registered voters, which is 82% of those polled).

There's work to be done, but no point freaking out over every single poll. Public sentiment changes a lot over half a year.

Also, while national poll is a decent indicator of the state of the race, it's not the be all and end all. 1 in 9 Americans lives in CA. There's little movement from swing states polls like FL and OH, which is reassuring enough, for now.
Click to expand...

A single poll? She has plunged off a cliff in recent weeks in nearly every imaginable poll. I'd imagine things won't get any rosier since Trump is firing up the Bill Clinton rape allegations and Sanders is continuing to draw massive crowds at his rallies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.