Trump leads 38%

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: LSU0408



"headlines everywhere saying the Clintons were racist, "

It is somewhat interseting how the "Clinton-eers" wear the coat of many colors eh? I remember vividly how they were labeled 'racist'.....

Let me resurface some, for sharts and giggles and some good fun and finger point laughing at how the left will cut its nose off to spite its face without thinking that one day they might be voting for that racist person.

"Racial Tensions Roil the Democratic Race"

Jan 11, 2008
A series of comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters are spurring a racial backlash and adding a divisive edge to the presidential primary as the candidates head south to heavily African-American South Carolina.
The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement — an aide later said she misspoke — to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama’s image in the media as a “fairy tale” — generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television. And now they've drawn the attention of prominent African-American politicians.

www.politico.com...

Jan 27, 2008
The trouncing that Hillary Clinton got in South Carolina proved that the racist and entitled campaign that the Clintons ran there backfired.

The Clinton campaign kept saying, “He’s black, black, black,” as author and South Carolina activist Kevin Alexander Gray pointed out on Jesse Jackson’s “Keep Hope Alive” program Sunday morning. And Bill Clinton used coded language, like the “old okie-dokie,” which served to remind whites of Obama’s blackness, Gray added. That's like saying don’t fall for the old “shuck and jive.”

And speaking of “shuck and jive,” that’s exactly the phrase Andrew Cuomo used to disparage Obama in New Hampshire, saying he can’t use that “shuck and jive” at press conferences.

Obama’s black, get it.

progressive.org...

March 28, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

Note that the "[see the full memo here]" has had the link removed and was last "updated" May 25, 2011.
www.huffingtonpost.com...


And here's an interesting piece about Geraldine Farraro

March 12, 2008
PHILADELPHIA — The Democratic presidential contest was jolted Tuesday by accusations surrounding race and sex, set off by remarks from Geraldine A. Ferraro that Senator Barack Obama had received preferential treatment because he is a black man.

Ms. Ferraro, the former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, told The Daily Breeze, a newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

She made the comments last week, but on Tuesday, the Obama camp latched on to them, calling them outrageous and demanding that Mrs. Clinton repudiate them.

In an interview on Tuesday night, Ms. Ferraro defended her comments and said she was furious with the Obama campaign, accusing it of twisting her words.

“Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist,” she said. “I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Where are you getting those percentages from and why do you think they are representative to the actual percentages of people who will actually go out and vote come November 16?

Also, excuse me for taking your comments on how Obama won the Presidency with a grain of salt. I tend not to believe overly partisan conservatives telling me how Obama does things. They are usually sensationalist lies and unsupported with evidence (and you just ticked off both checkmarks there). I mean do you HONESTLY believe that Obama himself contacted the Black Panthers and had them intimidate white voters? That is just silly...

PS: Hillary supports climate change too...

Those percentages reflect the current demographics of America. No of course they don't represent all who will be voting, considering there are people in both demographics that are below 18 or too old to get out and vote.

Nobody said obama sent those panthers out, that would be silly. How convenient of you to miss my post where I said he had communities very excited to elect a black guy. I bet a quarter of the people that got out and voted probably didn't even know what political side he was even on. You can chalk it up as my partisan Conservative opinion if you want to, but it's common sense. Obama won because he was black, and he beat Hillary because he said she was a racist. Now Hillary is trying to do the exact same thing by using her gender since she can't use her color. I can't believe you don't see that.

a reply to: ReadLeader
Just wondering who is going to run his Empire when he is President, or hasn't he thought about that?

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Where are you getting those percentages from and why do you think they are representative to the actual percentages of people who will actually go out and vote come November 16?

Also, excuse me for taking your comments on how Obama won the Presidency with a grain of salt. I tend not to believe overly partisan conservatives telling me how Obama does things. They are usually sensationalist lies and unsupported with evidence (and you just ticked off both checkmarks there). I mean do you HONESTLY believe that Obama himself contacted the Black Panthers and had them intimidate white voters? That is just silly...

PS: Hillary supports climate change too...

Those percentages reflect the current demographics of America. No of course they don't represent all who will be voting, considering there are people in both demographics that are below 18 or too old to get out and vote.

ETA: Oh I see what you are doing here. You are making a silly rationale that somehow voting will be split completely down minority lines with Trump. For one, I'm white and I refuse to vote for Trump, so that proves that your demographic makeup there won't represent what people actually vote for. No wonder your point here was so confusing. It was a fantasy land point that would never happen in reality so I just didn't even consider it.

Nobody said obama sent those panthers out, that would be silly. How convenient of you to miss my post where I said he had communities very excited to elect a black guy. I bet a quarter of the people that got out and voted probably didn't even know what political side he was even on. You can chalk it up as my partisan Conservative opinion if you want to, but it's common sense. Obama won because he was black, and he beat Hillary because he said she was a racist. Now Hillary is trying to do the exact same thing by using her gender since she can't use her color. I can't believe you don't see that.

I do see it. I saw it in 08 and 12 too. I didn't vote for Obama in either election because I saw it, but what you aren't seeing is that that strategy not only works, it piggy-backs on the liberal mindset of most Americans (Keep in mind, you yourself said that colleges are liberal indoctrination centers and college graduates are at an all time high in this country).

You've mistaken me for a partisan blinded fool. I flip-flop on my political leanings pretty much every election. I remember when liberal posters would insult me and call me conservative slurs all the time on these very forums.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

And Clinton is still beating Trump in the poll averages. Actually, it appears she is gaining ground on Trump just slightly.

I couldn't care less about polls to be honest, nor the 300 to 1100 people, out of 326,000,000 that they poll.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

And Clinton is still beating Trump in the poll averages. Actually, it appears she is gaining ground on Trump just slightly.

I couldn't care less about polls to be honest, nor the 300 to 1100 people, out of 326,000,000 that they poll.

Why? Perhaps because they reflect a reality that does not fit in to your anecdotal fantasy?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Maverick1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NowWhat

Why do you think Hillary is responsible for those hit pieces exactly? I'm pretty sure its just the media in general that is responsible for them. Plus the reason Hillary is loving those numbers is because Hillary (or rather any Democrat) would beat Trump easily in the national election. Trump isn't going to get any minority votes and the simple fact is you need minority votes to win these days. On top of that, Hillary is a minority class herself (being a woman and all).

No. Minority votes don't win elections of this scale: minority votes coupled with a sizable white vote win elections of this scale. Thats a fact. The white vote is the deal maker or breaker.

The election in 2012 says you are wrong.

Bad Bet: Why Republicans Can’t Win With Whites Alone

This much is un­dis­puted: In 2012, Pres­id­ent Obama lost white voters by a lar­ger mar­gin than any win­ning pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate in U.S. his­tory. In his reelec­tion, Obama lost ground from 2008 with al­most every con­ceiv­able seg­ment of the white elect­or­ate. With sev­er­al key groups of whites, he re­cor­ded the weak­est na­tion­al per­form­ance for any Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee since the Re­pub­lic­an land­slides of the 1980s.

And if Trump has enough of the latter, Clinton can have all the former she wants and still fall short.

Negative. Obama's elections prove this statement isn't true anymore.

Besides, I think Trump has more support in some 'minority' circles than the media would have you believe.

Where? Just wishing this is the case doesn't make it so.

Are you serious? Are you really saying that the candidate with the most minority vote will win no matter how much of the European American vote the other candidate gets?

No I'm saying that your previous statement that Trump can carry the election with the white votes alone is no longer a reality in this country.

I never said it was a reality. I was just telling you that if a candidate had the majority vote, and no minority vote, they could win. Trump has plenty of support from both though.

Maybe in your head. I mean, after all the conversations we've had about Trump, I've come to the conclusion that you will defend him no matter what. Statistics, data, historical precedent they all are meaningless to you. All you care about is the cult of personality around Trump. It's sad because you seem like an intelligent fella, you just don't seem to keen on denying ignorance on things that conflict with your desires.

*too

Ok, let me rephrase it for you.

If Hillary had all of the majority vote, and none of the minority vote, she would still win. My response has nothing to do with the candidate. It has everything to do with the demographics of the bloc.

I think you may over analyze my posts just a tad too much and try to find something that isn't there.

originally posted by: LSU0408
Ok, let me rephrase it for you.

If Hillary had all of the majority vote, and none of the minority vote, she would still win. My response has nothing to do with the candidate. It has everything to do with the demographics of the bloc.

I think you may over analyze my posts just a tad too much and try to find something that isn't there.

Actually I'm not even going to address this silly point because it isn't a realistic point and not worth considering.

originally posted by: Maverick1
a reply to: LSU0408

He can't seem to grasp it, but you are correct.





His link states, basically, that Obama lost a huge number of white votes. But he still HAD a huge number of white votes.

A loss of ALL white votes, however, would have left Obama in the cold.

Tell me about it... I can't put things any more clear than I already am. No candidate will get all the white vote, but if they did, they wouldn't need the minority vote. Most post had absolutely nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with percentages of demographic blocs lol.

a reply to: LSU0408

had absolutely nothing to do with reality

Therein lies the problem with your assertions.

a reply to: ugmold

I am sure (if elected) that he has enough people (hopefully) on staff to do that; I would be curious on another note; who will he assign to his staff? This will be interesting for S U R E


I did not know this until moments ago...

President Ted Cruz Would ‘Absolutely’ Appoint Donald Trump to Build Border Wall !!!

WOW

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Yea, exactly. What do you think "stories" are? Anecdotes.

Anecdote

noun, plural anecdotes or for 2, anecdota [an-ik-doh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2.a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Thanks for proving us right mate. ETA: Actually, I went and clicked on the post I was responding to Introvert on and he wasn't even talking to you for that post. So not only did you prove us correct, you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

I told you he claimed I was being anecdotal too. Hence the word "too." And he more or less implied I was basing Trumps popularity on my story, which I wasn't because it was nothing more than a story. Now do you get it?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
That's a pretty big lead. He must be sticking a chord with many Americans. Are these polls usually accurate. The pollsters really got it wrong in the uk for our last general election.

He's very popular among Americans, but you can never believe the accuracy of a poll. I never do anyways.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

You clearly didn't read that article did you? That article was talking about college educated conservatives versus non-college educated conservatives. Keep shoving that foot down your throat.

Your haste to try to attack me at every opportunity has really made you look foolish today. You should slow down and read what you are responding to first before responding to it.

Word...my bad.

Trump is more popular among the working class.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bastion

Speaking of education.

Donald Trump’s Lead Explained in Two Sentences

Both na­tion­al and state polls show Trump open­ing a sub­stan­tial lead among Re­pub­lic­an voters without a col­lege edu­ca­tion al­most every­where. And in al­most all cases, Trump is win­ning more sup­port from non­col­lege Re­pub­lic­ans than any can­did­ate is at­tract­ing from Re­pub­lic­an voters with at least a four-year edu­ca­tion. “It’s a chal­lenge to Re­pub­lic­ans that nobody has con­sol­id­ated the col­lege-gradu­ate vote against Trump,” says Glen Bol­ger, a long­time GOP poll­ster skep­tic­al of the front-run­ner.

Apparently educated conservatives can smell the BS wafting from Trump easily.

Same crap y'all used in the obama elections... In case you have continually and conveniently missed it, most colleges are liberal now. Why would you expect someone with a degree (most of which are useless BTW) to vote for the GOP?

That does spark a very important question.

Why would an educated individual vote for the GOP?

The majority of them won't until the next crop come up. Teens have seen all this PC and double standard BS and those are the ones that are going to ignite the country in the next four to eight years as the next big wave of Conservatives.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

And Clinton is still beating Trump in the poll averages. Actually, it appears she is gaining ground on Trump just slightly.

I couldn't care less about polls to be honest, nor the 300 to 1100 people, out of 326,000,000 that they poll.

Why? Perhaps because they reflect a reality that does not fit in to your anecdotal fantasy?

Like Trump's 38% support and lead? That kind of reflection, which I actually favor? No, Intro, I just don't buy into the accuracy of polls, regardless of what they reflect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
Ok, let me rephrase it for you.

If Hillary had all of the majority vote, and none of the minority vote, she would still win. My response has nothing to do with the candidate. It has everything to do with the demographics of the bloc.

I think you may over analyze my posts just a tad too much and try to find something that isn't there.

Actually I'm not even going to address this silly point because it isn't a realistic point and not worth considering.

Yet it goes right back to the original point that a candidate could win without the minority vote.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

had absolutely nothing to do with reality

Therein lies the problem with your assertions.

What is it that you two don't understand? The entire point was whether or not a candidate could win without the minority vote. What does reality have to do with any part of that question? Whether reality is a factor or not is beside the point. You could win without the minority vote.

a reply to: LSU0408

How do you know this about teens? What have you seen that tells you a new wave of young conservatives are waiting in the wings to save the day?

Let's be honest here. You don't know.

All of this is just something you tell yourself to justify your positions and beliefs. It's a narrative you have built to shield you from reality, because reality does not appear to be what you want it to be.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

How do you know this about teens? What have you seen that tells you a new wave of young conservatives are waiting in the wings to save the day?

Let's be honest here. You don't know.

All of this is just something you tell yourself to justify your positions and beliefs. It's a narrative you have built to shield you from reality, because reality does not appear to be what you want it to be.

*CONTRADICTION ALERT*
*CONTRADICTION ALERT*

You sure know a lot about everyone and everything while you claim everyone else don't know about anything.