Shock Poll: Trump Back In Striking Distance!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MedicineManJohnson

If you vote for someone who has no real chance of winning, then you might as well vote for the winner.

Forgive me if im not using the quote feature correctly as im new here the thing is i feel like the only reason thats true is becuase everybody thinks that. That no one else has a chance. But at the same time the people are fed up with the way things have been going for a long time not only that but people are more intelligent and more informed nowadays than compared to the past. A dreamer can dream i suppose

originally posted by: MedicineManJohnson
trump dont give two craps what happens to this country hes just in it for the money and fame. Hes just gonna get bought out by the clintons and put their policies in place soon as he gets in office. Why do people think theres only 2 people on the ballot and if they vote for a third party its a wasted vote? Its not. You have a choice who you want to be president you dont just have to pick between 2 people. Theres already quite a few people thinking that according to this poll it wouldnt take much to turn the tides. Screw em both vote jill stein!

Bought by the 'Clintons'? He already has more money than them....by far.

Try something original....yawn.

Polls...
It's kind of fun being Unaffiliated and refusing to answer questionnaires.
No ones business, but my own.
I WONDER, how many more are JUST like me and DON'T like being bothered by anyone.

a reply to: nwtrucker

That depends how you define money. If it is defined as a medium of exchange for goods and services, then the Clinton's access to other peoples pocket as well as the connections and influence they have collected over the decades would easily dwarf Trumps.

That being said, Trump doesnt need cash, fame or women and has satisfied all his impulses his entire life. Its difficult to hold sway over a man like that.

Why after recent national elections (mid-terms) have the clueless pin-heads on TV sat around and ask each other, "How could the polls have been so wrong?!?!"

This is what is called an outlier poll. They pop up on occasion with an odd result. People looking to this polls methodology have found that for some reason Reuters removed Hispanics from the equation. Either the sample size was to small or it was just an error. How much difference that would make I do not know. However unless other polls change to reflect this number then it will remain what it is an oddity. In fact state level polls are showing things getting even worse for Trump in the battle ground states and down by 1 in Georgia.

originally posted by: [post=21102046]nwtrucker[/postnwtrucker]

Bought by the 'Clintons'? He already has more money than them....by far.

Try something original....yawn.

He may have more money in his personal accounts than they do but the clintons have alot of money available to them that is not directly linked to them money that is available to others that push the same agenda. Trump didnt get rich by not taking large sums of easy money regardless of who its from or how many others it affects What do you think hes gonna say? "No i cant take that 3 billion dollars to do what you tell me i told america i wasnt gonna do that" fat chance

originally posted by: MrSpad
This is what is called an outlier poll. They pop up on occasion with an odd result. People looking to this polls methodology have found that for some reason Reuters removed Hispanics from the equation. Either the sample size was to small or it was just an error. How much difference that would make I do not know. However unless other polls change to reflect this number then it will remain what it is an oddity. In fact state level polls are showing things getting even worse for Trump in the battle ground states and down by 1 in Georgia.

So the wikileaks poll and the L.A. times poll are both outlier polls too? How many outlier polls does it take to go from oddity to credible? Seems to me that those 5, 10 & 15 point jumps we saw for Hillary a couple days ago are evaporating quickly. Something tells me those big jumps were never really there to begin with.

At this point in such a volatile race, "What difference doe it make", what ANY poll says? I hope the WISE ATS moderators will put a limit on the number of poll threads each week. In the past 7 days, we've seen how many original poll threads started here? Four or Five?

Maybe a temporary ATS section entitled "2016 Election Polls" would be better? Members can start a thread whenever they want, regarding some poll they've stumbled across. Based on what I heard Rush Limbaugh say on Thursday, there are more than 50 new polling "entities", just because this Clinton vs Trump race is so incredibly dynamic.

originally posted by: MrSpad
This is what is called an outlier poll. They pop up on occasion with an odd result. People looking to this polls methodology have found that for some reason Reuters removed Hispanics from the equation. Either the sample size was to small or it was just an error. How much difference that would make I do not know. However unless other polls change to reflect this number then it will remain what it is an oddity. In fact state level polls are showing things getting even worse for Trump in the battle ground states and down by 1 in Georgia.

Yet Obama, himself, said Trump would carry Pa., is getting traction in Va., W. Va. and N.C. due to supporting the coal industry.

The real polls will out following the debates....

originally posted by: MedicineManJohnson

originally posted by: [post=21102046]nwtrucker[/postnwtrucker]

Bought by the 'Clintons'? He already has more money than them....by far.

Try something original....yawn.

He may have more money in his personal accounts than they do but the clintons have alot of money available to them that is not directly linked to them money that is available to others that push the same agenda. Trump didnt get rich by not taking large sums of easy money regardless of who its from or how many others it affects What do you think hes gonna say? "No i cant take that 3 billion dollars to do what you tell me i told america i wasnt gonna do that" fat chance

Not impossible, I admit. Yet who is likely to be more altruistic? A candidate who profits from politics or one who actually has been spending his own money on his candidacy?

One poll tells you nothing. You look for trends over a series of polls.

So this poll could show a new trend. Or it may be an outlier. Only time will tell.

Plus, at this stage you really want to focus on state polls.

That is, if you take any of this seriously. Those who don't are entirely reasonable as well.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: MedicineManJohnson

originally posted by: [post=21102046]nwtrucker[/postnwtrucker]

Bought by the 'Clintons'? He already has more money than them....by far.

Try something original....yawn.

He may have more money in his personal accounts than they do but the clintons have alot of money available to them that is not directly linked to them money that is available to others that push the same agenda. Trump didnt get rich by not taking large sums of easy money regardless of who its from or how many others it affects What do you think hes gonna say? "No i cant take that 3 billion dollars to do what you tell me i told america i wasnt gonna do that" fat chance

Not impossible, I admit. Yet who is likely to be more altruistic? A candidate who profits from politics or one who actually has been spending his own money on his candidacy?

Well, he's not spending his own money any more. If he ever was. If he even has anywhere near the money he claims.

originally posted by: ketsuko
See, the thing is that Obama, for all some of us who had done our legwork suspected what we were getting with him, was still something of a cypher. We still could hope we were wrong about what our research was telling us.

But with Hillary, you know. There is no mistaking what you will be getting if you vote for her. So you have to be absolutely sure you can really vote for ... all that her history implies about her character and trust it to run your country for at least four years.

The alternative is someone who says mean things but is still a cypher much like Obama was. Granted there is no guarantee that will be good or any better than Hillary, but there is still that chance. Hillary doesn't even offer that.

I agree.
I do not think the average american will research either candidate.
I think two term obama hurts hillary
I think her time in public service hurts hillary this cycle
I think her scandals hurt hillary
I think the more the MSM push her the more people will either stay home or vote for trump.

a reply to: shooterbrody

LATimes/USC Poll

I agree. Even my husband who is more conservative than I am says that if the Dems had nominated someone like Webb, he'd have trouble deciding which to vote for: Webb or Trump. With the Webb, the problem is that no Democrat ever seems to be able to actually be an independent or true Blue Dog Dem past the election phase, so that's a big hill to overcome on top of two terms of Obama ... but ... He seemed actually reasonable for a Democrat.

Just wait for the debates.

a reply to: ketsuko

I would have considered anyone else the dems had. Hillary is too dirty. Trump is bad but Hillary has a record of nothing but bad.

originally posted by: HUSARIA
Just wait for the debates.

I am picturing a wicked hair pulling fight.

a reply to: buckwhizzle

Articles on polls can be good at analyzing the shifts however you should keep in mind that article was written about a poll from July 31st and the same Reuters/Ipsos has a new one for this week where she is now 4 points ahead.

Here is a link to polls that you can check daily.polls

a reply to: Grimpachi

and finally all candidates get a bump on the heels of their conventions.