Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

A good portion of that money has to go down ballot you know. He's acting now like its his money. The idiot. Saying he won't give it to them if they turn their back on him. All they need to do is take it and say F.U. Donald.
Then he goes home because he CANT AFFORD to fund a presidential campaign on his own.

No it doesn't your confusing Trump's campaign fund with the RNCs. They are two seprate things. Money Trump raises for his campaign is spent on his campaign. He will raise money for the DNC and I think that is where your confusion ls. The reason he's not spending money on campaign ads is the same reason Hillary isn't it's not time for that yet. It's still to early to make an impact. Wait until thr last 30 days we will be sick of them.

What's great is that all of the polls are right! They reflect what their target feels. What will be interesting is what happens when all the people (like me and wifey) who have never been polled, or clicked on a social media poll, vote on November 8th.

You can bet that CNN, ABC, NBC, will have their lapdogs all set up to broadcast Exit Poll LIES earlier than usual that day, to influence those who still haven't voted yet.

Love it...

Just checking in before I go to sleep, and what do I find?

The 5 or so voices of opposition. I appreciate the callout there Krazyshot.

Think I'm going to be a sore loser? I wasn't even talking about me.

People are sick of seeing what has become of the election process. It's an absolute sh!tshow this year. I understand that. That still does not mean that we are not paying attention. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I'm sure you are itching to, but what is important here is the integrity of the process. I've questioned the integrity of the process since the whole "hanging chad" sh!t.

Currently, the issues are a moot point. Abort the babies, support free-range trannies, adopt a Muslim refugee, support endless conflict over resources that don't belong to us, I give two sh!ts.

If the elections aren't real, then none of that crap matters.

Supporting Trump is the best damn chance we have of exposing the fabrication of the electoral process. That's all I care about at this point.

When the hammer falls on one of the last visages of our faux-democracy, there will be blood. That is what I am talking about.

But hey, draw your own conclusions.. It's so much more sensational than actually attempting to comprehend where people are coming from.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

A good portion of that money has to go down ballot you know. He's acting now like its his money. The idiot. Saying he won't give it to them if they turn their back on him. All they need to do is take it and say F.U. Donald.
Then he goes home because he CANT AFFORD to fund a presidential campaign on his own.

It's Trump that is raising the money. His support is bringing millions into the RNC from small donations. Trumps fund raising has been incredible since he started the effort at the end of May. He has almost matched Clinton's total and she is getting tens of millions form Wall Street. The people are giving money to Trump. Wall Street is giving it to Clinton.

Last night Reince Priebus (apparently at odds with trump according to the MSM) joined him on stage, thanked him for the fundraising and did his best cheer leading impression for Trump that I have seen yet.

Some of the money will go down ballot. You are correct on that (for both sides) but it does not negate the fact that Trump has been reported as directing funds to safeguard against voting fraud.

Polls never go over 1,000 samples.

To project "elections" out endlessly from such samplings (determined by who?!?!?), and call that "reality"...

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I follow Trump on Twitter.
I don't follow Hillary.
If I had to choose, I'd choose Hillary.
I'm from the UK.
Did you data amalgamaters take any of this into account?

Granted. Now if anybody can explain the differences in the rallies that's be great. I know Obama's '08 rallies looked the same, and when I saw that and how the Media were PUSHING him it was quite obvious who was going to "win".

Now we hae the flip side, the big rallies are Trump's and the Media are pushing a "Take Down Hitler" model against him, while Hillary looking half retarded half the time has half filled looking 'town hall meetings' with the Media PUSHING her.

# got weird!

Social media.... the narcissists utopia. Trump leading amongst the narcissists? Shocker.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Granted. Now if anybody can explain the differences in the rallies that's be great.

MrSpad nailed it in another thread - large rallies are mainly entertainment for existing supporters. The small meetings are the candidate going to swing areas where they aren't necessarily winning and engaging people in a one-on-one effort to recruit new voters.

The big events don't bring in new voters; they bring in the existing base. It's the critical little meetings that win people over.

Also, the little meetings are where the big policy issues are being talked about AND where they're hearing what the average person there has to say (what they think is important.) At the big meetings, nobody talks to the politician - the politician does the monologue.

a reply to: Byrd

Okay, so they have a vetting process then that ensures that only 'undecided swing voters' show up for the Hillary 'town hall' events? Or does Trump only get the same kinds of showings in the same predicaments (I dont claim to know).

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Granted. Now if anybody can explain the differences in the rallies that's be great.

MrSpad nailed it in another thread - large rallies are mainly entertainment for existing supporters. The small meetings are the candidate going to swing areas where they aren't necessarily winning and engaging people in a one-on-one effort to recruit new voters.

The big events don't bring in new voters; they bring in the existing base. It's the critical little meetings that win people over.

Also, the little meetings are where the big policy issues are being talked about AND where they're hearing what the average person there has to say (what they think is important.) At the big meetings, nobody talks to the politician - the politician does the monologue.

Except Trump is going to swing states where he is not necessarily winning. His massive crowds over the last couple of days have been in Florida and Pennsylvania.

It's more likely that very few are really interested in anything Hillary has got to say. The election is all about Trump and is in fact a referendum on him and his positions, with Hillary being the default winner if that referendum vote comes back as a 'no'.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'd relish the chance to go to a Trump rally.

But never ever assume my participation in such a one off entertainment event for support.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Sillyolme

I agree that she's going down in history, same with the US if she wins.

Spare me.

People said the same thing when Obama was elected, twice, and we're still here doing just fine.

Doing just fine? There are more people out of work than I can ever remember. My company has let go of nearly 20,000 people. These were good paying jobs. And it's all the fault if this ass and his stupid EPA regulations and anti-capitalism views.

Suck it

The jobs figures being used as the main defence by the DNC and the media over the horror show that Obama has delivered economically is a lie. It's already known to be a lie, but I assume the idea is that if it is repeated often enough then it will be believed.

Here's some information from Gallup (which was actually written in 2015, before the election madness)

www.gallup.com...

Snippet:

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie. And it's a lie

a reply to: UKTruth
You can beat this point into the ground with dems but they will keep repeating the same lie John Stewart told them. Because it was on the Daily Show, it HAS to be true. Our prophet John wouldn't dare lie to his flock.

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: UKTruth
You can beat this point into the ground with dems but they will keep repeating the same lie John Stewart told them. Because it was on the Daily Show, it HAS to be true. Our prophet John wouldn't dare lie to his flock.

I hear you.

The other dishonesty we see is on jobs growth. Firstly Obama uses 2010 as his start point for his +14m jobs, not only ignoring 2009, but using the lower start point in 2010 as his baseline.

His real number of jobs added is more like 9.5m (still higher than GW Bush, but hardly a figure to be proud of). Of those jobs a massive number are in lowly paid jobs, like bar tending and retail sales. This is why average income levels are flat despite job growth. Whilst some industries with higher wages have seen growth (e.g computer science), a delve into his jobs numbers tells you exactly why the middle class is being decimated.

On so many levels Obama is trying to write his own history in a desperate bid to be remembered as a successful president, but history will almost certainly show him as a failure.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The other dishonesty we see is on jobs growth. Firstly Obama uses 2010 as his start point for his +14m jobs, not only ignoring 2009, but using the lower start point in 2010 as his baseline.

That's because executive policies have a delay. Budgets don't start until 2 years from the date they're passed (though you can do some supplemental spending a year early). Basically this means you have to attribute all of 2009 and most of 2010 to W, and you'll be attributing 2017 and most of 2018 to Obama. Whether it's Clinton or Trump in the big chair come next year, there's not really going to be anything you can fairly judge them on until 2019.

Whilst some industries with higher wages have seen growth (e.g computer science)

Computer science has not seen a growth, it has remained largely flat. Which is in line with the rest of the world where CS fields are much lower paying (a typical $140k job in SF for example is only worth about $50k in London). The large amount of hiring foreigners in the field has kept the wages down, in addition to the trend to hire remotely from lower CoL areas of the US.

a reply to: Konduit

Social media patterns show a cat playing the piano will be the next president.

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: Konduit

Social media patterns show a cat playing the piano will be the next president.

The DEA is threatening to fight keyboard cat's policy on catnip. Furthermore keyboard cat is calling for the deportation of all dogs.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
The other dishonesty we see is on jobs growth. Firstly Obama uses 2010 as his start point for his +14m jobs, not only ignoring 2009, but using the lower start point in 2010 as his baseline.

That's because executive policies have a delay. Budgets don't start until 2 years from the date they're passed (though you can do some supplemental spending a year early). Basically this means you have to attribute all of 2009 and most of 2010 to W, and you'll be attributing 2017 and most of 2018 to Obama. Whether it's Clinton or Trump in the big chair come next year, there's not really going to be anything you can fairly judge them on until 2019.

Whilst some industries with higher wages have seen growth (e.g computer science)

Computer science has not seen a growth, it has remained largely flat. Which is in line with the rest of the world where CS fields are much lower paying (a typical $140k job in SF for example is only worth about $50k in London). The large amount of hiring foreigners in the field has kept the wages down, in addition to the trend to hire remotely from lower CoL areas of the US.

Yes, true, but then one must also go back and compare past presidents similarly.

Here's a jobs growth breakdown by industry.
I should be more specific and say the source I was referring to relates to "Computer systems design and related services".
You point about the growth coming from foreign workers on lower wages is an interesting one. It would mean even middle paying jobs are not contributing.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Granted. Now if anybody can explain the differences in the rallies that's be great.

MrSpad nailed it in another thread - large rallies are mainly entertainment for existing supporters. The small meetings are the candidate going to swing areas where they aren't necessarily winning and engaging people in a one-on-one effort to recruit new voters.

The big events don't bring in new voters; they bring in the existing base. It's the critical little meetings that win people over.

Also, the little meetings are where the big policy issues are being talked about AND where they're hearing what the average person there has to say (what they think is important.) At the big meetings, nobody talks to the politician - the politician does the monologue.

Except Trump is going to swing states where he is not necessarily winning. His massive crowds over the last couple of days have been in Florida and Pennsylvania.

It's more likely that very few are really interested in anything Hillary has got to say. The election is all about Trump and is in fact a referendum on him and his positions, with Hillary being the default winner if that referendum vote comes back as a 'no'.

Trump blasts where he is going getting his supporters to come out. Clinton shows up at Churches, factory, town meeting etc with as little publicity as she can before. She does not want her supporters showing up, she wants people who are not sure what they are doing. It is at tactic most candidate use. A big rally now and then for press coverage but, the real work is done in those counties on that are not already in for one side or the other. All this is set up by your ground teams working with local party groups and normally backed up popular or elder party members in key areas.

Trump barely has a ground game set up. They should be their setting up small rallies, get local press coverage, getting people registered to vote, arranging transportation on election day for those who need it, etc. Trump has not bothered, just as he has not bothered with campaign ads. He seems to spend most of his money on hotels and traveling to places that have to bearing on the campaign.

Getting together a big crowd of your supporters is fine as long as you are out working on the undecideds and people on the edge. When you look at Clinton's polling data that is where she making her gains. Undecided voters make up most of it with a smaller percentage stealing away GOP Trump supporters that were wavering on Trump.

This is what is killing Trump. He still has the same base of supporters but, is doing nothing to ad new ones of keep GOP party line voters. This is why battle ground states are becoming blue and red states are becoming battle ground states. Trump has to do something to get Republican voters behind him. The problem is Trumps attacks on the Gold Star families did more damage than anything else. How Trump fixes that and the idea he is does not have the temperament for office i do not know. He tried to be good for a few days and then that fell apart. I think that was his last chance. Those GOP voters that vote for Clinton, Johnson or just stay home mean Trump a massive amount of work to do and not much time left to do it. Early voting starts at the end of next month. If Trump loses a single Red State than the battle ground states become pointless.

All Clinton has to do is hold the blue states and Pennsylvania and she has the electoral math to win. Right now she is not only holding the blue states but, taking some of the battle ground states by big numbers and leading in all the rest, and leading in two red states Georgia and Arizona. This is when Trump could really use McCain backing him in Arizona where McCain is very popular. Trumps path to win? I do not know how he could do it. Unless he tries another reboot but, they never last.