It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Donald Trump is Losing...and How He Can Win.

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Just using the data.
Trump is winning easily with married women, so the suggestion his tone is not a problem with them seems senisble.

Interesting new polls too, PPP and YouGov, Clintons lead with women overall cut to 4 and 5 points respectively.
Seems like that whole woman narrative was a little off.


No you are butchering the data to fit your argument.

What do you mean its not a problem with them? Does he have 100%?
What about the women who aren't your category who aren't voting for Trump. Are you just assuming they aren't doing so because of Trump? Isn't that a foolish thing to do?

If Trumps "winning easily" in married women, how would you describe Clinton's lead in single women? And Clintons lead overall?

Oh wait, no you'll just move to another source since your ignorance on this one has been found out.




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Just using the data.
Trump is winning easily with married women, so the suggestion his tone is not a problem with them seems senisble.

Interesting new polls too, PPP and YouGov, Clintons lead with women overall cut to 4 and 5 points respectively.
Seems like that whole woman narrative was a little off.


No you are butchering the data to fit your argument.

What do you mean its not a problem with them? Does he have 100%?
What about the women who aren't your category who aren't voting for Trump. Are you just assuming they aren't doing so because of Trump? Isn't that a foolish thing to do?

If Trumps "winning easily" in married women, how would you describe Clinton's lead in single women? And Clintons lead overall?

Oh wait, no you'll just move to another source since your ignorance on this one has been found out.



No, just pointing out that the whole Trump and women vote narrative is falling apart.
I am pleased about that. I always thought it was nonsense, especially as Trump already won easily with Republican women in the primaries.

edit on 8/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

if you are the president and Don't get blown in the oval office, that would be disrespectful.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Just using the data.
Trump is winning easily with married women, so the suggestion his tone is not a problem with them seems senisble.

Interesting new polls too, PPP and YouGov, Clintons lead with women overall cut to 4 and 5 points respectively.
Seems like that whole woman narrative was a little off.


No you are butchering the data to fit your argument.

What do you mean its not a problem with them? Does he have 100%?
What about the women who aren't your category who aren't voting for Trump. Are you just assuming they aren't doing so because of Trump? Isn't that a foolish thing to do?

If Trumps "winning easily" in married women, how would you describe Clinton's lead in single women? And Clintons lead overall?

Oh wait, no you'll just move to another source since your ignorance on this one has been found out.



No, just pointing out that the whole Trump and women vote narrative is falling apart.
I am pleased about that. I always thought it was nonsense, especially as Trump already won easily with Republican women in the primaries.


No you proved nothing, except your ineptitude at interpreting data to fact.

Your reaching, its desperate. Clinton has a women vote... and by a margin larger than one you called "easily winning" and "massive". And yet because one subset of the Women vote is not as damning you try and blow it all away. It's amateur. Try a different angle to protect Trump.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Just using the data.
Trump is winning easily with married women, so the suggestion his tone is not a problem with them seems senisble.

Interesting new polls too, PPP and YouGov, Clintons lead with women overall cut to 4 and 5 points respectively.
Seems like that whole woman narrative was a little off.


No you are butchering the data to fit your argument.

What do you mean its not a problem with them? Does he have 100%?
What about the women who aren't your category who aren't voting for Trump. Are you just assuming they aren't doing so because of Trump? Isn't that a foolish thing to do?

If Trumps "winning easily" in married women, how would you describe Clinton's lead in single women? And Clintons lead overall?

Oh wait, no you'll just move to another source since your ignorance on this one has been found out.



No, just pointing out that the whole Trump and women vote narrative is falling apart.
I am pleased about that. I always thought it was nonsense, especially as Trump already won easily with Republican women in the primaries.


No you proved nothing, except your ineptitude at interpreting data to fact.

Your reaching, its desperate. Clinton has a women vote... and by a margin larger than one you called "easily winning" and "massive". And yet because one subset of the Women vote is not as damning you try and blow it all away. It's amateur. Try a different angle to protect Trump.


Latest YouGov poll has Clinton's lead with women down to just 4 points.
Looks like the woman problem narrative is falling apart with each passing day.

I could also take yet another subset, white women, where Trump and Clinton are level.

If you dig beneath the dumbed down MSM narrative and analyse the data it's not really that hard to understand what is going on and it certainly isn't a Trump problem with women.



edit on 8/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Just using the data.
Trump is winning easily with married women, so the suggestion his tone is not a problem with them seems senisble.

Interesting new polls too, PPP and YouGov, Clintons lead with women overall cut to 4 and 5 points respectively.
Seems like that whole woman narrative was a little off.


No you are butchering the data to fit your argument.

What do you mean its not a problem with them? Does he have 100%?
What about the women who aren't your category who aren't voting for Trump. Are you just assuming they aren't doing so because of Trump? Isn't that a foolish thing to do?

If Trumps "winning easily" in married women, how would you describe Clinton's lead in single women? And Clintons lead overall?

Oh wait, no you'll just move to another source since your ignorance on this one has been found out.



No, just pointing out that the whole Trump and women vote narrative is falling apart.
I am pleased about that. I always thought it was nonsense, especially as Trump already won easily with Republican women in the primaries.


No you proved nothing, except your ineptitude at interpreting data to fact.

Your reaching, its desperate. Clinton has a women vote... and by a margin larger than one you called "easily winning" and "massive". And yet because one subset of the Women vote is not as damning you try and blow it all away. It's amateur. Try a different angle to protect Trump.


Latest YouGov poll has Clinton's lead with women down to just 4 points.
Looks like the woman problem narrative is falling apart with each passing day.

I could also take yet another subset, white women, where Trump and Clinton are level.

If you dig beneath the dumbed down MSM narrative and analyse the data it's not really that hard to understand what is going on and it certainly isn't a Trump problem with women.




Nice... move onto a new poll because the last one didn't prove what you want. Keep fishing.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: torok67
a reply to: JoshuaCox

if you are the president and Don't get blown in the oval office, that would be disrespectful.






In a perfect world ....lol


Though honestly I do consider cheating after marriage yuge(lol) character flaw.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Just using the data.
Trump is winning easily with married women, so the suggestion his tone is not a problem with them seems senisble.

Interesting new polls too, PPP and YouGov, Clintons lead with women overall cut to 4 and 5 points respectively.
Seems like that whole woman narrative was a little off.


No you are butchering the data to fit your argument.

What do you mean its not a problem with them? Does he have 100%?
What about the women who aren't your category who aren't voting for Trump. Are you just assuming they aren't doing so because of Trump? Isn't that a foolish thing to do?

If Trumps "winning easily" in married women, how would you describe Clinton's lead in single women? And Clintons lead overall?

Oh wait, no you'll just move to another source since your ignorance on this one has been found out.



No, just pointing out that the whole Trump and women vote narrative is falling apart.
I am pleased about that. I always thought it was nonsense, especially as Trump already won easily with Republican women in the primaries.


No you proved nothing, except your ineptitude at interpreting data to fact.

Your reaching, its desperate. Clinton has a women vote... and by a margin larger than one you called "easily winning" and "massive". And yet because one subset of the Women vote is not as damning you try and blow it all away. It's amateur. Try a different angle to protect Trump.


Latest YouGov poll has Clinton's lead with women down to just 4 points.
Looks like the woman problem narrative is falling apart with each passing day.

I could also take yet another subset, white women, where Trump and Clinton are level.

If you dig beneath the dumbed down MSM narrative and analyse the data it's not really that hard to understand what is going on and it certainly isn't a Trump problem with women.




Nice... move onto a new poll because the last one didn't prove what you want. Keep fishing.


Fishing? Just keeping you up to speed on the data.

We know now that Trump leads with married women, is level with white women and easily won with women during the primaries against 16 other candidates. Now we know he is closing with women overall in the latest general election poll.
I guess his problem with women is not so much of a problem after all when we consider all that.

It's pretty obvious why he is currently losing overwhelmingly with single women - and it has nothing to do with gender.


edit on 8/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

We know now that Trump leads with married women, is level with white women


Do you *know* that? How? And don't just post another poll source, since you refuse to accept those when they don't fit your rhetoric.


Now we know he is closing with women overall in the latest general election poll.
I guess his problem with women is not so much of a problem after all when we consider all that.


So because he is closing the gap... it means its no longer a problem? What kind of childs logic is that?
Maybe less women are put off by him but does that account for all the those that are still against him?

No? Didn't think so. Your point is invalid.



It's pretty obvious why he is currently losing overwhelmingly with single women - and it has nothing to do with gender.


Are you in-sync with the entire female community of America, or do you just like talking on their behalf?

You are getting to troll level now, you ignore facts and common sense and plough onto your own conclusion. Stating opinion as facts constantly. It's become obvious you've ran out of ideas.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

We know now that Trump leads with married women, is level with white women


Do you *know* that? How? And don't just post another poll source, since you refuse to accept those when they don't fit your rhetoric.


Now we know he is closing with women overall in the latest general election poll.
I guess his problem with women is not so much of a problem after all when we consider all that.


So because he is closing the gap... it means its no longer a problem? What kind of childs logic is that?
Maybe less women are put off by him but does that account for all the those that are still against him?

No? Didn't think so. Your point is invalid.



It's pretty obvious why he is currently losing overwhelmingly with single women - and it has nothing to do with gender.


Are you in-sync with the entire female community of America, or do you just like talking on their behalf?

You are getting to troll level now, you ignore facts and common sense and plough onto your own conclusion. Stating opinion as facts constantly. It's become obvious you've ran out of ideas.


I am using the polls, which seems valid given this is a thread about the state of the race. I am also using facts from the exit polls in the primaries.
Both sets of data support what I am saying.
There is no big problem with women overall for Trump as the MSM painted and still try to paint. It's a narrative to catch those that don't look deeper.

Those that do look deeper know that gender is not a significant driving force.
edit on 9/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

I am using the polls


Just the ones that support your statement, while making a broad generalisation and ignoring all other data to come to your conclusion and display it as fact.

Gotcha.


There is no big problem with women overall for Trump as the MSM painted and still try to paint. It's a narrative to catch those that don't look deeper.


So despite you originally stating Hillary was ahead by a huge margin in the Women vote you didn't conclude that this was a problem.

Head.In.Sand.

Butcher the data all you like to fit your agenda.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

I am using the polls


Just the ones that support your statement, while making a broad generalisation and ignoring all other data to come to your conclusion and display it as fact.

Gotcha.


There is no big problem with women overall for Trump as the MSM painted and still try to paint. It's a narrative to catch those that don't look deeper.


So despite you originally stating Hillary was ahead by a huge margin in the Women vote you didn't conclude that this was a problem.

Head.In.Sand.

Butcher the data all you like to fit your agenda.


No, it's pretty obvious I am saying that there is no 'woman problem' as painted by the MSM. Gender is not the driving factor and this is shown clearly by the big variances within the women's voting intent when looking at subgroups... i.e. doing a bit more analysis beyond the headline.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, it's pretty obvious I am saying that there is no 'woman problem' as painted by the MSM. Gender is not the driving factor and this is shown clearly by the big variances within the women's voting intent when looking at subgroups... i.e. doing a bit more analysis beyond the headline.


So just because one subset of women appears to go against the trend of women voting against Trump that means that there is no correlation between the "massive" majority of women voters voting against Trump and their gender? Seriously?

Maybe you should do some more "research", or just give up on this one.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, it's pretty obvious I am saying that there is no 'woman problem' as painted by the MSM. Gender is not the driving factor and this is shown clearly by the big variances within the women's voting intent when looking at subgroups... i.e. doing a bit more analysis beyond the headline.


So just because one subset of women appears to go against the trend of women voting against Trump that means that there is no correlation between the "massive" majority of women voters voting against Trump and their gender? Seriously?

Maybe you should do some more "research", or just give up on this one.


One subset? Are you sure?
Republican women
White women
Married women
Women without college degrees

Gender is not the driving factor and actually it's rather derogatory of the media to lump all women into one narrative about Trump's tone.

You still have not got past the MSM headlines on this, so I will leave you to do more research - or not.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Meanwhile some big news in the latest New Jersey poll

Trump is only 4 points behind Clinton.
That's a pretty incredible as Obama won NJ by 18 points in 2012

New Hampshire and Rhode Island are also close. I did not expect Trump to make inroads into the North East.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, it's pretty obvious I am saying that there is no 'woman problem' as painted by the MSM. Gender is not the driving factor and this is shown clearly by the big variances within the women's voting intent when looking at subgroups... i.e. doing a bit more analysis beyond the headline.


So just because one subset of women appears to go against the trend of women voting against Trump that means that there is no correlation between the "massive" majority of women voters voting against Trump and their gender? Seriously?

Maybe you should do some more "research", or just give up on this one.


One subset? Are you sure?
Republican women
White women
Married women
Women without college degrees

Gender is not the driving factor and actually it's rather derogatory of the media to lump all women into one narrative about Trump's tone.

You still have not got past the MSM headlines on this, so I will leave you to do more research - or not.




What about women who wear hats?
Left handed-women?
Women who've had a haircut in the last week?

It's pathetic. By your logic no Presidential campaigner has every had any trouble in any section of the voting public since you can always find a subset that bucks the trend.

Keep peddling your bs though.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, it's pretty obvious I am saying that there is no 'woman problem' as painted by the MSM. Gender is not the driving factor and this is shown clearly by the big variances within the women's voting intent when looking at subgroups... i.e. doing a bit more analysis beyond the headline.


So just because one subset of women appears to go against the trend of women voting against Trump that means that there is no correlation between the "massive" majority of women voters voting against Trump and their gender? Seriously?

Maybe you should do some more "research", or just give up on this one.


One subset? Are you sure?
Republican women
White women
Married women
Women without college degrees

Gender is not the driving factor and actually it's rather derogatory of the media to lump all women into one narrative about Trump's tone.

You still have not got past the MSM headlines on this, so I will leave you to do more research - or not.




What about women who wear hats?
Left handed-women?
Women who've had a haircut in the last week?

It's pathetic. By your logic no Presidential campaigner has every had any trouble in any section of the voting public since you can always find a subset that bucks the trend.

Keep peddling your bs though.


Hmm.. Married women, for example, make up about 50% of women. Quite significant
Republican woman about 28% of women....
I don't have any data on women who wear hats or right/left handed or women who had a haircut last week.

If we did, I suspect we'd see the same drivers, which have nothing to do with gender.

I can tell you don't really understand, so I'll leave it there.
Good luck.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Hmm.. Married women, for example, make up about 50% of women. Quite significant
Republican woman about 28% of women....
I don't have any data on women who wear hats or right/left handed or women who had a haircut last week.

If we did, I suspect we'd see the same drivers, which have nothing to do with gender.

I can tell you don't really understand, so I'll leave it there.
Good luck.


Nice deflection, keep back-peddling.

Let me try a different angle.

The Washington Post Poll back in June showed that 77% of women were "unfavourable" towards Trump. By your current exaggeration model that is a humongous, overwhelming and damning indication that Trump is not favoured by the majority of women.

You, for reasons only known to yourself, are showing data on who someone is likely to vote for. And then, wrongly, assuming that anyone voting for Trump have no issue whatsoever with his "tone".

Now given the level of your current argument I'm not expecting a reasonable response, but can you explain why you keep posting data that doesn't correlate to your assumption and the continuing to believe its fact?

Does that make it clearer? You are incorrectly interpreting data. Simple as that.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Hmm.. Married women, for example, make up about 50% of women. Quite significant
Republican woman about 28% of women....
I don't have any data on women who wear hats or right/left handed or women who had a haircut last week.

If we did, I suspect we'd see the same drivers, which have nothing to do with gender.

I can tell you don't really understand, so I'll leave it there.
Good luck.


Nice deflection, keep back-peddling.

Let me try a different angle.

The Washington Post Poll back in June showed that 77% of women were "unfavourable" towards Trump. By your current exaggeration model that is a humongous, overwhelming and damning indication that Trump is not favoured by the majority of women.

You, for reasons only known to yourself, are showing data on who someone is likely to vote for. And then, wrongly, assuming that anyone voting for Trump have no issue whatsoever with his "tone".

Now given the level of your current argument I'm not expecting a reasonable response, but can you explain why you keep posting data that doesn't correlate to your assumption and the continuing to believe its fact?

Does that make it clearer? You are incorrectly interpreting data. Simple as that.


Voting is all that matters in an election, not favorability ratings.
There is no problem for Trump if someone does not like him but votes for him anyway.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

Hmm.. Married women, for example, make up about 50% of women. Quite significant
Republican woman about 28% of women....
I don't have any data on women who wear hats or right/left handed or women who had a haircut last week.

If we did, I suspect we'd see the same drivers, which have nothing to do with gender.

I can tell you don't really understand, so I'll leave it there.
Good luck.


Nice deflection, keep back-peddling.

Let me try a different angle.

The Washington Post Poll back in June showed that 77% of women were "unfavourable" towards Trump. By your current exaggeration model that is a humongous, overwhelming and damning indication that Trump is not favoured by the majority of women.

You, for reasons only known to yourself, are showing data on who someone is likely to vote for. And then, wrongly, assuming that anyone voting for Trump have no issue whatsoever with his "tone".

Now given the level of your current argument I'm not expecting a reasonable response, but can you explain why you keep posting data that doesn't correlate to your assumption and the continuing to believe its fact?

Does that make it clearer? You are incorrectly interpreting data. Simple as that.


Voting is all that matters in an election, not favorability ratings.
There is no problem for Trump if someone does not like him but votes for him anyway.


Ah, so you've completely changed your statement now because you've been proved wrong.

Great, at least we both know where we stand now. Just another flip-flop Trumper.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join