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

The New York Times is projecting Clinton to win the popular vote, Trump to win the election

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I can't believe my eyes.

Live Presidential Forecast

The New York Times is giving Trump a greater than 95% chance to win the election. Meanwhile, they're projecting Clinton to win the popular vote by about 1%.

This goes against everything that I heard about this election. Every pundit I heard was saying that Trump would have to win the popular vote in a landslide to win the election.

What does this mean for the supposed rigged voting machines theory?
edit on 8-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
I can't believe my eyes.

Live Presidential Forecast

The New Times is giving Trump a 95% chance to win the election. Meanwhile, they're projecting Clinton to win the popular vote by about 1%.

This goes against everything that I heard about this election. Every pundit I heard was saying that Trump would have to win the popular vote in a landslide to win the election.

What does this mean for the supposed rigged voting machines theory?


I don't think she'll get either. Unless they work on FL some more.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Aren't Trump supporters the ones who have been saying the election is rigged if Hillary wins? Why is it not rigged if Trump wins?

It's rigged, they decided the winner months ago, if not years. If Trump wins then he was selected not by us but by the people behind the curtains. He is one of them, the media dogging him is reverse psychology. They know people are sick of the establishment so they made someone part of the establishment seem like an outsider when he's really part of the inner circle. Corporate America has one of their own in the oval office, that's not going to go well for us.

I am baffled that there are people who actually still trust the political process.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
I can't believe my eyes.

Live Presidential Forecast

The New Times is giving Trump a 95% chance to win the election. Meanwhile, they're projecting Clinton to win the popular vote by about 1%.

This goes against everything that I heard about this election. Every pundit I heard was saying that Trump would have to win the popular vote in a landslide to win the election.

What does this mean for the supposed rigged voting machines theory?



More Liberal BS,

We had the same with Brexit....


RA



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Trump is winning the popular by 3 million+



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
HAHAHAHA

We were screwed either way at least with him there will plenty of comedy material.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
HAHAHAHA

We were screwed either way at least with him there will plenty of comedy material.

Are you one of the ones that pledged to move to Canada if Trump won ? If so , better get ta packin



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm sorry to report, looks like Trump is going to win both.

Well guys, you got what you wanted. Let's hope this works out for everyone.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
If Trump wins then he was selected not by us but by the people behind the curtains. He is one of them, the media dogging him is reverse psychology. They know people are sick of the establishment so they made someone part of the establishment seem like an outsider when he's really part of the inner circle.

People had every chance to elect an "outsider" last elections when Ron Paul was running, but instead they opted for another 4 years of Obama. The difference with Ron Paul is that the media actually ignored him, because they know any coverage is good coverage, same reason you don't see much of Johnson. It does still seem rather strange to me that people would decide they want someone who is almost the polar opposite of Obama after he was elected twice and I actually think he was a decent President as far a Presidents go, so where has all this anti-establishment rhetoric spawned from? I've been on ATS for a long time and it's clear to me the general population never takes critical action when it's necessary, so it's very hard for me to believe the entire U.S. population has suddenly woken up... it's clear that the malcontent of the population is being engineered and manipulated to produce specific outcomes.




top topics



 
3

log in

join