-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grim Battleground Polls for Trump Supporters
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
Then we count you as an enemy of America. Good luck to ya.
There were polls last month that did have him ahead, didn't see even one of them on here and no, I'm not going to hunt them up right now, because they still mean nothing, just like the junk poll of the OP.
Even if she's ahead by twelve points nationally (and she isn't), it still would mean nothing. Trump and Hillary probably know where they stand the best, since they have access to their own polling and internal polling like that is the most accurate - it has to be, to tell them where to go from here.
You really want accuracy? Find one internal poll and good luck with that unless you're Nate Silver dealing with Obama. The latest FOX Poll (+5 Hill IFIRC) made no sense, for example, having Hillary +17 with 65+ but +6 with millennials.
The Quin one is probably right, I think Hillary is up by three or so still but that doesn't matter - intensity is down, disgust with these candidates is up - that bodes for a low turnout. There are new voter ID laws that "could" make a swing state swing.
Rsr, they are all liars but then you could say Hillary is the queen of them all. But breaking a pledge you made on national tv without any remorse makes me glad none of them became the GOP nominee - if they'd do that to Trump, they'd do it to the country ("no new taxes"). And really the "establishment" has wasted much money energy trying to take down Trump than they ever did combined with Obama and Hillary.
The "holier than thou" attitude of "I can't vote in good conscience for either of these evil evil mean people" - while justifiable overall - would make a lot more sense if you stopped posting about an election you're too good for.
Even if she's ahead by twelve points nationally (and she isn't), it still would mean nothing. Trump and Hillary probably know where they stand the best, since they have access to their own polling and internal polling like that is the most accurate - it has to be, to tell them where to go from here.
You really want accuracy? Find one internal poll and good luck with that unless you're Nate Silver dealing with Obama. The latest FOX Poll (+5 Hill IFIRC) made no sense, for example, having Hillary +17 with 65+ but +6 with millennials.
The Quin one is probably right, I think Hillary is up by three or so still but that doesn't matter - intensity is down, disgust with these candidates is up - that bodes for a low turnout. There are new voter ID laws that "could" make a swing state swing.
Rsr, they are all liars but then you could say Hillary is the queen of them all. But breaking a pledge you made on national tv without any remorse makes me glad none of them became the GOP nominee - if they'd do that to Trump, they'd do it to the country ("no new taxes"). And really the "establishment" has wasted much money energy trying to take down Trump than they ever did combined with Obama and Hillary.
The "holier than thou" attitude of "I can't vote in good conscience for either of these evil evil mean people" - while justifiable overall - would make a lot more sense if you stopped posting about an election you're too good for.
For what reason do you count me as an enemy of America? Just to lower yourself a childish comeback? "No, you are!" #NeverTrump followers are enemies of America because they want to take away votes from Trump which helps Hillary, a woman with the desire and opportunity to destroy the Constitution by placing the Fifth Activist on the Supreme Court.
How is it a childish come back. Anyone who sees me as an enemy simply because I will not vote for the candidate they want to vote for and want me to vote for has established a line in the sand. You want to be my enemy, that is your choice. I cannot see how you will act on that but saying such things, as you have, is a threat. When you called me an enemy because I will not vote for Trump you threatened me and everyone else who refuses to vote for Trump. I assure you I will defend myself, my family and my country.
You on the other hand want to make enemies. This will be my past response to you.
Republicans Consider ‘Conscientious Objector’ Rule for Convention Delegates
It could be used to deny Trump the nomination
Members of the GOP Convention Rules committee are planning to consider an amendment to allow delegates a way out of voting for Trump on the first ballot—an effort that in an extreme could be used to deny him the nomination.
Under the proposal, delegates could be granted conscientious objector status, thereby freeing them from their pledge to vote as they are bound as the result of primaries and caucuses. The measure, first put forward by Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh, would undo the strict ‘faithless-delegate’ rule enacted at the GOP convention in 2012 and allow a “vote of conscience, whether personal or religious” by delegates.
http://time.com/4373819/gop-considers-conscientious-objector-rule-for-delegates-donald-trump/
Bush I & II, Dole, McCain, and Mittens are the guys the GOP pushed. That is why Trump is where he is now. The Republican voters got tired of the loons & goons they backed.
This is the most substantiate attack on Trump I've seen in this forum today, and it's pretty thin.
Trump often speaks without a teleprompter, unlike the other candidates, so his words tend to be careful, less calculated. Regarding your first example about Mexican immigrants, Trump said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Maybe you're the liar of the highest order? You said said Trump said, "Most Mexican immigrants are rapists or murderers, or at least thugs." Trump didn't say MOST of the immigrants are criminals. You falsely accused Trump! That's a fair charge against you, if you think your charge against trump is fair.
I accept what Trump said and meant, that Mexico is more than happy have their less desirable citizens leave and come to America. And, that people with problems with Mexican authorities can flee to America. Only a criminal need illegally enter America to get into America. Why? Because buying a cheap passport and taking the bus into America is a lot easier than crossing the desert and climbing a big fence, while risking getting caught by border security.
That doesn't mean that most Mexican immigrants are criminals. But, it does mean that illegal immigration is pipeline for criminals.
Where are you going with this? You think Hillary is better on immigration? She'll give illegals amnesty and refuse to deport immigrant criminals. Trump supports touch-back amnesty, where at least the illegals must leave to apply for legal immigration. It's where they stand that matters and I have no reason to believe Trump is lying about that. Even if trump is lying about his stand on immigration, he couldn't be worse than Hillary (who is a professional liar compared to Trump).
Trump: "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Definition of some: Less than most.
So yes, Trump said MOST Mexicans are not good people.
No, the definition of some is not less than most. Remove the plank from your eye if you want to complain about the speck in Trump's eye.
some
[suhm; unstressed suh m]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
being an undetermined or unspecified one:
Some person may object.
2.
(used with plural nouns) certain:
Some days I stay home.
3.
of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.:
to some extent.
4.
unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.:
We talked for some time. He was here some weeks.
5.
Informal. of impressive or remarkable quality, consequence, extent,etc.:
That was some storm.
I love it when people go the dictionary route of making an argument.
Anybody/everybody knows in common usage "some" is less than "most".
A. Some people are criminals.
B. Most people are criminals.
Which one, A or B, has more people in it?
Anybody/everybody knows in common usage "some" is less than "most".
A. Some people are criminals.
B. Most people are criminals.
Which one, A or B, has more people in it?
The flaw here is he never said the word "most", rsr did. What Trump said was:
"They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
What he is saying is that Mexico is bringing an unknown quantity of people. some of which have problems, are criminals but among the total group, some (another unknown quantity) are "good people".
And some doesn't necessarily mean less than most-
Some cats have ten claws
Most cats have ten claws
It's the same number of cats with ten claws
How can anyone in good conscience support a coup against the primary voters? And, how can anyone with a functional brain not realize that a coup candidate would lose, and a coup would drive voters away form the Republican party for many elections to come.
Answer: No one.
#NeverTrump followers are not acting in good conscience, because being brainwashed doesn't count as good conscience.
The irony is that #NeverTrump followers claim it's Trump who wouldn't follow the rules. Yet, they want to throw out the rules at the convention and they effectively want Hillary to win and then she can make a Supreme Court that would nullify the Constitution.
Trump won the race because so many Republicans are fed up with the betrayal and hypocrisy of the Republican leadership.
This just out:
A new Suffolk University poll of likely general-election voters in Pennsylvania shows Clinton with a commanding lead over Republican Donald Trump. In a two-way matchup, she led Trump 50 percent to 41 percent, with 8 percent undecided.
http://www.suffolk.edu/news/66944.php
Links to full data here:
http://www.suffolk.edu/academics/10740.php
Interesting:
Favorable/Unfavorable Rating:
Hillary 43.6% / 48.0%
Trump 33.2% / 57.0%
Most important issue:
Terrorism/National Security 31.4%
Jobs/Economy 21.4%
Choosing SCOTUS nominees 8.0%
[..]
Illegal Immigration 3.2%
A new Suffolk University poll of likely general-election voters in Pennsylvania shows Clinton with a commanding lead over Republican Donald Trump. In a two-way matchup, she led Trump 50 percent to 41 percent, with 8 percent undecided.
http://www.suffolk.edu/news/66944.php
Links to full data here:
http://www.suffolk.edu/academics/10740.php
Interesting:
Favorable/Unfavorable Rating:
Hillary 43.6% / 48.0%
Trump 33.2% / 57.0%
Most important issue:
Terrorism/National Security 31.4%
Jobs/Economy 21.4%
Choosing SCOTUS nominees 8.0%
[..]
Illegal Immigration 3.2%
Last edited:
Here is the recent history for Missouri:
Romney +9.4
McCain +0.1
Bush +7.2
Bush +3.3
And this just in....
WASHINGTON • Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a virtual tie in Missouri, according to a new Post-Dispatch poll.
A survey of 625 likely voters conducted last weekend shows the Democrat Clinton with 41 percent to the Republican Trump’s 40 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 9 percent. The telephone poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Romney +9.4
McCain +0.1
Bush +7.2
Bush +3.3
And this just in....
WASHINGTON • Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a virtual tie in Missouri, according to a new Post-Dispatch poll.
A survey of 625 likely voters conducted last weekend shows the Democrat Clinton with 41 percent to the Republican Trump’s 40 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 9 percent. The telephone poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
I had some problems with both of Light's polls, meaning the ones he just posted - the PA one has a huge flaw in methodology:
Respondents in the household were selected by initially asking for the youngest adult.
Why ask the one person in the household least likely to vote and most likely to vote for Hillary? Skews the results badly.
The Missouri poll is far more believable but I doubt Gary will pull in 9% of the vote on Election Day - this is a traditional case of the third-party candidates polling better than they perform.
Respondents in the household were selected by initially asking for the youngest adult.
Why ask the one person in the household least likely to vote and most likely to vote for Hillary? Skews the results badly.
The Missouri poll is far more believable but I doubt Gary will pull in 9% of the vote on Election Day - this is a traditional case of the third-party candidates polling better than they perform.
Yeah, but those are weighted into oblivion - wonder what the MoE is on the age groups? I bet it's over 7% easily:
Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University and I would like to get your opinions on some issues of the day. Would you like to spend seven minutes to help us out? {ASK FOR YOUNGEST IN HOUSEHOLD}
Why the youngest? And it doesn't seem like Suffolk really screens well for likely voters:
2. How likely are you to vote in the general election for President this November -- very likely, somewhat likely, 50-50 or not likely? (N=500) n % Very likely ---------------------------------------------------------488 97.60 Somewhat likely ------------------------------------------------- 12 2.40
They call adults and get THAT number?
Really, I think it'll be hard for Trump to win that state - possible, but unlikely. Here are the age demographics for the last presidential election:
so I know they weighted it - JFTR, here is what I was talking about with the least-educated voters a couple of weeks ago:
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/pennsylvania/president/#.V5u589QrJkh
and Hillary will do a little worse with that demo, but she'll still dominate. Suffolk is also over-polling blacks and low-income. If Hillary wins the state, it will be by a smaller margin than Obama's both times.
Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University and I would like to get your opinions on some issues of the day. Would you like to spend seven minutes to help us out? {ASK FOR YOUNGEST IN HOUSEHOLD}
Why the youngest? And it doesn't seem like Suffolk really screens well for likely voters:
2. How likely are you to vote in the general election for President this November -- very likely, somewhat likely, 50-50 or not likely? (N=500) n % Very likely ---------------------------------------------------------488 97.60 Somewhat likely ------------------------------------------------- 12 2.40
They call adults and get THAT number?
Really, I think it'll be hard for Trump to win that state - possible, but unlikely. Here are the age demographics for the last presidential election:
so I know they weighted it - JFTR, here is what I was talking about with the least-educated voters a couple of weeks ago:
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/pennsylvania/president/#.V5u589QrJkh
and Hillary will do a little worse with that demo, but she'll still dominate. Suffolk is also over-polling blacks and low-income. If Hillary wins the state, it will be by a smaller margin than Obama's both times.