Trump 41%, Clinton 39%

[Deleted]

Dear America,

Please don't vote for Trump.

Sincerely,

The Rest of the World

Dear America,

Please vote for Trump,

Sincerely,
The United States of America

PS - fuck The Rest of The World. America first!

[dd614]

It's beginning to happen: The Trumpening.

[Deleted]

Nice job distorting the actual facts. From your own link:

Clinton and Trump were tied with 38% support each; 16% said they would vote for some other candidate, and two percent (2%) were undecided.

He only pulls ahead if the "stay at home" option is removed, which is pretty stupid to not have that option.

I didn't distort any facts at all. Just stated what Rasmussen said. The poll you pointed out was last week. This is a different poll. Regardless, I didn't distort a fucking thing.

[akris15]

Dear America,

Please don't vote for Trump.

Sincerely,

The Rest of the World

We won't in the end . Demographics are not on his side (he has a women's, black, Hispanic issue), college educated are turned off by him, the battleground states are clearly in advantage of the democrats, the republican donors won't allow a non yes man to be president so they won't give him that much in resources (expect the Kochs to donate exclusively to senators-one of the Koch brothers came out and said he rather support Hiliary) and the USA has only elected one populist president and even then there were significant issues surrounding that. Trump can't win exclusively on the white vote.

[sarahtasher]

Dear America,

Please vote for Trump,

Sincerely,
The United States of America

PS - fuck The Rest of The World. America first!

Such an attitude is remarkably optimistic in 2016, where the rest of the world matter a lot for the United States.

Saying ''f... the non Americans, we rule'' might sound cool, but that would have mocked in 1816.

[Acidbaron]

39 +41 = 100?

Mad math skills there!

[Gorgodeus]

I didn't distort any facts at all. Just stated what Rasmussen said. The poll you pointed out was last week. This is a different poll. Regardless, I didn't distort a fucking thing.

Now lets see what a wider variety say.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

Funny how all other polls say otherwise.

[Laerrus]

Remember when Rasmussen's polling for 2012 had Romney with a 1% lead over Obama, just before the general election, where Obama walked away with a 4-point lead?

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/26...s-going-to-win

Yeah, Rasmussen's not the most reliable of pollsters.

Here's the RCP on the most recent polls; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

The ONLY poll showing a Trump lead is Rasmussen. Most of the rest are showing a 7-11 point lead for Clinton.

And before someone accuses me of cherry-picking on partisan bias, that includes the Fox News poll, with Clinton showing a 7 point lead.

Beat me to it.

Also factor in Favorable/Unfavorable ratings.

Trump: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...able-5493.html

Clinton: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...able-1131.html

It's kind of funny that over on the Fox News poll, people hate Trump more than they do Clinton.

Imo, voting for Trump would be like committing suicide with Pope Francis, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson and a psychiatrist in the same room. Personally I don't like Hillary either, but she is the lesser of the two evils.

[akris15]

Now lets see what a wider variety say.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

Funny how all other polls say otherwise.

I always found it odd that Real Clear marks PPP for bias (which they should don't get me wrong) but don't do Rasmussen (R).

Say what you want about Fox News poll at least they get a good sample when they pull.

[Saverem]

So, Trump will NEVER win the general election eh? LOL.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._41_clinton_39

Just wait till he actually starts in on vilifying her, that will be such a pleasure to watch.

Trump 2016! Making America Great Again!

Just like he'll never win the GOP nomination...

[Reeve]

Here's a list of polls with ratings on the quality of the polls based on historic bias of results of the polls vs. results of the elections:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interacti...lster-ratings/

Rasmussen gets a C rating, with a mean bias of 2.3% in favor of Republicans.

[Phookah]

The thing I don't understand about people who want to vote Trump is the fact that he has ZERO political experience. None. Zip. Nada.
Even if you love everything he stands for (ugh) and thought his platform was the best among those presented, he doesn't know how to apply any of it. At all.

Its like this: If you wanted someone to build a house for you, would you hire the guy who like "I have all the tools to build your house! I have these blueprints, and I have the workforce, all I need is for you to hire me! I've never actually built a house before, but I'm highly motivated and have a ton of ideas!"

Or do you hire the guy who is probably shady and unscrupulous, but will make sure you actually have a house when he's done? Neither option is great, but beggars can't be choosers.

TL;DR I wouldn't want to buy a pizza from a guy who hasn't made one before, let alone hire someone to run my country with 0 knowledge of how to do so.

[akris15]

The thing I don't understand about people who want to vote Trump is the fact that he has ZERO political experience. None. Zip. Nada.
Even if you love everything he stands for (ugh) and thought his platform was the best among those presented, he doesn't know how to apply any of it. At all.
Its like this: If you wanted someone to build a house for you, would you hire the guy who like "I have all the tools to build your house! I have these blueprints, and I have the workforce, all I need is for you to hire me! I've never actually built a house before, but I'm highly motivated and have a ton of ideas!"
Or do you hire the guy who is probably shady and unscrupulous, but will make sure you actually have a house when he's done.
TL;DR I wouldn't want to buy a pizza from a guy who hasn't made one before, let alone hire someone to run my country with 0 knowledge of how to do so.

This is just a typical populist candidate who is using what he learned from Reality TV and exploiting it like non other. If the media wasn't so rating happy he wouldn't have even registered but since the election is basically a 24/7 reality tv show and they are reaping the rewards to push the narrative. Like all populist candidates he is going to get crushed in the general election (wouldn't be surprised if its 300+ for Hilary) and come 2020 the republicans are going to put a superdelegate system to prevent this from happening. This happened to Democrats in the late 60-early 70s and history is just repeating itself, the only difference is how the media is now from then.

[alexw]

LOL

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interacti...lster-ratings/

A solid C rating, but that's about right for the Trump crowd. Also they tend to over poll in favor of Republicans by a lot. As well they don't call cell phones, wtf?

Yeah going to be massively biased if they don't call cell phones. Democrats skew younger and as young people are much more likely to have no landline phone (like me) but rely only on cell phones, its going to way over-count republican votes.

[Ghostpanther]

The same Rasmussen that polled for a Romney landslide versus Obama? Landline polling of old white people is so quaint.

Tell us more.

There never was a poll which showed Romney winning by a landslide over Obama. Most polls, had the race pretty close. And in actual number of votes, it was not a landslide win for Obama. But besides, it is too early to put much faith in polls. A lot can happen between now and Nov. But if you want to look at a good example of how meaningless polls this early are, look up what the polls said between Carter and Reagan this time of the year. :P

[Reeve]

Yeah going to be massively biased if they don't call cell phones. Democrats skew younger and as young people are much more likely to have no landline phone (like me) but rely only on cell phones, its going to way over-count republican votes.

That's not certain though. 538 mentions that until it's confirmed that a polling place does cell phone calls, they make the assumption that they don't.

But their grades/ratings are based on the results, which for Rasmussen, do in fact skew towards the Republican.

[WernerCD]

Remember when Rasmussen's polling for 2012 had Romney with a 1% lead over Obama, just before the general election, where Obama walked away with a 4-point lead?

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/26...s-going-to-win

Yeah, Rasmussen's not the most reliable of pollsters.

Here's the RCP on the most recent polls; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

The ONLY poll showing a Trump lead is Rasmussen. Most of the rest are showing a 7-11 point lead for Clinton.

And before someone accuses me of cherry-picking on partisan bias, that includes the Fox News poll, with Clinton showing a 7 point lead.

The key point is not that this pole is unreliable... its that anything this far out is going to be unreliable...

Shit... this is the same election cycle that favored Bush and Rubio. Trump? He won't last a month... and Clinton? She has no real competition (unlike last time, where she lost to a no-name senator from Chicago). She's going to have a cake walk, unlike the "deeply divided GOP". Democrats? Nothing to see here until July...

A pole this far out? Good luck with that one...

[akris15]

There never was a poll which showed Romney winning by a landslide over Obama. Most polls, had the race pretty close. And in actual number of votes, it was not a landslide win for Obama. But besides, it is too early to put much faith in polls. A lot can happen between now and Nov. But if you want to look at a good example of how meaningless polls this early are, look up what the polls said between Carter and Reagan this time of the year. :P

Well the reason that happened was due to an unfortunate event (Iran)/Carter was too much of a pacifist and the economy. That example is kinda poor because that election was a knee jerk due to weak leadership and not what we are experiencing now. For your example to become true a massive terrorist attack would have to happen September+

[Thetruth1400]

Its like this: If you wanted someone to build a house for you, would you hire the guy who like "I have all the tools to build your house! I have these blueprints, and I have the workforce, all I need is for you to hire me! I've never actually built a house before, but I'm highly motivated and have a ton of ideas!"

That would be Trump though. I in no way support him, but I realize that he has run a business before, which is pretty much what government is. The president though, really isn't the one running the government, they're hiring and organizing the people that are. When a president enters office, they appoint about 300+ positions of high importance within the government. That means they are appointing people that know what the hell they're doing, which are running various aspects of the government. Frankly, Trump has more experience by far than Hillary in that aspect.

Again though, I'm not saying I'm supporting Trump, but at the end of the day when it comes down to a 1 on 1 contest, it'll be interesting to see how the polls shift.

[WernerCD]

The thing I don't understand about people who want to vote Trump is the fact that he has ZERO political experience. None. Zip. Nada.
Even if you love everything he stands for (ugh) and thought his platform was the best among those presented, he doesn't know how to apply any of it. At all.

Its like this: If you wanted someone to build a house for you, would you hire the guy who like "I have all the tools to build your house! I have these blueprints, and I have the workforce, all I need is for you to hire me! I've never actually built a house before, but I'm highly motivated and have a ton of ideas!"

Or do you hire the guy who is probably shady and unscrupulous, but will make sure you actually have a house when he's done? Neither option is great, but beggars can't be choosers.

TL;DR I wouldn't want to buy a pizza from a guy who hasn't made one before, let alone hire someone to run my country with 0 knowledge of how to do so.

You think someone who runs a multinational corporation doesn't has experience dealing with the same layers of BS as those who are in Politics?

And... the main brunt of this election is that the "system" is "corrupt". The whole POINT and reason that Trump is winning and Bern had a chance is that they ARENT the "Establishment".

The MAIN problem with Clinton is that she is Status Quo. Big banks. Wall street. Nafta. TPP. Multiple wars. She is everything that Washington currently is. Corrupt to the core. She's experienced? She's a liar through and through.. and is making millions by taking donations in one side of her mouth and saying she's going to take out wall street and stop big money out the other side of her mouth...

Trump is FAAAAAR from perfect... but he's better than a lying POS who is nothing but scandal after scandal.