Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hope springs eternal for 2blob. He's found the one poll in the country that shows Hillary losing, and he's sticking with it.

Well, he stuck with it when she was winning too...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I'm hardly "super defensive" when it comes to Clinton. LOL

It's become a sword that cuts both ways.

If you hate Trump, you're for Clinton.

If you hate Clinton, you're for Trump.

If you don't hate Trump, you're for Trump.

If you detest then equally, you're for Trump.

 

[Adre]

I like neither but one will be the de facto leader of the free world. My vote will be cast to prevent it from being him.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Mine too...

Go BIG or go home.

I will never vote for a criminal, although I rather suspect some here willingly...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Our weekly dose of Clarice:

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...like_the_man_who_married_his_motherinlaw.html

I don't think a single Clintonista will give it a fair read, and why would they? They alone are the arbiters of truth; there can be no other way...

 

[toubab]

Well, he stuck with it when she was winning too...

That could give people the impression it's the unique methodology of the poll I find interesting.

Seriously, it is the methodology. I expect Trump's current lead to be temporary. We shall see.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't expect much but I suspect a lot...

 

[Conager]

Mine too...

Go BIG or go home.

I will never vote for a criminal, although I rather suspect some here willingly...

I would love to see the results of a very structured push-poll where the polster would deliberately lie and give each sub-sample the idea that each of four candidates was in the lead. How much, if at all, would the lead increase if the respondant beleived he was joining a bandwagon?

I'd even like to see it done with the Libertarian and Green candidates being behind, but with a reasonable chance for winning.

Given the negatives of both frontrunners wouldn't Johnson clean up if it was presumed that tbe longstanding "wasted vote" meme did not apply this cycle?

 

[Adre]

CBS battleground tracker now shows Trump losing every swing state, with Iowa, full of Trump's kind of old white people, now a toss up.

 

[phrodeau]

CBS battleground tracker now shows Trump losing every swing state, with Iowa, full of Trump's kind of old white people, now a toss up.

Iowa isn't full of Trump's kind of people. It's full of Republicans. There's a difference.

 

[Beco]

Iowa isn't full of Trump's kind of people. It's full of Republicans. There's a difference.

Your are so witty

 

[Wrong Element]

I would love to see the results of a very structured push-poll where the polster would deliberately lie and give each sub-sample the idea that each of four candidates was in the lead. How much, if at all, would the lead increase if the respondant beleived he was joining a bandwagon?

First, that's not the definition of a push poll.

Second, I've never seen any evidence at all that this is something that could happen. Does anyone reading this thread want to admit that they would decide who to vote for based on whether or not the candidate seems likely to win?

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.infowars.com/trump-leads-clinton-in-latest-poll-after-month-of-trailing/

Alex Jones can't seem to report exactly what the poll results were.

For the first time in nearly a month, Donald Trump finds himself ahead of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump, who had trailed Clinton in every poll conducted since late July, narrowly led in the latest LA Times/USC Dornsife poll, published on Saturday.

Saturday’s poll marks a two-point improvement for Trump according to the LA Times poll, which on Friday showed Clinton leading my 1%.

 

[toubab]

http://www.infowars.com/trump-leads-clinton-in-latest-poll-after-month-of-trailing/

Alex Jones can't seem to report exactly what the poll results were.

I thought maybe he was talking round numbers, but even that wouldn't be right. Clinton was ahead in the 8-18 results 45-43, rounded. The 8-19 results were a rounded 44-44. The 8-20 results, reported today, were Trump ahead 45.0-43.0.

 

[RoryN]

The about-face he's getting ready to do on immigration isn't going to win him new voters - it's just going to piss off his fans.

Starting to think that he'll be screaming, "C'mon people - we can still win this!" during Hillary's January inaugural ceremony.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First, that's not the definition of a push poll.

Second, I've never seen any evidence at all that this is something that could happen. Does anyone reading this thread want to admit that they would decide who to vote for based on whether or not the candidate seems likely to win?

Fuck yeah. I think it's obvious in the language we use that a lot of us would.

 

[Wrong Element]

The about-face he's getting ready to do on immigration isn't going to win him new voters - it's just going to piss off his fans.

I don't agree, at least not about the second part (I do agree that it isn't going to fool anyone who isn't already in the tank). They will find a way to rationalize it.

It was obvious that Trump allegedly self-funding his campaign was a huge selling point for his original supporters. People at his rallies would bring it up without being prompted when reporters would ask them about why they liked him. Then once the nomination was safely won, he changed his mind, and he's now hitting up the same poor dumb clods who used to pick up the phone when Glenn Beck would run his gold ads.

Has a single Trumpkin complained about being misled, or called him a liar, or withdrawn their support? That's not how a cult of personality works.

 

[RoryN]

I don't agree, at least not about the second part (I do agree that it isn't going to fool anyone who isn't already in the tank). They will find a way to rationalize it.

It was obvious that Trump allegedly self-funding his campaign was a huge selling point for his original supporters. People at his rallies would bring it up without being prompted when reporters would ask them about why they liked him. Then once the nomination was safely won, he changed his mind, and he's now hitting up the same poor dumb clods who used to pick up the phone when Glenn Beck would run his gold ads.

Has a single Trumpkin complained about being misled, or called him a liar, or withdrawn their support? That's not how a cult of personality works.

I didn't say they'd withdraw their support - I said it would piss them off.

Sure, they'll rationalise around it. But this will be fuel for a fire, even if they blame someone else for starting it.

 

[zipman]

What's next? Mexico won't pay for the wall?

 

[patient1]

What's next? Mexico won't pay for the wall?

Don't be silly!

Mexico will pay for the wall, American service members will commit war crimes, and ISIS will cease to exist when Trump is president...

BECAUSE HE SAYS SO!!!

 

[RoryN]

What's next? Mexico won't pay for the wall?

I think, before November, he announces the "greatest Mexican border security, ever" while conceding there isn't going to be a wall.

 

[coati]

What's next? Mexico won't pay for the wall?

Well, what can you say, Trump is now the trickle-down champion of Hispanic voters.

Oh, and African American voters, also. His pitch to them was soooo compelling: "Hey you African Americans, vote Republican, the party of Abraham Lincoln. I mean face it, you're poor and uneducated and jobless, and, well, black, so what have you got to lose?"

 

[Conager]

First, that's not the definition of a push poll.

Second, I've never seen any evidence at all that this is something that could happen. Does anyone reading this thread want to admit that they would decide who to vote for based on whether or not the candidate seems likely to win?

I wasn't giving the definition of a push-poll. I assume most people with any interest in politics, advertising or human persuasion are familiar with no the technique and it's widespread application.

You will notice that because there was no colon after the word push-poll.

If I say to you I think we should get a Buick and load the trunk with the following items...you would come back to me and say that's not the definition of a Buick, would you?

As to your assertion that perceptions of who the market leader in any endeavor is, does not have an impact on humans suggests that the bandwagon approach should be abandoned in all propaganda and advertising. Do you have no concept what about human psychology as it relates to influencing perceptions?

Such techniques work on a sub-conscious level and your idea that for members self-reporting on the sources of their perceptions would be accurate is silly to be polite about it.

What makes you think that you or I are immunize to the effects of persuasion?

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Trump 44.6

Clinton 43.5


Bad day yesterday for Trump. Down .4 overall. First time he's gone down in this poll since 8/13. Interestingly, his share of the black vote went up. The dramatic increase in that demo is surprisingly holding pretty steady since the huge jump from 4.8 to 14.1 occurred on 8/16.

Yesterday was a good day for Clinton, overall. Up a little more than Trump was down.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I would love to see the results of a very structured push-poll where the polster would deliberately lie and give each sub-sample the idea that each of four candidates was in the lead. How much, if at all, would the lead increase if the respondant beleived he was joining a bandwagon?

I'd even like to see it done with the Libertarian and Green candidates being behind, but with a reasonable chance for winning.

Given the negatives of both frontrunners wouldn't Johnson clean up if it was presumed that tbe longstanding "wasted vote" meme did not apply this cycle?

I really don't know.

When it comes to Libertarians, the vast majority of people seem to have this cartoon version of the party in their head.