General Election 2016: Clinton -vs- Trump

[djAdvocate]

Jul 13, 2016 18:33:15 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

For the naysayers here. Another poll saying Trump is gaining.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-clinton%E2%80%99s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-dramatically/ar-BBuh5ro?li=BBnb7Kz

didn't read the article, but if this is about the McClatchy Poll, did they point out that Trump is DOWN 2% from the survey they did in March?

[Deleted]

I'll wait for the election before I believe polls on this one... because pretty much every poll said he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of wining the Republican ticket...


And we all know how accurate THAT polling turned out to be!

[djAdvocate]

Jul 13, 2016 22:39:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll wait for the election before I believe polls on this one... because pretty much every poll said he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of wining the Republican ticket...


And we all know how accurate THAT polling turned out to be!

every poll i have ever seen in the last 10 months had him winning the nomination.

the PUNDIT CLASS predicted he wouldn't win the nomination- but i would challenge you to find ONE POLL which predicted that.

NOTE: the survey i posted yesterday (Survey USA) showed him +5 -vs- Clinton LAST SEPTEMBER.  this idea that "nobody saw this coming" is nonsense.  everyone saw this coming.  very few BELIEVED IT.

edit: what i am saying here is that if people actually BELIEVED the polls, they would have seen Trump as more of a threat.  it is actually the DISBELIEF in the polls that got us here, to a large degree.  Trump has been the FRONT RUNNER since he entered the race.  the talking heads didn't believe it.  that should be an object lesson in poll watching for everyone.  trust the polls: they are actually telling us what is going on.

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2016 11:33:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 13, 2016 22:39:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll wait for the election before I believe polls on this one... because pretty much every poll said he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of wining the Republican ticket...


And we all know how accurate THAT polling turned out to be!

every poll i have ever seen in the last 10 months had him winning the nomination.

the PUNDIT CLASS predicted he wouldn't win the nomination- but i would challenge you to find ONE POLL which predicted that.

NOTE: the survey i posted yesterday (Survey USA) showed him +5 -vs- Clinton LAST SEPTEMBER.  this idea that "nobody saw this coming" is nonsense.  everyone saw this coming.  very few BELIEVED IT.

edit: what i am saying here is that if people actually BELIEVED the polls, they would have seen Trump as more of a threat.  it is actually the DISBELIEF in the polls that got us here, to a large degree.  Trump has been the FRONT RUNNER since he entered the race.  the talking heads didn't believe it.  that should be an object lesson in poll watching for everyone.  trust the polls: they are actually telling us what is going on.

I'm not sure what to put in the Google search box to come up with the old polls... so... I'll believe what I've seen and you believe what you believe.


ETA: Oops. My bad. I can admit when I was wrong. I figured out a few ideas of what to put and went looking. I was misremembering. It was graphs that LOOKED LIKE POLLS that Cruz was winning... but the graphs were various surveys of their respective "political positions" on issues.

So... My bad. You are correct. He was leading in the polls.

[djAdvocate]

the latest three GE polls paint a very confusing picture.

Rasmussen shows Trump DOWN 6% since last survey.
Reuters shows Trump UP 7% since last survey.
LA Times shows Trump DOWN 1% since last survey.

no surveys since the convention ended.  Trump is still trailing by 3%

one thing i did notice is that there are fewer undecided voters than a month ago (13% -vs- 18%).

[Value Buy]

Well, they are already talking about Kaine's acceptance of "gifts" while Governor of Virginia.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/as-pick-for-no-2-tim-kaine-sees-gifts-come-under-scrutiny/ar-BBuKg9E?li=BBnb7Kz

And the answer from people supporting Clinton is, well, Virginia's laws are lax on gifts from lobbyists.........
So, it is all ok.

[djAdvocate]

polls are consistent with about a 7% jump, which is about what Republicans back to Goldwater got.

if correct, Trump should be leading this week by about what Clinton was leading last week (3-4%).

[tallguy]

I am not a Hillary apologist by any means, but I will be voting for her in November.  She was the most moderate of those candidates who had a real chance.  No, she is not a natural politician.  And no, she is not an inspiring leader.  What she is, is a dedicated and hard worker who takes issues seriously.  That alone puts her MILES ahead of Donald Trump.  Trump cares so little about actual governing that he reportedly offered John Kasich control of both domestic AND foreign policy to be his VP.  Donald Trump is not in any way suited for the office of the presidency.  Not by background, not by worldview, not by accomplishment, and not by temperament.  Hillary Clinton on her worst day is ten times more qualified to be president than is Donald Trump on his best.

I would like to have a Republican Party to believe in.  This ain't it.  The fact that they could actually nominate such a vulgar, volatile, narcissistic cretin is ample demonstration that there is little of value left in this incarnation of the Republican Party.  (It's not enough to make me actually become a Democrat, but still....)   

[djAdvocate]

i am going to back down what i said above in 535.  here is why:

there are TWO polls now that are showing no movement for Trump.

the first is the Economist/YouGov survey, which actually showed him DROPPING a point (trailing Clinton by 5%, now).
the second is the NBC poll which showed him unchanged from a week ago.

again, Rasmussen shows Trump DOWN 6% in the last week (but i tend to ignore this poll).

this leaves the four remaining polls showing gains for Trump ranging from +1 (CBS) to +10 (CNN).
if we toss out Rasmussen and CNN as outliers, it shows a gain of roughly 4% in the last week- which is consistent with the historical average of 5%.

there is one other thing that should be noted: that Clinton's numbers didn't drop.  she is still polling at 44%.  all of the gain came in undecided vote which is now down to a matchup low 10%.  i suspect that another 4-5% of it will disappear after the DNC, which very few Republican/GOP leaning viewers will probably watch.  in other words, i think these conventions are sweeping up the leaners, and it should leave us about where we started before the conventions, except with about 1/3 of the undecided vote that we had a month ago.

[djAdvocate]

let me know if anyone can make sense of this:

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/26/trump_federal_minimum_wage_should_be_10_per_hour.html

he has said in the past he would abolish the (federal) minimum wage.  here he is saying he would raise it to 10.  OR IS HE?

i find this response completely baffling.  he sounds like Palin.

edit: he has done this waffle dance before, apparently.  i just read another article where he changed his position 3 times in one day.

[sesfw]

Hillary Clinton on her worst day is ten times more qualified to be president than is Donald Trump on his best.

I'm sure there are 4 people she left to die horribly in Benghazi will agree with you.

[dondub]

Except she didn't. But Reagan did leave hundreds to die without you giving a shit.

[djAdvocate]

there are still a number of pollsters that have not updated.  it will be interesting to see where Trumps lead goes.

he is currently averaging +1.1% on RCP, his largest lead of the campaign.

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2016 12:22:39 GMT -5 dondub said:

Except she didn't. But Reagan did leave hundreds to die without you giving a shit.

Except... she actually did.

(and how do you know how anyone here felt about what Reagan did? Not to mention the fact that people can change over time and come to care more about things like honor and integrity... things that they may not have cared about in the past... so even if you are right... are you saying people cannot change?)

[dondub]

Blah, Blah, Blah can change too.

And no, she didn't, unless with all of your vast Supreme Court level intelligence you can do what 9 Congressional investigations have failed to do. At least yours will be free!

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2016 22:38:25 GMT -5 dondub said:

Blah, Blah, Blah can change too.

And no, she didn't, unless with all of your vast Supreme Court level intelligence you can do what 9 Congressional investigations have failed to do. At least yours will be free!

And yes, she did. You and all her deniers can obfuscate all you like. The facts say she was the person in charge of the State Department. The problem happened because the State Department didn't act on credible intelligence (not to mention good old fashioned common sense In a terror torn country, on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in world history... and no one saw it coming? Really?).

I don't know if you know it or not, but there's a saying in the Navy: "The captain is responsible. Period." He can be in bed, asleep, and if the ship runs aground on a known sandbar at 3:00AM (0300) because whoever was on-duty navigating missed it on the chart... the captain is responsible. It doesn't matter that he wasn't steering the ship. It doesn't matter that he wasn't reading the charts. It doesn't matter that he wasn't even on the bridge at the time. 

It's the same situation here. Ultimately everything that happened under her is her responsibility. Even if she didn't directly do it, she picked the person that did... or picked the person that picked the person... or picked the person that picked the person that picked the person.

As to "what 9 Congressional investigations have failed to do"... Congressional investigations tend to find what they want to find and to ignore what they don't want to. If you trust Congress to do a good job at ANYTHING you are living in a dream world. Congress hasn't "worked" in decades (that's not their fault though, admittedly... that's the fault of the American voters who keep sending poor choices TO Congress).

[sesfw]

Except that Congress wanted very badly to paint her as the wicked witch of Benghazi- and simply couldn't. But I think that was don's point.

OK, if you don't want to paint her as the wicked witch of Benghazi .......... then we go up the ladder and the buck stops at bho's desk .......... so in your opinion bho is the wicked witch of Benghazi?

If she was obeying bho's orders then she doesn't have the common sense to tell bho to bug off ....... his orders are NOT right ...... this amongst other things is HIS legacy?

The FBI knows she is guilty of lack of integrity with the emails ............ just no common sense anywhere

never billary, never

[dondub]

 Just because Richard hates her doesn't make his opinion right. I believe the Benghazi investigations have reached the conclusion it was a failure of the military.

 So I'm glad Richard used the old Navy saying "The captain is responsible, period." Not the Admiral, not the Defense Secretary, not the Commander in Chief, not the Secretary of State.

[Tennesseer]

And yet again. If the clubs are providing sleeping quarters (and probably meals too) for these foreign workers, why can't he find Americans to work these jobs while offering room and board in addition to wages. And were is Trump advertising these jobs in the U.S.-in the Mar-a-Lago Republican newspaper-readership of five?


Donald Trump’s Florida clubs hiring foreign workers

Donald Trump wants to make other countries work again.

The GOP presidential nominee is hiring 78 staffers at two of his Florida resorts — but he’s looking to bring in foreign workers to fill the slots, according to public records.

The billionaire — who has made bringing jobs to America a focal point of his presidential campaign — applied this month to hire through a guest worker program, which allows employers to bring in people from other countries only if no Americans want the jobs, according to Buzzfeed News.

The H-2 visa applications show that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach is looking to hire 65 workers through the program, while his National Gold Club in Jupiter needs 13 more.

The two clubs have room for 37 waiters and waitresses, who will be paid $11.13 an hour, and 26 cooks, who will earn $12.74 an hour. Additionally, Mar-a-Lago needs 15 $10.17-an-hour housekeepers.

Under the H-2 visa program, employers may search for job candidates only after they’ve exhausted their domestic options. American workers must always be given preference over foreign candidates and the jobs only open up to the wider world if no Americans are qualified for them — or want them.

Donald Trump’s Florida clubs hiring foreign workers

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2016 10:59:43 GMT -5 dondub said:

 Just because Richard hates her doesn't make his opinion right. I believe the Benghazi investigations have reached the conclusion it was a failure of the military.

 So I'm glad Richard used the old Navy saying "The captain is responsible, period." Not the Admiral, not the Defense Secretary, not the Commander in Chief, not the Secretary of State.

You are posting under a false conclusion. I don't hate her. How could I hate her? I don't know her. What I do know is that she is unqualified for the job. She is a liar, she is a fraud, she is a perjurer, and she is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of Americans.

The State Department is the "ship"... and she was the "captain" of that ship.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2016 21:21:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 28, 2016 10:59:43 GMT -5 dondub said:

 Just because Richard hates her doesn't make his opinion right. I believe the Benghazi investigations have reached the conclusion it was a failure of the military.

 So I'm glad Richard used the old Navy saying "The captain is responsible, period." Not the Admiral, not the Defense Secretary, not the Commander in Chief, not the Secretary of State.

You are posting under a false conclusion. I don't hate her. How could I hate her? I don't know her. What I do know is that she is unqualified for the job. She is a liar, she is a fraud, she is a perjurer, and she is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of Americans.

by this standard, no president in the last 100 years is qualified.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2016 21:24:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 28, 2016 21:21:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You are posting under a false conclusion. I don't hate her. How could I hate her? I don't know her. What I do know is that she is unqualified for the job. She is a liar, she is a fraud, she is a perjurer, and she is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of Americans.

by this standard, no president in the last 100 years is qualified.

I might have agreed with you had you limited it to the last few decades... I think the last qualified President we had was Eisenhower... or maybe Kennedy.

[dondub]

 The State Department operates under the POTUS. Therefore, to use your logic, the Commander-in-chief is the "captain". However, try as they might, the Benghazoids in Repoland

could only blame the actual military. As far as I'm concerned, regardless of your hate for Hillary, that proof lets her completely off the hook.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2016 22:51:12 GMT -5 dondub said:

 The State Department operates under the POTUS. Therefore, to use your logic, the Commander-in-chief is the "captain". However, try as they might, the Benghazoids in Repoland

could only blame the actual military. As far as I'm concerned, regardless of your hate for Hillary, that proof lets her completely off the hook.

Yes. POTUS is "Commander-in-chief". The confirmation committee would then be "the Admirals"... and who is below the Admirals? Yup... That would be Captain Hillary Clinton.

Thanks for proving my point.


(and you must have missed it when I very clearly and plainly said "I don't hate her. How could I hate her? I don't know her.".)

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2016 21:34:08 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 28, 2016 21:24:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

by this standard, no president in the last 100 years is qualified.

I might have agreed with you had you limited it to the last few decades... I think the last qualified President we had was Eisenhower... or maybe Kennedy.

how were the deaths in VietNam necessary?

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2016 1:38:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 28, 2016 21:34:08 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I might have agreed with you had you limited it to the last few decades... I think the last qualified President we had was Eisenhower... or maybe Kennedy.

how were the deaths in VietNam necessary?

Defense against the push of communism... as well as defense of an ally in SEATO.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2016 2:12:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 29, 2016 1:38:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how were the deaths in VietNam necessary?

Defense against the push of communism... as well as defense of an ally in SEATO.

not buying it.  but that is why i said 100 years.

don't get me wrong, i like Ike.  i really do.  but i think he made some really bad mistakes in terms of throwing our boys in the line of fire.

edit: i won't devote much energy to shooting down presidents before Ike, if you are wondering. 

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2016 2:20:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 29, 2016 2:12:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Defense against the push of communism... as well as defense of an ally in SEATO.

not buying it.  but that is why i said 100 years.

don't get me wrong, i like Ike.  i really do.  but i think he made some really bad mistakes in terms of throwing our boys in the line of fire.

edit: i won't devote much energy to shooting down presidents before Ike, if you are wondering. 

I never said Ike was perfect. No human is.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2016 3:17:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 29, 2016 2:20:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not buying it.  but that is why i said 100 years.

don't get me wrong, i like Ike.  i really do.  but i think he made some really bad mistakes in terms of throwing our boys in the line of fire.

edit: i won't devote much energy to shooting down presidents before Ike, if you are wondering. 

I never said Ike was perfect. No human is.

don't you ever sleep?

[steff]

I'll sleep when I'm dead  ~ Jon Bon Jovi