Will possibly be the greatest landslide victory in all of history

Will possibly be the greatest landslide victory in all of history

Trump doesn't seem to like to talk about the polls anymore

Other urls found in this thread:

whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz4J22Kw3cu
youtu.be/dkWBcnWPMao
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nah the polls are rigged. Look for ones that aren't funded by the Clinton Foundation.

> Implying Trump isn't going to win in the biggest landslide in history

Nice try, leaf

FOX News is being funded by the Clinton Foundation?

That really helps put all the Clinton attacks on their front page right now into perspective

Even if the polls are rigged, elections will be rigged too.

You had your chance and you blow it, as usual by going to extremes.

Intolerance it's ok to move people in the beggining of the campaign, but you overplayer your hand to make dumb nigger jokes and now have to fight from a censored public campaign.

I honestly believe that Clinton it's an evil bitch and the worst it could happen to america, but in all seriousness you can't expect people to allign behind an intolerance speech for to long, before someone points out that Pedro the nice gardener it's here illegally and the whole campaign lost it's moral ground, for the necessary double standard of reality.

>FOX News is being funded by the Clinton Foundation?
Duh. All media is bought and owned by globalist pedophile kikes. Read sometime.

That stupid bitch Shillary doesn't stand a chance. It's going to be a 400+ electoral landslide for Trump.

>Globalist pedophile kikes
>Supports Trump at every turn
>Runs five articles a day on their front page attacking Clinton
>Supports conspiracy theories and posts skewed statistics in Trump's favor
>Watched almost strictly by old, white Republicans

It's sad that willful ignorance has become a norm

>this guy

What will you tell yourself when Trump gets obliterated?

You mean the NBC poll that has FOX's name attached to it?

No, no I don't

Funniest part about this is how hard they tried to skew it in Trump's favor
>Trump narrows Clinton's lead
(they left out the word "massive" before lead)
>Include four-way polls as if those matter

Why is it always Cancucks who try to shit on Trump? Are they really so brainwashed by years and years of lolberal indoctrination that they unironically think non-whites in white countries are a net benefit to society? Can some of you cuckolds please explain your position

Please stop retard. You're embarrassing us even moar leaf.

Everyone with a sub 100 IQ and some sort of secondary education understands the truth. You're accepting the shit MSM and the Shrills are feeding you. Get off your shitty country's facebook and twitter feeds. You're not living in reality.

>MSM
Polls are literally from FOX News of all places

Secondary education isn't even that spectacular, especially in Canada. I have the strange feeling you're using a proxy.

Regardless, most people with secondary education or beyond are voting for Clinton, and this is verified by numerous polls

Weird how the comparatively poor Clinton is outbidding the favour of the pollsters instead of the billionaire Trump

>Fox isn't controlled opposition meme

>Regardless, most people with secondary education or beyond are voting for Clinton, and this is verified by numerous polls

This is a generational thing you retard, Trump supporters are older and college education is rarer in older generations. Trump supporters have a higher average income than Clinton supporters, which says it all

I'm just stating the facts. He brought out the point that "Trump supporters are more educated" and I disproved it. Regardless if it was commonplace back then or not, the point that more educated voters pick Clinton stands.

How does higher average income mean anything? Oil field workers make more than professors in most cases, at least in Canada. Notwithstanding, that's not even true.

Really, income and IQ statistics really prove nothing about a voter base.

>How does higher average income mean anything?

It means they

a. are more productive than Clinton supporters
b. have more invested in the system than Clinton supporters

Kys

Wasn't Hillary higher in the polls yesterday? she had 272 locked in now it is only 262 what happened?

I'm a pretty factual and logical person so this kind of analysis really hurts my brain.

This really shows you have no idea how it works. Rich people vote for the tax breaks, bringing the income average of Republican voters up while poorer people who rely on social programs bring down average income for Democrats. However, neither represent the average voter of each party.

Moreover, more educated people can easily make less while being responsible for more innovation and doing tougher jobs.

This year, the average income is nearly even since even a lot of rich people are appalled by Trump's potential cultural and societal impact

One state moved from Leans Clinton to Toss-Up

Wisconsin is now a swing state due to the last poll being within magin of error

>However, neither represent the average voter of each party.

No? The median income of Trump supporters is $11,000 higher than Clinton supporters. It's $23,000 higher than the national average. You literally don't have a clue what you are talking about.

>Moreover, more educated people can easily make less while being responsible for more innovation and doing tougher jobs.

lol. Can do, but on average there is no reason to assume this.

Fox hates trump

That's true during the primaries all he talked about was polls and so did his Trumpnigger dick riders.

Huh really makes you think what happened....

>a lot of rich people are appalled by Trump's potential cultural and societal impact

They sure are. I would be too if my endless supply of cheap labour were about to dry up. The rich capitalists hate Trump. The left wing establishment hate Trump. Minorities hate Trump. It's literally disenfranchised whites who are supporting him. What's not to love?

CTR's Canadian office I assume. Polls are rigged the same way they were with BREXIT. Then what happened?
whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz4J22Kw3cu

>lol. Can do, but on average there is no reason to assume this.

It's not about making assumptions at all. This literal fact invalidates any analysis you can make about the average Democrat or Republican based on average income, especially their productivity.

And I've seen that poll too many times. This poll also states Trump voters have more formal education, especially post-secondary, than Clinton supporters. Hopefully you don't believe that too.

Despite being biased, it doesn't really show much differentiation between Republicans and Democrats. As I stated before, poorer households pull Democratic averages very low so the $11000 gap is quite amazing, especially compared to other years.

Hopefully you like being overtaken economically by other nations as prices sky-rocket

Show me one +ve evaluation of his economic plan not from a sensationalist bs website

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump will win it. He's already acting like the President. Hillary has ZERO momentum. I don't think this will even be close, unless they do some serious rigging.

>He's already acting like the President.

Wut?

Sorry to be that guy, but beliefs, unsupported claims, positive thinking, etc. have no effect on the actual race. Acting like you're already the President doesn't win you the presidency.

Just because you think something will happen, even if you think really hard, it won't do a thing. It might help you be more positive though.

Have you not been paying attention?

>Secondary education isn't even that spectacular, especially in Canada. I have the strange feeling you're using a proxy

I received a degree in mechanical engineering at the 34th best school in the world, 2nd best in Canada. You must be high weed man. Wake up and figure it out. Retard.

>proxy, I'm sure.

No, my opinion isn't shaped by "positive thinking". You're implying I'm being irrational. This is an objective analysis.

"Just cause you think something will happen doesn't mean it will". No shit, Sherlock. You should go on Big Think.

No idea how this is relevant to what I said. I wasn't personally attacking you, I was just commenting on how secondary education isn't that spectacular and how it was strange a Canadian would ever tout it.

But you are being irrational. Look at the polls (which apparently weren't rigged during the primaries but are now) and weep. What support do you have for your claim, other than Trump's best words.

And that last comment was solely because the majority of Americans do believe that. I didn't notice you weren't American, so I apologize for that.

Why would I weep at polls? Polls are useless. They get it wrong all the time. They got it wrong here in the 2015 elections and during the EU Referendum campaign. It's actually far more irrational to base my opinion on data which is unrepresentative, like you do.

Trump has all the momentum, has an exciting campagin, is working like a trojan and is making major moves in the political arena already like linking up with the Mexican President. Hillary is nowhere to be seen. Motivation and passion is important in campaign runs and it's clear which side has more passion. And it will be the difference here, just like it was with Brexit. Sorry I can't quantify that and make a cute little pie chart for you.

>greatest landslide victory in all of history
>in all of history

Lol wtf you're literally saying that you're being rational but then admit to using an emotional base to your claims, reject a wide swath of experience (polls), and use your heavily charged descriptors to describe both candidates.

Didn't Trump lie bluntly about the Wall while standing right beside the Mexican president? That's a great way to form bonds.

Sorry bud, but it's not irrational to base your opinions on actual data and the collective experiences of a wide variety of people, rather than just making stuff up off the top of my head.

No, I have no admitted to using emotion to base my claims. I have little emotion invested in this. There is a difference between being able to analyse the passion and momentum behind a campaign and being involved in it myself. Not sure why that's difficult for you to comprehend.

Trump's campaign has more passion and momentum. Fact. Are you going to argue that or not?

> reject a wide swath of experience (polls)

Are you saying polls are accurate and representative?

"but it's not irrational to base your opinions on actual data"

>Polls. Actual data.

Cute.

I live in Arizona. Trust me, Clinton isn't anywhere near parity with Trump here. I've been all around the state, and the only parts that are pro-Clinton are the Indian Reservations and South/Central Phoenix, which gets cancelled out by the rest of the conservatives in the city.

Trump won our state the moment Sheriff Joe endorse him. Illegals can't vote here. Plus, all the hot and old women are voting for Trump here, and there's a sizable Mormon population that'll vote for him no matter what. Gun ownership is through the roof, and everyone here loves hunting and going to the firing range.

Yeah but muh pollz!

The pollsters actually hang up on you if you say you're Independent or Republican here. Most calls are made to our Reservations, despite the fact that the total population of them is less than 1/11th the state's total population. They're huge and sparsely populated.

Without our gibsmedats 400 lb Apache friends, we would've been entirely red.

>Trump's campaign has more passion and momentum. Fact
Not really a fact, but what I'm actually disagreeing with is the idea you pulled out of your ass that the more passionate and momentous side always wins.

>being able to analyse the passion and momentum
So you feel using your own analysis (essentially one viewpoint) is more accurate than regarding the collective opinion of thousands upon thousands of people.

>Are you saying polls are accurate and representative?
Definitely, and they certainly are real data. If you have a large enough sample, you can effectively gauge the opinion of the larger whole.

For example, you can break down the recipe of a cake using a small sliver of it, rather than using the entire cake. Brexit polls failed because likely voters for the Remain side didn't show up. Trump is losing in the polls when it comes to both registered voters and likely voters.

DA WHITE DEVIL TOOK OUR LAND

EVIL WHITEY

GIVE US MORE FIRE WATAH

Your only correct in 1 thing, that it will be the greatest landslide victory in all of American history.

But for Trump, not Clinton.

It's funny because Trump's doing better than you'd be lead to believe.

FL, GA, NV, AZ, MO, IA, OH, ME2 are safely Trump. He's tied or slightly ahead (within MOE), so that's why the map is showing them as toss up.

He's able to win PA and MI as well, and that's all he needs for the election.

All Romney states will go red plus FL, OH, PA.

He's 3 points ahead in Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and Misery, and less than 4 behind in Nevada, Iowa, and Maine. He's actually leading in New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and he's perfectly tied in Michigan.

The only thing missing is his mission to flip Pennsylvania.

>Not really a fact, but what I'm actually disagreeing with is the idea you pulled out of your ass that the more passionate and momentous side always wins.

Really? So you're saying you could make an argument that Hillary's campaign has more passion and momentum?

Never did I anywhere say the more passionate and momentous side wins - I said it counts, it's what made the difference in the Brexit vote and it's what I think will make the difference here.

>So you feel using your own analysis (essentially one viewpoint) is more accurate than regarding the collective opinion of thousands upon thousands of people.

Except it's not one viewpoint that Trump is running a more passionate campaign. That is pretty much unanimous. Polls may have data of thousands of people but what does it matter when that data is unrepresentative and polls routinely get it wrong?

>Brexit polls failed because likely voters for the Remain side didn't show up.

LOL. Ohhhh so it was the electorate's fault for not fulfilling the projections of the polls then. Nothing to do with the sheer inaccuracy and unrepresentative nature of polling in general. I see now. How about the polls leading up to the 2015 UK general election? Was it the electorate's fault again there too? I wonder what your excuse will be when the polls get it wrong again during this election.

>Says I'm a pretty factual and logical person
>Presented will poll, disregards it cause it doesn't fit his narrative

kek

Finally, an argument somewhat relevant to reality

I'm unable to check the validity of those claims, but if I recall correctly, Nevada is favoured towards Clinton. However, even if what you say is true, I would take it with a grain of salt.

A +2 or +3 in either direction is meaningless. There's a higher degree of uncertainty when it comes to states, as we saw in the last election.

I'd only trust anything that's +5 in either direction. If it's toss-up, leave it as a toss-up. There's no legitimate argument to be made to move it over to the other side.

There's no basis to your "BIGGEST LANDSLIDE IN ALL OF HISTORY" argument in the OP then either if you're saying my argument is somewhat valid.

You just said leave them as tossups, and then you say it'll be the biggest landslide despite the fact all the states I mentioned at slightly pro-Trump.

How can it be a landslide if he's just on the edge of the MOE for her to tie it at best?

Your arguments in this thread aren't even cohesive, so just go back to ETS. You already act like you have the moral highground.

I disregard the poll because it isn't consistent with nearly every other poll I've seen in the last few months and something that is really uncontroversial.

Here's the bottom line. You're being presented with the objective data, polls, that show how people actually feel about each candidate. You decide to disregard them as you feel it's inconsistent with your own version of reality. This is the very definition of irrational.

I can't dig it up now, but I found a neat infographic highlighting the accuracy of polls. It concluded they were accurate over 90% of the time. If you don't believe, check results from your own primary. Trump got nearly all the states he was predicted to in the polls. Not to mention, when people were saying Trump would never win the primaries, the polls had already predicted his win.

If you're agreeing with me that the side with passion and momentum is not the side that wins (completely contradictory to what you first said), then tell me what then, aside from the unanimous and collective opinion, wins elections.

Overall, Brexit polls failed because the British in general are major fuck-ups this side of the century. It's the 21st century ffs, start polling likely voters instead of random kids. Check the analyses online yourself, I'm not lying. You guys can't even run a poll properly.

Are you even following along? That's not my argument lel, that's just my clickbait title. Trump supporters make it way too easy to rile them up.

What I've actually been talking about is that Clinton is firmly ahead of Trump right now. I've mostly just made this thread to see Trump supporters flip-flop from "WE'RE WINNING IN THE POLLS" to "POLLS AREN'T ACCURATE".

I don't blame you if you didn't read the rest of the thread before replying. It's getting a bit hard to follow in general.

Nope. I disregard polls somewhat because they are inaccurate, unrepresentative and constantly get it wrong. To take polling data with a pinch of salt is entirely rational. On the other hand to base your entire projection on inaccurate, unrepresentative polling data is wholly irrational.

>If you're agreeing with me that the side with passion and momentum is not the side that wins (completely contradictory to what you first said), then tell me what then, aside from the unanimous and collective opinion, wins elections.

Wtf? I refuted your false paraphrase of me that I said the campaign with the most passion and momentum ALWAYS wins. I never said that. I repeat for the 3rd time: it counts, it what made the difference with Brexit and it's what will make the difference in this election.

>Overall, Brexit polls failed because the British in general are major fuck-ups this side of the century.

This is lame even for the standards of a fucking leaf. You have no argument.

>inaccurate
Does +90% seem inaccurate to you?

>And it will be the difference here,
And is there any proof that emotion, momentum, etc. will make the difference here? This is a very circular argument lololol

>You have no argument.
Nice of you to not respond to my actual argument which immediately followed this lel

Why would anyone believe this? They could just listen to you and then throw your data in the trash lel. I'm assuming these polling companies are trying to destroy their reputations.

>Does +90% seem inaccurate to you?

2015 GE, Brexit polls seem very inaccurate to me.

>And is there any proof that emotion, momentum, etc. will make the difference here?

See parallels with Brexit campaign and Trump campaign.

>Nice of you to not respond to my actual argument which immediately followed this lel

Which was? That they polled "random kids" and to "check online"? You said argument... right?

Its not an election. Its a massacre.

>muh brexit

post disregarded

>muh feels

Big baby.

Kind of interesting that Wisconsin is a swing state when neighboring states Michigan and Minnesota have virtually no polling but still show light blue, eh?

>what is Nixon's landslide
>what is FDRs landslide

youtu.be/dkWBcnWPMao