Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OMG!!! This is not "one on one battle" yet. Read the second and third sentence (I wrote above) again to make it clear for you. You cannot be that stupid or can you? Well, you can, sorry for underestimating you in that regard.The Republican field is divided. Some would vote for one candidate but not for the other one. However, neither would vote for Clinton. Wait with your stupid polls after the nominations of major party candidates, the gap will significantly narrow down, disappear and/or change.
Totally meaningless bullshit at the present.
Huh? This was one on one poll. Divided repcon field has no impact on one on one battles. Repcons will once again delude themselves unto believing their candidate will win in a landslide. Just bring in Dick Morris and ask him to give you the good news. As we all know on Fox nuse, no democratic candidate ever leads the polls. So your best bet is to tune it to fox news and ignore the polls altogether. It will give you a nice 18 month period during which you can use the Fox nuse data as a novacaine or codeine to minimize your pain.
Somebody please tell this imbecile that the polls are not reflecting a one on one all out election battle. Clinton will get the nomination, then Sanders' people will vote for her increasing her numbers. Rep candidate will gain other rep candidates' people and increase his/her numbers. Those numbers will be closer to reality not counting the independents and those who actually think for themselves before voting.There's a long time before the election. Her campaign has been a joke and I can just imagine her in a debate. What will she do, refuse to answer questions?
Any one of the GOP hopefuls will make her look like the liar and incompetent candidate she is.
For being a "liar and incompetent" she still leads all repcons by almost double digits at least in these latest polls. I know the lead may fluctuate from time to time.
What should make you piss in your own pants with total fear is that these leads have been consistent over the past couple of months. If people really wanted to have another repcon in the WH, we would have seen at least some of the candidates do better against Hillary than they're doing now.
Only Jeb, Scott and Marco are within striking distance of Hillary. All others are long shot. Of the three Jeb is actually the best candidate to give her a tough fight. Hillary will defecate on Marco and Scott every day, given a chance. They wlll look like total shit against her.
Any ways, remain tuned to Fox nuse, they will lie to you and you can feel good about yourself and your party until the dreaded eleciton day comes. Then, as happened in 2012, you will realize that your candidate was never going to win in a landslide.
Enjoy the ride, and keep your seatbelts fastened.
You are right about that because you are stupid MSNBC viewer. I am glad we got that cleared that up.That s because I am not a stupid moron Fox viewer.
You are right about that because you are stupid MSNBC viewer. I am glad we got that cleared that up.That s because I am not a stupid moron Fox viewer.
OMG!!! This is not "one on one battle" yet. Read the second and third sentence (I wrote above) again to make it clear for you. You cannot be that stupid or can you? Well, you can, sorry for underestimating you in that regard.The Republican field is divided. Some would vote for one candidate but not for the other one. However, neither would vote for Clinton. Wait with your stupid polls after the nominations of major party candidates, the gap will significantly narrow down, disappear and/or change.
Totally meaningless bullshit at the present.
Huh? This was one on one poll. Divided repcon field has no impact on one on one battles. Repcons will once again delude themselves unto believing their candidate will win in a landslide. Just bring in Dick Morris and ask him to give you the good news. As we all know on Fox nuse, no democratic candidate ever leads the polls. So your best bet is to tune it to fox news and ignore the polls altogether. It will give you a nice 18 month period during which you can use the Fox nuse data as a novacaine or codeine to minimize your pain.
How could anyone (even a democrat) say this with enthusiasm?
How could anyone (even a democrat) say this with enthusiasm?
She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
Hohoho, you think past always repeats in the future right? And if you think her hawkish stance on war and Iran didn't sink her back then they you don't know history at all. Dems didn't vote for Obama for he was black. They voted for him because he was a centrist, moderate, non hawkish anti war candidate.
As far as white people in the dem candidate list, yep, you can bring in all the skin color discussion you want. Fact is, majority of the non-whites will vote for dems. About 40% of whites will vote for dems. The minorities will always put the dems on the top. White voters need a substantially largerr tilt towards the repcons to win any general election.
I guess cons should have stopped being racists in 1865 right after the civil war. Too bad, today their bigotry doesn't win them hearts and minds of the minorities. This is their fault and their fault alone. They will continue to pay a heavy price for generations to come for being racists that they are.
She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
Hohoho, you think past always repeats in the future right? And if you think her hawkish stance on war and Iran didn't sink her back then they you don't know history at all. Dems didn't vote for Obama for he was black. They voted for him because he was a centrist, moderate, non hawkish anti war candidate.
As far as white people in the dem candidate list, yep, you can bring in all the skin color discussion you want. Fact is, majority of the non-whites will vote for dems. About 40% of whites will vote for dems. The minorities will always put the dems on the top. White voters need a substantially largerr tilt towards the repcons to win any general election.
I guess cons should have stopped being racists in 1865 right after the civil war. Too bad, today their bigotry doesn't win them hearts and minds of the minorities. This is their fault and their fault alone. They will continue to pay a heavy price for generations to come for being racists that they are.
I think she was leading by a comfortable margin at this time in 2008.
She also didn't even win the nomination, much less the general election, which pretty much makes your "polls as prediction" thread useless.
Any other questions?
Say Hello to our next president: Hillary Rodham Clinton
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 54, Bush 41 Clinton +13
General Election: Walker vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 57, Walker 40 Clinton +17
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Rubio 40 Clinton +16
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Christie 39 Clinton +16
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 59, Trump 35 Clinton +24
She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
Hohoho, you think past always repeats in the future right? And if you think her hawkish stance on war and Iran didn't sink her back then they you don't know history at all. Dems didn't vote for Obama for he was black. They voted for him because he was a centrist, moderate, non hawkish anti war candidate.
As far as white people in the dem candidate list, yep, you can bring in all the skin color discussion you want. Fact is, majority of the non-whites will vote for dems. About 40% of whites will vote for dems. The minorities will always put the dems on the top. White voters need a substantially largerr tilt towards the repcons to win any general election.
I guess cons should have stopped being racists in 1865 right after the civil war. Too bad, today their bigotry doesn't win them hearts and minds of the minorities. This is their fault and their fault alone. They will continue to pay a heavy price for generations to come for being racists that they are.
I think she was leading by a comfortable margin at this time in 2008.
She also didn't even win the nomination, much less the general election, which pretty much makes your "polls as prediction" thread useless.
Any other questions?
LOL! I've told you the historic facts and the war fatigue Americans had. Of course, you think that past always repeats in the future. "If she didn't win then, how can she win now?" If this is your logic, then suit yourself. I don't care. I go by the current polls, not by what happened 8 years ago. You make your own conclusions, I won't stop you.
ROmney in a landslide!
She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
Hohoho, you think past always repeats in the future right? And if you think her hawkish stance on war and Iran didn't sink her back then they you don't know history at all. Dems didn't vote for Obama for he was black. They voted for him because he was a centrist, moderate, non hawkish anti war candidate.
As far as white people in the dem candidate list, yep, you can bring in all the skin color discussion you want. Fact is, majority of the non-whites will vote for dems. About 40% of whites will vote for dems. The minorities will always put the dems on the top. White voters need a substantially largerr tilt towards the repcons to win any general election.
I guess cons should have stopped being racists in 1865 right after the civil war. Too bad, today their bigotry doesn't win them hearts and minds of the minorities. This is their fault and their fault alone. They will continue to pay a heavy price for generations to come for being racists that they are.
I think she was leading by a comfortable margin at this time in 2008.
She also didn't even win the nomination, much less the general election, which pretty much makes your "polls as prediction" thread useless.
Any other questions?
LOL! I've told you the historic facts and the war fatigue Americans had. Of course, you think that past always repeats in the future. "If she didn't win then, how can she win now?" If this is your logic, then suit yourself. I don't care. I go by the current polls, not by what happened 8 years ago. You make your own conclusions, I won't stop you.
ROmney in a landslide!
You misunderstand completely...I'm saying the she lead comfortably in the polls and didn't win.
Therefore posting a thread with polls as the foundation for prediction is meaningless, as it has been proven that leading in the polls at this stage of the election is meaningless.
She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
Hohoho, you think past always repeats in the future right? And if you think her hawkish stance on war and Iran didn't sink her back then they you don't know history at all. Dems didn't vote for Obama for he was black. They voted for him because he was a centrist, moderate, non hawkish anti war candidate.
As far as white people in the dem candidate list, yep, you can bring in all the skin color discussion you want. Fact is, majority of the non-whites will vote for dems. About 40% of whites will vote for dems. The minorities will always put the dems on the top. White voters need a substantially largerr tilt towards the repcons to win any general election.
I guess cons should have stopped being racists in 1865 right after the civil war. Too bad, today their bigotry doesn't win them hearts and minds of the minorities. This is their fault and their fault alone. They will continue to pay a heavy price for generations to come for being racists that they are.
I think she was leading by a comfortable margin at this time in 2008.
She also didn't even win the nomination, much less the general election, which pretty much makes your "polls as prediction" thread useless.
Any other questions?
LOL! I've told you the historic facts and the war fatigue Americans had. Of course, you think that past always repeats in the future. "If she didn't win then, how can she win now?" If this is your logic, then suit yourself. I don't care. I go by the current polls, not by what happened 8 years ago. You make your own conclusions, I won't stop you.
ROmney in a landslide!
You misunderstand completely...I'm saying the she lead comfortably in the polls and didn't win.
Therefore posting a thread with polls as the foundation for prediction is meaningless, as it has been proven that leading in the polls at this stage of the election is meaningless.
Polls is the only thing we have to predict the future. If you think this poll is not valid, then no polls are valid. I never said her win is guaranteed. OK I was being facetious when I said say hello to president clinton.
I know that polls are a good indicator of things to come. I certainly won't go back 8 years to predict the future. I will predict the future the way NYT statisticians do: By analyzing data and putting it through a heavy duty statistical model (which I don't have) to predict the future.
Today if I were to go by the sinff test, I will follow the Vegas odd makers and tell you that Hillary is in no. 1 position among all candidates.
And I repeat:If the polls change, then I will change my tune. I am not married to Hillary and don't care if she wins or loses. I just don't want a con in the office so reluctantly I have to support someone on the left because cons scare me to death.
Interseting you only cited the CNN poll if you look at the RCP polls she has a double digit lead on only two candidates Ben Carson and Donald Trump the two people who have never held an elected office. She has a 9 point lead on Christie who just offically got into the race and a 9 point lead on Walker who has not offically gotten in yet.
Have you ever heard of the crystal ball method in predicting the future??? Huh??? With your pea sized brain you would take it as a fact just like you believe your stupid polls "are fact" at the present. Wait till the general elections before you pop the champagne cork.She led this early in 2008 too..how'd that work out for her?
But she has an advantage this time around. Only a bunch of white faces on the Democrat side this time around.
View attachment 44156
Hohoho, you think past always repeats in the future right? And if you think her hawkish stance on war and Iran didn't sink her back then they you don't know history at all. Dems didn't vote for Obama for he was black. They voted for him because he was a centrist, moderate, non hawkish anti war candidate.
As far as white people in the dem candidate list, yep, you can bring in all the skin color discussion you want. Fact is, majority of the non-whites will vote for dems. About 40% of whites will vote for dems. The minorities will always put the dems on the top. White voters need a substantially largerr tilt towards the repcons to win any general election.
I guess cons should have stopped being racists in 1865 right after the civil war. Too bad, today their bigotry doesn't win them hearts and minds of the minorities. This is their fault and their fault alone. They will continue to pay a heavy price for generations to come for being racists that they are.
I think she was leading by a comfortable margin at this time in 2008.
She also didn't even win the nomination, much less the general election, which pretty much makes your "polls as prediction" thread useless.
Any other questions?
LOL! I've told you the historic facts and the war fatigue Americans had. Of course, you think that past always repeats in the future. "If she didn't win then, how can she win now?" If this is your logic, then suit yourself. I don't care. I go by the current polls, not by what happened 8 years ago. You make your own conclusions, I won't stop you.
ROmney in a landslide!
You misunderstand completely...I'm saying the she lead comfortably in the polls and didn't win.
Therefore posting a thread with polls as the foundation for prediction is meaningless, as it has been proven that leading in the polls at this stage of the election is meaningless.
Polls is the only thing we have to predict the future. If you think this poll is not valid, then no polls are valid. I never said her win is guaranteed. OK I was being facetious when I said say hello to president clinton.
I know that polls are a good indicator of things to come. I certainly won't go back 8 years to predict the future. I will predict the future the way NYT statisticians do: By analyzing data and putting it through a heavy duty statistical model (which I don't have) to predict the future.
Today if I were to go by the sinff test, I will follow the Vegas odd makers and tell you that Hillary is in no. 1 position among all candidates.
And I repeat:If the polls change, then I will change my tune. I am not married to Hillary and don't care if she wins or loses. I just don't want a con in the office so reluctantly I have to support someone on the left because cons scare me to death.
Say Hello to our next president: Hillary Rodham Clinton
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 54, Bush 41 Clinton +13
General Election: Walker vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 57, Walker 40 Clinton +17
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Rubio 40 Clinton +16
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Christie 39 Clinton +16
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 59, Trump 35 Clinton +24
Retards don't see it that way.Say Hello to our next president: Hillary Rodham Clinton
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 54, Bush 41 Clinton +13
General Election: Walker vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 57, Walker 40 Clinton +17
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Rubio 40 Clinton +16
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Christie 39 Clinton +16
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 59, Trump 35 Clinton +24
Polls this far out are worthless.
