So For The First Time- Trump Leads Clinton in Latest National Poll

[Toro]

I'm not saying Trump will win, not sure. Just your view that someone with Hillary's negatives has won the election over anyone in May. It's ridiculous

I think it's either going to be really close going either way or a blow-out for Hillary.

And if it's a blow-out, it won't be because of Hillary. It will be because of Trump.

Hillary is a weak candidate. The country doesn't really want her. She would be in trouble had the Republicans not decided to nominate the least qualified person to run as a major party candidate in at least 100 years.

But Trump is a disaster.

 

[skookerasbil]

......but not a real surprise. Can anybody remember a worse Dem candidate than Clinton in the past 50 years? Even Dukakis, a complete moron, was more embraced by the people.
Still time for the Dem machine to find a way to sink her ship and install somebody like Joe Biden who instantly would be 20 pts up on Trump........of course, anybody thinking Bernie has a chance has a plate in their head.

 

[kaz]

I'm not saying Trump will win, not sure. Just your view that someone with Hillary's negatives has won the election over anyone in May. It's ridiculous

I think it's either going to be really close going either way or a blow-out for Hillary.

And if it's a blow-out, it won't be because of Hillary. It will be because of Trump.

Hillary is a weak candidate. The country doesn't really want her. She would be in trouble had the Republicans not decided to nominate the least qualified person to run as a major party candidate in at least 100 years.

But Trump is a disaster.

They are both disasters, they both have historically high negatives, that you only see clearly the Trump side of that is completely absurd

 

[candycorn]

I'm not saying Trump will win, not sure. Just your view that someone with Hillary's negatives has won the election over anyone in May. It's ridiculous

I think it's either going to be really close going either way or a blow-out for Hillary.

And if it's a blow-out, it won't be because of Hillary. It will be because of Trump.

Hillary is a weak candidate. The country doesn't really want her. She would be in trouble had the Republicans not decided to nominate the least qualified person to run as a major party candidate in at least 100 years.

But Trump is a disaster.

They are both disasters, they both have historically high negatives, that you only see clearly the Trump side of that is completely absurd

 

[dannyboys]

You're our pet 'Baghdad Bob'.
After the FBI 'MOABS Hillary you'll be claiming it was Hillary identical twin that is facing a list of felony charges.
Keep it up. You're funny.

 

[Zander]

It's not the first time.

There have been 70 Trump v Clinton polls. Trump has led in 7.

And 3 of those have been Fox News polls.

So take it with a giant grain of salt.

 

[dannyboys]

the reason Trump is 8 points ahead of Hillary is because 54% of all Americans have an IQ of at least 75

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

What you LIB 'man-bun' fairies can't get through your heads is the FACT that being so-called "educated" means fuck all compared to being 'smart'.
The fuck-witt LIBs prove this fact everytime one of them walks out of the college or university with a piece of paper which costs them 80K which makes them 'educated' on how 17th century footwear evolved and changed the 'social dynamic' of Hampshire.
These 'educated' idiots then head to the nearest Starbucks to apply for a job serving burnt coffee to other 'educated' half-wits for $10 a cup.
Ya. Really 'educated'.

 

[kaz]

I'm not saying Trump will win, not sure. Just your view that someone with Hillary's negatives has won the election over anyone in May. It's ridiculous

I think it's either going to be really close going either way or a blow-out for Hillary.

And if it's a blow-out, it won't be because of Hillary. It will be because of Trump.

Hillary is a weak candidate. The country doesn't really want her. She would be in trouble had the Republicans not decided to nominate the least qualified person to run as a major party candidate in at least 100 years.

But Trump is a disaster.

They are both disasters, they both have historically high negatives, that you only see clearly the Trump side of that is completely absurd

OK?

 

[Toro]

the reason Trump is 8 points ahead of Hillary is because 54% of all Americans have an IQ of at least 75

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

What you LIB 'man-bun' fairies can't get through your heads is the FACT that being so-called "educated" means fuck all compared to being 'smart'.
The fuck-witt LIBs prove this fact everytime one of them walks out of the college or university with a piece of paper which costs them 80K which makes them 'educated' on how 17th century footwear evolved and changed the 'social dynamic' of Hampshire.
These 'educated' idiots then head to the nearest Starbucks to apply for a job serving burnt coffee to other 'educated' half-wits for $10 a cup.
Ya. Really 'educated'.

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate that.

 

[Toro]

It's not the first time.

There have been 70 Trump v Clinton polls. Trump has led in 7.

And 3 of those have been Fox News polls.

So take it with a giant grain of salt.

If one poll is consistently an outlier, you take it with a grain of salt.

If the outlier is then confirmed by others, then it shows a change in trend.

But until that time, you take it with a big grain of salt.

 

[FJO]

the reason Trump is 8 points ahead of Hillary is because 54% of all Americans have an IQ of at least 75

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

"Less educated" does not mean less wise. Or less intelligent. Or less reasonable. Or less normal.

Or more misguided. Or more ignorant. Or more stupid.

More educated does not necessarily mean the opposite of "less educated".

 

[Snouter]

The MSM trying to marginalize white people who did not waste $200K getting brainwashed at PC colleges is pretty hilarious especially considering the IQ of democrats which hovers in the 75 area, information they think is "racist."

 

[Toro]

the reason Trump is 8 points ahead of Hillary is because 54% of all Americans have an IQ of at least 75

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

"Less educated" does not mean less wise. Or less intelligent. Or less reasonable. Or less normal.

Or more misguided. Or more ignorant. Or more stupid.

More educated does not necessarily mean the opposite of "less educated".

You're right.

But generally, more educated people are smarter and earn more.

 

[Iceweasel]

the reason Trump is 8 points ahead of Hillary is because 54% of all Americans have an IQ of at least 75

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

"Less educated" does not mean less wise. Or less intelligent. Or less reasonable. Or less normal.

Or more misguided. Or more ignorant. Or more stupid.

More educated does not necessarily mean the opposite of "less educated".

You're right.

But generally, more educated people are smarter and earn more.

There are a lot of highly educated idiots out there. You've lived a blessed life if you've avoided them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the reason Trump is 8 points ahead of Hillary is because 54% of all Americans have an IQ of at least 75

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

What you LIB 'man-bun' fairies can't get through your heads is the FACT that being so-called "educated" means fuck all compared to being 'smart'.
The fuck-witt LIBs prove this fact everytime one of them walks out of the college or university with a piece of paper which costs them 80K which makes them 'educated' on how 17th century footwear evolved and changed the 'social dynamic' of Hampshire.
These 'educated' idiots then head to the nearest Starbucks to apply for a job serving burnt coffee to other 'educated' half-wits for $10 a cup.
Ya. Really 'educated'.

Where do you get the idiotic idea that only liberals are underemployed in this country?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's not the first time.

There have been 70 Trump v Clinton polls. Trump has led in 7.

And 3 of those have been Fox News polls.

So take it with a giant grain of salt.

If one poll is consistently an outlier, you take it with a grain of salt.

If the outlier is then confirmed by others, then it shows a change in trend.

But until that time, you take it with a big grain of salt.

So if at the end of March an average of six polls reveals Clinton leading Trump 50.4 to 39.0 and today they reveal Clinton's lead has shrunk to 45.8 to 42.7....would that be a trend?

 

[Old Rocks]

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

That, friends, is the straight up of it.

 

[Toro]

It's not the first time.

There have been 70 Trump v Clinton polls. Trump has led in 7.

And 3 of those have been Fox News polls.

So take it with a giant grain of salt.

If one poll is consistently an outlier, you take it with a grain of salt.

If the outlier is then confirmed by others, then it shows a change in trend.

But until that time, you take it with a big grain of salt.

So if at the end of March an average of six polls reveals Clinton leading Trump 50.4 to 39.0 and today they reveal Clinton's lead has shrunk to 45.8 to 42.7....would that be a trend?

It would be closing.

What I'm saying, though, is that one poll - the Fox News poll - has consistently been an outlier and should be treated as such until other polls confirm it. The other poll - Rasmussen Reports - is a robocalling poll, which is less reliable. So it's probably not as close as the headline number suggests.

It's likely the polls will start to close. Democrats have been happy with their candidate whereas Republicans have not. As Republicans rally around Trump, his poll numbers will start to rise.