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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
td, when all the analytics are removed for straight polling, which means people are not being counted twice or are being solicited for their pro-Trump view, the Hispanics for Trump number drops to 18%.
Polls are interesting, but they are time-freezes, like snapshots. And there are too many variables to place a lot of value on the 'thought of the moment'. We wont know until election day the results of the only poll that counts.
I love the new poll! Quinnipiac not only has them tied but Trump is outperforming Romney or McCain.
Eat shit and die Never Trumpers you lying sacks of fecal matter who keep putting up polls that over sample D's!
They're TIED: Trump vs. Hillary is suddenly too close to call
However, I sure hope we don't mirror the UK in the way a large voter bloc expressed regret soon as the result was announced. All of us should heed the ramifications of a protest vote as a way to ease anger. We need to look ahead when we crawl out of that frying pan.
Clinton continues to prevail mightily among nonwhites by 77-15 percent now, vs. 69-21percent last month; that includes 90-8 percent among blacks and 69-20 percent among Hispanics.
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1178a12016Election.pdf
View attachment 79852
I think the Real Clear summation says it better than Quinnipiac"
Doesn't look so rosy when all of the other polls are figured in.
yes. but she's a drug addled nutter and can't focus on reality.
There have been 10 polls with 4 candidates.
Trump is losing in all 10.
Yet, his slavish supporters are on here pumping up their messiah as if he were winning all 10.
democraticunderground.com LMAO! Aka communism light.comOf course those 33% of Hispanics don't look so good when you have these kind of numbers either.
DumDum, the source is Ballotpedia which came out today.
I have not seen a single poll that has had Trump over 20% with Hispanics.
democraticunderground.com LMAO! Aka communism light.comOf course those 33% of Hispanics don't look so good when you have these kind of numbers either.
DumDum, the source is Ballotpedia which came out today.
And Ballotpedia isn't a polling organization. Where did they get these numbers they are putting out?
I think the point is those results are so far outside the averages, they need to be vetted and new polls show similar numbers to be given any credence.I have not seen a single poll that has had Trump over 20% with Hispanics.
Hell's bells I just put up Quinnipiac. And they are a solid pollster.
You never post anything worthwhile. Just insults. You are one pathetic soul.
democraticunderground.com LMAO! Aka communism light.comOf course those 33% of Hispanics don't look so good when you have these kind of numbers either.
DumDum, the source is Ballotpedia which came out today.
And Ballotpedia isn't a polling organization. Where did they get these numbers they are putting out?
From their website:
"Ballotpedia partnered with Evolving Strategies and surveyed voters across seven states (June 10 – 22) regarding their vote preference. We tested six election scenarios. In one set, we matched Hillary Clinton (D) in a series of two-way contests with Donald Trump (R), Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), and House SpeakerPaul Ryan (R). In the second set, we matched these same candidates in a series of three-way contests that also included former governor Gary Johnson.
In all seven states, Clinton polled higher than Trump. The tightest battleground race between the two frontrunners was in Iowa, where Clinton leads Trump by a weighted 4 percentage points. Clinton saw the largest lead in Michigan, where she leads Trump by a weighted 17 percentage points. Comparatively, John Kasich polls ahead of Clinton in five of the seven states, and Paul Ryan polls ahead of Clinton in three states.
Evolving Strategies and Ballotpedia surveyed 4,242 registered voters, with a margin of error of +/-4.0%.
More at the link: Ballotpedia's battleground poll, 2016 - Ballotpedia
democraticunderground.com LMAO! Aka communism light.comOf course those 33% of Hispanics don't look so good when you have these kind of numbers either.
DumDum, the source is Ballotpedia which came out today.
And Ballotpedia isn't a polling organization. Where did they get these numbers they are putting out?
From their website:
"Ballotpedia partnered with Evolving Strategies and surveyed voters across seven states (June 10 – 22) regarding their vote preference. We tested six election scenarios. In one set, we matched Hillary Clinton (D) in a series of two-way contests with Donald Trump (R), Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), and House SpeakerPaul Ryan (R). In the second set, we matched these same candidates in a series of three-way contests that also included former governor Gary Johnson.
In all seven states, Clinton polled higher than Trump. The tightest battleground race between the two frontrunners was in Iowa, where Clinton leads Trump by a weighted 4 percentage points. Clinton saw the largest lead in Michigan, where she leads Trump by a weighted 17 percentage points. Comparatively, John Kasich polls ahead of Clinton in five of the seven states, and Paul Ryan polls ahead of Clinton in three states.
Evolving Strategies and Ballotpedia surveyed 4,242 registered voters, with a margin of error of +/-4.0%.
More at the link: Ballotpedia's battleground poll, 2016 - Ballotpedia
Evolving Strategies isn't a polling company either. They're a consulting firm. This is like "Crusader Frank working with tinydancer surveyed blah blah blah".
I can't wait to see their methodology. I assume there's a link to it.
I think the point is those results are so far outside the averages, they need to be vetted and new polls show similar numbers to be given any credence.I have not seen a single poll that has had Trump over 20% with Hispanics.
Hell's bells I just put up Quinnipiac. And they are a solid pollster.
It's too early for polls other than to say Trump has really pissed off non-white groups, and his path to 270 is extremely narrow.
democraticunderground.com LMAO! Aka communism light.com
DumDum, the source is Ballotpedia which came out today.
And Ballotpedia isn't a polling organization. Where did they get these numbers they are putting out?
From their website:
"Ballotpedia partnered with Evolving Strategies and surveyed voters across seven states (June 10 – 22) regarding their vote preference. We tested six election scenarios. In one set, we matched Hillary Clinton (D) in a series of two-way contests with Donald Trump (R), Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), and House SpeakerPaul Ryan (R). In the second set, we matched these same candidates in a series of three-way contests that also included former governor Gary Johnson.
In all seven states, Clinton polled higher than Trump. The tightest battleground race between the two frontrunners was in Iowa, where Clinton leads Trump by a weighted 4 percentage points. Clinton saw the largest lead in Michigan, where she leads Trump by a weighted 17 percentage points. Comparatively, John Kasich polls ahead of Clinton in five of the seven states, and Paul Ryan polls ahead of Clinton in three states.
Evolving Strategies and Ballotpedia surveyed 4,242 registered voters, with a margin of error of +/-4.0%.
More at the link: Ballotpedia's battleground poll, 2016 - Ballotpedia
Evolving Strategies isn't a polling company either. They're a consulting firm. This is like "Crusader Frank working with tinydancer surveyed blah blah blah".
I can't wait to see their methodology. I assume there's a link to it.
I gave you a link in the post. Take a Tums before you read it.
