Why I think That Trump Will Win the General Election

[Rustic]

There simply aren't enough angry old white guys for Trump to be elected.

Sure there are.

Supplemented by a slim portion of the other demographics and taking 48% of white women, Trump wins if he still holds 80% of white men, dude.

True, not one conservative female is going to vote for that loopy kunt... Hildabeast

Spoken like a true Trumpster- women are just 'c*nts' to you.

Just the ones that really are... Lol

 

[PredFan]

Jim, this is another replay of 2012, when many threads were explaining how Romney was going to win easily. The arguments then were also essentially subjective, i.e., "the polls are wrong, and people won't vote for Obama because they shouldn't want to, in my opinion".

What voters hate, and that's a large portion of your argument, is baked into the polls already. Online enthusiasm, ditto.

The only facts that matter to any degree between now and the election are the polls in the swing states.
.

Sure but the opponent was 0bama. Hillary is unlikable, corrupt, and bad TV.

But there it is again - three opinions.
.

What? You are trying to imply that Hillary is the same as 0bama was in 2012? She is not and therefor comparisons are a waste of time.

 

[Rustic]

Jim, this is another replay of 2012, when many threads were explaining how Romney was going to win easily. The arguments then were also essentially subjective, i.e., "the polls are wrong, and people won't vote for Obama because they shouldn't want to, in my opinion".

What voters hate, and that's a large portion of your argument, is baked into the polls already. Online enthusiasm, ditto.

The only facts that matter to any degree between now and the election are the polls in the swing states.
.

Sure but the opponent was 0bama. Hillary is unlikable, corrupt, and bad TV.

But there it is again - three opinions.
.

What? You are trying to imply that Hillary is the same as 0bama was in 2012? She is not and therefor comparisons are a waste of time.

...and she's a loopy kunt

 

[Mac1958]

Jim, this is another replay of 2012, when many threads were explaining how Romney was going to win easily. The arguments then were also essentially subjective, i.e., "the polls are wrong, and people won't vote for Obama because they shouldn't want to, in my opinion".

What voters hate, and that's a large portion of your argument, is baked into the polls already. Online enthusiasm, ditto.

The only facts that matter to any degree between now and the election are the polls in the swing states.
.

Sure but the opponent was 0bama. Hillary is unlikable, corrupt, and bad TV.

But there it is again - three opinions.
.

What? You are trying to imply that Hillary is the same as 0bama was in 2012? She is not and therefor comparisons are a waste of time.

But the behaviors here by conservatives are remarkably similar to those of 2012:

"The polls are all wrong", and "Hillary will lose because I don't like her".

That's confusing fact with opinion.
.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The American people got duped into voting for Obama because he was new, unknown, and black. If they vote in a known liar, warmonger, owned by the 1% and well known to Americans, they can't ever be confused with smart informed people. Of course, the Rs nominated idiots in McCain and Romney...and maybe Trump will fall into the category too.

Uh, guy, I'm taking you off ignore because this was especially silly.

Obama won in 2008 because McCain really couldn't promise anything but "more of the same". Wars and Recessions? Nobody wanted more of that.

He won in 2012 because that weird Mormon Robot you nominated couldn't hid his contempt for most working people.

Now, Hillary was VERY beatable. All you needed to do was run someone with a reasonably clean record who didn't say crazy shit.

And you couldn't even hit that low standard.

If the Rs can't beat a lying corrupt criminal owned by the 1%, they as a party should disappear.

If Vote-for-my-vag wins, it will be because the party kept fighting against Trump instead of his opponent. Even now, assholes in the Republican party are actively sabotaging Trump which underscores his entire message, that THEY are the problem.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There simply aren't enough angry old white guys for Trump to be elected.

Sure there are.

Supplemented by a slim portion of the other demographics and taking 48% of white women, Trump wins if he still holds 80% of white men, dude.

True, not one conservative female is going to vote for that loopy kunt... Hildabeast

Spoken like a true Trumpster- women are just 'c*nts' to you.

Hillary is running on her c*nt. "Vote for me because I'll be the first woman president". So I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that a sex organ is running for president.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Romney knew what he was doing.

If Romney knew what he was doing he would not have insulted so many people on retirement or military pensions by dismissing them as always going to support big government and the Democratic Party, which is patently untrue. He also would have pressed the campaign up to the last day of the election and would have won it against one of the weakest sitting presidents in recent history.

Yeah, Romney knew what he was doing; selling out so Goldman Sachs could keep *their* President in office.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then why do you want to elect a lying, conniving amateur politician who has never done anything for anyone else but himself in his entire life?

Only an ideological retard like yourself would claim that the people Trump hired in his many businesses, his TV show, etc amount to 'doing nothing' for anyone but himself.

You are too lame for words, dildo breathe.

 

[mamooth]

Hillary is running on her c*nt. "Vote for me because I'll be the first woman president". So I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that a sex organ is running for president.

No, I think it's safe to acknowledge that you and the other Trump-wusses here are butthurt because the whole country thinks you and your candidate are immoral shitbags. You can't man up and admit that, so you whine about how people are voting for a vagina.

Now, not all Trump-fans are wusses ... oh wait, they actually are. All of them, without exception.

That's why I advocate free testosterone supplements for Clinton-haters. If we handed those out to that crowd of pajama-clad sissyboys, we could wipe out most conservatism almost instantly.

 

[Syriusly]

Then why do you want to elect a lying, conniving amateur politician who has never done anything for anyone else but himself in his entire life?

Only an ideological retard ....... dildo breathe.

LOL....just another idiotic Trumpster.

Like your master you are capable of nothing but personal attacks.

 

[Syriusly]

There simply aren't enough angry old white guys for Trump to be elected.

Sure there are.

Supplemented by a slim portion of the other demographics and taking 48% of white women, Trump wins if he still holds 80% of white men, dude.

True, not one conservative female is going to vote for that loopy kunt... Hildabeast

Spoken like a true Trumpster- women are just 'c*nts' to you.

Hillary is running on her c*nt.\.

Yep- to Right Wing Nut Jobs like you- that is all women politicians are- 'c*nts'- heck that is all every woman is to you.

 

[OnePercenter]

The super rich and wealthy don't want Trump to win. I doubt Trump wants Trump to win.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why I think That Trump Will Win the General Election

You dropped too much acid in the 70s?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The super rich and wealthy don't want Trump to win. I doubt Trump wants Trump to win.

That's because they know Hillary will protect them

 

[OnePercenter]

The super rich and wealthy don't want Trump to win. I doubt Trump wants Trump to win.

That's because they know Hillary will protect them

No. that's because Bush caused to much economic hurt to the rich.

 

[Toro]

Romney knew what he was doing.

If Romney knew what he was doing he would not have insulted so many people on retirement or military pensions by dismissing them as always going to support big government and the Democratic Party, which is patently untrue. He also would have pressed the campaign up to the last day of the election and would have won it against one of the weakest sitting presidents in recent history.

Yeah, Romney knew what he was doing; selling out so Goldman Sachs could keep *their* President in office.

You're seriously arguing, as a Trump supporter, about one insulting comment Romney made?

Dude, c'mon.

 

[Care4all]

Good Morning everyone!

Only a 'dickless' man would say people are voting for a vagina.

 

[PredFan]

Jim, this is another replay of 2012, when many threads were explaining how Romney was going to win easily. The arguments then were also essentially subjective, i.e., "the polls are wrong, and people won't vote for Obama because they shouldn't want to, in my opinion".

What voters hate, and that's a large portion of your argument, is baked into the polls already. Online enthusiasm, ditto.

The only facts that matter to any degree between now and the election are the polls in the swing states.
.

Sure but the opponent was 0bama. Hillary is unlikable, corrupt, and bad TV.

But there it is again - three opinions.
.

What? You are trying to imply that Hillary is the same as 0bama was in 2012? She is not and therefor comparisons are a waste of time.

But the behaviors here by conservatives are remarkably similar to those of 2012:

"The polls are all wrong", and "Hillary will lose because I don't like her".

That's confusing fact with opinion.
.

Yeah you are tailoring their arguments then to fit your argument today.

 

[80zephyr]

Jim, this is another replay of 2012, when many threads were explaining how Romney was going to win easily. The arguments then were also essentially subjective, i.e., "the polls are wrong, and people won't vote for Obama because they shouldn't want to, in my opinion".

What voters hate, and that's a large portion of your argument, is baked into the polls already. Online enthusiasm, ditto.

The only facts that matter to any degree between now and the election are the polls in the swing states.
.

MAC I remember the bullshit arguments people were making, but how do you simply dismiss the over sampling of Democrats, the 'tweaking' of the polls in point 2, and the reliance on data polling samples known to be skewed against Trump all year so far and that is registered previous voters?

Trump does not equate to Romney. Trump is appealing to a much wider section of the electorate than Romney's 52% and Trump is not going to suddenly stop campaigning like Romney did either. Plus Romney had no appeal to the more populist end of the conservative elitist-to-populism spectrum, again completely unlike Romney.

Other than that Romney is from the same party as Trump, they have little in common.

Or is it that you just think no Republican can ever again win the White House?

There was all kinds of poll parsing back in 2012, and much of it seemed relatively reasonable & plausible. Then, once the ballots were counted, it turned out that professional pollsters had a better grasp of their profession than Republicans did. Is it different this time? It could be, I guess, but 2012 left a pretty indelible mark on my memory, and I'd need to see it to believe it.

I think that Republicans could easily beaten Hillary by running Kasich/Rubio. The Dems are running the most vulnerable candidate they could have come up with, and the GOP has brilliantly responded by shooting themselves in the foot while jumping over a cliff.

A sane, moderate Republican administration might have convinced America that the GOP had the answers, and the pendulum may have begun to swing back. Instead, 40% of the party allowed themselves to be convinced that such a ticket isn't pure enough and blew the party's golden opportunity.
.

Translation: You can vote for the Democrats, and get liberalism faster, or you can vote in RINO's, and get liberalism a little slower.

Not much of a choice. Personally, I like this election. Lets put our cards on the table. If we are to become a socialist state, lets be quick about it so the collapse and rebuilding can start that much faster.

Mark

The country is clearly moving to the Left, and that didn't happen overnight.

You have to slow the ship and convince people it's the right thing to do, before you can reverse it.

You can't change it overnight.
.

That tactic has been used for decades, with nothing to show for it. Like I said, if we are to devolve into socialism, lets get it done with.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Jim, this is another replay of 2012, when many threads were explaining how Romney was going to win easily. The arguments then were also essentially subjective, i.e., "the polls are wrong, and people won't vote for Obama because they shouldn't want to, in my opinion".

What voters hate, and that's a large portion of your argument, is baked into the polls already. Online enthusiasm, ditto.

The only facts that matter to any degree between now and the election are the polls in the swing states.
.

Sure but the opponent was 0bama. Hillary is unlikable, corrupt, and bad TV.

But there it is again - three opinions.
.

What? You are trying to imply that Hillary is the same as 0bama was in 2012? She is not and therefor comparisons are a waste of time.

But the behaviors here by conservatives are remarkably similar to those of 2012:

"The polls are all wrong", and "Hillary will lose because I don't like her".

That's confusing fact with opinion.
.

And? In 1980 polls showed Reagan losing to Carter, and I didn't believe those either.

Mark