Way to go ad hominem when you are beaten in an argument BADLY. Not.

Oh, by the way, random number to you - Trump got 56% of Women vote in Connecticut as an example. Yet surely most of the republican women will not vote for him in general election :1orglaugh

Delusional is delusional.

Well Trump had many more competitors to begin with. Also anti Trump movement (they will eventually turn up to vote for Trump, talking about republicans who were anti trump). It is not smart to count absolute numbers and make straight conclusions in such a fashion.

Good find! No excuses. I haven't been making any "excuses" for anyone anyway. I'm just laying out what I'm seeing.

I was wondering how the New York vote would affect the numbers I saw. N.Y. is a "closed primary". So you can't vote for anyone unless you are a registered Republican or Democrat.

Since there are a LOT more registered Democrats in NYC, that would explain why her numbers jumped.

It will be interesting to see how New York goes in the general election when independents and Democrats can vote for Trump.

In the end Trump will swing this for Hillary, he doesn't really want to be POTUS, let alone 4 years POTUS in a Republican administration that will be working against him.

You are right - delusional is delusional.

Stats are fun to play with. If you look hard enough and long enough, you can find a stat to back up your position. You are saying you "magically found a random stat" that just happens to back up your point. In one state 56% of the women there voted for Trump. But let's be realistic here.

NBC news: "This month, about half (47 percent) of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump. (About 40 percent of male GOP primary voters said the same.)"
Examining Trump'''s Problem With Female Voters - NBC News

The Hill (citing a CNN poll): "A new CNN poll released Thursday, taken before the spat with rival Ted Cruz over his wife, found that 73 percent of registered female voters in the United States had an unfavorable view of Trump. That?s in line with a Reuters poll from last week that found more than half of American women hold a ?very unfavorable? view of the billionaire."
Trump faces daunting gender gap | TheHill

Huffington Post: Nearly seven in 10 female voters feel unfavorably toward Trump, according to an average of recent polls.
HUFFPOLLSTER: Republican Women Really Don't Like Trump

Washington Exaimer: "Nearly half of the female Republican electorate (47 percent) currently has a difficult time imagining voting for Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll."
Poll: Nearly half of Republican women wouldn't vote for Trump | Washington Examiner

Claiming that women support Trump is.... delusional.

Also a "closed" primary state that is traditionally Democrat Connecticut one of few remaining ‘true blue’ states | The CT Mirror

Not saying that you are "wrong"...there is no way to be wrong until the general election happens.

But what I am saying is...every political analyst has been WRONG in predicting Trump couldn't win.

Hell, last night on MSNBC they actually said that Trump is a "Northeastern Progressive Liberal". And he is.

And somehow he defied the analysts by winning the SOUTH! And wining the evangelicals. And winning the Republican Hispanics.

I think that what many keep overlooking is his real message: JOBS and the economy.

Now whether you or I "believe" that Trump can turn the economy around is of no matter.

Obviously he had been striking a nerve in the public who are SICK and tired of lying politicians and "business as usual".
That is his strength.

And quite frankly...I don't see any obstacles to him being able to acquire the best people on his team and being very successful. It's what he's done all of his life.

And you are making the mistake of believing those political analysts who (like you) have been 100% wrong about Trump every step of the way.

In one sentence you say that 56% of Republican women voted for Trump in a 3 way race.
That is REALITY.

In the next breath, you list a bunch of polls that don't reflect actual voting.

You call the actual vote "magic" and the polls that change daily..."reality".

Think about that Rochard. And then go back over the last year to all of your posts and all of your predictions and pontifications about Trump. Read them. Compare them to what really happened.

I never said Trump couldn't win the GE. Often people tend to act/vote on emotion.

Trump & Sanders are both hitting a nerve with people, myself included.

As many of us in adult know the economy is on a downturn again but this is generally being ignored by the media. For the first time in 13 years Apple is seeing a decline in revenue.

I swear to God the media is just about useless. :(

But the polling has been rather consistent.

This is a misrepresentation. The truth is 56% of Republican women IN ONE STATE (one very small state) voted for Trump. When you start comparing him to national polling models, he doesn't stand a chance.

This is common knowledge; Everyone in the country knows the Republicans need to win over Hispanics and women. And Trump cannot pull that off.

Polls are ALL we have until the election. What is going on is pretty much irrelevant. Trump seems to be winning over the Republican party, but this only leads to the election. The key here - for any election - is a candidate needs to win over their party completely, a large percentage of independents, and then large percentage of the other side. I don't think Trump will be able to get 100% of the Republican vote; I think a lot of Republicans will stay home on election day. He surely won't win the independents or any Democratic votes.

ALL we have right now is polling models. And the polling models have never looked this bad for a candidate.

Bush didn't need or get the Latino votes when he won in both 2000 and 2004.

So no-one is willing to put few hundies for straight up bet? :1orglaugh

That is a correct fact, but how is that relevant to what you quoted? :1orglaugh

Damn you are an idiot....

Firstly the argument that I called out was that half of the republicans will vote for Clinton.

That was a delusional argument, actually beyond the delusional.

Then he started saying that republican women will not vote for Trump. That is also completely wrong as you can see that 56% in CT, 47% in MD of women voted for Trump WHEN THERE WERE STILL CRUZ AND KASICH to choose from.
And yet somehow you imagine that Trump won't get at least those numbers from republican women when there will be no cruz and kasich for them to choose from?
I mean I am typing this and shaking my head that I have to explain things like that... :helpme:error

On the other hand I am not surprised you do not grasp basic logic, it is you, Rochard, after all...

Unfortunately many more of them immigrated and bred since then...

Your post said:

"Oh, by the way, random number to you - Trump got 56% of Women vote in Connecticut as an example. Yet surely most of the republican women will not vote for him in general election"

I read as this "56% of the women in Connecticut voted for Bush, so you must be an idiot if you think Trump will not get women to vote for him".

What one demographic in the Republican party does in one (very small) state is not remotely connected to what will happen in the general election.

Fuck that, you are an idiot. I threw that number to show that women vote for Trump at only slighter rate than men. As a contradiction to his suggestion that republican women would not vote for trump.
That random number was more than enough to negate his suggestion that republican women would not vote for trump.

Get it or not? Or are you saying that it is possible that 56% of them voted in CT, but 0% would vote in other states? :error:helpme And again - that 56% was with Cruz and Kasich to choose from. It will be WAY WAY WAY higher when Trump is the only one R candidate.

And no, I do not claim that CT number is the same that will be in other states, as you moronically managed to think that. Or actually I am not even sure what you managed to think of...

If that random number (note, I added another random 47% of MD) was not enough to negate the suggestion that "republican women will not vote for Trump" then you are a tool. Which you have been proven to be numerous times.

Sure, in theory you are correct - 56% in CT and 47% in MD (with 2 more republicans to choose from) does not mean anything. In theory it can be 56% in CT, 47% in MD and 0% in all the other states (before we check the actual stats), but if you have at least one brain cell you understand that even without looking at the stats - it won't be the case.

Again - it is really strange that there is a need to explain the most basic things... It is fascinating to see how your brain (does not) operates the information flow and (does not) makes conclusions.

All the talk of the number of votes a person has at this point is meaningless when it comes to the general election. Because we are still on the outdated and badly needing to be removed Electoral College system it isn't about how many votes you can get, it is about which states you win.

Remember, Gore got 500,000 more votes that Bush and lost.

Trump could get a million votes more than Clinton, but if those votes aren't in swing states it won't matter.

Aaaaah refreshing! Exactly the next level of a reasoning response I didn't expect to see on GFY. Well done, however comparatively, the supreme court is a bit handicapped this election cycle so . . .

TLDNR of my above post to Rochard: By reading random fact of 56% women in CT (and knowing that total was just a bit higher) any person would have made an educated assumption that other states would have same/similar pattern - plenty of women voting for Trump, just at a lower rate than total. Which negate the delusional statement of "R women would not vote for Trump". But not you, you did not manage to grasp such a basic thing, you operate on Rochard's "logic".

No joke. No hyperbole. Trump is going to break her.

When she faints during the first debate...that will be ratings gold!

I definitely hear what they're saying.

I don't want Donald Trump to be president, but I don't know if I hate him enough to drag my ass out to vote for Hillary

Sounds like you don't vote in American elections

No, polling is NOT "all we have". We have the election results.

AND of course we also have the polling. And I see where you said he "surely won't win the independents or any Democratic votes"

He is POLLING 30% of Democrats who already are saying they are going to vote TRUMP instead of Hillary. And once he gets focused on the general...that number may go up.

As for independents...he is already winning them in every state that they have been allowed to vote in the Republican primary. And he is POLLING to easily win them in the general against Hillary

I capitalized the word POLLING because you seem fixated on it. Seems like I remember back when Trump was leading all the polls before the primaries that you claimed the polls didn't matter and when the primary voting started THEN we would see the reality. lol

As I said earlier...so far Trump has made your predictions look stupid. You've been wrong 100% about his candidacy.
Best just to pipe down and see what happens instead of trying to make any more completely wrong assumptions.

Why do you hate him?
MSNBC just said yesterday that he is a "New York progressive LIBERAL".
The RNC doesn't like him because he's too LIBERAL
The Republican establishment doesn't like him because he's not a conservative.

I swear...you are so caught up in "team sports" politics. If Trump had a "D" beside his name instead of an "R" you would be praising him to the heavens.

The great majority of his policies are far left liberal. And yet you "hate" him. lol

George Washington University poll has Clinton +3 running against Trump, that's within the poll's margin of error. USAToday's has Clinton +8.

People are living in dreamland thinking Trump can't win - the debates are going to be the most watched in history. Trump can't show up to them unprepared relying only on his street smarts, he'll have to appear to some degree to be book smart too.

I agree. I think the debates are going to draw huge ratings. Hillary is a very good debater and she has been preparing to be president since Bill was in the White House. You know she is going to come in well prepared and with full guns blazing. If Trump comes in like he has during the republican debates ready to just shoot off a few good lines and repeat the same thing he is going to get crushed. However, if he holds his own it could give him a shot at actually winning this thing.

Van Jones was saying 30% of blacks would vote for Trump. Since 96% usually vote democrat, that would be very bad for democrats. Don't speculate, test it out using the calculator. And the electoral college is in the constitution - the supreme court can't change it and neither can anyone else. It has to be changed by 2/3rds vote and ratified by all 50 states.

That is an excellent point but it works both ways. The "Hillary will be indicted" and "why don't women love Hillary" stories were necessary so Bernie would have a chance and spend his $180m on media. Media gets 1/3 of their revenue from political battles. Now that she is going to be the nominee, you'll start getting the "first woman president" stories. People like to be involved in history.

Republican women will secretly vote for her, and democrat men will secretly vote for him.

Wall street republicans will vote for her, and fucked over democrats will vote for him.

Hispanics will vote for her, and some blacks will vote for him.

I think (assuming he is the nominee) this will be the most exciting election in 100 years.

Hitching yourself to former reality star Donald Trump for president has very long term implications. Him winning the GOP on the backs of low information angry voters on the right is one thing. His chances to win it all are slim. The rest of the world is shocked and appalled with him. While I am shocked people haven't sobered up in regards to him yet, they will in the general. Agreeing to be his VP is a political death wish.

I'm wondering if women really will vote for Hillary in massive numbers.

One thing I've learned is that women don't really get along all the time with other women. lol

If you don't believe me, try moving two women in with you into the same house. :)

You better be careful bro. You're gonna end up just like Rochard...failed predictions. Trump has proven you, Rochard, and every political pundit wrong every time. :pimp

Women are often vicious to other women, however, in this case I think there are a lot that will vote for her even if they won't admit it because they will feel like it is important to elect a woman president even if that woman is someone they don't like that much.

Maybe so. :)

But she lost the younger women to Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Young women didn't like her at all. She only polled well with women over 45 years old.

All the younger Democrat women voted for a 74 year old man.

I'm certain that very, very few...if any Republican women will vote for her. Maybe the 21 to 45 year old Democrat women will change their minds about her before the general election.
But all indications from the primaries (Dem voters down 30% from 2012, Republican voters up 70% from 2012) is that the energy and excitement is on the Republican side. More likely those younger Democrat women simply will stay home.

Many more Republicans overall have voted in the primaries than Democrats.
And the only excitement was Bernie Sanders...he's still only around 200 delegates behind Hillary if you count the delegates that were won by getting votes in primaries...but the Democrat Party squashed him with the SUPER delegates and now she's about to clinch the nomination because of that.

So all of their excitement (Sanders) will be gone.

We'll have Hillary in all her glory. Yelling every word the way she does when she gives speeches.
Her opponent will be a guy who has already beaten a field of 16 other contenders. Governors and Senators that he swatted down like flies it seems.

I just can't see how Hillary is going to win. She is so unlikeable and has so much horrible political baggage.

But I can't predict anything. It's just my opinion. I have yet to see ANYBODY in real life or even on the news shows that is excited about Hillary.

I've seen them excited about Bernie. And I've seen them excited about Trump. But Hillary?

Bernie supporters (like my daughter) are pissed about the DNC Super Delegate bullshit.
I think a majority of them are going to stay home.
And I think another percentage of them are going to switch to Trump.

On an NPR call-in show today...Sanders voters were asked who they are going to vote for in the general. Half of them said "Trump".

Bad news for Hillary.

There are a couple things that I think might help Hillary. I read a story on CNN the other day that said Millennials will begrudgingly vote for Hillary if she beats Bernie. That doesn't mean they will, but this one study believes they should. If that happens, she wins. The other is that she as a very low favorability rating, but there is one person running that has an even lower favorability rating and that is Trump. It literally could be an election of 'who do you hate less.'

Personally, I think Hillary will win, but I want Trump to win. I have always said that if you want to progress sometimes you have to embrace the madness. Trump is a real unknown. He could turn out to be a very good president. He might turn out to be a terrible president. Either way his being elected will shake things up and that is a good thing.

One thing for sure is every single prediction regarding trump's demise was 100% wrong. He's like Teflon man and not a single thing sticks. Never seen anyone able to combat the masses and win like him... ever. Probably a good indicator why he is a self made billionaire.

I don't think I ever made a Trump prediction. It shocks me, sure. But this is the GOP we are talking about.

He is not self made. You do not start with $40 million dollars and be self made. Sorry.

It's not about hate for Trump. If you hate yourself and the people you should definitely vote for Hillary. That way at least you are 100% sure the establishment keeps control and that you'll keep getting fucked.

He isn't self made, but still, turning $40 million into billions takes some talent and work.

I actually think this is what might make him a decent president. Being president is all about delegating and surrounding yourself with good people who give you good information then you make good decisions based on that information. Trump, I think, is clearly good at that part of business and it could help him in the White House.

That said, the negotiations part may trip him up. In business when you negotiate with someone it is likely that both parties will benefit from the deal so you negotiate in good faith. That isn't the case in politics. Often they have nothing to gain or lose personally and will make shitty decisions and bad deals simply because it speaks to the party narrative. When he has to negotiate with those types of people it could be a real challenge.

I don't know that it is a hate for Trump that causes some people to not want to vote for him, but more a fear of the unknown. With Hillary you know what you are going to get. She will likely be a mix of Obama and Bill Clinton. She has enough of a history that you can foresee what kind of president she would likely be. Trump is a wildcard. He could be great. He might be just what this country needs. He could help us get our swagger back. He could also be a catastrophe. We don't know and I think that fear drives people away.

I agree, it will be a strong win but nothing like Reagan vs Carter, his popularity among women has basically slumped according to a BBC poll 1 woman out of 5 would vote for him. It also depends if he will keep it up and insult everyone and anything also at the debates, it that case it would be a landslide.

Once again I have a feeling that the GOP know this and will replace him. :Oh crap

I think he is an incredible marketer of himself. And I mean that, his ability to project the image that he has chosen is awesome. And that image he has created has immense value, not sure about the value he assigns to it, but it is a brand that is valuable. That being said, he is 69, in 51 years (since he was 18) $40,000,000 would be $1.3 Billion dollars at market rates of return. And if you are starting with $40 million or with a more or less a guarantee of $40 million you have access to people and opportunities to make more then a 7% return. Wealth begets wealth and opportunity.

I think a more accurate assessment is that he has been able to market himself well enough to overcome his business failures and to cover his cost of living for those 51 years. Not sure if the data is available, however I would bet that most, (+50%) of people born into a rich family with a $40 million dollar inheritance could keep up with market growth rates. Taking that into account I am not sure his ability to market himself is a trait of a great president. I would take a great business man or salesman over that. :2 cents:

Ask most big lottery winners how hard it is to not only keep 10s of millions of dollars, but to parlay it into more. Ask Dan Bilzerian how hard it is to increase $60 million he got from his old man.

The assumption wealth begets wealth is not widely accurate.

But it does help a hell of a lot. They always say the first 20 million is the hardest. I wouldn't know because I haven't quite assembled the first 20 million. I will get back to you on that.

I always cringe how various kinds of "social justice warriors" blame someone that he inherited money, which supposedly negates his success. You can be the great entrepreneur but if you inherited start up money - you are nobody, in the eyes of those idiots :1orglaugh

I wonder how many of those critique slinging clowns would manage to turn that startup money into billions themselves, 1 out of 100 maybe?

I don't believe that (not that he said that, but that 30% would vote for Trump/R).
Where did he get those numbers, maybe some 5 person radio poll? :winkwink:

I mean do you really believe 30 percent of blacks will vote republican (in case of Trump being the candidate)?

The data is available and there have been many studies on it. Time and time again, second-generation loses a huge chunk, third-generation destroys the rest as well as the name.

70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation

Donald Trump is indeed a brash, blowhard. The idea that "anyone" can take $40M and turn it into B's is bitter nonsense. If that were the case, we would have even more billionaires.

I stand mostly corrected. He did not squander the money with bad decision or at least he was able to overcome them. However anyone can turn $40 billion dollars into $1 billion with mutual funds. That part is still correct.