What the fuck? Where did I say that, you idiot? Where did I say that 100% of republicans will be voting Trump? :helpme:error And this brainless tool even calls me an idiot while "arguing" in completely illogical (brassmonkey like) fashion.

Let me repeat, you retard, I called you out on this:

And he tries to evade this by switching the topic as if I claimed that 100% of republicans were going to vote for Trump.
Seriously, this is brassmonkey level of logic :helpme:error

Indeed, that is why I said - it is way too early to rely on polls, due to the unusual circumstances compared to previous elections.
Simpletons like Rochard do not consider this at all, they just scream "look at the polls" without thinking at all.

100% wrong... as usual. Post a link to support that claim and please do mention the date of report in large font.

Voting for a guy you like isn't "propping" them up. It's called "voting".

And keep in mind that there aren't a lot of states that allow that. Only a few. And in the ones that did...yeah! Dems and Independents voted for Trump.

Same thing for Bernie Sanders.
In the few states that allowed it...independents voted for him in droves and he won those states. But in the states that DON'T allow it...Clinton won.

But keep in mind...according to PEW research last year...32% of people are registered Democrats. Only 23% of people are registered Republicans.
Meanwhile 39% of all people identify as Independent.

In the general election you can vote for anyone you like. All those independents, republicans, and democrats can vote for anyone...regardless of their party.

So we will see if independent voters want to vote for an establishment candidtate like Hillary. Or an outsider like Trump.

It's easy to look at some of the data and cherry pick it. That's what the analysts on the news programs and in the press have been doing.
And it's why they have been 100% WRONG on everything they have predicted so far.

Yeah, he's wrong.

As of March (not counting what has happened in April yet) these were the numbers:
Clinton 8,668,136
Trump 7,548,429

And since Republican voting is up 70% and Dems are DOWN by over 30%...here is what the overall voting looked like as of March:
Republicans 20,375,925
Democrats 15,070,178

I really do think that Hillary is going to be beaten. And it might not even be close.

Dont be so desperate..

Geez, you're what, about 14? What the fuck are you doing on this board. Mods, you need to get this minor off the forum right away.

The problem is, once the nominations have been done, very few people vote for anyone but the nominee, so it matters little, if anyone else is on a ballot.

I don't think Clinton can win against him. Forget about current polls and numbers, they are more or less meaningless until the real race for the presidency begins.

Republicans have everything at stake to push one of their party into the White House.

Here's your link for Clinton's 12,135,066 votes.

Here's your link for Trump's 10,056,691 votes.

Stats are current as of yesterday.

Now make excuses, say how things will change and discount this cycles massively successful crossover strategy, etc carry on.

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.