DRUMPF BTFO

Why does California have to ruin everything? It's more liberal than Texas is conservative.

>trusting polls
gas yourself

what happens in the polls leading up to the first debate is pretty much irrelevant. might be +5 here or -5 there but unless there's a major happening it will all be overwritten by the debate result

desu I think trump will lose the debate because hillary is too well trained but we'll have to see

>(((NBC))) poll

>voting Hillary
>on Cred Forums
Sure you are

>>bomings
>nobody cares

>believing this

3/10 bait CTR I responded

VA, WI, and CO are 100% blue this year

Been here longer than you cuck

>muh hivemind

rcp polls are run by googles fuck you

Maybe it's because the polls have always been $hillary-biased.

read the methodology...
respondents answered they voted for Obama 47 to 33 Romney... 14 points difference... actual 2012 election was 51% Obama to 47% Romney, 4 points difference... poll over-samples liberals by at least 10 points... Also poll samples Women 53% to 47%... all this advantage, and she's only up by +7?

>didn't trust polls in 2008
>Republicans lose
>didn't trust polls in 2012
>Republicans lose
>doesn't trust polls in 2016
>Republicans are certain they won't lose again, and are all ready picking out the curtains
Maybe its high time the right stops shooting itself in the foot. If this election were in the hands of someone just slightly more competent (perhaps change that to coherent) than Trump the projections would be calling it a 60%-80% likelihood of a Republican win rather than the other way around.

trump is actually up in CO right now

He keeps talking about this insane concept called "States Rights" which is very appealing to the people i know from Colorado

This, though Cruz was the only other acceptable nominee conservative-wise

That's actually a really neat idea.

>Popular vote
>Matters

I don't know the requirements to be a CTR shill, but states elect the President. Not the people via popular vote or we'd be talking about how President Gore surrendered to Afghanistan.

"Drumpf" is one state away from being President. Maybe don't nominate a career politician so corrupt she thinks her bar for ethical standards should be set at "Trump".

Trump's gonna win it. These polls have been going up and down and now with this drop the next swing up for Trump will be synced up with the elections.

You idiots are more naive than the Bernie bros. Clinton and Trump were both subjected to national scrutiny, and Clinton campaigned in 2008. Of course someone new to the party was favored in some poll from fucking February. Its not a shocker; they always have a bump over the heir apparent.

>DRUMPF

what polls? i haven't voted yet

That was my guy, though I would've at least been able to stomach a few others that didn't have the legs to go further into the primary season. Perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.

> were both subjected to national scrutiny
I prefer to call that "given twenty times the media attention as was given to competitors who had the same electoral prospects, and (at least for a time) similar electoral performance." Puts things more in perspective, if you get my drift.

have you ever wondered if California broke off its votes via congressional district that Democrats would never win another election ever again?

Why are people so fond of the winner take all method of voting?

You are more likely to steal Blue states than red.

This isn't even a very good forgery.

Wisco went Ted Cruz in the primaries and radio host Charlie Sykes anti-Trump shilling will make it go blue.

You're suggesting the lack of media exposure is beneficial for candidates that are preferred to the front runners (libs prefer Bernie, right prefers Not Trump) correct? Because the amount of media is largely irrelevant for such comparisons in the primary season. Of course Kasich/Cruz would poll higher than Trump against Clinton. People hated Trump. Now they will support him. Of course Bernie would poll higher than Clinton against Trump. People hated Bernie. Now they will support him.

Trump's numbers fall drastically after San Bernadino and the same will happen again. Stupid Drumpfag

Nah, Colorado is voting Trump this year.

Texas is less conservative because of californians

why don't you look at the difference in primary polling and actual votes

polls are absolute bullshit

Alot of good polls coming out for Clinton that should stem the recent electoral rout

The cited polls are general election polls, only taken during the primary. I look at them every cycle. Or have I mistook your point?

>You're suggesting the lack of media exposure is beneficial for candidates that are preferred to the front runners (libs prefer Bernie, right prefers Not Trump) correct?
No, I'm suggesting it is detrimental, for while pre-general RvD matchup polling is useful to judge a candidate's potential strength (though not useful to the candidate who performs worst in that field, which well explains the concerted effort by his supporters to discount their importance), their initial competitors are their other primary opponents, and lack of media access equates to a stiffening of potential growth.

>Of course Kasich/Cruz would poll higher than Trump against Clinton. People hated Trump. Now they will support him.
Not on the margins, which are determinate of general election wins.
>Of course Bernie would poll higher than Clinton against Trump. People hated Hillary. Now they will support her.
I take it you meant to write it that way and screwed up. But again, not on the margins, which are determinate of general election wins, but not to the degree as has always been reflected in head to head polling Trump v Clinton.

This election has been micromanaged, in effect (I say in effect to head off the controlled opposition charge), to keep the options in the establishment media's comfort zone, at the very least. A safe Democrat they don't like and admire, but are culturally bound to support, and a Republican boogieman who--while with them on a great many issues--best represents all the negative portrayals they've ever leveled at any Republican to ever seek the office, because he tries so very hard to fit the role.

>best represents all the negative portrayals they've ever leveled at any Republican to ever seek the office, because he tries so very hard to fit the role.
And now were at the point where they pushed it so hard and for so long as a negative it basically comes off as a compliment.

The establishment had all the resources they needed in this election just not the mind to properly utilize it.

If you call 10 Republicans in March. 6 are for Cruz, 4 are for Trump. And you call the same batch for Cruz vs Clinton and Trump vs Clinton. Who will poll higher in the national comparison? Isn't rocket science.

It seems to me the race has just it an equilibrium again. The way partisan politics work in 2016 means it'll end up around 50/50 roughly no matter who's running.

Trump is just finding new ways to kill enthusiasm every time he opens his mouth.

Don't fall into the trap of believing every knock has a tired-of-this-shit counter.
youtu.be/u1hnwvWhbJw?t=13s

You wouldn't only poll Republicans for a GE poll. But given that they are only a small portion of a larger sample, you wouldn't have the binary "I'm with her" general election dynamic reflected in the primary polling. Those March republicans have seconds in mind, thirds, different levels of enthusiasm for each, so on. As well, the primary voter base is a different animal from a general election one. Far larger percentages in GEs are swayed not by dualistic loyalty to party but by intangibles. Ideology, character, godliness, trust, as is valued by the individual. Though they may identify Republican or Democrat and trend that way most cycles, independent or no, someone who is off putting on a host of their concerns will put them in the camp of their nominal opposition. Not everyone weighs partisanship the same way.

>Isn't rocket science.
This statement is at least true, however, and can lead neatly back to my original point. That--as opposed to the favorable reception other potential Republican nominees received--the general electorate has shown a preference for the entire cycle of Clinton over Trump, but that Republican primary voters allowed themselves to be snookered into believing that somehow the only guy in the field to never surpass her was actually the strongest.

mid-range 40's, but otherwise accurate.