Hillary can win the Electoral College without FL, Trump cannot.

The cake is nearly baked, my friends.

He can't win without Virginia and Pennsylvania either.

Virginia is a killer, that's why our senator is headed to the White House.

lol. You people are so gullible. The election is two and a half months away!
Relax, folks. A lot of presidents have been elected who have been losing, according to polls, in August.
These pools, whether showing Trump or Clinton ahead, mean NOTHING right now. Stat paying attention to the polls toward the end of September.

don gallup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol. You people are so gullible. The election is
> two and a half months away!
> Relax, folks. A lot of presidents have been
> elected who have been losing, according to polls,
> in August.
> These pools, whether showing Trump or Clinton
> ahead, mean NOTHING right now. Stat paying
> attention to the polls toward the end of
> September.

Not true, hasn't happened since Nixon with the exception of Gore and Gore won the popular vote.

I can smell it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary can win the Electoral College without FL,
> Trump cannot.
>
> The cake is nearly baked, my friends.


You say it like Hillary winning is a good thing.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> don gallup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lol. You people are so gullible. The election
> is
> > two and a half months away!
> > Relax, folks. A lot of presidents have been
> > elected who have been losing, according to
> polls,
> > in August.
> > These pools, whether showing Trump or Clinton
> > ahead, mean NOTHING right now. Stat paying
> > attention to the polls toward the end of
> > September.
>
> Not true, hasn't happened since Nixon with the
> exception of Gore and Gore won the popular vote.
_________________________________________________
What? How about Mr. Dukakis and his 17 point lead in August, 1988?
Does that ring a bell?

Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton is no Dukakis.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan and Hillary
> Clinton is no Dukakis.
____________________________________________
Good, so you admit your wrong about your earlier post.
Where do you get your information? Do you just make it up?

mike dukakis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > don gallup Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > lol. You people are so gullible. The election
> > is
> > > two and a half months away!
> > > Relax, folks. A lot of presidents have been
> > > elected who have been losing, according to
> > polls,
> > > in August.
> > > These pools, whether showing Trump or Clinton
> > > ahead, mean NOTHING right now. Stat paying
> > > attention to the polls toward the end of
> > > September.
> >
> > Not true, hasn't happened since Nixon with the
> > exception of Gore and Gore won the popular
> vote.
> _________________________________________________
> What? How about Mr. Dukakis and his 17 point lead
> in August, 1988?
> Does that ring a bell?

Post conventions in August 1988, Bush was up, you pointless faggot.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-24/news/mn-820_1_gallup-poll

Read and learn.

I have to look at the specifics of the dates and what polls you're referencing at what time so it's not worth arguing. Generally speaking that has obviously still been the case with the exception of Dukakis's fuck ups. I was trying to move the discussion along but obviously you have a dire need to score a point when it comes to me. lol.

Correcting The Non-Readers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mike dukakis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > don gallup Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > lol. You people are so gullible. The
> election
> > > is
> > > > two and a half months away!
> > > > Relax, folks. A lot of presidents have been
> > > > elected who have been losing, according to
> > > polls,
> > > > in August.
> > > > These pools, whether showing Trump or
> Clinton
> > > > ahead, mean NOTHING right now. Stat paying
> > > > attention to the polls toward the end of
> > > > September.
> > >
> > > Not true, hasn't happened since Nixon with
> the
> > > exception of Gore and Gore won the popular
> > vote.
> >
> _________________________________________________
> > What? How about Mr. Dukakis and his 17 point
> lead
> > in August, 1988?
> > Does that ring a bell?
>
> Post conventions in August 1988, Bush was up, you
> pointless faggot.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-24/news/mn-820
> _1_gallup-poll
>
> Read and learn.


Oh okay, nevermind. So that's bullshit too. I don't know why I ever choose to believe anything these lying rightards say.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to look at the specifics of the dates and
> what polls you're referencing at what time so it's
> not worth arguing. Generally speaking that has
> obviously still been the case with the exception
> of Dukakis's fuck ups. I was trying to move the
> discussion along but obviously you have a dire
> need to score a point when it comes to me. lol.


Dumbass lib

lmao, these motherfucking rightards just be straight lying. The most random shit, Dukakis was up. No he wasn't. WTF lmao. That's funny.

You believe them too but you shouldn't because they probably don't know they're lying too. They're parrots for liars they listen to on a daily basis.

You liberal fags are idiots. First of all, retard, Dukakis was running against Bush, not Reagan.
Also, Dukakis did have a huge lead in August, and September until he fucked up with that tank advertisement and then we found out he furloughed that nigger Willie Horton who came to Md. and raped a white woman.
And also, Romney had a lead on Obama, Gore had a lead on Bush, etc...
Like I said, polls today mean nothing. Don't pay any attention to the polls until mid to late September, at the earliest.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He can't win without Virginia and Pennsylvania
> either.

A Republican presidential candidate would need to win in Florida, Virginia and Ohio to have a realistic shot at winning. In 2012 Obama won with 332 Electoral votes. Move all three of those three states to the Republican side and you are down to 272. That means you'd only need one other state to put the Republican over the top.

There are combinations other than Florida-Virginia-Ohio that in theory could put a Republican president at 270. I don't see those combinations playing out without the Republican candidate also winning Florida-Virginia-Ohio.

lee atwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You liberal fags are idiots. First of all, retard,
> Dukakis was running against Bush, not Reagan.
> Also, Dukakis did have a huge lead in August, and
> September until he fucked up with that tank
> advertisement and then we found out he furloughed
> that nigger Willie Horton who came to Md. and
> raped a white woman.
> And also, Romney had a lead on Obama, Gore had a
> lead on Bush, etc...
> Like I said, polls today mean nothing. Don't pay
> any attention to the polls until mid to late
> September, at the earliest.

You're a fucking idiot. After the party conventions in '88, BUSH HAD THE LEAD OVER DUKAKIS, which he never lost.

You're Not A Reader, Are You? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You're a fucking idiot. After the party
> conventions in '88, BUSH HAD THE LEAD OVER
> DUKAKIS, which he never lost.


You're a fucking idiot. Dukakis led by 17 points after the Democrat convention at the end of July and kept the lead through the end of August when Bush finally went ahead at the end of the GOP convention (barely). There was talk after the Democrat convention that Bush might lose Texas. Sound familiar?


 
Attachments:

We're past the conventions idiot. And I was referencing two weeks after the conventions. Your poll doesn't figure into the current comparison.

(Barely) stop wasting people's time you moron.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan and Hillary
> Clinton is no Dukakis.

Trump isn't even Pappi Bush.

Hillary sure as hell isn't Dukakis.

Trump-tards!

LoLz!

You Libtards appear to be nervous for some reason, I think you suspect a "flash in the pan" and are reminded of Trumps primary defeat, when the odds were against him.

No worries, Mate.

#DumpThatTrumpChump

Attachments:

Latest Consensus Pundit Map Puts Clinton Over 270 Electoral Votes

August 15, 2016

The August 15 update* to the Consensus Pundit Electoral Map gives Hillary Clinton 279 electoral votes to 191 for Donald Trump; 68 electoral votes in four states are seen as true toss-ups.

The main changes from the prior map were to move Virginia and New Hampshire from toss-up to leaning Clinton. This was enough to push Clinton across the 270 electoral vote threshold for the first time. Several red states also became more competitive, with Kansas and South Carolina moving from safe to likely Trump, Missouri from likely to leaning Trump.

You're not an understanderer RU? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're Not A Reader, Are You? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > You're a fucking idiot. After the party
> > conventions in '88, BUSH HAD THE LEAD OVER
> > DUKAKIS, which he never lost.
>
>
> You're a fucking idiot. Dukakis led by 17 points
> after the Democrat convention at the end of July
> and kept the lead through the end of August when
> Bush finally went ahead at the end of the GOP
> convention (barely). There was talk after the
> Democrat convention that Bush might lose Texas.
> Sound familiar?
>
>
>  

Republican convention: August 15-18, 1988. Bush never lost the lead after that.

But that's OK; keep talking yourself into Trump winning. You'll be shitting your pants when he loses, and it'll be so sweet to know how angry you'll be.

Bye, Bye, Now. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're not an understanderer RU? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're Not A Reader, Are You? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > You're a fucking idiot. After the party
> > > conventions in '88, BUSH HAD THE LEAD OVER
> > > DUKAKIS, which he never lost.
> >
> >
> > You're a fucking idiot. Dukakis led by 17
> points
> > after the Democrat convention at the end of
> July
> > and kept the lead through the end of August
> when
> > Bush finally went ahead at the end of the GOP
> > convention (barely). There was talk after the
> > Democrat convention that Bush might lose Texas.
>
> > Sound familiar?
> >
> >
> >  
>
> Republican convention: August 15-18, 1988. Bush
> never lost the lead after that.
>

Why is that relevant to anything

Bye, Bye, Now. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're not an understanderer RU? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're Not A Reader, Are You? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > You're a fucking idiot. After the party
> > > conventions in '88, BUSH HAD THE LEAD OVER
> > > DUKAKIS, which he never lost.
> >
> >
> > You're a fucking idiot. Dukakis led by 17
> points
> > after the Democrat convention at the end of
> July
> > and kept the lead through the end of August
> when
> > Bush finally went ahead at the end of the GOP
> > convention (barely). There was talk after the
> > Democrat convention that Bush might lose Texas.
>
> > Sound familiar?
> >
> >
> >  
>
> Republican convention: August 15-18, 1988. Bush
> never lost the lead after that.
>
> But that's OK; keep talking yourself into Trump
> winning. You'll be shitting your pants when he
> loses, and it'll be so sweet to know how angry
> you'll be.


So you admit that Dukakis was up by 17 points in August 1988 and that you're deflecting some bullshit about the conventions to disprove it but failed miserably.

Official FFU Truth Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you admit that Dukakis was up by 17 points in
> August 1988

Yes, BEFORE the RNC, numbskull.

There's no late August convention to save Trump. lol.

Hillary is up now in Iowa...and NH, CO, PA, FL, VA, OH, WI, MI.

The cake is nearly baked, my friends.

Official FFU Truth Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bye, Bye, Now. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're not an understanderer RU? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You're Not A Reader, Are You? Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You're a fucking idiot. After the party
> > > > conventions in '88, BUSH HAD THE LEAD OVER
> > > > DUKAKIS, which he never lost.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're a fucking idiot. Dukakis led by 17
> > points
> > > after the Democrat convention at the end of
> > July
> > > and kept the lead through the end of August
> > when
> > > Bush finally went ahead at the end of the GOP
> > > convention (barely). There was talk after
> the
> > > Democrat convention that Bush might lose
> Texas.
> >
> > > Sound familiar?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> >
> > Republican convention: August 15-18, 1988.
> Bush
> > never lost the lead after that.
> >
> > But that's OK; keep talking yourself into Trump
> > winning. You'll be shitting your pants when he
> > loses, and it'll be so sweet to know how angry
> > you'll be.
>
>
> So you admit that Dukakis was up by 17 points in
> August 1988 and that you're deflecting some
> bullshit about the conventions to disprove it but
> failed miserably.

No, dickweed. You keep jabbering about Dukakis' big lead in August 1988. Not comparable. Dukakis had that lead before the GOP convention. The proper comparison is post-convention to post-convention -- which is (a) a Bush lead in 1988 (post-both-conventions); to (b) Hillary's lead NOW. Bush never lost the leader post-conventions. Neither will Hillary. So suck on it.

You Are Very Stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No, dickweed. You keep jabbering about Dukakis'
> big lead in August 1988. Not comparable. Dukakis
> had that lead before the GOP convention. The
> proper comparison is post-convention to
> post-convention -- which is (a) a Bush lead in
> 1988 (post-both-conventions); to (b) Hillary's
> lead NOW. Bush never lost the leader
> post-conventions. Neither will Hillary. So suck
> on it.


I wasn't jabbering about anything. I didn't write anything in this thread other than the one response to you. Nothing is comparable between 1988 and now so you picking some obscure factoid to bolster a retort to something no one said is a logical fallacy. Just pointing out that your illogical. And very emotional as well. And angry. If you're older than 12, you have some problems.

Im gonna take a educated guess and say that
these polls are off in favor of trump cuz, I dont know how these polls are done, but if its by asking...im guessing there are many more trump voters that dont want to admit they are voting for him, we all know loud mouthed liberals protester types, they gotta say who theyre voting for and offer much more cuz they camt keep their cock suckers shut.

Official FFU Truth Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You Are Very Stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > No, dickweed. You keep jabbering about
> Dukakis'
> > big lead in August 1988. Not comparable.
> Dukakis
> > had that lead before the GOP convention. The
> > proper comparison is post-convention to
> > post-convention -- which is (a) a Bush lead in
> > 1988 (post-both-conventions); to (b) Hillary's
> > lead NOW. Bush never lost the leader
> > post-conventions. Neither will Hillary. So
> suck
> > on it.
>
>
> I wasn't jabbering about anything. I didn't write
> anything in this thread other than the one
> response to you. Nothing is comparable between
> 1988 and now so you picking some obscure factoid
> to bolster a retort to something no one said is a
> logical fallacy. Just pointing out that your
> illogical. And very emotional as well. And
> angry. If you're older than 12, you have some
> problems.

And you're still wrong. Good luck with that.

Mass suicide in forecast, trump is gonna win yuuuuge.

I can smell it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Official FFU Truth Detector Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you admit that Dukakis was up by 17 points
> in
> > August 1988
>
> Yes, BEFORE the RNC, numbskull.
>
> There's no late August convention to save Trump.
> lol.
>
> Hillary is up now in Iowa...and NH, CO, PA, FL,
> VA, OH, WI, MI.
>
> The cake is nearly baked, my friends.


OMG, that was the day the Iran-Iraq War ended. That is sooooooooooo relevant. Why didn't we all see this before. LOL

Don't get me wrong. Hillary is winning now and has a good chance of winning in Nov. But the cake isn't baked yet. Best to leave it in the oven a bit longer. Plenty of time for an implosion on either side.

ghped Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im gonna take a educated guess and say that
> these polls are off in favor of trump cuz, I dont
> know how these polls are done, but if its by
> asking...im guessing there are many more trump
> voters that dont want to admit they are voting for
> him, we all know loud mouthed liberals protester
> types, they gotta say who theyre voting for and
> offer much more cuz they camt keep their cock
> suckers shut.


Ummm, they are probably off in Hillary's favor, but not by enough to think Trump is leading. No way. Most of these pollsters are pretty bad and usually favor dems slightly, but not enough to pin any hopes that Trump is ahead. He's not. And the way he has run his campaign, he doesn't deserve to be ahead.

Official FFU Truth Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ghped Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Im gonna take a educated guess and say that
> > these polls are off in favor of trump cuz, I
> dont
> > know how these polls are done, but if its by
> > asking...im guessing there are many more trump
> > voters that dont want to admit they are voting
> for
> > him, we all know loud mouthed liberals
> protester
> > types, they gotta say who theyre voting for and
> > offer much more cuz they camt keep their cock
> > suckers shut.
>
>
> Ummm, they are probably off in Hillary's favor,
> but not by enough to think Trump is leading. No
> way. Most of these pollsters are pretty bad and
> usually favor dems slightly, but not enough to pin
> any hopes that Trump is ahead. He's not. And the
> way he has run his campaign, he doesn't deserve to
> be ahead.
No, buddy, ur not gonna get singled out for voting for hillary...trump supporters have to hide what theyre saying...hillary doesnt deserve to be leading, she shouldve been headed to jail.

Even the latest Breitbart/Gravis poll as Hillary +5.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/14/breitbartgravis-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-42-to-37/

Trump-tards!

LoLz!

ithink it's time i start listening and take florida `for real'
Attachments:

there's been no vote yet

and Al Gore is going to demand a recount in florida when she looses by a typically corruption indicating %49.5 to %50.5

i wrote a book, "When Sunshine isn't Enough", but it was banned by florida school system

you should see the iTune music and books they DID buy using gov money "in the name of creating media for children" - the gov does this that is

DhGGJ Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> and Al Gore is going to demand a recount in
> florida when she looses by a typically corruption
> indicating %49.5 to %50.5

Al Gore lost by only a couple of thousand votes, well within the margin where an automatic recount was available under Florida law. There was nothing improper about the recount request. The problem was with how the recount was being conducted, including the rules for examining the ballots and the time when the results had to be reported. There were also a number of complaints about voter suppression on both sides. Studies since Bush was inaugurated indicate it is not possible to determine who won in Florida as different standards produce different results. What isn't disputed is even with the maximum count in Florida in his favor, Bush lost the nationwide popular vote count by about 500,000 votes.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DhGGJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > and Al Gore is going to demand a recount in
> > florida when she looses by a typically
> corruption
> > indicating %49.5 to %50.5
>
> Al Gore lost by only a couple of thousand votes,
> well within the margin where an automatic recount
> was available under Florida law. There was
> nothing improper about the recount request. The
> problem was with how the recount was being
> conducted, including the rules for examining the
> ballots and the time when the results had to be
> reported. There were also a number of complaints
> about voter suppression on both sides. Studies
> since Bush was inaugurated indicate it is not
> possible to determine who won in Florida as
> different standards produce different results.
> What isn't disputed is even with the maximum count
> in Florida in his favor, Bush lost the nationwide
> popular vote count by about 500,000 votes.


Both the Post and USA Today did a recount study based on what Al Gore wanted (selected counties and using the criteria for how to count the ballots) and Bush actually picked up votes. So tell us the studies that showed it was disputed. Liar.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

Since you asked:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/

Also from the Wall Street Journal at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100524251837190200 "In another twist, the media consortium's study shows that Mr. Gore might have edged out Mr. Bush if ballots were recounted the way the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 12 was necessary for constitutional fairness but impossible to complete given legal time constraints. That ruling called for "uniform rules to determine [voters'] intent" on all ballots statewide. Under several scenarios that applied such statewide standards, Mr. Gore's victory margin was less than 200 votes."

Also from USAToday: "Two newspaper projects scrutinizing the balloting found that if the recounts had continued in the four challenged Florida counties, Bush still would have won by a slight margin. Both studies found that if all the disputed ballots were counted statewide — an idea the Supreme Court endorsed but that neither side pursued — Vice President Gore would have won Florida and the election."

So when can I expect your apology?