But as we edge closer to the end of this historically bizarre (and exceedingly long) election cycle, it appears a near-certainty that Trump will fall to Clinton on November 8.

We’ll have to wait and see.

I thought it was a near-certainty.

The Republican nominee for president has burned bridges with a number of communities: he mocked a reporter with a disability; he attacked the Muslim Gold Star parents of a fallen solider, alienating veterans and veterans’ families as well as Muslim-Americans; his attacks on women are too many to enumerate here, but a couple of highlights include the “grope” video describing how he sexually assaults women as well as his insinuation that moderator Megyn Kelly was perhaps menstruating during a Republican primary debate last year; he has also continuously suggested that black Americans live in some sort of post-apocalyptic hellscape.

And that's much more important than Trump's plan to seal the border, lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare, fix the VA, increase military spending, get rid of Common Core, term limits for Congress, renegotiate trade deals, increase jobs, an and and two dozen other conservative initiatives.

But if he loses, the GOP is effectively finished and we'll have Democrat rule for the next century. Politics will cease to be interesting or important: the full Democrat agenda will be enacted, and we will live in the country as they want it.

Politics will no longer be a useful place to put one's energy, people with political ambitions will join the Democratic Party, and it will eventually split into two and become the two parties. The Republicans will shrivel up and disappear like the Whigs and Federalists did.

If Trump wins, the GOP will have a new lease on life, as a populist, nationalist party.

The GOP as it CURRENTLY exists is dead no matter who wins. We live in a democracy, and the portion of the population that accepts Republican theories is already too small to win elections.

The GOP will change to formally reflect Trumpism, if he wins. It will go on, as an old party name with a new ideological engine.

If Trump loses, the GOP will still be as it is, but a lot smaller, and it will never win another national election.

I thought it was a near-certainty.

Trump a pathetic loser? Yep, it's all over but the cryin'...

But does the GOP recover? Who knows?

You know Odumbasscare and the Middle East War will all of a sudden be "Trump's fault!" otherwise.

Trump is going to win. American Brexit. Wait and see.

This top forecaster agrees with you. He is accurate but the outlier opinion this go around.

It’s not over yet: Donald Trump will win, says top forecaster

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/world/not-yet-donald-trump-will-win-says- top-forecaster/

This top forecaster agrees with you. He is accurate but the outlier opinion this go around.

Everybody who has lost his job to China or to Mexican immigration is going to vote for Trump. That is why Trump is going to win. The Republicans will vote for him, and everybody screwed by free trade and open borders will vote for him. And that is all that it will take to flip over the Rust Belt states.

Trump will take Michigan.

" After Trump Loses, What's Next For The GOP? "

A better question is:

" After Trump Wins, What's Next For Willie & Hondo? "

Probably suicide !

Trump is going to win. American Brexit.

"Brexit? Even that comparison doesn’t really work. The final polls showed a toss-up between the United Kingdom leaving the European Union or remaining in it, and “leave” eventually won by 4 points. If the polls were biased against Trump by that much in this election, he’d still lose, by a margin approximating the one by which Mitt Romney lost to President Obama four years ago." - fivethirtyeight.com

the polltakers are biased.

Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale.

After Trump Loses, What's Next For The GOP?

If Hillary wins and we get four more years of malignant subversive counterculturism, what's next for the nation?

A better question is:

" After Trump Wins, What's Next For Willie & Hondo? "

Continue to fight the Hillary stooge, Transgender Trump.

If Hillary wins and we get four more years of malignant subversive counterculturism, what's next for the nation?

We'll have even more loser Leftards to babysit.

Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale.

Not all of them.

But it's good that there is no sale. Because if Trump wins, my ability to see through the fog will have been very strongly established.

If Hillary wins and we get four more years of malignant subversive counterculturism, what's next for the nation?

100 years of Democrat rule. If she wins, she controls the Supreme Court, and then Congress is rendered an afterthought.

Not all of them.

Since mid-September, only one pollster has ever shown a Trump lead.

But if he loses, the GOP is effectively finished and we'll have Democrat rule for the next century.

Your predictions are pretty silly sometimes.

Since mid-September, only one pollster has ever shown a Trump lead.

You are misinformed Tooconservative.

Your predictions are pretty silly sometimes.

I don't make many predictions. I do comment a lot, and say what the long-term effects will be. But long-term is hard to show in the here and now.

Anyway, Trump will win because more than half of the country has been made poor, and they want it to stop. Trump's the only one who has spoken straight to them, and offers policies that THEY want. So he will get the surge from them and win.

Anyway, Trump will win because more than half of the country has been made poor, and they want it to stop.

The "poor" are who Trump should fear most. Today's poor would rather live like smelly scumbags and DEPEND on government then work hard for something more.

The "poor" are who Trump should fear most. Today's poor would rather live like smelly scumbags and DEPEND on government then work hard for something more.

If Trump were a standard Republican, that would be true. But it isn't, He - unlike standard Republicans - understands that most of the poor are made poor by the lack of jobs, and that this comes from so-called "free" trade shutting down factories, and from uncontrolled immigration undercutting the wage of the American worker.

Rebalance the trade rules and stop the illegal immigration, and American manufacturing will have to reopen to provide the jobs here, and illegals will not be able to hold the jobs Americans should have. Poverty will go down, employment will go up. That is Trump's approach, and it is not Republican.

Republicans love "free" trade, because those savings on offshoring labor go to the top as profits, instead of the workers as wages. The government then has to deal with the unemployed poor. Trump is aiming at forcing American employers to use Americans to make goods sold in the American market. That s not traditional Republicanism. It is economic nationalism, and it is the reason that Trump won the nomination and will win the election.

Once he does, it is the reason that the Republican Party power structure will change, as the party moves downscale and becomes a middle class party instead of a party of the rich. The rich will not like this, and the Bushes and Romneys will scream about it. But they will have lost control of the party to Trump and the broad middle class whose needs Trump's policies will address. Class warfare will be out in the GOP, and moving to primarily represent the interests of the middle and working class will be in. Instead of handing over their excess profits in redistributive taxes, the top 1% will be handing them over in the form of wages and benefits. And that is much better for everybody, including the very rich, because the temptation to see their own countrymen as mere commodities that can be cast aside for foreigners will have had its wings clipped.

Americans should be looking out for Americans. Rich Americans should be employing Americans, not Chinese and Mexicans. We have to look after our own first. The rich have forgotten that and tried to fly away into a "global economy". Trump is here to yank them back down to earth and remind them where they came from, and who they have to look out for besides just themselves.

"Since mid-September, only one pollster has ever shown a Trump lead."

You are misinformed

Please educate me - what are the other recent polls that have shown a Trump lead?

(My sources are Realclearpolitics and Fivethirtyeight ... what are yours?)

Since mid-September, only one pollster has ever shown a Trump lead.

Polls are not always correct:

You are misinformed Tooconservative.

Since mid-September, only one pollster has ever shown a Trump lead." You are misinformed

Please educate me - what are the other recent polls that have shown a Trump lead?

(My sources are Realclearpolitics and Fivethirtyeight ... what are yours?)

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...s/301834-poll-trump-up-1- on-clinton-nationally

hotair.com/archives/2016/...nal-poll-trump-ahead-one- point-4140/

www.westernjournalism.com...trump-moves-past-clinton- to-claim-the-lead/

There are a few there are more.

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...s/301834-poll-trump-up-1- on-clinton-nationally

hotair.com/archives/2016/...nal-poll-trump-ahead-one- point-4140

Those are two stories on the same poll. But your larger point is correct: looking at RCP's more-than-2-candidate polls, and sorting 538 by date as I originally failed to do :-[ , there have been a handful of pollsters who at some point have shown Trump with a narrow lead.

I continue to not buy that with those few exceptions, every one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts.

every one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts.

When has push-polling and misrepresenting poll results ever hurt their brand?

But Gallop would never hurt their "brand."

Gallop would never hurt their "brand."

One or a few pollsters might - but dozens?

When has push-polling

When have pollsters ever released the results of push-polls as real results ... or, indeed, released them at all?

and misrepresenting poll results ever hurt their brand?

Misrepresenting accurate results wouldn't affect their reps as providers of accurate results.

Your "brand' argument is self-serving nonsense.

dozens?

"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'" --The problem with polls

Put some ice on it.

Who would hold them accountable for pushing their/your pro-Hillary agenda through polling results?

Those who purchase, or heed, their results - by ceasing to do so.

The problem with polls

Leads with a general underestimation of a Rat victory, and does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.

Put some ice on it.

Those who purchase, or heed, their results - by ceasing to do so.

You mean like they did after Michigan?

Epic fail.

does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.

"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'"

Liar. You were spewing "brand" nonsense.

You mean like they did after Michigan?

Straws. Camels.

Apparently you're the pussy Trump wants to grab.

'does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.'

Liar. You were spewing "brand" nonsense.

Me, post #15: "Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale."

The liar is, as always, you.

"Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale."

You argued that bad forecasts would damage their brand, therefore they wouldn't deliberately produce such results. I can understand why would want to flee your premise, to the point of pretending is wasn't your actual argument.

I've already demolished your brand premise, showing massive large scale bad polling results. Your premise demolished, you crawled back then to your invalid conclusion. The logic abilities of a tpaine.

Let's review: "Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points."

You haven't shown that those massive bad results damaged any of those pollsters brands. When you take a break from sniffing Hillary's cunt, would you like to at least try to address your "brand" premise that crashed and burned so spectacularly?

After losing the race for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton retired and spent her final sad days puttering around in her garden. She jealously noticed that her even more elderly neighbor, Bernie Sanders, had a garden full of big healthy red tomatoes, but that her tomatoes were all sickly and green. She finally asked Bernie for his gardening secret, and he told her, "Every morning I expose myself in my garden and the tomatoes turn red from embarrassment." For the next few weeks Hillary followed Bernie's example in her own garden, but without the results she hoped for. Not only did her tomatoes stay sickly and green, all of her cucumbers shrank.