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.

You haven't shown that those massive bad results damaged any of those pollsters brands.

One primary is not "large scale." You want to believe that pollsters saw in their surviving their blown 2014 a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please, you go ahead and believe that.

One primary is not "large scale."

"...the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points."

You pathetic cunt sniffing liar.

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

If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample.

Weasel.

"You pathetic cunt sniffing liar."

I object to your description!

It's more accurate to say, "You condescending cunt sniffing liar".

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

The Tribune is still in business, pumping out liberal lies.

"I stand corrected."

Yeah ... well.

If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample.

I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it.

The Tribune is still in business

And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please? You go ahead and believe that if you want.

trigger

Take your horse fantasies elsewhere.

"And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please?"

Pollsters, weather forecasters and union members -- all bulletproof.

weather forecasters

They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators?

weather forecasters

You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!

You keep saying that like it means something.

My words do mean something. The Constitution Party that you keep pushing was registered in 44 states in 2012 and received app. 2700 votes in each of those states. More people attend one Friday night HS football game than vote for the CP. Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.

"You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!"

No, Great and Powerul! Not at all! I ... uh ... was referring to weather. That's it! Weather. Not climate change.

I do believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do! I do! I do!

How about if I come back tomorrow?

"They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators?"

My point is, when they are wrong it's never held against them.

"... app. 2700 votes in each of those states."

Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".

"I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it."

You use the word and when you do others apply that definition. You need to either explain your word or use another. People may begin to think you're being disingenuous.

Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".

They might as well write in Pat Paulsen.

"They might as well write in Pat Paulsen."

My uncle!

Pollsters will scramble in the final week to explain why they are not fraudulent, just inaccurate. https://t.co/xZZc3AsfAt— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) October 30, 2016

"Pollsters will scramble in the final week to explain why they are not fraudulent, just inaccurate."

With Comey's announcement they now have the excuse to show the true polling results.

"Trump was down 20 points but, given this newest FBI revelation, he's now up by 6."