They updated the poll. 9 point lead for Hillary, and again "randomly" ended up with 8 percent (down from 9) more D's than R's being polled. I understand that they supposedly normalize the results, but this doesn't seem so random. Let's see what it looks like next week.
Outrageous. What kind of Saudi family business is a goddam academic journal? Buncha pathetic losers. If this wasn't the NY Post I'd think that story was boollshit.
GO TO VIDMAX.COM,,,,search Huma Abedin,,,,,and then watch "Hillary Clintons #1 Huma Abedin exposed , Ties To Muslim Brotherhood and 9/11 hijackers " . If someone else can post it feel free ,,,,,its worth watching !
Okay, I don't have time to look into that right now, but I'm kinda skeptical of the source based on what I see on its home page. I assume the video is appropriately sourced if that's what you're basing your claim that this is "true and documented."
Unfortunately a majority of Americans are those idiots you refer to and litter their yards, intersections and shopping malls with election signs. During both of Obama's elections ( especially the first) you couldn't drive for 3 seconds without seeing another HOPE sign or Change BS. These people haven't died, they haven't moved away in mass groves that a whole new demographic has set into the local area. So the Obama crowd must have been much more obnoxious of a crew compared to the Trump crowd due to the amount of exposure they were trying to raise?? Right. Or maybe there is a science behind effecting peoples psyche by continuously seeing the same slogan over and over again. Hillary has run a shit campaign compared to Obama and she deserves to lose by how pathetic the entire thing has been. Unfortunately Trump can't walk 5 feet without stirring up another controversy. Still in my local area, what once was an Obama fiesta looks now like a Trump bonanza.
He left out one other group of people who hate Trump. Anyone with a small amount of common sense. The guy is an asshole, a plutocrat and a tax cheat. Sure he's going to fix everything.
I said "true and documented " because after I watched this video I did a search on her and the first 2 things that popped up were an article written in Vanity Fair and next was a report in the Washington Post .
gonna have to take your word for it, before I could finish the video I had to sweep a shitload of malware off my computer. I'm sure it's totally legit. After all, it's consistent with what you read in the NY Post. She's had security clearance for who knows how long, makes perfect sense she's really a jihadi. Not sure why anyone would even argue otherwise.
Ok biggs.....u may be right about trump the individual but how do u feel about the policies that he and his folks will promote and try to install?
Sure.......tax rates, capital gains, corporate rates, lower death tax, possible AMT reboot - he has hired some top flight economists and the tax plan they are promoting is head and and shoulders above the lady opponent. U don't hear much about it except that it lowers the taxes for the so called rich. Well, that is true but it also lowers the taxes on those that really need it, the lower income classes. Now its all cover talk but its a start and would very likely create a surge in consumer spending packaged with inflationary pressures. If done gradually and smartly, should give us 3.5/4% growth, increase wages, and increase labor demand and participation rates. The lady's tax plan is just another extension of the current potus tax crap with a tighter noose on the suburban middle class tax payer. And they wonder why GDP is so anemic?? So what else......healthcare, borders, immigration, military. Look trump can bark out all the key words that people want to here but nobody can really argue that the trend of all these topics is decidedly negative, and has been for a decade. That has to change and keeping the lady out of the WH should at least stop the bleeding. IMO, the lady beast has the potential to do far more damage than trump on his worst day. Forget the media created nuclear crap. Are we serious?? He won't ever have that sole decision to make. That's not how it works in washington.
Another possibility, aside from random chance, is they're oversampling minorities. Say you have a sample of 500 in a country where there are 95% whites and 5% blacks. If the sample is random, you should have about 475 whites and 25 blacks. The problem with taking only 25 blacks is that the sample of blacks is small and therefore prone to error. So instead, you take 400 whites and 100 blacks and then weight the results to match the 95%-5% demographic. If they're oversampling minorities, it would make sense that they're polling more Democrats than Republicans, as minorities are more likely to be Democrats.
The vast majority of economists prefer Hillary's proposals and would say the 3.5-4% growth figure is unrealistic.
