Trump has a negative 44 percent (19 favorable 63 unfavorable) favorability rating among women. Historically, at this point in the race candidates managed to change this rating among women by about 10 percent, maybe 15 percent.
How can Trump win with a 30-35 percent negative rating among American women?
And if this remains the case until the convention and Trump has not received 1237, why should it not be in the best interest of the party to nominate someone else?
If every woman within earshot disagrees with you, you're doing something right.
Because conservative women will still vote for him, which despite liberal claims, is about 40-50% of women on average.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyZYcJ03_4
>>69092991
Nope, more female liberal voters than conservative.
>>69092882
>If every woman within earshot disagrees with you, you're doing something right.
true, but if he does not get elected because of women, then how does it help that his politics is correct?
>>69092991
Are they? 19 percent overall favorability among American women. I assume there are more conservative women in America?
>>69092742
now hold on a second, are you implying there are more semen demons in this world that actually vote than men?
>>69092742
Can someone tell me why we gave the cunts a right to vote
>our ancestors gave women the vote and now we can't undo it
> why should it not be in the best interest of the party to nominate someone else?
the party is fucked if they nominate someone else because trump supporters will revolt. trump would run independent and even if he didn't they'd still be fucked
it's either hillary beats trump and wins, the republican party commits suicide and hillary beats their nobody candidate, or trump beats hillary. those are the only three options. their only """win""" outcome is trump v hillary
trump isn't looking too good against hillary at the moment, but primaries are still going. it's not time yet
>implying Democrats can win in November
B-b-bb-but muh magical 11th hour voter surge ;_;. Lmao
>>69093353
Actually, 1. there are more women who can vote than men and 2. more women who can vote actually vote.
Women are the more important voting gender by a 20 percent margin (in 2008 there were 70.4 million wimen who vite vs 60.7 million men) and this margin is widening. Guess how Obama was elected twice.
>>69093658
>>69093582
They look at being "nice" on the most superficial sense of the word.
>>69093378
>Can someone tell me why we gave the cunts a right to vote
About 100 years ago, all the men were so fucking drunk they thought it would be a good idea to let women vote.
Then they sobered up because the first fucking law women made was to outlaw booze.
When their hangovers went away, they realized they were in the middle of the Great Depression.
Men stayed sober just long enough to make booze legal again, and then they decided to get drunk because women still wouldn't shut the fuck up.
80 years later, you were born, because men decided even old pussy was OK, as long as they were shitfaced enough.
The end.
>>69093353
there are more women and they vote more. and they vote with their feels and their gibmedats
more men can provide for themselves and don't really give a fuck
>>69093592
I do not see it that way.
Trump cannot win in the general election due to women's view of Trump.
So, the plan can be to get an electable candidate such as Kasich to be the nominee.
Trump could then run third party, but he might just not do that because if he did not get 1237 delegates, he also did not get the majority, so he lost fair and square.
It is better for the GOP to try and win the precedency with someone like Kasich than lose it for sure with Trump.
>>69093658
It's funny because it used to be implied that swing voters were the stupidest of them all due to bush getting elected, now the opposite is implied.
>>69092742
All he needs to flip that is to paint Hillary as a rape enabler during the general.
>>69093940
>let's not rock the boat, we need to go with an esblishment candidate because some hypothetical rule applies for women
#shitcuckoldsay
>>69093967
Nothing is implied.
Bush had quite good ratings with women. Gore and Bush did not have a massive women electorate bias as Clinton vs Trump would have.
>>69093761
i don't get it
where was the part we thought it would be a good idea to let women out of kitchen
>>69094106
What do you "hypothetical rule"?
It is true that women do not massivelt change their minds easily. If only 19 percent of women have a positive view of Trump right now and 63 percent have a negative view, don't expect this to be 50-50 ever until November. The best Trump can hope for is 35-65 which is devastating in a general election. Essentially because 75 million women will vote and only 60 million men will. Trump would need a 75-25 margin with men to win the election.
>>69093940
>Trump could then run third party, but he might just not do that because if he did not get 1237 delegates, he also did not get the majority, so he lost fair and square.
brokered conventions don't happen, nobody is going to view one as fair and square if someone with not even a quarter the delegates as trump originally comes out the candidate.
if the current pace continues, it will be suicide to have anyone but trump be the candidate. and I doubt trump will lose support with an ISIS attack that liberals make excuse for coming every week. so you're going to have a voter base of maybe 40% of the party left out in the cold. that doesn't work. and without trump, berniefags will also lose their "fuck everything" button candidate to vent their hillary butthurt, though I'm not sure how much of an impact that is really
the GOP isn't in a good position now, trump definitely needs to improve with women. but they really don't have other options besides self-destruction to spite him.
>>69094331
Women are flaky voters. If Hillary can be made out to be an evil bitch women will lose interest and many won't vote at all. And Trump is very sexy. A lot of women haven't been listening to him and just read articles about him. They will finally hear him when it's him vs Hillary and they will realize how much of a high energy alpha male he really is and will vote for him.
>>69094632
this. I think the best bet is actively attacking the liberal media narrative that trump hates women, combined with a focused picking apart of hillary as the liar she is. as far as I've seen, it hasn't even begun
hopefully women will realize they don't want someone like that presiding over the country their children have to live in, even if she is le first woman president
>>69094567
>nobody is going to view one as fair and square if someone with not even a quarter the delegates as trump originally comes out the candidate.
Why should that be?
Assume Trump gets 1150 delegates, which is a reasonable number to assume.
First round of voting, Trump keeps those 1150 delegates and maybe gets some of the "free delegates" like the ones from DC.
But in the second round, there might be an understanding that the Rubio guys and all the non-Kasich guys vote for Cruz even if all Trump delegates stick with Trump.
So you have a classical deadlock between Trump and Cruz that needs to be resolved among the delegates. A third candidate, Kasich, is the logical conclusion.
>>69094632
I am not saying that Trump cannot win some women over. But you are mistaken that women in America who are likely to vote haven't watched Trump talk or formed an opinion on him which is hard to reverse.
In the women psychy, changing a view they formed about a man is a form of weakness abd submission and it is damn hard to change this view. This is why if you have been friendzoned once, it is virtually impossible to get out of it again.
>>69092742
I'm convinced Hilldawg will fall prey to the same phenomenon that every other candidate who was getting popular against Trump has. He'll say something outrageous and people's opinions will change. Unlike Trump who's had everything that could be thrown at him, be thrown at him, Hillary has remained almost untouched by Sanders because he's a fucking cuck with no backbone. Something outrageous about Trump is to be expected at this point. Hillary on the other hand? Her and her electorate that are not politically savvy are not ready for the shit surrounding her.
How do I expect this? Hillary showed an important weakness at one of her speeches and on The Final Five on CNN. Hillary is telling her supporters that they should stop making out Trump and his supporters to be racists. She knows very well that unless she does this she can loose support when Donald actually debates her and people who are indoctrinated by the media realize Trump isn't racist, sexist, or whatever. If Hilldawg knew her base was stable, she wouldn't have done that as a progressive (because she isn't really one in the first place, it's just her facade to dickride Obama). Once Trump lays into her, you'll see her start to crumble. Especially on trade. A lot of people don't give too much of a shit about the social issues and trade will ultimately be her undoing.
>>69094331
You are way too superficial with your judgements and relying too much on international media to form your opinion. International media is the most biased media out there right now regarding this election and their only aim is to sow despair regarding donald trumps policies as trump is not a globalist. This is why these issues are raised when they easily could and may be overcome if trump harnesses female jealousy or envy against hilary.
>>69094869
there's nothing logical about that at all. and even if there was, you don't sweep the rug out from the feet of 40% of your own voters and live to tell the tale
they can do that if they want to. but it's self-destruction. the voters simply won't stand for it, the trump movement won't be dissipated like that.
not to mention trump is the one candidate who directly refused to say he'd back the republican nominee under all circumstances and not run independent.
>>69094869
To even get your name on the 2nd ballot you need to with the majority of delegates from 8 States. The only candidate that has done that is Trump.
You can have as many ballots as you want, the only name that will be on them is Trump.
>>69095242
can't they just change the rules before the 2nd ballot to accommodate this?
though if they did, that's even more suicidal
>>69095242
Can you elaborate a little more on this? I remember hearing that when Trump won the Mariana Islands. Is there any chance that Cruz, or even Kasich can pull that off before the convention?
>>69092742
Stop fucking making this thread.
>>69095212
Ok, then let's look at facts.
Can we agree that Trump wins over a lot of men in the primaires but doesn't do as well with conservative women?
Can we agree that Hillary is winning the women vote on the liberal and independents?
Can we agree that women are the largest voter group?
Can we agree that Trump currently is traded as a 27 percent winner in the presidential race while Hillary is at 60 percent?
Can we agree that Trump hasn't got the nomination in the bag (he trades at 65 percent to win the nomination right now)?
by getting the other 65% of women who have a positive rating of him, to vote
>>69093658
Yeah, Democrats lost in 1980 and 1988 despite having nearly double the turnout. Republicans had a higher turnout in 2000, but still ended up losing the popular vote.
>>69095038
All they've heard is soundbites and tiny parts of his speeches. They cut out the parts that make him look good. Women love a bold high status man with balls and when they hear his anti globalist pro America rhetoric and see how alpha and sexy he is they will change sides or not vote. It's more about giving them doubt than anything else. It also helps that a lot of Trump supporters are alpha male studs which will help get the women vote. >>69094827
That's right Hillary is going to be grilled when it's her vs. Trump and she's old and a little bit nutty. When she's faced with every skeleton in her closet she'll predictably fold. She'll get schlonged.
>>69095431
How was Trumps ratings within the Republican Party before he debated and took on the other candidates face to face?
>>69095358
They can change it at anytime a week before the convention. However once the news gets out that they changed it everyone will know something is going to go down.
>>69095379
>“Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination."
>>69095582
His rating with women have not really improved that much.
>>69092882
>>69095431
Yah but right now trump's focus isn't hilary. Americans do "forgive and forget" and no i dont agree with you assumptions because that means you'd see a larger voter turnout in the primearies for the democrats. Trump has had alot more candidates in the race siphoning potential votes from him, there's also that to consider.
>>69095534
Carter would have won if not for Iran hostage crisis. The only outlier is 88, as a side note 88 was the first year for electric voting machines.
>>69095962
>Americans do "forgive and forget"
I think it's more "forget and forget" more so than forgive. People's attention spans are small or they have lives to live. Also, in terms of turnout, Hillary getting the nomination is going to be hilarious when all of those college aged commie voters who are fiercely loyal to Bernie just stay home instead of voting because they realize how hopeless all their grassroots support was. Dem turnout already sucks.
>>69092742
Stop shitting up our hopes with your facts and truths. Let us have a few more months of happiness before we get our Merkel 2.0.
>>69094331
>Women don't change their mind easily
This is how I know you're single
>>69095962
Women do not forget. I am not sure you know women today.
>Germany
>not understanding American Politics
>using Obama Polls, ever, as precedent
Here's where you're wrong, from someone who can actually vote.
-He's increased general voter turnout, of all demographics.
-The trash you read is typically anti-trump. As is most media.
-Check the Rally sizes in each state. They're fucking huge.
-he only needs a high voter turnout, which he does.
-You're using polls that don't account for the general election debates.
-The reason that's massively fucking retarded shouldn't escape you.
-Hillary can't sling any more shit, and she's afraid.
-Bernout's unelectable
-Trump's performance in the primary, using the cyclical model, from an actual PROFESSOR OF FUCKING POLITICAL SCIENCE (if ethos is your thing) shows a 97-99% chance of a win.
-Kasich isn't able to win shit.
-Contested conventions always, always, result in a loss.
So really, if you have anything else to say, please don't. You can't vote, and thank fuck for it.
>>69096226
As much as people hate Merkel, she is trying to solve the migrant situation and has implemented tougher asylum laws in the last months - harsher than what the US has in place.
Plus putting in place the Turkey deal, the deals with North Africa and also with Afghanistan and Iraq. Those have not been in place before.
Germany gets 100 people on average right now, that is manageable as it just is 30,000 per year. We will deport more than 100k this year (voluntarily or forced).
>>69095431
Hillary is "popular" among women because she "is a woman." But she has a 40-year history of grievous offenses to everything 3rd wave feminists believe, and she's been awful to women by any standard besides.
Trump doesn't want to defund PP and, as misogynistic as some of his comments seem, he treats women like anybody else: people who are fair game. I don't expect women to flock to him, but the narrative that HRC is fighting for women just because she is a woman is going to explode at some point.
>>69096343
>-Trump's performance in the primary, using the cyclical model, from an actual PROFESSOR OF FUCKING POLITICAL SCIENCE (if ethos is your thing) shows a 97-99% chance of a win.
I don't disagree with you, but didn't he say this before multiple cruz upsets?
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he'd give a significantly lower chance now, maybe 80% or 75%
>>69093103
>40% conservative
>nope, more liberals
you mean like the other 60% m8?
>>69096343
>-Contested conventions always, always, result in a loss.
This is actually untrue. Six of the Ten brokered convention candidates for the Republicans have taken the presidency.
Aside from small sample size and mostly split results, it literally means nothing, but it is hardly a 100% loss.
>>69096343
I remember that there was a model that predicted the elections based on economic data from 50 states and that they were so far 100% accurate. They predicted that in 2012 that Romney would win by 100 electoral votes...
He ended losing by 100 electoral votes instead.
>>69096607
Obama got 70 percent of the female vote. Are you seriously saying that Clinton will do worse against Trump than Obama did against McCain among women?
Women have been the Dems' backbone and with Trump, that will just continue.
Hillary might just use Sanders as her VP who gets the young vote. There are a lot of young women who would always go for Sanders over Trump even if they hate Clinton.
>>69094253
Well we never thought it was a good idea in the first place this thing called first wave feminism came along that was a bunch women bitching for the rights to vote
>>69096817
It seems like every election some faggot boasting 100% accuracy up until then ends up being wrong. Soft science models have awful predictive capability.
Something important to consider about Trump vs Hillary unfavourability ratings. Trump's rating is far worse but it's likely based solely off of the last six months. Hillary, on the other hand, still has a terrible rating, but this is based off of 20 years in the public eye.
People who hate Trump right now are either a) Republicans who are still sour and making a big show about how they won't support huim as the nominee or b) People who know little of his actual policies and have just bought the "Trump is Hitler" meme MSM has been pushing.
Despite what they say, most of group A will get in line behind Trump if he's the nominee. They're having a tantrum now but they're not just going to give the election to the democrats. Trump will likely try and move to the centre during the GE to try and court group B, to try and change the perception they have of him.
Obviously the hardcore cucks like Aids Skrillex and Soros puppets like BLM will never, ever support him, but a lot of people could come around. It might sound crazy that people could go from "Trump=Devil" to voting for him, but like I said, their opinion of him is only influenced by the last six months. He can easily change his unfavourability rating. Hillary can't. The hatred for her is based off of years, for some people decades, of knowing her. And now a sizable portion of Bernie supporters are growing to hate her as much as Trump. Trump has a very real chance of winning the GE
>>69097704
Noboy can predict the election outcome 100 percent.
But the women's view on Trump makes him an underdog in the general election with little chance to win against Clinton.
I have yet to see someone argue that Trump can get anywhere close to the necessary 40 percent of women voters to win the general election, especially considering women generally lean left.
>>69096532
You keep tell yourself that.
>>69097871
Trump has been a shitload more on national TV in the last 20 years thah Hillary.
>>69097923
Those are facts, I am not "keep telling that to myself", I am just telling you what has already happened.
>>69097893
>But the women's view on Trump makes him an underdog in the general election with little chance to win against Clinton.
>Obama got 70 percent of the female vote.
Why did you even make this thread again? You've clearly already got your answer from the OP.
Trump's unfavorability numbers with women mean nothing. It's like pointing out that only 25% of blacks like him.
Favorability ratings are shit. Do you even have party affiliation on those polled? Or do not think that a shitload of Democrat respondents might skew the numbers?
Women will vote for Trump despite their "negative view" of him. It's not important at all.
>>69096772
Any post 1972? Because those are the only ones that would matter. Before then the primary process was entirely different.
See also: McGovern-Fraser Commission. "A Choice not an Echo" by Phyllis Schlafly.
>>69096610
Actually, IIRC the model outcome was based on data outside of polling and successfully modeled all but one prior presidential win.
Also, "Upsets" is a funny term when a great deal of Trump support comes from the very states and demographics that should've been backing Cruz 100%.
Regardless, Trump isn't a standard candidate, and his success so far has been extraordinary, so it's patently ridiculous to attempt to measure by standards made for a different mould of man. Additionally, consider both the joint left/right establishment attacking him, and it makes the polls from which these numbers, incredibly suspect at the best of times for sample sizes and methodology, look next to useless.
Bets are off for when it comes to the actual general election, and the major "upsets" that have turned the tides, e.g. Reagan, aren't exactly impossible, so it's hard to predict what it'll turn out like when we can't even predict stock outcomes, nevermind what Trump's campaign will be or the response to it (though Scott Adams has some ideas).
>>69098378
Incredibly true. Polling will remain skew-whiff while this nasty primary fight is going on.
>>69098366
>Any post 1972?
I don't think so. Eisenhower was the last one I think. We'd really be moving into unknown territory with one today. This whole election in general is absurd. It'll be the stuff of legends if Trump is given the nomination like he should be, regardless of if he actually wins.
>>69098237
I made this thread to understand why people back Trump. If people want a Republican in the white house, they should back Kasich hands down. Trump is a wild card, Kasich is a safe bet to actually win.
>>69093582
> this pic
We're fucked, aren't we?
>>69093940
>Trump cannot win in the general election due to women's view of Trump.
LOL keep telling yourself that.
This is going to be your new rallying cry on and off the media eh Soros shill?
Just means Trump will have to let loose on Hillary and destroy her favorability rating among women, which is part of his plan so just sit tight.
>>69098820
>If people want a Republican in the white house
They don't want "a" Republican in the White House, not Cruz the fucking illegal Canadian or Kasich the bible thumping WWIII dude just itching to press the button.
They want Trump and we will have him.
>>69098820
A vote for Kasich is a vote for the same old crony shit. You want to understand what drives Trump voters? What does winning matter when you loose in the end anyway with your win? I'll take the wild card.
And what makes everyone think Kasich is an instant win anyway? Nobody in his own party except for the elites even gave a shit about the guy. And even they didn't give a shit until Yeb! and their golden boy failed miserably.
>>69098655
There weren't. The whole point of the new system was to avoid the old smoke-filled backrooms after the 1968 DNC riots. Brokered Conventions are a boogeyman now.
>>69098820
I'd already figured out you were an idiot, but thanks for confirming. Kasich is still 4th in a three man race. He couldn't be losing much harder than that.
>>69092742
This might seem extreme, but I think it has a real chance of turning his disapproval score around, by AT LEAST 44 percent.
If he publicly castrates himself without any anesthesia, then cuts his own throat, I predict his disapproval score will alter to zero. Once he's dead. It only stands to reason.
Thanks and good night!
>>69098237
His favorability ratings among republicans are 50 percent which is where Romney was roughly at. Compared to Clinton in her own party, she as a favorability around 80 percent.
>>69097893
And primary turnout makes Hillary the underdog in general election with little chance to win against Trump.
I have yet see anyone argue that Hillary can make up a 5 million vote deficit needed in order to win the general election.
>>69099428
Romney had a negative favorability by women of 13 percent at that point in the race, Trump is at 44 percent. And Romney lost.
How do you change it to say minus 10 percent overall which is necessary to win.
The dynamic in the general election favors women and minorities more and more and both lean left. Trump does especially bad nation wide on both these indicators.
>>69099428
Bitter, brutal Primary fight with god (according to Glenn Beck) and everyone attacking Trump vs Hillary's slowly euthanizing Grandpa Stalin so she can claim the nomination that was stolen from her in 2008.
Bernie's supporters are mostly non-voters (young people) and Ron Paul fags. They'll evaporate when the time comes.
Trump is driving turnout. If he's pulling any non-trivial amount of his blue collar support from the Democrat base, it's death for Hillary.
Romney only missed winning in 2012 by 4% of the white vote. You really think Trump has less of the white vote? And black support for the Democrats will not remain in the 90's without Obama. Niggas don't like Hillary, they hate the old jew.
>>69093761
Underrated post
>>69099942
>And primary turnout makes Hillary the underdog in general election with little chance to win against Trump.
How is that? Everyone knows Hillary will be the nominee, why should there be a record primary turnout? Not to mention Hillary has actually got more votes in the primaries so far than Trump...
>>69099956
These numbers mean nothing. Didn't you already point out that Romney only got 30% of women voters? This doesn't get worse.
And Trump is polling better with blacks, and won't be facing the first black president, so we can expect an easy 10% or more of the black vote swinging back to the Republicans.
>>69099980
The black vote is misleading. Women make up 60 percent of the voter turnout, that is actually what you need to look at. If Hillary gets 2/3rds of women (likely, because Obama got 70 percent), then she has won already because she just need to win 25 percent of men.
Women voter percentage actually has gone up since 2008, alongside with minorties such as Hispanics.
>>69100262
>Didn't you already point out that Romney only got 30% of women voters? This doesn't get worse.
It had to get a lot better for Trumpt to win. In the 35-40 percent range.
Romney got 30 percent of women but only had a 13 percent net negative favorability rating among women at this point in the race. Trump has a net negative rating of 44 percent amonng women.
Not to mention, women have become even stronger among the voter turnout share. And there are more and more women who are not married and thus left leaning among the most likely voters.
>>69100085
Historically the party with the lowest voter turnout during the primaries loses the general election. Plain and simple. Trump has dominated Hillary in key battleground States, such as getting more votes in his 2nd place Ohio finish than hillarry's victory.
>>69100290
>>69100466
Nevermind, filtered for being a dumbass using fake numbers to waste my time.
Women were only 53% of turnout in 2012, and only 55% voted Obama.
>>69100572
Don't waste time with this piece of shit. he's just making up numbers.
>>69092742
It is in the party's best interest to nominate someone else, but Trump is literally their best strategic option at this point.
>>69100645
Implications
The gender gap continues to be a significant factor in U.S. presidential elections, and the preferences of men and women have never differed more than in the 2012 election. There are a number of possible reasons for the increase in the gender gap this year. For example, Romney's business background may have been more appealing to men than to women. Obama's campaign stressed maintaining the social safety net, raising taxes on the wealthy, maintaining abortion rights, and requiring healthcare coverage for contraception -- all in contrast to Romney's more conservative positions on these issues of potential interest to women.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx
>>69100572
And yet Hillary gets more votes in primaries than Trump right now as we type.
>>69100996
There's no implications fuckhead. You got called out for lying about the numbers from 2012. You barely had a point before, now you're just a shithead.
>>69101060
And yet Republicans get more votes than Democrats as we speak.
>>69101127
I said Romney had a favorability rating of 30-70 and that women are closing in on 60 percent voter turnout. Both numbers are correct. I also said that Trump needs at least 40 percent of the women vote, which he will not get.
>>69101697
Primary voter turnout is unrelated to the general election turnout.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
>>69101859
All Trump need is for voter turn out to be consistent with what it had been and he will win, as historically has been the case.
>>69101999
There has only been >1< outlier when the party that lost primary turn out has won the general election and that election included new voting methods.
>>69101999
>Nate silverberg
Lmao
Thread discarded.
Reminder that the same technology that gave us Tay gives us this prediction:
>A political science professor who claims his statistical model has correctly predicted the results of every election except for one in the last 104 years has forecast that the odds of Donald Trump becoming America’s next president currently range from 97 percent to 99 percent.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/political-science-professor-odds-of-president-trump-range-between-97-and-99/
Womens votes always change towards the end and most will end up voting for the favourite as to not upset the most people, just watch, as trump gains momentum women will suddenly stop calling him hitler and vote for him because their husband is.
>>69092742
The thing about American elections if you don't have to vote. So all these women might hate Trump. On election day they are too busy to vote and don't.
>>69102433
>current year
>women having husbands
>>69092742
At every step of the way, shills talk about the feards, uncertainties, and doubts of "the polls". There are hundreds of polls, most of them "attack polls", ie, polls paid for to make someone look good or bad. There's no law against lying with polls, and there are only private polls.
>lying with polls is freedom of speech
>its as fake as the election is, technically
We don't live in a democracy, and we don't have laws making people tell the truth. You're lied to your whole life to make you assume these things are the case, but they aren't, not in the slightest.
He keeps doing terrible with this group, and terrible with that group in the polls, then the election comes, and he wins multiples what his opponents get IN EACH OF THE GROUPS WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT. The media, the political parties, most of what you were taught about history while getting that worthless degree -- all lies. If he has such a problem, why does he keep winning, and what the fuck do any of us have to lose by voting for him that we haven't lost already?
>>69101999
>nate silver blog
wasted trips, my foreign flag friend speaking perfect english (yet again)
>>69092742
>And if this remains the case until the convention and Trump has not received 1237,
why, who's disliked less?
>>69092742
women are stupid. The news and gossip mags spend all time insulting donald. They spent the last week talking about a single retweet.
Once Trump is the nominee and republicucks get around him and start talking him up, they will change their mind. Also their husbands and alpha chad bfs will love Trump so they will pretend to like him.
>>69093582
don't worry they will stop having kids when they realize ( like whites already have) that there's no point in producing more serfs for the machine
