Trump Reverses Himself On 6 Major Issues In 2 Days

[piezoe]

Here's your evidence.

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/ca...f-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote-2015-report/

13% of illegals ADMIT they vote. This doesn't even count the ones that don't admit it because who admits to a crime? If theres 13% that say they vote, theres at least double that amount that wont admit it. So probably another 26% vote that don't admit it. That's close to 40%. 13 million illegals x 40% = 5.2 million votes.

I mean we know FOR SURE that 1.7 million illegals voted based on their own admission. This admission was in 2015 before Trump starting running. Now do you think Trumps rhetoric increased or decreased illegal voting?

Checkmate.

This is no where near an unbiased legitimate study. It's pure disinformation. There is this constant implication that you can get registered to vote if you can some how get hold of a drivers license. Nothing could be further from the truth. Motor voter, for example, makes it easier to register, but you still have to prove citizenship. In California this is done through the Secretary of State's Office. Your license will have to be traceable back to a birth certificate or naturalization papers before you can be registered to vote. Remember when you got your first drivers license. Do you remember what document you used to prove you were old enough to drive? Just qualifying for a drivers license alone will not necessarily qualify you to vote.

 

[jem]

but that is not what the national polls showed. Had they been showing she would only have won by 3000000 they would have had to say the race was in the margin for error.

They failed badly because their samples were obviously over weighted to democrats.

If the national polls showed Hillary would get more votes,and she got 3 million more votes,the polls got it correct.Hillary just had the bad luck of being one of the 10 % that loses the election but more people voted for her.53 out 58 elections the person with the most votes won.

 

[Tony Stark]

but that is not what the national polls showed. Had they been showing she would only have won by 3000000 they would have had to say the race was in the margin for error.

They failed badly because their samples were obviously over weighted to democrats.

Of the last 30 national RCP polls 26 had Hillary ahead,3 had Trump ahead and 1 was a tie.26 out of 30 had Hillary ahead and she finished ahead by 3 million votes.

 

[Tony Stark]

They failed badly because their samples were obviously over weighted to democrats.

If 26 of the last 30 polls had Hillary ahead and she finished ahead that is an outstanding job by the national polls.

 

[WeToddDid2]

National polls consistently showed Hillary getting more votes,and she got 3 million more votes.Person who got more votes had won 53 out of 57 Presidential elections.

Trump only won Pennsylvania ,Wisconsin and Michigan by a combined 78,000 votes.

What about state level polling in the states she thought she was going to win? Simply looking at just national polls when the US has an electoral college is retarded. Is that really the logic of dems? Just national polls?

 

[Tony Stark]

What about state level polling in the states she thought she was going to win? Simply looking at just a national poll when the US has a electoral college is retarded.

State polls aren't as thorough as national polls.Often done by colleges and new stations etc rather than the national polling companies.Would be nice if national polling companies did the same polls for the states and as often as they do their national polls but that would be a lot more expensive.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Here is a couple for you.

 

[WeToddDid2]

State polls aren't as thorough as national polls.Often done by colleges and new stations etc rather than the national polling companies.Would be nice if national polling companies did the same polls for the states and as often as they do their national polls but that would be a lot more expensive.

Oh, thanks for the info. Perhaps politicians should hire them in key swing states then. Do the presidential campaigns hire their own pollsters for key states?

 

[Tony Stark]

Simply looking at just national polls when the US has an electoral college is retarded. Is that really the logic of dems? Just national polls?

The benefits don't outweigh the costs when the winner of the national popular vote has won 53 of 58 presidential elections.

 

[Tony Stark]

Oh, thanks for the info. Perhaps politicians should hire them in key swing states then. Do the presidential campaigns hire their own pollsters for key states?

They do but the amount the candidates spend and the quality is not all the same.Obamas was the best.Hillary spent less than Obama and Trumps was a mess.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-pollster-223251

After resisting for months, Trump hires top pollster

Veteran pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio is coming on board.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-a-million-dollars/?utm_term=.e3fecfb648ac

Donald Trump is refusing to pay his campaign pollster three-quarters of a million dollars


Donald Trump's hiring of pollster Tony Fabrizio in May was viewed as a sign that the real estate mogul was finally bringing seasoned operatives into his insurgent operation.

But the Republican presidential nominee appears to have taken issue with some of the services provided by the veteran GOP strategist, who has advised candidates from 1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole to Florida Gov. Rick Scott. The Trump campaign's latest Federal Election Commission report shows that it is disputing nearly $767,000 that Fabrizio's firm says it is still owed for polling.

Trump campaign officials declined to provide details about the reason the campaign has declined to pay the sum to Fabrizio Lee, the pollster's Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based firm. “This is an administrative issue that we're resolving internally,” said senior communications adviser Jason Miller. Fabrizio did not immediately respond to requests for comment.