What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?

[uti2]

Rubio 348
Clinton 190

Just remember this is from the guy who says Kasich would win Oregon and New Jersey.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Rubio 348
Clinton 190

Just remember this is from the guy who says Kasich would win Oregon and New Jersey.

Oregon flips to the GOP if GOP wins by 9 nationally and kasich wins by 11 nationally

[uti2]

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

[Vosem]

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.

Yes, because they put more money into those candidates towards the end.

No, it's also from what he said in interviews in 2015, the only quote you're hanging in something his EX-spokesman suggested. He has the same exact position as Christie and Santorum with regards to federal marijuana laws that Obama was not enforcing in states like colorado with regards to recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is different.

...they put more money into those candidates at the end because they were doing better. Money goes to where candidates are doing well and backs off from where they're doing poorly. You're confusing cause and effect.

Anyway, I've given you quotes from his spokesman during the campaign. You've given me things from years and years ago. Even if we accept your point as fact (which it's not), this is ancillary. Give Colorado to Hillary. She still needs to sweep Virginia and Wisconsin, both of which I suspect Rubio would win.

(Cruz, incidentally, could not win CO or VA. Probably not MI or PA either. But he would still've flipped IA/OH/FL/ME-2. So the whole thing would've come down to WI, the decisive state.)

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

I actually agree with the basis of your argument here (I doubt anyone was swayed to vote a different way by the 'deplorables' comment, it just made people who already supported Trump even angrier), but I do want to note: Obama led in 2008 for most of the year; McCain took the lead in late August when he picked Sarah Palin (who was, very initially, received very well and became a broadly popular figure), but once Palin started flunking his poll numbers were dropping, and in fact Obama regained the lead just before the Lehman Brothers collapse. (The collapse, of course, led his support to increase from within-the-margin-of-error to overwhelming, but he was already winning by the time it happened).

[Arbitrage1980]

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

Of course, outside events matter. When did I say that they don't? And what does the 2008 financial crisis have to do with the discussion of the 2016 election and the errors made by Hillary?

I'm not condoning the Russians hacking the DNC. But once the emails were out, the American people had the choice to incorporate the contents of those emails into their voting calculus. It's worth nothing of course that the emails were genuine; they were not fabricated or doctored by the Russians. If the emails did hurt Hillary, it's because they simply reinforced the public's perception of her and her allies as corrupt elitists who look down on average Americans. As for Comey, one can argue that he should have conducted himself differently. He was in an impossible situation: overseeing the criminal investigation of a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, who was also the nominee of a major party for the presidency. Comey's infamous letter to congress 12 days before the election resulted from his promise to Congress to inform them ASAP of any new information in the case. Regardless, it was Hillary who sent classified information via an unsecure private server, lied to the FBI, and told her staff to delete thousands of e-mails. And it was the Democrats who nominated a person under active investigation by the FBI.

The democrats need to engage in deep introspection rather than blaming others for their failures.

[uti2]

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.

Yes, because they put more money into those candidates towards the end.

No, it's also from what he said in interviews in 2015, the only quote you're hanging in something his EX-spokesman suggested. He has the same exact position as Christie and Santorum with regards to federal marijuana laws that Obama was not enforcing in states like colorado with regards to recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is different.

...they put more money into those candidates at the end because they were doing better. Money goes to where candidates are doing well and backs off from where they're doing poorly. You're confusing cause and effect.

Anyway, I've given you quotes from his spokesman during the campaign. You've given me things from years and years ago. Even if we accept your point as fact (which it's not), this is ancillary. Give Colorado to Hillary. She still needs to sweep Virginia and Wisconsin, both of which I suspect Rubio would win.

(Cruz, incidentally, could not win CO or VA. Probably not MI or PA either. But he would still've flipped IA/OH/FL/ME-2. So the whole thing would've come down to WI, the decisive state.)

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

I actually agree with the basis of your argument here (I doubt anyone was swayed to vote a different way by the 'deplorables' comment, it just made people who already supported Trump even angrier), but I do want to note: Obama led in 2008 for most of the year; McCain took the lead in late August when he picked Sarah Palin (who was, very initially, received very well and became a broadly popular figure), but once Palin started flunking his poll numbers were dropping, and in fact Obama regained the lead just before the Lehman Brothers collapse. (The collapse, of course, led his support to increase from within-the-margin-of-error to overwhelming, but he was already winning by the time it happened).

No, it's because the FL media market is more expensive. I'm not saying that even if those funds were used as initially intended that he would've necessarily lost, I'm just saying it would've closer to Burr in absolute performance, and he was pretty close to Burr anyway, you can see that it was mainly murphy underperforming because he wasn't sufficiently supported.  They were making cuts already around September.

No, I've given you quotes he said during 2015 during his campaign, he said he would enforce federal laws in the states, all you have is one quote from an ex-spokesman, yet later in the campaign, months after the ex-spokesman made that comment he personally reiterated the same position he had in multiple interviews including meet the press. He did not flip-flop he maintains the same position and reiterated in interviews, the only thing you are using to claim he did flipflop was that one statement by his ex-spokesman which was contradicted later on by rubio himself.

All dems need to do in VA would be to keep their margins in NoVA up, and Hillary would have to actually campaign in WI for instance, don't see what that's a stretch in light of how Gore/Kerry won WI.

As for Mccain, calling the fundamentals of the economy strong on the day of the start of the collapse, had far more to do with his campaign falling than Palin, Palin was chosen to boost support from the base, in which she was actually successful in doing, but then the economy collapsed.

[uti2]

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

Of course, outside events matter. When did I say that they don't? And what does the 2008 financial crisis have to do with the discussion of the 2016 election and the errors made by Hillary?

I'm not condoning the Russians hacking the DNC. But once the emails were out, the American people had the choice to incorporate the contents of those emails into their voting calculus. It's worth nothing of course that the emails were genuine; they were not fabricated or doctored by the Russians. If the emails did hurt Hillary, it's because they simply reinforced the public's perception of her and her allies as corrupt elitists who look down on average Americans. As for Comey, one can argue that he should have conducted himself differently. He was in an impossible situation: overseeing the criminal investigation of a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, who was also the nominee of a major party for the presidency. Comey's infamous letter to congress 12 days before the election resulted from his promise to Congress to inform them ASAP of any new information in the case. Regardless, it was Hillary who sent classified information via an unsecure private server, lied to the FBI, and told her staff to delete thousands of e-mails. And it was the Democrats who nominated a person under active investigation by the FBI.

The democrats need to engage in deep introspection rather than blaming others for their failures.

The 2008 financial crisis started when the FSA blocked Barclays from buying Lehman, that was an external event caused by the UK which had global political ramifications, so this time you had the russian hacks which were a similar external event, but it was caused by russia to specifically benefit one candidate.  You of all people should know what happened to Lehman, I thought you said you were a quant? There is a somewhat similar parallel in that they were both events that were started by foreign entities, that's why I brought up the comparison to Lehman.

Both events threw Mccain and Hillary off their normal game a bit.

[uti2]

By the way, the spokesman's comment regarding marijuana does not even contradict rubio's position on the matter. It's just that he wasn't asked a more specific question.

This is as specific as he got to answering the question:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2016/02/04/marijuana-federalists-lead-the-republican-field-pugilistic-prohibitionist-stuck-in-single-digits/2/

The only thing rubio suggested was that states have the right to enforce state's rights with regards to possession, but that sales of recreational marijuana in states where it's been legalized that the Obama administration was ignoring, that it should be enforced, this means practically, those recreational marijuana dispensaries would be shut down. This was reiterated when he said the same thing a year later (which occurred in an interview long after the spokesman's statement) in the meet the press interview that he would enforce federal law.

You put those statements into context with rubio's general position regarding drugs and criminal penalties at the federal level and it's not really that hard to believe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/28/how-rubios-stance-on-drug-laws-stands-out-in-gop-presidential-field/

[Arbitrage1980]

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

Of course, outside events matter. When did I say that they don't? And what does the 2008 financial crisis have to do with the discussion of the 2016 election and the errors made by Hillary?

I'm not condoning the Russians hacking the DNC. But once the emails were out, the American people had the choice to incorporate the contents of those emails into their voting calculus. It's worth nothing of course that the emails were genuine; they were not fabricated or doctored by the Russians. If the emails did hurt Hillary, it's because they simply reinforced the public's perception of her and her allies as corrupt elitists who look down on average Americans. As for Comey, one can argue that he should have conducted himself differently. He was in an impossible situation: overseeing the criminal investigation of a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, who was also the nominee of a major party for the presidency. Comey's infamous letter to congress 12 days before the election resulted from his promise to Congress to inform them ASAP of any new information in the case. Regardless, it was Hillary who sent classified information via an unsecure private server, lied to the FBI, and told her staff to delete thousands of e-mails. And it was the Democrats who nominated a person under active investigation by the FBI.

The democrats need to engage in deep introspection rather than blaming others for their failures.

The 2008 financial crisis started when the FSA blocked Barclays from buying Lehman, that was an external event caused by the UK which had global political ramifications, so this time you had the russian hacks which were a similar external event, but it was caused by russia to specifically benefit one candidate.  You of all people should know what happened to Lehman, I thought you said you were a quant? There is a somewhat similar parallel in that they were both events that were started by foreign entities, that's why I brought up the comparison to Lehman.

Both events threw Mccain and Hillary off their normal game a bit.

I'm well aware of what happened during the financial crisis. And yes, both are external events that no candidate had control over, but they are actually not that similar in terms of their electoral impact. The 2008 financial crisis was a monster game changer for obvious reasons; McCain's numbers plummeted after September 15th. The Russia hacks did not have anywhere near the same impact. The emails were released on wikileaks in July 2016, not right before the election. Hillary had very large leads at multiple points since July. There is no strong data to indicate that the emails altered the fundamental trajectory of the race in the way that the financial crisis did.

[uti2]

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

Of course, outside events matter. When did I say that they don't? And what does the 2008 financial crisis have to do with the discussion of the 2016 election and the errors made by Hillary?

I'm not condoning the Russians hacking the DNC. But once the emails were out, the American people had the choice to incorporate the contents of those emails into their voting calculus. It's worth nothing of course that the emails were genuine; they were not fabricated or doctored by the Russians. If the emails did hurt Hillary, it's because they simply reinforced the public's perception of her and her allies as corrupt elitists who look down on average Americans. As for Comey, one can argue that he should have conducted himself differently. He was in an impossible situation: overseeing the criminal investigation of a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, who was also the nominee of a major party for the presidency. Comey's infamous letter to congress 12 days before the election resulted from his promise to Congress to inform them ASAP of any new information in the case. Regardless, it was Hillary who sent classified information via an unsecure private server, lied to the FBI, and told her staff to delete thousands of e-mails. And it was the Democrats who nominated a person under active investigation by the FBI.

The democrats need to engage in deep introspection rather than blaming others for their failures.

The 2008 financial crisis started when the FSA blocked Barclays from buying Lehman, that was an external event caused by the UK which had global political ramifications, so this time you had the russian hacks which were a similar external event, but it was caused by russia to specifically benefit one candidate.  You of all people should know what happened to Lehman, I thought you said you were a quant? There is a somewhat similar parallel in that they were both events that were started by foreign entities, that's why I brought up the comparison to Lehman.

Both events threw Mccain and Hillary off their normal game a bit.

I'm well aware of what happened during the financial crisis. And yes, both are external events that no candidate had control over, but they are actually not that similar in terms of their electoral impact. The 2008 financial crisis was a monster game changer for obvious reasons; McCain's numbers plummeted after September 15th. The Russia hacks did not have anywhere near the same impact. The emails were released on wikileaks in July 2016, not right before the election. Hillary had very large leads at multiple points since July. There is no strong data to indicate that the emails altered the fundamental trajectory of the race in the way that the financial crisis did.

Trump was a volatile candidate in general in the way he acted, for instance, his attacks on the Khans, initially damaged him, but he recovered soon after, then after the first debate he attacked miss piggy, etc. so a lot of that might've otherwise shown an underlying trend that was masked by Trump's attacks that hurt him on other issues, but that he eventually recovered from. The margin is close enough that it's not out of question.

The main point of this is that there were unique factors that effected Trump's candidacy that wouldn't be present in a more conventional race (this also ties into your 'deplorable' comment).

[Hillary Lost]

Rubio 348
Clinton 190


Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

Wait let me guess Russia right?  

[uti2]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

[Hillary Lost]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

[uti2]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

[Hillary Lost]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

[uti2]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

[Hillary Lost]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though non-Trump supporters arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.  Never Trumpers were mainly neo-cons who said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

[uti2]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though non-Trump supporters arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.  Never Trumpers were mainly neo-cons who said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Yes, and you're cheering on a neocon candidate (who thinks invading Iraq was a positive move, even in hindsight) in this thread whose neocon backers were bragging about the same polls, what is your point?

[Hillary Lost]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though non-Trump supporters arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.  Never Trumpers were mainly neo-cons who said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Yes, and you're cheering on a neocon candidate (who thinks invading Iraq was a positive move, even in hindsight) in this thread whose neocon backers were bragging about the same polls, what is your point?

No I'm not cheering anyone on and who is this "neo-con" candidate? Whose backers were supporting what polls?  What is your point?

[uti2]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though non-Trump supporters arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.  Never Trumpers were mainly neo-cons who said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Yes, and you're cheering on a neocon candidate (who thinks invading Iraq was a positive move, even in hindsight) in this thread whose neocon backers were bragging about the same polls, what is your point?

No I'm not cheering anyone on and who is this "neo-con" candidate? Whose backers were supporting what polls?  What is your point?

You're on here talking about the 'liberal democrat' conspiracy against Trump, but it was neocons like rubio's backers like rick wilson who were just as much as opposed to Trump.

[Hillary Lost]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though non-Trump supporters arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.  Never Trumpers were mainly neo-cons who said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Yes, and you're cheering on a neocon candidate (who thinks invading Iraq was a positive move, even in hindsight) in this thread whose neocon backers were bragging about the same polls, what is your point?

No I'm not cheering anyone on and who is this "neo-con" candidate? Whose backers were supporting what polls?  What is your point?

You're on here talking about the 'liberal democrat' conspiracy against Trump, but it was neocons like rubio's backers like rick wilson who were just as much as opposed to Trump.

Yea gee I wonder if Rubio running against Trump in the primaries had anything at all to do with Rubio opposing Trump early on?

[uti2]

Considering the polls were so far off to the point Democrats had her winning Ohio by 8, I'd say this map is about right.  Remember Hillary leading by 17 in August?  What happened to that?

That's because of Trump's volatility as a candidate, such as with his Khan comments, in particular in August, this habitually happened with whatever remarks Trump made.

Only an idiot believes there was such a swing.  Trump really led the entire time.  As for Khan Trump should've said in August what he said at the debates.  "Had I been president, Khan's son would still be alive."  Anyhow only an idiot believes there could've been such a swing.  There's not even 17% of people in this country who don't have their minds made up from the get go these days.  It takes an even bigger moron to follow the polls and media over the will of the people.  How out of touch can someone be with their country?

He led with HIS CORE VOTERS, and many of those voters were a lot of independents and crossover dems who went for him in the primaries, but those comments he made about the Khans, etc. gave him issues with the traditional gop base/suburban republicans, hence the volatility, and hence why it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison with Trump v. a more conventional republican.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though Democrats arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.

Actually it wasn't just democrats, it was nevertrump republicans (like the entire national review) who wanted him to lose too and were constantly talking about his poll numbers even in the primaries, because like I said Trump had his unique voters, but he had issues with traditional gop base.

He was never down by 17.  The polls were wrong in relation to the final vote even though non-Trump supporters arrogantly bragged about her lead at the time.  Never Trumpers were mainly neo-cons who said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Yes, and you're cheering on a neocon candidate (who thinks invading Iraq was a positive move, even in hindsight) in this thread whose neocon backers were bragging about the same polls, what is your point?

No I'm not cheering anyone on and who is this "neo-con" candidate? Whose backers were supporting what polls?  What is your point?

You're on here talking about the 'liberal democrat' conspiracy against Trump, but it was neocons like rubio's backers like rick wilson who were just as much as opposed to Trump.

Yea gee I wonder if Rubio running against Trump in the primaries had anything at all to do with Rubio opposing Trump early on?

rubio's foreign policy, for example, is closer to Hillary's than it is to Trump's. Hence the neocon opposition to Trump.

[Kingpoleon]

277: Marco Rubio/John Kasich - 47.5%
261: Hillary Clinton/Anthony Foxx - 45.0%
Gary Johnson/Robert Sarvis - 5.1%
Others - 2.4%