General Election Thread: Two Weeks Out

Pennsylvania & Colorado are now dead-heats:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/polit...linton-colorado-pennsylvania-polls/index.html

CNN/ORC polls: Trump, Clinton deadlocked in Colorado, Pennsylvania

(CNN)Just one point separates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in two states that are critical to both candidates' chances of becoming president, according to new CNN/ORC polls in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

In Colorado, likely voters break 42% for Trump, 41% for Clinton, 13% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 3% for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Pennsylvania's likely voters split 45% for Clinton, 44% for Trump, 6% for Johnson and 3% for Stein. Those divides are well within each poll's 3.5-point margin of sampling error.

The new results in two battleground states underscore the closeness of the race and come as the candidates prepare to square off Monday night in their high-stakes first debate at Long Island's Hofstra University.

In both states, sharp divisions among whites by education are evident, with white college graduates choosing Clinton over Trump by 11 points in Pennsylvania and 16 points in Colorado, while whites who do not hold four-year degrees break in Trump's favor by 19 points in Pennsylvania and 22 points in Colorado.

In Colorado, that education gap is a bigger divide than gender or age, and is even larger than the racial gap in the state. Pennsylvania's likely voters are more divided than Colorado's along gender and racial lines. Johnson's appeal among younger voters appears to be working to Clinton's detriment in both states. While Trump's numbers are significantly lower among voters under 45 than among older voters, Clinton's are roughly the same across age groups, while Johnson's support multiplies among younger voters.

Clinton fares better in two-way matchups in both states, topping Trump 50% to 47% among likely voters in Pennsylvania and 49% to 47% in Colorado. Though both results are within the polls' margin of sampling error, the finding suggests she could fare better in each state if third party candidate support dipped. The two polls come alongside tight national polls and neck-and-neck poll results in several other key battleground states including Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina.

In both Colorado and Pennsylvania, the economy stands out as far and away the top voter concern. About half of registered voters in each state, and a similar share of likely voters, call the economy most important out of a list also including terrorism, illegal immigration and foreign policy. And when asked which candidate would better handle the economy, Trump comes out on top in both states, though within each poll's margin of error.

The poll suggests Clinton has made an effective case that Trump does not have the temperament to be president -- she is viewed as better suited for the presidency by a nearly two-to-one margin in each state on that score -- and she holds smaller advantages as the better candidate to be commander-in-chief. But Clinton continues to lag behind Trump when voters are asked which of the two is more honest and trustworthy.

Trump's contention that Clinton lacks the stamina for the job splits voters in Colorado, 48% see him as having the better stamina, 45% choose Clinton. In Pennsylvania, Trump holds a larger advantage on that, 50% to 45%.

The CNN/ORC Polls in Colorado and Pennsylvania were conducted by telephone Sept. 20-25. The Colorado poll included interviews with 1,010 adult residents of the state, including 784 who are likely to vote in November. In Pennsylvania, interviews were conducted with 1,032 adult residents of the state, including 771 likely voters. Results for likely voters have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points in each state.
 
The Trump signs are strong in PA, that's for sure.

Seeing a few more HC signs but still not many. This not-ironic poster cracked me up a Dem. voter registration table I saw at a street fair this weekend:

hillary_rays1.jpg
 
Not sure if this was posted already today on here, but the Washington Post wrote an excellent article on how Donald Trump is giving the Alt-Right credibility and power, which is basically radicalizing them even more:

Once relegated to the political fringes, the alt-right has become a sudden, shocking force in mainstream politics, closely identified with the Donald Trump campaign. Trump’s campaign chief executive, Stephen Bannon, is a former executive chairman of Breitbart News, which he once described as “the platform of the alt-right.” Trump regularly retweets the memes and messages of the alt-right, which has propelled the movement into the limelight.

But lurking behind the offensive tweets and racially charged campaign rhetoric, there’s a more subtle — and far more dangerous — potential threat posed by the alt-right. As my colleagues and I found during a large-scale analysis of alt-right Twitter activity over the past nine months, the movement is growing measurably more radical, and possibly more inclined to violence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-radical-the-alt-right-has-gotten-this-year/
 
Yes, and with more political clout, civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter have gotten body cameras and more $ for police training.

I don't think you can actually produce evidence that BLM has radicalized other than loosely associating riots and violence with the movement as a whole.

Probably shouldn't dignify posts like these with a response.

58343243.jpg
 
What's the analog for Democrats enabling BLM type ideology that rises to the level of the Obama birther conspiracy and the widespread belief among the alt-right community (propagated and endorsed by Trump as well) that Obama founded ISIS - a statement that is demonstrably untrue by any cursory level of analysis?
 
I don't think you can actually produce evidence that BLM has radicalized other than loosely associating riots and violence with the movement as a whole.


I just love that little sentence....especially that "loosely associated" tidbit. Seems like they go together like peas & carrots. Where you see one, you see the other.

"Other than the riots and violence, BLM isn't radical at all."
 
I'll stop engaging after this, but you left out the two words in that quote that were arguably the most important to Townie's intent.
 
“He has insulted brown people, black people, Muslim people, Jewish people. He has insulted women. He has insulted the grieving parents of a dead soldier. He has mocked a disabled person and expressed admiration for dictators. He has ham-handedly pandered to a politically critical portion of the population by posting to social media a picture of gringo Tex-Mex captioning it, “I love hispanics!” He has suggested he could shoot somebody and not lose votes. He has openly talked about the possibility of the assassination of his opponent. Twice. And these are just the insults, not the demonstrable falsehoods.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-biggest-fatal-gaffes-mistakes-offensive-214289
 
yeah like i said, i shouldn't engage

it's kinda like how there's only one candidate/campaign tonight who is actively requesting to not be fact checked

some people just aren't interested in anything but entertainment and trolling

One campaign asking for help from the refs. No confidence before it even begins.
 
Or the camp blaming the refs for being a card-carrying member of one team, when in fact they are a card-carrying member of the team you play for?
 
yeah like i said, i shouldn't engage

it's kinda like how there's only one candidate/campaign tonight who is actively requesting to not be fact checked

some people just aren't interested in anything but entertainment and trolling

One campaign asking for help from the refs. No confidence before it even begins.

This about sums up the whole election in one exchange.

Person A: "Let's have fact checking during the debate"
Person B: "Oh you need help from the refs? I guess you can't win on your own."
Person A: "I want to make sure that the things we say are given their proper due based on the evidence to support it"
Person B: "CHEATER"
 
If anything, the most recent case in Charlotte proves that even more needs to be done.

To prevent black cops from shooting armed suspects who won't disarm? Thanks, racism.

This is the "Well, we were wrong on the facts, but look at the awareness raised.." victory speech, right?
 
To prevent black cops from shooting armed suspects who won't disarm? Thanks, racism.

This is the "Well, we were wrong on the facts, but look at the awareness raised.." victory speech, right?

I'm not caught up - its been proven he was armed?
 
To prevent black cops from shooting armed suspects who won't disarm? Thanks, racism.

This is the "Well, we were wrong on the facts, but look at the awareness raised.." victory speech, right?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I said from the beginning that it was likely he had a gun, and am completely/fully aware it was a black police officer shooting a black person. The gun was found there...so I can't say much to that, and assume it was in fact the victim's gun.

I am speaking more on police brutality and the use of excessive force more than anything.

Not to mention that, despite body cams, multiple cops, a video from the wife, and eyewitnesses, we have yet to come to a conclusion on what happened here, and there is a man dead at the hands of police officers.

That indicates to me that even more needs to be done to take on the accountability of police officer's in these situations. Clearly the verdict lack of accountability on the victim's part was reached by the police officer already. Time for accountability to work the other way too.
 
Back
Top