Please America, choose well!

---

Apparently The Voters were lying to The Media.

No lies, the media did not use a random sample. That is the real issue with media polls.

Yes they did at these Voter Exit Polls.

Another person who doesn't understand "random" or how polls are conducted. The pollsters don't send someone to every precinct in America to stop every 25th voter. They send a very limited number of people to places that in the past have generally gotten it correct. Past performance is not an indicator of future results. But it is all they have. Never mind they can't sample absentee voters.

---

Hi Gary...

I bow to your superior understanding of Human Nature.

As we do yours.

Which Polls should one believe?

The one held on November 8th?

---

I think I will ignore all polls for now, the effects of World events have yet to unfold and their consequences on the candidates.

I will make one observation, these two candidates are both disliked by many people, including me. Which is showing in the polls as both struggle to maintain a 40% stake. A good strong third candidate, who isn't a criminal and liked, could surely grab most of whats left and with backing make it into a pretty even three way fight and have a chance of winning.

Is that strictly true, if a liked and strong, 3rd candidate could jump in quickly, couldn't he/she have a good chance of taking those States that are pretty much 50:50 at the moment and have a chance of winning over 120, maybe even 150, Electoral College votes.

What would happen then?

The Election of a US President, is not a National Referendum. It is done by the Sovereign States

I know that, but there as many as 20 states where the race is close and both of the disliked candidates are struggling to obtain votes. Which could mean a respected 3rd candidate with money focused on those state could have a slight chance. But by now it is probably too late and too many people will vote along the party lines that they and their forefathers have done for years.

What a ____________ awful system.

That's not, most definitely not, saying ours or any system this side of the pond is superior.

The Election of a US President, is not a National Referendum. It is done by the Sovereign States

I know that, but there as many as 20 states where the race is close and both of the disliked candidates are struggling to obtain votes. Which could mean a respected 3rd candidate with money focused on those state could have a slight chance. But by now it is probably too late and too many people will vote along the party lines that they and their forefathers have done for years.

What a ____________ awful system.

That's not, most definitely not, saying ours or any system this side of the pond is superior.

I agree, WinterKnight. It IS an awful system. But the 'awful' part is the existence of political parties, something Washington warned us against in his farewell address at the conclusion of his 2nd term as President.

George Washington wrote:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Washington also warned us about concentration of power...

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Also, he warned us on the dangers of alliances with foreign nations.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly White House Watch survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 44% support to Clinton’s 37%. Thirteen percent (13%) favor some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Mrs. Clinton’s six-percentage-point lead over the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, in a CBS News poll last month has evaporated. The two candidates are now tied in a general election matchup, the new poll indicates, with each receiving the support of 40 percent of voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll.html?_r=0

Yes, I know I said ignore the polls until we see how the news and the candidates comments affect the polls in a few days time. But since your post there have been three more polls by influential news sites. NBC/WSJ, ABC/Post and CNN and you haven't commented.

Just wondering.
Shouldn't matter that they all show Hillary in the lead, should it.

Respected or not...


The 'only' difference between a survey poll and election poll is: you can ignore the survey (and commissioning a new survey is, technically, ignoring the previous one(s)); you can't, 'legally' ignore an election without everyone knowing about it.

---

Actually if I want to know the probable outcome of a future event, I consult the bookies. And for the UK bookies there is at least one site that lists most of them and the odds they offer.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

They seem to be in agreement;
Hillary - 2/5
Trump - 2/1