The Most important election in US History?

[drbubb]

Bill Still : TRUMP NOW has it ! Enough Electoral votes, with momentum on his side

 

Still Report #1197 Donald Trump Has a Wide Open Path to Victory over Hillary -Electoral College!

 

They must be panicking this weekend (with ashtrays flying) around Clinton HQ

Meanwhile Trump continues on the campaign trail, while Hiillary plays games in front of green screens

 

Full Speech: Donald Trump Holds HUGE Rally in Colorado Springs, CO 9/17/16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9OfNpuitl4

[drbubb]

REMEMBER What the Stakes are !

The Circus should not distract us from the fact that a huge Clean-up of Global Mess is needed

 

A lot of people are complaining "this is not a real election, this is a circus" and yes, they're right -but- it's something that's been needed since Kennedy was assassinated.
What we're [finally] seeing is a look into the corruption and the shadow government that's been behind it. This is only surface corruption being exposed. Imagine if we were allowed to see deeper. This is the biggest reason so many are against Trump and why you don't see fair media coverage. Because the masters own the media and because [some of] our elected officials know they're going down if Trump is elected. This is also why you're seeing more oomph with the over-sight committee , they know this is their chance and probably their only chance to rid Congress of the parasites.

 

Good post!

Clinton Business in Haiti called "Monkey business"

 

HILLARY EXPOSED AGAIN !! ••"CLINTON TRIED TO BRIBE ME " - HAITIAN PRESIDENT (SHARE THIS VIDEO !!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5i5XoK0JHE

 

The questions about the "work" of the Clinton Foundation multiply

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaKzja_CX0

 

Ask yourself, are you willing to follow this woman into WW3? A war the globalist want to keep their grip on power & the wealth drain intact.

 

Or do you want Peace under Trump, and a clean-up of the Globalist messes?

[drbubb]

Trump Takes Huge Seven Point Lead in LA Times Poll as Black Voters Ditch Clinton

A new LA Times Daily Tracking poll shows that the bombastic Republican nominee has managed to attract support from a growing number of minority voters despite recent attacks and the revival of the Birther controversy this week.

. . .

The latest survey conducted by the LA Times of 2,507 respondents nationwide shows 47.7% of voters support Republican nominee versus only 41% who support the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Trump’s poll performance improving by an unprecedented 7.1% over the past 6 days.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton climbs into her van outside her daughter Chelsea's home in New York, New York, United States September 11, 2016, after Clinton left ceremonies commemorating the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks feeling overheated. © REUTERS/ Brian Snyder Poll: Only 39% of US Voters Believe Hillary is Healthy Enough to be President Trump’s rise in the polls comes during a rough patch in the Clinton campaign after Hillary collapsed at the 9/11 Memorial ceremony last Saturday reviving questions about her health and fitness to serve as the nation’s commander-in-chief.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160918/1045443855/trump-poll-surge-black-voters.html

[drbubb]

Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly

By Peter W. Stevenson

The Fix

September 23

Who will win the 2016 presidential election? This professor has predicted correctly for 32 years

Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, created his "13 Keys to the White House" more than 30 years ago—and he's ready to predict who will win in 2016. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 — but one man is pretty sure: Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1984.

When we sat down in May, he explained how he comes to a decision. Lichtman's prediction isn't based on horse-race polls, shifting demographics or his own political opinions. Rather, he uses a system of true/false statements he calls the "Keys to the White House" to determine his predicted winner.

And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.

. . .

Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, sat down with The Fix this week to reveal who he thinks will win in November and why 2016 was the most difficult election to predict yet. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

THE FIX: Can you tell me about the keys, and how you use them to evaluate the election from the point where — I assume it's very murky a year or two out, and they start to crystallize over the course of the election.

LICHTMAN: "The Keys to the White House" is a historically based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.

==

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

[rigger]

Did you take a bet?

 

Shorting Hillary seemed like an obvious move

As I said on Sept. 2nd:

"

Silver gives Trump now a 25% chance of winning.

Personally, I think there is a higher chance than this that HRC will be imprisoned, or dead (from illness) within 12 months"

I have a range of bets placed on Betfair between 5.2 and 3 that average at around 3.8.

 

I set my limit for my initial outlay and am going to reassess with a week to go.

 

I'd be happy to sit on this bet but the longer this lingers on with his odds refusing to budge much below 3,the more chance I think there is of possibly getting some 5+ bets on the day.The only way these markets can be staying this far out is if some Hilary backers with deep pockets and an emotional attachment to her candidacy are keeping him out at 3.

 

Good piece here via Drudge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-trump-in-virtual-dead-heat-on-eve-of-first-debate/2016/09/24/b99c95de-81cb-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html

 

Just look at Maine where Romney lost by 15% in 2012 and the polls(which generally favour Hilary) have some touching 3%.

 

New Jersey was an 18% Obama win in 2012 with a recent poll having Trump 4 behind.This isn't even what's defined a battle ground state by RCP

[rigger]

I'm not predicting a Trump win but he's incredible value at the minute in my opinion and the market isn't reflecting his polling improvement over two months.

[drbubb]

Exclusive — Breitbart/Gravis Polls: Trump Takes 4-Point Lead in ...

Breitbart News-9 hours ago

In Colorado, a swing state with 9 electoral votes, Trump leads Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton by 4 points—outside the survey’s 3.5 percent margin of error. Trump, at 41 percent, leads Clinton—who has just 37 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson takes 6 percent and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party takes 6 percent, and 10 percent of the voters polled are undecided. The poll, conducted from Sept. 22 to Sept. 23, surveyed 799 registered voters in Colorado.

 

===

Poll: Wealthy Voters Abandon Republican Party for Hillary Clinton

Breitbart News-21 Sep 2016

A Bloomberg poll shows that Americans living in households making $100,000 or more have abandoned the Republican party, led by Donald ...

Millennial Voters May Cost Hillary Clinton the Election
In-Depth-The Atlantic-19 Sep 2016

[rigger]

 

 

===

Poll: Wealthy Voters Abandon Republican Party for Hillary Clinton

Breitbart News-21 Sep 2016

A Bloomberg poll shows that Americans living in households making $100,000 or more have abandoned the Republican party, led by Donald ...

Millennial Voters May Cost Hillary Clinton the Election

In-Depth-The Atlantic-19 Sep 2016

 

The loss of upper middle class support is nothing compared to the inroads Trump is making in Maine/New Jersey/New Hampshire/Independents/non voters.The GOP lost Maine last time by 18%.

 

As with Brexit,poor people outnumber the well off multiple times over.

[rigger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

 

Nothing but the LA times tracking poll showing no chink in the momentum for Le Donald.

 

Polls should start trickling in tmrw.

[drbubb]

PHILADELPHIA FREEDOM will once again inspire America?

 

From 2000, live in Madison Square Garden.

The song was written by Elton John and Bernie Taupin as a favor to Elton's friend, tennis star Billie Jean King. King was part of the Philadelphia Freedoms tennis team.

 

Four years ago, Obama won Philadelphia by 500,000 votes, and lost the rest of the state by 150,000 votes to Romney

 

If Trump can do significantly better than Romney did in Philly, he can win Pennsylvania and the Election

 

The Kelly File 9/29/16 | Donald Trump Still ahead in Polls, Donald Trump & Next Presidential Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZ2sdMojMY

 

Published on 29 Sep 2016

The Kelly File 9/29/16 | Donald Trump Still ahead in Polls, Donald Trump & Next Presidential Debate

[rigger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nj/new_jersey_trump_vs_clinton-5872.html

 

New Jersey Clinton vs trump and she's ahead by 6.Including Johnson you're probably looking at 4% poll lead,suggesting to me race is still neck and neck.No wonder bulk of Republican establishment getting behind Trump.Been a long while since they were competitive there.

[rigger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nj/new_jersey_trump_vs_clinton-5872.html

 

New Jersey Clinton vs trump and she's ahead by 6.Including Johnson you're probably looking at 4% poll lead,suggesting to me race is still neck and neck.No wonder bulk of Republican establishment getting behind Trump.Been a long while since they were competitive there.

GOP last won it in 1988,Bush jnr got within 6% in 2004.Since then it's been 15% plus Dem wins.

[rigger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-6004.html

 

worth noting Nevada is the only place with two polls out since the first debate.Obviously,small samples,don't read too much into polls etc but any bounce for HRC has been short lived.

 

DT is 3.85 on BF......nearly 3/1....

[rigger]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-01/virtue-signaling-or-why-clinton-trouble

 

Dont know if this has been posted on GE yet.

 

'As a lifelong Democratic voter, I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy. There are many people who see these frenzies about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and safe spaces as overtly crazy. The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump.

 

? Lionel Shriver, The New York Times “Will the Left Survive the Millennials?”,23/9/16'

 

 

'I did not break up the Beatles. You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to blame me for breaking the Beatles up, you should be thankful that I made them into myth rather than a crumbling group.

 

? Yoko Ono (b. 1933)'

 

'I was in Los Angeles last week, and the Clinton anti-Trump TV ads were in heavy rotation. It’s not because the Clinton campaign is worried about the California vote, because if they were then the election would already be irredeemably lost. No, the ads are being run in the metro LA area so that Clinton supporters (and donors!) can feel good about themselves. It’s like throwing a massively expensive dinner party to congratulate yourself for all the money you’ve raised to feed the poor.

 

If you’ve ever played a team sport, you’ve experienced a game that was a mismatch on paper. Now usually that game goes according to form. The better team scores early and often, and the inferior team doesn’t sniff a win. But sometimes the game gets tight. Sometimes the better team makes a few unforced errors, and the inferior team capitalizes. Sometimes there’s a lucky bounce of the ball for the inferior team. And then another. And another.

There’s a moment in every game of this unexpected type — the upset in the making — when the individual players on the better team (call them the status quo team) begin to doubt. They feel the game slipping away, even though they know that they’re the better team. What happens to many players in that moment of doubt is, to use the game theoretic phrase, they decide to defect. It doesn’t mean that they quit. It doesn’t mean that they give up. In fact, without exception, they all believe that their team will still prevail. But they start to think about what a loss, however improbable, would mean for their personal, individual goals. They never even entertained those thoughts at the beginning of the game. It was all about the team, and a team victory would naturally go hand in hand with personal development and personal goals. But now … now that the unthinkable is suddenly thinkable … they start acting directly in favor of their own self-interest, not the team’s communal interest. They start signaling their virtue.

Virtue signaling is a behavior that visibly demonstrates the individual qualities of the player to some external audience, whether or not it improves the chances of the team to win. It’s not overtly detrimental to the team. In fact, for all outward appearances it’s rather supportive of the team. But it makes all the difference in the world if an offensive lineman is more concerned with making HIS block than protecting the quarterback no matter what. It makes all the difference in the world if a shooting guard is more concerned with meeting HIS scoring average than playing team defense. It makes all the difference in the world if a Democratic Party functionary is more concerned with tweeting HIS outrage at the latest nonsense that Trump is spouting than in volunteering for a get-out-the-vote effort in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Virtue signaling is an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too. If the team ends up winning … hey, I did my part. Didn’t you read that blistering anti-Trump op-ed piece I oh-so bravely penned in The New York Times? If the team ends up losing … hey, don’t look at me. Didn’t you read that blistering anti-Trump op-ed piece I oh-so bravely penned in The New York Times? It’s an entirely rational set of behaviors that seeks to insulate yourself from the inevitable blame game if things go wrong (the infamous circular firing squad of American party politics, particularly on the Democratic side) while still preserving your place in the victory parade if things go well.

If you follow football closely, you’ll hear a phrase that players and position coaches use in an entirely positive light: selling out. They don’t mean a sell-out in the way the phrase is generally used, either as a full house in terms of ticket sales or, pejoratively, as a person who’s chosen money over authenticity. No, they mean it as a compliment. When you sell out on a play or a coach’s game plan, it means that you commit fully. It means that you are prepared to embarrass yourself by your single-minded pursuit of a team victory. It’s the absolute opposite of virtue signaling, and there is no higher praise for a teammate than to say he “sold out” in a game. I see no one willing to “sell out” for Clinton, and that tells me that, in a close game, she’s in a lot of trouble. If Clinton were an NFL quarterback, she’d be Jay Cutler of the Chicago Bears, a player who is infamously difficult for his teammates to support or rally around. No one has ever sold out for Jay Cutler. Now in his 11^th season, Cutler’s teams have made the playoffs once. Once.

What I DO see for Clinton is virtue signaling galore among her supporters, including her own campaign staff. It’s the fact checking fetish. It’s the TV ad spend in safe states. It’s the damned-with-faint-praise and passive-aggressive endorsements. It’s the passion reserved exclusively for “outrage” over Trump’s intentionally outrageous statements and utterly absent for anything Clinton says. It’s all designed to signal to your tribe that you’re a good person because you’re against Trump. It’s not completely uncorrelated with getting Clinton elected … it’s not counter-productive, per se … but it’s not very productive, either. Why not? Because this is a turn-out election. The winner of this election will be whoever can get more of their tribe to the polls in swing states: Colorado, North Carolina … maybe Nevada … maybe one or two others. Period. This is not an election that will be decided by influencing undecided or “lightly decided” voters one way or another, because all of these voters are staying home on November 8^th anyway. It’s an election that will be decided by motivating your base. Can fear of Trump motivate? Sure it can. But if Brexit taught us anything, it’s the limitations of a fear-based campaign, at least when the fear-mongers are the same smarter-than-thou elites who tsk-tsk their deep and abiding concern for the benighted masses from Davos or Jackson Hole. Status quo candidates don’t win on fear alone. They’re not the anti-party. There has to be a reason … a why … an anthem for rallying the troops. And that’s what’s missing from the Clinton campaign, in exactly the same way it was missing for Teddy Kennedy in 1980 and Michael Dukakis in 1988.

 

It’s impossible to overstate the human animal’s ability to rationalize an abdication of principle when his tribe showers him with disdain. It’s impossible to overestimate a political animal’s love of winning over anything else, including integrity. I mean, it’s amazing how Ted Cruz was delighted to be the standard bearer of the in-party opposition so long as it looked like Trump was going to be trounced. But then the polls turned up for Trump, and Cruz falls all over himself doing his best Chris Christie imitation. Just goes to show, there’s no mockery like self-mockery.'

[mSparks]

I have a range of bets placed on Betfair between 5.2 and 3 that average at around 3.8.

 

I set my limit for my initial outlay and am going to reassess with a week to go.

 

I'd be happy to sit on this bet but the longer this lingers on with his odds refusing to budge much below 3,the more chance I think there is of possibly getting some 5+ bets on the day.The only way these markets can be staying this far out is if some Hilary backers with deep pockets and an emotional attachment to her candidacy are keeping him out at 3.

 

Good piece here via Drudge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-trump-in-virtual-dead-heat-on-eve-of-first-debate/2016/09/24/b99c95de-81cb-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html

 

Just look at Maine where Romney lost by 15% in 2012 and the polls(which generally favour Hilary) have some touching 3%.

 

New Jersey was an 18% Obama win in 2012 with a recent poll having Trump 4 behind.This isn't even what's defined a battle ground state by RCP

I think that's a terrible bet, and here's why:

Rough estimates of trump support by group (with Clinton being "not Trump"):

White males:60%*1

White females:5%

Blacks:1-10%

Hispanics:60%*2

 

The "wins or draws" for Trump online polls are because the vast proportion of online participants are white males.

*1 Excluding the "no way vets will vote for him" aspect.

 

*2 Total Hispanic vote is interesting, and I'm not exactly sure. I put it this high because although the total population of Hispanics are undoubtedly opposed to him, most of them can't/wont vote, and the ones that do are the legal, eligible to vote Hispanics who would rather not have the competition from their illegal brethren.

 

The HUGE problem with the poll esitmates is those 95% of white females, 90-99% of Blacks and the entire Hispanic population are not represented in them.

 

That gives a result of

 

60*0.5*0.67 + 5*0.5*0.67 + 10*0.125 + 60*0.127 = 31/93 = 33%

to Trump

and

 

40*0.5*0.67 +95*0.5*0.67 +90*0.125 +40*0.127 = 62/93 = 67%

 

to Hillary

So while it may not be a total landslide for Hillary even given everything Trump has done to exclude himself, there is approaching zero chance of him actually winning.

 

Edit:checking my estimates now.

 

First I found was

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/191918/race-gender-biggest-differentiators-views-clinton-trump.aspx

 

But it wont give anything more than a guide because its % with favorable opinion rather than % for trump/clinton

[drbubb]

1. The Votes you think Trump will get are way too low.

 

Example: I believe he is now at 18% of the Black vote, and climbing.

 

2. Hillary "voters" will not turn up at the polls, because they have no enthusiasm for her.

 

Just look at the Rallies: Trump get 10x - 100x as many people

 

LISTEN to Mr Trump, he's going after her - and the crowds love him for it.

(the Satanic One hates ordinary Americans - "Deplorables" - and they sense it.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9gDjnZnSg&spfreload=10

[rigger]

I think that's a terrible bet, and here's why:

Rough estimates of trump support by group (with Clinton being "not Trump"):

White males:60%*1

White females:5%

Blacks:1-10%

Hispanics:60%*2

 

The "wins or draws" for Trump online polls are because the vast proportion of online participants are white males.

*1 Excluding the "no way vets will vote for him" aspect.

 

*2 Total Hispanic vote is interesting, and I'm not exactly sure. I put it this high because although the total population of Hispanics are undoubtedly opposed to him, most of them can't/wont vote, and the ones that do are the legal, eligible to vote Hispanics who would rather not have the competition from their illegal brethren.

 

The HUGE problem with the poll esitmates is those 95% of white females, 90-99% of Blacks and the entire Hispanic population are not represented in them.

 

That gives a result of

 

60*0.5*0.67 + 5*0.5*0.67 + 10*0.125 + 60*0.127 = 31/93 = 33%

to Trump

and

 

40*0.5*0.67 +95*0.5*0.67 +90*0.125 +40*0.127 = 62/93 = 67%

 

to Hillary

So while it may not be a total landslide for Hillary even given everything Trump has done to exclude himself, there is approaching zero chance of him actually winning.

 

Edit:checking my estimates now.

 

First I found was

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/191918/race-gender-biggest-differentiators-views-clinton-trump.aspx

 

But it wont give anything more than a guide because its % with favorable opinion rather than % for trump/clinton

Takes two sides to make a trade viable.

 

Polls are a guide but as Brexit,and GE 2015 showed,they are no more than that as a predictive tool.

 

.I'd vote Trump if I was a US citizen but when it comes to cash I'm unemotional about it.If I thought Hilary was value at 1.4 I'd be backing her.

 

Trump is a risk,I just don't think he's a 3.85 risk.

 

Edit to add

 

If you're right on the 67/33split then I presume you're piling onto HRC at 1.4?

 

Do you think that's value?

[rigger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nm/new_mexico_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6113.html

 

Interesting to see New Mexico going to toss up status on RCP

 

That number for Johnson must be an outlier,or possibly a sign of big trouble for HRC as millenials abandon her.

[mSparks]

Takes two sides to make a trade viable.

 

Polls are a guide but as Brexit,and GE 2015 showed,they are no more than that as a predictive tool.

 

.I'd vote Trump if I was a US citizen but when it comes to cash I'm unemotional about it.If I thought Hilary was value at 1.4 I'd be backing her.

 

Trump is a risk,I just don't think he's a 3.85 risk.

 

Edit to add

 

If you're right on the 67/33split then I presume you're piling onto HRC at 1.4?

 

Do you think that's value?

I dont play rigged games... There's a reason you can't bet on pro wrestling. Also been turning a solid 18% every two weeks recently (although currently spending all the profits on toys) so any risk even at 40% in 36 days is attractive but not quite attractive enough, especially when the downside is a total loss. I'd have to put 1/3 on trump which would knock that 40% down to 7%.

 

Youve got the likes of Icahn and Soros both throwing their billions behind trump. Presumably to gaurantee a faster start to wwiii. Guessing the chances they successfully rig it in his favour is beyond my current capabilities.

 

This method worked well for both the ge2015 and brexit. (although the ge was all about shifting voting boundaries).

 

tldr

I agree there is a good chance this election will be rigged - for Trump to win.

 

also. not an insignificant chance that one of the old codgers doesnt live another 36 days. They are both close to pushing up daisies.

_____

on clinton voters not turning up.

 

I disagree. women will turn out en masse to elect the first female us president.

 

men will not turn out en masse to burn the system down. while a lot of them undoubtedly want to. when push comes to shove i very much doubt they have the guts to jump. they'll have to be pushed.

[drbubb]

"I dont play rigged games... There's a reason you can't bet on pro wrestling"

 

Hillary's only hope is to rig the election.

I think she will try, and may be able to swing 5-10% of the vote.

But if it is a landslide for Trump, the election may not be rig-able

[mSparks]

"I dont play rigged games... There's a reason you can't bet on pro wrestling"

 

Hillary's only hope is to rig the election.

I think she will try, and may be able to swing 5-10% of the vote.

But if it is a landslide for Trump, the election may not be rig-able

no doubt soros and icahn have spent a lot of money to get you to believe that is the case. but a simple look at the demographics of the us shows that isnt true.

 

->Example: I believe he is now at 18% of the Black vote, and climbing.

 

is not exactly a landslide for trump.

 

The only way he stands a chance of winning legitimately is if a huge portion of female voters suddenly decide to both start supporting him, and also the gop.

 

While traditionally they lean dnc and watch and believe the msm religously.

 

In 1996 Bill Clinton obtained the votes of 11% more women than men: 54% of all women and 43% of all men. The only other president to get a higher women vote was Barack Obama with 56%. Bill Clinton won with 49.2% of the popular vote or 47 million votes.

[drbubb]

Females:

traditionally they lean dnc and watch and believe the msm religously.

 

In short, they lack discernment, and vote as they are told to.

 

This is now the area (independent female voters) most in need of "a wake up call"

[mSparks]

Females:

traditionally they lean dnc and watch and believe the msm religously.

 

In short, they lack discernment, and vote as they are told to.

 

This is now the area (independent female voters) most in need of "a wake up call"

They have pretty much always been the msm's target demographic.

 

Most mens attention span barely makes it to the adverts during the half time entertainment.

[rigger]

http://news.sky.com/story/trump-calls-on-farage-to-sit-in-at-next-presidential-debate-10603901

 

Farage,getting more involved.Saw a Sky news GOP commentator say that in the USA Farage is regarded as a world statesman.Obviously,she was quick to imply she wasn't a Trump fan.

 

Going to be interesting to see the size of the underpolling of Trump and if there is any.

[rigger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

Rasmussen poll.Clinton by 3%.

 

Within margin of error.

 

Electoral college anomalies clearly going to be key.

 

Doc,have you any polling data re ethnic minorities?Are there any good websites for this sort of data?