Trump gets another new campaign manager

Last week the corrupt media was complaining that Trump didn't have a big enough campaign organization.

This week he hires more people for his campaign and it's a "shake up".

The media bias is laughable and all too obvious.

There's no objective reporting here.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is paid 2.1 million dollars in one year for being an "Honorary Chairman" (read: a no show job with salary aka "a bribe") by people doing business the Crooked Hillary's state department.

 

In a word........NONE

 

Nee. My password is: "I will zap you with my Q-36 Ilonium Space Modulator if you troll too much". Be careful of large and small case.....

 

Actually, no. You are very wrong on this. Rasmussen has an absolutely terrible track record, both in calling races with their end-polling and also with the margins that are almost never even close. In 2012, Ras missed 6 of the 12 "battlegrounds". It was 7 points off in Wisconsin.... but it did nail one battleground: Pennsylvania. So, 1 of 12 is not bad.

Meanwhile, PPP (D) nailed ALL of the battlegrounds except for NC, where it called a tie (a tie is automatically a miscall in end polling, there will never be a true tie in an election). Zogby is wrong about 80% of the time, until the end polls, where he magically comes in line with the rest, who are full pros at this.

 

Srsly, never saw an opposition nominee do such a bang-up job for the wrong side before..... it's as if every erratic, bizarre Trump event is saying: I dare you to not vote for me, I'm unstable....

 

With the small exception of a 6 day time window, Clinton has been doing well the entire time. She is winning where she needs to win, and win big, and she is forcing the GOP to have to protect a number of states usually considered 'home turf'. She is winning and she is going to clean house on election day with a nice, solid landslide.

 

The same people turning up over and over again to Trump concerts does not equate to more votes.

Having a campaign with advertising and workers going door to door nationwide is what wins elections.

Trump is going lose because he doesn't know how to run an effective campaign (or a nation for that matter) and it will nothing whatsoever to do with "rigging" and everything to do with his arrogant incompetence.

 

Just remember they used to get get great turnouts for public executions and the objects of all that attention didn't end up with much of a future.

 

Now that is a Snowden password.

 

All the polls are unreliable. Read again, I did not say that the Rasmussen or Zogby were reliable.

 

I agree with you about the audience at Trump's rallies and GOTV winning elections. I know a couple people that have gone to several and have no intention to vote for Trump. They go for the entertainment factor.

I read a while back, those that have been around Hillary Clinton in small groups describe her as being warm, funny, and approachable, a side her campaign thinks is important to show and doesn't happen in rallies. I can't find that citation, but here's a different one. Because she does better in small group settings and isn't a natural politician with speeches and large groups, her campaign purposefully has chosen small groups rather than large rallies. She has a well-oiled machine behind her GOTV, so big rallies are even more unnecessary. It's a strategic choice and a campaign gamble, but it's not because she can't have big rallies.

 

We will see.

He will never be taken seriously
He will never win any primaries.
He will never win the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------> We are here
He will never win the election.
He will not be able to get his agenda enacted.
He will not win re-election.

- - - Updated - - -

I do as well. But in fairness, how does one get excited over a diseased old crook like Hillary?

 

Ask a Trump supporter to explain the "job titles" of Paul Manafort, Stephen Bannon, and Kellyanne Conway.

 

I agree with this, by all accounts Ms. Clinton is a very warm, charming, funny and caring person in private settings and perhaps small groups. The problem is the woman has been relentlessly attacked by the right for decades, she is smart, well educated, tremendously talented and a woman - a combination unfathomable to certain elements of the right wing. Due to this, it is only natural she consciously and perhaps even sub consciously put up walls to protect herself - resulting in her appearing to be a bit cold and standoffish - which is not the case. This is something she needs to work on more. The time remaining before election day will be a tough test for her - the Trump campaign is obviously moving to primary mode which means more insanity, craziness and relentless personal attacks from Trump. I believe Ms. Clinton is more than tough enough to deflect all the nonsense that is sure to come.....

 

This is also a glaring untruth. Based on their track record and longevity in the profession, a number of pollsters, and by extension, their polls, are very reliable. Whether or not you like it personally is completely irrelevant. Adults realize this. See how that worksß

 

Sarah Palin drew large crowds too. Your point is?

 

'Glaring untruth' is Ddyad's middle name.

Historical polling showing final variances back to 1940 shows that with few exceptions pollsters get it pretty close.

 

It's a two-edged sword: in 2008, the immense rallies for Obama, especially in Kansas City, Missouri and close to Portland and Seattle, made big news and added to the message that Obama was ahead. But he was also statistically very ahead in polling, both nationally and in the battlegrounds, plus he was opening up new battlegrounds (VA, NC, IN, ND, MT - yes, at that time, ND and MT were considered ripe battlegrounds) and many Democrats used the argument that big rallies = winner. I warned against this back then and I warn against it now. What we are seeing at Trump rallies is that more of the hardcore base is coming out, but I doubt that many undecideds are coming out. Also note WHERE he is holding big rallies. Why didn't he hold a 20,000 man rally in Youngstown, OH? I will tell you why: Mahoning County is a deep Democratic stronghold and there is no way in hell he would be able to cobble together a big rally there.

So, I don't buy the rally thing.

Both McKinley and Harding won by campaigning from their front porches (thank you, Mark Hanna!!!)..... so if Clinton is making more of a dent through smaller appearances, then good for her. This is not a race for the biggest rallies. This is a race to get over 270 EV on November 8th. End of story.

 

As I recall a Secret Service guard described Clinton as some kind of psycho b$tch.
Of course, that might make her especially well qualified to lead the government.

 

Palin was interesting,Hillary is old, likely diseased, crooked, ugly and no one likes her. And yet she could still win. Romney was outdrawing Obama is areas Obama went on to win. The Media sells Hillary like tobacco companies selling cancer.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ry_like_tobacco_companies_selling_cancer.html

 

And more importantly, the aggregate usually gets it very right. This is why when I see a whacky RW poll showing Obama only ahead by 11 in Massachusetts and a LW pollster showing him up by 32 points, I know that the aggregate will be between 22-25 points. And guess what? Obama won Massachusetts by +25. The only way this doesn't work well is when the DNA polling base for a specific state is too thin and to far spread out. And then there is the accumulated knowledge: knowing from experience and based on track record who the "gold standard" pollsters are for specific states or regions of this great Union of ours. And in every cycle there will be some duds. Remember "Wenzel" from 2012, a whacky grandpa-pa outfit from Columbus, OH that sold itself to the birther universe as a serious pollster and has now repackaged itself as "Clout"??? LOL....But the DEMS have also had a couple of duds, including the scandal with the KOS pollster from 2008, Y2K, that ended up out of business. However, on the whole, it works well and most pollsters really are at least looking for the correct direction, even if they sometimes hope to "massage" the numbers a little in their direction. And yes, though I read and analyse every single result, there are some pollsters I prefer, but only because of their good track record. One very good Canadian pollster comes to mind.... probably good because they have no dog in the race.

 

I don't doubt Robby Mook's strategy. He seems to be doing a good job and even though the strategy is risky, I think it will pay off. It makes sense to me that Hillary plays in small groups better. I've heard people say, that have been in the room with Bill Clinton, that even if you didn't like his politics, his personality is magnetic and all eyes are on him. Two people like that would have a hard time being together as long as the Clintons have, so it makes sense to me that she's more effective as a small group kind of person.

I think the large groups are to stroke Trump's ego more than a strategic campaign decision.

 

I don't know if you accept Snopes as a source or not, but they say it isn't true. The Secret Service did have trouble with Bill wanting impromptu stops and to walk around in areas not previously vetted.

 

It is always a good idea to check with sites like Snopes, but they are not objective sources. Neither is the book written by the guard, but there have been many other accounts of HC's temper and behavior over the decades. She does not appear to be a 'very nice lady".

But do we really want "nice" in the White House?

 

Two separate things and I am glad that you kept them separate. I don't care about "nice" in the WH. I want "competent". Hillary is eminently qualified and definitely competent. Trump is not. As for Snopes, up till this point in time, I have seen no signs of bias. It's a married couple that does the site and researches like crazy. They appear to have no real dog in the race. And they have not shy away from supporting criticism of Obama if they found the facts/data to back up the claims being made.

As for the weird Clinton is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) trope, that's the same of hash browns where someone heard someone heard someone say that Clinton, as SOS, hated the military and made soldiers wait for hours on end in the salute position until she appeared. Not true. Not even remotely true. The same horse(*)(*)(*)(*) was said about Madeleine Albright and it was a lie back then, too.