DescentBB

someone caught CNN skewing the results via changing the sample methodology. It's not about left or right bias, it's all about money.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/cnn-ca ... ing/25981/

Not sure what bogus info your link is trying to raise but since Aug 8 when Hillary Clinton enjoyed a 8 pt lead on RCP, she is now at a 3 point lead. If you don't call this "tightening", then I suggest you look up the meaning of the word and stop using some blogger as a news source.

well RCP pools a bunch of polls, one of which is CNN. What the article shows is that CNN purposely changed their demographics to skew heavily Republican BETWEEN a poll showing Hillary up by 8 and resulting in Trump up by 2. As both of us have said, one should be leery of polls,especially if affiliated with Fox, CNN, MSNBC, who depend on a close race to maintain viewers.

Which is why I have been repeatedly told RCP is a better indicator. Pretty sad indictment of the news organ that give a poll result just to enhance viewer participation.

they all do, and have done so. Remember Fox stringing viewers along in 2012, right up to election night. Everyone and their brother knew that Obama had the election won a month or so earlier. They were even trying to cast doubt on exit polling.

It was lost at the last debate when Romney failed to go on the attack.

yup, that may have been the final chance he had. He killed himself, frankly, by sitting back all summer and allowing the Dems to paint his as the sort of silver spoon type he was, and then tossed out that 47% comment to boot. Still had a glimmer of a chance until that debate, though. Quite similar, actually, to the Trump arc, except with more money for an end game and far stronger GOP support. If the Washington Post survey and the Dallas paper endorsing Hillary actually mean that Texas is actively in play, this will be a blowout(and, give me credit, Woody, I mentioned Texas back at the convention posts).

woodchip wrote:Which is why I have been repeatedly told RCP is a better indicator.

And by RCP's measure, Trump has virtually no chance. His campaign is breaking records in under-performance. Just look at the data.

Man I wish Jeb! was in the race.

This is more clear as to why Clinton has the advantage over Trump. Electoral votes. Plus, in the good old Republican stronghold of Texas, the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle both endorsed Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

A closeup of the electoral map, and some others, from the above link. There are 10 tossup states, 6 that lean Democratic and 4 that lean Republican. The rest are 14 states that are solid Democratic and 16 states that are solid Republican.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... tate-poll/

Texas is in play for Clinton. That should tell you where things REALLY stand.

Well, well. Hillary just gave a press conference before 7:00 AM PDT this morning and none of the 3 major networks cut in to give her air time. I had to turn to either CNBC, CNN or MSNBC to hear her. Now what's this about a leftie bias with the 3 major news networks? I'm willing to bet the next time Trump holds a press conference, if ever, they'll cut into their local programming right away, no matter what time it is.

Ratings trump bias any day.

Watched that Commander in Chief forum last night on the DVR. Matt Lauer was very harsh towards Clinton and cut her off frequently during the forum, then pretty much soft-balled and coddled Trump and let him spew his lies and generalities without much comment. What a despicable display for a moderator. At least Hillary held her own and looked presidential. Trump looked like a clueless moron. In my opinion, Matt Lauer sucks stones. I haven't watched the Today Show ever since the Ann Curry incident, which was rumored to be Lauer's doing. Loser prick.

http://www.celebitchy.com/503151/how_ba ... ial_forum/

I also heard rumors that Trump didn't want heavyweight Rachael Maddow because she would be too hard on him. Poor baby.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/08/ ... addow.html

tunnelcat wrote:Watched that Commander in Chief forum last night on the DVR. Matt Lauer was very harsh towards Clinton and cut her off frequently during the forum, then pretty much soft-balled and coddled Trump and let him spew his lies and generalities without much comment. What a despicable display for a moderator. At least Hillary held her own and looked presidential. Trump looked like a clueless moron. In my opinion, Matt Lauer sucks stones. I haven't watched the Today Show ever since the Ann Curry incident, which was rumored to be Lauer's doing. Loser prick.

http://www.celebitchy.com/503151/how_ba ... ial_forum/

I also heard rumors that Trump didn't want heavyweight Rachael Maddow because she would be too hard on him. Poor baby.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/08/ ... addow.html

Poor Lauer, what we see is a prime example of the cannibalistic nature of the Dem Part and their stooges. Poor Hillary needed a ear piece so she could be coached and even that didn't help her. So now she has to play once again the victim to shore up her base.

ummm, Woody: reality calling!!! Hillary's performance was solid, if constantly interrupted by Lauer(c'est la vie). It was NOT her that was described as embarassingly clueless, vague and insulting.

woodchip wrote:Poor Lauer, what we see is a prime example of the cannibalistic nature of the Dem Part and their stooges. Poor Hillary needed a ear piece so she could be coached and even that didn't help her. So now she has to play once again the victim to shore up her base.

I see you've been reading InfoWars, or some other right wing trash site again woody. If you'd taken the time to look at some of the other pictures or angles from that same forum, she clearly wasn't wearing an earpiece. Since I'd already heard about this particular conspiracy theory before I watched the forum, I looked and saw nothing there at all. That closeup picture that InfoWars got a hold of and ran with was just a reflection of her ear skin.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ve-it.html

However, I've been watching her walk around and sit and there must be an issue with her back. She almost looks like she's wearing some type of back brace. It's either that or she has a large amount of belly fat because she is definitely large around the middle. She looks stiff when she walks and rarely bends at the waist when getting up or sitting down either. I'm betting those stools they had at the forum were specially chosen for her, so that she could get up and stand easily when she felt like it, instead of being forced to get up from a sitting position. She even looked very uncomfortable sitting in the chair on Kimmel's show a while back and kept her legs bent down and hanging off the front of the chair. Being an older lady myself, I can attest to old age back and hip issues and osteoporosis. However, they are not fatal conditions, only inconveniences.

And I agree with slick. She looked far more presidential, knowledgeable and informed than Trump did. Trump looked like a clueless bombastic moron trying to make up for his lack of ideas and knowledge by blaming Hillary and Obama for everything. Blaming Hillary for ISIS shows he's a clueless partisan hack. It's well known that the Bush administration's actions of disbanding the Iraqi Military during the invasion of Iraq was directly responsible for starting the evil that we call ISIS today. As for Obama pulling our troops out of Iraq, back then, you're forgetting that the American people wanted OUT of that quagmire posthaste.

http://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria ... -military/

As for Hillary screwing up Libya, people need to remember that Trump was for intervention in Libya back then too. If hindsight were foresight, we'd all be perfect leaders.

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... n-in-2011/

tunnelcat wrote:She almost looks like she's wearing some type of back brace...She looks stiff when she walks and rarely bends at the waist when getting up or sitting down either.

So what? Why are you talking about this? What if she was in a wheelchair or a paraplegic? Why would it matter?

God you people are petty.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Poor Lauer, what we see is a prime example of the cannibalistic nature of the Dem Part and their stooges. Poor Hillary needed a ear piece so she could be coached and even that didn't help her. So now she has to play once again the victim to shore up her base.

I see you've been reading InfoWars, or some other right wing trash site again woody.

So these are right wing trash?

http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-lau ... rum-2016-9

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/m ... rum-227866

http://www.people.com/article/matt-laue ... ry-clinton

TC, take off your Darth Vader mask and enjoy the light.