Nope. Not even close. Bush at least had some executive experience, something neither of these have. Also wasn't widely reviled as these two are. I'd probably take 2004 Bush over 2016 Clinton and definitely over Trump

Bush at least had some executive experience

I don't know what you mean, but Clinton was State Minister?

I'd probably take 2004 Bush over 2016 Clinton

and what about 2000 Bush? It's the same fellow. The one who brought America back in bloody wars again on 1. an avoidable and possibly wanted cause for it (the September 11 attacks) and 2. the one who invaded Iraq on made up claims? And went to war with a core power?

Edited 10/27/2016 00:21:32

Secretary of State is not an executive position. Not in the same way in which President or Governor is. Secretary of State is a subordinate and not the boss. Bush was previously governor of Texas, thus the executive experience that neither candidate has.

Went to war with a core power? I miss something?

Man had his flaws, no denying that. Still would rather him running than either of the current turds.

To say that this poll is rigged, also implies that the last 2 elections were rigged. To say that those elections were rigged, also implies that the 2004 election was rigged,

Wrong. Not going to debate whether or not election is rigged, but just because one election was rigged does not mean the election before was rigged.

That's like saying a person ate pizza yesterday for lunch because they are eating it today for lunch.

Yuno, while your point is correct, you cut off some of the initial point which provided context.

The initial point indicated that fivethirtyeight successfully predicted 99 of the previous 100 state ballots. They are currently predicting a sizable victory for Clinton. If the election is rigged and they are lying then it stands to reason that the previous two would also have been rigged or else they would not have been so accurate.

wrong.

hey guys:
1. Most polls oversample or have some sort of pro-Clinton bias
2. RCP uses these polls and even ones like the ABC/WSJ one with Clinton +12
3. I assume Nate Silver looks at these faulty polls
4. Nate Silver/538 got Trump wrong entirely in the primaries.
5. They also made other mistakes in the primaries (ie Democrat race for Michigan).
6. Many Trump supporters are closest due to liberal bullying.
7. Trump has WAY more voter enthusiasm.
8. Guy who does not use faulty polling says Trump favored heavily https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/world/not-yet-donald-trump-will-win-says-top-forecaster/
9. Polls fucked up Brexit and others just recently.
10. Betting following Brexit pattern - many small bets on Trump and less but larger bets on Hillary.

Clinton shills BTFO

^

Always have to laugh when people attack polls as being biased when they don't agree with their desired outcome but when they do align, they are clearly unbiased.

Makes perfect sense! Totally believable!

I'll be surprised if Hillary ends up with fewer than 300

Edited 10/27/2016 02:13:40

There is actual proof of leftists polling more Hillary supports than Trump supporters to fit their agenda.

Look how many people show up for Trump rallies and how many show up for Hillary.

I'm gonna laugh so much when Trump wins and all you lefties cry.

Edited 10/27/2016 02:35:11

trumps not gonna win...this very good reliable source says 85%hillary

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

STATES WITH 10+ ELECTORAL VOTES-
HILLARY has-

California(55)
Illinois(20)
New York(29)
Florida(29)
New Jersey(14)
Michigan(16)
Virginia(13)
North Carolina(16)-68%
Minnesota(10)
Wisconsin(10)
Ohio(18)-55%
Arizona(11)-56%
Washington(12)
Maryland(10)
Massachusetts(11)

major states TRUMP has
Texas(28)
Georgia(16)
Tennessee(11)
Missouri(10)
Indiana(11)


.....

The most accurrate poll.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

fivethirtyeight one is biased.

Edited 10/27/2016 07:48:41

It got 99 out of 100 states correct in the last two elections, but it's biased?

Sounds an awful lot like it isn't saying what you want to hear so you're proclaiming it as bias, while proclaiming whatever media agrees with you as being "correct".

Even your supposedly "more accurate" poll:

"Who do you think will win?
We ask voters who they expect to see win, regardless of which candidate they support. Over the years, asking voters their expectation about which candidate will win often has proved to predict elections more reliably than asking how they plan to vote. That’s particularly true when the election is still many weeks away."

Shows that 58% of the people they poll anticipate Clinton winning the race.

Edited 10/27/2016 07:57:55

Turnout at rallies is irrelevant. You don't need to attend a rally to vote.

You also don't need to be a registered voter or even of voting age to attend a rally.

Sorry to tell you, but no matter how passionate your voters are, they still only get to vote once each.

Edited 10/27/2016 08:06:24

More attendance at rallies shows more support.

And with all the wiki leaks info coming out, the fact that Hillary defended a rapist, Benghazi, and the fact that Hillary lies and wants war with Russia is why Clinton will not win.

Always have to laugh when people attack polls as being biased when they don't agree with their desired outcome but when they do align, they are clearly unbiased.

Makes perfect sense! Totally believable!

I'll be surprised if Hillary ends up with fewer than 300

It makes sense when you shills realize that all polls done by leftwing media sources will lean left, so that a tie for instance is actually Trump a couple. No polls are accurate. But they lean one way. You shave a few points for Hillary off, you get a more accurate result. Thus, a poll showing Trump +1 = Trump +3-5

Edited 10/27/2016 12:17:35

Yes, call anyone that disagrees with you a shill. That's how you make a valid argument. Good going.

It's also rather cute that you keep referencing left-leaning polls.

I see far more polls on obviously right-wing websites trying to justify that Trump hasn't lost yet that I see "left" sites. I guess when you're as deluded as you are anything that posts uncomplimentary views of Trump is "left" rather than merely objective or accurate.

fivethirtyeight isn't left just because it predicts a Clinton win, it's predicting a Clinton victory because she's going to win the election.

If they were left like you keep suggesting, they wouldn't have gotten 99/100 states correctly predicted, they'd have predicted states that voted republican to vote democrat instead

"And with all the wiki leaks info coming out, the fact that Hillary defended a rapist, Benghazi, and the fact that Hillary lies and wants war with Russia is why Clinton will not win. "

While Trump IS a rapist, will almost certainly kill more than four people and Trump will cause war with the rest of the world

There is no evidence to support that Trump is a rapist, isn't it weird how all these rape accusations are only coming out when Trump decides to run for president? The past 40 years no one has said anything about rape except now, that's strange.

Killing people? You mean Hillary? Lol

How does Trump want war when he wants better relations with Russia? How is good relations between two nuclear superpowers wanting war?

Trump wants peace not just with Russia, but other countries too. He's said so.

Edited 10/27/2016 13:46:48

The funny thing is, saying trump will win motivates anti-Trump voters, so the more you say it, the less likely it is to be true.