Trump's NY re-elect numbers are brutal....

Same here my friend. Yes, the polls were dead on. All within the margin of error for 2016. Now without even looking at the generic congressional polls, just going by what I call at risk districts, here was my forecast for 2018 on the House.

House of Representatives


Currently the House of Representative consists of 240 Republicans and 195 Democrats. For 2018 the Republicans have 62 seats at risk of switching parties, up four from last month vs. 8 for the Democrats, up two from last month. The Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to take control of the House. They’ll gain 38, 15 more than needed. This is the same projected increase as last month. The number of safe seats in the House now stands at 178 seats for the Republicans, 187 for the Democrats. The rest are up for grabs. The new House will have 233 Democrats to 202 Republicans. There is an outside possibility the Democrats could gain as many as 50 seats, not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility. On the Republican side, holding their losses to 30 seats is the minimum losses that are possible. Regardless, the Democrats will regain control of the house, it is now just a question of how many seats.

We do things differently, use different methods, but seem to converge on the results.

 

Trumps NY elect numbers were brutal he didnt take NY and hes not wooing them on re election.

NY is in competition with california to see which liberal agendas will implode the state first have it sink into the atlantic or the pacific, personally I hope its a tie and they both sink

 

Of Course We Can Trust Scientific Modern polling practices.
Romney believed his polls that he would win that fateful night.
Hillary and hers her fateful night too.


Poll Vendor: How much money y'got and what do you wish the poll to confirm?
Can it be more evident these last years?

Does the media recognize the entirety of the Trumpberg?

​

 

Some not so enthusiastic Congressmen are already disappearing after the 2018 elections.

 

So, you didn't read the OP, nöööö.....

 

Which ones do you mean, specifically?

 

Please type slowly for me.

What did I miss in the OP

Moi the dyslexic

 

These 35 Republican Congress incumbents prematurely ejaculating themselves from the House were not enthusiastic , they were Nevertrumpers.

 

Sure. I explained it in the OP with "margins matter"

 

Not Hardly!
Make it simple
Make a statement.
Simple sentences.
Think Hemingway.

 

I am starting to like you.
Ok, I wrote it in the OP, in very simple fashion:

Is THAT simple enough for you, or should I send up smoke-signals?

 

Thank YOU

I disagree.
People's wallets are feeling fat.
More fat than Bush, Jr. or Obama.
Why would they exchange that wallet fat for . . .

Is that simple enough to disagree with all them numbers and statistics?

 

Trump had about 50000 people show up for his rally in Dallas last night. It looked like they had fun.



Outside of the packed arena.

 

The ones outside - protestors?

See plenty of empty seats inside

But tell me - what percentage of the population did this represent

And

How many were there just to see a clown show?

 

There were about 50000 Trump supporters, maybe 1000 protesters, 1800 police, and maybe a couple of thousand at an alternate rally for Beto in a theater. He “almost “ sold it out according to the local news. Trump packed the American Airlines Arena to capacity of over 20000 people and had even more standing outside watching the event on closed circuit tv.

 

How do you fit 50,000 supporters into an arena that can, by law, only hold 20,000? What kind of magical Trumpian bullshit math is that?

You do realize how foolish your formulation looks, right?

 

I didn’t say that. The AAC was surrounded by red hats during the event.

 

Ok, I can buy that. Thanks for the clarification. So, where were the other 33,000? Because the stadium was NOT filled to capacity inside and very clearly the aerial footage does not show 33,000 outside of the event. So, where are they?

 

what the op shows/proves is that negativity sells, & with the constant, repetitive negativity (mostly false unfounded allegations & outright lies) being spewed by every dem & their beloved msm, the sheeple are being bamboozled...

if these polsters actually polled people that don't watch reality tv shows, the numbers would be more inline with the realworld views.

 

If you did a poll that did not mention Trumps name and just asked people how their lives have improved financially since January 2017 Trump would be at 100% approval rating. Dems know this which is why they are scared to death. Minorities by the millions are going to tell you to your face two seconds before they close the curtain that they are voting for whatever idiot is on the ballot for the dems but the second that curtain closes they will vote for what is best for them and their children. the left will destroy you if you dare not toe the party line, this is why all the polls were wrong in 2016, people know it for certain now so there is zero chance for accurate polling. Trump by a landslide this go around. Your only play dems is more bogus impeachment attempts.

 

He "brutally" lost NY in 2016 just as every Republican candidate since Reagan..............so what?

 

just another biased poll...
here's the sampling, notice that they ensured 48% (that's almost half) of those polled were democrats... geeze, peeps are bonkers with polsters.

definition, polster: a shyster, a charlatan, a bamboozler



full list:


edit: added link to that polster
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SNY101811_Crosstabs.pdf

 

You still missed the point of the OP. What a shame. I recommend an English reading course for you, one that focuses on comprehension discernment. Here the crux of the OP, once again, for those are are quite obviously VERY slow on the uptake:

Better luck to you next time.