| RolStoppable said: But the way the election in the USA works, national polling isn't the decisive criterion. You would have to look at states individually, because the winner takes it all in almost all of them. I don't think those polls reflected that Trump was going to win in the Rust Belt states. Historic growth for stock market, blahblahblah... I just told you to go beyond the most superficial of an analysis. And yes, Trump is better than Hillary. Both are pathological liars, so that doesn't work as a slight against Trump. |
I know nationally polling isn't the decisive criteria, but national polling does give an idea of the point spread. Which national polling was in the margin of error. And, again, things like the Comey letter, which was sent only a week before the election, could have swung some voters at the last minute, so that wasn't reflected in the final exit polls. Like I said, Trump won because of 80,000 votes in 3 states. More people can fit into Giants game than that.
And please, direct me to something that isn't a "superficial analysis" of the stock market being the highest its ever been. I guess you know more than what all the economists are saying. I even tried to look it up to view specifically from your POV. "Stock market growth mediocre Obama", and nothing shows up, outside of fringe right wing sites saying "well, the stock market is growing and we have record highs, but it's not growing fast enough!"
And how is he better than Clinton? Because he's an "outsider"? An outsider who just put a bunch of Exxon and Goldman Sachs execs in his cabinet, when he was supposed to be "draining the swamp" of Washington insiders with corporate interests. His lack of any political experience whatsoever certainly isn't a positive.
