At least he's not Hillary...

[WiregrassTiger]

I think the "screaming" is due to Chad's frustration with Kaos acknowledging neither his own arguments nor the factual refutation of those arguments.  It's typical K debate strategy, and very frustrating.

Who is Chad? That's a gay name.

[Kaos]

I think this is the only part where you're off-base, Chad.  This isn't Republican party loyalty...this is Trump loyalty.

^
And this?  This is idiocy. 

Unbelievable that after nearly a score of pages you've yet to get it through your head that none of us are loyal to Trump. 

We're opposed to Hillary and to Obama and their entire organization. Wouldn't matter who was running against her.  Hell, run Shia Lebouf.  Or King Louie from Jungle Book.  I'd be waving the orangutan flag. 

[Kaos]

I think the "screaming" is due to Chad's frustration with Kaos acknowledging neither his own arguments nor the factual refutation of those arguments.  It's typical K debate strategy, and very frustrating.

If there actually were a factual refutation, we could discuss it.  There isn't.  Only infantile posturing and far-fetched presumptions based on discordant and unrelated "facts." 

I've been in the same place saying essentially the same thing for a long, long time.  I'm sorry you can't accept it. 

[GH2001]

I think the "screaming" is due to Chad's frustration with Kaos acknowledging neither his own arguments nor the factual refutation of those arguments.  It's typical K debate strategy, and very frustrating.

It's at everyone. I've been as civil as can be. So have you. Not sure why it can't be done that way.

And unless I'm missing my guess, k's frustration is due to chads response recently in the thread. And Chad will say the same thing about k. Chicken and egg. Someone at some point is gonna have to be the adult and end the cycle and just say "agree to disagree". I've tried to do a good job of that, esp with you.

[AUChizad]

Dude. I just pointed out that the Bloomberg poll is an outlier compared to most of the other 56 polls that exist. No one said trump was winning in the others. No one said they all had him ahead. The others for the most part have him closer than the Bloomberg one. Rcp included at +5 for Hillary and the Rcp currently is higher for her than its been in a couple of months. It's ebb n flow. In statistical world the Bloomberg one is called an outlier. That's all. Quit making shit personal. I'm not your enemy.

What could you possibly have interpreted as a personal attack on you there, delicate snowflake?

And how is ANYTHING I've ever said in the history of this forum more an example of pointless name-calling devoid of any constructive  or rhetorical context whatsoever as these back-to-back gems, which is mild by comparison of hundreds of others?

Would you say it's getting personal to question someone's sexuality and intellect? Calling them names (homo, bitch, sissy, dumbass, etc.) and literally hating them while attempting to expedite having them banned from the site, again?

I certainly hope that it is.

Who is Chad? That's a gay name.

"Trump is slimy because" (evidence of him saying/doing something slimy) or "Most people can see Trump for what he is as evidenced by (poll numbers showing his gargantuan disapproval rating). More importantly the "at least he's not Hillary" argument doesn't work when he routinely does and says shit that you people would make a federal fucking case over if she did or said them. Those things are not pointless attacks, they're facts that support my arguments.

If there actually were a factual refutation, we could discuss it.  There isn't.  Only infantile posturing and far-fetched presumptions based on discordant and unrelated "facts." 

I've been in the same place saying essentially the same thing for a long, long time.  I'm sorry you can't accept it. 

So please, explain to me how ALL the current polls are wrong and completely meaningless.

Explain to me why Trump slandering US soldiers in the way he did is ok and how you would be PERFECTLY ok with Hillary doing the same.

You've stretched the limits of intellectual dishonesty WAY beyond its breaking point.

[GH2001]

What could you possibly have interpreted as a personal attack on you there, delicate snowflake?

And how is ANYTHING I've ever said in the history of this forum more an example of pointless name-calling devoid of any constructive  or rhetorical context whatsoever as these back-to-back gems, which is mild by comparison of hundreds of others?"Trump is slimy because" (evidence of him saying/doing something slimy) or "Most people can see Trump for what he is as evidenced by (poll numbers showing his gargantuan disapproval rating). More importantly the "at least he's not Hillary" argument doesn't work when he routinely does and says shit that you people would make a federal fucking case over if she did or said them. Those things are not pointless attacks, they're facts that support my arguments.
So please, explain to me how ALL the current polls are wrong and completely meaningless.

Explain to me why Trump slandering US soldiers in the way he did is ok and how you would be PERFECTLY ok with Hillary doing the same.

You've stretched the limits of intellectual dishonesty WAY beyond its breaking point.

The patronizing dude. You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's just a discussion on polls. But you decided to get weird and huffy about it. For nothing. And we're all in here wondering why the giant pissing contest happened and even bigger, why us politics are a shit storm. The microcosm of it is right here in this thread.

[AUChizad]

It's at everyone. I've been as civil as can be. So have you. Not sure why it can't be done that way.

And unless I'm missing my guess, k's frustration is due to chads response recently in the thread. And Chad will say the same thing about k. Chicken and egg. Someone at some point is gonna have to be the adult and end the cycle and just say "agree to disagree". I've tried to do a good job of that, esp with you.

If I'm frustrated it's not with you. Where are you perceiving that? Show me a quote that is just pointless insults? Like, are you reading K's posts?

If there actually were a factual refutation, we could discuss it.  There isn't.  Only infantile posturing

^
And this?  This is idiocy.

Never thought you were an idiot before. 

Please stop causing me to doubt that. 

(Despite having said as much 250 times already in this thread before and after)

You don't understand anything any more, do you?

Literally, HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT is insulting me. Fuck facts, they're all bullshit. I'm dumb. I don't understand anything. I don't get it. I'm infantile.

There is NO FUCKING WAY you can say that anything I've said even comes close to that type of mud slinging, when I'm trying to prove my point with facts, figures, video evidence, links, etc. and he's trying to prove his by repeatedly saying nothing else but hurling insults. Doesn't even try to refute the FACTS, besides some asinine rhetorical confusion over what is fact and what is opinion.

[AUChizad]

The patronizing dude. You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's just a discussion on polls. But you decided to get weird and huffy about it. For nothing. And we're all in here wondering why the giant pissing contest happened and even bigger, why us politics are a shit storm. The microcosm of it is right here in this thread.

So I hurt your fee-fees with polls? Why won't you point to any actual attack on you? Show me an example if you're going to play that victim game.

[WiregrassTiger]

What could you possibly have interpreted as a personal attack on you there, delicate snowflake?

And how is ANYTHING I've ever said in the history of this forum more an example of pointless name-calling devoid of any constructive  or rhetorical context whatsoever as these back-to-back gems, which is mild by comparison of hundreds of others?"Trump is slimy because" (evidence of him saying/doing something slimy) or "Most people can see Trump for what he is as evidenced by (poll numbers showing his gargantuan disapproval rating). More importantly the "at least he's not Hillary" argument doesn't work when he routinely does and says shit that you people would make a federal fucking case over if she did or said them. Those things are not pointless attacks, they're facts that support my arguments.
So please, explain to me how ALL the current polls are wrong and completely meaningless.

Explain to me why Trump slandering US soldiers in the way he did is ok and how you would be PERFECTLY ok with Hillary doing the same.

You've stretched the limits of intellectual dishonesty WAY beyond its breaking point.

Dude, I have never personally attacked you. Yes, I hung out at an x gate waiting on you to do so a couple of times but you got scared I guess.

And I have NEVER called you a name that wasn't FACT. I do my fact checking buddy.

And if you are going to continue hurling baseless accusations at me, well I guess now is good a time as any for us to end this friendship. And I mean it.

Link that buddy.

[AUChizad]

Dude, I have never personally attacked you. Yes, I hung out at an x gate waiting on you to do so a couple of times but you got scared I guess.

And I have NEVER called you a name that wasn't FACT. I do my fact checking buddy.

And if you are going to continue hurling baseless accusations at me, well I guess now is good a time as any for us to end this friendship. And I mean it.

Link that buddy.

Very productive and relevant to the conversation. I really need to learn to stay on point like you do.

[Kaos]

It's at everyone. I've been as civil as can be. So have you. Not sure why it can't be done that way.

And unless I'm missing my guess, k's frustration is due to chads response recently in the thread. And Chad will say the same thing about k. Chicken and egg. Someone at some point is gonna have to be the adult and end the cycle and just say "agree to disagree". I've tried to do a good job of that, esp with you.

I have no frustration.  At all. 

I actually find it funny.  There came a point (and I won't say where) when some of my volleys were just molotov cocktails.  Splash a little fire and see what burns. 

My stance wasn't going to change.  No matter what was posted.  I'd done my own research, made up my own mind and can live with any option but her.  Even Trump (who, in case you've missed I've never voted for and will for the first time in November).   

I could well be wrong that he has a realistic chance to beat her.  But Chizad is fucking a monkey if he thinks Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Jeb, Carly or any of those would have been better positioned.  None of them could beat her in Florida, Pennsylvania or New York.  Trump may not, they WOULD not.  Without one or more of those states?  No chance. 

I also know that in 1980, Ronald Reagan was 25 points or more behind Carter in March.   By June-July the race was 3-5% difference.  Reagan didn't take the lead over Carter until late July, and even then it was a very slim lead.  At that time a legitimate third party candidate (Anderson) was drawing nearly 25% of the vote.  He drifted away just like Johnson's paltry "rising" 9% will. 

So FUCK May polling.  I don't care. 

I don't subscribe to the notion that "Trump said something stupid, so he's like the worst candidate evar!!1!"  either. 

I've sort of been looking at this like I'm Clark Griswold and Chizad is Snots.  Better just let him finish. 

I respect his opinion when it makes sense and isn't shrouded in a tantrum that draws unrelated dots.  Doesn't mean I don't think he's wronger than a Harriet Tubman twenty.

[Kaos]

Not going to go 100% point by point, but I'll help you a little here:

"Trump is slimy because" (evidence of him saying/doing something slimy)

Your definition of "slimy" doesn't rise to the level of "fact."  Your interpretation only.

or "Most people can see Trump for what he is as evidenced by (poll numbers showing his gargantuan disapproval rating).

Also not "fact."   Your interpretation of a poll that may be biased in its very nature, may be flawed in its execution, may have little or no validity.

More importantly the "at least he's not Hillary" argument doesn't work when he routinely does and says shit that you people would make a federal fucking case over if she did or said them. Those things are not pointless attacks, they're facts that support my arguments.

Again.  Not a fact.   Your expectation of how some random someone would react to an event that hadn't happened, didn't happen or was interpreted by you in a way that others did not. 

Zero facts, sir.

So please, explain to me how ALL the current polls are wrong and completely meaningless.

Ronald Reagan was 10-15 points behind Carter in June.  Who gives a fuck about a poll?  Really?

Explain to me why Trump slandering US soldiers in the way he did is ok and how you would be PERFECTLY ok with Hillary doing the same.

He did nothing of the sort.  YOU (and other haters) took what he said and made it into something it isn't.  It's a trend I've noticed numerous times in this discussion.   You assert your own personal interpretation of an event or comment as fact.  It's not.  And then you extend the error by making rash assumptions about how others MIGHT react to a different situation. 

Classically flawed. 

You've stretched the limits of intellectual dishonesty WAY beyond its breaking point.

You're too angry to see the forest for that one enormous tree. 

[WiregrassTiger]

Very productive and relevant to the conversation. I really need to learn to stay on point like you do.

That's it. We are finished.

I'm done with this one sided relationship.

[Kaos]

If I'm frustrated it's not with you. Where are you perceiving that? Show me a quote that is just pointless insults? Like, are you reading K's posts?

Seriously?  You're going to claim that I'm insulting you?  Page after page after page of "moron, mouthbreather, knuckle dragger, etc. ad infinitum" spewing from you and you're going to throw THAT stone?  Come on, dude.  I've been WAAAY civil.  You haven't been insulted.  I've asked questions like "are you insane" because the point you were trying to defend was absurd.  I've poked at your arguments, but you'll have to search for where it was ever personal from me.  I'm not really sure what you're reading. 

(Despite having said as much 250 times already in this thread before and after)
Literally, HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT is insulting me. Fuck facts, they're all bullshit. I'm dumb. I don't understand anything. I don't get it. I'm infantile.

There is NO FUCKING WAY you can say that anything I've said even comes close to that type of mud slinging, when I'm trying to prove my point with facts, figures, video evidence, links, etc. and he's trying to prove his by repeatedly saying nothing else but hurling insults. Doesn't even try to refute the FACTS, besides some asinine rhetorical confusion over what is fact and what is opinion.

Come the fuck on.   My ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that Trump is a better option than Hillary.  That's the alpha and omega. 

I find it unbelievable that you'd consider anything I've said to you "mudslinging."    I've hurled zero "insults" at you. 

What pisses you off is that I really don't give a fuck about your "facts" (which are merely opinions 95% of the time) or your charts, graphs, links, videos, or any of that. You're angry because I won't acknowledge how right you are.  And it's simply because either I don't think you ARE right or I don't care that you might be.


I've already accepted this situation and come to terms with it. Months ago.  I wouldn't pick Trump out of a lineup, but since he's what there is standing between Hillary and the White House, and since I just happened to recognize the winds of change before most of the rest of you did, I'm over it.   I don't care what he did ten years ago. I don't care what he said yesterday.  He's less dangerous than she is. 

And that's the whole of it. 

[wesfau2]

^
And this?  This is idiocy. 

Unbelievable that after nearly a score of pages you've yet to get it through your head that none of us are loyal to Trump. 

We're opposed to Hillary and to Obama and their entire organization. Wouldn't matter who was running against her.  Hell, run Shia Lebouf.  Or King Louie from Jungle Book.  I'd be waving the orangutan flag.

I see you say those things...but when confronted with any negative facts about DT, you put your fingers in your ears and ignore it.  That's Trump loyalty.

[Kaos]

I see you say those things...but when confronted with any negative facts about DT, you put your fingers in your ears and ignore it.  That's Trump loyalty.

No, wes, no. 

I'm not loyal to Trump.  If there were a better option (and please keep Gary Futile Johnson in your pants, you know that's not realistic) I'd look at it.  There's not. 

I would be just as "loyal" to whoever was running against her.   Since there isn't anyone else, I just don't CARE what he's done.  There's nothing anyone can come up with short of eating babies for breakfast that is going to make him worse than her. 

He's been sued a bunch?  So what.  Don't care.  She's the most corrupt bitch ever.
He sometimes says dumb things?  So what. Don't care. She's evil.
He's been married a bunch?  So what. Don't care. She's a withered whore.
He's racist, misogynist, xena, homa, roma, doma, rinky dinky doo?  So what. Don't care.  She's the devil incarnate.

I just don't care. She is, in my personal opinion, the worst human being alive today.  She may be the worst who ever lived.  She's in that group. 

That's the beginning and end of my "loyalty."  I'm baffled that you (and others) can't comprehend this extremely simple fact.  And yes, it is a fact. 

[AUChizad]

Also not "fact."   Your interpretation of a poll that may be biased in its very nature, may be flawed in its execution, may have little or no validity.

How the fuck are Bloomberg polls "biased in their very nature"? Or every other poll for that matter? Why are only the rare ones that show some sort of momentum or positive for Trump valid, but the exact same pollsters are "biased" when the chips are down? How did this bottomfeeder/Alex Jones type of lunatic conspiracy theory become mainstream?

Again.  Not a fact.   Your expectation of how some random someone would react to an event that hadn't happened, didn't happen or was interpreted by you in a way that others did not.

Zero facts, sir.

Hillary never directly, purposefully, shamelessly insulted the troops in this way. You and others will cling to your death on a tactical error she made (that I acknowledge was bad) and use that to say that is IRREDEEMABLE BECAUSE SHE HATES THE TROOPS and yet Trump can fucking call them all thieves and say they're "living well" off of stolen loot, and that's perfectly fine.

The poll numbers are FACTS, but you don't like them, so they're meaningless.

The video and quotes from Trump are FACTS but you have some excuse lined up that you haven't yet presented to explain how he didn't really say what he very clearly fucking said.

He did nothing of the sort.  YOU (and other haters) took what he said and made it into something it isn't.  It's a trend I've noticed numerous times in this discussion.   You assert your own personal interpretation of an event or comment as fact.  It's not.  And then you extend the error by making rash assumptions about how others MIGHT react to a different situation. 

How about instead of just hurling insults, you address the fucking issue I'm presenting and EXPLAIN to me how YOU interpreted this very obvious attack on our troops? I'd fucking love to hear your irrational spin on this. What did he mean by "How about bringing baskets of money, millions of millions of dollars and handing it out. I wanna know, who are the soldiers that had that job? Cause I think they're living very well right now whoever they may be."

Here is an account from a US soldier who "had that job".
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/iraq-veteran-responds-to-trumps-baskets-of-money-remarks-in-epic-twitter-rant

Just a small warning, I’m about to go on a bit of a rant.

I rarely discuss politics on this platform, but yesterday, the Republican nominee for President said something that compels me to speak out.

I spent five years, from 2006-2011 as a Sergeant in the U.S. Army.

When I deployed to Iraq in 2009 I was made Non Commissioned Officer in Charge of Foreign Claims for the entirety of Western Baghdad.

That’s an area that covers roughly 5 million people. I was 21 years old and will admit, very much in over my head.

My job for a whole year was to assess damage to Iraqi citizen’s property, and person and compensate them monetarily.

So if a helicopter dropped a flare and burned a kid, or an MRAP ran into a generator or someone's goat while on patrol...

Or we killed someone in the line of fire, it was my job to make it right.

Affected citizens would make the drive from as far as Lebanon on a weekly basis to see if their claims had been adjudicated.

The job was tough, almost impossible, but it was the just thing to do and helped build a bridge of trust between us and the citizenry.

I basically spent a year of my life in an aluminum trailer, away from my friends and family enduring mortar attacks nearly every night.

There was always more to do, and the stack of files and faces never dwindled. I got half a day off every two weeks.

I had to look widows and orphans in the eye as tears ran down their cheeks telling me through an interpreter their heartbreaking stories.

Every mission out into the city carried with it tremendous risk, but we had a job to do, and forcibly put that out of our minds.

In the course of my job, I was entrusted with a lot of taxpayer money, all in American cash.

As a result, we instantly became a high value target for insurgents who wanted to relieve us of said cash at one of our weekly gatherings.

Yesterday, @realDonaldTrump, a man who never served in any capacity said this about me and my brethren that served in Iraq.

“How about bringing baskets of money — millions and millions of dollars — and handing it out?”

"I want to know who were the soldiers that had that job, because I think they’re living very well right now.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-us-troop-stole-millions-and-millions-in-iraq-224352
“Iraq, crooked as hell. How about bringing baskets of money — millions and millions of dollars — and handing it out?,” Trump said at an evening rally.

I am living well right now - some student loan debt aside - but not because I pocketed the hard-earned taxpayer money that I was entrusted.

In my time overseas, the procedures that were put in place to prevent that from happening were frustratingly thorough.

The idea that Trump would call out the integrity of those who answered the call of service and deployed to a war zone is repellant.

For this reason, and many more, he’s proven that he’s someone with neither the temperament, nor the character, to be Commander in Chief.

Don’t believe him when he says he’s for Veterans. It's lip service entirely.

Tell that soldier he's a thief and he's wrong. Tell him that Trump meant something else entirely from what he meant. Tell him it wasn't slimy.

[Kaos]

 

How the fuck are Bloomberg polls "biased in their very nature"? Or every other poll for that matter? Why are only the rare ones that show some sort of momentum or positive for Trump valid, but the exact same pollsters are "biased" when the chips are down? How did this bottomfeeder/Alex Jones type of lunatic conspiracy theory become mainstream?

Polls are, by their very nature, subject to bias.  Depends on how the question was phrased, what the possible answers are, the population that was polled, etc. 

You know how polls work. 

And I don't think I've ever said one poll was better than another, only that there are others that have different conclusions.  I really don't give a shit in a peach basket what any poll says.  They're often wrong.

Also nobody said Alex Jones or anything else was mainstream.  I don't even know who that is.  Or what he wrote.  Again?  Don't care.

Hillary never directly, purposefully, shamelessly insulted the troops in this way. You and others will cling to your death on a tactical error she made (that I acknowledge was bad) and use that to say that is IRREDEEMABLE BECAUSE SHE HATES THE TROOPS and yet Trump can fucking call them all thieves and say they're "living well" off of stolen loot, and that's perfectly fine.

You failed to correctly interpret what was said.  Your rage overwhelmed you.  Nothing more to say.

The poll numbers are FACTS, but you don't like them, so they're meaningless.

Poll numbers are actually a reporting of opinion.  Polls are subject to bias.  ALL polls. And yes, all are essentially meaningless in my opinion.  I hate them for their ability to shape a narrative. 

The video and quotes from Trump are FACTS but you have some excuse lined up that you haven't yet presented to explain how he didn't really say what he very clearly fucking said.

Point of fact.  Don't CARE what he said.  Doesn't matter to me one bit. 

Your INTERPRETATION of what he said, your OPINION of what he said, your reckless EXTRAPOLATION of what he said into some unrelated hysterical rant? Well, that's the point of contention. 

Trump made a pee pee joke! OH NOES!!1!!  He's a fucking MORAN!! If you can support him you're a facist! Your a racist! You watch XENA!! Got DAMN you redneck, blind fucking loyalist!1!!  Why don't you care as hard as I do that he made a dumb joke??? 

That's the problem. Not what he said or didn't say.

How about instead of just hurling insults, you address the fucking issue I'm presenting and EXPLAIN to me how YOU interpreted this very obvious attack on our troops? I'd fucking love to hear your irrational spin on this. What did he mean by "How about bringing baskets of money, millions of millions of dollars and handing it out. I wanna know, who are the soldiers that had that job? Cause I think they're living very well right now whoever they may be."

When I decide to hurl an insult you'll know it.  I'm a little disappointed that you think I have been, especially how creative I consider myself to be.  If I truly wanted to insult you, there would be road rash all over your back. 

"attack on our troops..."

Are you seriously going to claim that there were not those who profited from war?  Who sold arms, who raided the aid shipments and cash flow?  We know this to be true.  It's been established.  Where DID all that money go? 

He wasn't saying by ANY stretch (except yours) that ALL troops did this.   There were clearly some who did.  And that's disgraceful.  He's right about that. 

Here is an account from a US soldier who "had that job".
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/iraq-veteran-responds-to-trumps-baskets-of-money-remarks-in-epic-twitter-rant

Tell that soldier he's a thief and he's wrong. Tell him that Trump meant something else entirely from what he meant. Tell him it wasn't slimy.

Well whoop-de-fuckin-doo.  Maybe this guy didn't.  Others damn sure did.  So he can stow his outrage.  And blow it out his ass.  Most of the military in Vietnam were good, honest, decent soldiers.  And there were some who weren't.  Some who were brutal and unhinged. Some who profited from it.  Same here.  But please, post me a twitter rant from a Vietnam vet about how he didn't burn any villages.  That will show me 

[AUChizad]

Oh, and one more thing.

Ronald Reagan was 10-15 points behind Carter in June.  Who gives a fuck about a poll?  Really?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-about-1980-ronald-reagan-race-a/

So, Carter did lead in seven of the eight polls, by an average of five percentage points.

What about the potential Trump-Clinton contest? Here are the polls released since March 1, 2016, that were publicly released by the time of Trump’s comment, according to realclearpolitics.com:

If you take the average of all these polls, Clinton leads Trump, 50 percent to 39 percent. That’s an 11-point advantage -- more than twice the size of Carter’s lead over Reagan in 1980 at the same point in the campaign.

So Trump’s numbers are not, contrary to his assertion, "better right now than Ronald Reagan's numbers were with Jimmy Carter." They are worse.

That was from two months ago. His numbers have continued to decline since.

Also the ONE AND ONLY poll in 1980, Gallup, was perfect and not at all flawed by your assertion. The fact that we have MULTIPLE of polls in 2016 for the very reason that we can average them to account for potential flaws in individual polls has no bearing.

https://newrepublic.com/article/107171/exploding-the-reagan-1980-comeback-myth

The legend of Reagan’s epic comeback is largely the result of anomalous Gallup polling, which even showed a Carter advantage over the final month of the campaign. But if RealClearPolitics or Pollster.com had existed in 1980, the conventional wisdom would have been a little different. In fact, Reagan held a lead from mid-September onward and had a two or three point lead heading into the debates. Private polling conducted for the Reagan and Carter campaigns showed the same thing. Reagan’s 10 point victory is a precedent for sweeping undecided voters, but it isn’t a model for a come-from-behind victory

Also not a factor that incumbent Carter was steadily declining, while newcomer Reagan was steadily increasing, save for one huge dip for Carter and one huge bump for Reagan around the conventions right before Carter support rallied.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


Compare that with Trump's overall decline and Hillary's overall ascent. Apples and turnips.

Also not a factor that the January/early March polls tested Reagan just before he started winning the primaries whereas Trump has been locked in for a while now. Not a factor that Trump is doing the opposite.

[AUChizad]

If I'm frustrated it's not with you. Where are you perceiving that? Show me a quote that is just pointless insults? Like, are you reading K's posts?

Still waiting on this.