Home | About | Donate

Clinton, Trump Neck-and-Neck on Eve of First Presidential Debate


Clinton, Trump Neck-and-Neck on Eve of First Presidential Debate

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

On the eve of the first presidential debate of 2016, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump neck-and-neck.

Though Clinton's numbers top Trump's, her leads are all within the poll's 4.5 percentage point margin of error.




I agree that the 1% polling number is likely a big, fat lie; and, I'd watch the debate if Stein were included. If Stein were included in the debate(s), I think it's a no-brainer that her popularity would increase dramatically, maybe even soar.

But, as it is, I've had the same concern that was voiced by one commenter, John V. Walsh, of the article that I linked to above, who remarked, "First I spent many years working with the Green Party and Jill Stein in MA. I stopped because I reluctantly concluded they were going nowhere. Everything is much too PC, and they are unable to connect with theaverage American voter..."

I'd really like to vote for Stein to get her numbers to 5%; so, she'd automatically qualify for increased funding; but, I'm concerned, if Hillary becomes POTUS, whether we will have another four years to bide our time until the next election. As explained in A Russian Warning, an all-out nuclear war with Russia would likely end with the total annihilation of the U.S.A. in about one hour's time; and, I'm unwilling to take that chance.



Clinton is the one braiding the bear, not Trump. As a matter of fact, her camp has been complaining about Trump's friendly attitude toward Putin. Her insistence on a no-fly zone in Syria, and increased provocations from NATO, make her much more likely to get us into a situation that could escalate into nuclear war.


Nah, America has only one flavor of nutcase. We just change their sex, color or other superficial physical attribute every 4 years. It's always a neocon who prays to the money god.


Stein is 1% because of two reasons:
1) Pollsters are only allowed to call land lines, and a lot of people have cut the cord
2) Many people, particularly liberals and the highly educated, refuse to participate in telephone surveys

I used to do phone surveys for a few months back in the Reagan years, when there was no work to be found anywhere. (Sorry.) Even then most professionals refused to participate, most of the people who agree to sit on the phone for 20 minutes answering questions that only benefit someone else are elderly (many of the calls you could tell that I was the only person they had talked all week), dumb, or stoned. No matter what polling companies actually say their numbers are far from representative of reality.


If HRC had any shame she would be mortified that she can't beat Trump, seemingly the easiest candidate in the world to beat. He was probably picked to run against her so she would win easily but she can't get past the fact that she's as despised as he is.
I couldn't sign my name on either one and sleep at night so my choice is easy.


The hype continues, but TRUMP CAN'T WIN! MSNBC laid out the numbers in August. He can't get the minimum amount of support he needs among Blacks, Hispanics and married white women to have a chance of getting to 270 electoral votes. Clinton will get over 300 electoral votes, and very possibly 400. The media have a vested interest in perpetuating the horse race for ratings and ad revenue. They also support the two-party duopoly and do not want to see another party - like the Greens - rise up to challenge their hegemony. The Greens could get to 5% of the vote this year and become a viable alternative to the Democrats. Look, Hillary is going to win. Period. I'm not happy about that, but that fact means that if you like Jill Stein and the Greens, you will not make Trump President by voting for her - wherever you live. There really are no "swing" states this year. Even if Trump were to win say, Ohio, he can't win the Presidency. So, please vote for the Stein/Baraka ticket, wherever you live, and help make the Green Party an up and coming force to be reckoned with in future elections by getting them to 5% of the national vote total.


Who are the 45% of the people who don't have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump? (besides the David Duke types). Exactly what would it take for these people to have an unfavorable view of this lying con artist? Does he really have to shoot somebody to drive up his unfavorable numbers? Would only a conviction of a violent crime do it? The bar seems to be set so low for Trump it is on the ground. Or maybe more appropriately in the gutter. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren said it best with her poetic statement that Trump has a "dark and ugly soul," Trump is running for an office held by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and a number of other great Americans. To disgrace this office with a man like Trump would seem to be virtually a crime against decency.


Clinton is the most deplorable candidate in party history. But this is what the party machine wanted. The "left" has now become every bit as repressive, regressive and corrupt as the nuts on the right.


But Trump is not just running away with Ohio (which he is.) He's also threatening in Florida, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and quite possible Pennsylvania. The #1 weakness among Democrats is Hubris. If Clinton wins, it will be by a whisker, not even with 300 electoral votes.


Yes; really hard watching the train wreck that is the Clinton campaign. They're running an ad here now (eastern Ohio) about how Clinton is all for children. Well, that's great, but what well-adjusted and sane person isn't? And it is not what is driving this election and what is animating people. Talk about tone deaf.

Bring out the puppies and kittens.

However, I intend to watch the debate tonight. My wife assumed we would not, or perhaps hoped we would not, because I'm sure she believes I'll break something. And there is historical precedent for that.


Establishment Democrats are anything but "left". They have become the new center-right party, while the Republicans have slid off a far-right wing cliff towards being a marginal, regional party that can't win a national election, but can still control state governments and Congress through Gerrymandering. Trump does not have a realistic path to 270 electoral votes, period. Even if he by some miracle wins a couple of the "toss-up" states. Vote for Stein and begin the process of remaking politics in the U. S.


100,000 ups


Who are those 45%? That's easy and I'm a bit surprised you haven't figured it out. The answer lies in understanding that Elizabeth Warren and other presumed liberals aren't saviors but actually the problem. Maybe the Clinton brain trust can figure it out in time to salvage her anemic campaign.


At the bottom of this article is a survey you can fill out and express your opinions to The NYT. I am not sure if the Post has something similar but I just gave them an earful and it is helpful for all to do the same. I basically told them they are no more the hamster litter and a propaganda machine unless they can step up and represent our Democracy and report on good, positive options for our elections, instead of corporate backed lesser of two evils. If they get 100,000 surveys saying they SUCK maybe they will at least cave enough to pretend to represent our voices. Since their job is to report unbiased instead of endorsing a corporate backed monster they need to be told to go to hell.
I am still deciding if our family will watch the debates. My children are much to educated on this subject to bear witness to such a theatrical waste of nonsense, but then again, perhaps it will cement in their individual thinking how absolutely absurd the democratic process has become.


Can a Green supporter conceive of the idea that politics do not only occur every four years? Is it only about fund raising? And whining?


If only all Americans were as smart as this little clique.


Trump is the media's choice and Clinton is the big bank's choice for president. They choose the candidates and then they market their candidate during the campaign. So, Trump gets free advertising via the news media who need ratings and Clinton gets big donations from the investment banks to buy fancy propaganda ...er,...advertising. During all of this time, the drowsy American public wakes up and says, "What? WTF?" ...too late.

Drowzy and dumber than a box o' rocks.


Do you wear your "Make America Great Again" hat around Seattle? If not, why not?