Wait, is this even close to correct? I'll look it up when I get a chance but this sounds wrong.

It's wrong unless aoFrantic wants to assert that Pew Research is wrong:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...der-education/

It's a hypothetical Mori. Trump did 3% worse with African Americans than Bush. He did slightly better than Romney, but Obama was a much better candidate for AA votes than Clinton, clearly. Dole got better than Trump ffs. I know you're both bad at reading, but "Donald Trump did worse than the average Republican would" is not a claim either of us could empirically back up, either way. The closest we can get is show that he did worse, and his disapproval is worse than similar candidates in the past.

I don't even know what Mori is asserting with the pew totals. Donald Trump got a lower % of the AA vote than Dole or either Bush. He did slightly better than the people who ran against Obama, but that has an obvious problem. Put Pence, Rubio or whomever in there and they would have gotten 10-12% as Dole, Bush etcetc did rather than the 8% Trump got.

Reverted? The Iraqi refugee example is the only thing I have been talking about in this thread. Rather than admit your argument about Trump's vs. Obama's responsibility for the travel ban was weakened any amount by it turning out to be false, you've just doubled down on everything else and claimed it changes nothing. That's some clown ****, dude, and speaks to both your own failures in "researching" things as well as your general level of dishonesty when arguing here.

I don't think I'm different, but given that I didn't wager any money on the election I'm not sure what "mistakes" you're referring to. I have no vested interest in predicting election outcomes.

I think several of the regs in the Trump thread are genuine fans of Trump who are happy he was elected for reasons other than whatever bets they placed.

They cite Breitbart, Fox News (I cite them from time to time to put news in a language the Trumpkins can understand but they've hardly given up, or are even leaning negatively on him, yet), I think I've seen right-leaning outlets like the Washington Times in there too, and of course a nice assortment of wacko right-wing blogs from the people that have zero self-awareness of what they're posting.

The George Wallace comparison seems inappropriate; he won a handful of states as an independent, which is a pretty strong showing for someone running outside the two-party system. Who's to say Trump wouldn't have had a similar result if he ran as an independent, or if Wallace wouldn't have had a similar result to 2016 Trump if he had a better environment to run in as a major party candidate? You seem to be operating under the assumption that Trump can't have run a racist or bigoted campaign because 40% of America would never support such a thing, seems a little flawed.

As to the question of "is Trump that negative" - that's a fairly ambiguous question, I'm not sure what you mean.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...ps-voted-1976/

Plugging an election year into the URL for every election after and including '76 (which is the start of their data), I can't find one where the Republican failed to outperform Trump's 8% with black people until you get to '08/'12 which had the obvious factor of a black candidate being the opponent.

Because Fox wasn't openly and intentionally trying to mislead the public to further their agenda

Thread title is similar to the Dear Congressman, What If Tomorrow There Is No Oil?

Too bad that's not what the other thread actually said. But don't let that stop you from re-writing forum history. It's what you do.

Fixed the thread title.

Cheerleaders belong on the football field, not at the news desk.

Fox has been crying out wiretaps while cnn is calling bull**** for the last 24 hours. And people wonder why people tune out and opt for Joe in his moms basement blog for their info which makes things much worse.

False equivalency much?

BTW, are you a mod here now?