If Trump has thrown this election, he has a strange way of showing it. Campaigning non-stop for a year and a half to adoring crowds and spending tens of millions of dollars on his own campaign, all to throw the election to his good friend Hillary Clinton, who he's going really easy on. I don't buy it for one second.

"Trump has thrown this election"
I've had the same thought all along. I'm not asserting it's true, but it's plausible.

I also think Trump and Sanders appear because gov't spending increased around WWII and never went down to pre-war levels. US got a benefit from winning WWII w/o being bombed on the mainland. Those benefits have been wearing off as WWII recedes father into history. At the same time the gov't spending gives the average citizen the idea that the gov't is responsible for their successes/failures: their healthcare, whether they lose their job, paying for college.

It's become normal to figure it must be someone else's fault if you're struggling. The post WW-II time when you could just get an education, get a decent job, and feel confident that your income/wealth will rise with the tide is an anomaly. People want it back. Politicians like Sanders and Trump appear and promise to do what the people want, offering scapegoats and promises that gov't action can fix people's struggles.

I don't see it. Trump has thrown this election because he intended to throw it on day one (unless he failed to get the nomination, in which case he would have run as an independent to spoil it instead). I just wonder how the Clinton Foundation will pay him off afterward.

Just to clarify: Clinton has more political funds than Trump.
Otherwise you're right. Here in Florida, we got the same Hillary commercial about every half hour.

Exactly. Which is why I voted for trump

But crooked Hillary is going to strengthen the corrupt establishment by increasing government controls and taxation- making it harder for libertarian oriented people to survive

It is morally proper and necessary to vote when there is a difference between the two candidates, one of which is certain to win. That also includes speaking out on behalf of a candidate. But the education beyond that and continuously, not just election season, means philosophical, not just political, which by itself is futile except for short term specific goals known to still be realistic.

Clinton has several times the amount of money that Trump has. A lot of that money goes into the mechanics of getting people to vote by visiting them and physically hauling the ones they want to the polls, getting them registered if necessary. The Democrats have been doing this with computer databases at least since 2000 and were much more effective at it then Romney. Trump doesn't have much of an organization and the Republican establishment isn't helping him.

This isn't about just one poll. Trump is significantly behind in most of them.

Voting is a form of political action. If it's not too early to vote, it's not too early to engage in other political activity, such as campaigning for your preferred candidate. Which is exactly what the Libertarian Party is doing and encouraging its members to do.

Only to get more time before the inevitable crash of socialism if we continue on the current path. Trump could delay that crash somewhat while we have time for education.

I don't get this "too early for political action" idea. If that's the case, why even bother to vote?

Excellent !!!!!!!!!!

Not me. BT

You are probably right, I hang up on telephone pollsters as soon as I realize who they are. I find them annoying.

Goldwater lost big time, Nixon was a terrible president, having taken us off the gold standard and ushered in the era of deficit spending beyond control, and not even Ron Paul or Ross Perot could make any dent. Its just too early for political action. It IS time though for education during the quiet time between elections. I am going to go out on a limb and say that it will take education plus a good economic or wartime crash to get people to be receptive to libertarian ideas.

"Evidently listening to the polls did help you make a decision."
Yes. I usually don't stop to think of how much they influence me. I figured Johnson was pissing in the wind until I saw a poll showing 10%. At that point I started thinking he had a shot if many things broke in his favor. That doesn't appear to be happening. If the polls told me either a) Johnson had a chance and/or b) Trump had no chance, I would certainly vote for Johnson. I'm starting to chicken out. You and freedomfall rightly point out how odd it is to be so affected by public opinion.

I voted for Goldwater too, my first vote ever. Then for Nixon in 1968, then only for LP presidential candidates after that.

Well, you have a point, although I would not have thought Johnson had a chance ever in this culture at this time. Its just too socialist and emotionally driven. I could see, apart from the polls, that the race was between Hillary and Trump and I preferred Trump. I voted for Goldwater years ago (back in the age of the dinosaurs) and Ross Perot not that many years ago too.

I wonder if the reverse psychology is true. I feel that the Trump voters are "The Forgotten Man" and get even more pissed off when they hear :Hillary is leading in the polls. Anger can be a powerful tool when harnessed and used in a constructive manner.

Hidden facts about polls: while the number being polled, and the political demographics are announced, what is not advertised is that in that number are included the "hang ups" who don't respond, and those who don't finish all the questions, so the results could be wildly skewed depending on who responds. Another even more incredible disclosure by a major pollster is that sometimes the pollsters record "inferred" outcomes. What that means is that if a hang-up is listed as a Republican, they may record what they assume the response would have been, rather than a real answer. Even worse, no matter what the person's listed party affiliation, they may record an answer based on where the party resides, as in a Republican who resides in a Democrat-dominated district, and doesn't respond, that may be recorded as a Democrat-supporting response.

There are other shenanigans, such as weighted responses that favor one position or another, or questions skewed to build a response that favors a particular outcome.

Bottom line: keep a degree of skepticism when viewing any poll, for as Gladstone said, "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Evidently listening to the polls did help you make a decision. The polls are saying that Johnson can't win but Trump might. Would you have made the same decision if there were no polls indicating the level of support for each candidate?

I agree that the polls are just propaganda. I dont see how listening to how other are voting is going to help me make a decision at all. I could care less how others vote. I am just voicing my opinion on the country I would like to live in. If the country gets too separated from that, I leave.

I dont listen to the media at all any more. They are useless and dead to me. Even FOX is starting to turn against Trump, joining the rest in supporting the establishment.

It appears that Trump gets many times the people at his rallies than Clinton does. The pollsters claim that doesn't translate into votes. Even though it appears that claim is not logical. Polls can be skewed any way the pollsters want them to come out, which is why there is so much differences between them. It depends on the degree of degree of dishonesty of the pollsters.