Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Crazed laughter in the audience.

I don't think anyone has ever accused Coulter of being stupid. Annoying, attention whoring and just plain wrong-headed, but not stupid.

A thousand monkeys on a typewriter ...

To be fair, Maher didn't ask which candidate would be the nominee, but which would have the best chance in the general election.

And that's not Trump (at least, not if the polls are to be believed). Right now, it looks like he's going to lose and lose badly, possibly taking down a large part of the republican power base in the process.

Also, I must check myself for signs of evil, because something Coulter said made sense ("Bernie would be a better candidate").

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

For me it's not so much the substance of what she says, it's the incredulous derisive reaction. We're all short-sighted idiots, me included.

I don't think anyone who ever thought it was (IS) ridiculous that a reality TV clown like Trump would be the nominee for president is an idiot.

The reality is in the general election Trump really is an awful candidate. Within the GOP his bigoted, misogynistic, USA cheer-leading really touched a nerve with the exact group you'd expect it too.

I think the sad surprise is that there are so many more of them in the GOP then we realized.

I'm not sure which polls you mean. Many I've seen have had Trump and Clinton statistically tied at best, and Trump winning in some. True enough, polls have been TERRIBLE at prediction this election cycle, bad enough that by international standards, we are up to 16 times the standard allowable deviation (the difference between exit polls and results should never be >2%), which in any other country would 'prove' election fraud (both by U.S. standards and by U.N. standards), but for some reason we are completely ignoring those long standing standards in the US in this election and certifying the results anyway?!?
Now IF Bernie wins the nomination, you'll be right.

I admit I haven't put a lot of time into it, but a quick google shows Clinton winning pretty comfortably in almost every poll.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

OK....I don't have much faith in the HuffPo to be unbiased...so I checked the other link, and the second poll they list has Trump winning by 2%. Scrolling down, a number of polls have Trump winning, and a significantly larger number have them statistically tied when you count the margin of error....but the numbers are not what I thought, which was a purely statistical tie between Trump and Clinton, slightly in favor of Trump (or at least so it seems, the margin of error is missing from the averaged data for no reason, making the stat shown completely meaningless mathematically).

The best stat I noticed was the 'newest polls' on the side, where in New Hampshire, Trump VS Clinton has Clinton win by 5% (notably with the margin of error not listed)...but Trump VS Sanders has Sanders win by 21%....but still the (clearly false) claim that 'Clinton is the best candidate to beat Trump' is repeated ad-nauseam by her supporters and the media.

The saddest part was I also noticed only 2 of all those polls had >1500 people polled, most were about 1000 people, but they claim their margin of error is only 3%?!? Statistics class was a while back, but that doesn't seem right when they are meant to represent full states or even the entire country based on 1000 people's answers.

The HuffPo link is pretty much just the same list of polls on the real clear politics site.

And there 6 polls out of 68 that show Trump winning, and 3 of those are within the margin of error.

If we removed the polls where the result is within the MoE, Clinton wins 48 out of 51 polls.

here's the spreadsheet I copied the data into
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w54ueevd5y658ld/polls.xlsx?dl=0

Evil, you forgot evil.

Wow nailed it...it was such a chuckle at first.
I remember someone trying to bet trump would never make it and no one would bet against him because well...we elected W.

How is Rubio better than Obama, who got the job and owned the job. I am so sick of picking on Barack Obama, the man worked hard to erase the W past.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*promote. Still going through stages of grief.

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, May 8th, 2016 3:35am PDT - promote requested by original submitter dag.

It's crazy, she got two things right. Trump & that Bernie Sanders would have been the better candidate to go against him. I'll always despise her no matter what, though.