muricans, does Trump really have a chance or are you guys

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

>>66181034
he's gonna get blown the fuck out. it's actually possible that he only wins like 3-4 states.

but it doesn't matter. because the republicans will retain their control of congress and will veto everything Hillary proposes.

>>66181089
>Nate Bronze

>>66181089
haha so it looks like pol is wrong yet again

>>66181034
sure why not, nobody thought we'd leave the eu either

admittedly the polls were much closer and it was a straight ref not fptp fuckery

>>66181034
Not Murican but "no".

> Historic: No newspaper recommends voting for Donald Trump

> The counter on the website of the „Mother Jones“ magazine is at zero. Exactly that many newspapers have spoken in favor of the Republican on their opinion sites. A novelty in the history of presidential campaigns, during which expressing a preference belongs to the tradition of most publishers.

> The home newspaper of George W. Bush in Texas, „Dalls Morning News“, advises its conservative readership for the first time since 1940 not to vote for the Republican candidate and vote for Hillary Clinton instead. „We haven't made it easy for us with this decision“, writes the paper and reminds that they „supported a Democrat the last time before World War II“.

Translated from:
http://www.shz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/historisch-keine-zeitung-empfiehlt-donald-trump-zu-waehlen-id15068421.html

File: National Enquirer.png (48KB, 225x306px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 225x306px

>>66181340
In all fairness the National Enquirer does support Trump

>>66181340
>citing mother jones and other kike papers
This is why everyone hates Jewmany.

>>66181340
>mother jones


ahahahahahahaha

>>66182085
There's no reputable journalistic publication backing Trump, prove me wrong

>>66182130
this

>>66182130
One could argue that there are no reputable journalistic publications left in America

>>66182130
>media bought by clinton
>not supporting clinton
not fucking destroying you guys when we had the chance was a massive mistake

>>66182226
Only if one were a conspiracy theorist distrustful of the mainstream media, when you have newspapers who have endorsed every single Republican candidate since Lincoln endorsing Hillary it's not implausible to question the candidate rather than the media.

>>66182321
Except that was never an option and you know it edgelord.

>>66182328
>liberal Jew-owned media (yes even the so called "conservative ones")
>w-why d-don't they support the d-Donald though?
Mexican intellectuals everyone.

>>66182388
>da joos
not an argument

File: treefallsinforest[1].jpg (120KB, 700x522px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 700x522px

>>66182328
>Only if one were a conspiracy theorist distrustful of the mainstream media

If wikileaks emails show that officials in the mainstream media are in collusion with the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media doesn't report it, then did it really even happen?

http://observer.com/2016/10/rigged-debates-wikileaks-emails-confirm-media-in-clintons-pocket/

>>66181034
i think he doesn't have a chance, but the way things work here it doesn't matter really.

>>66182420
>a leafpost
definitely not an argument

>>66182446
Except you're making wide ranging accusations which are not fully warranted on those emails which have yet to be vetted as authentic and not planted information, dude your mind is already made up, let's not play this charade.

If you want to get your news from Breitbart go ahead, just bear in mind you're not doing so based on any real understanding of what serious journalism entails.

>>66182388
I can't wait for Mexican armed forces to enter US territory as part of the NWO UN coalition that will come to take away your guns, after all you can't have US citizens acting as trigger happy as your police with blacks. Enjoy losing the race war before it was even started, I hope they plant cp inside your copy of the Tuner Diaries.

>>66182226
Occam's razor and common sense would say you'd be wrong.