independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 19th Jul 2019 6:01pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > 2020 elections polls (summer 2019)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 3 <123>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 06/24/19 6:21am

poppys

herb4 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I trust these polls more than the ones in June 2015...

This is a common refrain, but the polling for the last election was largely accurate and well within the margain of error. 538 had Clinton at a 71% chance of victory and their popular vote totals were fairly accurate as well.

46.1% to 48.2 ACTUAL (2.1% margain)

44.9% to 48.5& projected (3.6% margain)

So a difference/error of 1.5%

...

https://fivethirtyeight.c...all-right/

...we’ve updated FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings for the first time since the 2016 presidential primaries. Based on how the media portrayed the polls after President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton later that year, you might expect pollsters to get a pretty disastrous report card.

But here’s a stubborn and surprising fact — and one to keep in mind as midterm polls really start rolling in: Over the past two years — meaning in the 2016 general election and then in the various gubernatorial elections and special elections that have taken place in 2017 and 2018 — the accuracy of polls has been pretty much average by historical standards.

You read that right. Polls of the November 2016 presidential election were about as accurate as polls of presidential elections have been on average since 1972.



The media narrative that polling accuracy has taken a nosedive is mostly bullshit, in other words. Polls were never as good as the media assumed they were before 2016 — and they aren’t nearly as bad as the media seems to assume they are now. In reality, not that much has changed.

That’s not to say there aren’t reasons for concern. National polls were pretty good in the 2016 presidential election, but state-level polling was fairly poor (although still within the “normal” range of accuracy). Polls of the 2016 presidential primaries were sometimes way off the mark. And in many recent elections, the polls were statistically biased in one direction or another — there was a statistical bias toward Democrats in 2016, for instance.





This is interesting. The polls were within their margin of error because the election was that damn close.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 06/24/19 10:38am

herb4

avatar

poppys said:

herb4 said:

This is a common refrain, but the polling for the last election was largely accurate and well within the margain of error. 538 had Clinton at a 71% chance of victory and their popular vote totals were fairly accurate as well.

46.1% to 48.2 ACTUAL (2.1% margain)

44.9% to 48.5& projected (3.6% margain)

So a difference/error of 1.5%

...

https://fivethirtyeight.c...all-right/

...we’ve updated FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings for the first time since the 2016 presidential primaries. Based on how the media portrayed the polls after President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton later that year, you might expect pollsters to get a pretty disastrous report card.

But here’s a stubborn and surprising fact — and one to keep in mind as midterm polls really start rolling in: Over the past two years — meaning in the 2016 general election and then in the various gubernatorial elections and special elections that have taken place in 2017 and 2018 — the accuracy of polls has been pretty much average by historical standards.

You read that right. Polls of the November 2016 presidential election were about as accurate as polls of presidential elections have been on average since 1972.



The media narrative that polling accuracy has taken a nosedive is mostly bullshit, in other words. Polls were never as good as the media assumed they were before 2016 — and they aren’t nearly as bad as the media seems to assume they are now. In reality, not that much has changed.

That’s not to say there aren’t reasons for concern. National polls were pretty good in the 2016 presidential election, but state-level polling was fairly poor (although still within the “normal” range of accuracy). Polls of the 2016 presidential primaries were sometimes way off the mark. And in many recent elections, the polls were statistically biased in one direction or another — there was a statistical bias toward Democrats in 2016, for instance.





This is interesting. The polls were within their margin of error because the election was that damn close.


Right, and dems stayed home because Hillary was a shit candidate.

The point of it is, though, the right wing media sphere is framing the results as "ALLPOLLS LIE! FAKE NEWS" as if someone projecting a 29% chance of victory that actually winds up happening is some sort of miracle from on high.

In short, they don't know how percentages work - or they DO and they're being deliberately disingenuous. They don't know how a LOT of things work but winning on a 3 in 10 chance is hardly enough to discount polling science.

Take 10 playing cards and make three of them aces. Draw one at random.

If you got an ace the first time out, congratulations. You won the election. But it doesn't change the meaning of "3 in 10 odds".

A lot of (really stupid) people seem to be arguing that because a 3 in 10 outcome hit, that polling is stupid doo-doo head fake news. These people probably play scratch off tickets.

[Edited 6/24/19 10:38am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 06/24/19 11:44am

RodeoSchro

avatar

herb4 said:

poppys said:


This is interesting. The polls were within their margin of error because the election was that damn close.


Right, and dems stayed home because Hillary was a shit candidate.

The point of it is, though, the right wing media sphere is framing the results as "ALLPOLLS LIE! FAKE NEWS" as if someone projecting a 29% chance of victory that actually winds up happening is some sort of miracle from on high.

In short, they don't know how percentages work - or they DO and they're being deliberately disingenuous. They don't know how a LOT of things work but winning on a 3 in 10 chance is hardly enough to discount polling science.

Take 10 playing cards and make three of them aces. Draw one at random.

If you got an ace the first time out, congratulations. You won the election. But it doesn't change the meaning of "3 in 10 odds".

A lot of (really stupid) people seem to be arguing that because a 3 in 10 outcome hit, that polling is stupid doo-doo head fake news. These people probably play scratch off tickets.

[Edited 6/24/19 10:38am]




Which means those fat, disgusting, lazy, idiotic, moronic, brain-dead, America-hating, Justin-Beiber-loving, church-belching CRETINS thought unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton?!?

What dumbasses.

ANYONE who had a rationale that went, "I'm a Democrat but Hillary didn't kiss my ass enough! I wanted Bernie!!!!! I'll show everyone - I just won't vote! That'll show 'em!1!!11!!!" is a jackass.

THOSE FOOLS ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 06/24/19 2:30pm

poppys

herb4 said:

poppys said:


This is interesting. The polls were within their margin of error because the election was that damn close.


Right, and dems stayed home because Hillary was a shit candidate.

The point of it is, though, the right wing media sphere is framing the results as "ALLPOLLS LIE! FAKE NEWS" as if someone projecting a 29% chance of victory that actually winds up happening is some sort of miracle from on high.

In short, they don't know how percentages work - or they DO and they're being deliberately disingenuous. They don't know how a LOT of things work but winning on a 3 in 10 chance is hardly enough to discount polling science.

Take 10 playing cards and make three of them aces. Draw one at random.

If you got an ace the first time out, congratulations. You won the election. But it doesn't change the meaning of "3 in 10 odds".

A lot of (really stupid) people seem to be arguing that because a 3 in 10 outcome hit, that polling is stupid doo-doo head fake news. These people probably play scratch off tickets.


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 06/24/19 2:47pm

herb4

avatar

Oh, no doubt. I voted for Hillary. But, plain and simple though, if dems had turned out in equal numbers then they had for Obama, she wins. Trump had Romney levels of turnout.

I sometimes wonder how much howling there'd be on AM radio and FOX News if 2 of the last 3 elected democratic presidents had lost the polular vote but won the electoral college. As was the case with Trump and GWB.

I bet it would be loud.

Running Biden this time is not very inspiring to me. I grew up in Delaware so I know him well. He's a centrist, third rail, out of touch establishment candidate who has been too cozy with the banks, voted for both Iraq wars and supported our idiotic "war on drugs" nonsense and, most importantly, lacks conviction. 30 years ago, he'd be considered a republican but, given what we all can see the GOP has become now and the subsequent shifting of the Overton Window, he'll probably be labled as a radical leftist or some shit.

I'll still crawl across broken glass to vote for him in 2020 if it comes to that but the democratic party better get its collective head out of its ass and start listening to the progressive wing of the party where the real solutions lie. The shit they pulled on Bernie Sanders was shameful.

They can't keep complaining about low youth turnout and a lack of enthusiasm when all they offer is more bullshit about "compromise" and "working accross the aisle" while anyone payng attention can see that republicans not only have no desire to do that, but are actively talking about theocracy and banning abortion as we speak. Fuck that. Obama tried it repeatedly (being Mr. Reasonable) and his presidency suffered for it, disappointing a lot of voters in the process.

He scared Republicans so much that they wouldn't even vote for their own legislation when he proposed it.

You can't reason with these people and the vast majority of the population supports progressive policies. Fucking run on that.

Please

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 06/24/19 3:29pm

PennyPurple

avatar

poppys said:


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?

I'm beginning to believe that the idiots out number the intelligent people. wink And that is why I'm worried he'll get back in. sad

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 06/24/19 3:49pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

poppys said:

herb4 said:


Right, and dems stayed home because Hillary was a shit candidate.

The point of it is, though, the right wing media sphere is framing the results as "ALLPOLLS LIE! FAKE NEWS" as if someone projecting a 29% chance of victory that actually winds up happening is some sort of miracle from on high.

In short, they don't know how percentages work - or they DO and they're being deliberately disingenuous. They don't know how a LOT of things work but winning on a 3 in 10 chance is hardly enough to discount polling science.

Take 10 playing cards and make three of them aces. Draw one at random.

If you got an ace the first time out, congratulations. You won the election. But it doesn't change the meaning of "3 in 10 odds".

A lot of (really stupid) people seem to be arguing that because a 3 in 10 outcome hit, that polling is stupid doo-doo head fake news. These people probably play scratch off tickets.


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?




1. "Strong" economy (even if the "strength" isn't felt by most); and
2. Assuming we'll be in a war, and "War Presidents" are always re-elected.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 06/24/19 3:55pm

poppys

RodeoSchro said:

poppys said:


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?




1. "Strong" economy (even if the "strength" isn't felt by most); and
2. Assuming we'll be in a war, and "War Presidents" are always re-elected.


I'm getting something else from the posts upthread. He has psyched people out. They discount how he got elected the first time and are going for 100% doom & gloom. Maybe it's just easier than fighting the asshole, IDK.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 06/24/19 4:32pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

PennyPurple said:

poppys said:


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?

I'm beginning to believe that the idiots out number the intelligent people. wink And that is why I'm worried he'll get back in. sad



Canvassing has to be done to get those people back to the polls in 2020 - he did not win by that much (the Electoral count is not the sme as actual indidivudal votes - in those 3 states it was close)

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 06/24/19 4:33pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

poppys said:

herb4 said:


Right, and dems stayed home because Hillary was a shit candidate.

The point of it is, though, the right wing media sphere is framing the results as "ALLPOLLS LIE! FAKE NEWS" as if someone projecting a 29% chance of victory that actually winds up happening is some sort of miracle from on high.

In short, they don't know how percentages work - or they DO and they're being deliberately disingenuous. They don't know how a LOT of things work but winning on a 3 in 10 chance is hardly enough to discount polling science.

Take 10 playing cards and make three of them aces. Draw one at random.

If you got an ace the first time out, congratulations. You won the election. But it doesn't change the meaning of "3 in 10 odds".

A lot of (really stupid) people seem to be arguing that because a 3 in 10 outcome hit, that polling is stupid doo-doo head fake news. These people probably play scratch off tickets.


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?

yeahthat

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 06/24/19 5:47pm

PennyPurple

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

PennyPurple said:

I'm beginning to believe that the idiots out number the intelligent people. wink And that is why I'm worried he'll get back in. sad



Canvassing has to be done to get those people back to the polls in 2020 - he did not win by that much (the Electoral count is not the sme as actual indidivudal votes - in those 3 states it was close)

We've got to get him out of office with no returns. biggrin

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 06/24/19 11:02pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

PennyPurple said:



DiminutiveRocker said:




PennyPurple said:



I'm beginning to believe that the idiots out number the intelligent people. wink And that is why I'm worried he'll get back in. sad





Canvassing has to be done to get those people back to the polls in 2020 - he did not win by that much (the Electoral count is not the sme as actual indidivudal votes - in those 3 states it was close)







We've got to get him out of office with no returns. biggrin



:highfive:
"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 06/25/19 6:31am

Musicslave

RodeoSchro said:

poppys said:


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?




1. "Strong" economy (even if the "strength" isn't felt by most); and
2. Assuming we'll be in a war, and "War Presidents" are always re-elected.

-

Traditionally speaking you are correct. Those two factors would be almost a guarantee for re-election in any other time. However, due to his incoherent, ad hoc foreign policy so far, I can see America blaming him for INSTIGATING us into another war and wanting to force his hands off the wheel of our country by voting him out.

-

These are not usual or typical times my friend.

-

For the record: I don't think trump has the balls for war. His entire life have been based on cowardice and convenience due to his privileged life. He has no understanding or appreciation for history or sound counsel.

-

If he does strike anyone in the world it would soley be for political purpose. Nothing more. America first is a joke. It's always trump first.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 06/25/19 6:38am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Musicslave said:

RodeoSchro said:




1. "Strong" economy (even if the "strength" isn't felt by most); and
2. Assuming we'll be in a war, and "War Presidents" are always re-elected.

-

Traditionally speaking you are correct. Those two factors would be almost a guarantee for re-election in any other time. However, due to his incoherent, ad hoc foreign policy so far, I can see America blaming him for INSTIGATING us into another war and wanting to force his hands off the wheel of our country by voting him out.

-

These are not usual or typical times my friend.

-

For the record: I don't think trump has the balls for war. His entire life have been based on cowardice and convenience due to his privileged life. He has no understanding or appreciation for history or sound counsel.

-

If he does strike anyone in the world it would soley be for political purpose. Nothing more. America first is a joke. It's always trump first.

Agreed. For any other election in the past, I think the economy and being "in" a war are typically sound reasons - but the times are most unusual and so unpredictable now.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 06/25/19 6:43am

Musicslave

DiminutiveRocker said:

Musicslave said:

-

Traditionally speaking you are correct. Those two factors would be almost a guarantee for re-election in any other time. However, due to his incoherent, ad hoc foreign policy so far, I can see America blaming him for INSTIGATING us into another war and wanting to force his hands off the wheel of our country by voting him out.

-

These are not usual or typical times my friend.

-

For the record: I don't think trump has the balls for war. His entire life have been based on cowardice and convenience due to his privileged life. He has no understanding or appreciation for history or sound counsel.

-

If he does strike anyone in the world it would soley be for political purpose. Nothing more. America first is a joke. It's always trump first.

Agreed. For any other election in the past, I think the economy and being "in" a war are typically sound reasons - but the times are most unusual and so unpredictable now.

-

Depending on the circumstances, I think the American people would punish him for getting us involved in ANOTHER war. Especially if it's something that could have been avoided.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 06/25/19 6:43am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Californians feel the economic improvements. No denying that here.

We do worry, and every bump or hiccup is scary.
Whenever I go out, all the restaurants are super busy and grocery stores and roads are very busy. It’s a stark difference to a decade ago.

though there are differences as some types of businesses, brick and mortar, are gone not to return any time soon due to online shopping.

Persistent Turd is the shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 06/25/19 6:48am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Californians feel the economic improvements. No denying that here.

We do worry, and every bump or hiccup is scary.
Whenever I go out, all the restaurants are super busy and grocery stores and roads are very busy. It’s a stark difference to a decade ago.

though there are differences as some types of businesses, brick and mortar, are gone not to return any time soon due to online shopping.


Seriously? I have never seen restaurants or roads looking "stark" and I have lived in Cali all my life. Are you talking about Central Cali? Agricultureal territories?

I do not see a marked "improvement" in Cali and I live in a city where homelessness is everywhere. Remember Cali was hit hard with those Trump taxes (as was NY) people are pissed about that.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 06/25/19 6:58am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Californians feel the economic improvements. No denying that here.

We do worry, and every bump or hiccup is scary.
Whenever I go out, all the restaurants are super busy and grocery stores and roads are very busy. It’s a stark difference to a decade ago.

though there are differences as some types of businesses, brick and mortar, are gone not to return any time soon due to online shopping.


Seriously? I have never seen restaurants or roads looking "stark" and I have lived in Cali all my life. Are you talking about Central Cali? Agricultureal territories?

I do not see a marked "improvement" in Cali and I live in a city where homelessness is everywhere. Remember Cali was hit hard with those Trump taxes (as was NY) people are pissed about that.


I live in Southern California and a decade ago downtowns and shopfronts in most cities were a lot more vacant than today. Sure, government/city/county/medical/buildings/workers were mostly spared and I did see those workers flourish and scoop up deals. But the strictly private workplace did see a stark slowdown and this is all well documented. Especially anyone or anywhere that was associated with the housing bust as I was.

there is no discussion.

[Edited 6/25/19 7:05am]

Persistent Turd is the shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 06/25/19 6:59am

poppys

PennyPurple said:

poppys said:


Maybe a shit candidate, but not as shitty as the one we got. She did win the popular by 3 million, and lots of her votes were purged. For all the troll farm help Trump had, he only won by 77,744 votes, tipping the winner take all Electoral College system.

What suprises me is that people on this thread are convinced he will win again 17 months out, like it's already fated. What about Trump makes intelligent people give up, just because he squeaked by once?


I'm beginning to believe that the idiots out number the intelligent people. wink And that is why I'm worried he'll get back in. sad


That's what I'm wondering. What makes you begin to believe that? Is it psycho fatigue? Because he really doesn't have the numbers, although Trumpers are loud. We've got people saying he's going to be re-elected on this thread, with no real back up as to why.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 06/25/19 7:02am

poppys

Musicslave said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

Agreed. For any other election in the past, I think the economy and being "in" a war are typically sound reasons - but the times are most unusual and so unpredictable now.

-

Depending on the circumstances, I think the American people would punish him for getting us involved in ANOTHER war. Especially if it's something that could have been avoided.

nod I would feel that way.

Guess it depends on how powerful Bolton really is. Attacking Iran is a lifelong wet dream for him.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 06/25/19 1:26pm

Musicslave

poppys said:

Musicslave said:

-

Depending on the circumstances, I think the American people would punish him for getting us involved in ANOTHER war. Especially if it's something that could have been avoided.

nod I would feel that way.

Guess it depends on how powerful Bolton really is. Attacking Iran is a lifelong wet dream for him.

-

Surely nations around the world will eventually call his bluff.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 06/25/19 3:07pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Musicslave said:

poppys said:

nod I would feel that way.

Guess it depends on how powerful Bolton really is. Attacking Iran is a lifelong wet dream for him.

-

Surely nations around the world will eventually call his bluff.

One can only hope neutral

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 06/26/19 7:41am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Musicslave said:

poppys said:

nod I would feel that way.

Guess it depends on how powerful Bolton really is. Attacking Iran is a lifelong wet dream for him.

-

Surely nations around the world will eventually call his bluff.



Bolton is NOT bluffing. Unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump rarely speaks the truth but when he said that if Bolton had his way, we'd be at war with everybody? That is 100% accurate.

Know this about radical right-wing Republicans like John Bolton and unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump - when it comes to disclosing their plans, they don't bullshit. They will tell you EXACTLY what they plan to do.

It's a strategy built around the concept of "Why are you mad? We TOLD you we were going to do this? Did you not believe us?" And it works.

If these guys say they're going to do something, they will do it - unless they're stopped by outside forces.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 06/26/19 7:58am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

2elijah said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:
I am going to predict right now that there is no way he can win. That he has no chance in hell. I am more confident than ever on this. The reason is simple. The last time around he had NOTHING that people could judge him on as a candidate. No political record. He could talk shit all he wanted. Today? We know he’s a piece of shit. There are fervent sewer rats and elderly fools that support him, But the fact is his approval rating has never polled higher than 48%. right now it’s at 43% He has he lowest approval rating(even with an inherited positive economy) than any president in modern history. Even on a bipartisan level, he is one of the most disliked presidents in modern history. And we will all be reminded ad nauseam of all the despicable things he has said and done over the past few years. Sure, like I said there are sewer rats that like that sort of shit, but as we have seen, it’s a minority. A mostly old, uneducated loud minority that is manufactured and has the full promotion of Fox “news”, but still a minority voice. No chance in hell. [Edited 6/19/19 9:57am]
You’re right that he had no political record (or ever held an elected official position) prior to running as a candidate. Only people (mostly New Yorkers) who were aware of his reputation as a bragger with a big ego, a racist/and making racist comments about many people of color, his degrading insults towards many women, and his attitude/actions toward the Central Park Five, had some incite of him. When he ran for president, he presented himself as ‘charismatic’ to many of his supporters, especially to white nationalists m, in which he spoke their language, so-to-speak; many middle-class Whites/White women, and Whites in rural America who felt forgotten. The latter being the ones that Hillary said Obama couldn’t win, but she could. He already knew he had the support of many republicans/conservative base. Trump has a lot of ‘young’ fools that will vote for him as well. Let’s not forget many of the students that marched the night before the Charlottesville protest, were many of his supporters. It’s sad that anyone would support someone of his character as president, but unfortunately some did/do. I think a lot of undecided voters who gave their vote to trump instead of Hillary the last time, won’t do it again. However, I do think some of the Democratic candidates currently running, have a good chance of beating him this time. I look at it this way, even if trump somehow pulls it off for a second term, (because America has a reputation for re-electing the same president for a second term) this would be his last term, and America will not have to deal with him as president ever again. [Edited 6/24/19 4:14am]



Yep, Yep - agree. I am hoping for a GH Bush or Jimmy Carter one-term replay - it's totally possible.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 06/26/19 3:38pm

PennyPurple

avatar

poppys said:

PennyPurple said:


I'm beginning to believe that the idiots out number the intelligent people. wink And that is why I'm worried he'll get back in. sad


That's what I'm wondering. What makes you begin to believe that? Is it psycho fatigue? Because he really doesn't have the numbers, although Trumpers are loud. We've got people saying he's going to be re-elected on this thread, with no real back up as to why.

Because people have short memories.

Remember the:..... Shutdown, Sexual assault charges, not releasing his taxes, calling people names, the immigrants, calling McCain names, insults to Gold Star families, Banning Acosta from the WH..etc, etc.


And people who voted for him are cheering him on, he has a following who believe anything he says, no matter how many times he's fact checked, they cheer him on. I see it every day on social media.


Also I'm worried that the Dems don't have their shit together and will nominate someone that none of us really want.


I'm voting all Dem no matter who they put up there, I just hope it is a candidate to move us forward and out of this mess that Trump has put us in.



 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 06/27/19 5:04am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

PennyPurple said:

poppys said:


That's what I'm wondering. What makes you begin to believe that? Is it psycho fatigue? Because he really doesn't have the numbers, although Trumpers are loud. We've got people saying he's going to be re-elected on this thread, with no real back up as to why.

Because people have short memories.

Remember the:..... Shutdown, Sexual assault charges, not releasing his taxes, calling people names, the immigrants, calling McCain names, insults to Gold Star families, Banning Acosta from the WH..etc, etc.


And people who voted for him are cheering him on, he has a following who believe anything he says, no matter how many times he's fact checked, they cheer him on. I see it every day on social media.


Also I'm worried that the Dems don't have their shit together and will nominate someone that none of us really want.


I'm voting all Dem no matter who they put up there, I just hope it is a candidate to move us forward and out of this mess that Trump has put us in.




Some of the 20 will rise to the top and as the year goes on a swell of support will follow. Then Agent Orange will double down on his name calling and still talk about Hillary's emails and the same old topics only now he has an actual shitty political record to defend. Did people get better health care? Was a wall built and paid for by Mexico? Is the common worker doing that much better
financially?

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 07/04/19 11:39am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

As of July 4th

1. Biden

2. Sanders

3. Harris

4. Warren

5. Mayor Pete.

Biggest changes are Biden has gone down some 20%.

Warren is also down.

Harris saw a bump after the debate. And Mayor Pete is steady but bubbling up.

i expect Warren to continue to go down in the polls and Mayor Pete overtake her by the end of the month, but these 5 are the among the best ones to really look at, along with Booker and Beto.

The rest are just distractions that need to go away as soon as possible.

Persistent Turd is the shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 07/06/19 6:02am

PennyPurple

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

As of July 4th

1. Biden

2. Sanders

3. Harris

4. Warren

5. Mayor Pete.

Biggest changes are Biden has gone down some 20%.

Warren is also down.

Harris saw a bump after the debate. And Mayor Pete is steady but bubbling up.

i expect Warren to continue to go down in the polls and Mayor Pete overtake her by the end of the month, but these 5 are the among the best ones to really look at, along with Booker and Beto.

The rest are just distractions that need to go away as soon as possible.

You don't think Castro has a chance?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 07/06/19 7:02am

poppys

PennyPurple said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

As of July 4th

1. Biden

2. Sanders

3. Harris

4. Warren

5. Mayor Pete.

Biggest changes are Biden has gone down some 20%.

Warren is also down.

Harris saw a bump after the debate. And Mayor Pete is steady but bubbling up.

i expect Warren to continue to go down in the polls and Mayor Pete overtake her by the end of the month, but these 5 are the among the best ones to really look at, along with Booker and Beto.

The rest are just distractions that need to go away as soon as possible.


You don't think Castro has a chance?


They think what ever Twitter and Cable TV news (including Fox) tells them to think. Then they come here and post it. YAWN. Notice how there is never a real discussion of what the candidates actually say or have to offer. Just so & so is in - or out. Every post/thread is the same.

The biggest use of vocabulary in every thread title and post is some form of the word shit. Notice their new sig - Turd is the shit - that means they like him.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 07/06/19 8:50am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

PennyPurple said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

As of July 4th

1. Biden

2. Sanders

3. Harris

4. Warren

5. Mayor Pete.

Biggest changes are Biden has gone down some 20%.

Warren is also down.

Harris saw a bump after the debate. And Mayor Pete is steady but bubbling up.

i expect Warren to continue to go down in the polls and Mayor Pete overtake her by the end of the month, but these 5 are the among the best ones to really look at, along with Booker and Beto.

The rest are just distractions that need to go away as soon as possible.

You don't think Castro has a chance?

Nope

Persistent Turd is the shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 3 <123>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > 2020 elections polls (summer 2019)