Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He pays something I assume.
Oh my....LOLHe pays something I assume.
I think anyone can tell, from his writings, from the attitude that he expresses on almost every subject, that he's a taker—someone who, ultimately, costs much more to our economy than he contributes.
If your contribution to society was thrice his, then mathematically, that would make you three times the worthless, burdensome parasite.
If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
Yes, California, with their new open primary rules, worked out very well for Hillary.
The rest of the country......less well.
One more way for a party in enough power to amplify its power and shut out the opposition.
I was started, a few election cycles ago, when it came to casting a vote for a new Senator to succeed Barbara Boxer, to see that instead of having a choice between a Democrap and a Republican, to have two Democraps, each of them even more corrupt than Senator Boxer. That's where we got Kamala Harris. The other choice was Loretta Sanchez, a Congresscriminal who won the seat that she currently infests, a couple decades ago, by explicitly courting the votes of illegal aliens. She defeated the incumbent, Bob Dornan, by fewer than a thousand votes. A subsequent investigation solidly proved that there were at least seven or eight hundred votes cast in that election by illegal aliens, and there was evidence suggesting that the actual number may have been as much as four or five thousand.
The Democraps in power created the open-primary system in California, and have crafted and manipulated it in such a way as to pretty much guarantee that Republican candidates will not make it to the main election.
AgreeAll polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
Thank you. Finally we agree.AgreeAll polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it
Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes. Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
That leaves us with the following states in play - WI, MI, PA, NC, AZ, FL, TX, IA, OH, and GA. We can also put in there ME2 and NE2
So I will break them down into three groups.
The Ones Hillary Should have Won- WI, MI, PA - Because she didn't devote resources, because Comey sandbagged her, or because of Russian Shennanigans, Hillary lost these states. So how is Biden doing there.
Well, he's leading in all three.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Bidenwww.realclearpolitics.com
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Michigan: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Michigan: Trump vs. Biden
This is before the full effect of Trump's Recession are hit, and Biden's still ahead. When these folks realize that not only won't they get Daddy's factory job back, they probably won't get to keep that service job they have, it WILL be worse.
Those three will put him over 278, game over, man, game over.
But wait, there's more!
Next up we have the three Hillary tried really hard for - NC, AZ and FL
Biden is competitive in those, and has a firm lead in Arizona.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Florida: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Florida: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Arizona: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Arizona: Trump vs. Biden
If he wins those three, he will be up to 333, actually better than Obama did in 2008. Let's throw in Maine2 into that mix, and go with 334.
Then you have the Swinging for the Fences states. These are states the Democrats could potentially win. = IA, OH, TX and GA. Not as much polling data on these from RCP. But what little there is shows Biden could be competitive. Probably a lot more after the bottom completely falls out of the economy. That would bring him up to 413
he's withing 3 points in Texas
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Texas: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Texas: Trump vs. Biden
5 Points in Iowa
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Iowa: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Iowa: Trump vs. Biden
Actually LEADING Trump in Ohio.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Ohio: Trump vs. Biden
RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Ohio: Trump vs. Biden
Trailing him by 8 points in Georgia, but again- this assumes the economy collapses completely and Trump won't be so popular anymore.
Next up, we have
All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.
Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.
None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.
You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.
Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.
None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.
Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
They also, inaccurately, predicted she'd win the Electoral College.
With something like a 98% chance she'd do so, as late as election day.
You are guessing and surmising. You don’t know. They also didn’t think African Americans would vote and that we would become a melting pot. Tough to speak for our founders. I agree that our system isn’t perfect. I do not like that people who can barely spell the word “cat” and do not pay taxes have as much voting power as I do. Such is life.You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.
Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.
None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.
I know this because state populations didn't vary by nearly as much.
You are guessing and surmising. You don’t know. They also didn’t think African Americans would vote and that we would become a melting pot. Tough to speak for our founders. I agree that our system isn’t perfect. I do not like that people who can barely spell the word “cat” and do not pay taxes have as much voting power as I do. Such is life.You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.
Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.
None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.
I know this because state populations didn't vary by nearly as much.
So you cannot speak for them. You’re guessing but I agree with you, our system is far from perfect.You are guessing and surmising. You don’t know. They also didn’t think African Americans would vote and that we would become a melting pot. Tough to speak for our founders. I agree that our system isn’t perfect. I do not like that people who can barely spell the word “cat” and do not pay taxes have as much voting power as I do. Such is life.You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
Oops!
Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.
Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.
How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?
State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.
Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.
None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.
I know this because state populations didn't vary by nearly as much.
Again, our state populations by most to least varied only by about 100k in 1790, where as now it's over 38 million. No, our forefathers never imagined just as many (maybe not all) non-white male land owners would thankfully be able to participate in our representative democracy.
The "common knowledge that HRC lost certain states because she didn't spend time campaigning there is simply not true. When Trump goes out and about, and when most politicians go out and about, they improve their popularity. But for Mrs. Clinton, the opposite is true. The LESS visible she is, the more her personal favorability ratings rise. This has been true since she was First Lady of Arkansas.
You could look it up.
But just think about it. Is she a public speaker who inspires the masses? Are you kidding?
Most of the votes she got were (a) because she has (presumably) a vagina, and (b) she was NOT Donald Trump. That's it.
