Why Biden's chances are excellent.....

[Flopper]

Clearly, it’s Biden’s to lose.

If he stay’s healthy, keeps his nose clean - he is the next POTUS.

Trump, even with the economy looking good - even though it really isn’t - he still can’t get about 50% in any any pole except that joke Rasmussen (and save the nonsense that Rasmussen was the best in 2016. I have shown time and again that they were MILES from the best at predicting the 2016 election outcome).

Trump is a laughing stock and a senile loser. He’s toast

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, he won the presidency by carrying 3 traditionally democratic states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a razor thin margin of only 107,000 votes.
Michigan and Pennsylvania which have not done well under Trump have polled heavily for Biden vs Trump.

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in the electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

Almost every American election from state elections to local elections to selecting what kind of cake will be served at the office party, everybody's vote counts and carries the same weight. Imagine that in a local election that in some small sections of the city, voters would have more voting power than the larger parts of the city. For most people the idea of an electoral college just goes against the grain. In just about all elections in America voters have an equal voice when it's time to vote, except for the most important one.

 

[Pilot1]

Clearly, it’s Biden’s to lose.

If he stay’s healthy, keeps his nose clean - he is the next POTUS.

Trump, even with the economy looking good - even though it really isn’t - he still can’t get about 50% in any any pole except that joke Rasmussen (and save the nonsense that Rasmussen was the best in 2016. I have shown time and again that they were MILES from the best at predicting the 2016 election outcome).

Trump is a laughing stock and a senile loser. He’s toast

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, he won the presidency by carrying 3 traditionally democratic states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a razor thin margin of only 107,000 votes.
Michigan and Pennsylvania which have not done well under Trump have polled heavily for Biden vs Trump.

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

 

[McRocket]

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, he won the presidency by carrying 3 traditionally democratic states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a razor thin margin of only 107,000 votes.
Michigan and Pennsylvania which have not done well under Trump have polled heavily for Biden vs Trump.

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

So you admit more Americans voted for Clinton then for Trump in 2016?
Yes or No, please?

 

[Pilot1]

Yes.

So you admit that has absolutely no significance at all in a Presidential Election. Yes or no, please.

 

[McRocket]

Yes.

Thank you.

So you admit that has absolutely no significance at all in a Presidential Election. Yes or no, please.

To me, it had a huge significance...so ’no’ is my answer.

I do not recognize Trump as the legally elected POTUS as I do not recognize the EC laws.
To me, Hilary Clinton is the POTUS.
And if Trump loses the EC in 2020 but wins the PV - I will recognize him as the POTUS, not the Dem candidate.

I follow no laws that I do not agree with (unless it is not worth it not to).

 

[Mike473]

Clearly, it’s Biden’s to lose.

If he stay’s healthy, keeps his nose clean - he is the next POTUS.

Trump, even with the economy looking good - even though it really isn’t - he still can’t get about 50% in any any pole except that joke Rasmussen (and save the nonsense that Rasmussen was the best in 2016. I have shown time and again that they were MILES from the best at predicting the 2016 election outcome).

Trump is a laughing stock and a senile loser. He’s toast

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, he won the presidency by carrying 3 traditionally democratic states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a razor thin margin of only 107,000 votes.
Michigan and Pennsylvania which have not done well under Trump have polled heavily for Biden vs Trump.

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

The 2020 Presidential election will be about strategy. Trump could lose California "100,000,000 – 0" like Peter Strzok predicted and Trump could still win nationally if he strategically wins the right combination of states. The battleground states are the ones that matter. Trump won almost all of those last time and won by a convincing EC margin. He decided to put no time and effort into states like California, where losing by 15% doesn't get you anything more than losing by 35%.

That is why applying the popular vote results in an electoral college system is not really apples to apples.

It would be very interesting to see how campaigns would be run in a pure popular vote system. We would see strategies much different than what we see now.

 

[nat4900]

The battleground states are the ones that matter. Trump won almost all of those last time and won by a convincing EC margin.

You're partially correct.....BUT, the margin for the Trump win in those KEY battleground states was less than 75,000.....basically less than the population of Reading, PA.

Clinton blew it with MI and WI and PA.......The same mistake will not happen and democrat candidates will not be spending much time campaigning in MS, TN or KY.

 

[Pilot1]

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

So you admit more Americans voted for Clinton then for Trump in 2016?
Yes or No, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

So you admit that has absolutely no significance at all in a Presidential Election. Yes or no, please.

To me, it had a huge significance...so ’no’ is my answer.

I do not recognize Trump as the legally elected POTUS as I do not recognize the EC laws.
To me, Hilary Clinton is the POTUS.
And if Trump loses the EC in 2020 but wins the PV - I will recognize him as the POTUS, not the Dem candidate.

I follow no laws that I do not agree with (unless it is not worth it not to).

You're welcome. I accept that you don't accept the EC law. What other laws do you not accept? Do you not consider the rule of law valid?

 

[Mike473]

The battleground states are the ones that matter. Trump won almost all of those last time and won by a convincing EC margin.

You're partially correct.....BUT, the margin for the Trump win in those KEY battleground states was less than 75,000.....basically less than the population of Reading, PA.

Clinton blew it with MI and WI and PA.......The same mistake will not happen and democrat candidates will not be spending much time campaigning in MS, TN or KY.

We will find out next year. One thing we can agree on is that those states will be where the election is decided, whoever the winner ultimately turns out to be. Keep in mind, Trump doesn't have to win MI, WI and PA. I would have to do the math, but I believe he could win only 1 out of those 3 and hold the rest of his map. I could be wrong on that and will double check.

 

[McRocket]

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

So you admit more Americans voted for Clinton then for Trump in 2016?
Yes or No, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

So you admit that has absolutely no significance at all in a Presidential Election. Yes or no, please.

To me, it had a huge significance...so ’no’ is my answer.

I do not recognize Trump as the legally elected POTUS as I do not recognize the EC laws.
To me, Hilary Clinton is the POTUS.
And if Trump loses the EC in 2020 but wins the PV - I will recognize him as the POTUS, not the Dem candidate.

I follow no laws that I do not agree with (unless it is not worth it not to).

You're welcome. I accept that you don't accept the EC law. What other laws do you not accept? Do you not consider the rule of law valid?

Too many to list them all. But, to name but a few,

- prostitution laws
- gambling laws
- most drug laws
- draft laws (you should only be able to start a draft during s declared state of war)
- Federal Reserve Laws (I think the Fed should be abolished).
- several (though not all) ‘insider trading’ SEC laws.

Basically, I believe what sane, legally consenting adults want to do is entirely their business and NONE of the government’s business. And I do not believe the government should be legally allowed to meddle in the economy (except during an official depression or during a declared state of war with another country).

 

[basquebromance]

DO WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO FIGHTS AGAINST UNIONS? NO!

DO WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO SUPPORTS THE WORKING MAN? YES!

DO WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO KNOWS WHAT'S IT'S LIKE TO HAVE A DIGNITY OF WORK AND GET YOUR HANDS DIRTY? NO!

WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE!

and let me tell ya, we need Joe more than Joe needs to be president and we need Joe more than Joe needs us

 

[basquebromance]

Joe makes no apologies that he's a union man, and Americans will make no apologize by kicking out Trump and replacing him with Joe Biden in the White House!

 

[Flopper]

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, he won the presidency by carrying 3 traditionally democratic states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a razor thin margin of only 107,000 votes.
Michigan and Pennsylvania which have not done well under Trump have polled heavily for Biden vs Trump.

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

The poplar vote does not elect presidents and never has. My point is that our system using the electoral college in unfair. Why should a person's vote in California be worth less than a person's vote in Montana?

To win one electoral vote in California takes 712,000 votes. To win one electoral vote in Montana requires only takes 192,000 votes. That gives a Montana voter 3.7 the power of a California voter. That's not fair. Everyone's vote should count the same regardless of where they live.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Biden debates well. A debate between "uncle Joe" Biden and "mafia Don" Trump would be highly entertaining. I wouldn't want to vote for either of them though.

 

[Pilot1]

The EC system is not meant to be "fair" in the way you mean it as STATES elect Presidents, not people. The States were meant to be your PRIMARY government, not the Feds, as your state capital is closer the theory was you have more influence over it.

We are a Constitutional Representative Republic on the Federal Level, NOT a Democracy. Hence the structure of our government, separation of powers, the EC, and other factors. So your concept of "fair" doesn't apply to the Republic form of government.

You should know all this by being a citizen. Why don't you?

 

[WheelieAddict]

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

The poplar does not elect presidents and never has. My point is that our system using the electoral college in unfair. Why should a person's vote in California be worth less than a person's vote in Montana?

To win one electoral vote in California takes 712,000 votes. To win one electoral vote in Montana requires only takes 192,000 votes. That gives a Montana voter 3.7 the power of a California voter. That's not fair. Everyone's vote should count the same regardless of where you live.

With the electoral college removed it could be argued there is still a buffer from "tyranny of the majority" as each state has two Senators regardless of population.

 

[Flopper]

Biden debates well. A debate between "uncle Joe" Biden and "mafia Don" Trump would be highly entertaining. I wouldn't want to vote for either of them though.

I would certainly agree with you if it was a real debate instead of a shouting match in which candidates pay little or no attention to rules. That's Trump's arena, deflect, shout, lie, and ignore the rules.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Biden debates well. A debate between "uncle Joe" Biden and "mafia Don" Trump would be highly entertaining. I wouldn't want to vote for either of them though.

I would certainly agree with you if it was a real debate instead of a shouting match in which candidates pay little or no attention to rules. That's Trump's arena, deflect, shout, lie, and ignore the rules.

I think Biden can hold his own and would do well in that environment though. He is quick witted.

 

[Thinker101]

When you mention the OVERALL Popular Vote you lose all credibility as it has nothing to do with the Presidential election. What did those same polls say about Hillary and Trump?

Although the popular vote does not determine who will be president, to ignore it is just stupid. The popular vote indicates support across the nation and thus it is the president's mandate from the people. Without a strong mandate from the people, congressmen are reluctant to give their full support to the president. We have certainly seen that in congress. The media is concerned with the popular vote because it indicates the popularity of the president. If the presidents numbers are high, then the media is reluctant to attack the president and when the numbers are low it's a sign that the public would not be concerned about unfavorable statements about the president.

In 53 of the 58 total elections for president held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. To pollsters this means basing predictions on the national popular vote will correctly predict the winner 91% of the time. However, Major pollsters do not rely on just national polls. They poll within states. However, in state polling requires large samples which proves cost prohibitive for many polling services so when you get states like Michigan where the different between the two candidates were only .2%, predicting a winner carries a high degree of risk. I expect that in 2020 election pollsters are not going to be predicting election outcomes when the differences are a fraction of 1%.

Polls are essentially always correct. It is the interpretation of those polls that occasionally fail. I wouldn't be betting that those interpretations will be wrong two times in row.

I've always found it typically hypocritical that right wingers on ONE HAND..........insist on voters' strict IDs with pictures and probably soon with a DNA test before casting a vote.......while on the OTHER HAND, (when its suits their ignorance) reject the popular vote as unimportant .....Go figure.

Since republicans have never won the popular vote and lost in electoral college, they are certainly not going to admit that the popular vote has any significance.

When did the Popular Vote have any significance in ANY Presidential Election? When was a President ever elected by the Popular Vote?

What significance do you want to give candidates that win the poplar vote and lose the electoral vote? Second place?

So you admit more Americans voted for Clinton then for Trump in 2016?
Yes or No, please?

Better yet, who cares.

 

[Flopper]

The EC system is not meant to be "fair" in the way you mean it as STATES elect Presidents, not people. The States were meant to be your PRIMARY government, not the Feds, as your state capital is closer the theory was you have more influence over it.

We are a Constitutional Representative Republic on the Federal Level, NOT a Democracy. Hence the structure of our government, separation of powers, the EC, and other factors. So your concept of "fair" doesn't apply to the Republic form of government.

You should know all this by being a citizen. Why don't you?

I do agree that there's nothing fair about our government as is today. We elect a bunch of people we call electors, that voters have no idea who they are. These people go to Washington to select a president. Of course that just a farce. They are pledged to vote for the candidate of their party and if they don't they will face consequences.

Originally, the electoral college’s function was to select statesman who would rise above petty politics, who would safeguard the enduring interests of the republic. Today electors have no real choice. In fact in some states an elector who does vote his conscience could face legal consequences. The only reason we still have the electoral college today is because it helps republicans elect their candidate.