Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28
+1
It's still early. Basically, it will be a 3-5 state race. If Trump keeps Florida and Ohio, the Dem nominee must get HC's 240 and flip Mich, Penn and Wisc back to blue.
|
it wouldn't be a "States" race at all without the electoral college. a quick search of your recent posts finds a lot of talk about who may or may not be able to get the required 270 but nothing recently at least about eliminating it which has been a big talking heads point by the left.
so unless you want to state otherwise i'll take it you do not favor ending the electoral college?
no candidate would bother to go to the majority of States, swing or not if not for the electoral college. yet more proof it works exactly as intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Not true at all. The link I provided has EVERY poll in it.
I focus on the polls in a handful of states, commonly known as "battleground" states. I don't care about polls done in states like Alabama or California or 40+ other other states since their outcome is not in doubt. I guess I could have mentioned Virginia where one poll shows a closer than expected race with Biden leading Trump by 4% in the latest poll.
The states I mentioned in my post are the ones that will spell victory or defeat in 2020 -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida and possibly NC and Ohio, two states that I assumed would be Republican but current polling show close races. And I cited the latest polling done in those states.
What states favorable to Trump should I have mentioned?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambino
You’ve been quoting polls since Trump was elected. Only the ones that suit your opinion. The ones that are favorable to Trump, you dismiss.
|
Bam is right, you do tend to dismiss polls that indicate Trump's support is rising and/or greater than the press in general claim. if the press is right about "everyone hates Trump" he wouldn't have won in 2016.
Bam is also right here too ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambino
Speedy, are you trying to say you haven’t been referencing polls for the last couple years? That’s false. You have. I’ve stated many times that some polls are designed to sway public opinion. I said that Biden wouldn’t win the nomination they day he announced in Philly. 200 hundred people showed up and it was clear to me he didn’t have it. I don’t need a poll to see that. And it’s got worse for him. The polls didn’t reflect this until recently.
|
this was seen in full force in 2016. and the hag actually began to believe her own "politically cooked" polls, knowing full well they were tainted data. tainted on purpose to claim the hag had an overwhelming lead and guess what happened? the Dem's "lazy" base didn't turn out to get the job done figuring "oh, enough people will vote for Clinton against that Evil Trump guy for us to win".
well a fumy thing happened on the way to the Coliseum.
BAHHAAAAAAA
and in 2016 it appears that many polled voters intentionally misled the pollsters by not saying they were voting for Trump. i'm sure there were many reason for that, the most often cited was people not wanting to identity as Trump supporters. i find this a bit odd since the polls are supposed to be anonymous or as close to it as you can get these days.
i thnik many pollsters simply didn't consider Republican voters as much as they should in their polling samples and flat out got it wrong. as Bam said the rest were just "cooked up" crap to sway voters.
