Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Same in 2016, when had clinton winning right up to the end, when she lost om a landslide of EC votes.

 

Why MSM and polls are a joke :coffee1:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Except one particular,  I don't doubt and deem 50-50 call phony. 

 

Replacing Biden in late July,  Kamala had every thing going her way in August and September too,  particularly Kamala had a strong DEBATE against a surprising poor Trump showing in the ABC debate early/mid Sept.  

 

Only turning into the final 3 weeks, some polls and betting pool had Trump got into the lead.

 

What is so damn phony is that in the final week,  out-of-the-blue there was so called credible IOWA Poll stated she led 4% in IOWA ( voting was Trump won 10+ % in Iowa ),   it is very certain it was money-biased phony poll.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
17 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Except, looking at the actual voting figures, they were not that far off!

 

Look, I make no secret of my dislike for Trump, and just about everything he stands for. I have little time for much of the agenda of the Democratic Party.

That doesn't matter, in as much as I am 1) not an American, and 2) under the American system he won.

 

But it was effectively a straight binary choice, and he got less than 50%of the vote. Under the US system he won, but it was hardly a crushing victory for democracy!

Except that if the popular was what mattered, campaigning would be much different, and popular vote margin would be wider. 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
On 11/27/2024 at 9:26 PM, EveryG said:

Except....it was literally a 50-50 race. As of this moment, Trump has 49.8% and Harris 48.3%

PA: 50.4/ 48.6

MI: 49.7/ 48.3

WI: 49.6/ 48.8

 

So, how exactly were the polls phony? Looks to me like they were well within the margin of error. This is how statistics work. Numbers have never been the strong suit of MAGAs (nor words, nor facts, no common sense). 

It was all a giant scam. A $1.5 billion Ponzi scheme!" the viral post said. 

https://nypost.com/2024/11/27/us-news/harris-camps-own-polling-never-showed-vp-leading-trump-team-surprised-by-reports-showing-her-ahead-sr-adviser/

  • Like 1
Posted
On 11/27/2024 at 7:38 PM, dinsdale said:

she was an absolutely useless, cackling idiot, inarticulate, non question answering candidate

 

As opposed to Trump's incisive, sparkling, laser-focused responses in interviews. Uh huh.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
On 11/27/2024 at 5:55 PM, rwilem said:

From a member of the Harris campaign's inner circle.

 “I think it surprised people, because there was these public polls that came out in late September, early October, showing us with leads that we never saw.”

 

The campaign's closely-guarded internal polls revealed they were in trouble. 'Conventional wisdom' (or if you were paying attention) would be those polls showing an even race, or even with Kamala ahead, were phony. They were rigged to make the election look close, and amplified by the MSM for all sorts of reasons.

 

 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kamala-harris-campaign-aides-suggest-campaign-was-just-doomed_uk_6746c816e4b0733bf01e0251

 

Huff Post is a Dem-friendly outlet, for what it's worth. 

 

Give us peace 🥱🥱🥱

Posted
On 11/28/2024 at 4:00 AM, EveryG said:

Yeah, it was close...but that's not the argument being put forward here. The claim is that the polls were phony to suppress the vote. The polls were not phony, they were spot on. So how is that suppressing the vote? You guys get caught in saying BS and then change the topic. 

So spot that the one they had in the lead lost? In fact, on the day there was never any real chance she was going to win.

Are you claiming that all the ones that were going to vote Harris changed their minds while at the voting booth?

Posted
On 11/27/2024 at 7:25 PM, herfiehandbag said:

Except, looking at the actual voting figures, they were not that far off!

 

Look, I make no secret of my dislike for Trump, and just about everything he stands for. I have little time for much of the agenda of the Democratic Party.

That doesn't matter, in as much as I am 1) not an American, and 2) under the American system he won.

 

But it was effectively a straight binary choice, and he got less than 50%of the vote. Under the US system he won, but it was hardly a crushing victory for democracy!

While I agree, as an American, I will await the concrete results. We have a beginning in his appointments ... less than impressive qualifications for most but quite good to achieve his stated goal of disrupting the government institutions. Well, that is what my fellow Americans voted to support. Me? I am an economic refugee living in a lower cost country. I will keep my head down and sadly observe from the other side of the globe.

  • Confused 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Chosenfew said:

Say it again:

 

IMG_1369.jpeg

As has been observed, this representation is misleading as it shows land mass not people voting. Absolutely, Trump and his Project 2025 ilk won this election. And I do not care to waste time on "what ifs", awaiting concrete actions ... such as the majority of his nominees for appointed posts. Quite positive ... to carry out his stated goal of disrupting the federal government.

Posted
22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that if the popular was what mattered, campaigning would be much different, and popular vote margin would be wider. 

Most likely that's true.  Trump didn't really bother campaigning in California,  That alone might have cost a couple million popular votes.

Posted
46 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

While I agree, as an American, I will await the concrete results. We have a beginning in his appointments ... less than impressive qualifications for most but quite good to achieve his stated goal of disrupting the government institutions. Well, that is what my fellow Americans voted to support. Me? I am an economic refugee living in a lower cost country. I will keep my head down and sadly observe from the other side of the globe.

Which appointments do you think have unimpressive qualifications, and why? 

Posted
35 minutes ago, suzannegoh said:

Most likely that's true.  Trump didn't really bother campaigning in California,  That alone might have cost a couple million popular votes.

If the electoral college were eliminated, candidates would only campaign in large urban areas, and the only concern would be for issues that affect them.

  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...