Kamala Harris Takes Big Lead in Battleground State
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
She had a 3.5% lead in the nationwide polls. She won the popular vote by 2%. The polls, on balance, were off by 1.5%; which is honestly pretty remarkable.
The issue is that there were several toss-up states, and she lost them all. I know SOME people thought it was a lock. But I sure didn't; and a number of others who were looking at it closely also knew it was going to be close.
Except when I am on my other username and turn into a bleeding heart liberal with an insatiable desire to indoctrinate MAGA children with LGBTQ and CRT propaganda.
This and more of this. Sleepy Joe did his job last time out and took Trump out. He was dead in the water and the base had given up on him. All Kamala needs at this point are the Great Lake states. Which it looks like she's running away with. Have you seen the Trump "rallies" ? It's just more of the insane rambling that he's been doing since 2016. Besides his hardcore base (which is certainly not expanding) he's dropping like a rock. And Vance is absolutely killing him.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,391
- 202,362
- 113
Speaking as a gambler, calling 71% a "sure win" is idiotic.
She was until the email scandal. And then it all collapsed on her. Trump has to figure out a way to get momentum back and he's an absolute 1 trick pony, and the majority of people aren't having it.
Your good at math - what is 1.1% of 131M? While you are at it do women and young voters as well, please.
Nate Silver was warning of the fact that Trump could win right up until the election.
What is the point you're try making? I mean who cares? Are you equally offended by Kid Rock's profane songs?
Kamala is suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurging! Meanwhile trump doesn't know whether to crap or go blind. My advice to him would be go ahead and crap and just take a chance on going blind.
I'm not sure if you know the definition of the word destroy if you are suggesting that's what has been done or will be done to cities. Might some cities get damaged with some destroyed buildings and property? Yeah and that would be stupid no matter who does it. But no need to resort to inaccurate hyperbole
Last edited:
And conversly, Anyone who looks at those odds and say it is a tight race is idiotic.
I am not sure she is more then a one trick pony herself. She has absolutly nothing to run on and once the honeymoon period is over and she actually starts doing one on one interviews.....he might just get his momentum back. But, this is Trump we are talking about, so his mouth is his biggest obstacle, not Harris.
There were outliers that had it right, but the majority of the pundents and media were all in on Clinton.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,391
- 202,362
- 113
Frankly, that is dead wrong.
The polling indicated it would be a tight race with Clinton narrowly winning the popular vote (which she did) and a tossup in the Electoral College because there were only a handful of swing states (which it was)
Maybe you're just bad at statistics?
And what is Trump running on? What is his message?
No, just because they were all wrong doesn't mean they were not all saying that it was her race all the way at the time......I think your just blinded by your partisan ways.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,391
- 202,362
- 113
Again, you don’t get statistics.
No poll was wrong - as every poll indicated there was a path to victory for Trump to win without the EC.
Polls can be right or wrong. Either/or. That said, look at the trends. Its slowly trending to Kamala's side and its only the 3rd week. August is Kamalaplooza, with her VP pick and the DNC. She'll get that convention and VP bump and the momentum will keep on.....unless Donald drops out or gets shot in the ass. Politics of today.
Again, I stated that the polls that were being looked at by the talking heads in the media were showing her up biggly (double digits). I even provided you with a link to a poll via your beloved CNN.
The narrative from all the mainstream media and their coverage of that election was that it was going to be Clinton's all the way. Why do you think there was such a meltdown on all the leftist media when she lost. They were blindsided. Of course there were other polls showing more realistic outcomes...but they got NO AIRTIME.
Right. And vote for a criminal who will keep doing criminal things in office.
What the polls actually said vs how they were reported are two pretty different issues
For whatever reason, the media loves national polls when they don’t really mean sh!t
What war is America in currently?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,391
- 202,362
- 113
Yeah, the talking heads were idiots who looked at polls saying it was a 70-80% probablity and decided "the polls" said Hillary had it in the bag.
They didn't and she didn't.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,391
- 202,362
- 113
Better economy? Are you one of the type of people that likes to judge him on 3/4 of his presidency?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,391
- 202,362
- 113
The 2020 economy was garbage due to Covid. I'm not laying that on Trump, idiot though he is.
The amount of influence people think presidents have over the direction of the overall economy is flat out wrong.
It's not laying it on him, it's acknowledging the entirety of his time in office.
Traditionally national tragedy or times of extreme upheaval are a tailor-made opportunity for the incumbent to prove they're the right person for the job. Trump tried to capitalize and everything turned to sh!t.
Crisis management is a rare skill that requires organization and a level of decisiveness or delegation Trump just doesn't possess.
Only effing dummies believe this shit.
Now, I do agree with this. And, actually that is my point. The polls that were getting media airplay could not be trusted and were completely wrong.
Similar threads
