Beast Posted November 3 Posted November 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: She's not winning Iowa but she will win MI, PA, and WI if the poll isn't off by more than 5 points. I don’t get why this one poll has you thinking the way you are. Trump won Iowa by plus 9 percentage points in 2016 and plus 8 in 2020. There is no way he is losing Iowa. Or even coming close to it. The Atlas poll was recognized as one of the most accurate in the 2020 race and that poll came out yesterday with Trump leading in every battleground state. Not to mention the Emerson poll that came out yesterday concerning Iowa with Trump up by 10%. Edited November 3 by Beast 2 1
Taro T Posted November 3 Posted November 3 3 minutes ago, Beast said: I don’t get why this one poll has you thinking the way you are. Trump won Iowa by plus 9 percentage points in 2016 and plus 8 in 2020. There is no way he is losing Iowa. Or even coming close to it. The Atlas poll was recognized as one of the most accurate in the 2020 race and that poll came out yesterday with Trump leading in every battleground state. Not to mention the Emerson poll that came out yesterday concerning Iowa with Trump up by 10%. Not to mention, she wildly missed on the 2018 governor's race calling it for the D+3 but it went R+2. Would want to see her raw data and how it compares to '16 and '20 before getting too excited one way or the other about this single poll.
Beast Posted November 3 Posted November 3 11 minutes ago, Taro T said: Not to mention, she wildly missed on the 2018 governor's race calling it for the D+3 but it went R+2. Would want to see her raw data and how it compares to '16 and '20 before getting too excited one way or the other about this single poll. Right. When you just go off the numbers, Trump has a much better chance of losing Texas or Florida. And those two things aren’t happening either. Harris is a radical Leftist. That isn’t going to fly with the people of Iowa. 2
Brandon Posted November 3 Posted November 3 14 minutes ago, 4th&long said: The NYT hasnt endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in the general election since Eisenhower in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted November 3 Posted November 3 19 minutes ago, 4th&long said: Literally NO ONE saw this coming! It’s YUGE!! 6
4th&long Posted November 3 Posted November 3 1 minute ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: Literally NO ONE saw this coming! It’s YUGE!!
Westside Posted November 3 Posted November 3 5 minutes ago, Brandon said: The NYT hasnt endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in the general election since Eisenhower in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times Poor 4inchschlong was so excited! You just had to burst hid bubble. 2
L Ron Burgundy Posted November 3 Posted November 3 7 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Damn your stupid, you literally cut off your answer just to be this stupid. How would you stop underage drinking without ID? You give me one effective way and I will accept your premise. Dumb, irrelevant comparison. If you say certain types can't be proven without voter id, ok, that makes sense. But you knuckle-dragging imbeciles have claimed fraud time and again with examples that have nothing to do with voter id. Dead people voting require voter ID? Counting votes multiple times? There are hundreds of ways to cheat that aren't impacted by voter id. The guy who doesn't even comprehend that a constitutional republic is a form of democracy shouldn't call ANYONE stupid. Unless he speaks of himself then it makes perfect sense. 1 hour ago, Westside said: Poor 4inchschlong was so excited! You just had to burst hid bubble. Don't protest too much, that would mean he still has 3 on you.
yall Posted November 3 Posted November 3 My prediction: Harris wins popular and electoral, and we see a mostly peaceful transition. 2 1 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted November 3 Posted November 3 1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Dumb, irrelevant comparison. If you say certain types can't be proven without voter id, ok, that makes sense. But you knuckle-dragging imbeciles have claimed fraud time and again with examples that have nothing to do with voter id. Dead people voting require voter ID? Counting votes multiple times? There are hundreds of ways to cheat that aren't impacted by voter id. The guy who doesn't even comprehend that a constitutional republic is a form of democracy shouldn't call ANYONE stupid. Unless he speaks of himself then it makes perfect sense. Wow you just like proving you have no idea what you are talking about. A constitutional Republic is a nation of laws, a democracy is a nation of the people. The fact that we have democratically elected politicians does not mean it is a republic nor does a republic require democratic elections. I appreciate our form of government but your understanding is poor. As for the fraud, the comparison is a good one, and you know it which is why you tried to pretend it wasn't there in the first place, and still can't explain it.
L Ron Burgundy Posted November 3 Posted November 3 8 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Wow you just like proving you have no idea what you are talking about. A constitutional Republic is a nation of laws, a democracy is a nation of the people. The fact that we have democratically elected politicians does not mean it is a republic nor does a republic require democratic elections. I appreciate our form of government but your understanding is poor. As for the fraud, the comparison is a good one, and you know it which is why you tried to pretend it wasn't there in the first place, and still can't explain it. LOL, please tell me you're BSing when you say you're a teacher? A constitutional republic is a form of democracy you imbecile I'd hoped you'd learned this from the last time you spewed your ignorance. This is why maga is hated. You vomit incorrect talking points because you know nothing about anything. Find me one reliable source that agrees with you. When you eat up these idiot talking points and then spew them elsewhere maybe you should think for just a moment if your source is BS. Here's a little education for the "teacher" from AI. I can also cite scholars and academics though not many answer such a low brow question because it is so utterly devoid of sense and understanding. Is a constitutional republic a form of democracy? Yes, a constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but it operates with specific structures to protect individual rights and limit government power. Here’s how it works: Democratic Foundations: In a constitutional republic, officials are elected by the people, similar to a democracy. These elected representatives make decisions on behalf of the public, embodying the principle of representative democracy. This system ensures that citizens have a voice through voting, an essential feature of democratic governance. Constitutional Limits and Rule of Law: What makes a constitutional republic unique is that it’s bound by a constitution, a guiding document that defines the powers and limits of government. The constitution protects individual rights (like free speech, due process, and equality) and ensures that laws apply equally to everyone. This system limits the potential for "majority rule" to infringe on the rights of minorities, a risk in pure democracy. Checks and Balances: In a constitutional republic like the United States, a separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful. These checks and balances are designed to safeguard democratic principles while protecting individual freedoms. So, while a constitutional republic has democratic elements through elections and representative government, it differs from direct or "pure" democracy by emphasizing constitutional limits and the rule of law to safeguard rights and maintain a balance of power.
L Ron Burgundy Posted November 4 Posted November 4 7 hours ago, yall said: My prediction: Harris wins popular and electoral, and we see a mostly peaceful transition. I thought dems were going to lose for a while. The polls looked bad. But the people that study polls for a living are saying Kamala is going to pull out the win. We just need to make sure there are no illegal shenanigans. And for sure, they are considering several ways to cheat. Crap like this: https://newrepublic.com/article/187780/trump-little-secret-mike-johnson
Doc Brown Posted November 4 Posted November 4 11 hours ago, Beast said: I don’t get why this one poll has you thinking the way you are. Trump won Iowa by plus 9 percentage points in 2016 and plus 8 in 2020. There is no way he is losing Iowa. Or even coming close to it. The Atlas poll was recognized as one of the most accurate in the 2020 race and that poll came out yesterday with Trump leading in every battleground state. Not to mention the Emerson poll that came out yesterday concerning Iowa with Trump up by 10%. We'll see who's right but if the Selzer poll is wrong (outside the 3.5 point margin of error) it will be the first time as far as presidential elections are concerned. I would put my money on Kamala winning PA, MI, and WI based off this poll though. It's not really about Iowa as much as how it translates to the true swing states.
Big Blitz Posted November 4 Posted November 4 11 hours ago, 4th&long said: Where is maga? What's up? Just trying to win Virginia. 1
B-Man Posted November 5 Posted November 5 Prediction: TRUMP -- 297 ev Harris -- 241 ev Senate: GOP -- 53 Dem -- 47 House: GOP -- 235 Dem -- 200
Mikie2times Posted November 5 Posted November 5 How many wives of Maga husbands will vote for Harris? How many wives of liberal husbands will vote for Trump? I don’t think this is a very difficult question to answer and it will decide the election.
reddogblitz Posted November 5 Posted November 5 My prediction: Trump wins the popular vote and Harris wins the Electoral College.
Recommended Posts