[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[UltraSUPRA]

The change in Texas' politics is due to multiple factors, but the primary factor is likely Texas' increase in its Latino population.

Most of whom are likely illegal immigrants.

 

[Glyptofane]

maybe people here can see a common element among these people.

Looks like a bunch of dumb, poor guys who were ensnared in an FBI entrapment scheme.

"The arrests were part of a planned effort in concert with state authorities, and not in response to any imminent urgent or dangerous development, the source said."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/fbi-plot-michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer/index.html

 

[Lacius]

Most of whom are likely illegal immigrants.

1. About 40% of Texas is Latinx
2. The illegal immigrant population in Texas might be around 5%
3. Illegal immigrants cannot legally vote for president

Do you even bother to fact-check your posts?

 

[UltraSUPRA]

About 40% of Texas is Latino

Oh.

The illegal immigrant population in Texas might be around 5%

Texas is a border state.

Illegal immigrants cannot legally vote for president

That won't stop them.

Do you even bother to fact-check your posts?

You can't trust fact-checking websites.

 

[omgcat]

Oh.

Texas is a border state.

That won't stop them.

You can't trust fact-checking websites.

explain to me how illegal immigrants "just vote". like what does that look like.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

explain to me how illegal immigrants "just vote". like what does that look like.

Knowing if doesn't mean knowing how.

 

[omgcat]

Knowing if doesn't mean knowing how.

casting a vote, when you do not have a SSN, government ID, or standard registration is literally impossible. plus do you think people who would risk their lives to get here in the first place, would walk right into a secure voting facility, and out themselves in front of cameras and people?

like if you are not registered to vote, you HAVE TO use a provisional ballot. provisional ballots are all hand checked for fraud. let's say lacius's estimate is correct at 5%, and for sake of argument that all 5% are of voting age, that would be .05*29,000,000=1,450,000. so nearly 1.5 million people would need to cast provisional ballots, of which all are manually checked, and none of them are found to be fraudulent. that is batshit insane.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

casting a vote, when you do not have a SSN, government ID, or standard registration is literally impossible. plus do you think people who would risk their lives to get here in the first place, would walk right into a secure voting facility, and out themselves in front of cameras and people?

like if you are not registered to vote, you HAVE TO use a provisional ballot. provisional ballots are all hand checked for fraud. let's say lacius's estimate is correct at 5%, and for sake of argument that all 5% are of voting age, that would be .05*29,000,000=1,450,000. so nearly 1.5 million people would need to cast provisional ballots, of which all are manually checked, and none of them are found to be fraudulent. that is batshit insane.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/illegal-immigrants-voting-election-integrity
It's an example from California, but an example nonetheless.

 

[omgcat]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/illegal-immigrants-voting-election-integrity
It's an example from California, but an example nonetheless.

>doesn't believe in fact checking
>cites fox news

show me any instance of actual voter fraud that had enough impact to effect an election.

 

[KingVamp]

Military funds for the wall, that Mexico was meant to pay for, has been blocked.

 

[omgcat]

Military funds for the wall, that Mexico was meant to pay for, has been blocked.

yup one more campaign promise failed, as per the usual. like he had the presidency, the house, AND the senate for a whole years and failed to get the wall funded.

 

[Brecert]

I really hope my vote means something this election.
Still, whatever happens it feels like there's likely going to be some kind of event afterwards.

 

[gregory-samba]

I really hope my vote means something this election.
Still, whatever happens it feels like there's likely going to be some kind of event afterwards.

The event will be celebrating victory or accepting defeat. Hopefully unlike the 2016 election the side that loses needs to accept the loss and move on. Unless that is you want to start the impeachment of Biden, which would be okay because the Liberals started plotting to impeach Trump as soon as he won the RNC nomination.

 

[omgcat]

The event will be celebrating victory or accepting defeat. Hopefully unlike the 2016 election the side that loses needs to accept the loss and move on. Unless that is you want to start the impeachment of Biden, which would be okay because the Liberals started plotting to impeach Trump as soon as he won the RNC nomination.

good luck with that, the GOP would need to flip more than 20 house seats in hard-left leaning area's, while also defending 25 seats. the likely outcome is either the current status quo stays, or Dems pick up seats in the house. The GOP isn't even trying to spend money on house races this years, as they are desperately trying to hold on to the senate, as well as the presidency.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/house/

 

[crimpshrine]

https://townhall.com/columnists/way...oll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814

Fake-Poll Alert: Proof Biden Is Not Winning

Folks, understand this: What polls say doesn't matter. What people say to pollsters doesn't matter. What matters is only the votes of people in a few key battleground states, in particular Florida and the Midwestern states of Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. My fans tell me these states are 100 percent Trump country. In small towns and outer suburbs, you can't find any support for Biden.

It's 2016 squared. After what Trump has done for the U.S. economy and manufacturing jobs and to win the trade war with China, he is a hero. People may not tell that to pollsters, but Trump is "the king of the Midwest."

The media quotes nonstop any poll that shows Trump losing by double digits. But I never heard a word about the Democracy Institute Sunday Express poll from this week that showed Trump beating Biden 46% to 45% and winning almost all battleground states by a healthy margin. That poll didn't over sample Democrats by a mile (as most other polls do) and polled only likely voters. Likely voters in battleground states are all that matter.

Or the Poll Watch poll released this week that shows Trump winning nationally, in battleground states and in the Electoral College. Trump dominates on the two issues that matter to most Americans: the economy and law and order.

Or have you heard that in the RealClearPolitics battleground average, Trump is slightly ahead of where he was at this time in 2016 (on his way to a victory over Hillary Clinton)?

Most importantly, a new Gallup poll reports 56% of Americans say they are better off now under Trump than they were four years ago under then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden. Every expert knows what clinches elections -- "It's the economy, stupid." A solid majority of Americans feel better off today than four years ago, despite COVID-19. You think they're voting for Biden? By the way, that 56% is the highest number in the history of Gallup asking, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ronald Reagan got 44% in the Gallup poll and won the election in a landslide. Trump is at 56%.

If Americans aren't yet convinced Trump is great for the economy, on Oct. 29, five days before the election, the third-quarter gross domestic product will be released. The Atlanta Fed estimates it will be 34.6% economic growth, the highest in the history of America -- since 1776.

Still not convinced? Since primaries were born in 1912, no incumbent has ever lost the general election after receiving 75% or more of the votes from their party in the primaries. Trump received 94% of all cast in the 2020 Republican primaries.

One more factor: Because of fear of COVID-19, Team Biden has hardly knocked on any doors in America. But Trump volunteers have knocked on over 20 million doors in battleground states. Twelve million to zero. You don't think that changes things on Election Day?

 

[Lacius]

https://townhall.com/columnists/way...oll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814

Fake-Poll Alert: Proof Biden Is Not Winning

Folks, understand this: What polls say doesn't matter. What people say to pollsters doesn't matter. What matters is only the votes of people in a few key battleground states, in particular Florida and the Midwestern states of Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. My fans tell me these states are 100 percent Trump country. In small towns and outer suburbs, you can't find any support for Biden.

It's 2016 squared. After what Trump has done for the U.S. economy and manufacturing jobs and to win the trade war with China, he is a hero. People may not tell that to pollsters, but Trump is "the king of the Midwest."

The media quotes nonstop any poll that shows Trump losing by double digits. But I never heard a word about the Democracy Institute Sunday Express poll from this week that showed Trump beating Biden 46% to 45% and winning almost all battleground states by a healthy margin. That poll didn't over sample Democrats by a mile (as most other polls do) and polled only likely voters. Likely voters in battleground states are all that matter.

Or the Poll Watch poll released this week that shows Trump winning nationally, in battleground states and in the Electoral College. Trump dominates on the two issues that matter to most Americans: the economy and law and order.

Or have you heard that in the RealClearPolitics battleground average, Trump is slightly ahead of where he was at this time in 2016 (on his way to a victory over Hillary Clinton)?

Most importantly, a new Gallup poll reports 56% of Americans say they are better off now under Trump than they were four years ago under then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden. Every expert knows what clinches elections -- "It's the economy, stupid." A solid majority of Americans feel better off today than four years ago, despite COVID-19. You think they're voting for Biden? By the way, that 56% is the highest number in the history of Gallup asking, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ronald Reagan got 44% in the Gallup poll and won the election in a landslide. Trump is at 56%.

If Americans aren't yet convinced Trump is great for the economy, on Oct. 29, five days before the election, the third-quarter gross domestic product will be released. The Atlanta Fed estimates it will be 34.6% economic growth, the highest in the history of America -- since 1776.

Still not convinced? Since primaries were born in 1912, no incumbent has ever lost the general election after receiving 75% or more of the votes from their party in the primaries. Trump received 94% of all cast in the 2020 Republican primaries.

One more factor: Because of fear of COVID-19, Team Biden has hardly knocked on any doors in America. But Trump volunteers have knocked on over 20 million doors in battleground states. Twelve million to zero. You don't think that changes things on Election Day?

The national polls were mostly accurate in 2016. On this day in 2020, Biden is winning by +10.3 nationally according to an aggregate of the national polls. On this day in 2016, Clinton was winning by +5.7 nationally (she will end up "winning" by +2.1, which was largely reflected by the aggregate of November polls). In a few battleground states in 2016, the polls were wrong. If you assume the battleground polls we have today are as wrong as they were in 2016 (to Trump's benefit), Biden still wins in a landslide. That's also a bold assumption, since the polls could be wrong to Biden's benefit.

Biden has an 86% chance of winning the election (he has about a 94% chance of winning the popular vote), and if the election were held today, he'd have about a 96% chance of winning the election (he would have a >99% chance of winning the popular vote).

That all being said, a lot can happen between now and the election, and people need to get out and vote for Joe Biden. If Biden has an 86% chance of winning, that means Trump has a 14% chance of winning. That's more likely than flipping a coin three times in a row and landing heads all three times.

 

[crimpshrine]

The national polls were mostly accurate in 2016. On this day in 2020, Biden is winning by +10.3 nationally according to an aggregate of the national polls. On this day in 2016, Clinton was winning by +5.7 nationally (she will end up "winning" by +2.1, which was largely reflected by the aggregate of November polls). In a few battleground states in 2016, the polls were wrong. If you assume the battleground polls we have today are as wrong as they were in 2016 (to Trump's benefit), Biden still wins in a landslide. That's also a bold assumption, since the polls could be wrong to Biden's benefit.

Biden has an 86% chance of winning the election (he has about a 94% chance of winning the popular vote), and if the election were held today, he'd have about a 96% chance of winning the election (he would have a >99% chance of winning the popular vote).

That all being said, a lot can happen between now and the election, and people need to get out and vote for Joe Biden. If Biden has an 86% chance of winning, that means Trump has a 14% chance of winning. That's more likely than flipping a coin three times in a row and landing heads all three times.

Well we will soon see. I do agree a lot can happen between now and the election. I personally see Trump's support growing more between now and then.

Biden saying things like voters not deserving to know his stance on court packing is not going to help on the fence voters push them towards him. And I bet he does more of this between now and then.

 

[Lacius]

Well we will soon see. I do agree a lot can happen between now and the election. I personally see Trump's support growing more between now and then.

Biden saying things like voters not deserving to know his stance on court packing is not going to help on the fence voters push them towards him. And I bet he does more of this between now and then.

Polls seem to show that the average American doesn't really care about court-packing. The only people who seem to care are solidly Democratic or solidly Republican. While a lot can happen between now and the election, it's going to take a lot for Trump to have decent chance at winning come election day.

It should also be noted that "court-packing" is an arbitrary term used when it's convenient for a given talking point. For example, it isn't court-packing to the Republican Party when they try to eliminate three seats from the D.C. Circuit, steal one Supreme Court seat, and hypocritically try to ram through another, but it is court-packing when the Democrats hypothetically want to use another legally available option in response to the Republicans' actions.

 

[crimpshrine]

Polls seem to show that the average American doesn't really care about court-packing. The only people who seem to care are solidly Democratic or solidly Republican. While a lot can happen between now and the election, it's going to take a lot for Trump to have decent chance at winning come election day.

It should also be noted that "court-packing" is an arbitrary term used when it's convenient for a given talking point. For example, it isn't court-packing to the Republican Party when they try to eliminate three seats from the D.C. Circuit, steal one Supreme Court seat, and hypocritically try to ram through another, but it is court-packing when the Democrats hypothetically want to use another legally available option in response to the Republicans' actions.

Court packing in the reference I am speaking of is specific to the supreme court.

Basically anything over 9 judges.

And trying to associate a quick confirmation as "packing the court" in my opinion is just another misrepresentation of reality from anyone that would claim that. And another attempt by CERTAIN democrats (most are not crazy enough to suggest that it would seem) to try and spin things against Trumps constitutional right to replace RBG. I think most reasonable people understand that he has the right to do it, and is doing it.

Anything that comes after that from democrats screeching about it, does not look good for them. (For someone on the fence)

Threats to pack the supreme court, and then Biden making really rude comments to the citizen (Voters do not deserve to know his stance) do not make people on the fence want to come more towards him. That is almost comical to me. Just imagine if Trump used those exact words.

I believe that statement alone is going to hurt him quite a bit.

I think it matters more than you believe. You are not on the fence.

 

[Lacius]

Court packing in the reference I am speaking of is specific to the supreme court.

Basically anything over 9 judges.

And trying to associate a quick confirmation as "packing the court" in my opinion is just another misrepresentation of reality from anyone that would claim that. And another attempt by CERTAIN democrats (most are not crazy enough to suggest that it would seem) to try and spin things against Trumps constitutional right to replace RBG. I think most reasonable people understand that he has the right to do it, and is doing it.

Anything that comes after that from democrats screeching about it, does not look good for them. (For someone on the fence)

Threats to pack the supreme court, and then Biden making really rude comments to the citizen (Voters do not deserve to know his stance) do not make people on the fence want to come more towards him. That is almost comical to me. Just imagine if Trump used those exact words.

I believe that statement alone is going to hurt him quite a bit.

I think it matters more than you believe. You are not on the fence.

My point was that defining court-packing as "anything over 9 judges" is arbitrary. The Republicans have done plenty of things that can be called court-packing.

If Trump has a constitutional right to replace RBG, then Obama had a constitutional right to replace Scalia. You can't have your cake and eat it too.