The polls in their totality showed a neck and neck race with the most likely two outcomes being one candidate or the other taking all the swing states. It was a tossup. Favorability ratings don’t mean much when it comes to predicting electoral outcomes. Kamala was over -15 in favorability until she announced her run. By the election she …
The polls in their totality showed a neck and neck race with the most likely two outcomes being one candidate or the other taking all the swing states. It was a tossup. Favorability ratings don’t mean much when it comes to predicting electoral outcomes. Kamala was over -15 in favorability until she announced her run. By the election she was -2. Trump after the election went above net 0 from -9. Answering a poll is easy. Getting out and voting requires some effort. Can’t do that on your phone. In other words, who cares, it’s a favorability poll. The actual aggregate state by state polling is the closest we going to get to being able to predict an outcome and that polling was fairly accurate.
As for Kamala not flipping a county, it’s not “ever” but since 1932. You don’t have a large enough sample size to draw any serious inferences from that. Times change. Something that seems unlikely from the small available sample size can in fact happen. Kamala can win more votes in swing states all she wants, but if you don’t win more than the other guy, you still lose. People can change their vote from one election to the other. They can turnout one time and not the other. They can answer a poll and never vote. The results are all that matter.
And I hate to break it to you but the “Russian Tale” is what is called wartime propaganda. Remember the Maine? In case you haven’t noticed there’s a geopolitical spat thats been going on between the Americans and Russians that is dangerously close to all out war. There is a vested interest in spreading anti-Russian narratives to prepare the population for the possibility of total war and to get the population to consent to the cost of war. Nobody is going to look into the supposed “Russian Tale” despite having the most anti-Russian government since the height of the cold war. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. Neither did the Russia collusion hoax that came out of the Clinton campaign. The Russians don’t have some magic monopoly on the technicalities of rigging elections. The fantasies about the Russians controlling US politics are plainly ridiculous. It’s zombie cold war propaganda. They give you an external enemy to hate so you don’t look at the crap they’re pulling domestically.
And yet they did turn out in record numbers. The early voting record for Georgia was broken halfway through the early voting period. How do you break turnout records and end up with 3 million fewer votes? You're saying they turned out for Trump which makes no damn sense at all when he was loonier than ever, people were walking out of his rallies, and his hasn't won a single election since 2016. By all accounts, his popularity was waning, not waxing. On the face of it, there'd at least need to be some explanation for why his popularity supposedly soared enough for him to run the table over all the swing states when his ratings were terrible. You don't get to say the polls were correct when it comes to the nationals and the swings states and wrong when it comes to favorability. You can't have it both ways.
No hate here. You can project onto me all you want, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't hate Russians. And your point that we're close to an all-out war is all the more reason for them to interfere in our elections. Are you so naive to think that they wouldn't prefer Trump to Harris? For certain he'll go easier on them to say the least. In any case, I wasn't even saying that Russia did it so much as saying that the tactics used were the same. In other words, someone was taking notes.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Let's just do a manual hand recount of all the paper ballots in the swing states and found who's right and who's wrong. Perhaps there's multiple potential explanations for all of these anomalies, but the fact that they're there and were extremely rare or not present in other elections makes it worth checking out.
But somehow I suspect you're going to argue against that, aren't you?
The polls in their totality showed a neck and neck race with the most likely two outcomes being one candidate or the other taking all the swing states. It was a tossup. Favorability ratings don’t mean much when it comes to predicting electoral outcomes. Kamala was over -15 in favorability until she announced her run. By the election she was -2. Trump after the election went above net 0 from -9. Answering a poll is easy. Getting out and voting requires some effort. Can’t do that on your phone. In other words, who cares, it’s a favorability poll. The actual aggregate state by state polling is the closest we going to get to being able to predict an outcome and that polling was fairly accurate.
As for Kamala not flipping a county, it’s not “ever” but since 1932. You don’t have a large enough sample size to draw any serious inferences from that. Times change. Something that seems unlikely from the small available sample size can in fact happen. Kamala can win more votes in swing states all she wants, but if you don’t win more than the other guy, you still lose. People can change their vote from one election to the other. They can turnout one time and not the other. They can answer a poll and never vote. The results are all that matter.
And I hate to break it to you but the “Russian Tale” is what is called wartime propaganda. Remember the Maine? In case you haven’t noticed there’s a geopolitical spat thats been going on between the Americans and Russians that is dangerously close to all out war. There is a vested interest in spreading anti-Russian narratives to prepare the population for the possibility of total war and to get the population to consent to the cost of war. Nobody is going to look into the supposed “Russian Tale” despite having the most anti-Russian government since the height of the cold war. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. Neither did the Russia collusion hoax that came out of the Clinton campaign. The Russians don’t have some magic monopoly on the technicalities of rigging elections. The fantasies about the Russians controlling US politics are plainly ridiculous. It’s zombie cold war propaganda. They give you an external enemy to hate so you don’t look at the crap they’re pulling domestically.
And yet they did turn out in record numbers. The early voting record for Georgia was broken halfway through the early voting period. How do you break turnout records and end up with 3 million fewer votes? You're saying they turned out for Trump which makes no damn sense at all when he was loonier than ever, people were walking out of his rallies, and his hasn't won a single election since 2016. By all accounts, his popularity was waning, not waxing. On the face of it, there'd at least need to be some explanation for why his popularity supposedly soared enough for him to run the table over all the swing states when his ratings were terrible. You don't get to say the polls were correct when it comes to the nationals and the swings states and wrong when it comes to favorability. You can't have it both ways.
No hate here. You can project onto me all you want, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't hate Russians. And your point that we're close to an all-out war is all the more reason for them to interfere in our elections. Are you so naive to think that they wouldn't prefer Trump to Harris? For certain he'll go easier on them to say the least. In any case, I wasn't even saying that Russia did it so much as saying that the tactics used were the same. In other words, someone was taking notes.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Let's just do a manual hand recount of all the paper ballots in the swing states and found who's right and who's wrong. Perhaps there's multiple potential explanations for all of these anomalies, but the fact that they're there and were extremely rare or not present in other elections makes it worth checking out.
But somehow I suspect you're going to argue against that, aren't you?