Polling and 2024 US Election

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That followed, "he talks about terminating parts of the Constitution"

His words: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

You can read more at A new low: Why Trump endorsed ‘terminating’ constitutional law

Why do you keep returning to Hitler? Trump is fascistic like Hitler. Trump is angry like Hitler. He's violent like Hitler. He's a racist like Hitler. He's psychopathic like Hitler.

But he probably varies in significant ways as well. Trump is much less political and much less knowledgeable than Hitler. Whereas Hitler was looking to benefit Germany, Trump is only interested in benefitting himself, so, he would likely pursue some different goals than Hitler did.

Really? That's how I feel about you, although I would change the word hate to confirmation bias. What in the world makes you think that Trump wouldn't have death camps if he could? The fact that her hasn't had the opportunity yet? He almost got Pelosi and Pence killed, and that was intended. He named them as enemies, and watched as his thugs erected a gallows for Pence and stormed the Capitol looking for Pelosi. He's a wannabe killer, and with the power and protection to kill, he no doubt would.

Of course, you probably disagree with that.

The fact that you don't know these things yet tells me that you never will - that you have a confirmation bias that filters out evidence for you. I'm not going to get past that, but I don't mind giving you short answers even knowing will have no impact on you. You and I have access to the same evidence but come to radically different conclusions regarding what it signifies, and that likely won't ever change.

If you were a ten-year old or from a part of the world where Trump is likely unknown by the majority, I would give you more thorough answers, since there would be no reason to think that you couldn't learn from them, but in this setting, brief answers and links will suffice. Virtually everybody reading my words either already agrees with them (but might find value in reading some of them anyway) or never will.

Wow, just more hateful unhinged rants. Have you listed to Trump's interviews and speeches? or just memes? The fact that you think Trump wanted to kill Pence and Pelosi, thinks Trump will have death camps, will kill others if he is elected etc. is insane. No wonder you cannot have a discussion about policy.

FYI, when you quote Trump please quote the entire quote not just part of it, it will give you more credibility.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This is true, but it does not take into account what we can learn from the midterms and special elections where the Republican candidates, particually Trump endorsed maga election denying candidates, have underperformed the polls.

I am not making predictions, only pointing out that predictions may not be accurate.

I never said Trump is going to win or said it was accurate. I said if the polling trends continue as in the past Trump would win if the election was held today.

 

[Argentbear]

Wow, just more hateful unhinged rants. Have you listed to Trump's interviews and speeches? or just memes? The fact that you think Trump wanted to kill Pence and Pelosi, thinks Trump will have death camps, will kill others if he is elected etc. is insane. No wonder you cannot have a discussion about policy.

FYI, when you quote Trump please quote the entire quote not just part of it, it will give you more credibility.

Trump endorses idea he should be able to assassinate opponents without being prosecuted

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Remember, Biden trounced Trump in 2020 by over 8 million votes, and the following have occurred SINCE then:

• Trump won't have the incumbent advantage this time.
• Trump will be running against an incumbent.
• He's orchestrated and been indicted for an insurrection and other illegal attempts to steal the election.
• He's a convicted felon now.
• He's been adjudicated liable for sexual assault.
• He's threatening to become a dictator.
• Roe has been overturned leading to a blue wave in multiple elections since.
• He's been indicted for stealing state secrets.
• His mind is turning to Jello limiting his campaign opportunities.
• He was destroyed in a debate and is now hiding from a rematch.
• He's running with an extremely unpopular VP candidate this against two people that are a beloved freight train of popularity.

Good luck with all of that. If you see a win there for Trump - if you see him making up that 8+ million votes after adding all of those new facts, it sounds like just wishful thinking and manipulating statistics to comfort yourself.

One of the things that saddens me the most about those whole endless "Trump worthiness" is very simply this: your bullets are true. Intelligent people can easily project the damage that a Trump presidency will do around the world, and many Republicans fall into that demographic (yet Romney still won't speak out! )

But there's the hope for a few more dollars in your pocket, well, that's a reason to accept all the damage that will come. It's selfish beyond belief.

I can remember actually hearing JFK's inaugural address (I was 12, and intersted in politics already), and his stirring words: "So, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Where are such voices now?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Trump endorses idea he should be able to assassinate opponents without being prosecuted

This is what Trump said from your article.

“On immunity [it’s] very simple,” he said at a press conference on Thursday amid his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.

“If a president of the United States does not have immunity, he’ll be totally ineffective because he won’t be able to do anything because it will mean he’ll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party.

“So a president of the United States, I’m not talking just me, has to have immunity.”

I don't see him endorsing killing political opponents.

Also his lawyers said Presidents could be held criminally accountable if impeached and convicted. That is in your article as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

just more hateful unhinged rants

I didn't see hate or any other emotion there, nor was my measured essay a rant. Furthermore, you addressed none of it. You just dismissed it all with the wave of a hand and the use of words like hateful, unhinged, and rant. That's not a rebuttal. That's evasion and deflection from Trump to me.

The fact that you think Trump wanted to kill Pence and Pelosi, thinks Trump will have death camps, will kill others if he is elected etc. is insane.

Regarding Pence and Pelosi, I wrote, "He almost got Pelosi and Pence killed, and that was intended. He named them as enemies, and watched as his thugs erected a gallows for Pence and stormed the Capitol looking for Pelosi." You had no comment.

Regarding death camps, what I wrote was, "What in the world makes you think that Trump wouldn't have death camps if he could? The fact that her hasn't had the opportunity yet?" You didn't answer.

There is nothing hateful, unhinged, or rant-like about any of that. The first are historical facts, and the second a very good question.

No wonder you cannot have a discussion about policy.

Were you discussing policy? I wasn't. You were defending Trump.

The only policy that matters to me in this election is that Harris is pro-democracy and the pro-rule of law, and Trump is an enemy to both. Nothing else matters enough to outweigh that.

FYI, when you quote Trump please quote the entire quote not just part of it, it will give you more credibility.

I will never have credibility with you no matter what I write if it's criticism of Trump, and you will never have credibility with me as long as you defend him.

And if you think that my leaving some words out when quoting Trump was relevant, then I suggest you write what I quoted next to the larger quote and show how that's relevant. The classic example is that the Bible says that there is no god, but when one looks at the larger context, he can see that it doesn't mean what the words in isolation suggest.

I never said Trump is going to win or said it was accurate. I said if the polling trends continue as in the past Trump would win if the election was held today.

The claims you made in the OP were unsubstantiated statistics (no supporting links, just your claims), and were irrelevant even if correct. Did they predict that the election would be a blowout in 2020? Biden beat Trump by over 8 million in the popular voting, and even more impressive, got 306 electoral votes, to Trump's 232.

This will likely be a worse defeat. Trump has very little chance of winning a free and fair election for the reasons I gave, which you ignored.

• Trump has already lost once and carries that stigma.
• He lost as an incumbent to a non-incumbent and now will be running as a non-incumbent against the VP of the US.
• He's stigmatized by his criminal indictments and convictions as well as the sexual predation judgment.
• He is much hated by many for his part in overturning Roe, he is openly fascistic and dictatorial.
• Multiple members of his own party call him a danger and have endorsed Harris.
• He can no longer form coherent thoughts. He's always been low information, but now he's insane rambling on about sharks, Hannibal Lecter, and whether Harris worked in McDonalds, which is leading to Fox News cutting him off mid-rant during his underattended rallies and to MAGAs walking out early in droves.

How many prognosticators do you need to see that this will be an even bigger blowout? Your statistics don't change that, and polls are just polls, not votes.

Face it - you're looking for ways to comfort yourself in the face of the unthinkable to you: a second Trump defeat followed by his incarceration. Sorry about that, but you've bet on the wrong horse here.

“On immunity [it’s] very simple,” he said at a press conference on Thursday amid his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.

“If a president of the United States does not have immunity, he’ll be totally ineffective because he won’t be able to do anything because it will mean he’ll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party.

“So a president of the United States, I’m not talking just me, has to have immunity.”

Do you believe that? You shouldn't. It's already been disproven historically.

It might have been plausible if Trump were the first president, or if there had been no effective presidents in the past, but Washington, Lincoln, and FDR for example put his claim to the lie.

Trump is projecting again. *HE* needs immunity, because he intends to break the law unless he can't suspend it, and he saw how that worked out for him last time. Biden doesn't need his newfound immunity from prosecution because he's not a criminal.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I didn't see hate or any other emotion there, nor was my measured essay a rant. Furthermore, you addressed none of it. You just dismissed it all with the wave of a hand and the use of words like hateful, unhinged, and rant. That's not a rebuttal. That's evasion and deflection from Trump to me.

Regarding Pence and Pelosi, I wrote, "He almost got Pelosi and Pence killed, and that was intended. He named them as enemies, and watched as his thugs erected a gallows for Pence and stormed the Capitol looking for Pelosi." You had no comment.

Trump did not erect any or direct anyone to erect gallows.

Regarding death camps, what I wrote was, "What in the world makes you think that Trump wouldn't have death camps if he could? The fact that her hasn't had the opportunity yet?" You didn't answer.

Because the question is ridiculous and unhinged.

The only policy that matters in this election is that Harris is pro-democracy and the pro-rule of law, and Trump is an enemy to both. Nothing else matters enough to outweigh that.

I disagree with this. I think Trump is defending democracy and Harris will limit our rights. She has said she would have government come into our homes to verify our guns are properly stored. She has said no private healthcare is what she supports, She has said to ban plastic straws etc. She is a threat to democracy.

The claims you made in the OP were unsubstantiated statistics (no supporting links, just your claims), and were irrelevant even if correct. Did they predict that the election would be a blowout. Biden beat Trump by over 8 million in the popular voting, and even more impressive, got 306 electoral votes, to Trump's 232.

This will likely be a worse defeat Trump has very little chance of winning a free and fair election for the reasons I gave, which you ignored. Trump has already lost once and carries that stigma, he lost as an incumbent to a non-incumbent and now will be running as a non-incumbent against the VP of the US, he's stigmatized by his criminal indictments and convictions as well as the sexual predation judgment, he is much hated by many for his part in overturning Roe, he is openly fascistic and dictatorial, multiple members of his own party call him a danger and have endorsed Harris, and he can no longer form coherent thoughts. He's always been low information, but now he's insane rambling on about sharks, Hannibal Lecter, and whether Harris worked in McDonalds, which is leading to Fox News cutting him off mid-rant during his underattended rallies and to MAGAs walking out early in droves.

How many prognosticators do you need to see that this will be an even bigger blowout? Your statistics don't change that, and polls are just polls, not votes.

Face it - you're looking for ways to comfort yourself in the face of the unthinkable to you: a second Trump defeat followed by his incarceration. Sorry about that, but you've bet on the wrong horse here.

So I never said my predictions were true or going to happen. What I said was if Trump over performs the polls by the same amount in the last two elections and if the election was held today Trump would win based on where the polls are today. That is a fact. I am not saying that is going to happen, no one knows if the polls are more accurate for Trump in this election over the last two elections.

Do you have a reason why Trump 100% of the time outperformed the polls in every state he won in the last two elections? Clinton and Biden were not even close to that. Does this indicate a bias in the polling?

 

[Argentbear]

This is what Trump said from your article.

“On immunity [it’s] very simple,” he said at a press conference on Thursday amid his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.

“If a president of the United States does not have immunity, he’ll be totally ineffective because he won’t be able to do anything because it will mean he’ll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party.

“So a president of the United States, I’m not talking just me, has to have immunity.”

I don't see him endorsing killing political opponents.

Also his lawyers said Presidents could be held criminally accountable if impeached and convicted. That is in your article as well.

Trumps response was in response to the question if he agreed with his attorney D John Sauer a president could order the killing of a rival by the US military and be immune from any legal consequences.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump did not erect any or direct anyone to erect gallows.

No, not explicitly. I don't think you understand how stochastic violence works. Whenever Trump speaks out against people, his thugs begin to harm them. Trump said the election was rigged, so Giuliani repeated it, and election workers were terrorized: Georgia election worker tearfully describes fleeing her home after Giuliani's false claims of fraud

Trump made similar comments against Judge Merchan and his daughter, and they were subjected to MAGA thug threats: Judge Merchan's daughter received death threats after Trump attacks—Boss

Trump made it clear to his thugs on January 6th that he was unhappy with Pence's choice: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...ort-hanging-pence-capitol-riot-jan-6-00035117 and What We Learned About Trump, Pence, and the January 6th Mob

Trump doesn't need to specify times, places, or precise methods. He just needs to tell his thugs who he is unhappy with, and the rest is understood.

Because the question is ridiculous and unhinged.

Not because you say so.

Besides, that shouldn't stop you from making your case if you had had a rebuttal. You have no reason to believe that Trump is not a wannabe killer and many to think otherwise, but also refuse to countenance that possibility and instead wave it off with nothing more than ridiculous and unhinged.

I think Trump is defending democracy

I don't. He's already attempted to subvert it, but you can't see that.

But my point was that I don't need to know anything else about this election other than that Trump has attacked American democracy and will do so again if given a chance, and Harris will do the opposite. That you disagree isn't relevant to my opinion there.

Harris will limit our rights. She has said she would have government come into our homes to verify our guns are properly stored. She has said no private healthcare is what she supports, She has said to ban plastic straws etc. She is a threat to democracy.

I don't think you know what democracy is. If Harris is elected and accomplishes those things, that's democracy in action. If Trump and MAGA attempt to keep her from taking office, that's antidemocratic.

Many people support increased gun safety, universal public healthcare (I don't believe your claim about her wanting to eliminate private health care options), and environmental protections, and such people will vote for Harris. I support them all.

What I said was if Trump over performs the polls by the same amount in the last two elections and if the election was held today Trump would win based on where the polls are today. That is a fact.

It's not a fact because you say so. You still haven't provided anything but unsupported claims, and I don't trust your judgment to properly interpret whatever data you had.

But I can stipulate to that for the moment. My answer is, so what? What matters is who wins. The polls are just one proxy to decide how voters will vote. New voting registration is one. There as a significant number of new voters following Harris' replacement of Biden and another after Swift's endorsement of her and Swift's admonition to the Swifties to get registered. There are also approval ratings, and also campaign contributions.

Do you have a reason why Trump 100% of the time outperformed the polls in every state he won in the last two elections?

I don't know that he did. All I have is your claim, and as I said, your ways of processing information are radically different from mine, hence the great gulf between what we each think is the case despite having access to the same evidence, so please forgive me if I don't just take your word.

But I can give you the same answer. Let's stipulate once again for the moment that your claims are correct. So what? What matters is who wins, and the polls are an imperfect proxy for predicting that. The best assessments will consider all relevant facts such as those that I listed that suggest that Trump will do worse in 2024 than he did in 2020 and the other proxies like approval ratings and their trends, campaign contributions, and new registrations (the two bumps I named represent almost exclusively people registering to vote for Harris).

Does this indicate a bias in the polling?

If true, then yes, probably. But for the third time, so what? You seem to think that this is meaningful or has predictive value.

 

[Argentbear]

Trump did not erect any or direct anyone to erect gallows.

but he supported the hanging of Pence

 

[Riders]

Read this MSN