Polls of the Presidential Race

[Ford]

Fox News' poll in Arizona is interesting (inaccurate?) as it indicates whites are split among Trump 45-45. I don't like it when numbers aren't close to 100. But with Trump down 9 points and 10 points for whites undecided, can he make up that gap getting most of those votes? The other issue, and Trump is toast if this poll is accurate, Biden leads among men 46-45, but again 9 pts unknown. Biden is up 69 to 23 with Hispanics. Clinton got 60% in the Exit Poll.

The numbers are optimistic and if accurate... also indicates Texas is in play for Biden via the Hispanic vote. He won't win it, but Texas very well could go into the single digits.

BUT!!! That 46-45 men I don't trust, it is too good to be true. Trump won men in Arizona 53-40 in 2016. That would be a catastrophic change... and the election is over.

AZ isn't LA. Lots of well educated white pippa. They don't scare so easy. I think Wumpy might be writing them off. He has to guard TX and FL to have any prayer of making it look like he only lost because rigging.
And now he has blown a big hole in that excuse, overtly asking his drooling moron followers to vote twice.

Unfortunately, a lot of those drooling morons live in AZ. It's a weird state. Large parts of the Phoenix metro (Tempe, especially) lean blue as well as Tucson, but get out into the small towns like Prescott and you're in deep red territory.

I'm encouraged by the Senate race, though. Mark Kelly appears to be on track to hand another loss to McAppointed, which will give us two Democratic Senators from a state considered red only a short time ago.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't know what other thread of many this should go in so I'll just plop it here.

Trump Says Westchester Affordable Housing Policy 'Trying To Destroy Beautiful Place'

In 2009 county officials reached an affordable housing settlement in which the county agreed upon for hundreds of affordable housing units in one of the nation’s wealthiest areas.

“I know the suburbs,” Trump, who owns the Seven Spring estate in Bedford, said on Fox News. “Westchester was ground zero … okay … what they were trying to do. They were trying to destroy the suburban beautiful place. The American dream.

“They want low-income housing and with that comes a lot of other problems, including crime. It may not be nice to say but I’ll say it,”

North Carolina elections chief says 'It is illegal to vote twice in an election' after Trump comment on double voting

"It is illegal to vote twice in an election," said Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Bell said state law made it a "Class I felony" for a voter, "with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time ... in the same primary or election."

I can only feel a sense of relief when I hear that Donald thinks he's the only person who can save our democracy.

 

[angelo]

Save it from the lunatic left? Yep, afraid so!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The latest reports on Dumbass's comments about America's dead service men will probably help him a lot. He is going to be real popular with military members. And their families. And friends.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The latest reports on Dumbass's comments about America's dead service men will probably help him a lot. He is going to be real popular with military members. And their families. And friends.

Just saw the wrath of Khan on MSNBC. He called Trump the C word.

 

[lpetrich]

Nate Silver on Twitter: "
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:
0-1 points: just 6%!
1-2 points: 22%
2-3 points: 46%
3-4 points: 74%
4-5 points: 89%
5-6 points: 98%
6-7 points: 99%
" / Twitter
That's from his statistical modeling. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was ahead in the popular vote by 2.1%. So according to this model, she had a 22% to 46% chance of winning. So her loss was not very surprising.

Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) / Twitter - from these recent polls:

• MI: B 54%, T 41% (+11)
• WI: B 52%, T 44% (+8)
• PA: B 51%, T 45% (+6)

MI-SEN: Peters (D-Inc) 53%, James (R) 39% (+12)

Political Polls on Twitter: ""Is honest and trustworthy"" / Twitter
Biden 53%, Trump 36% (+17)

 

[lpetrich]

National (US) Poll - September 2, 2020 - Biden Tops Trump By 10 Points | Quinnipiac University Connecticut - "Nearly 6 In 10 Say The Country Is Worse Off Than It Was In 2016"

Trump Losing The Military Vote, A Traditional Republican Bloc | HuffPost - "His pardons of war criminals, desire to deploy active-duty troops to quell civil unrest and unwillingness to confront Vladimir Putin on bounties are all factors."

President Donald Trump’s numerous lies on military issues, from claims of delivering historic pay raises to providing brand new ships and planes, do not appear to be working with service members, with polling suggesting he could lose this traditional Republican voting bloc this November.

Democratic nominee Joe Biden leads Trump, 41% to 37%, in a survey of more than 1,000 subscribers to the Military Times. Trump held a 20-percentage-point lead over Hillary Clinton in the same poll before the 2016 election.

In the recent survey, Trump may even have caught a break because it was taken several weeks before Thursday’s Atlantic magazine article revealed new details of his disdain for those who serve in the military. Trump called service members who get injured or killed “suckers” and “losers,” according to the article, and he called off a planned 2018 visit to a cemetery in France where 1,800 World War I U.S. troops are buried because he didn’t want the rain to ruin his hair.

The weak polling numbers for Trump also were recorded despite his repeated claims that he has done more for the military than any previous president ...

He's deluded. He deserves the 25th Amendment.

Trump has peddled other falsehoods about the armed forces, including the notion that they had no ammunition at the end of Obama’s presidency or, more bizarrely, that the F-35 fighter is actually invisible, rather than difficult to detect on radar.

He also tried to claim as successes events that were clear failures ...

Ted Cruz was right about him that he is a pathological liar. But that was before he became a Trumpie.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I need to make one clarification. Yes, it is true that I'm not a Branch Covidian. That doesn't mean I think the virus doesn't exist. It means I think, based on actual mortality rates, that it is completely overblown.

Sorry, but now you get to own it:

this mask and shutdown nonsense

You know, I posted the numbers.

I was called a science denier, but nobody responded to the numbers.

I was called a Trump supporter, but nobody responded to the numbers.

The numbers aren't even completely accurate, as the cases number mixes those who have taken ill and those who merely tested positive. The death number mixes those who died of Covid and those who died with Covid, and there is a difference.

Still, nobody had anything to say to the numbers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Okay, three positive reasons.

1. Preserve abortion rights - several candidates have that.

How many are nominees from a major party, who have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected and nominating SCOTUS Justices?
Looks like you forgot the "reason" in "reasons", dude.

So you think Trump is more legitimate than Jorgensen.

If you intend to register a "protest vote', I understand. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the policy differences between Stephen Lawton Germundesfeldt and anyone else are going to register with anyone other than you, Stephen Lawton Germundesfeldt and a handful of similarly frustrated followers of Stephen Lawton Germundesfeldt.

You honestly think my vote in a state whose outcome is already a given will change the outcome of a swing state?

 

[lpetrich]

Poll: Third party voters from 2016 are backing Biden 2-to-1

One of the major differences between 2016 and 2020 is that this year’s presidential contest features a smaller third-party vote than four years ago, and Gary Johnson/Jill Stein voters from 2016 are breaking more toward Joe Biden than they are Donald Trump.

Given Trump’s narrow win four years ago, that movement — if it holds — is a big deal.

So these candidates have less chance of being spoilers.

 

[lpetrich]

Okay, three positive reasons.

1. Preserve abortion rights - several candidates have that.

How many are nominees from a major party, who have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected and nominating SCOTUS Justices?
Looks like you forgot the "reason" in "reasons", dude.

So you think Trump is more legitimate than Jorgensen.

No, a more viable candidate than Jo Jorgensen. Does anyone think that JJ has any chance of winning? If anything, she is more likely to be a spoiler, though I'd be happy if she spoiled Trump's election rather than Biden's. In fact, the Democratic leadership ought to covertly fund the Libertarian Party as a sort of alternate Republican Party, the way that Republicans have allegedly done with the Greens as alternate Democrats.

 

[lpetrich]

1. Preserve abortion rights - several candidates have that.

Including only one major-party candidate: Joe Biden.

2. Fight for the environment - although we agree this is important we disagree severely on how to do this. I found a candidate that I think does this, do you actually think your candidate does this?

Who is that candidate, and what does that candidate propose?

As to Joe Biden, he may not be good, but he won't be worse than the current President.

3. Protect SSN and medicare - well, you consider that positive

What would you prefer?

4. Enact reasonable measure to fight covid - your candidate is going to end all this mask and shutdown nonsense? Seriously?

What would you prefer?

5. Protecting DACA - that's a big issue to some people.

And your position on it is what?

WAR and other foreign policy. Perhaps because you know your candidate fails on my biggest selling point.

While Trump is totally entitled to fail on that?

 

[Patooka]

Sorry, but now you get to own it:

You know, I posted the numbers.

I was called a science denier, but nobody responded to the numbers.

I was called a Trump supporter, but nobody responded to the numbers.

The numbers aren't even completely accurate, as the cases number mixes those who have taken ill and those who merely tested positive. The death number mixes those who died of Covid and those who died with Covid, and there is a difference.

Still, nobody had anything to say to the numbers.

Here is a response to the numbers you provided.

Here is your reaction

Here is another argument that responds to your asinine claim.

It's pretty clear you want to get into some Shapiro-esque like argument over minutia about numbers, when the fact is your argument is founded on bullshit. Play your numbers game, good luck to you. Just don't be a sad pathetic fuckwit who cries like a snowflake that the responses you got weren't what you expected so "nobody is addressing my point wahhh!". Or be one - I'm neither your Dad or your boss.

 

[Harry Bosch]

With respect (second time I've used this phrase today!): if someone can't be convinced to vote for a guy who would preserve abortion rights, fight for the environment, better protect SSN and medicare, enact reasonable measures to fight covid, protecting DACA, and etc: I can't help you.

Okay, three positive reasons.

1. Preserve abortion rights - several candidates have that.
2. Fight for the environment - although we agree this is important we disagree severely on how to do this. I found a candidate that I think does this, do you actually think your candidate does this?
3. Protect SSN and medicare - well, you consider that positive
4. Enact reasonable measure to fight covid - your candidate is going to end all this mask and shutdown nonsense? Seriously?
5. Protecting DACA - that's a big issue to some people.

You forgot one.

WAR and other foreign policy. Perhaps because you know your candidate fails on my biggest selling point.

Good Heavens! I must have been asleep at the wheel! Please enlighten me, what country does Biden want war with? Who does he want to attack?

 

[Rhea]

You know, I posted the numbers.

I was called a science denier, but nobody responded to the numbers.

I was called a Trump supporter, but nobody responded to the numbers.

The numbers aren't even completely accurate, as the cases number mixes those who have taken ill and those who merely tested positive. The death number mixes those who died of Covid and those who died with Covid, and there is a difference.

Still, nobody had anything to say to the numbers.

I’m surprised you would say something so blatantly false as “nobody had anythign to say to the numbers”
You received multiple answers.

Did you really not notice them?

Go back to your post of “the numbers” and start reading again from there.
Then respond to the people who addressed it.


Wow. That was a big huge miss on your part.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

1. Preserve abortion rights - several candidates have that.

Including only one major-party candidate: Joe Biden.

So you think Trump is a legitimate candidate.

4. Enact reasonable measure to fight covid - your candidate is going to end all this mask and shutdown nonsense? Seriously?

What would you prefer?

Stop shutting down the entire country over this.

WAR and other foreign policy. Perhaps because you know your candidate fails on my biggest selling point.

While Trump is totally entitled to fail on that?

Go ask someone else that. I'm voting for a candidate that actually wants to end war. Harry was trying to explain to me why I should support Biden and skipped my biggest issue entirely. That's telling.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You know, I posted the numbers.

I was called a science denier, but nobody responded to the numbers.

I was called a Trump supporter, but nobody responded to the numbers.

The numbers aren't even completely accurate, as the cases number mixes those who have taken ill and those who merely tested positive. The death number mixes those who died of Covid and those who died with Covid, and there is a difference.

Still, nobody had anything to say to the numbers.

I’m surprised you would say something so blatantly false as “nobody had anythign to say to the numbers”
You received multiple answers.

Did you really not notice them?

Go back to your post of “the numbers” and start reading again from there.
Then respond to the people who addressed it.


Wow. That was a big huge miss on your part.

They all said "you are anti-science" and "you must be a Trump supporter" but didn't actually address the numbers.

I guess, to you, that must be addressing the numbers.


Okay, there are a few that attempt to address the numbers by saying "so look at the numbers for this other thing, are you saying it doesn't exist?" No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying, and I went out of my way to say I do believe Covid exists.

Those "other things that also have numbers" aren't shutting down large segments of the economy and forcing people to wear the holy face diapers of the Branch Covidian cult. If we took Covid as seriously as we take the "other things" we wouldn't be doing the Potempkin mask carnival.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Rhea]

So you are saying mask wearing doesn’t help enough to bother? And everything should open back up?

But the data is clear that mask wearing is what enables opening up.
You sound like you dispute that. I think I hear you say;

BOTH open up AND stop wearing masks BECAUSE the amount of deaths that would create are not a big enough deal.

The 180k number that you cite as not-a-big-deal is the number we get when we close down and wear masks.
So for you to use that as your justification for not needing shut downs and masks seems like really terrible science.

“In the presence of a smallpox vaccine, only 0.0001% of the population gets smallpox. Therefore we don’t need a vaccine.”
Wut.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you are saying mask wearing doesn’t help enough to bother? And everything should open back up?

A healthy person wearing a mask does nothing.

Masks help if a sick person wears them. That's it. That is the extent of masks.

If you want a mask that protects the healthy person when worn by the healthy person, you need a much better mask than that which is commonly worn. You do need the medical caliber biohazard mask regularly cleaned with filters regularly replaced. If you're not asking for that then you admit you don't actually believe the line you're peddling.

At this point you say "well maybe they're sick and don't know it." A fair point, but overall it is a paranoid point. Do those who take that line wear flea collars? Maybe they have fleas and don't know it, and fleas carry diseases far worse than Covid. There was a case of Typhus in Los Angeles City Hall recently. A worker caught it from a flea from the rats attracted by the homeless camping out there. Fleas were the culprit in spreading the Bubonic Plague.

BOTH open up AND stop wearing masks BECAUSE the amount of deaths that would create are not a big enough deal.

The 180k number that you cite as not-a-big-deal is the number we get when we close down and wear masks.
So for you to use that as your justification for not needing shut downs and masks seems like really terrible science.

Don't conflate "died with Covid" with "died of Covid". The 183k deaths are the former. I dislike the way the stats are presented because they make those mistakes. To put it in perspective, which Karen hates, 2.8 million people die every year total. If you want to keep all these restrictions in place until nobody dies of anything that's not sensible.

“In the presence of a smallpox vaccine, only 0.0001% of the population gets smallpox. Therefore we don’t need a vaccine.”
Wut.

False comparison, thank you for playing.