Shocker - Quinnipiac Poll Has Joe Biden Beating President Trump in a 2020 LANDSLIDE.

Based on what I’ve seen both on the interwebs and in life, I seriously doubt that poll is in any way accurate.

Joe “Creepy Uncle” Biden? Lolol.

a reply to: Analbumcover

Polls don't mean diddly. If you take a poll of say 100 people and 90 out of hundred are democrats then your poll would reflect this . News media and pollsters know this . Polls are used to try to manipulate the way you vote. The only poll worth anything is the one done on election day at voting boothes.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lets see him to it without the Russians helping him.

First we'll have to get them out of your head and I can't see that happening.

LOL@Polls

Imagine the numbers of a "real" poll. It would be more of a blowout than people could bear. The truth could even hurt the president's plan, in terms of keeping the Left "happy" and sedated. It's ironic how those people can dish it out, but cannot take it when it doesn't go their way.

Everything said about the Left is clearly spot-on, as far as tantrums, name-calling, irrationality, attention-seeking, hippocrisy....it's offensive at this point.

Trump, polls do not matter except when I tweet a poll that has me at 50 percent. The poll he uses is also pathetic because it is a right biased one but he can't even get over 50 percent in a conservative biased poll.

Woo Prez Joe wtg.

Take that drumpf lololollollolloloolo

originally posted by: Analbumcover
Do people still believe polls?

Weren't they already proven irrelevant?

I took a poll on whether I would be drinking beer or beer tonight. I can say with greater than 98% certainty that I will win.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And if trump wins? What does that do to your theory?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Breakthestreak

States are one-by-one abandoning the Electoral College platform, though. That would favor Democrats, wouldn't it?

Heres the rub...its going to be sent to the SC because fed law trumps state law,and the states have a right to conduct elections as they see fit Except when it threatens to overturn the republic and its founding. It has to be a amendment to be legal.

a reply to: d4rktruth

Rasmussen (the poll you're referencing) was the second most accurate poll in 2016 (called the popular vote for hillary by 2 points, which is what happened). Investors business daily was the most accurate (they called it for trump), if you wanted to know.

Rasmussen has him at 51% approval.

Rasmussen is not right biased. At least not any more than gallup is left biased.

Presidential vote polls 17 months before an election are meaningless.

Look at 2012, this far out, they had obama winning against romney by 13. Then the next poll had Romney by 3.

The only poll that matters is counted on election night.

a reply to: yuppa

Yes, the states are attempting to represent the nation rather than themselves. That flies in the face of the system and will be slapped down so fast it will make your head spin.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'll eat crow.

originally posted by: carewemust
June 12, 2019

Pollsters say they have tweaked their algorithms, in order to prevent the disaster they experienced in 2016...
-CareWeMust

Why did they do this?
Do they not understand probability? 97% isn't 100%...these are polls based on a sample, statistical anomalies occur.
People get struck by lightning, some twice. # happens.

I'm curious as to what 'tweaked their algorithms' actually means here.

originally posted by: carewemust

Americans obviously want higher taxes, countries ripping us off, a weaker military, drugs/people flowing in freely from Mexico, high unemployment & welfare dependency, along with evil corporations once again being regulated/taxed into leaving the USA.

-CareWeMust

I don't know a single American that wants these things, and I only know like a handful conservatives so this is probably sullbhit

I might not believe the polls any more than I do a personality quiz on Buzzfeed, but I do believe what I'm hearing locally in my thoroughly Red spot in suburbia.

I'm going to say it now and bet on it -- he's not taking the red areas around GR again, most'll flip blue. A great many of his supporters here have jumped ship, and won't vote Trump again -- only the diehard groupies remain. My neighbors are more than open about that, and this is a suburb that votes hard, solid Red.

a reply to: Nyiah

Article II, Section 1, makes clear, when it comes to presidential elections, the states have just one power: the power to decide how to choose their electors. They cannot tell the electors for whom to vote. Can our liberal friends have forgotten, already, their ples in 2016 for "Trump's electors" to eschew their pledges to vote for Donald Trump and vote instead for Hillary Clinton?
Bottom line, a state cannot "assign" its electoral votes to anyone, including the "popular vote" winner. So, one way to thwart the "popular vote truthers" would be to make every effort to get "stealth constitutionalist" electors appointed, who will cast their votes for whichever candidate wins their state's popular vote. Risky, but certainly worth a try; surely, there would be some electors, who would think twice before casting their ballot for a candidate whom their state's voters rejected.


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dang, that's the first time I've ever seen you admit that you could be wrong. You've usually been all about the unfalsifiable hypothesis. Props to you on this one.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Since polls are all media outlets have, they must at least pretend that they are legitimate/accurate.

For example: Latest Fox News poll has Joe Biden up 10 points over President Trump.

www.foxnews.com...

If the polls/MSM were honest, they'd put a disclaimer in their articles saying: "This particular poll was _____ points off, in the 2016 Presidential election."