- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,813
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Gallup, not Rassmusen, is the outlier at the moment.
Uh huh...
Upvote
0
Gallup, not Rassmusen, is the outlier at the moment.
Oh look! Urban legend week on CF is turning into urban legend month.
This is a not so cleverly disguised reference to the money sent to Iran as part of the nuclear deal negotiated by SEVEN different countries/NGOs and was their money for military aircraft paid for but never delivered.
Hmmm,
That is the reason/excuse they used for the payment so tell us something we don't know?
That was just chump change anyway the lifting of the sanctions was the real money.
Rassmusen has been wrong so many times you might as well put them as part of the definition of the word in the dictionary.Gallup, not Rassmusen, is the outlier at the moment. Economist is at 45, NBC News/Wall St. Journal is at 46. The RCP average has been in the 40s all year, usually in the mid forties. So yeah, his approval ratings are comparable to Obama's at his time in his presidency.
Actually many of them were very close. the predictions were 3-4 % for clinton. she won by 2%. But they failed to see the EC mucking it up by 80,000 total votes. The electoral college should be eliminated.They were all very wrong in 2016.
The 16 election is a prime example of why we have the electoral college. Very large voter turnout in a specific region of a specific state would’ve swayed the election a disproportionate degree. In rural “flyover” country, we’re grateful the founders had such foresight.Actually many of them were very close. the predictions were 3-4 % for clinton. she won by 2%. But they failed to see the EC mucking it up by 80,000 total votes. The electoral college should be eliminated.
Actually many of them were very close. the predictions were 3-4 % for clinton. she won by 2%. But they failed to see the EC mucking it up by 80,000 total votes. The electoral college should be eliminated.
You are grateful that flyover country stole an election against the will of the people? That is outright undemocratic.The 16 election is a prime example of why we have the electoral college. Very large voter turnout in a specific region of a specific state would’ve swayed the election a disproportionate degree. In rural “flyover” country, we’re grateful the founders had such foresight.
Oh brothr, not this mythology again.They were all very wrong in 2016.
The 16 election is a prime example of why we have the electoral college. Very large voter turnout in a specific region of a specific state would’ve swayed the election a disproportionate degree. In rural “flyover” country, we’re grateful the founders had such foresight.
Hey what do you know, they did actually get one right. But then why all the claims of the polls all getting it wrong?If you look at the final polls, Rasmussen was the one that got it right on the nose, Clinton +2.
If you look at state by state breakdown of the popular vote, it was large turnout in California only that gave her the popular vote. Had California carried her to a similar degree as the other states that carried her, it would be a virtual tie. The electoral college takes into account the population differences. Surely you know that. But it limits the influence a single state can have on the total.You are grateful that flyover country stole an election against the will of the people? That is outright undemocratic.
That’s my bad. I forget the polls run on popular vote.Hey what do you know, they did actually get one right. But then why all the claims of the polls all getting it wrong?
But it limits the influence a single state can have on the total.
But why should somebody's votes be worth less because they happen to live in a heavily populated state?If you look at state by state breakdown of the popular vote, it was large turnout in California only that gave her the popular vote. Had California carried her to a similar degree as the other states that carried her, it would be a virtual tie. The electoral college takes into account the population differences. Surely you know that. But it limits the influence a single state can have on the total.
They’re not worth less. California has 55 electoral votes whether one person votes, or everyone votes. Same goes for the varying numbers of electoral votes around the country.But why should somebody's votes be worth less because they happen to live in a heavily populated state?
One of Bob’s goats would be an improvement over Donald Trump.I think she'd be a significant improvement over Trump (that is a very low bar to exceed).