Trump Running in 2024

[CardinalBacker]

Polls aren’t accurate… too many factors can sway the results in either direction. 
 

And they definitely don’t reflect which voters will actually turn out to vote. I think the polls in 16 represented peoples’ preferences, but Trump’s voters turned out when Hillary’s didn’t bother. 
 

I like that 538 compiles polls… if you have 49 polls showing candidate “a” winning and 2 showing candidate “b” winning, you can take something from the trend. 
 

Other people will ignore the 49 as flawed and champion the 2 others as “proof” that candidate “b” is going to win.  
 

Most are still within the margin of error. We’re just going to have to see what happens in November. My prediction? Kamala wins the popular vote by 10 million plus, wins the electoral college more convincingly than Biden did, and Trump cries that he was cheated.  
 

I think that the Ds take control of the House and remain in control of the Senate. The Rs didn’t do anything except fight with each other while controlling the House… they don’t deserve to lead in most peoples’ eyes.  Presidential election cycles bring out the voters that don’t spend their time talking about politics online, and those people don’t like the party of divisiveness/hate these days… they’ll vote “D,” I’m afraid. 

 

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Polls aren’t accurate… too many factors can sway the results in either direction. 
 

And they definitely don’t reflect which voters will actually turn out to vote. I think the polls in 16 represented peoples’ preferences, but Trump’s voters turned out when Hillary’s didn’t bother. 
 

I like that 538 compiles polls… if you have 49 polls showing candidate “a” winning and 2 showing candidate “b” winning, you can take something from the trend. 
 

Other people will ignore the 49 as flawed and champion the 2 others as “proof” that candidate “b” is going to win.  
 

Most are still within the margin of error. We’re just going to have to see what happens in November. My prediction? Kamala wins the popular vote by 10 million plus, wins the electoral college more convincingly than Biden did, and Trump cries that he was cheated.  
 

I think that the Ds take control of the House and remain in control of the Senate. The Rs didn’t do anything except fight with each other while controlling the House… they don’t deserve to lead in most peoples’ eyes.  Presidential election cycles bring out the voters that don’t spend their time talking about politics online, and those people don’t like the party of divisiveness/hate these days… they’ll vote “D,” I’m afraid. 

 

Just heard that in Pennsylvania Kommiela has a 60% unfavorable rating.  And Trump is up by 8 points with Hispanic voters in Pennsylvania!  👍🏻

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I like that 538 compiles polls… if you have 49 polls showing candidate “a” winning and 2 showing candidate “b” winning, you can take something from the trend. 

That is my go to page to see trends. The problem with Trump is in 2016 (big time) and in 2020 is he over performed versus he polls from 1-5 points. 

To say Hillary voters didn't show up in 2016 is factually wrong. In 2012, Obama received 66 million votes....in 2016 Hillary received 66 million votes.....

When you look at voting numbers it is hard to make sense of 2020.  There was a crazy surge on both sides. 

Year                   Republican Popular                Democratic Popular

2004                         62 m                                      59 m

2008                         60 m                                      69 m

2012                         61 m                                      66 m

2016                        63 m                                       66 m

2020                        74m                                        81 m

It would seem like a shoe in, based on trend that if you received 11 million more votes than your previous election you would win.  Remember all the Obama excitement.....he only got 10 million more votes.....then went down in 2012.

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

That is my go to page to see trends. The problem with Trump is in 2016 (big time) and in 2020 is he over performed versus he polls from 1-5 points. 

To say Hillary voters didn't show up in 2016 is factually wrong. In 2012, Obama received 66 million votes....in 2016 Hillary received 66 million votes.....

When you look at voting numbers it is hard to make sense of 2020.  There was a crazy surge on both sides. 

Year                   Republican Popular                Democratic Popular

2004                         62 m                                      59 m

2008                         60 m                                      69 m

2012                         61 m                                      66 m

2016                        63 m                                       66 m

2020                        74m                                        81 m

It would seem like a shoe in, based on trend that if you received 11 million more votes than your previous election you would win.  Remember all the Obama excitement.....he only got 10 million more votes.....then went down in 2012.

Good analysis... but I think you might be overlooking population growth as it relates to voter turnout, in most years.  

2020 was an an outlier for a couple of reasons.... we've never sent mass ballots out to registered voters, unrequested.  I strongly suspect this "allowed" a lot of people to vote who normally wouldn't be bothered to make their way to the polls, and also would have opened up the POSSIBILITY of voter fraud (but no evidence of such was ever found).  The question is whether or not it makes good sense to "push" people to vote when they'd normally not be willing to go to any effort to get to the polls... I guess that depends on whether or not your party won or lost. I think it was a terrible idea.  

The main thing that I saw was that Trump does an excellent job of getting people to vote... not just for him, but against him as well.  And he's better at getting the "Not Trump" votes out than he is at getting the actual "Trump" votes to the polls.   That's the real Trump Effect, in my mind. 

 

But I think a combination of those two factors led to the high turnouts... combined with the ongoing pandemic/lockdowns, as well as the racial unrest that was going on in 2020.  

It's kinda strange that people see "fraud" in the jump in Dem votes from 2016 to 2020, but nothing wrong with an abnormal increase in Repub votes for the same time period.

[UT alum]

On 9/18/2024 at 1:34 AM, Reagan said:

 

 

@CardinalBacker  @UT alum

So, what does this mean? Nate Silver is 538.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

Just now, UT alum said:

So, what does this mean? Nate Silver is 538.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Nate Silver was 538.  ABC owns 538 and downsized and layed off Nate Silver!

[Reagan]

 

The pure simplicity of this ad by Trump is so brilliant. It can’t be topped!

[thetragichippy]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

It's kinda strange that people see "fraud" in the jump in Dem votes from 2016 to 2020, but nothing wrong with an abnormal increase in Repub votes for the same time period.

Not strange at all. For 4 years we seen the popularity of Trump (to this day still has more black/Hispanic/Latino voters that any other republican president in history. He packed stadiums and his rally's were historic. Compare that to Biden, who was not popular at all (like Harris), and gets the most votes in history?  Could it be that as you admitted, mailing out unsolicited ballets.....could that be the difference like you said, going to voters that typically wouldn't vote.......OR was there some mass fraud going on? We will never know because it would be impossible to check every mail in ballot. 

Lastly, if there was enough fraud to change the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election, do you think the powers that be would let that out? Would it cause another civil war? Would it invite foreign nations to do bad things? There are so many unknowns for that scenario it is mind blowing. 

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Nate Silver was 538.  ABC owns 538 and downsized and layed off Nate Silver!

Oh yeah, I forgot.  Anything negative about the Greatest Liar of All Time is part of a conspiratorial cabal. Where are you on the flat earth conspiracy?

[Reagan]

27 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Oh yeah, I forgot.  Anything negative about the Greatest Liar of All Time is part of a conspiratorial cabal. Where are you on the flat earth conspiracy?

What I stated about 538 being owned by ABC is a fact.

BTW -- everything is a conspiracy until it's not.  EX: Hunter's laptop! 

Plus, we'll have to wait to see if the affidavit concerning the rigging of the debate by ABC is real.  It's a conspiracy until the facts are known.  

[Reagan]

On 9/18/2024 at 1:39 PM, Reagan said:

The poll I showed was a Nate Silver poll.  Nate Silver founded 538.  From the article:  "Silver founded FiveThirtyEight in 2008, eventually bringing it to The New York Times. Silver would go on to sell the site to Disney’s ESPN; it later was moved to the ABC News division.  The second round of Disney layoffs hit ABC News on Tuesday, with Nate Silver’s data-driven politics and journalism brand FiveThirtyEight among those being impacted."  He was also layed off.  Didn't know 538 was owned by ABC.  The same ABC that rigged the debate.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

@CardinalBacker   In case you didn't see this previous post.

[UT alum]

16 minutes ago, Reagan said:

What I stated about 538 being owned by ABC is a fact.

BTW -- everything is a conspiracy until it's not.  EX: Hunter's laptop! 

Plus, we'll have to wait to see if the affidavit concerning the rigging of the debate by ABC is real.  It's a conspiracy until the facts are known.  

Shoot this down. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

 

Good point!  They said they didn’t have “majority support” among their members for 1 or the other.  I’m sorry but doesn’t 58% count as a majority?

@UT alum  @HuntersLaptop2028  @CardinalBacker

[Reagan]

 

Another extraordinary point!

[UT alum]

4 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

Good point!  They said they didn’t have “majority support” among their members for 1 or the other.  I’m sorry but doesn’t 58% count as a majority?

@UT alum  @HuntersLaptop2028  @CardinalBacker

Maybe rules say a super majority is needed. You know, like when a majority is in agreement in the Senate, but 60% have to agree to move legislation. Is that democratic?

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

Good point!  They said they didn’t have “majority support” among their members for 1 or the other.  I’m sorry but doesn’t 58% count as a majority?

@UT alum  @HuntersLaptop2028  @CardinalBacker

So this poll is a fox poll and has credibility (in your eyes)?

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

Good point!  They said they didn’t have “majority support” among their members for 1 or the other.  I’m sorry but doesn’t 58% count as a majority?

@UT alum  @HuntersLaptop2028  @CardinalBacker

But to your point, it's all circular.  Collective bargaining has had multiple effects... on one hand the cost of labor has risen so dramatically that many production-related union jobs here in the US have been outsourced, therefore cutting the union influence in the US.  The other effect that those higher wages is that so many union workers make so much money that they are no longer the lower/middle class.  They're upper/middle class to upper class, and suddenly those benevolent policies that the left embraces (higher taxes, handouts for the lazy, etc) don't sound like such a good deal to the rank & file union members.  Think about when Mobiloil went on strike in Beaumont a couple of years ago... the workers thought it would be a good idea to have a boat parade on the Neches (since everybody that works there can afford a boat or two).  No surprise that those guys aren't crazy about Dem policies.  

 

The union brass has done such a good job of raising wages that they've made their presence unnecessary by shrinking the pool of available union workers and creating a class of union members that don't support the Dem party anymore.  And of course, you're speaking of the blue-collar Teamsters and I'm talking about OCAW, IBEW, etc... Unions like the SEIU, screen actors guild, teachers unions, etc are still doing just fine and I'd expect them to have members voting much more favorably towards the Ds.  

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

So this poll is a fox poll and has credibility (in your eyes)?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters declined to endorse a presidential candidate on Wednesday after releasing internal polling that showed a majority of its members supported former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris.

[CardinalBacker]

50 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters declined to endorse a presidential candidate on Wednesday after releasing internal polling that showed a majority of its members supported former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris.

I was making fun of the fact that Reagan will look at 500 polls that show Harris leading, then finds ONE that shows Trump ahead and posts it here, proudly yelling “SEE?!!!! TOO BIG TO RIG!!!”

While ignoring the 500 that show quite clearly what’s about to happen. 
 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

23 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I was making fun of the fact that Reagan will look at 500 polls that show Harris leading, then finds ONE that shows Trump ahead and posts it here, proudly yelling “SEE?!!!! TOO BIG TO RIG!!!”

While ignoring the 500 that show quite clearly what’s about to happen. 
 

 

Only one teamster internal poll, Trump is way ahead.  Pretty embarrassing for democrats to lose this one, but she’s a job killer.

[Reagan]

On 9/18/2024 at 1:34 AM, Reagan said:

 

 

@CardinalBacker  @UT alum

I'll respond to your "shoot this down" comment by letting Nate Silver contradict himself.  Or does he?!

I ad previously posted this.  According to Nate, Trump has a 312 electoral lead.  

@UT alum

[CardinalBacker]

57 minutes ago, Reagan said:

I'll respond to your "shoot this down" comment by letting Nate Silver contradict himself.  Or does he?!

I ad previously posted this.  According to Nate, Trump has a 312 electoral lead.  

@UT alum

Are you sure that’s not from 2020?

🤣😂🤣

[thetragichippy]

The teamsters not endorsing Harris is a win for Trump, and no amount of spin will change that.  There is a shift going on.......The Democrats used to represent the working man,,,,,,I don't think the endorsements of Taylor Swift, Julia Roberts, Obama and all the Hollywood elites are going to impress the typical blue collar union worker. 

O’Brien earlier this year became the first president of the Teamsters in the organization’s 121-year history to speak at the Republican National Convention.

[Reagan]

Cliff Maloney: Democrats ‘Hemorrhaging’ in Pennsylvania; Donald Trump Can Win!  From the article:  "Democrats are “hemorrhaging” in Pennsylvania, and former President Donald Trump can win if Republicans motivate low-propensity GOP voters to cast their ballots, Cliff Maloney, heading up the Pennsylvania Chase, said during an appearance on Breitbart News Saturday, noting that Democrats are not boasting the figures they did in 2020."  

Is this so hard to believe?  What does Kommiela Harris actually have to offer.  It's my understanding all Trump has to do is win these swing States:  Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia and he wins.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

@Big girl  @UT alum  @CardinalBacker  @HuntersLaptop2028          What say you?!

Too Big To Rig!

[UT alum]

On 9/20/2024 at 11:37 AM, CardinalBacker said:

Are you sure that’s not from 2020?

🤣😂🤣

This Nate Silver?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up