New Poll Numbers!

[JackLuis]

As long as this is Abortion Central!

NICE TIME! Court Won't Let Anti-Abortion Nutjob Lock Up The Pregnant Teenage Girls

Courts slap down Court for unlawful Courting!

For the last few years, the Trump regime has been trying to force undocumented children to act as baby incubators. On Friday, a federal court found once again that this incredibly fucked up policy is unconstitutional.

In 2017, the director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) was an anti-abortion nutjob named Scott Lloyd. Lloyd is a right-wing lawyer with no background whatsoever in resettling or even working with refugees, so sure, let's have him head the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Lloyd hates abortion because he's still bitter he wasn't able to force an old girlfriend into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. As director at ORR, he instituted a policy of forced pregnancy for teenagers in ORR's care.

During his esteemed tenure at ORR, creepy motherfucker Scott Lloyd kept a spreadsheet of teenagers' periods, but couldn't manage to track the children the US government was kidnapping at its border.

Yes, seriously.

The court things come later, after Scott Lloyd is removed with prejudice.

 

[Dumpington]

JackLuis writes: "The court things come later, after Scott Lloyd is removed with prejudice."

Okay, Jack - I can see that this was important to you, so I'm glad you were able to get it off your chest. But, this being the "New Poll Numbers" thread, I thought I would steer it back on track by pointing out the latest numbers on the Democratic Party's presidential nomination fight...

Right now, "Gropin' Joe" continues to hold his lead, at 32.2%... far ahead of Bernie, who appears to be starting to fade, at 15.2%... Liz Warren is in 3rd-place with 11.6... followed by Buttigieg at 7.0... Kamala is currently at 6.8... Beto is 4.0... Cory Booker's at 2.4... with the remaining 17-candidates all gasping for air with one-percent (or less) of Democrats backing them.

Over two-thirds of Democrats polled seem to want somebody OTHER than Biden to be their party's nominee, but nobody currently running seems capable of overtaking him! Everybody is so extreme-left that Joe has staked-out the position of "moderate," promising to cure cancer if he is elected! He couldn't do that during the Obama presidency because Barack apparently didn't trust his vice-president going anywhere NEAR health care during their eight-years in power!

 

[YDB95]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican



Like most reasonable people, I expect MLK voted for candidates, rather than a party. However, when you consider how, when he was 18 years old and able to vote in state and local elections, and the Dem. party in the South was dominated by the Ku Klux Klan, do you honestly believe that was his party of registration? I don't know for sure, but I believe he would have been registered either as a member of the GOP or as an independent.

King couldn't vote until he was 21. He lived and died before the 26th amendment.
And yes, the black vote in the South leaned Republican - before 1964.

 

[JackLuis]

King couldn't vote until he was 21. He lived and died before the 26th amendment.
And yes, the black vote in the South leaned Republican - before 1964.

Water is known to be WET too.

 

[JackLuis]

Waren edges Sanders in new polls today.

NEW 2020 Dem. poll from The Economist/YouGov: Warren pulls ahead of Sanders & into 2nd place (w/in margin of error). This wk & change vs last wk:

Biden: 26% (-1)
Warren: 16 (+5)
Sanders: 12 (-4)
Buttigieg: 8 (-1)
Harris: 6 (-1)
O'Rourke: 3 (+1)

Typical caveat re: watch the avgs

New Monmouth poll of Nevada 2020 Dem nomination:

Biden: 36%
Warren: 19
Sanders: 13
Buttigieg: 7
Harris: 6

This is the first IA/NV/SC/NH poll to have Warren over Sanders. Our poll from YouGov this week was the first to show her beating him nationally. Dominos falling? https:/*******HYs9sEzrZt

It is still way to early to say but as time goes on and Biden fades, like always, Who Knows?

 

[dan_c00000]

President Trump is pro-choice

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/Cruz-Ad-Trump-Pro-Choice.jpg

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "President Trump is pro-choice"

Seriously, Dan? You think President Trump "IS" pro-choice?

I think you mean that he WAS once pro-choice in the same way that Ronald Reagan WAS once a Democrat! But that was then & this is now!

If President Trump was pro-choice today then that would probably reflect on his U.S. Supreme Court picks, and Planned Parenthood & the Hollywood left wouldn't have howled in outrage last summer when he nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If Trump was STILL pro-choice, would anybody on the left have cared the slightest bit about Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford's 35-year-old accusations against a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee? Certainly not! They would have laughed her off as a kook!

But if YOU want to go on believing that President Trump is pro-choice, Dan, then I support you! Maybe actress Alyssa Milano & Katy Perry will believe you, as well, and they'll even both begin supporting Trump's re-election efforts in 2020!

 

[JackLuis]

Dump: Trumpski is Pro-Trump, he will say ANYTHING to get re-elected even Lie, Lie, LIE!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Dump: Trumpski is Pro-Trump, he will say ANYTHING to get re-elected even Lie, Lie, LIE!

He probably doesn't lie any more than any other pol. Or any less, either.

 

[JackLuis]

He probably doesn't lie any more than any other pol. Or any less, either.

I am sure you believe that Box.

 

[Dumpington]

JackLuis writes: "Dump: Trumpski is Pro-Trump, he will say ANYTHING to get re-elected even Lie, Lie, LIE!"

I noticed that, back in 2012, Barack Obama was virulently Pro-Obama, and he would say pretty-much ANYTHING to get re-elected, including telling some whoppers! Was that WRONG of him, Jack?

I also observed in 2016 that Mrs. Clinton was unapologetically Pro-Hillary, and she told a slew of falsehoods in order to win the presidency, few of which were actually believed by the voters!

And, right now, former V.P. "Gropin' Joe" Biden is clearly PRO-BIDEN, and he's saying some outrageous things to win the nomination, including how he'll cure cancer if he wins the presidency!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Df0xnmxLuw - (Joe Biden promises to "cure cancer" if elected!)

 

[dan_c00000]

So we know Trump is both pro-abortion and pro-child killing in general (dump supports both of these). Dump is more than happy to remain silent when one of the GOP reps forces his mistress to have an abortion.

More misogyny from dump. Now, let's all see him switch to his dawn alt so he can provide cover for himself. I'm sure his other alt, racist joe, will pop up too.

 

[KeithD]

He probably doesn't lie any more than any other pol. Or any less, either.

Bullshit by a bullshitter.

 

[moonflasher]

Remember the polls had Hillary way out front in 2016...She'd win in a landslide...So much for polls.

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "More mysogny from dump."

You don't know the meaning of (or how to spell) the word "misogyny," Dan.

You think that a "misogynist" is anybody who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. You sincerely believe that any Democrat who doesn't support Kamala Harris or Cory Booker for president is probably a racist. You believe that any Democrat who isn't backing Pete Buttigieg for president must be homophobic. You claim that anybody critical of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is Islamophobic. You think that anybody voicing support for the nation of Israel is a neo-Nazi!

You simply don't understand the meaning of words, Dan!

I can see why you're angry all of the time! - Nobody explains things to you! - You believe that President Trump is pro-choice, and that Bernie Sanders is pro-capitalist! You think that national-socialism benefits world peace, and that Marxist-socialism has greatly benefitted the people of Cuba & Venezuela by eliminating their carbon footprint. You ignore everyday reality, Dan!

 

[LupusDei]

Remember the polls had Hillary way out front in 2016...She'd win in a landslide...So much for polls.

That's just not true.

Polls have a normal error, and it's quite high, up to 4%. In 2016 the final polls shown that Trump is within normal error from Hillary, so those should have been read as undecided. However, since Hillary was still in the lead it was vastly more probable that she will win the election. For whatever reason, many commenters did treat that probability as determined, wrongly. The same polls did show that Trump had significant chance, depending on the interpretation of the data, up to 25% chance of winning, and he did. It should have not surprised anyone, things with 25% probability happen all the time.

Now why all the polls had the error in the same direction is of course interesting question. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote, and it could be argued that the polls depicted the popular vote as well. Sure, the polls seemed to suggest that the most probable outcome could be better even regarding popular vote. One possibility is that Trump snatched the victory at the last minute, and the poll data were simply outdated. Another is, that polls didn't account for some outside effects, or behavior models previously unseen or ignored.

There it should be stated right away though, that the possible effect of "shy Trump voter" (who could be lying to pollsters for whatever reason) was shown to be insignificant to none through mathematical analysis already.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's just not true.

Polls have a normal error, and it's quite high, up to 4%. In 2016 the final polls shown that Trump is within normal error from Hillary, so those should have been read as undecided. However, since Hillary was still in the lead it was vastly more probable that she will win the election. For whatever reason, many commenters did treat that probability as determined, wrongly. The same polls did show that Trump had significant chance, depending on the interpretation of the data, up to 25% chance of winning, and he did. It should have not surprised anyone, things with 25% probability happen all the time.

Now why all the polls had the error in the same direction is of course interesting question. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote, and it could be argued that the polls depicted the popular vote as well. Sure, the polls seemed to suggest that the most probable outcome could be better even regarding popular vote. One possibility is that Trump snatched the victory at the last minute, and the poll data were simply outdated. Another is, that polls didn't account for some outside effects, or behavior models previously unseen or ignored.

There it should be stated right away though, that the possible effect of "shy Trump voter" (who could be lying to pollsters for whatever reason) was shown to be insignificant to none through mathematical analysis already.

Where did you get that 25% number? Hillary had a 91% of winning, meaning Trump had less than a 10% chance. Even considering a big margin of error, The Donald faced far greater odds than you are claiming. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1

 

[JackLuis]

It is said that about 77,000 voters made the difference in the 2016 election and Hillary won the popular vote by three million votes, but lost in the EC due to the states she ignored during the campaign.

Few conservative voters and many independent voters voted Anti-Hillary not Pro-Trump proving the DNC ignored her unpopularity thinking that only crazy people would vote against her.

I'm convinced that Bernie would have beat Trump like a Drum because he gave people something to vote for, but the Establishment was afraid of Bernie's popularity and populism.

Now we see the DNC pushing Biden, the Establishment Candidate, setting up another Demonrat failure in the making.

If the DNC would let the rank and file of the party chose the candidate this time, they may have a chance to remove the Hemorrhoid from the Oval Office. Otherwise the independents will not support another Smiling Bullshitter.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It is said that about 77,000 voters made the difference in the 2016 election and Hillary won the popular vote by three million votes, but lost in the EC due to the states she ignored during the campaign.

Few conservative voters and many independent voters voted Anti-Hillary not Pro-Trump proving the DNC ignored her unpopularity thinking that only crazy people would vote against her.

I'm convinced that Bernie would have beat Trump like a Drum because he gave people something to vote for, but the Establishment was afraid of Bernie's popularity and populism.

Now we see the DNC pushing Biden, the Establishment Candidate, setting up another Demonrat failure in the making.

If the DNC would let the rank and file of the party chose the candidate this time, they
may have a chance to remove the Hemorrhoid from the Oval Office. Otherwise the independents will not support another Smiling Bullshitter.

I have also read this 70,00 something number. This was supposedly the total winning margin for Trump in WI, PA and MI, which were the swing states that were won by The Donald. He won many more states than Hilly, but she won the big states of CA and NY by big margins, giving her a plurality of the votes. This is neither here nor there, because popular vote is not the deciding factor in presidential elections.

I said, long before the nominating convention, that if Trump and Clinton were nominated, they would constitute the worst pair of candidates ever offered by the major parties, and I haven't changed my mind about that. I also believe most people voted against one or the other or both, that last by voting for a third-party candidate.

I also don't believe The Bern would have won. He might have carried CA and NY, but probably nowhere else. Socialist candidates have often run in elections, but have never gotten very many votes. Socialism is just not very popular, although I will concede it is more accepted now than it used to be. If Joe Biden had run, he would now be POTUS, having beaten Hilly and the Bern in the primaries and Trump in the general election. .

 

[LupusDei]

Where did you get that 25% number? Hillary had a 91% of winning, meaning Trump had less than a 10% chance. Even considering a big margin of error, The Donald faced far greater odds than you are claiming. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1

It's from my memory about what I did read on FiveThirtyEight, and actually my memory turned out to be unreliable, their final forecast gave Trump 29% chance. Sure, they were outliers on that account, that's why I preceded that by 'depending on the interpretation of the data.'

There's a bit of their analysis way after the fact (but that was jut the first I happened to find, and perhaps, comprehensive: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

 

[KeithD]

I'm convinced that Bernie would have beat Trump like a Drum because he gave people something to vote for, but the Establishment was afraid of Bernie's popularity and populism.

Apparently smarter people than you knew that Bernie is all talk--nice talk for some of us--but no track record in accomplishing anything he promises and no one backing him who has the clout to pass any of it. Such naivete. He has to try to steal a party because he doesn't have one.

And, yes, given the options, anyone who didn't vote for Hillary (and you don't have to be a Hillary fan to know it) in 2016 is either crazy or stupid--certainly without any knowledge of government--and deserves whatever grief they are going through now.

 

[Dumpington]

JackLuis writes: "I'm convinced that Bernie would have beat Trump like a Drum because he gave people something to vote for..."

Boxlicker101 writes: "I also don't believe The Bern would have won. He might have carried CA and NY, but probably nowhere else. Socialist candidates have often run in elections, but have never gotten very many votes."

KeithD writes: "Apparently smarter people than you knew that Bernie is all talk--nice talk for some of us--but no track record in accomplishing anything..."

I am one of those who doesn't think that Bernie could have defeated Trump. Bernie had a very loyal base in 2016, but it was much TOO SMALL, and he was NOT really popular with black voters - who are a core constituency in the Democratic Party - Hillary swept all of those southern primaries where black Democrats dominate that party - and while Mrs. Clinton's support among black Democrats was SHALLOW ENOUGH in 2016 - Bernie would have done much worse!

JackLuis writes: "Now we see the DNC pushing Biden, the Establishment Candidate, setting up another Demonrat failure in the making."

Biden only leads the pack because the alternative is so much worse! While Bernie Sanders may be fading, his socialist economic philosophy is STRONG with a majority of the Democrats currently running. They are pretty-much ALL off the charts moving further & further to the left, which should make it a simple task for "Gropin' Joe" to defeat them all in the primary states, despite the fact that he's a terrible overall candidate!

 

[dan_c00000]

and he was NOT really popular with black voters

That wasn't true then and it certainly isn't true now.

If you look at the numbers close you'll see Bernie was, and remains, popular with young black voters.

More talking out of your racist ass again dump.

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "If you look at the numbers close you'll see Bernie was, and remains, popular with young black voters."

The states in the U.S. with the highest concentrations of black voters are MOSTLY in the south, Dan. Here are the top 10 U.S. states by percentage of African-Americans, and who they supported in the 2016 Democratic Party primaries:

1. Mississippi - 39% - Hillary Clinton
2. Louisiana - 34% - Hillary Clinton
3. Georgia - 34% - Hillary Clinton
4. Maryland - 32% - Hillary Clinton
5. South Carolina - 28% - Hillary Clinton
6. Alabama - 28% - Hillary Clinton
7. Delaware - 25% - Hillary Clinton
8. North Carolina - 24% - Hillary Clinton
9. Virginia - 21% - Hillary Clinton
10. Tennessee - 18% - Hillary Clinton

Next... here are the BOTTOM ten-states by percentage of African-Americans, and which candidate they supported in the 2016 Democratic Party primaries:

1. Montana - 1% - Bernie Sanders
2. Idaho - 1% - Bernie Sanders
3. Wyoming - 2% - Bernie Sanders
4. Vermont - 2% - Bernie Sanders
5. Maine - 2% - Bernie Sanders
6. Utah - 2% - Bernie Sanders
7. New Hampshire - 2% - Bernie Sanders
8. South Dakota - 3% - Hillary Clinton
9. Oregon - 3% - Bernie Sanders
10. New Mexico - 3% - Hillary Clinton

I am now going to REPEAT your above quote, Dan: "If you look at the numbers close you'll see Bernie was, and remains, popular with young black voters."

 

[dan_c00000]

1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Georgia
5. South Carolina
6. Alabama
10. Tennessee

1. Montana
2. Idaho
6. Utah
8. South Dakota

You know what all these states have in common? Obama didn't win them...in 2008. The last time South Carolina voted for a Democrat was in 1976. You have no point dump, you owned yourself bringing that up.

And just because a state has a large black population, like Alabama does, doesn't mean it's easy for them to vote. The GOP, and racists like you, have for years now suppressed the black vote. The GOP's goal, and racists like yours, is simply to not have black votes at all for anyone, in any election.

Nice try dump but you got yourself double owned on that.