Trump is a stream of consciousness sort of guy who often keeps speaking after he should have stopped. Often a lot of what he says is open to misrepresentation. This is a case where he's basically observing that getting shot or killed in the process of earning a medal leaves the person who received it in a somewhat - or significantly - worse situation than someone who received a medal for other forms of meritorious service. That's a basic observation that's hard to argue with, and was in no way meant to devalue the sacrifice of someone who received a medal of honor. The president of the VFW should rescind his statement for what is clearly a politically motivated shot at Trump.

Now what is really offensive is having Austin's DOD review 20 medals of honor awarded to the 7th Cav at Wounded Knee using current woke leftist standards to see if they should be rescinded 130 years after that unit suffered casualties.

Realitybites said:

---

Trump is a stream of consciousness sort of guy who often keeps speaking after he should have stopped. Often a lot of what he says is open to misrepresentation. This is a case where he's basically observing that getting shot or killed in the process of earning a medal leaves the person who received it in a somewhat - or significantly - worse situation than someone who received a medal for other forms of meritorious service. That's a basic observation that's hard to argue with, and was in no way meant to devalue the sacrifice of someone who received a medal of honor. The president of the VFW should rescind his statement for what is clearly a politically motivated shot at Trump.

Now what is really offensive is having Austin's DOD review 20 medals of honor awarded to the 7th Cav at Wounded Knee using current woke leftist standards to see if they should be rescinded 130 years after that unit suffered casualties.

---

I am not sure anyone is arguing that woke policies aren't far worse than a Trump presidency. Regardless, his inane and often times offensive rambling is incredibly stupid politically, especially in a tight race that could swing either way. Trump repeatedly shoots himself in the foot with his unfiltered opinions, especially on topics as sensitive as these. Alienating a base that largely supports you over Harris is pure idiocy.

It is yet another one of his self-inflicted wounds. I firmly believe his inability to control his mouth is largely responsible for his loss in 2020, and if he loses this time around, I think we can point to comments like these as partly to blame.

I have said several times over the last few days that I believe he is trying to throw the election. His style of speaking has declined rapidly and he is a shadow of the firestorm in 2016

Mixed but overall bad for Trump in NYT/Siena polls this morning.

Harris at 50% in AZ and 49% in NC.

Trump hits 50% in GA and has 1-point lead in NV.

sombear said:

---

Mixed but overall bad for Trump in NYT/Siena polls this morning.

Harris at 50% in AZ and 49% in NC.

Trump hits 50% in GA and has 1-point lead in NV.

---

You might want to check the accuracy history of Siena's polls.

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mixed but overall bad for Trump in NYT/Siena polls this morning.

Harris at 50% in AZ and 49% in NC.

Trump hits 50% in GA and has 1-point lead in NV.

---

You might want to check the accuracy history of Siena's polls.

---

They were the most pro-Trump poll before Biden dropped out.

And the mix of their results suggests to me they have pretty solid tabs.

But, yes, it is just one poll.

I haven't received GOP data in several days but hope to soon. They've been concerned about NC and AZ though.

Trump on the Iran hack this week: pic.twitter.com/kCOIbhLEZB

— Chris Bing (@Bing_Chris) August 16, 2024

Historically, in 2016 and 2020 both the NYT/Siena poll undercounted Trump's support by 6/7 points in their final poll. This is not a poll to base your opinion of the election condition.

Pretending the New York Times is 'pro-Trump' is garbage.

Trump humor:

https://notthebee.com/article/trump-is-just-so-effortlessly-funny-watch-him-let-this-lady-inspect-if-his-hair-is-real-

I think the video is from 2016. I vaguely remember some fascist clown making a silly accusation about Trump wearing a toupee. It was very silly & stupid but he made a point to prove it was false garbage, like almost everything from the Left.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Historically, in 2016 and 2020 both the NYT/Siena poll undercounted Trump's support by 6/7 points in their final poll. This is not a poll to base your opinion of the election condition.

Pretending the New York Times is 'pro-Trump' is garbage.

---

I'm not pretending anything. It is fact that the best poll for Trump against Biden was this poll. Liberals called them out for it. MSNBC Morning Joe went after the Times every day due to their polls showing Trump with such a lead. Look it up.

1. Bull***** The poll's track record proves NYT/Siena is in no way "Trump's best". Stop lying.

2. Trump v Biden is history. You'd laugh if someone else tried to bring up a race that is not happening anymore, don't pretend it's relevant now just because you imagine it helps your bilge argument.

3. The bias of some polls is well-known. Rasmussen for the GOP, NYT for Democrats is proven fact, you don't fool anyone pretending otherwise.

As for 'Morning Joe', save the clowns for when we discuss circus freaks.

sombear said:

---

Mixed but overall bad for Trump in NYT/Siena polls this morning.

Harris at 50% in AZ and 49% in NC.

Trump hits 50% in GA and has 1-point lead in NV.

---

siena consistently over polls Dems.. Biden was +6 in their final AZ poll, he won AZ .3

I dont think they are good at sampling and projecting

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. Bull***** The poll's track record proves NYT/Siena is in no way "Trump's best". Stop lying.

2. Trump v Biden is history. You'd laugh if someone else tried to bring up a race that is not happening anymore, don't pretend it's relevant now just because you imagine it helps your bilge argument.

3. The bias of some polls is well-known. Rasmussen for the GOP, NYT for Democrats is proven fact, you don't fool anyone pretending otherwise.

As for 'Morning Joe', save the clowns for when we discuss circus freaks.

---

Do your research before popping off:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4754038-trump-biden-debate-lead-poll/

Actually, I have been doing REAL research since 2002. Your rant and dependence on The Hill does not make you an academic.


For Trump v Harris, RCP has posted the results from twenty-three polls in 2024, with thirteen of those polls only posting once. For the ten polls which have multiple posts, here are the average margins so far (by count of polls)

Morning Consult (6 polls), avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3 (note Morning Consult is paid for by ABC)
Rasmussen (4 polls) avg Trump +5.25, most recent Trump +4
Reuters/Ipsos (4 polls), avg Harris + 0.5, most recent Harris +1
Forbes/HarrisX (4 polls) avg Trump +4.5, most recent Trump +2
NPR/PBS/Marist (3 polls) avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3
Emerson (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +4
FOX News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Trump +1
CBS News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +1
CNN (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3
Yahoo News (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3

The names of most are known, as is their bias. Perhaps the most intriguing would be CNN showing a little Trump love, although just 2 polls is not much of a sample yet, which is why i don't waste time with the polls showing just the one report so far.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, I have been doing REAL research since 2002. Your rant and dependence on The Hill does not make you an academic.


For Trump v Harris, RCP has posted the results from twenty-three polls in 2024, with thirteen of those polls only posting once. For the ten polls which have multiple posts, here are the average margins so far (by count of polls)

Morning Consult (6 polls), avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3 (note Morning Consult is paid for by ABC)
Rasmussen (4 polls) avg Trump +5.25, most recent Trump +4
Reuters/Ipsos (4 polls), avg Harris + 0.5, most recent Harris +1
Forbes/HarrisX (4 polls) avg Trump +4.5, most recent Trump +2
NPR/PBS/Marist (3 polls) avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3
Emerson (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +4
FOX News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Trump +1
CBS News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +1
CNN (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3
Yahoo News (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3

The names of most are known, as is their bias. Perhaps the most intriguing would be CNN showing a little Trump love, although just 2 polls is not much of a sample yet, which is why i don't waste time with the polls showing just the one report so far.

---

You're responding to arguments I did not make.

All I said was that NYT/Siena was the most Trump favorable before Biden dropped out.

That is fact.

I used that to argue that perhaps we should the NYT/Siena Trump-Harris polling might be more accurate than one would expect. You of course are free to disagree with that logic. But facts are facts.

I already explained that the Trump-Biden race is not relevant, and I am therefore not going to waste time going over which polls actually showed best results for Trump at that time.

The best metric for poll Accuracy is how their final poll fares against actual election results, and I have already pointed out the NYT does poorly on that metric.

Finally, as a word of advice it's a good idea not to depend on one source for an opinion. For example, you may or may not be aware that the three most commonly - mentioned poll aggregators (RealClearPolitics, 270towin, and fivethirtyeight) do not even look at the same polls. There is bias even when the writer pretends otherwise.

This was the most accurate over the last two cycles:

Emerson Polling

sombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, I have been doing REAL research since 2002. Your rant and dependence on The Hill does not make you an academic.


For Trump v Harris, RCP has posted the results from twenty-three polls in 2024, with thirteen of those polls only posting once. For the ten polls which have multiple posts, here are the average margins so far (by count of polls)

Morning Consult (6 polls), avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3 (note Morning Consult is paid for by ABC)
Rasmussen (4 polls) avg Trump +5.25, most recent Trump +4
Reuters/Ipsos (4 polls), avg Harris + 0.5, most recent Harris +1
Forbes/HarrisX (4 polls) avg Trump +4.5, most recent Trump +2
NPR/PBS/Marist (3 polls) avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3
Emerson (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +4
FOX News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Trump +1
CBS News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +1
CNN (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3
Yahoo News (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3

The names of most are known, as is their bias. Perhaps the most intriguing would be CNN showing a little Trump love, although just 2 polls is not much of a sample yet, which is why i don't waste time with the polls showing just the one report so far.

---

You're responding to arguments I did not make.

All I said was that NYT/Siena was the most Trump favorable before Biden dropped out.

That is fact.

I used that to argue that perhaps we should the NYT/Siena Trump-Harris polling might be more accurate than one would expect. You of course are free to disagree with that logic. But facts are facts.

---

You have not allowed for the scenario that the polling Siena does for the NEW YORK TIMES might have objectives beyond determining where the race really is. NYT is a player in the Dem Party, not an honest, objective news outlet. Completely plausible that NYT asked for a poll that showed Biden worst case to help force him out, then asked for Harris best case polling to help Harris become competitive.

Most of the polls have not changed beyond margin of error.
Most polls are wildly over sampling Dems = response bias.
The ones who are running +2 or so Dem polls are showing Trump comfortably ahead.
Trump is 6-10 pts stronger today than in 2916 or 2018.

sombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TenBears said:

---

sombear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump: When we gave her the Presidential Medal of Freedom… It’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor— it’s actually much better because everyone who gets the Congressional Medal, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many… pic.twitter.com/a766KxAC2e

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 16, 2024

---

VFW was not happy with Trump's comments on the Medal of Honor last night

---

So much for message discipline and truly one of the worst things he's said. Idiot.

---

The guy is just one of the worst people ever. Pond scum.

---

Well, he says what he believes. The Viet Nam era has a different, negative view of the military. My Dad did his 2 years during Cuban Missile Crisis. Got an Honorable Discharge. He thinks the military is awful, untrustworthy, and elitist. He was pissed when I enlisted. He is a contemporary of Trump from NYC. Not everyone thinks the military is great and honorable. Can't project your believes on others, a lesson I took a long time to learn. People do not always react like you think they should.

---

If that's it, then how about not running for Commander in Chief

---

Or, becoming Commander in Chief and doing it right... He probably believes that route more than not running.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, I have been doing REAL research since 2002. Your rant and dependence on The Hill does not make you an academic.


For Trump v Harris, RCP has posted the results from twenty-three polls in 2024, with thirteen of those polls only posting once. For the ten polls which have multiple posts, here are the average margins so far (by count of polls)

Morning Consult (6 polls), avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3 (note Morning Consult is paid for by ABC)
Rasmussen (4 polls) avg Trump +5.25, most recent Trump +4
Reuters/Ipsos (4 polls), avg Harris + 0.5, most recent Harris +1
Forbes/HarrisX (4 polls) avg Trump +4.5, most recent Trump +2
NPR/PBS/Marist (3 polls) avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3
Emerson (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +4
FOX News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Trump +1
CBS News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +1
CNN (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3
Yahoo News (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3

The names of most are known, as is their bias. Perhaps the most intriguing would be CNN showing a little Trump love, although just 2 polls is not much of a sample yet, which is why i don't waste time with the polls showing just the one report so far.

---

You're responding to arguments I did not make.

All I said was that NYT/Siena was the most Trump favorable before Biden dropped out.

That is fact.

I used that to argue that perhaps we should the NYT/Siena Trump-Harris polling might be more accurate than one would expect. You of course are free to disagree with that logic. But facts are facts.

---

You have not allowed for the scenario that the polling Siena does for the NEW YORK TIMES might have objectives beyond determining where the race really is. NYT is a player in the Dem Party, not an honest, objective news outlet. Completely plausible that NYT asked for a poll that showed Biden worst case to help force him out, then asked for Harris best case polling to help Harris become competitive.

Most of the polls have not changed beyond margin of error.
Most polls are wildly over sampling Dems = response bias.
The ones who are running +2 or so Dem polls are showing Trump comfortably ahead.
Trump is 6-10 pts stronger today than in 2916 or 2018.

---

Possible. I doubt it, but possible.

I agree with everything else you post.

But, according to the tabs and published info of all the polls (including NYT/Siena), they are using the same methodologies they have used all year. So, whatever the margins, there has been a clear shift to Harris.

Trump and GOP internals have largely tracked the average of the public polls - not as bad as the worst but also not Rasmussen. As I've posted multiple times, this was expected but to a lesser extent, though some very reputable internal pollsters believe it remains Trump's race to lose. Others are not so confident.

I have not been privy to #s since earlier this week but I expect to hear about a slight shift back to Trump.

Since the time she entered the race her betting odds have been steadily increasing. This is the first day they have dropped.

Trump is closing in.

Kamala's lead in the odds is down from 10% to 2% in just a day. pic.twitter.com/YPpXjSASJO

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 17, 2024

Secret Service leaves Trump vulnerable once again after female agent abandons post to breastfeed

https://www.theblaze.com/news/secret-service-leaves-trump-vulnerable-once-again-after-female-agent-abandons-post-to-breastfeed-report

Odds that there is a second assassination attempt between now and November?

boognish_bear said:

---

Since the time she entered the race her betting odds have been steadily increasing. This is the first day they have dropped.

Trump is closing in.

Kamala's lead in the odds is down from 10% to 2% in just a day. pic.twitter.com/YPpXjSASJO

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 17, 2024

---

betting odds in money movement.. money changed, they adjust the line

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, I have been doing REAL research since 2002. Your rant and dependence on The Hill does not make you an academic.


For Trump v Harris, RCP has posted the results from twenty-three polls in 2024, with thirteen of those polls only posting once. For the ten polls which have multiple posts, here are the average margins so far (by count of polls)

Morning Consult (6 polls), avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3 (note Morning Consult is paid for by ABC)
Rasmussen (4 polls) avg Trump +5.25, most recent Trump +4
Reuters/Ipsos (4 polls), avg Harris + 0.5, most recent Harris +1
Forbes/HarrisX (4 polls) avg Trump +4.5, most recent Trump +2
NPR/PBS/Marist (3 polls) avg Harris +1, most recent Harris +3
Emerson (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +4
FOX News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Trump +1
CBS News (2 polls) avg Trump +1, most recent Harris +1
CNN (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3
Yahoo News (2 polls) avg Trump +2.5, most recent Trump +3

The names of most are known, as is their bias. Perhaps the most intriguing would be CNN showing a little Trump love, although just 2 polls is not much of a sample yet, which is why i don't waste time with the polls showing just the one report so far.

---

You're responding to arguments I did not make.

All I said was that NYT/Siena was the most Trump favorable before Biden dropped out.

That is fact.

I used that to argue that perhaps we should the NYT/Siena Trump-Harris polling might be more accurate than one would expect. You of course are free to disagree with that logic. But facts are facts.

---

You have not allowed for the scenario that the polling Siena does for the NEW YORK TIMES might have objectives beyond determining where the race really is. NYT is a player in the Dem Party, not an honest, objective news outlet. Completely plausible that NYT asked for a poll that showed Biden worst case to help force him out, then asked for Harris best case polling to help Harris become competitive.

Most of the polls have not changed beyond margin of error.
Most polls are wildly over sampling Dems = response bias.
The ones who are running +2 or so Dem polls are showing Trump comfortably ahead.
Trump is 6-10 pts stronger today than in 2916 or 2018.

---

Possible. I doubt it, but possible.

I agree with everything else you post.

But, according to the tabs and published info of all the polls (including NYT/Siena), they are using the same methodologies they have used all year. So, whatever the margins, there has been a clear shift to Harris.

Trump and GOP internals have largely tracked the average of the public polls - not as bad as the worst but also not Rasmussen. As I've posted multiple times, this was expected but to a lesser extent, though some very reputable internal pollsters believe it remains Trump's race to lose. Others are not so confident.

I have not been privy to #s since earlier this week but I expect to hear about a slight shift back to Trump.

---

That is my sense as well - a slight shift back to Trump. That would tend to confirm response bias was a large factor in gorge Harris bump.

I saw a Twitter clip of Matt Towrey in a Hannity interview imploring the pro-Trump superPACs to engage now, to offset a likely Harris bounce coming out of the convention. Because the Trump and buys last week were soundly done with excellent content, but stressed the importance of not letting Trumps narrow lead in the EC erode.

Trump tied at this point in the race is less than where we were in June, but still a better position than any GOP nominee since 2004 (at this point in the race).

No, it's not won. Lots of work to do. But Harris is a weak candidate who made a bad VP choice. We are not in the ditch. We should win it.

One danger people should keep in mind, is that polls are not scoreboards, even though the media often treat them as such.

For one thing, polls reflect a guess about what is going on, which is one reason they publish (but don't talk much about) the margin of error. And hoo boy, people don't understand how that works.

Consider the NPR/PBS/Marist poll released August 5, which shows Harris leading Trump 51-48. That poll shows a 3.4% MoE, which some people take to mean the margin could be off by as much as 3.4 percent, but that's not true. The MoE applies to each candidate's level of support, meaning the possible range of actual support could be 54.4% Harris to 44.6% Trump, or it could be 51.4% Trump to 47.6% Harris, or anything in between.

When you understand how MoE really works, you will realize that almost every poll reflects a condition where either candidate could actually be leading And that, of course, ignores the bias which is part of every poll. Several posts have observed how different polling groups weight party identification in sometimes imaginative ways, And sometimes the polls play tricks with their own methodology, like YouGov's practice of changing the party identification weighting from one poll to another, giving the false impression that support has changed for or against a candidate.

And that, friends, is just a peek into the less-than-scientific character of at least some polls.

Oldbear83 said:

---

One danger people should keep in mind, is that polls are not scoreboards, even though the media often treat them as such.

For one thing, polls reflect a guess about what is going on, which is one reason they publish (but don't talk much about) the margin of error. And hoo boy, people don't understand how that works.

Consider the NPR/PBS/Marist poll released August 5, which shows Harris leading Trump 51-48. That poll shows a 3.4% MoE, which some people take to mean the margin could be off by as much as 3.4 percent, but that's not true. The MoE applies to each candidate's level of support, meaning the possible range of actual support could be 54.4% Harris to 44.6% Trump, or it could be 51.4% Trump to 47.6% Harris, or anything in between.

When you understand how MoE really works, you will realize that almost every poll reflects a condition where either candidate could actually be leading And that, of course, ignores the bias which is part of every poll. Several posts have observed how different polling groups weight party identification in sometimes imaginative ways, And sometimes the polls play tricks with their own methodology, like YouGov's practice of changing the party identification weighting from one poll to another, giving the false impression that support has changed for or against a candidate.

And that, friends, is just a peek into the less-than-scientific character of at least some polls.

---

And the reality that every polling group applies different mathematical approaches to handle the deficiencies in their data collection speaks volumes.

Every poll data set is flawed.
No one agrees on how to properly correct the flaws.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

One danger people should keep in mind, is that polls are not scoreboards, even though the media often treat them as such.

For one thing, polls reflect a guess about what is going on, which is one reason they publish (but don't talk much about) the margin of error. And hoo boy, people don't understand how that works.

Consider the NPR/PBS/Marist poll released August 5, which shows Harris leading Trump 51-48. That poll shows a 3.4% MoE, which some people take to mean the margin could be off by as much as 3.4 percent, but that's not true. The MoE applies to each candidate's level of support, meaning the possible range of actual support could be 54.4% Harris to 44.6% Trump, or it could be 51.4% Trump to 47.6% Harris, or anything in between.

When you understand how MoE really works, you will realize that almost every poll reflects a condition where either candidate could actually be leading And that, of course, ignores the bias which is part of every poll. Several posts have observed how different polling groups weight party identification in sometimes imaginative ways, And sometimes the polls play tricks with their own methodology, like YouGov's practice of changing the party identification weighting from one poll to another, giving the false impression that support has changed for or against a candidate.

And that, friends, is just a peek into the less-than-scientific character of at least some polls.

---

And the reality that every polling group applies different mathematical approaches to handle the deficiencies in their data collection speaks volumes.

Every poll data set is flawed.
No one agrees on how to properly correct the flaws.

---

There was a brief period in 2017, where the polling groups all agreed their methodologies were off and needed correction.

Then a few months later, they announced that 2016 was actually within margins, and changed nothing.

Part of the problem is something Frank Gallup once told me in an interview. The old RDD (random digit dialing) practice of polling by landline phone went out of practice as more and more people started using cell phones, then more and more 'standard' rules were broken, like mixing online poll responses with phone responses, keeping directories of people willing to answer polls rather than pure random contact efforts, and of course an increased dependence on university students, which allowed polls a way to get a lot of responses in a short time, but AAPOR standards have been diluted to the point that there is little confidence that respondents are even who they say they are. Some polls, for example, even claim that as many as 4% of self-identified Republicans are willing to vote for Harris and the same for self-identified Democrats claiming they will vote for Trump. Most people in polling I have talked to say that's tacit evidence there are some people participating in polls just to troll the groups and skew results.

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Since the time she entered the race her betting odds have been steadily increasing. This is the first day they have dropped.

Trump is closing in.

Kamala's lead in the odds is down from 10% to 2% in just a day. pic.twitter.com/YPpXjSASJO

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 17, 2024

---

betting odds in money movement.. money changed, they adjust the line

---

Every time I see a map like this it makes me wonder.....,

A. How can so many people in a particular region vote for woke policies ?
B. Why can't we peacefully separate into woke and non woke countries ?

KaiBear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Since the time she entered the race her betting odds have been steadily increasing. This is the first day they have dropped.

Trump is closing in.

Kamala's lead in the odds is down from 10% to 2% in just a day. pic.twitter.com/YPpXjSASJO

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 17, 2024

---

betting odds in money movement.. money changed, they adjust the line

---

Every time I see a map like this it makes me wonder.....,

A. How can so many people in a particular region vote for woke policies ?
B. Why can't we peacefully separate into woke and non woke countries ?

---

To (B), it's because the Woke demand that the non-Woke pay for everything.

KaiBear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Since the time she entered the race her betting odds have been steadily increasing. This is the first day they have dropped.

Trump is closing in.

Kamala's lead in the odds is down from 10% to 2% in just a day. pic.twitter.com/YPpXjSASJO

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 17, 2024

---

betting odds in money movement.. money changed, they adjust the line

---

Every time I see a map like this it makes me wonder.....,

A. How can so many people in a particular region vote for woke policies ?
B. Why can't we peacefully separate into woke and non woke countries ?

---

most who vote for Dems are voting for what they were told..

There is another member of this board who said they vote democrat because of these reasons:
" -Strong leashes around the wealthy and corporations, including regulations and progressive tax policies
-Environmental protection and prioritization of efficient usage of natural resources
-Consumer protection before corporate welfare
-Reduce national debt
-Strong labor unions
-Accessible and valuable public education
-Protect individual rights from states, i.e. prevent states from intruding on individual liberties

I'd say these are my core policies that I favor."

#New @SienaResearch General Election poll

Arizona - 🔵 Harris +5
North Carolina - 🔵 Harris +2
Nevada - 🔴 Trump +1
Georgia - 🔴 Trump +4

Siena #A+ - 650 LV (Each) - 8/15

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 18, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

#New @SienaResearch General Election poll

Arizona - 🔵 Harris +5
North Carolina - 🔵 Harris +2
Nevada - 🔴 Trump +1
Georgia - 🔴 Trump +4

Siena #A+ - 650 LV (Each) - 8/15

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 18, 2024

---

How many times in the last 50 years has Nevada voted to the right of Arizona.
That one item screams the polling is nonsense.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

#New @SienaResearch General Election poll

Arizona - 🔵 Harris +5
North Carolina - 🔵 Harris +2
Nevada - 🔴 Trump +1
Georgia - 🔴 Trump +4

Siena #A+ - 650 LV (Each) - 8/15

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 18, 2024

---

How many times in the last 50 years has Nevada voted to the right of Arizona.
That one item screams the polling is nonsense.

---

NV has a strong influx of CA Conservatives, my Uncle former Navy P3 Orion Nav and his buddies all moved there. Think ID light...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

#New @SienaResearch General Election poll

Arizona - 🔵 Harris +5
North Carolina - 🔵 Harris +2
Nevada - 🔴 Trump +1
Georgia - 🔴 Trump +4

Siena #A+ - 650 LV (Each) - 8/15

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 18, 2024

---

How many times in the last 50 years has Nevada voted to the right of Arizona.
That one item screams the polling is nonsense.

---

NV has a strong influx of CA Conservatives, my Uncle former Navy P3 Orion Nav and his buddies all moved there. Think ID light...

---

Based on 2020 results it would require Net 100,000 likely Republican voters moving into Nevada over less than four years to reach Arizona 2020 voting %. Not impossible but highly unlikely. Nevada has several factors that have helped Trump but inbound migration simply isn't enough people to shift it that far.

A far more plausible likelihood is that the polls are wrong.