58% of Americans polled say they support impeachment - Politics Discussion

[–] atomicx (235) 5 years ago

I am fascinated that "polls" are still believed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

So long as they're taken by reputable poll takers, they will still be considered, though not sure 'believed'.

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

Like the reputable polls that said Hillary would win by a landslide?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes. And she won by 2.8 million votes. Don't ever forget it. T-rump sure hasn't.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Lie. With less than 50% of the so called "popular vote" she wouldn't have won even if it had counted. There would have been a two person run off. And since right leaning presidential candidates (conservatives and libertarians) received more votes than left leaning presidential candidates (Clinton, Stein, greens, socialists, etc.) did combined, the available evidence indicates that Trump would have won the runoff. Certainly conservatives/libertarians received more votes than leftists did, so liberalism lost even on your insipid "popular vote" terms.

And no, the polls Democrat hacks like Nate Silver focused on as most important were the battleground state polls, and he and most others were way, way wrong.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Lie?

https://www.usnews.com/news/ken-walshs-washington/articles/2016-12-21/hillary-clinton-wins-popular-vote-by-nearly-3-million-ballots

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1222/Clinton-wins-US-popular-vote-by-widest-margin-of-any-losing-presidential-candidate

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/popular-vote-trump-clinton-2016-12

Which one do you want to go with to prove I 'lied' when I said she won by 2.8 million votes?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Yes, a lie. Lazy headlines don't change the fact that she failed to win a majority of "popular votes", or what I said above about right leaning presidential candidates receiving more votes than left leaning ones combined. That's aside from the fact that we don't have a national popular vote to win. What the half-assed media calls the "popular vote" is just an aggregation of state popular votes. If we had a national popular vote turnout would be completely different, with lots of people in places like California, New York, or Texas currently not bothering to vote because they already know who's going to win those states.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Gas lighting again. We expect nothing else from you.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You can't name one fact I'm wrong about. Piss off, loser.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Struck another nerve with you.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Nope, lol. You're just providing an excuse to post stuff I enjoy posting. Let me know if you can ever prove Clinton got a majority of votes, which is what's required to win presidential contests. That'd be hard to do since I've already counted.

Clinton - 227
Trump - 304

If no one gets a majority they keep voting round after round until someone does. Senate contests in states without a normal primary system will have a two person run off if no one gets over 50% on election night.

So nobody won the popular vote even if we really had a national popular vote and those were the results.

But conservative/libertarian presidential candidates received more votes than liberal/green/socialist ones did combined.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/590cdc63e0b68500115cdfad/More-Americans-voted-for-right-leaning-presidential-candidates-than-left-leaning-ones-in-2016

You were implying something about the "popular vote" carrying some kind of moral weight, lol?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

Winning the popular vote means you got more popular votes. Nobody is saying it wins an election. Its an aggregate but so is the 270 ev's required to win an election.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Actually it currently doesn't mean anything, but do you acknowledge that if we had a national popular vote that we should and likely would have a run off if no candidate gained more than 50% of the votes, as we already do for the aforementioned senate races?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

There would never be a tie for the popular vote. Thats another advantage of it. It avoids the 269 electoral tie fiasco.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You didn't answer the question. This has nothing to do with a "tie". The purpose of a runoff is to prevent someone from getting into office with a minority of the vote because opposing sentiment was split among multiple candidates. Like 2016. When conservative/libertarian candidates received more votes than Clinton and the other leftists combined. You don't want to make someone president who represents the opposite of how people voted.......do you?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You can't comprehend what 'the popular vote' is in this country, no matter how many times numerous forum members try to teach you. So why bother?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Yawn. You're sputtering, dimwit. Collect yourself and come up with something better to say.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

God you're such a clown.

You redefine what it means to win the "popular vote" by falsely asserting it has to be won by the "majority".

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I'm not redefining anything since there is no national popular vote to win, you clown. I'm pointing out that presidents are elected with a majority vote (it's actually a big deal that the electoral college keeps trying until someone gets a majority; otherwise it eventually goes to Congress), and that Clinton failed to win a majority of the popular vote, contrary to lots of Democrats (e.g. Michael Moore) who suck at math claiming otherwise. If we had a popular vote we'd have a runoff like many other countries do and we do for senate races in states without a normal primary process. That's so someone doesn't get in with 30-something% of the vote because multiple candidates split the opposition vote.

Like in 2016, when conservative/libertarian candidates received more presidential popular votes than liberal/socialist candidates did combined.

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

Even if that was true, how is that a landslide unless you're delusional?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

How is it not a landslide, unless you're delusional ? Although I like the headlines on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

The pollsters did not factor in the 'help' Putin was giving Trump!

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

Why would the polls factor in something that didn't happen?

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

Well, at least a one thing is now clear. Republicans probably can't win without cheating! This is why they are busy gerrymandering districts; stuffing the courts with right wing judges and passing draconian voter id laws. They have given up on winning the argument and instead doubled down on crazy, lying and cheating!

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

Hahaha! Yeah, just ask Bernie about the last election if you wanna talk about cheating.

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

Really? A Trump supporter wants to talk about cheating? You might want to ignore ALL the dishonesty of this guy but for most people, he has stained the Republican party FOREVER!

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

Wow!! Are you honestly gonna say the Democrat party isn't also stained forever?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You do realize T-rump, #MosocwMitch, Ghouliani, Gym Jordan, and all the others belong to the Republican Party, right?

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

Denounce antifa.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Doggiedaddy still hasn't denounced Antifa I see.

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

And won't. He's the poster child for hypocrisy.

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

So you had W, Mccain, Romney and then ...Trump Don't you see a sharp drop somewhere?. We do!

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

You see what you want to see.

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

I guess Trump is not really the problem. It is his followers who are in denial

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 5 years ago

No. The problem is America hating, liberals. Period.

reply

[–] mcqueen (1150) 5 years ago

why wouldn't they be?

most polling is extremely accurate

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

Polls are believed for good reason. They get it correct nearly every time. People mistake Trump's victory in 2016 as bad polling. It was merely a bad prediction based on accurate polling. The polls showed Hillary winning 51% to 49% of the popular vote... which she did.

reply

[–] atomicx (235) 5 years ago

I'm not sure what polls you are referencing, but we don't elect by popular vote, so polling for that and predicting an election based on that data wouldn't even make sense.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

The science of polling has a pretty good track record, with more polling narrowing the margin of error.

The issue with the last election is a failure to do enough polling in surprise battleground states like Wisconsin and Michigan. The pollsters dropped the ball by assuming those states wouldn't be competitive so they just didn't poll those states frequently enough to get an accurate read.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

You always base predictions on popular vote. Nobody in their right mind would say one person would win when polling shows millions more votes for the other person. Everybody who predicted Trump would win assumed he would also get the popular vote.

reply

[–] atomicx (235) 5 years ago

Oh that's right, polling doesn't exist on a state by state basis. What was I thinking?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

It actually doesn't quite exist on a state by state basis because you can't poll the entire state. You can only poll so many counties. As you know, some counties swing blue while others swing red. Yet the polls still manage to get it right. But in the case of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they were all statistical ties even on election night. The polls assumed Hillary would win the tie-break because those three states hadn't gone red since Reagan in 1984 and HW Bush in 1988.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Pollsters weren't considering foreign interference in our election system, either.

reply

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

Which has his cronies turning on him to save their own hides. Interesting to watch if not too sickening and terrifying when you really look at the big picture.

Even MoscowMitch has been throwing him under the bus but of course continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth while he gauges the climate and decides what stance will best serve him -self serving MoscowMitch.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I don't believe anything #MoscowMitch has to say.

reply

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

No one does, but one thing is unfaltering about him. He will always do whatever serves him. So trump tanking in public opinion would threaten his re-election if he were to stand by that lunatic.

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

WOW!

Maybe my pessimism was premature.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

I didn't get polled because I'm at work. Maybe that is why polls tend to swing democrat not working majority.

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Welfare statistics would disagree with you.

Again, another example of you proving yourself to be on the same level as the other clowns around here. And here I was thinking you were one of the smarter ones...

What's next? Hillary's emails? All illegals are drug pushers? George Soros is a mastermind orchestrating everything? Come one--what other classic Trumper tropes do you have under your hat?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Polls will contact you seven days a week, daytime and evenings. They know the majority of those polled are 'the working poor' who are paying a higher tax rate than the 1% of the Americans who control the wealth.

reply

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 5 years ago

Yawn. More fake news polls.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yawn. More fake news polls.

Zzzzz. More Hannity conspiracy theories.

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

I honestly don't get the Republican defense of "Biden did it too". First, Biden is not currently President. Second, it has NOTHING to do with what Trump did. You don't tell the cop who pulled you over for speeding that the other guy was speeding too. It's NOT a defense, Third, Biden did what he did in the interest of the country and the rest of the West, NOT HIS OWN!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

See, now you're using truth, facts, and logic - three things which the Republicans can't comprehend.

My question has always been - Biden did this very publicly, out in the open a few years ago. Where was the republican outrage then? Why didn't anyone call him out on it then? Why hasn't this been a major issue till now, when T-rump is caught asking a foreign government for help to win the next election?

reply

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 5 years ago

Biden was VP when he was doing shady things in the Ukraine. The US and Ukraine signed a pact to investigate corruption. Trump is just doing is job as President. Liberals are in tears because its one of their chosen one's to beat Trump that is taking the heat (and fall).

reply

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

I get it, Trump is doing what you like but you guys are acting like you are cheering for your local football team: standards, the constitution, the laws, decency, honesty now even national security must be sacrificed at the alter of whom? Trump. Someone who you must know cares NOTHING about what you care.He ONLY cares about himself. Whether it is impeachment, 2020 or 2026 Trump will leave office eventually. At some point a Democrat will be president. I only hope you remember the lengths to which you guys went to defend the indefensible.

reply

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 5 years ago

Only in the mind of twisted liberals are these things being sacrificed.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

They might be listening to Rashida and Beto to keep the thing going so they can sell tshirts. The shirts are junk made and won't last long so a longer impeachment talk will get people to buy replacements as the other shirts fall apart.

reply