Greyparrot

Liz Warren.

Cause the DNC will never allow a white male to run again for the next few election cycles, and Liz has the funding, name recognition, and proper gender.

After reading the article, I also have a 3rd theory...that most of these polling businesses are based in urban centers, so they likely recruit a great many urban liberals to conduct the polls. Not only does this lend to obvious confirmation bias, but they would likely also hold disdain for the areas they would need to travel to and the people they would have to talk to in order to sample the smelly walmart deplorable Trump base. This would lead to the trump voters not being represented in the polls accurately.

2 swing states were outrageously wrong (wi and MI)

And every one of the 2-5% predictions in hillary's favor for the swing states was also wrong.

That's why people don't trust polls, because it caters to the echochamber left that inherently wants to be counted in a poll.

The big three were a substantive change in vote preference during the campaign's final days, a failure to properly adjust for an overrepresentation of college graduates, and many Trump voters failing to reveal their preferences until after the election. The last point could have also been the result of late-deciding Trump voters, the report said.On the first point, the autopsy found that 13% of voters in Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania — three states Trump won narrowly over Clinton and helped catapult him to an unlikely victory — decided on their presidential choice in the final week of the election. Overwhelmingly, those voters broke for Trump: In Wisconsin, they chose Trump over Clinton by a 30-point margin. In Florida and Pennsylvania, the margin was 17 percentage points.The analysis makes note of a couple of other points — namely, that a change in turnout from 2012 to 2016 likely also caused state polls to miss the mark on the results. It also said that "ballot order effects" may have effected some state contests. Trump appeared above Clinton on the ballot in several key states, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida. The study estimated that about one-third of a percentage point bump can be attributed to appearing first on the ballot. The study said that could, at best, be a very minor explanation for "polling problems," however.
"Collectively, well-resourced survey organizations might have enough common interest in financing some high quality state-level polls so as to reduce the likelihood of another black eye for the profession," the autopsy report said.
Reminiscing on what went wrong just days after the November election, Patrick Murray, the head of Monmouth University's polling institute, a firm that conducts a number of state polls, told Business Insider "polls might not be capable of predicting elections."Murray's final Pennsylvania poll showed Clinton with a 4-point lead with a 4.9-point margin of error, which still was not big enough to capture the margin — 1.2 points — by which Trump would win the state.
His theory for what happened at the time: "Non-response among a major core of Trump voters."

So tell me why ALL the polls had both Wi and MI in the bag for Hillary?

Why did all the polls have the swing states in the margin of error for Hillary?

Michigan had not voted republican since 1988..in fact there were many historic election results that had districts voting for Trump who have never voted red since 1988

That's how terrible Hillary was.

Polls had Michigan clearly in the blue.

Also, if you remove California, Trump won the popular vote, which is the very reason why we have the EC so that one large state does not get to pick the president for the rest of the other 49 states. We don't live by mob rule.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

Democracy: 4 guys and 2 girls in a room. The 4 guys vote to rape the 2 girls. Mob rule.

Republic: The men get 1 vote, the Women get 1 vote. No raping occurs.

His homework is incomplete. He left out michigan,

I agree. If Iran wants to nuke Israel, let them.

This is what the country would look like if California popular vote elected the president.

I would much rather have Israel take care of this with the help of the Saudis.

I still like how MI voted when the polls said it was going to go to Hillary.

Way for the state to flip the finger at detroit academia.

WI was just fuel on the fire.

If California was not part of the USA (which some Californians would love) then Trump would have won the popular vote. California is out of touch with the rest of America and marches to a different drum.

I heard that Trump intends to deport millions before the census is counted.

Lol, Trump is living proof that you can make exactly zero political stops in California and win the presidency.

California doesn't matter anymore because it has become a cringey fringe cesspool that does not represent mainstream America in the least bit. They barely speak English there. 

Actually, I find it refreshing that the EC allows candidates like Trump to give the middle finger to California. The rest of the country is far more important than 1 state.

From what I saw on wikipedia, Trump visited California a grand total of zero times during  the general election season.

Smart dude there.

Hillary wasted valuable campaign time with 2 rallies in California...

Not so bright chicki.

Lol it's not a mystery what happened in 2016. Hillary won 4.5 million more votes than Trump in California...big deal, so Hillary was super popular in California. That doesn't get you elected as president in the USA.

Trump won swing states like Florida by 100,000 votes. Ohio by 400,000 votes... Hillary even found a way to lose Pennsylvania by 50,000 votes.

These are the smelly walmart deplorables that decide who gets to be president, not California with their impressive 4.5 million vote total.

In fact, if you removed California from the results, Trump overwhelmingly won the popular vote. That's how insignificant it is to get the popular vote in California to becoming an elected president. California does not represent America.

Extinction by cowfart climate change?

We are a few decades from being able to colonize the moon, and you think cowfarts will make the planet uninhabitable for all life before then?

Moo.

So you admit the polls won't predict who is going to win the electoral votes of the walmart smelling deplorables in flyover country...just who is going to win the popular vote on the east and west coasts.

By the way, historically every DNC coastal candidate has flopped so bad since Jimmy Carter. Hillary should have been Senator for Arkansas, not New York. Maybe then she could have gotten those smelly walmart deplorables to vote for her.

All hail the toxic white male president.

This isn't a new policy. A school is allowed to decide standards for admission no matter what your political beliefs are.

So, the survey question was, If Biden was running against Trump do you want him to win? 

i wonder what the result would have been if the question was worded: If Trump was running against Biden do you want him to win? 

If anything we learned about popularity polls from 2016 is that while California and New York supermajorities might get the guy(or girl) they want in the primaries, it's usually bad news for the DNC candidates that could have won the midwest Electoral College votes despite not being so hyper-popular on the east and west coasts. The polls that matter are how Biden does in swing states, which generally don't look so good, especially with a booming economy in play.

I would not be surprised at all to see Omar to agree with an economist that we should disband the military because 100% of economists agree that the military is a drain on the economy.

Were that we lived in a bubble, then sure tariffs would be bad 100% of the time, but we don't live in a bubble, and other countries impose their tariffs and steal our patents regardless of whether we trade tariff free or not. I'm sure economists would also say 100% of the time that the military is a drain on the economy, but we don't disband the military for obvious reasons.

Because you are deplorable, and smell like Walmart.

On tariffs, people who have zero understanding how economic markets work will always see wealth as a zero sum game...For example.. if they see a 25% tariff on a Chinese good, they assume it will mean that Chinese good will show up on Walmart's shelves with a 25% hike in the price, having no clue about the difference between wholesale and retail price, price elasticity, or the extent China will most likely subsidize that industry in order to artificially lower the price of chinese goods to prevent Chinese goods from being priced out of the market... a concept I am sure Trump understands all too well and media wonks clearly do not with the continual mantra saying "Americans are paying these tariffs..."

When you are on top, that is the time to squeeze your competition. And China is our competition on the global trade arena, and will be for the foreseeable next century, regardless how anti-nationalist you might feel about America.

Yeah, that was stunning to say the least. Reminds me of those contrived "man on the street" skits with the random dummy tropes. Except I think this one could have been accurate.

You are not allowed to agree with insights according to the Orwellian left that insists you use the correct party approved words and thoughtspeak.

So then it's kinda irrelevant.

This is what happens when you do not clean house. A divided house cannot stand...especially when the house is full of "glasses of water"

Sounds legit. that should keep those crazy republicans from milkshaking Carlos Maza.

There's multiple reasons not to invade Iran...also USA shale oil got a boost in production from the tanker attacks.

It's not paying anymore to racebait...just the opposite.

Get woke..go broke.

Also continuing prison reform and expanding job opportunities for convicted felons can do alot to assist minorities ready to flee the socialist plantation.

I'd say Starr was better at doing his job of uncovering possible impeachable offenses...by listing possible impeachable offenses in his list of "grounds for impeachment"

Such a list exists nowhere in the Mueller report. All we have is a kabuki maze of possible offenses that may or may not be possible impeachable offenses..who can say? Mueller sure did not. What a chickenshit.

Why do you continue to lie? Knowing full well you have no evidence that I am attempting to deceive you. What I stated may be objectively wrong, but it is most certainly not an objective deception. The only way you could not be lying is if you have convinced yourself there exists evidence that I am trying to decieve you, which I would then chalk up to delusion and not intentional lying.

It's ok, you don't have to explain why since lying is the objectively the best way to justify censoring opposition. Russians know how to do this too. You are not special.

Ironically it's an actual lie to deceptively label someone a liar while knowing that you have no evidence that the person is trying to decieve you. 

Such is the mindset of the paranoid and delusional to assume everyone with a difference of opinion is trying to decieve you. 

I agree, it's not the job of a Detective to exonerate anyone. They either find criminal offenses, or they do not, There is no in between.

Thankfully, Barr never said that was Mueller's job. I would call you a deliberate liar, but that Alinsky tactic is specifically reserved for the radical regressive left, the smearing censorship terms such as "liar" and "racist."

Is Barr lying when he said this in the article?

I don't think so, but it is typical PAR for the course for the rabid regressive left to reword differences of opinion as lies.

All part of the toolbox in the Alinsky rules for radicals to silence your political opponents. Everyone who disagrees is a liar or a racist or whatever overused hackneyed trope is popular with the rabid left.

It is relevant. Mueller is a traitor to the radical left for swinging in Trump's favor just like Comey for saying Hillary might have been wrong to shred emails after the Russians hacked them.

Mueller let his rabid base down, just like Trump did when he promised his base that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.

Barr clearly said Mueller could have ignored the guidelines and stated indictable offenses without indicting. That's a fact.

Whatever it is you are harping on doesn't hold water. You do know what a guideline is right?

Doj guidelines are just that. Mueller was allowed to decide what was "fair" or "unfair"

He took the bullshit way out.

No he didn't say that about Congress, he just interpreted the DOJ guidelines in a bullshit manner. 

Barr agrees.

“The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office,” Barr said, referring to the Justice Department policy laid out by its Office of Legal Counsel. “But he could’ve reached a decision whether it was criminal activity, but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained.”
Barr added: “I am not going to argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as heads of the Department to reach that decision.”
“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Mueller added Wednesday that it would be “unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”

Mueller's team came to believe that making any sort of impeachment referral to Congress also would fall under the category of accusing the president of a crime, according to people familiar with their discussions.

So basically Mueller was just explaining why he was never going to be able to do the job he was appointed to do...find impeachable offenses and state those offenses. This is a stark contrast to the Starr report that explicitly stated impeachable offenses. But the reasoning is still bullshit and hinges solely on DOJ guidelines about being "fair" and has nothing to do with legal bindings. if it was truly "unfair" to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge... then the Congress is similarly "unfair" to hold hearings on impeachable offenses for the same exact reason, which is clearly a bullshit position as well.

Note that Mueller didn't state any legal bindings as to why he COULD NOT DECLARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...he simply used one word. unfair.

How disappointing to the regressive left. All of their hopes dashed by the use of a single word...unfair...

That position of Mueller is groundless as he is essentially saying he is not legally allowed to do his job. 

Starr had no problem stating impeachable offenses, as IT WAS HIS JOB to do so...explicitly...to discover grounds for impeachment. Starr was never told that he could not accuse the president of high crimes or misdemeanors.... because Clinton could not defend himself...

If we were to go down the road Mueller states, it would make impeachment virtually impossible, as Congress would not be allowed to accuse a president of an impeachable offense for the exact same reason Mueller stated he could not accuse a president of an impeachable offense.

Mueller's position was that he could not state grounds for impeachment because the president would not have an opportunity to defend himself....well the president still would not have an opportunity to defend himself if a member of Congress stated grounds for impeachment (which many already have)

So either Mueller is right, and all the Congress is in violation of the law, or Mueller is full of it and was looking for excuses as to why he did not do his expected job delivering explicit impeachable offenses to the rabid left.

Conceded. I concede that Mueller would have indicted a ham sandwich if he was allowed to.

Now answer me why Mueller never brought up a list of impeachable offenses as Starr did.