MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Quinnipiac Poll says Biden is at 53% to ...

Quinnipiac Poll says Biden is at 53% to 40% over Trump


And yet Biden speaks to rooms of 200 people while Trump regularly speaks to 20,000 with lines backed-up and folks crowding outside.

Needless to say, those who run the Quinnipiac University poll are Leftist hacks. I'll trust the proof on the ground, just like in 2016, thank you.

reply

And they also said that Hillary would win.

reply

....and she won the vote by a pretty good margin.

reply

The "popular vote" - aka illegals and criminals, sure.

But not the Electoral vote - which is what matters.

Tee hee...

reply

Yes thank you Captain Fucking Obvious.

Now: "The "popular vote" - aka illegals and criminals, sure."

Any evidence to provide?

reply

Certainly:

http://massivevoterfraud.com
News reports started circulating that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote over Donald Trump, by over 3 million votes.

That just didn’t make sense to us. How could Hillary Clinton get 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, yet Hillary still lose the election so badly?

Massive Voter Fraud!

It looks like obvious massive voter fraud took place in the 2016 presidential election, targeting President Trump to delegitimize his landslide election. And we are here to provide proof that Hillary Clinton cheated to gain illegal votes in many states.

We will provide proof that massive voter fraud occurred during the election. We have already confirmed millions of illegal votes, many even coming from dead people!

With our calculations, from November 9th, 2016 until today, we have concluded that over 2 million votes were illegal. Our final calculations should be finalized at the end of July, 2017.

Our predictions show that there should be close to 3,109,405 illegal votes cast in 2016’s presidential election, with 98.45% of the illegal votes being cast for Hillary Clinton.

How Do We Know These Votes Were Illegal?

We have a lot of connections in the voting system. We know clerks that have given us access to INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
Gregg Phillips understands what’s happening in our voting system.

The illegally cast ballots could have come from any or all of the states listed below, as they do not require any form of ID to vote.
*California
*Illinois
*Iowa
*Maine
*Maryland
*Massachusetts
*Minnesota
*Nebraska
*Nevada
*New Jersey
*New Mexico
*New York
*North Carolina
*Oregon
*Pennsylvania
*Vermont
*West Virginia
*Wyoming
*Washington, D.C.


reply

[deleted]

So you just shared...


The facts.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/17/paid-democratic-voter-fraud-ring-uncovered-texas/

Despite being constantly assured by Democrats and most of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) that voter fraud doesn’t really happen, these nagging stories seem to keep popping up. This one, picked up by CBS News in Dallas, is a doozy. Four women have been charged with felonies in Fort Worth after the discovery that they were intercepting ballots, primarily intended for elderly voters, and filling them out themselves before trying to trick the intended voters into signing them. And it’s not just a few ballots either.
The Attorney General’s office has been pursuing this case for two years and it’s a major organized crime situation. Known as “harvesters,” these women were part of a group that has been filling out ballots in the hundreds or even the thousands. While four women have been indicted on sixteen counts thus far, the AG is saying that there are more people involved and a lot more incidents.

reply

Did those four women falsify nearly 3 million votes across the country in the last Presidential election?

Because for it to be applicable to your claim, ALL of my above sentence would have to be true.

What's this:

They haven’t released all of the ballots in question to the press yet, but of the ones that were reviewed, they primarily seemed to benefit Democratic candidates.

So, some of the ballots were seen and they "primarily" benefitted Democrats, which could mean as little as 11 out of 20 were for Democrats. We don't know because we aren't given any numbers or info here.

Also, that sentence is very suspicious because of "primarily seemed to benefit."

Why did they SEEM to benefit Democrats? There is some hidden reason why the writer had to put "seemed" in there.

Anyway, BZZZZT this is not the evidence you're looking for.

reply

LOL

http://massivevoterfraud.com/black-goo-demonic-conspiracy/

http://massivevoterfraud.com/u-s-military-killed-giant-kandahar/

The typical Trumper. Where news involves magic and fairy tales.

reply

The typical Trumper. Where news involves magic and fairy tales.


https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/4-Indicted-in-North-Texas-Voter-Fraud-Scheme-497239441.html

Four women who are accused of targeting elderly voters in 2016 were indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud and arrested following an investigation by the office of the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The defendants were members of an organized voter fraud ring and were paid to target elderly voters in certain northern Fort Worth precincts in a scheme to generate large numbers of mail ballots, then harvest those ballots for specific candidates, the office's news release said.

reply

Did those four women falsify nearly 3 million votes across the country in the last Presidential election?

Because for it to be applicable to your claim, ALL of my above sentence would have to be true.

What's this:

They haven’t released all of the ballots in question to the press yet, but of the ones that were reviewed, they primarily seemed to benefit Democratic candidates.

So, some of the ballots were seen and they "primarily" benefitted Democrats, which could mean as little as 11 out of 20 were for Democrats. We don't know because we aren't given any numbers or info here.

Also, that sentence is very suspicious because of "primarily seemed to benefit."

Why did they SEEM to benefit Democrats? There is some hidden reason why the writer had to put "seemed" in there.

Anyway, BZZZZT this is not the evidence you're looking for.

reply

Did those four women falsify nearly 3 million votes across the country in the last Presidential election?


Heck no - illegals did that!

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

More specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

reply

Trump won the election. You can put your toys away now. You shouldn't be getting so triggered by Hillary winning 3 million more votes that you need to read conspiracy pieces to make yourself feel better. Just do your typical routine of "haha Hillary lost" instead of Freudian slipping that she didn't deserve to.

reply

Trump won the election. You can put your toys away now. You shouldn't be getting so triggered...


Oh?

You think it just STOPPED in 2016?

It is to laugh, deeply @U!

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-02-12-illegals-registered-to-vote-2018-mid-term-elections-were-a-fraud.html
There are nearly 100,000 non-citizens registered to vote in Texas
100,000 non-citizens are currently on the state’s voter rolls, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. After comparing state driver’s license records, which indicate immigration status, alongside voter rolls, officials found that at least 95,000 people are registered to vote who shouldn’t be – and at least 58,000 of them have voted in elections since 1996.

“This shows the urgent need for citizenship verification for voting,” warns Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, adding that these two reports out of Pennsylvania and Texas are just “the tip of the iceberg.”

“The Department of Justice should follow up with a national investigation,” he says.

reply

no collusion delusion.

reply

A timely alliteration.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

BS Oberto!!

reply

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-report-exposes-thousands-illegal-votes-2016-election

The Government Accountability Institute was able to obtain voter registration and voter history data from only 21 states because while some states shared it freely, “others impose exorbitant costs or refuse to comply with voter information requests.”

These 21 states represent “about 17 percent of all possible state-to-state comparison combinations.”

The Institute compared the lists using an “extremely conservative matching approach that sought only to identify two votes cast in the same legal name.” It found that 8,471 votes in 2016 were “highly likely” duplicates.

Extrapolating this to all 50 states would likely produce, with “high-confidence,” around 45,000 duplicate votes.

The Institute obtained this level of confidence by matching not only names and birthdays—which can be the same for different individuals—but also by contracting with companies, such as Virtual DBS, that have commercial databases to further cross-check these individuals using their Social Security Numbers and other information.

According to the Government Accountability Institute’s experts, “the probability of correctly matching two records with the same name, birthdate, and social security number is close to 100 percent.” In fact, “using these match points will result in virtually zero false positives.”

The probability of 45,000 illegal duplicate votes is the low end of the spectrum, and it does not even account for other types of fraud such as ineligible voting by noncitizens and felons and absentee ballot fraud.

To put this number of fraudulent votes in perspective, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000 votes out of over 700,000 cast. Just this number of duplicate votes alone has the power to swing state results and, in turn, elections.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire refused to turn over their data for this study.

reply

Jerky!

reply

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

Wouldn't even trust it. They had Hillary on + all the way to the end. It's a good way to get Trump triggered though as he's already lashing out.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1138789726771732480

reply

You understand right that what you're citing is national polling from 2016? That's not a very good way to judge pollsters from 2016 since Hillary was up in national polls when she won the popular election by 3 million votes.

To get a more accurate read you should dig into the weeds to see how they polled Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania ... the three states that swung the election.

That said, Quinnipiac does have a strong rep as being one of the more reliable pollsters due to the volume of their sample sizes.

reply

Trump regularly speaks to 20,000 with lines backed-up and folks crowding outside.


Bwahahahahahahaha! Yeah, and he had the 'best attended inauguration in history!' according to him and his minions. Remember that one? Yet he had about a quarter of the attendance Obama had - in his second inauguration (not even his first) !

LOLOLOL!

Oh, Thrillhouse - you do like to lie for the Orange man.

reply

Bwahahahahahahaha! Yeah, and he had the 'best attended inauguration in history!'


Weather that day was?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/19/inauguration-day-weather-forecast-damp-dreary/96772658/

Next!

https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/trump-michigan-rally-how-many-crowd-photos/
Local news source The Monroe News noted that the Van Andel Arena stands appeared to be completely full. A quick Google search for the maximum capacity of Van Andel Arena shows that it’s 10,834. However, Van Andel Arena’s website states that the capacity is 12,000-plus. Wikipedia lists the arena as having 12,858 seats for end-stage shows and 13,184 seats for center-stage shows. The seating varies depending on the event’s setup.

So although it’s unlikely they had 14,000 people indoors (as the max capacity doesn’t quite reach this size), it’s possible they a little more than 13,100 people inside depending on the setup. Here’s a video of the arena, which shows a packed arena:

The Trump Rally Tonightbin Michigan looks (and sounds) like the Super Bowl.

After being absolved of two years of baseless slander – it might as well be. What a vindication moment 🇺🇸pic.twitter.com/6NzYwnbum0

reply

Weather that day was?


Yes, blame it on the weather! LOL!

reply

Outdoor event - sure will.

Now explain his massive rally crowds - everywhere he goes, LOL!

reply

Outdoor event - sure will.


Didn't ever keep away crowds at other Inaugural events which included rain, snow, wind, below freezing temps.

Didn't keep away a crowd in MI from attneding Amy Klobuchar's Presidential announcement, with wind, snow and record low temps.

Just the Orange guy. Try again.

reply

Didn't ever keep away crowds at other Inaugural events which included rain, snow, wind, below freezing temps.


Millennial snowflakes are more tender.

reply

Now explain his massive rally crowds - everywhere he goes, LOL!



https://thinkprogress.org/trump-michigan-rally-qanon-supporters-f96d723d4bed/

It's certainly not quality people, is it?

reply

It's certainly not quality people, is it?


Just law-abiding, gun-loving, Christian, middle class salt of the earth - you know the same heartland of America that your Demotards abandoned, denigrated, and then waged economic war on.

No wonder you lost the support of the unions..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/donald-trump-got-reagan-like-support-from-union-households/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68208a8c6531

Trump's depiction of who those voters were centered on two broad archetypes: Veterans and displaced factory workers. There isn't good polling on the former, but it overlaps with the white, non-college-educated men who made up a significant part of Trump's base. In one formulation of the latter, union members, we have data from exit polling. In union households (that is, households in which someone was a union member), Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by only 8 points, a substantial improvement from how Mitt Romney did in 2012.

In fact, it was the best margin for a Republican since ... 1984, the election that gave Reagan his second term.

reply

Trumps following is dedicated but not that large.

reply

Growing all the time, tee hee...

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/11/black-support-trump-rising-danger-zone-democrats/
The latest YouGov/Economist poll (May 6-8), one of a few that comprehensively breaks down support by ethnicity, has some frightening news for the Democratic Party.

While President Trump’s approval holds steady among registered voters at 41 percent, his support among blacks in this poll is striking. If it holds for 2020, it could be devastating for Democrats. Among African-Americans, 16 percent approve of Trump, 10 percent are not sure, and 75 percent disapprove.

While that sounds highly negative, these are high positives for a Republican politician among black Americans. Approval of 16 percent is 8 points higher than the 8 percent of black voter support Trump received on election day 2016, and 9 points higher than the black vote Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney received in 2012. The “Not Sure” at 10 percent is staggering, and the 75 percent “disapprove” rating is consistent with the low 70 percent aggregate found in any YouGov poll among this demographic.

The same poll, with their rounding, reported in January that Trump approval was at 10 percent among black Americans, 15 percent were not sure, and 74 percent disapproved, so the numbers are not only steady but improving in Trump’s favor.

This result may actually be underreporting Trump’s black support, as this records “all voters,” which consistently has lower figures for Trump in all categories, as opposed to registered voters. YouGov/Economist gives Trump a 40 percent “All voters” approval rating four points lower than their registered voters findings (RealClearPolitics favors the registered voters results across the polling companies it reports).

reply

Team Trump couldn’t have a better opponent. Mr unaccomplished white man with a 50 year track record of doing nothing but embarrassing himself. Countless foot in mouth speeches. Plagiarism. Not a single significant bill with his name on it. The guy has been a laughing stock since Reagan. The country hopes and prays Biden is the one hand picked by the DNC to “win” the primaries. Trump will Annihilate that unaccomplished joke. And it’ll be 4 more years of booming success for Americans.

40 years in the Senate. Zero accomplishments.

Stand up for Joe!

reply

40 years in the Senate. Zero accomplishments.

Stand up for Joe!


Plus he's mastered the flip flop (Hyde Amendment) thus insuring that as flags go his will never fight the fetid gusts of Demotarded fascism.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/06/12/joe-biden-pro-abortion-hyde-amendment/1436308001/
For more than 40 years, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for abortions. In 1994, when a constituent wrote to Biden, urging him, “Please don’t force me to pay for abortions against my conscience,” Biden replied, “I agree with you.” He pointed out that he had voted no fewer than 50 times against federal funding of abortions, promising, “Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.” In his 2007 book “Promises to Keep,” Biden wrote, “I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years.”

But middle-of-the-road is no longer good enough in today’s Democratic Party. So when Biden recently reaffirmed his support for the Hyde Amendment, his opponents for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination pounced. “There is #NoMiddleGround on women’s rights,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted. “Abortion is a constitutional right.” Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., chastised Biden, declaring “No woman’s access to reproductive health care should be based on how much money she has. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and a number of other Democrats also piled on, as did Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Emily’s List.

reply

You go Q, pwning hard!

reply

[deleted]

Just shedding some light on the proceedings, my pleasure sir!

reply

I wish I could go back and relive the disappointment and crying when Hillary lost. All those liberal tears, it was a religious experience!

reply

It's a beeeyootifull thing man...

reply

Truly one of the most joyous occasions I can remember.

reply

It's so critical to form solid, joyous memories and nurture them forward to share with others.

:-)

reply

Thats the reason the ocean levels went up on foot.

reply

And how about the reason they went DOWN:

https://www.iceagenow.info/nasa-confirms-sea-levels-falling-across-planet/

Sea levels are FALLING.

Where is that water going? It is being locked up on land as snow and ice.

See:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Sea-Level-Falling-July-2017-NASA.png

reply