(09-18-2024 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:09 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Funny how leftists claim tariffs will be passed on to consumers but higher corporate taxes won't be.

Who said they won't be? Not me.

I didn't say you did however Jen Psaki seemed taken aback by that notion back when she was press secretary and it was pointed out to her. Not to mention if one knows it's going to be passed on to consumers you would think you would not try it since it's a contributor to inflation and a drag to the economy.

(09-18-2024 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:09 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Funny how leftists claim tariffs will be passed on to consumers but higher corporate taxes won't be.

Who said they won't be? Not me.

Then you simply dont understand the difference between a tariff and a corporate tax. Neither are particularly good for the consumer pocketbook---but the corporate tax hurts jobs HERE where as the Trump proposed tariffs transfers off shore jobs back to our shores. That is an important distinction because there are two ways of recovering lost consumer buying power----one is prices coming down---the other is wages going UP.

(09-18-2024 03:05 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:19 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 10:59 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  If those kinds of things are what you have to "lock on to" in order to prop up the Left, you've already lost the battle.

Immigration, the Economy, Inflation, National Security, Foreign Affairs, Crime, the Military, Border Security, Energy Independence, Education, Parental Rights, Secure Elections, etc. are the important topics that interest voters.

Maybe you should have told the Trump campaign that bit of treasure prior to his debate appearance. He sure rabbit chased a lot of doozies there that dont seem to fit on your list....

You must have had your TDS filters turned on during the debate. Trump spoke constantly about the Economy, Inflation, National Security, Foreign Affairs, Crime, Border Security, Energy Independence, the Military, Wars in Ukraine & Israel, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, etc. and some of the ways he's going to fix it.

All you seem to have heard was a sentence or two about cats and dogs in Ohio.

I heard all sorts of meandering bullchit from Trump. He has the "biggest rallies", Kamala is a Marxist, Trump is the best champion evah! for IVF, *EVERYONE* wanted RvW dumped, "It was on television" as a reply to his being fact checked on Springfield, refusing to acknowledge he lost the '20 election, people "cant buy cereal, or eggs, or bacon, or anything else", how a 20% tariff isnt an indirect tax on consumers, let alone *who* pays those tariffs at the end, he would end the Ukraine war "before" he took office, the Ukraine war would be over in days, how brilliant his tax plan that would add 5.8T to the deficit is -- it is lauded by the "top professors" at Wharton (the same place that tagged his plan as adding 5T more to the deficit than Harris'), yada, yada, yada.

As for immigration, all he can do it rant about 'the millions that are pouring over our borders' -- literally that line or equivalent about 20 times. Same for the 'look what they are doing to out coutry' -- about the same number of times. All without an iota of insight as to what he would do about it, mind you.

Ditto for his economic "plan". Just tariffs. All without a fing clue what that would do the economy, nor without apparent thought on who pays them. The idiot actually said he was "gonna take in billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars" from other countries. Apparently clueless as to who actually pays those tariffs.

Yeah, a real fing stellar performance.

The 'they eat dogs' comment simply stands out as the fing *dumbest* and most repeatable from that mishmash.

So, tariffs are going to be devastating this time for us even though they weren't the last time? The farmers (for example) appreciated it both financially and from the increased markets it opened up for them.

Maybe take a look at the extent in breadth and depth he is talking about.

Tariffs *can* be useful when used selectively. Having an overall tariff schedule on a wide amount of trade is generally not economically sound.

On non-agricultural goods, the US currently has a a trade-weighted average import tariff rate of 2.0 percent on industrial goods. One-half of all industrial goods imports enter the United States duty free.

I saw a study where his proposed across-the-board tariff would amount to a roughly $1,500 annual tax increase for the typical household, including a $90 tax increase on food, a $90 tax increase on prescription drugs, and a $120 tax increase on oil and petroleum products. This tax increase would drive up the price of goods while failing to significantly boost U.S. manufacturing and jobs.

Another noted 1700 dollars
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look...-consumers

Yet another noted 1800 dollars.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/t...ow-imports

If you think that is a good thing overall, that is your opinion.

Quote:You don't believe that the millions of illegals that the current administration (Kamala) allowed to enter our country have caused extensive hardship, damage, and loss of life in this country? It happens to be #1 or #2 on most voter's list of what is most important to them to get fixed.

Can you supply any objective numbers for this alleged "extensive hardship, damage, and loss of life in this country"? Non-anecdotal that is.

Quote:As for wars in Ukraine and Israel, remember that Russia invaded Crimea when Obama was president. They invaded Ukraine again right after Biden took office. They stood down while Trump was in office (in between Obama and Biden).

Russia shadow invaded the Donbas during Trump's presidency. You left that out.

Quote: The current administration also helped Russia out financially by turning on their Nordstream pipeline deal with Europe. Hard to fight a war without a lot of money to support it.

And they made that decision prior to the 'in the open invasion', mind you.

Quote:Remember too that Trump was putting together a peace deal in the Middle East and had several countries that had already signed on with others indicating they were soon to as well just before his 1st term ended. He also had Iran on the ropes financially making it hard for them to support their activist groups like Hamas, Hesbala, etc. The current administration (Kamala) turned their money supply back on.

I will agree with a portion of your comment above. I give a heckuva lot of kudos to Trump for the Abraham accords. And for rolling back the Obama nuclear deal with Iran.

I do not supoprt the Biden decision to reinvigorate that nuclear accord.

To insinuate that Biden has 'rollen over' with respect to Iran -- look here: https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/tim...sanctions.

If you want to criticize any financial transactions with Iran, you should consider the Trump decision issue a waiver that would allow Iraq to continue purchasing electricity from Iran, with restrictions that Iran only use the proceeds for humanitarian purposes.

And the main financial sanctions against Iran remain in place, as opposed to your claim that Biden turned the spigot on.

Further, the monies that was part of the prisoner swap was made up of frozen Iranian monies if foreign banks -- those funds were unfrozen with the specific caveat that they could only be used for humanitarian purposes, and the banks *had* to verify that. As a result, very little of those monies has been recouped by Iran.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-halti...=103928072

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-eas...n%20Seoul.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/poli...n-transfer

Trump tariffs bad.

Biden/Harris leave them in place.

Trump tariffs bad.

(09-18-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

Biden/Harris leave some older tariffs them in place.

New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

FIFY.

(09-18-2024 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

Biden/Harris leave some older tariffs them in place.

New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

FIFY.

Missed the point...as always.

Dems said tariffs would be bad in 2016.

Dems leave those tariffs in place in 2020.

Dems say tariffs in 2024 would be bad.

It really speaks volumes to the IQ level of the left, that you are the smartest Dem on this board.

(09-18-2024 04:52 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

Biden/Harris leave some older tariffs them in place.

New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

FIFY.

Missed the point...as always.

Dems said tariffs would be bad in 2016.

Dems leave those tariffs in place in 2020.

Dems say tariffs in 2024 would be bad.

It really speaks volumes to the IQ level of the left, that you are the smartest Dem on this board.

It shouldn't be surprising. Dems will never decrease government income unless they must to retain power.

(09-18-2024 04:52 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

Biden/Harris leave some older tariffs them in place.

New proposed Trump tariffs bad.

FIFY.

Missed the point...as always.

Dems said tariffs would be bad in 2016.

Dems leave those tariffs in place in 2020.

Dems say tariffs in 2024 would be bad.

It really speaks volumes to the IQ level of the left, that you are the smartest Dem on this board.

I think you missed the final point that the extent and breadth of the current Trump proposals far exceeds those you bring up above.

And the expectations about the impact per person far exceed those as well.

Considering you havent even bothered to note those issues, if I were you I wouldnt be mouthing off about "IQ level" so loudly, champ. You be you.

Maybe you might want to opine on the expected impacts from the links I provided above. Or not. Again, you be you.

Or maybe opine on the study by Trumps old school -- Wharton. That fairly completely slams them as being worse than Kamala's direction. I'd provide you a link to that study, but considering that you seemingly studiously avoid real in the dirt facts like a cat avoids a filled bathtub, that might be in vain for you to actually look at any new provided link. Have a great day, My Friend.

The Dems “hate” tariffs now because it helps a certain voting constituency that they lost years ago due to the culture war. That’s basically the only reason.

(09-18-2024 03:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:09 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Funny how leftists claim tariffs will be passed on to consumers but higher corporate taxes won't be.

Who said they won't be? Not me.

Then you simply dont understand the difference between a tariff and a corporate tax. Neither are particularly good for the consumer pocketbook---but the corporate tax hurts jobs HERE where as the Trump proposed tariffs transfers off shore jobs back to our shores. That is an important distinction because there are two ways of recovering lost consumer buying power----one is prices coming down---the other is wages going UP.

The tariffs only transfer jobs here to the extent that those industries are here, mind you.

When there is a small or nascent industrial base for the good being tariffed, the overall benefits to the workforce simply do not outweigh the imposed costs on the public for the good.

Most of the studies going into the nuts and bolts of the proposed Trump tariffs actually look at that, and come to the conclusion that the net effect would be harmful to the tune of 1400 - 2000 dollars per family to the US buying public, with a net economic gain that you speak of not coming anywhere near that overall cost.

When tariffs are imposed as a structural support for a specified good or industry, most of the time the tariffs can easily venture into that net 'good result'. These tariffs dont seem to fit the 'structural support' or the 'response to illegal undercuts' -- they are structured in a broad, generalized manner. And, as noted earlier, most of the studies looking at them seem to indicate that they will not venture into that 'good net result' area that narrow and targeted tariffs seem to be able to generate.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/p...ing-states
Quinnipiac is so bad, RCP has a page for much they missed in 2016 and 2020. There was one state they underestimated Trump by 1 point, a couple by 5 and the rest by 6 to 12 points.

They show Harris up 5 in both Michigan and Pennsylvania in their latest polls.

(09-18-2024 03:16 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:19 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  You must have had your TDS filters turned on during the debate. Trump spoke constantly about the Economy, Inflation, National Security, Foreign Affairs, Crime, Border Security, Energy Independence, the Military, Wars in Ukraine & Israel, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, etc. and some of the ways he's going to fix it.

All you seem to have heard was a sentence or two about cats and dogs in Ohio.

And you have your cult filters on if you actually heard him put forth any sort of a plan...or even a concept of one...to "fix" any of those issues. His plans are tariffs and more drilling. That's it. He thinks it will all just magically happen because he's so awesome.

What plans has harris put out that you can get behind?

Changing the 'insto presto 5k deduction for startup expenses' to 50k, and allowing that to be totaled across multiple years.

A pledge to not raise taxes on people earning less than 400k per year

Not supporting a ban on fracking

Getting the immigration bill that failed at the beginning of 2024 passed, and pledging to sign it. That bill will give far more power to the President to actually implement lockdowns on the border -- the reason the courts deep sixed Trumps earlier attempts. In that manner there will be an explicit authorization from Congress to do just that. In addition to the larger numbers of agents, and better funding to speed up administrative logjams in the deportation process.

Standing and supporting Ukraine in its war against an aggressor nation.

Binding code of the ethics on the Supreme Court

There are a number I disagree with as well.

When she ran in 2020 she stated adamantly that she was 100% against fracking. She's on record recently as saying that "her values haven't changed". Even Bernie Sanders stated on TV a few weeks ago when asked if they had changed and he said that she was saying what she needed to say to get elected!!! If she has reeled you in so be it.

Bernie Sanders is now the judge of everything? Really?

And you dont seem to note that, with explicit respect to fracking, she said that her interaction with national energy policy in the WH has caused her to change her mind -- that fracking is actually integral to the US energy momentum.

Why didnt you note her present exact words on that exact subject and simply focus on the generalized statement bolded above?

And yes, people after some time in the area, can actually change their minds. Many times drastically. I guess you forget that Ronald Reagan was an ardent union supporter, and changed his tune *after* being exposed to the realities of the situation.

I guess your forget about the literal metric ton of stuff that Trump has changed his mind on. Criminy, just a few weeks ago he was for the Florida abortion proposition, the next day against it, the day after that for it, and a few days after that against it.

Further, the Biden administration hasnt been the 'bugaboo' against domestic energy that it has been made out to be. Its policies havent really hurt the domestic OG producers. The ones that it has been against the domestic OG industry have been pretty much all bark and no bite -- perfect to soothe the left base.

I dont see a reason why Kamala hasnt noted the serious upside that US energy production provides to the nation. Especially since Biden (i.e. her administration) has presided in a serious upturn in domestic production, and presided in a period where the US is now a consistent net exporter.

Quote:If she does what the Democrats have said (including her) that they will let the Trump Tax Cuts expire in 2025, that will absolutely raise taxes on people making less than $400,000. I make a lot less than that in retirement and it will increase my taxes by $2,000 - $3,000+ annually. I know this because I asked the accountant that does our taxes how much it saved my wife and I the year after it took effect, and she printed out the difference that it made. She also said that it helped nearly everyone that she did taxes for that year. Facts!

You are making a lot of assumptions about future events. That is the *fact* in your comment above.

Trump is accused of a platform he has nothing to do with (Project 2025) and Kamala is absolved of EVERYTHING she ran on running for the SENATE and for POTUS. But the media isn't part of the Democrat Party. Media in America STOPPED being impartial the day the first news source (newspaper etc.) "endorsed" a politician for office. That is not the job of a news source.

(09-19-2024 10:52 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Trump is accused of a platform he has nothing to do with (Project 2025) and Kamala is absolved of EVERYTHING she ran on running for the SENATE and for POTUS. But the media isn't part of the Democrat Party. Media in America STOPPED being impartial the day the first news source (newspaper etc.) "endorsed" a politician for office. That is not the job of a news source.

Again, the head of P2025 is on video saying that he has full knowledge of 2025, has visited their offices frequently, has had full talks with the head, and has taken effort to praise P2025.

And your equivalence is fairly false. Trump is accused of PRESENT day platform that the head of the project has said unequivocally that Trump was involved with, and further praised it.

Kamala is accused of positions that she has voiced in the past. And many of which she unequivocally says she does not support at the present.

It is absolutely fair game to bring up her past statements. It is also possible that she has actually changed her mind -- something that no one here deems creditworthy.

I would hazard a guess that most, if not all, here have changed their minds on a topic of two in the last 20 years. I know that Reagan did -- he went from an ardent union guy to a complete anti-union guy.

I know I have -- I changed from an absolute pro- death penalty stance about 20 years ago to a fairly deep anti- death penalty stance. I guess no one can ever actually change their minds. Interesting.

(09-18-2024 05:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:16 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you have your cult filters on if you actually heard him put forth any sort of a plan...or even a concept of one...to "fix" any of those issues. His plans are tariffs and more drilling. That's it. He thinks it will all just magically happen because he's so awesome.

What plans has harris put out that you can get behind?

Changing the 'insto presto 5k deduction for startup expenses' to 50k, and allowing that to be totaled across multiple years.

A pledge to not raise taxes on people earning less than 400k per year

Not supporting a ban on fracking

Getting the immigration bill that failed at the beginning of 2024 passed, and pledging to sign it. That bill will give far more power to the President to actually implement lockdowns on the border -- the reason the courts deep sixed Trumps earlier attempts. In that manner there will be an explicit authorization from Congress to do just that. In addition to the larger numbers of agents, and better funding to speed up administrative logjams in the deportation process.

Standing and supporting Ukraine in its war against an aggressor nation.

Binding code of the ethics on the Supreme Court

There are a number I disagree with as well.

When she ran in 2020 she stated adamantly that she was 100% against fracking. She's on record recently as saying that "her values haven't changed". Even Bernie Sanders stated on TV a few weeks ago when asked if they had changed and he said that she was saying what she needed to say to get elected!!! If she has reeled you in so be it.

Quote:If she does what the Democrats have said (including her) that they will let the Trump Tax Cuts expire in 2025, that will absolutely raise taxes on people making less than $400,000. I make a lot less than that in retirement and it will increase my taxes by $2,000 - $3,000+ annually. I know this because I asked the accountant that does our taxes how much it saved my wife and I the year after it took effect, and she printed out the difference that it made. She also said that it helped nearly everyone that she did taxes for that year. Facts!

You are making a lot of assumptions about future events. That is the *fact* in your comment above.

My taxes have been lowered every year since the Trump Tax Cuts went into effect. The Democrats have stated that they will allow them to expire in 2025. Doing so will increase my income tax having to be paid for both Federal and State. Those are both facts.

(09-19-2024 11:42 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 05:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:16 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 02:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  What plans has harris put out that you can get behind?

Changing the 'insto presto 5k deduction for startup expenses' to 50k, and allowing that to be totaled across multiple years.

A pledge to not raise taxes on people earning less than 400k per year

Not supporting a ban on fracking

Getting the immigration bill that failed at the beginning of 2024 passed, and pledging to sign it. That bill will give far more power to the President to actually implement lockdowns on the border -- the reason the courts deep sixed Trumps earlier attempts. In that manner there will be an explicit authorization from Congress to do just that. In addition to the larger numbers of agents, and better funding to speed up administrative logjams in the deportation process.

Standing and supporting Ukraine in its war against an aggressor nation.

Binding code of the ethics on the Supreme Court

There are a number I disagree with as well.

When she ran in 2020 she stated adamantly that she was 100% against fracking. She's on record recently as saying that "her values haven't changed". Even Bernie Sanders stated on TV a few weeks ago when asked if they had changed and he said that she was saying what she needed to say to get elected!!! If she has reeled you in so be it.

Quote:If she does what the Democrats have said (including her) that they will let the Trump Tax Cuts expire in 2025, that will absolutely raise taxes on people making less than $400,000. I make a lot less than that in retirement and it will increase my taxes by $2,000 - $3,000+ annually. I know this because I asked the accountant that does our taxes how much it saved my wife and I the year after it took effect, and she printed out the difference that it made. She also said that it helped nearly everyone that she did taxes for that year. Facts!

You are making a lot of assumptions about future events. That is the *fact* in your comment above.

My taxes have been lowered every year since the Trump Tax Cuts went into effect. The Democrats have stated that they will allow them to expire in 2025. Doing so will increase my income tax having to be paid for both Federal and State. Those are both facts.

That makes NO sense. There has not been a cut in the tax rate. If you paid less taxes, you had less taxable income or more credits or more withholding (which YOU paid). Since the rate didn't change, what specific credit change happened after trumps tax plan was passed?

And no, the Dems have ZERO plans to let the tax cuts on those making under 400k expire.

And I believe the plan (at least the tax cuts on individuals) will expire regardless...a new plan will need to be passed for those no matter what.

Harris has stated she will extend the tax cuts on the individual side. The main difference is Trump wants to broaden the tax cuts for American job creators, Harris wants to tax them.

If Harris cannot get her unrealized tax gain policy passed, then her deficits will be just as high as they are protecting for Trump.

(09-18-2024 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/p...ing-states
Quinnipiac is so bad, RCP has a page for much they missed in 2016 and 2020. There was one state they underestimated Trump by 1 point, a couple by 5 and the rest by 6 to 12 points.

They show Harris up 5 in both Michigan and Pennsylvania in their latest polls.

2020 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden
Final Results
— — — 50.0 48.8
Biden
+1.2

Quinnipiac
10/23 - 10/27 1324 LV 2.7 51 44
Biden
+7
Quinnipiac
10/16 - 10/19 1241 LV 2.8 51 43
Biden
+8
Quinnipiac
10/1 - 10/5 1211 LV 2.8 54 41
Biden
+13
Quinnipiac
8/28 - 8/31 1107 LV 3.0 52 44
Biden
+8
Quinnipiac
2/12 - 2/18 845 RV 3.4 50 42
Biden
+8
Quinnipiac
5/9 - 5/14 978 RV 4.2 53 42
Biden
+11

2020 Ohio: Trump vs. Biden
pollster date sample moe
Trump ®
Biden (D)
spread
Final Results
— — — 53.4 45.2
Trump
+8.2

Quinnipiac
10/28 - 11/1 1440 LV 2.6 43 47
Biden
+4
Quinnipiac
10/23 - 10/27 1186 LV 2.9 43 48
Biden
+5
Quinnipiac
10/8 - 10/12 1160 LV 2.9 47 48
Biden
+1
Quinnipiac
9/17 - 9/21 1085 LV 3.0 47 48
Biden
+1
Quinnipiac
6/18 - 6/22 1139 RV 2.9 45 46
Biden
+1
Quinnipiac
7/17 - 7/22 1431 RV 3.2 42 50
Biden
+8

2020 Florida: Trump vs. Biden
pollster date sample moe
Biden (D)
Trump ®
spread
Final Results
— — — 47.9 51.2
Trump
+3.3

Quinnipiac
10/28 - 11/1 1657 LV 2.4 47 42
Biden
+5
Quinnipiac
10/23 - 10/27 1324 LV 2.7 45 42
Biden
+3
Quinnipiac
10/1 - 10/5 1256 LV 2.8 51 40
Biden
+11
Quinnipiac
8/28 - 9/1 1235 LV 2.8 48 45
Biden
+3
Quinnipiac
7/16 - 7/20 924 RV 3.2 51 38
Biden
+13
Quinnipiac
4/16 - 4/20 1385 RV 2.6 46 42
Biden
+4
Quinnipiac
6/12 - 6/17 1279 RV 3.3 50 41
Biden
+9

2020 Georgia: Trump vs. Biden
pollster date sample moe
Trump ®
Biden (D)
spread
Final Results
— — — 49.2 49.5
Biden
+0.3

Quinnipiac
10/8 - 10/12 1040 LV 3.0 44 51
Biden
+7
Quinnipiac
9/23 - 9/27 1125 LV 2.9 47 50
Biden
+3

2016 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton
pollster date sample moe
Clinton (D)
Trump ®
spread
Final Results
— — — 47.5 48.2
Trump
+0.7

Quinnipiac
10/27 - 11/1 612 LV 4.0 50 44
Clinton
+6
Quinnipiac
10/10 - 10/16 660 LV 3.8 51 45
Clinton
+6
Quinnipiac
9/27 - 10/2 535 LV 4.2 48 43
Clinton
+5
Quinnipiac
8/29 - 9/7 778 LV 3.5 48 43
Clinton
+5
Quinnipiac
7/30 - 8/7 815 LV 3.4 52 42
Clinton
+10
Quinnipiac
6/30 - 7/11 982 RV 3.1 41 43
Trump
+2
Quinnipiac
6/8 - 6/19 950 RV 3.2 42 41
Clinton
+1
Quinnipiac
4/27 - 5/8 1077 RV 3.0 43 42
Clinton
+1
Quinnipiac
3/30 - 4/4 1737 LV 2.4 45 42
Clinton
+3
Quinnipiac
9/25 - 10/5 1049 RV 3.0 44 42
Clinton
+2
Quinnipiac
8/7 - 8/18 1085 RV 3.0 45 40
Clinton
+5

2016 Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton
pollster date sample moe
Trump ®
Clinton (D)
spread
Final Results
— — — 51.3 43.2
Trump
+8.1

Quinnipiac
10/27 - 11/1 589 LV 4.0 47 44
Trump
+3
Quinnipiac
10/10 - 10/16 624 LV 3.9 48 47
Trump
+1
Quinnipiac
9/27 - 10/2 497 LV 4.4 49 46
Trump
+3
Quinnipiac
8/29 - 9/7 775 LV 3.5 46 45
Trump
+1
Quinnipiac
7/30 - 8/7 812 LV 3.4 45 49
Clinton
+4
Quinnipiac
6/30 - 7/11 955 RV 3.2 41 41
Tie
Quinnipiac
6/8 - 6/19 971 RV 3.1 40 40
Tie
Quinnipiac
4/27 - 5/8 1042 RV 3.0 43 39
Trump
+4
Quinnipiac
2/16 - 2/20 1539 RV 2.5 44 42
Trump
+2
Quinnipiac
9/25 - 10/5 1180 RV 2.9 42 43
Clinton
+1
Quinnipiac
8/7 - 8/18 1096 RV 3.0 38 43
Clinton
+5

2016 North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton
pollster date sample moe
Trump ®
Clinton (D)
spread
Final Results
— — — 49.8 46.2
Trump
+3.6

Quinnipiac
11/3 - 11/6 870 LV 3.3 45 48
Clinton
+3
Quinnipiac
10/27 - 11/1 602 LV 4.0 46 48
Clinton
+2
Quinnipiac
10/20 - 10/26 702 LV 3.6 44 50
Clinton
+6
Quinnipiac
9/27 - 10/2 535 LV 4.2 46 49
Clinton
+3
Quinnipiac
8/29 - 9/7 751 LV 3.6 43 47
Clinton
+4

2016 Florida: Trump vs. Clinton
pollster date sample moe
Trump ®
Clinton (D)
spread
Final Results
— — — 48.6 47.4
Trump
+1.2

Quinnipiac
11/3 - 11/6 884 LV 3.3 46 46
Tie
Quinnipiac
10/27 - 11/1 626 LV 3.9 45 47
Clinton
+2
Quinnipiac
10/10 - 10/16 660 LV 3.8 45 49
Clinton
+4
Quinnipiac
9/27 - 10/2 545 LV 4.2 44 49
Clinton
+5
Quinnipiac
8/29 - 9/7 761 LV 3.6 47 47
Tie
Quinnipiac
7/30 - 8/7 1056 LV 3.0 45 46
Clinton
+1
Quinnipiac
6/30 - 7/11 1015 RV 3.1 42 39
Trump
+3
Quinnipiac
6/8 - 6/19 975 RV 3.1 39 47
Clinton
+8
Quinnipiac
4/27 - 5/8 1051 RV 3.0 42 43
Clinton
+1
Quinnipiac
9/25 - 10/5 1173 RV 2.9 41 46
Clinton
+5
Quinnipiac
8/7 - 8/18 1093 RV 3.0 43 41
Trump
+2

2016 Georgia: Trump vs. Clinton
pollster date sample moe
Trump ®
Clinton (D)
spread
Final Results
— — — 50.5 45.4
Trump
+5.1

Quinnipiac
10/20 - 10/26 707 LV 3.7 46 46
Tie
Quinnipiac
9/13 - 9/21 659 LV 3.9 50 44
Trump
+6

ATROCIOUS

The Dems internal polling is telling the story. That's why you NEVER hear them talk about it. Trump talks about his internal polling all the time. Public polls are for one thing and one thing only. CLICKS. Even when the left wing pollsters weigh the polls to benefit the Democrat they still are close to even.

Public polls are a bit better than 2020 & 2016 when you’d see more Hilary +10 & Biden +12 in states that ended up +2 either direction. Even the Democrat rank-and-file started to catch on. But this also allows the public polls to say they were underestimating Trump & adjusted for it, and so since they adjusted for it you can trust them more Kamala's ahead. It's all deception