You asked the million dollar question KF: "what happens when we win?"

Trump supporters can say the same thing to those supporting Sundowner Joe.

The problem is, nobody knows who will win this election. We all have to stay tuned, assuming we care to.

We know who won the last election, right? Or are you on board with some of your TDS-fueled socialist snowflake buddies who still believe that because HRC took the popular vote, she should have won? (in spite of the fact that she won the popular vote by less than the *difference* between her and Trump's California vote totals... just the difference.)

And that 2016 win dovetails right into the SCOTUS win for conservatives, like it or not, as we clearly see with Trump's 3 SCOTUS appointments.

Personally, I've always liked a more moderate SCOTUS, so that when the other two branches of govt are controlled by one party, there is an ultimate check on them getting all jacked up and trying to force their agenda on the rest of us in the form of unconstitutional laws.

Haha you know where he got the elections have consequences quote from don’t you? And you know who decided to remove the filibuster for non executive candidates right? In case you don’t it was Obama and Harry Teid in that order.

What do you mean "when", paid troll alt?

Roughly this

28.6% is slightly more often than the probability of getting two heads in a row. Uncommon, but not rare. So, FiveThirtyEight's prediction in 2016 was not "wrong," IMO -- certainly not compared to liberals who wildly predicted a 99% likelihood of HRC's victory.

This 11-in-100 prediction is a lot more significant.

For FiveThirtyEight and every other pollster to be "wrong" this time would require systematic polling errors not seen since Dewey defeated Truman (I mean, Truman defeated Dewey).

Also a time to mention the polls could be just as wrong in the opposite direction: Biden could crush Trump by even more than predicted.

You can certainly still have grounds to hope for a Trump victory but it's simply not likely.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. You're smart enough that you should know this already, and heck, I already took a shot at explaining it to you... so maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining.

The problem isn't in the methodology used for polling, at least not in the traditional sense. Based on the information they're collecting, the pollsters are probably coming up with numbers that would ordinarily be considered accurate. The problem for them is that the people they're polling are not being honest with them, or at a minimum are playing it safe and providing misleading answers.

I was contacted by a pollster back at the early stages of the current political cycle, when the democrats still had their full slate in the race. I correctly told the pollster that I was undecided. Why? Because I had to concede that there was a chance, however slight, that the democrats would come up with a candidate who actually embodies everything they claim to stand for, as opposed to who they eventually chose, a candidate who embodies everything we should all stand against. In other words, there was still a tiny chance that I'd vote against Trump.

The same is true for polls being taken now. People don't want to admit to a stranger (who might actually not be a pollster) that they're going to or may have already voted for Trump. The reasons for that should be obvious. The left and the left-controlled media are fine with fomenting violence against property, and physical harm on anyone who disagrees with them or supports Trump. So why should anyone who supports Trump open themselves up to that possibility? My wife who is twice the Trump supporter that I am, absolutely won't talk to pollsters, or even seemingly benevolent liberals who stroll through our neighborhood canvassing for votes.