Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Jan 22, 2020.
I think your math is off.
At no point in the survey do you see anything that says 31% might vote. All 800 are likely voters.
I would just note that the women's March had waaay more attendees than trump's inauguration.
HELLO!!! your own link specifically states, and i'l quote it:
unquoted for your reply:
that means that only 31% of the people polled might become more politically active and possibly vote in the upcoming 2020 election... they only polled 800... 616 (77%) identify as other than republican...
i'm quite confident that the 23% (repubs) will in fact be active and vote, which leaves a poultry 8% of 'others' that will do the same...
it's a gop win fer sure, no question, according to your linked poll...
....whatever guy, I dont know how else to get you to understand that the poll explicitly surveyed LIKELY voters and then asked if they were going to do MORE in terms of their participation. At no point in that survey do they even ask whether they are likely to vote because they would not be part of a survey of "likely voters" if they "might not vote."
Learn it or do not.
Well according to Bernie a woman cannot win the White House so I guess the dems will choose a rich white man as their candidate.
and yet, you started this thread based on that exact presumption and used that poll to bolster your point...
iow, you bullsh*tted the forum...
Race, race, race, We all know who the racist are.
A womans March is another sexist activity Democrats engage in. It's 2020. If you're a woman and you blame your failings on men, you're probably a sexist Democrat.
Still waiting on you to educate me
...yea, your inability to understand that a survey of likely voters is a survey of likely voters is not on me.
I posted this thread because it illustrates that the most motivated women are Democrats, by a significant margin.
are there any noteworthy genders, or are they all the same...
krazy, aren't it...
not according to the link in your op...
No, I am not going to try and improve your reading comprehension again. Go figure out your own mistake.
yup, thats libs roll when confronted with truth. glad to see that you recognize your weakness...
I've never been polled, and I don't do online political pseudo-surveys.
If you support the status quo, you're probably a Republican.
There are several individuals on this thread who routinely discuss polls and surveys with regularlity, perhaps @Statistikhengst or @perotista would be willing to come here and explain why it is wholly inaccurate to claim that 31% of likely voters from this survey said they might vote simply because they said yes to "expect to be more involved in political issues and campaigns than you were in the last few years."
The OP explicitly says the following regarding the advantage for Democrats:
Here's a hint, who wants to divide people up in different groups based on race? Kinda like segregation and who was for segregation and still is. I have no idea what your race is and I don't care. You'd love to know my race wouldn't you? Then you could make judgments against me.
So...the overwhelming majority of people are racists. Got it.
It takes a special kind of guy to equate Voter ID Laws to voter suppression... Common sense indicates that showing an ID proving your citizenship doesn't pan out well for the party of handouts.
And one Trump rally has more people than all democrat rallies combined.
You must have lots of experience arguing with a brick wall, you're very good at keeping your patience.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the assertion that Voter ID laws results in voter suppression. Strict Voter ID Laws is associated with a ~2-5% reduction in voter turnout. These are individuals who are perfectly authorized to vote and would otherwise vote, but for the fact that they lack or are unable to obtain in time the required type of ID.
Seeing as how the women's march had more people than Trump's inauguration, you are wrong.
Separate names with a comma.