Silentcorner wrote: » Because in the digital age, these things are relevant...if not important. We are led to believe that Biden is leading in the polls, but every indicator available to us outside of those polls and media is telling us a completely different story. Trump's digital footprint is way way bigger than Bidens, his popular support is way more visible than Bidens, that much is clear.
Foxtrol wrote: » All you're clinging to is digital that is the most open to manipulation. You have absolutely no idea how much of that footprint is real or able to vote. Bernie's digital impression was off the charts and Biden destroyed him. Biden is leading in the polls and smashing Trump in fundraising. I'm far far more comfortable being in this side of things than where Trump is.
Open the Pubs wrote: » Vice President debates are utterly irrelevant. The viewership is nowhere the same. Most people couldn't even tell you who Hilarys running mate was.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Oh and for anyone that still absurdly thinks all in Fox News are Trump sycophants:https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1311689723438563329
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Poor Trump, he's so narcissistic he can't even admitted the slightest defeat :pac:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311685923097260034?s=19
RIGOLO wrote: » Hilary was comfortable too , sitting at 80% in most polls and Trump having to spend $60 million of his own money on his campaign. Look where it got her.. She is still sitting comfortably at home, Trumps sitting in the White House.. The left are now just an embarasssment, they are spouting nonsense about polls and have already forgotten the lesson of 2016 . I blame the education system,
Beasty wrote: » I presume he's picked up say 25% in one poll, another 20% in another 2 or 3, plus more in others and is adding them all up - is he claiming more than 100% in total?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » He didn't mock anyone's handicap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdhCvx86fxg He injected disinfectant? Huh? No, he didn't and he didn't suggest anyone should either. Read my posts maybe instead of rolling your eyes at them. Sigh. They were MOCKING the liberal left morons that were asking them where their "white hoods" were ffs! Open your ears: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wibk3QsT7-M So all the examples you list of my defending him, which you feel justify someone suggesting that I'd let the man abuse my children as a result of my doing so, are all things which are clearly false and which he should be defended of.
"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer, you tell me that one, okay?"
Silentcorner wrote: » No I am not clinging to anything, I am giving you clear indicators, just like the size of the crowds he attracts, and the other massive public displays of support he enjoys....Biden on the other hand is running a campaign befitting a mayor of a small town. I have also said that it is not why I believe he will win, I believe he will win because of the vital issues that Americans face, the Democrats are on the wrong side of too many of them. You are the one clinging to the polls.
Overheal wrote: » I saw this on FB this morning and it feels incredibly apt here: Ignore the broad support for Biden if you want, the endorsements, the polls, the right wing backing him, etc, and just focus on the number of followers on twitter and how many flag waving boats or whatever there are - at your own risk. Meanwhile Biden is endorsed today by at least 50 National Security officials who know him and his work and what he is capable of.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-republicans-biden-exclus/exclusive-over-50-republican-former-us-national-security-officials-join-biden-endorsement-idUSKBN26M5F3
Silentcorner wrote: » You can do better than that...come on man!!!! Some guy on Facebook felt the need to explain why there is no public support for Biden because clearly people are noticing it and he decided it is because he is above that kind of crass behaviour...he gives himself a position of moral superiority but posts it on his social media feed!!! Pathetic!!!!
Igotadose wrote: » And Brad Parscale was primarily the digital guy. How'd that work out?
steddyeddy wrote: » Thanks for the "proof" that Trump didn't mock a handicapped reporter in the form of Trump saying it wasn't true.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » It was in the form of: multiple clips showing he made the same, or similar, motions whilst mocking multiple people over the years, as of course you know but are choosing to ignore as it doesn't suit you given you don't want to admit you are wrong and I'll take your lack of comment on the other things I corrected you on that you are conceding you were on all those examples too.
Foxtrol wrote: » What polls was she at 80%?
Tell me how wrote: » It's some scraping of the barrel to have to use the excuse about the childishness and bullying nature of the person holding the most powerful office in the world that he has done this about multiple people over the years. JFC, how low he has dragged that office.
mcmoustache wrote: » Who claimed that all in Fox news were Trump sycophants? I'm just curious because the implication in your post is that posters were doing that. Certainly, plenty have claimed that Fox News as an organisation is very pro-Trump (feel free to dispute that if you like), but I find it hard to believe that posters had been making the point that your post was addressing -particularly when anybody who has been following US politics has probably heard of Chris Wallace.
Deleted User wrote: » Biden has made his first jump in a while on the 538. Has moved from a 78% chance of winning to 80. Still wouldn't view it as remotely decided but cautiously optimistic.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
