I bet these polls are within a couple points of the reality, as they pretty much always have been (even in the era of cell phones). They specifically weight the results based on the expected non-response of various groups. They account for the most obvious objection that anybody could raise about a modern poll (this one).
Anamnesis
joined 1 year ago
Been a long time. Once I found out it was all bones and hooves and connective tissue, that kinda took the fun out of it.
I'd guess it's behavioral isolation because your behaviors caused the isolation? I'm guessing this is bio?
Would all those guys lose to Trump? Probably. Will Biden lose to Trump? Definitely. I'll take long odds over no odds.
He could govern. No sane person can deny that Biden is not as mentally acute as he was four years ago.
It's a pretty decent film, if a little heavy on the religious message.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm gonna say this was a good call.
Absolutely nothing about this case is a mere reiteration of anything before it.
All Biden has to do is claim that it's an official act, because Trump is a terrorist, a threat to the Constitution, or some other questionable legal pretext. The problem is that there's no remedy against such a claim. It could be litigated and go to SCOTUS again, who would have to decide whether it's an official act or not. But this ruling gives no definite rule on what does or does not count as an official act.
The polls in 2016 were largely on target. Clinton won the popular vote by roughly the predicted margin and the few key swing states that lost her the race had results that were largely within the margin of error. Lots of people took 2016 as an indication that polling is no longer good. That's the wrong lesson to learn from 2016; it just doesn't match the facts.