Considering its their opinion, its 100% accurate.
You are assuming everyone saw her as well qualified. Some see it as electing a party rather than a person too.
Unfortunately for her, it was democrats that allowed corporate profiteering since the pandemic. Everytime she said the economy was doing well was idiotic.
Do you know if they include disenfranchised voters in the possible voter category?
If she came out and said she would stop companies fucking their customers, that might have done it.
I think instead she entertained firing Lina Khan?
I dont think that everyone gives the same weight to those peoples opinions. Some see Obama as a war criminal, mark Cuban is in the billionaire class and is against business regulation, taylor swift is also a billionaire, and Beyonce is a billionaire as well?
Bernie gave the same vote against tyranny stuff the democrats were saying. I dont recall him being excited about Kamala's policy, was he?
If the republicans are running on change, and the democrats are running on not changing, but most americans want things to change, it shouldnt be shocking which one wins.
The democrats could have offered up a better idea to change the country but they didnt. They tried to scold and patronize people into voting for them instead.
They did seem quite unsure of what their values should be. I think thats a negative for some people that a persons values seem to change to match the audience. The pre-planned replies didnt help either. Kept hearing the same points almost to a word.
Why's it so hard to speak like a human being for the democrats? Make fun of trump all we want, his McDonalds video was not a bad look, it was personable.
Democrats would have benefitted greatly from reining in the corporate profiteering that happened from the pandemic onwards.
They needed to be the anti greed party or the wealth redistribution party or something. Something different, not more of the same.
It was hard to hear everytime they said "Actually, the economy is doing marvelous."
Even if she did she would have gave the same pre planned long form answers she gave on her fox interview.
The social media clips of her telling off the interviewer for interrupting never included the question she was asked for a reason.
She gave dodgy politician answers and expected republicans and third party voters to go for that.
I was also very confused why they thought they could scold people into voting for her too. Barrack and his wife did it, and so did kamala. Insulting people who might have issues voting for you seems like the opposite way to gain their vote.
Maybe someone smarter than me can explain the strategy there.
Its ridiculously funny, he was so confidently wrong about the definition of concubine its actually over the top. If I heard it in person I'd have to leave the room for fear they would want to hit me for laughing so hard.
What does upgrade even mean? Are you like two per room and are having more kids? None of this makes any sense without context.
The million dollar homes in my well populated area near a major city are gigantic homes.
Okay so 600k? Even still though, a million dollar home you own thats gone up far over what you paid for it is going to leave you with a lot of options.
Its confusing to me that you need to upgrade and so are upset about the housing situation. You seem to be doing well by any standard I'm aware of so I'm asking what do I not know?
I had really hoped that he would be one of the ones who could rationalize living the rest of his life as a simple millionaire or something.
You are right about the knee-jerk reaction to avoiding losing even a bit of wealth.
I was pretty bummed to hear mark Cuban wants Lina Khan fired. Cubans been a huge spokesperson for Kamala and insists they talk often.
Edit: here's an article recently about it where he tries to be the "I'm just saying" guy.
Its worth searching it up, theres many recent stories detailing the methods.
They use a representative sample by reaching out to random voters or posting ads online in social spaces. Once they have enough people to make representative groups to match the population of the state or nation, maybe a few thousand people, they then ask them questions.
They tend to use the same people repeatedly, as they are more reliable in answering, and some of them are regularly paid small amounts for their time.
The polls are essentially tracking a group of people who thought it was worth their time to answer polls, which I am not a part of, and noone I know is a part of.
Edit to add: one new thing this election cycle is that a new weight has been added to account for party affiliation, which wasnt used before.
https://goodauthority.org/news/pollsters-are-weighting-surveys-differently-in-2024/
Your million dollar home isnt enough for your family? What changed?
Dont take polls so seriously. Even pollsters know that they have no idea how accurate they might be.
And western companies would never resort to corporate espionage would they?