Even if they win beyond expectations, Dems still won't have the 66 senators needed to impeach Trump.

>>1541720
>66 senators needed to REMOVE Trump
FTFY
And if Democrats get a 51 or higher majority in the Senate (taking the House is a given), why would they want to remove Trump?
A flailing, decrepit, lame duck octogenarian Trump would be an absolute gift to Democrats heading into 2028

>>1541723
Because a flailing, decrepit, lame duck JD Vance becoming a blatant puppet president with Peter Thiel pulling the strings would help dems even more.

>>1541717
>YouGov
Best to avoid them.

>>1541723
>>1541724
You guys are going to be ssooooo disappointed on election day. Bookmark this post.

>>1541726
inb4 you post the "dissatisfaction with dems" poll. it seems to be your only argument.

>>1541729
I'm not the one posting YouGov lmao.

>>1541725
Pledge right now to film your suicide if Republicans don't keep both houses of Congress

>>1541732
There is only one House in Congress, Republicans will lose it. Not the Senate tho, they may even pick up a seat in teg Senate.

>>1541733
>Not the Senate tho, they may even pick up a seat in teg Senate.
So do you pledge to film your suicide if that doesn't happen and Democrats take back the Senate?

>>1541735
Why the fuck would I commit suicide over that? Lmao touch grass.

>>1541736
Coward

>>1541738
>t. Recluse who has no life, and has let politics become his life.

If Democrats do well enough in November, they could be setting up for a veto proof majority in 2028
The 2028 Senate map heavily favors Democrats even if things were going well for the Republican party
Coming off the heels of a disastrous Republican administration with a decent majority would be a very favorable situation for the Democrats

>>1541720
The problem is trump will never allow that. At this point we have 3 outcomes.
>Republicans use starlink to hack the election results like they did in 2024 where trump magically won ever swing state just right outside the margin of error and a recount
>trump and hegseth us the miltiary to interfere in the election or their new secret cyber taskforce to claim there was foreign interference to invalidate every race that democrats pick up a seat over republicans.
>Republicans go full treason again and refuse to sit the new congress, making the conservatives final move to kill the 250 year old Democracy that they always hated.

>>1541757
Trump isn't competent enough to do that though. Republicans are mostly morons.

>>1541757
>>Republicans use starlink to hack the election results like they did in 2024
btfo so hard they are cooking up fanfic.

>>1541767
>Republicans are mostly morons.
You've been getting your ass kicked by morons?

>>1541767
He was this close to successfully staging a coup in 2021, it's clear the guard rails won't stop him again. The Republican supreme court will just rubber stamp whatever he does too so don't expect them to have a come to Jesus moment to side with democracy given they're just as corrupt as trump.

>>1541770
Bamboo fibers where?

>>1541771
>You've been getting your ass kicked by morons.
Yes. Do you not understand 'getting your ass kicked' means 'getting outvoted?'Do you think that's a flex?
Let's walk through this real slow so even a retard like you can understand it.
A conman promised to fix the economy, and that there'd be no new forever wars in the middle east. He has enriched himself by billions, fucked the economy, and started a new forever war that has gone so bad it's threatening our position as hegemon; threatening the petrodollar that makes our economy work.
You voted for that. You got butt-fucked by a geriatric with dementia, and now you're the condom he's using to fuck the rest of us. Congratulations, you're a gullible moron in a crowd of gullible morons, a real sheep among lemmings.
>>1541770
>cooking up fanfic.
It's trump's fanfic then, he was the one who thanked elon, maybe you'd know that if you took his shitty nuts out of your mouth for a moment.
>>1541757
1 works when margins are tight. Vote. Make sure the margins aren't tight.
2 & 3 means more drastic action will be necessary, but something something blood of patriots.
>>1541767
He literally won every swing state just outside the margin of error to trigger a recount. That is a huge statistical anomaly. There's a ton of suspicious circumstances around the last election, we need to do a forensic audit of it. But if you bring that up, right wing retards will accuse you of hypocrisy, because they actually got an investigation that turned up nothing.... so us not getting one is... hypocritical... because that's what righty retard authoritarianism dictates.

>>1541780
Thats a whole lot of text to write out that you're wasting time trying to convince a pedophilic brazillian piss-drinking enthusiast of something they're paid to believe

>>1541780
>1 works when margins are tight. Vote. Make sure the margins aren't tight.
At this point republicans can just claim the polling is wrong like they always do when they steal elections. Or it just means Democrats have to be ahead by 20 point to win.
Like how El-Sayed was ahead by 17-19% in the polls right before the election, but the actual vote had him win by 1%.
So either the established tried to heavily rig things and it's just sheer numbers you need to overcome their cheating, or the polls are fucked.

Either way El-Sayed is willing to go into the belly of beast and put the far right's propagandists on blast.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/dem-star-turns-tables-fox-152122706.html
What funny is they even tried to pull that propaganda peace that we're getting oil again, when the gas prices prove otherwise.

>>1541717
>YouGov polls

literal propaganda account

>>1541786
>Reddit spacing
>"account"
You have to go back

>>1541717
the actual map's back to 48/47 with the uncalled being iowa texas and ohio who the hell are you fooling.

>>1541789
esl shill has always been a redditor cosplaying as a channer

>>1541717
>A new batch of YouGov polls
Stopped reading there. You faggots will never lear.

>>1541717
>YouGOV
They've been right at least once, right?

There's no realistic scenario where Democrats get 60 seats, so as long as they get 52 everything else is whipped cream on top
NC is a lock for a flip so that's 48
El-Sayed, Talarico, and Brown are all up by over 3 in the polls, so outside of a major shift in the next four weeks (which is always possible) that's 51
Which would be enough to overcome Vance's tiebreaking vote if the Democrats all cooperate
But Fetterman is a wildcard, so 51 would basically make him the king of the Senate
If Jackson can beat Collins in Maine or if Peltola can beat Sullivan in Alaska, that's ball game. Both would make 53.
The fact that Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and possibly even South Carolina are in play just gives Democrats more avenues to get to 52 and more races for Republicans to worry about
I'm not delusional enough to think Democrats will sweep and get 57 seats in the Senate, but the fact they can lose five races and still have a comfortable majority or even lose six races and still have a majority is some daunting math for Republicans

>>1541796
Good Kalshi trades there. I'm sure dRumpf is rigging the polls to manipulate the election for $$$

>>1541804
>>1541805
So organic. Much grassroots.

>>1541806
>There's no realistic scenario where Democrats get 60 seats, so as long as they get 52 everything else is whipped cream on top
Sorry, I mean, "everything else is just shit out the ass."

>>1541810
You can do better than that
Try again

>>1541811
I think they're throwing a wickle tantrum because they aren't going to get another TV show from their favorite writer, Damon Lindelof, for at least another year

Well, trump better be making sure Elon has starlink steal another election for him, or have the military seize ballots since even Cook is reporting that things are shifting left.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/senate/senate-overview/senate-majority-squarely-democrats-sights-kansas-moves-toss-two

BTW, Republicans have surrendered in North Carolina since they're moving their billionaire owner's money out of that race.

>>1541780
>literally won every swing state just outside the margin of error to trigger a recount

"No, Donald Trump did not win every swing state by margins just outside of recount thresholds". -source NBC News

lol lmao even. Who's tinfoil crown are you wearing? (I didn't vote last election so I'm not personally invested in any particular party of idiots).

>>1541823
>I didn't vote last election
not a badge of honor dipshit

>>1541823
>I didn't vote, so I'm not invested.
You are invested inherently, these people are running your life.
I think you meant to say: "I am a faggy little bitch, and I love to let other people decide things for me."
Also, kill yourself.

>>1541821
You're going to be sooo disappointed on election day.

>>1541846
Funny I was telling you the same thing in November 2 years ago

>>1541848
No you werent, I called the last election and 2022 and 2018. I have spent my adult life curating only the best sources to get my info from.

Only time I've ever been wrong was 2020, and if that were a normal election Trump would probably have won.

>>1541850
>if that were a normal election Trump would probably have won.
Trump "wins" elections only when Democrats don't show up. He won 2016 with Russia and James Comey's help. He won 2024 because dems were mad about not having a primary after Biden dropped out. He had a 29% approval rating at the end of his first term, there was very little chance he would have won in 2020.

>>1541853
Go ahead and look at the vote totals and get back to me on your thesis.

>>1541850
What do these sources say about the historical precedent of incumbent parties losing seats during midterms?

>>1541856
That it's the norm, obviously. However, the era of "big shifts" is over due to both parties gerrymandering the fuck out of their states.

As for the Senate, at this point I think Republicans may actually grow their majority due to Michigan and (i can't believe I'm saying this) Minnesota, but that presupposes they hold NC. Hard to say tho.

>>1541856
Like Bush in 2006 20 year ago?

>>1541858
>Republicans flipping Minnesota
Overplayed your hand here, you almost had me taking you seriously up to that

>>1541859
Polling does suggest a repeat of 2006, with Democrats taking back the House, Senate, and a majority of governorships.

>>1541858
Republicans only have a four-seat majority in the house right now. Democrats don't need a big swing to overcome that.

>>1541861
My guy, it's a really shitty dem candidate v a really good Republican candidate and it's in MOE. Highly unlikely but the fact that it's even this close is incredible.

>>1541862
>Polling
Most polling is used to generate momentum and raise money, best to ignore most polls unless you're prepared to dive into the cross tabs.

Look at Texas. All the polls have Telarcio up against Paxton, and it's like, okay, maybe, Paxton has lots of baggage. But those same polls have Abbot losing to a literallywho dem in the Governor's race. And then you dive into the cross tabs and it's RV not LV in October and the recall is like Trump +5 when it should be +13.

>>1541864
>Texas
My guy, it's a really shitty rep candidate v a really good Democrat candidate and it's outside MOE.

>>1541865
>a really good Democrat
Telracio is a terrible candidate. "God is non-binary" and "I want an assault weapons ban" in the God and Guns state is not going to pan out. Beto was far, far, better candidate, who ran a sensational campaign, and still lost.

And as I said, the same polls have Abbot down to literallywho (I don't even know her name, I live here) which is beyond absurd. It's going to be Abbot >10% and Paxton >5%. Screenshot this post.

Which is not the same a Minnesota where the Dem is the person who as Lt Gov was supposed to be keeping an eye on waste and fraud, and dresses like a fucking clown, while the Rep is a sports broadcaster who was on everyone's tv during football and has run a very disciplined campaign.

>>1541866
>I don't personally like him so that means he's a terrible candidate
You sound like every Democrat talking about Donald Trump
Just another political psuede who can't comprehend his own bias. How disappointing.

>>1541863
100%. I don't think anyone thinks R's will hold the house. The only question is the size of the Dem majority.

And to be completely honest, after what we have just been through, I'd rather be in the minority than have a slim majority of like 15 seats. When it's that tight, and you need every single vote, random weirdos get lots of power and hold the whole party hostage. We just got rid of Massie who that to us, you guys will have some schizo retard fucking your shit up for years unless Dems get a thicc majority.

And as I said, because of the gerrymandering, I doubt either party will get a large majority anytime soon.

>>1541868
>Yeah we're gonna lose the House, but actually you know what we don't even want the majority and it's better to be the minority
El. Oh. El.

>>1541867
>God is non-binary
>Ban assault weapons
>Oil and gas bad
>in Texas
It has nothing to do with my personal likes, or dislikes, it's about me understanding who the fuck the median voter in Texas is.

Beto ran as a hyper moderate and had no baggage, and his campaign was (I'll say this again) a phenomenon down here. He lost to Cruze in an environment that was just as bad or worse than the environment Republicans are currently facing.

Again, screenshot this post. Paxton by >5%. And that's me hedging.

>>1541869
>That reading comprehension
Sheesh. No bud, I would prefer we don't lose the House. I'm just warning you to be careful what you wish for.

>We
Well that explains the cope

>>1541717
Why in the fuck would anyone vote Dem?
The past decade of Dem politics has been dominated by complaining about Trump and not even promising to "fix" what he's supposedly broken.
Disgusting.

>>1541853
>democrats making up shit
>data doesn't compute
he lost in 2020 cause democrats were around soliciting votes from seniors who couldn't leave their homes. that 15million votes disappeared in 2024.
Also the whole "don't show up" doesn't match the election turnout numbers.
still on that muh russia hoax huh le sigh uneducated democrats indeed

>>1541876
This anon gets it.

>>1541874
Trump and Republicans have just done that bad of a job I guess

>>1541870
You're really underselling just how bad of a candidate Paxton is, and how bad of a campaign he's running
The infidelity, the corruption, the impeachment, the Adam Hoffman fiasco. All campaign ads that write themselves for Talarico. And what little campaigning I've seen from Paxton has been uninspired paint by numbers weak sauce.
I firmly believe Cornyn would be up +10 against Talarico right now. But instead Paxton is the first Republican Senate candidate to be behind the Democrat in polling in decades.
Talarico isn't going to win. Paxton is going to lose.

>>1541865
Bro, that's what they said about Beto O'Rourke. They were kissing his ass. Beto was so cringe, Telracio is so cringe too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQDQ-Q4kW5Y

>>1541880
Somehow, remarkably, Paxton is worse

Forget governance, how do Red Staters go outside after voting for Trump?!

>>1541884
The same way blue staters go outside after voting for Biden?
It's the same shit different brand. You don't really think there's a difference between coke & pepsi, red brand blue brand, democrats & republicans

>>1541886
When Biden fell asleep he woke up. Trump drifts off into Epstein Dream Land…

>>1541879
Yeah, Paxton has problems but comparatively Telarcio is ridiculous. Dems know it too, Senate Dems have pulled spending from the race.

>First time ever in the polls
Texas rarely got polled before now, and the polling that's getting done is fucking absurd. See my post above about cross-tabs with a Trump +5 recall in a Trump +13 state
>But they weight!
At a certain point the data is so bad that you can't weight your way out of it.

>>1541884
We put our shoes on and walk out the door?

>>1541879
>And what little campaigning I've seen from Paxton has been uninspired paint by numbers weak sauce.
He's running ads which are just shit Telracio has said and it's brutal.

Only real problem Paxton had is no $$ during the summer while Telracio was flush with cash and so he was able to flood the zone.

>>1541890
>Yeah, Paxton has problems but comparatively Telarcio is ridiculous.
How many times has Talarico cheated on his wife?
How many times has Talarico been impeached for corruption by his own party? (State senate not voting to remove doesn't mean he wasn't impeached)
How many times have Texas taxpayers been on the hook for 6,600,000 dollars in payouts because Talarico fired his staff in retaliation for blowing the whistle on his corruption?
How many self admitted serial child molesters has Talarico's office given plea deals so lenient the presiding judge intervened and added additional prison time?

>>1541899
>Paxton has baggage so we, residents of the Guns, God and Oil State, are going to vote for the anti-gun, anti-oil, "God is gay" guy
Paxton >5%. Screenshot it.

>>1541904
>We can just throw any shitty candidate at those stupid rednecks and they'll vote for us. Republicans OWN this state!
Solid strategy. Fuck candidate quality. It worked out so well for Senator Hershel Walker.

>>1541906
>It's candidate quality!
You're talking about Telarcio, the candidate in Texas. Bringing up candidate quality is not the rout to go down.

>>1541907
See
>>1541899

>>1541907
Why do you keep spelling his name wrong?

>>1541908
Seen and responded to. You can't talk about "candidate quality" in refence to Paxton because his opponent is arguably an even worse candidate by virtue of his policy positions and on the record statements which are antithetical to Texas culture.

>>1541912
Candidate quality does not refer to the positions the candidate takes, unless they are extremely outside the norm. Like some wild libertarian age of consent bullshit.
Candidate quality refers to the quality of the candidate himself. Corruption, incompetence, things like that.
We get it, you don't like Talarico. You've made that abundantly clear.
What you have not done, is actually address the fact that Ken Paxton has a long documented history of corruption, hypocrisy, and outright scummy behavior. All of which also fly in the face of the values that Texans claim to stand for. Honesty, integrity, family values. A corrupt philanderer who gives sweetheart deals to pedophiles doesn't really line up with that.
I brought up Herschel Walker because he also said all of the things and made all the campaign speeches that you would think would line up with the values of voters in a traditionally conservative state like Georgia. His personal baggage cost him that election.

>>1541912
so you're larping as a texan today?

>>1541914
>unless they are extremely outside the norm
Which is exactly Talaricos problem.
>fly in the face of the values that Texans claim to stand for
Yes. Exactly.

>>1541919
>Yes. Exactly.
Glad you're finally acknowledging that Ken Paxton does not represent the values that conservative Republicans from Texas stand for, and that's why he's the first Republican Senate candidate from Texas in decades to be losing to the Democrat candidate in the polls.
Common ground at last.

What's going on in Alaska?
All the other states kind of makes sense for one reason or another, but Alaska seems like a weird outlier

>>1541922
>Glad you're finally acknowledging
If you're going to argue like a toddler, that's usually a sign that you've run out of argument.

Gg no re.

>>1541926
You responded "Yes. Exactly" to a statement I made about Ken Paxton. Not sure why you decided not to acknowledge any of the rest of the statement, but whatever.
Is that not you agreeing with it?

>>1541931
>You responded "Yes. Exactly" to a statement I made
Do you have a reading problem? The implication in >>1541919 is that it applies to Telracio.

>>1541925
The answer is ranked choice balloting and dem dirty tricks
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/dan-sullivan-ballot-alaska-supreme-court

>>1541934
>Shill reduced to screeching "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!?"
They aren't sending their best

>>1541936
Who are you responding to?

>>1541934
Does it apply to Ken Paxton?

>>1541937
>Shill reduced to playing dumb
It just keeps getting worse

>>1541938
>Does it apply to Ken Paxton?
Not really no. He was cleared during the impeachment, and I don't think someone who is upset about Paxton's infidelity is going to vote for a guy who has a favorite transvestite performer.

>>1541939
Your post has nothing to do with mine, so I'm genuinely confused as to who you're replying to, or why you're so upset.

>>1541940
>someone who is upset about Paxton's infidelity
Right now the Paxton campaign is running an add with his ex-wife saying she hates Ken but you have to vote for him because the Dem is such a weirdo.

>>1541935
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/979340075/florida-democrats-call-for-a-new-election-after-gop-charged-with-manipulating-ra
Turnabout is fair play, bitch

>>1541940
And yet Paxton is still trailing in the polls outside the margin of error
Not even Beto was ever able to do that to Ted Cruz
>inb4 polls are rigged or whatever like you didn't say that same thing in 2018 so it cancels out
Fun fact, Beto actually outperformed the RCP aggregate by five points. RCP had Cruz up by 7 but the final result was 2 and some change

>>1541945
>And yet Paxton is still trailing in the polls outside the margin of error
Been discussed above.

>>1541946
>Been ignored above
FTFY

>>1541947
Okay.

>>1541946
Your crosstabs explanation above was complete and total nonsense
I looked at the crosstabs, the percentage of Trump vs Kamala voters shows Trump +12 vs the 2024 results of Trump +13.5. And that doesn't take into account the 7 percent who didn't vote.
Or are you actually suggesting that they should alter polling to reflect the same percentage of support for Donald Trump today that he had on election Day in 2024?
Or even worse, do you genuinely believe that Donald Trump is exactly as popular in Texas today as he was in November of 2024?

>>1541949
>I looked at the crosstabs
Which poll?

>>1541949
>Or are you actually suggesting that they should alter polling to reflect the same percentage of support for Donald Trump today that he had on election Day in 2024?
?????

Are you retarded? Recalled vote is how they voted in the last election. So if you get a poll with 40% self-id'd republicans but the recall doesn't match the last cycle you've got a weird batch and you can't then weight that poll to reflect the states composition.

>>1541950
...The YouGov poll.
The poll this entire thread is based around
What poll are you talking about?
>>1541951
How did you see that but miss the part where I specifically mention the margins for votes in the poll in 2024 being within 1.5 points of the actual outcome?

>>1541890
>Telarcio is ridiculous. Dems know it too, Senate Dems have pulled spending from the race.
Why would you make an obvious lie?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/us/politics/james-talarico-ken-paxton-texas-senate-race-money.html

>>1541955
They don't even pay the shill enough to bother spelling his name correctly
Do you really expect the shill to do any kind of research?
They give it talking points, it regurgitates them without thought

>>1541954
>...The YouGov poll.
>The poll this entire thread is based around
It's a collection of multiple polls. So either you're lying or you're an imbecile.

>>1541957
We've been specifically talking about the Texas Senate race
One of the polls in the article posted is the Yougov poll for the Texas Senate race
It stands to reason that when you started talking about crosstabs for Texas Senate polls, you would be referring specifically to the Yougov Texas Senate poll mentioned in the op article
If that isn't the case, which poll were you looking at? I would be more than happy to look at those crosstabs

I prefer this theory that the conservatively biased media is boosted these polls of a blue tsunami so when the don't take every possible seat, they can pivot to attacking non republicans claiming the voters didn't really want them as pointed out here.
https://newrepublic.com/article/216284/blue-wave-polls-2026-skepticism

Plus republicans are going to steal the election anyway, the question is how blatant are they going to be from stopping the senate from flipping, to somehow picking up seats in the house.

>>1541955
>>1541956
>Casuals
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is who I am talking about and they have spent nothing on the race. They have a $130 million war chest. If Schumer doesnt believe in the race, why the fuck do you?

>>1541960
Because Talarico is up by over 3 points in the RCP aggregate, where Beto O'Rourke over performed by five points in 2018 against a much stronger candidate than Ken Paxton (-7 aggregate vs -2 final outcome)
And 2018 was the absolute height of Trump's supporters squealing and crying about polling being rigged in Democrats favor

>>1541958
>7% didn't vote.
>40-52 D-R on recall that's 4 under weighted for R
>Almost 70% of participants went to college
Need I say more?

>>1541961
I think I'll follow Schumer and the money on this one

>>1541960
Paxton's corporate masters have already spent $175 million, more than the DSCC has total, all you've done is prove we need to get money out of politics and overturn citizens united.

>>1541965
>Pivot to unrelated topic

>>1541965
So republicans are spending a lot of money to keep texas red?
That's pretty shocking.
Are democrats spending a lot of money on advertising in California to keep the west coast the left coast?

>>1541967
Just matching the spending from Dems.

>>1541966
>Nooo, you can't talk about the root cause!

>>1541967
The fact that republicans have to consolidate their spending in far right states is pretty damning, and it might not matter.
>Avalanche of GOP money burned in Texas with almost no effect: report
https://www.rawstory.com/gop-texas/

A month after Republicans unleashed roughly $500 million on competitive House and Senate contests, the polls look much as they did before — and Texas shows why, according to a Washington Post analysis.

Democrat James Talarico has absorbed more than $115 million in attack ads, yet a late-September New York Times-Siena poll still has his favorable rating above his unfavorable. Republican nominee Ken Paxton's backers, meanwhile, are paying a steep premium for airtime. A Democratic media buyer calculated that in Dallas last week, Talarico's campaign spent $950,000 to put its message in front of the typical viewer 10 times, while Paxton's allies shelled out $4.65 million to reach that same viewer 13 times. That's about five times the spending for a modest bump in frequency.

Costs have soared enough that groups backing Paxton have begun buying national airtime during sporting events, banking on Texans tuning in, since that undercuts the price of covering each of the state's local markets.

Timing hurt too. Trump's super PACs only started spending after Labor Day, entering a market where airtime was already scarce and pricier than what earlier bookers paid. Unlike candidate campaigns, which get discounted rates, super PACs pay the full price, an edge for Democrats, whose candidates have raised more in marquee races. In Senate battlegrounds overall, AdImpact figures show Republicans paying about 26 percent more than Democrats for a 7 percent advantage in broadcast ads.

Focus groups showed Talarico holding up under attack as long as voters met him first, a person familiar with the research said, a lesson Democrats exploited by defining him before the Republican money arrived.

>>1541969
Elsewhere, public polling shows Democrats tied or ahead in Senate races in Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, no different from before Labor Day, while their advantage on the generic ballot has grown from about six points to roughly nine. In Michigan, Fox News polling has Abdul El-Sayed's favorable rating up five points since August to 47 percent, even after $76.2 million in attacks.

"They should be getting more for what they're spending, and they're not," said Lauren French of the Democratic Senate Majority PAC.

A Trump political operative, speaking anonymously, argued the spending has kept races close. "Our spending has enabled us to stay competitive," the operative said.

Already, Republican groups are beginning to pull money out of races they deem a lost cause. The leading Senate GOP super PAC dropped its remaining North Carolina ads, and the House GOP's counterpart scaled back its Omaha reservations.

>>1541969
Again, just matching the spending from the Telracio campaign. Lots of dipshits, like you, buy the hype and give him money.

>>1541971
why can't you spell

>>1541970
The day Alaska goes blue is the day I can see Russia from my house

>>1541971
Projection.

>>1541963
>I think I'll continue living in the fantasy I've created then squeal and shit my pants that the election was rigged when Paxton loses
No one ever thought you'd do different

>>1541962
>Need I say more?
Your point would be a great addition to the conversation

>>1541978
If you can't deduce the point from the data posted, you're not equipped to participate in the conversation.

>>1541977
Cool. Screen cap my posts, see you on election day.

>>1541974
I haven't donated money to the Tx race and also not getting all hyped over it. Unlike a certain someone.
>(You)

>>1541982
>I got called out my bullshit from earlier so now I'm moving goalposts by being vague and splitting hairs
>If you don't keep playing my stupid game that means I win
Yawn

>>1541961
So Talarico is actually up by 8 and this entire thread is nothing but migger shills coping and seething
God election night is going to be so much fun

>>1541985
You don't understand the problem with the data I posted?

>>1541987
I understand you were making a completely different point about how respondents to the poll voted in 2024 vs the actual results, pulled numbers out of your ass, got called out about the percentages being within MOE, and couldn't articulate a response, so you went digging for random data points to try to deflect
And now you don't actually have a coherent argument so you'll just keep dancing around and wasting everyone's time posting anything but an actual point
Because you're either being paid to do so or have drunk so much Republican Kool Aid that the idea of a weak Republican candidate losing in a midterm where overall sentiment has turned against the Republican party after two years of fuck ups is incomprehensible to you

>>1541991
>completely different point about how respondents to the poll voted in 2024 vs the actual results
No. Re-read my posts. Recall in the cross tabs is off. You're not getting a representative sample for the electorate. Trump won by +13 so if you don't have a sample that reflects that, you don't have a sample of the states voters.
>And now you don't actually have a coherent argument
I do. The poll is shit because the cross-tabs are shit. It's got 70% college grads in a state where 50-something percent of people go to college. Dem approval is through the roof in a state they have never won and the poll has 11% of Trump voters voting Talarico and 0% of Harris voters voting Paxton. And the big giveaway is that the poll has Hinojosa 48, Abbott 47 - come on, be serious.

If you have bad data, you can't weight your polls. You can't "adjust" your way to a representative sample. Based on the cross tabs they got a huge batch of college educated Democrats and then tried to weight (adjust) it (very aggressively) to represent the Texas electorate. But the adjustment is so huge, because the sample is so bad, that it has a ridiculous result (Abbot, losing, to anyone, ever, get serious, please get serious).

It's a bad poll. YouGov does terrible polls. That's it. That's the message.

>>1541996
> YouGov does terrible polls
But Anon, the site’s name is “YouGov”…

>>1541996
Also, they have a all their question ranked in a sus order - the Q's about who you're gonna vote for are at the end. That's called "priming" and it's something you see in push-polls.

Also, online poll so ridiculous response bias (into the trash it goes)

>>1541717
This is MSM propaganda I can get behind. Ya. Make the liggerals comfortably. Make them think they'll win easily and will stay home instead of voting. Meanwhile every single Republican I know is hitting the ballot box because they know they HAVE to save America this year. The MSM is so incompetent they can't even successfully launch their shitty little commie revolution properly.

>>1541996
And the fact that Talarico has either been leading or tied with Paxton in 25 out of 26 polls conducted since early June from different pollsters, all with different methodology and biases?
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/senate/general/2026/texas/talarico-vs-paxton
Keep in mind, you can go back as far as 2008 and look at their archives to see that never in the hundreds of polls conducted in that timeframe has any other Texas Senate race had the Democrat in the lead in a single poll that they used in their aggregate

>>1542000
You can pick through their cross-tabs and find the same issues over and over. Before this election, people didn't regularly poll Texas because it's Soo hard to poll.

>>1542001
>Every single pollster, from Rasmussen to Data for Progress and everything in between, is wrong because they don't say what I want
>Nobody ever polled Texas until now, ignore the hundreds of readily available polls from Texas from 2008 to now available in the link posted
What a life to live

>>1542000
lmao, you don't even need a poll
Paxton thinks he's losing, and he's blaming Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/monday-campaign-round-10-5-161018283.html

>>1541971
>Goalpost moving

>>1542002
The big thing to remember for why polling is off, more than republicans rigging elections is that most MAGA voters who low information and low engagement don't respond to polls which is why trump over preforms.
The problem with how he's crashed the economy is all those voters will just sit out the election because of course conservative policies will fuck them over and they have to deal with the chickens roosting.

The only downside for democrats is they will sit out the election because they've been groomed by the conservatively biased media to see democrats as just as bad so they're going to both sides everything.
Hell, there was a famous video where AOC sat down with a bunch of trump voters and most of them had to rationalize why they agreed with her when they've been groomed to treat her as an existential threat. And they did that by saying stuff like, 'she's not actually radical, she's just a centrist'
It's amazing how much damage right wing propaganda has done and how it's going to get even worse under skydance and Sinclair further consolidating American media.

>>1542002
Most polls are in MOE. The big outliers of +6 have obvious issues. Its not complicated.
>What a life to live
I've never been disappointed on election day.

>>1542008
Paxton has been behind in 25 out of 26 polls from a multitude of different pollsters, independent of each other and with different methodologies, since early June. It's not complicated.

>>1542008
No Texas Republican Senate candidate from 2008 to 2024 was ever down in a single poll in the RCP aggregate in that entire sixteen year timeframe. It isn't complicated.

>>1542009
>>1542010
>reee believe my +6 poll!
>reee all the other polls are in MOE! this is significant!
I'd say "see you on election day" but I know, from experience, that you guys tend to go into hiding for a month or two

>>1542028
Yes, we know both the Texass republicon party and trump will both rig the elections in Texas to steal the senate seat from Talarico.

>>1542028
>There's an outlier poll, that means you can ignore the other 24 out of 26 polls since early June showing Talarico ahead and only focus on the one that shows Paxton winning!
>No I will NOT acknowledge that a Democrat never led in a single Texas Senate poll from 2008-2024 in the RCP aggregate and you CAN'T MAKE ME!
Your flailing is becoming incoherent
You aren't even entertaining anymore
I think I'm done here
Feel free to respond so you can get the last word and feel like you won, you need it

>>1542033
See you on election day
>you wont be here.

>>1542037
He'll be too busy working to rig it given trump has already:

>He has banned international election observers from monitoring the upcoming Midterms which only Russia and Belerus do
> He has threatened to deploy the military at polling places, which is against the law.
>He has lobbied for legislation to make it harder to register and vote early or by mail.
>He has pushed Republican election officials to purge voter rolls to depress turnout.
>He has sought the closure of precincts in blue districts in order to eliminate Democratic voters.
>He has installed election deniers and convicted fraudsters in election oversight positions.
>He has ordered the U.S. Postal Service to refuse or delay delivery of mail-in ballots.
>He had the U.S. Postal Service hire mercenaries known for human rights abuses to 'security'
>Said he would declare a national emergency to interfere with the election.

Also he said that Project 2025 will interfere in the election as well in the coming weeks.

>>1542046
>Good

>>1542046
>>He has banned international election observers
Good.
>>He has pushed Republican election officials to purge voter rolls
Also good.

>>1542052
>>1542095
>"He's deliberately making it harder for the opposition to vote.
You are a literal authoritarian and should be killed on sight.

Does anyone know the polymarket betting odds for the Texas race?

>>1541717
I wouldnt worry about it. In 4 years itll be 'democrats are losiing in ___ cause ___ is so awful'.
The only constant is no matter who wins theyre terrible (altho trump is legit the worst ever). every election people vote for change, and nothing changes.

>>1541723
>why would they want to remove Trump?
> A flailing, decrepit, lame duck octogenarian Trump would be an absolute gift to Democrats heading into 2028


> why would they want to do whats right for the country, when they can instead profit off its demise?

>demtrash actually believes this fake news bullshit
its gonna be so good when they get forced back to reality in November
I can't wait for the libtard mass suicide

>>1542111
Why would Dems release the Epstein files when they can profit off smearing Trump with the Epstein files?

>>1542111
Vance would be worse for the country

>>1542140
>Release files
>Arrest trump for being a pedo rapist
>???
>SAVE DEMOCRACY!!!

>>1542152
If Biden did this he would have been the nominee in 2024 and won re-election

>>1542147
Vance is a couch-fucking, sycophantic piece of garbage who sold his principles to people who would have his wife gang-raped and deported.
He would objectively be a billion times better for the country; Trump is a demented egomaniacal retard who acts unpredictably, and Vance is a much more predictable puppet. He understands diplomacy insofar as being a slimy, lying little shit and keeping himself contained.
>>1542153
Biden was doomed after the first debate. He still would have been a decent 'president' because he surrounded himself with competent people, but public perception of his fumbling made him unelectable. The same way the second debate should have made Trump unelectable, but maga have no standards.
>>1542140
>>1542152
It makes sense to me that if you want to build a case against these people, maybe you don't want to release all the evidence you have on them so they can use their vast fortunes to cover their asses.
Maybe that's fucking stupid, sure, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you're right, maybe they should have released the files, maybe they're horrible people who should be in jail if they were covering it up.
So if the cat is out of the bag and releasing the files is necessary and good, why hasn't trump released all of the files? And why is your only answer to that question to bring up the last admin? So the last admin was wrong. And this admin is good. And they have the power to release the files, which is good and the last admin didn't because they're bad. 'kay. Why do they continue to not do that?
Are you going to say Trump released more files?
Because if you ask two people about a secret, and one says "I can't tell you yet because that would compromise the secret" and the other says "Here! This is totally all of the secret! There definitely isn't any more secret! And If there was, I wouldn't be involved! But there isn't!" but there is, then who is less trustworthy? (It's the second guy, who is blatantly lying to your face.)

>>1542155
>Words words words
Oh, he mad.

>>1542155
>Vance is a couch-fucking
To be fair, that couch was sexy and totally asking for it
>to people who would have his wife gang-raped and deported.
Ew. No one think Indian women are attractive.
Also, no one (as in very few people) wants to deport US citizens.
Personally I do, but alas it's not legal.

Are you ready for James Talarico to run in 2028? Like Beto did after losing to ted cruz in 2018?

Blue wave

>>1542194
He would get my vote

>>1542201
People call Trump the anti-christ.
The bible calls the anti-christ an incredibly charismatic, universally loved figure who unites the entire world under a new religion.
Everyone except his sychophants hates trump, he's not the anti-christ, he's just a conman. Not even a partucularly good one, he was just in the right place, at the right time.
Talarico fits the description of the anti-christ.
I genuinely mean that as a compliment, he seems incredibly presidential, I will also be supporting him.

>>1542203
That's cool. I'd vote for him and it has nothing to do with religion or your mental illness.

>>1542205
That's cool. You'd lose the election for him because you're a prickly faggot.

>>1542207
Ummmm no my vote isn't that strong, my mentally challenged autistic adult male NEET friend.

>>1542203
So the anti christ is trump, gotcha

>>1542207
Stick a cock in it, thesaurus.

>>1541717
No chance South Carolina and Nebraska flip.
And it could go either way for Maine, Michigan Ohio, Kansas, Iowa and Texass.
Michigan should be a lock for the dems, but the conservatively biased media is doing everything to destroy Abdul El-Sayed

>>1542224
Also the right wing uniparty of Republicans and the Democratic establishment hate El-Sayed because he's a liberal, meaning he actually wants to help the people and not just corporations.

>>1542228
>meaning he actually wants to help the people and not just corporations.
lol. Is that what you think liberals do by raising taxes.

An angry handjob
Given by Incredible Hulk
Preferable to Democrat vote

>>1542233
Oh no, raising taxes on the billionaire parasite class...

>>1542224
Dude, you're talking to permaonline retards who unironically think DSA candidates are going to flip R +14 states like Texas because reasons. Just smile and wave.

>>1542235
Its weird. Because they keep saying they will raise taxes on billionaires and yet they keep raising taxes on the middle class

>>1542240
And they don't realize shit rolls down hill. Thus the lunacy.
Sad pathetic old boomer platform devoid of any 3 dimensional thinking. It sounds good to tax the rich, but if you really wanted to fuck with them, you'd regulate the rich.

>>1542240
>>1542250
But enough about republicans

>>1542316
When did Republicans say that they would raise taxes on billionaires only to raise taxes for the middle class?

1541720
>in WWII, the SOE present Churchill with an idea: the assassination of Hitler
>Churchill vetoes this idea
That was because Churchill saw Hitler as the Allies' best asset in winning WWII. Hitler's 'My way or the Autobahn' attitude with his generals etc - despite their ideas & best advice to the contrary - proved he was a complete fuckup at war planning, strategy and so on, and it showed, to the Wehrmacht's detriment and the Allies' benefit. Only at the end when Soviet troops were mere blocks away and the Third Reich's obliteration was imminent, was that inferior subhuman Austrian no longer needed, and Hitler knew it, thus ultimately assassinating itself.
Similarly, Democrats want Trump to be in the White House up to 12 midday on 20th January 2029 when that orange subhuman is replaced with a Democrat president, then once it disappears into the distance on its final trip on Marine One, Trump (which has served its purpose: political destruction of the GOP) and miggers (useful idiots) experience Total MAGA Death.
And the ultimate irony? In the White House right now - due to the subject being so admired by that which put it there - is a bust of a half-American politician: Winston Churchill.