CNN Poll: Biden and Trump matchup tightens as enthusiasm hits new high

[Linc]

Too bad for you those aren't Trump's fault.

Except if it was a Democratic admin, and you know it.

 

[Linc]

He didn't say the kung flu was a hoax, nor did he cause the pandemic.

Yes he did and his incompetence made the pandemic orders of magnitude worse in this country compared to the civilized world.

 

[Schism]

Waiting it out certainly can't hurt. But in light of the facts, you really do have to wonder how the gap between Biden and Trump can be as tight as it is if a larger philosophical shift to right wing authoritarianism isn't the cause. A state media mouthpiece like Fox News only goes so far in explaining it.

The rise of right wing authoritarianism is a force taking its place around the globe. There's no reason to think we're above it all.

Drama bolded.

 

[MSgt]

Over 90% of American war deaths have been under Democratic Party leadership and Obama ordered military attacks against more countries than any president since Democrat Truman. If you love war, death and destruction, the Democratic Party is for you.

Um..."90%?" Your entire summation contradicts your routine radical partisan nonsense. Allow me to introduce you to history and your personal contradictions:

1) You chose to start with Truman to avoid the fact that a pragmatist Democrat led the country through WWII while dealing with the Great Depression that conservative Republicans and Democrats encouraged. WWII is "noble," thus you shoved it aside because it didn't meet with your intention to senselessly denigrate Democrats.

2) You chose to avoid the facts of the Korean War, because the idea of "Democrat" Truman addressing a communist invasion doesn't quite meet with your simplification. I'm sure you preserve your right to whine about communism on another thread where the "Democrat" Truman is a hero?

3) You chose to ignore the fact that it was the Eisenhower Administration that got us into Vietnam (after screwing up Iran), leaving the unnecessarily escalating Vietnam mess to Kennedy(D), who was assassinated, then Johnson (D), who inherited but couldn't find a victory way out, then Nixon(R), who tried to bomb his way out, while the GOP declared the Democrats weak on communists (which was just a senseless political rallying cry that actually started against Truman over "losing" China).

4) It was Reagan who dropped Marines into Beirut and then ordered retreat after the terrorist slaughter.

5) It was Clinton who inherited Bush's Somalia mission (I was there in '93), in which the infamous Black Hawk Down occurred in Mogadishu.

6) It was the GOP NeoCon agenda that pushed and pushed America into invading Iraq, before and after 9/11 (I was there in '03 and '04), while declaring the Democrats weak on terrorism.

7) It was Obama who inherited that 9/11 zeal to accuse mass Muslims of wrong doing, while trying to target militants in surrounding countries without having to deploy more of my kind across those new borders.

8) And when I deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, plenty of Americans troops had died under a Bush and Obama Administration. And now? Enough continue to die under a Trump Administration that can't figure out whether or not to allow the other side to even matter. Biden will inherit this.

So, your ignorant declaration about Democrats falls on deaf ears to those of us who live life without our heads up a partisan ass. Son, I'm a historian with a wealth of primary documented sources about many different things. I am also very experienced in matters that you only experience through YouTube or a video game. And as a trained historian, I am also the best writer you will come across outside of a boring English major. In no way can you ever win here. Move on and accept that many are simply smarter than what your partisan-focused posts present.

 

[Mugahigh]

The biggest mistake Joe BIden has made so far is selecting Harris for VP, hasnt anyone noticed that people of color dislike other people of color more than they do people of no color (or whatever you call them), this can be seen by the number of colors being killed by other colors. They day Biden said he would pick a woman of color doomed his presidential bid forever. Expect Bidens lead to wittle away from now on.

 

[MSgt]

You're an excellent writer, buddy.

I would add to the bolded, that today the GOP is cheering us off to sickness & death as well. With the most sinister being sending our children off to become Covid infected. So the GOP spending our blood for their personal needs, is nothing new.

And yes, you are right in that it was the Dems & Liberals who've gotten the recent wars of the last half-century right. I've voted GOP multiple times, been an active and organizing member of the Dem Party, then left them. Well, I'm now back. And proud to be back. Today feels a lot like the sixties Nam era, to be honest. Only more sinister. And once again, it's the Dems in the streets battling an authoritarian incompassionate GOP government. Shades of the sixties all over again!

Yeah, I can appreciate "more sinister." There is definitely a maliciousness coming from the White House that I'm not sure has ever existed. Sure, presidents have dealt in political preservation and ambition (Nixon comes to mind), but never at the routine and consistent expense of national interests in a way that promotes foreign interests.

Behind this idiot is a GOP that has long abandoned conservatism and embraced money. Ideology has become an inconvenience that they have to deal with in order to keep the constituency lost in delusion.

 

[swing_voter]

538 has the race at 51% Joe Biden and 43% Trump.

They take the polling numbers from several polls and average them.


National President: general election Polls | FiveThirtyEight


If you look at their data, it's been pretty stable over these last few months. 8 points really isn't that big of a lead.

 

[MSgt]

The biggest mistake Joe BIden has made so far is selecting Harris for VP, hasnt anyone noticed that people of color dislike other people of color more than they do people of no color (or whatever you call them), this can be seen by the number of colors being killed by other colors. They day Biden said he would pick a woman of color doomed his presidential bid forever. Expect Bidens lead to wittle away from now on.

Don't forget about the color!

 

[Puigb]

In the larger sense, that could be right.

But I'm at a loss to see what dynamics changed, to cause this. BLM & the pandemic are still chugging along as they've been for weeks. The stimulus and Post Office were the only things of note, recently added.

Then there's the very recent polls of +7, +9, +10, with the +10 Friday. How do we reconcile them? I suppose by the +4'ish polls ReubenSherr mentioned earlier in the thread?

I'm going to wait-out a few more polls, to make a call on this.

CNN's polls are all over the place. Biden's lead was +11, then +5, then +14, now +4. Bouncing around way too much.
However, what's consistent in all these polls, including CNN's, is Biden is almost always polling at or around 50%. Clinton was often polling below 45% four years ago.

There are much less "undecided" voters this time around. Trump benefited heavily from undecided voters in 2016

This part of the poll was interesting to me though "Among the 72% of voters who say they are either extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this fall, Biden's advantage over Trump widens to 53% to 46%."

Biden voters are VERY eager to get Trump out of office.

 

[Puigb]

Yup.

In the end that 4-7% that is soft support for Trump will come home to him on election day. They're Republicans, after all. They will get over whatever he does to the country, because even a child molester Republican is better than a Democrat.

Trump will get 44-46% of the vote and Biden will get either 50% or go into the low 50s. The former is a situation where Trump could thread the needle the EC, while the extra few percent in the latter would lead to a slaughter.

I think Obama 2008 is the last "mandate" election we will see in a while. And by that I mean a significantly strong victory in the PV and EC.

From here on out, I expect most elections to be close, until Demographic shifts potentially doom the GOP if they don't moderate their platform.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This is an exact replay of 2016. At least, it feels like it to me.

Agreed, very familiar territory we are seeing.

 

[buck]

I still would need to see several polls going forward confirming this tightening. The polls of the past several days on RCP show +7, +9, +10. And those are between the 12-14th. So only several days old.

Agreed. I still don't think Trump will win. On the other side, though, most of my biden supporting co-workers think Trump will win.

 

[buck]

Maybe people are waking up to Democrats doing to the country what they've done to Detroit, Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles....

Yes. Isn't that something. People fleeing NY and California due to the failed policies of those states. Democrats want to expand those very same policies around the country. Let's hope people really are waking up. Any Republican but Trump, and I think the Republicans would be winning in a landslide.

[url]https://i.redd.it/5lavsnls2fd51.jpg[/URL]

 

[joko104]

Um..."90%?" Your entire summation contradicts your routine radical partisan nonsense. Allow me to introduce you to history and your personal contradictions:

1) You chose to start with Truman to avoid the fact that a pragmatist Democrat led the country through WWII while dealing with the Great Depression that conservative Republicans and Democrats encouraged. WWII is "noble," thus you shoved it aside because it didn't meet with your intention to senselessly denigrate Democrats.

2) You chose to avoid the facts of the Korean War, because the idea of "Democrat" Truman addressing a communist invasion doesn't quite meet with your simplification. I'm sure you preserve your right to whine about communism on another thread where the "Democrat" Truman is a hero?

3) You chose to ignore the fact that it was the Eisenhower Administration that got us into Vietnam (after screwing up Iran), leaving the unnecessarily escalating Vietnam mess to Kennedy(D), who was assassinated, then Johnson (D), who inherited but couldn't find a victory way out, then Nixon(R), who tried to bomb his way out, while the GOP declared the Democrats weak on communists (which was just a senseless political rallying cry that actually started against Truman over "losing" China).

4) It was Reagan who dropped Marines into Beirut and then ordered retreat after the terrorist slaughter.

5) It was Clinton who inherited Bush's Somalia mission (I was there in '93), in which the infamous Black Hawk Down occurred in Mogadishu.

6) It was the GOP NeoCon agenda that pushed and pushed America into invading Iraq, before and after 9/11 (I was there in '03 and '04), while declaring the Democrats weak on terrorism.

7) It was Obama who inherited that 9/11 zeal to accuse mass Muslims of wrong doing, while trying to target militants in surrounding countries without having to deploy more of my kind across those new borders.

8) And when I deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, plenty of Americans troops had died under a Bush and Obama Administration. And now? Enough continue to die under a Trump Administration that can't figure out whether or not to allow the other side to even matter. Biden will inherit this.

So, your ignorant declaration about Democrats falls on deaf ears to those of us who live life without our heads up a partisan ass. Son, I'm a historian with a wealth of primary documented sources about many different things. I am also very experienced in matters that you only experience through YouTube or a video game. And as a trained historian, I am also the best writer you will come across outside of a boring English major. In no way can you ever win here. Move on and accept that many are simply smarter than what your partisan-focused posts present.

Nothing you wrote changes the fact that over 90% of American war deaths happened under Democratic leadership.

 

[Carolina]

I still would need to see several polls going forward confirming this tightening. The polls of the past several days on RCP show +7, +9, +10. And those are between the 12-14th. So only several days old.

Todays ABC News Poll shows Biden with an 11 point lead.

Source: Dueling polls split on size of Biden’s lead ahead of Dem convention - POLITICO

 

[Jay59]

Agreed, very familiar territory we are seeing.

I get the comparison, but not really. It would be more accurate to say the starting point is close to the same. Biden is not the candidate Clinton was and his campaign staff is far less. Trump has improved across the board.

Um..."90%?" Your entire summation contradicts your routine radical partisan nonsense.

It is an overstatement, but not a big one. Both World Wars were during Democratic administrations. That's a almost 1.5 million men and women. Korea is another 125,000 and Vietnam, 130,000. The Civil war was both parties. The north was Republican with 600,000 dead and the South was Democratic with 450,000. All other military events total less than 200,000. So about 2500K lost under Democrats and 750K under Republicans. Thus 90% is too high, but 80% is reasonable as a round figure.

 

[MSgt]

It is an overstatement, but not a big one. Both World Wars were during Democratic administrations. That's a almost 1.5 million men and women. Korea is another 125,000 and Vietnam, 130,000. The Civil war was both parties. The north was Republican with 600,000 dead and the South was Democratic with 450,000. All other military events total less than 200,000. So about 2500K lost under Democrats and 750K under Republicans. Thus 90% is too high, but 80% is reasonable as a round figure.

The accuracy of the number doesn't matter and his timeline began with Truman, post World War II.

Thus, his clear purpose was to falsely denigrate and accuse Democrats of being the warmongers in which troop death is owed. Yet, Kennedy and mostly Johnson are the only ones who exacerbated an inherited war. Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush. Obama inherited Afghanistan and Iraq. And with that inheritance, we saw Clinton push only bombing wars in Bosnia and Kosovo; and Obama bouncing out of Iraq while pushing drone wars instead of new invasions.

The numbers "lost under Democrats" do not add up to Democrats seeking war as he tried to imply.

 

[Jay59]

Agreed, very familiar territory we are seeing.

The accuracy of the number doesn't matter and his timeline began with Truman, post World War II.

Thus, his clear purpose was to falsely denigrate and accuse Democrats of being the warmongers in which troop death is owed. Yet, Kennedy and mostly Johnson are the only ones who exacerbated an inherited war. Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush. Obama inherited Afghanistan and Iraq. And with that inheritance, we saw Clinton push only bombing wars in Bosnia and Kosovo; and Obama bouncing out of Iraq while pushing drone wars instead of new invasions.

The numbers "lost under Democrats" do not add up to Democrats seeking war as he tried to imply.

Then he has a better case. Almost all Korean casualties and 80% of Vietnam were under Democrats. Eisenhower was very low, Nixon did much better than Johnson in Vietnam. Contrary to popular reports, casualties in Iraq were light, less than 4000.

Johnson and Truman did seek war. Others, not so much. They both happen to be Democrats.

 

[MSgt]

Nothing you wrote changes the fact that over 90% of American war deaths happened under Democratic leadership.

Oh, was that the only thing you tried to get away with? You declared that "if you love war, death and destruction, the Democratic Party is for you." This is a falsehood. Let's not pretend that your motive wasn't clear; and your "90%" borrows heavily from the Vietnam War, in which the Republican Party showed great enthusiasm for.

- It was Eisenhower who kicked off Vietnam and handed it off, with the deaths exponentially starting in '56. The majority of deaths came later under Johnson's Draft between '66 and '70, with Nixon taking charge in '69.

- It was Nixon who had his campaign team contact Hanoi to scuttle Johnson's peace talks in '68, thereby increasing the deaths and the war for years.

- It was Reagan who sought to kick off wars in Central America and the Middle East, while dropping troops in places like Grenada and Beirut, while at the same time playing nuclear holocaust games with the Soviets.

- It was Bush who kicked off Panama and later the Gulf War and Somalia, in which he handed both unfinished messes off.

- It was his not-so NeoCon son who later sought to finish the Gulf War by invading Iraq, in which the vast majority of deaths occurred between 2003 and 2009.

And all along the way, it was conservative Republicans declaring Democrats weak on communism and terrorism. Today, you wish to pretend that the Democrats are simply warmongers as if Republicans were the Vietnam, Gulf, and Iraq war protesters?! This idea that the Democratic Party loves war and death is stupid and your death number is an obtuse oversimplification. The historical theme since World War II seems simple enough: stop starting **** and setting the table for the next guy to have to deal with. American war deaths do not just belong to a current Administration or to one Party.

We can even take a look at 9/11:

- It was Reagan who dropped us into Beirut, then retreated, giving ideas to future enemies.

- It was Bush who dropped us into Somalia, then passed it off to Clinton, in which he went into full retreat after that idea was tested by our enemies.

- It was the next Bush who launched an invasion into Afghanistan after that enemy brought his attacks to our soil. Then Bush launched another invasion into Iraq, botching the occupation with gusto, with conservative America calling Democrats weak for their lack of enthusiasm as the American body bags began to number up.


In the end, Democrats cannot be "weak on communism and terrorism" and also the warmongers. Oh, but if you love war and death the Democratic Party is for you, huh? Odd how Obama gets criticized for pulling the troops out of Iraq and supposedly "loves war and death" for pushing drones instead of troops. Odd how Clinton's claim to fame involved pulling troops out of Somalia and later choosing bombing campaigns over invasions, yet somehow "loves war and death." This is partisan nonsense and obtuse.

 

[Eriech]

Are they blaming Harris for drop or are they blaming American racism? Certainly could not be Joe...


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[MSgt]

Then he has a better case. Almost all Korean casualties and 80% of Vietnam were under Democrats. Eisenhower was very low, Nixon did much better than Johnson in Vietnam. Contrary to popular reports, casualties in Iraq were light, less than 4000.

His case involves being obtuse with the numbers for partisan purposes. His "90" percent, which is circumstantial, came with the declaration that "if you love war, death and destruction, the Democratic Party is for you." What does one have to do with the other? His partisan game is akin to announcing that if you love nuclear holocaust, the Democratic Party is for you. After all, only a Democrat dropped a couple, so vote Republican! This partisan nonsense is his only case.

Vietnam was kicked off by Eisenhower and by the time Johnson came along he inherited an unnecessary and wider Southeast Asian mess, created by Eisenhower and Kennedy. Johnson went on to exploit what he knew to be bad information to urge Congress to give him license. His motive for the Draft was about not losing the war. It was not simply about seeking war. He was seeking a way out while looking tough on communism in order to create support for his Great Society. Then, in 1968, Nixon would prolong that mess by not-so secretly scuttling the Johnson peace talks during his campaign so that he could look favorable for his promise to end the war if elected. The war went on until 1975, arguably, because Nixon betrayed the country in 1968. Thus, Nixon inherited a bigger mess and made it messier as he tried to bomb Hanoi into submission. Did he simply love war and death and destruction...or was he too just seeking a way out?

Light causalities in Iraq have nothing to do with his case. The very fact that Bush pushed for invasion, with the GOP cheering along and calling Democrats weak for their lack of enthusiasm, contradicts his declaration that Democrats simply love war and death and destruction. Wars produce death. His obtuse game involves declaring that Democrats love war, but are bad at it, thus generating death, while implying that Republicans, who do not love war, are good at it and produce less death. So...vote Republican. This is nonsense and contrary to the history. Strange how the anti-war protesters, from Vietnam through Iraq, tend to be the liberals within the Democratic Party, yet are supposed to be the warmongers too.

Johnson and Truman did seek war. Others, not so much. They both happen to be Democrats.

Truman did. Johnson sort of did. Both Bush's did. Reagan did. Clinton did, but on terms that saw no invasions. Johnson and Truman happening to be Democrats have nothing to do with loving war, death, and destruction, which is what his "90%" was all about. He and his kind cannot declare Democrats weak on terrorism and communism, while at the same time accusing them of being warmongers. Was it not the Republicans who jeered Clinton for bombing empty factories and not killing people? I mean, every time we turn around we see Republicans seeking to define their "courage" by deploying other people's kids to conflict.

 

[joko104]

Oh, was that the only thing you tried to get away with? You declared that "if you love war, death and destruction, the Democratic Party is for you." This is a falsehood. Let's not pretend that your motive wasn't clear; and your "90%" borrows heavily from the Vietnam War, in which the Republican Party showed great enthusiasm for.

- It was Eisenhower who kicked off Vietnam and handed it off, with the deaths exponentially starting in '56. The majority of deaths came later under Johnson's Draft between '66 and '70, with Nixon taking charge in '69.

- It was Nixon who had his campaign team contact Hanoi to scuttle Johnson's peace talks in '68, thereby increasing the deaths and the war for years.

- It was Reagan who sought to kick off wars in Central America and the Middle East, while dropping troops in places like Grenada and Beirut, while at the same time playing nuclear holocaust games with the Soviets.

- It was Bush who kicked off Panama and later the Gulf War and Somalia, in which he handed both unfinished messes off.

- It was his not-so NeoCon son who later sought to finish the Gulf War by invading Iraq, in which the vast majority of deaths occurred between 2003 and 2009.

And all along the way, it was conservative Republicans declaring Democrats weak on communism and terrorism. Today, you wish to pretend that the Democrats are simply warmongers as if Republicans were the Vietnam, Gulf, and Iraq war protesters?! This idea that the Democratic Party loves war and death is stupid and your death number is an obtuse oversimplification. The historical theme since World War II seems simple enough: stop starting **** and setting the table for the next guy to have to deal with. American war deaths do not just belong to a current Administration or to one Party.

We can even take a look at 9/11:

- It was Reagan who dropped us into Beirut, then retreated, giving ideas to future enemies.

- It was Bush who dropped us into Somalia, then passed it off to Clinton, in which he went into full retreat after that idea was tested by our enemies.

- It was the next Bush who launched an invasion into Afghanistan after that enemy brought his attacks to our soil. Then Bush launched another invasion into Iraq, botching the occupation with gusto, with conservative America calling Democrats weak for their lack of enthusiasm as the American body bags began to number up.


In the end, Democrats cannot be "weak on communism and terrorism" and also the warmongers. Oh, but if you love war and death the Democratic Party is for you, huh? Odd how Obama gets criticized for pulling the troops out of Iraq and supposedly "loves war and death" for pushing drones instead of troops. Odd how Clinton's claim to fame involved pulling troops out of Somalia and later choosing bombing campaigns over invasions, yet somehow "loves war and death." This is partisan nonsense and obtuse.

Piles of diversionary words. LBJ campaigned promising NOT to go to war in Vietnam - and after the election did exactly that. Nixon ended the Vietnam War. Civil War: Democratic Party. WW1: Democratic Party. WW2: Democratic Party. Korean War: Democratic Party. Vietnam: Democratic Party. And how many countries did Obama order bombed and otherwise attacked? Hilary Clinton promised to have the US military directly go to war against Russia.

 

[Linc]

Then he has a better case. Almost all Korean casualties and 80% of Vietnam were under Democrats. Eisenhower was very low, Nixon did much better than Johnson in Vietnam. Contrary to popular reports, casualties in Iraq were light, less than 4000.

Johnson and Truman did seek war. Others, not so much. They both happen to be Democrats.

Oh look, dismissing the Iraqi dead bu still the party of Benghazi.

 

[MSgt]

Piles of diversionary words. LBJ campaigned promising NOT to go to war in Vietnam - and after the election did exactly that.

We were already at war. Johnson promised not to send "American boys," despite them being there and dying since 1956. His sin was the Draft, which made people more aware of the war.

Nixon ended the Vietnam War.

Sure, after maliciously prolonging it for another seven years by having his campaign team reach out to Hanoi and scuttle the Johnson peace talks in 1968. What a swell guy for ending the war seven years later. I guess the GOP just wanted seven more years of delicious death and destruction, huh? Trump wasn't the first traitor in the White House to betray the country for personal gain, but Nixon's treason was far worse.

Basically, the Vietnam War was started by Eisenhower (Republican) and ended by Nixon (Republican). Nice bookend deal. Dealing with the mess in between where the mass deaths occurred fell to those who were trying not to lose it, to include Nixon for seven years.

Civil War: Democratic Party.

Your game began with Truman. But sure, let's go back 150 years when the Democratic Party represented the conservative south, which received support from Northern Democrats, creating what is known as the "Slave Power." Democrats (conservatives) did start that war, but with help from a Republican President (a liberal abolitionist) who declared that the country was finished with the conservatives' enthusiasm for slavery. See how your partisan game doesn't work out well even 150 years back?

WW1: Democratic Party.

Wilson didn't have the support of the Democratic Party until later when he had the support of an enraged American population and both the Democratic and Republican Parties. He exploited two things:

1) After the Zimmerman Telegram was published, the American population was enraged and Wilson used this to convince both Parties to war. Never mind that Germany's promise to assist Mexico was clearly empty, given that Hitler couldn't even cross the English Channel two decades later.

2) He also used the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a full two years prior.

The real problem was Germany's affect on American commerce and America's years-long investment in an allied victory. I'm not sure how this defines the Democratic Party as loving death and destruction.

WW2: Democratic Party.

Translation: A Republican President would have simply ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor because he would not have loved war death and destruction? Maybe it's a good thing Roosevelt was at the helm at the time.

Korean War: Democratic Party.

Translation: A Republican President would have just ignored the military forces of communist North Korea that suddenly plunged southward across the 38th parallel boundary in an attempt to seize noncommunist South Korea? Might have been the better move. This war didn't solve a thing.

But I thought it was the Democrats who were supposed to be weak on communism while McCarthy's Republican loyalists went on a domestic rampage.

Vietnam: Democratic Party.

No. Republican Party. 1955-1975. Eisenhower, then Kennedy, then Johnson, then Nixon, and then Ford on the one inch line. Your partisan game has you ignoring clearly documented history now.

And how many countries did Obama order bombed and otherwise attacked?

As opposed to invading them like Bush did? Clearly, one who loves war and destruction embraces drones, while peace loving Republicans just invade Afghanistan and Iraq while rattling sabers with Iran on a routine basis. Notice how Clinton and Obama's military aggression revolved around trying to keep the troops off the ground via bombing campaigns, whereas Reagan, Bush, and Bush encouraged and launched invasions and created wars where none were.

Your partisan game doesn't work in the modern era either.

Hilary Clinton promised to have the US military directly go to war against Russia.

No, she didn't and that would be a stupid promise if she did.

This is where you ignore Panama, Beirut, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, rebels in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq,..... Were those the results of a Democrat's White House? Your posts are making me think that it was probably a very good thing that a Democrat White House presided over both World Wars and not the peace loving anti-war protesters of the GOP who were clearly against World War II, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I appear confused over your misrepresentations of history.

 

[ReubenSherr]

I still would need to see several polls going forward confirming this tightening. The polls of the past several days on RCP show +7, +9, +10. And those are between the 12-14th. So only several days old.

CNBC has tightened as well, so have Harris/Hill and Emerson. Fox is tightening gradually, it’s down to +7.