Yeah, it's worth noting, but being a Republican outlet doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Good to be skeptical, but without knowing their polling method, can't really say that they're doing anything that would skew the results.

And yet that's what happens most of the time, so yeah. Maybe it's not the fault of the pollsters themselves but of the cherrypicked results their hirers decide to make public.

Of course, Rasmussen manages to be an exception even then. Their results have always been infamous, though they do present a herding effect from time to time not to be 100% laughed off the scene. They predicted Republicans +1 in 2018 but Democrats won the House by almost 9 points. And yet they defended their results and said they wouldn't change their methodology.

Edit - all that I said, of course, can also be applied to Dem pollsters like Data for Progress & others. You get far less dithering in polls that way.

Nice info-nugget partially related to the election: Trump paid more taxes in China than in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/21/donald-trump-china-bank-account-nearly-200000-taxes-report

Honestly don't know a ton about the situation, as I really only followed the polls closely for this election. I know their results are consistently leaning towards Trump. I also know that a lot of them are funded by "center for American Greatness" which obviously makes me suspect.

I think it's worth looking at their results, but to look more closely at the averages, which tend to be more reliable than any individual polls.

Speaking of Rasmussen though, here's a video on what would happen if their polls are accurate.

A little bit misleading in the wording. He (through his company) paid more in taxes in China than on income tax in the US. But, unless his accountants are really amazing or he's going to go to jail for a really long time, he likely paid more overall taxes in the US through his companies.

When you look at state polls, national polls, district polls, presidential approval polls, correlate to past results, account for systematic error, etc. you end up at the same place where it all converges and makes hard to believe the cake hasn't been baked already.

But damn if it isn't hard to be at ease after 2016. No wonder PTSD is one of the hardest psychiatric conditions to treat.

Trump posted the full 60 Minutes interview that he walked out of, and it is not a fun watch.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/522254-trump-posts-full-60-minutes-interview-showing-him-walking-out

I feel like the Chris Wallace interview and the Axios interview both did a good job of working with Trump's mental deficiencies to create a valuable experience, but I'm ten minutes into this interview and it is just the interviewer asking a question and Trump rambling for several minutes while she tries to rephrase the question in a way he understands. It is painful and so far, I do not recommend.

I would say that this isn't going to have any affect on basically anything unless something changes.

EDIT: 

About 20 minutes in:

Interviewer: Do you want to leave [ObamaCare]?

Trump: No, I don't want to leave it. I want to see what happens [in the Supreme Court]. We may be stuck with it if we lose in the Supreme Court."

That's kind of....wow, that's Trump admitting that he has given up on Repealing/Replacing ObamaCare through legislation. This should be a headline.

Striking down Obamacare without a replacement would be such a disaster.  I would think so much so that even most republicans wouldn’t be on board with it (except the obvious extremists).  People like my brother who has MS would basically be kicked off their coverage and then denied new coverage because of preexisting conditions.  The medication he takes to hold off the MS would be a couple thousand a month without coverage.  His only option would be to basically let the disease ravage him...

basically... I just hope the politicians aren’t dumb enough to let it be repealed without at least putting some protections in place for people like my brother...

Republicans have had 10 years to come up with something better than the ACA, and have provided nothing. And the ACA is an incredibly not extreme healthcare plan.

The party has little to offer besides "Grrrrrrr... liberals bad!"

I just watched the interview, and I do have to say, stahl was being terrible to trump. I’m no fan of trump by any means, but the whole time she is just basically attacking him. That really isn’t anyway to interview somebody. I think it is crazy that trump still has no answer for what he wants to do with his second term yet... how does he still not have an answer for that!?

I mean, Trump has done and said a lot of shit that he should be questioned on, and when he inevitably doesn't answer, his feet should be held to the fire. I think that the interviewer did a poor job, but by no means should we see Trump as a victim of anything other than his own idiocy.