The vast majority of respondents in our latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com believe President Trump will be victorious again in 2020.
Ninety-five percent (95%) of respondents believe he will win. Eighty percent (80%) of respondents think he will win by a bigger margin than in 2016. And 15% think he'll win by a smaller margin.
Full results of the poll are below.
In 2020, Trump will:
15%: Win by a smaller margin
80%: Win by a bigger margin
2% Not sure/Don't care.
Erich marcks says
Before the 2016 election everyone was afraid to admit they supported and we're going to vote for Trump. Voting for Trump had a strange almost underground conspiracy feeling to it. When I went places people would whisper to me and asked me who I was planning to vote for. It's worse now. No one would dare wear I'll make America great again hat, let alone admit they were a trump supporter. I bet he wins bigger in 2020. And the Republicans take back the House of Representatives. Remember all the moderate Democrats who ran for congress last time saying they would never vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. People remember
I agree with your take on it, Erich. And there seems to be a great deal of pent-up frustration over the Dem Mueller charade for the past 2 & 1/2 years while meantime we hold our breath for some indictments. And their judicial attempts to block the wall and open the gates.
Brian Mumford says
Please give us something that shows you are independent and more people will donate. There is a lot of controlled opposition going on out there in the realm of alternative media such as people who are instructed to "expose" a lot of things hidden by the mainstream media. In all actuality, however, those controlling the narrative likely understand that—so long as repetition is kept to a minimum (most networks aren't reporting damning news in the media)—otherwise damaging evidence is purposely and safely reported in order to gain the confidence of those fully aware of the media's lies and smear tactics (who generally distrust the powers that be).
JFK, 9/11, and Zionism/international banking are third rail topics to anyone on the air, I understand that, but how about a discussion of judicial review and common law generally? Have you ever read Thomas Jefferson's letters on the subject, such he wrote to our nation's first Attorney General Edmund Randolph dated August 18, 1799? How about his letter to Virginia Supreme Court Judge Spencer Roane on September 6, 1819? Or James Madison's October 24, 1787 letter to Jefferson about how the delegates in Phildelphia rejected granting the judiciary a "negative" on the legislature and states contrary to Alexander Hamilton's claims in Federalist No. 78 (note: there is a greater reason why it had to be anonymous)?
Just as important, have you ever read both among and between the lines of Georgetown University law professor Susan Low Bloch's peer reviewed article "The Marbury Mystery: Why Did William Marbury Sue in the Supreme Court?"? As a result of that case, the adoption of, not just what we refer to as "judicial review" but more precisely "common law" (i.e. legislating from the bench), was/is a clear violation of the first article of the United States Constitution (something they never taught me studying political science at one of the world's best polisci schools). Nor did I learn about any of these letters and other writings in grad school studying public administration (when I pieced together how judicial was responsible for the unbridled abuses of the federal bureaucracy; something you know something about personally). There is a reason why, according to the New York Times, Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese invited the states to ignore the SCOTUS's attempts to use judicial review. Why do we think Republicans no longer dare to take that subject on? Was Scalia really an originalist, even if he was a member of the Federalist Society (a misnomer considering the history of originalism).
This is the conspiracy no one wants people to learn about (it's far worse than JFK, 9/11, or the War in Iraq), and it is also one of the easiest to prove. There is a reason why Jefferson, as Secretary of State, put in writing to President Washington that Alexander Hamilton used his office as treasury secretary to corrupt the congress (note: George Washington considered the SoS as the closest office to his own as president). Have you ever noticed how similar Hamilton's plan was to the Bank of England's? Did you ever read Jefferson's letter to Washington regarding the constitutionality of Hamilton's banking scheme? Have you ever read Jefferson's thoughts on Washington, Hamilton and others in his autobiography and other writings? Heck, the Library of America's collection of Jefferson's writings alone are quite damaging to the official story of the United States (Thomas Jefferson: Writings (LOA #17): Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia / Public and Private Papers / Addresses / Letters [Library of America Founders Collection Book 1]). Eustace Mullins has a lot to say about these as well (and why his works have been ignored is only explained by the same forces censoring the news). Why did we even fight the American Revolution? Was Benedict Arnold really a traitor because he called Washington out for preventing the Carlisle Commission from meeting with Congress? Did his excuse really hold water (after all, you have to negotiate at some point)? How could all of this be covered up by our ivy league universities and others???? Ah, that's a great question, and it all starts and ends at the same place, but the first place to start is the real story of judicial review.
Black Beauty says
There IS no other reporter who has proven they are independent more than Sharyl Attkisson has! Time after time, she takes the common sense side, the right side, on issues. She was actually forced to resign from CBS because they kept reprimanding her for her independent journalism. I am not even related to Sharyl Attkisson, but I actually flinched to read the opening line of your comment, which was, "Please give us something that shows you are independent and more people will donate."
This lady fairmindedly delivers the unvarnished truth, every time.
Trump will win by a margin 70...30.
Very confident! Greatest President !
Bob Smith says
Comes down to the Democrats need to nominate a winnable candidate.
So far, they dont seem to have one.
I am an Independent, and the only one I would consider is Gabbard. But MSM, Google, and the DNC seem to want nothing to do with her.
I think Trump will win again as his based is dedicated, they will vote. Will the Democrats vote for someone who they feel is not progressive enough? Or too progressive?
Then there are people like me: The Independents. Given a choice between the current top three polling Democrats or Trump . . . I might just stay home.
Mike Venturini says
Trump's opponents, regardless of their political affiliation, are struggling to send a believable message to ALL registered voting citizens of this country and that's an unfortunate outcome of beating the drum for special interests that have squandered tax dollars at staggering rates. Transgender bathroom doors, for every public restroom, for example. Mom & Pop shops, too. Perhaps every home?
Even lifelong democratic supporters will find that behavior unacceptable and vote for the candidate that follows up on what sensible & attainable offers were presented, during campaign season. The facts, and not the '4th hand from an anonymous tip' reports, do prove Trump is doing what he said he would do, LIVE and on a global format. Who doesn't like a person who keeps making good on their words?