Gallup poll shows largest increase in Democratic Party affiliation in a decade

[JimH52]

There was plenty of evidence. The courts refused to hear it. Deal with it. We have an installed invalid now. He's all yours.

We have too many liberal judges. Justice was denied.

Except judges that trump appointed told him he is full of sh*t...up to his eyes full.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is what is called the "Trump Effect"

An average of 49% of adults age 18 and older reported Democratic Party affiliation or said they are independent with Democratic leanings throughout the first quarter of 2021, the pollster reported. The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Gallup poll shows largest increase in Democratic Party affiliation in a decade

More Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans by a margin that hasn't been seen in a decade, according to a report released by Gallup.

www.usatoday.com

Checkmate

 

[Pogo]

This is what is called the "Trump Effect"

And here's something about the Gallup effect, dumb shit. Gallup has never been very good at presidential polling

Gallup is well known for turning out polls that tell people what they want to hear.

And here's something about your post, dumb shit. It's not "presidential polling".

 

[Pogo]

The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Who has a landline anymore?.....GIGO

Seniors. Who have been an historically reliable Republican voting bloc.

That's a big problem for the Republican party.

You do know that shit for brains white males with bald heads and goatees, with their scatter brained girl friends, aren't enough votes to win elections for you right?

I'm not a republican and don't vote, numbnutz.

Seniors....Who've been falling for the Democrat Party's "REPUBLICANS WANT TO STEAL YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AND THROW YOU OFF A CLIFF!" bullshit since the '80s.....They have landlines.

Know who else has landlines?

People who live in the sticks where there ain't no cell signal.

---- which is irrelevant here anyway since NOWHERE did the poll indicate that's what it was calling. In fact it said:

>> Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. <<​

 

[skews13]

The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Who has a landline anymore?.....GIGO

Seniors. Who have been an historically reliable Republican voting bloc.

That's a big problem for the Republican party.

You do know that shit for brains white males with bald heads and goatees, with their scatter brained girl friends, aren't enough votes to win elections for you right?

I'm not a republican and don't vote, numbnutz.

Seniors....Who've been falling for the Democrat Party's "REPUBLICANS WANT TO STEAL YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AND THROW YOU OFF A CLIFF!" bullshit since the '80s.....They have landlines.

You do realize that haters, homos, envirowacks, militant feminists, and violent commie goon squads aren't enough votes to win elections for you, right?

They were enough to win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

And those numbers are growing, while your numbers are shrinking.

 

[toobfreak]

This is what is called the "Trump Effect"

By who? About three people on the planet? Meantime, it is what the Democrats have been working for with every fiber of their being for decades. Wouldn't that make it the "democrat far leftwing steal America" effect?

 

[Oddball]

The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Who has a landline anymore?.....GIGO

Seniors. Who have been an historically reliable Republican voting bloc.

That's a big problem for the Republican party.

You do know that shit for brains white males with bald heads and goatees, with their scatter brained girl friends, aren't enough votes to win elections for you right?

I'm not a republican and don't vote, numbnutz.

Seniors....Who've been falling for the Democrat Party's "REPUBLICANS WANT TO STEAL YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AND THROW YOU OFF A CLIFF!" bullshit since the '80s.....They have landlines.

You do realize that haters, homos, envirowacks, militant feminists, and violent commie goon squads aren't enough votes to win elections for you, right?

They were enough to win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

And those numbers are growing, while your numbers are shrinking.

Keep telling yourself that lie.

"My numbers" (i.e. non-voters) are nearly 1/2 the nation....Way larger a demographic than that of you state worshiping crackpots.

 

[lennypartiv]

They were enough to win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
And those numbers are growing, while your numbers are shrinking.

With ballots that mysteriously appeared after midnight.

 

[Circe]

False comparison I'm afraid. Election polls are by definition acutely dynamic. What respondents plan to do today changes, often radically, from what they planned to do yesterday at the same time. The instant case is about the respondent's own GENERAL tilt/identification, which evolves at more of a glacial pace. So what you have here is apples and oranges. A poll on something as continuously changing as an election has an exponentially shorter shelf life. All polls, legitimate ones, may be created equal but their subjects absolutely are not.

As regards your example above, again a national poll can indicate what the whole thinks, but "the whole" is not how we elect Presidents. Four years prior "the whole" indicated that Clinton would get the most votes, and she did.

I've heard a fan of the weather[wo]men make this argument, but IMO it's way bogus. Okay, so polls are allegedly a snapshot of the moment of the polling, unless (as is usual) their methodology STINKS, as do all the current political polls, because Republicans won't take part. But that is not what anyone wants or believes. People don't watch the Weather Channel to enjoy the infinite changes between Tuesday and Saturday in the forecasters' ha-ha "predictions." No one cares about that. What they want to know, and believe they are being told, is WILL IT RAIN ON THE WEEKEND. If they believed the weatherpeople were feeding them an ever-changing line of bull, they just wouldn't bother to tune in. But they badly want future-telling, and that is what they tell themselves they are getting.

Same deal with the political polls. Every single one of them may BE a (very badly taken) snapshot, but who cares? They just want to know that Hillary will win, 96% chance!! They just want to know that Britain is SURE to vote to "remain." And that's why all the silly polls we see day in and day out are read and promoted by some people who are eager to deceive themselves that these are future predictions. No one is interested in a moving dynamic, why would they be. The left likes all these petty political polls because nearly all pollsters are leftist and only leftists take them, so the results please the left and they are very willing to pay for these predictions with money or clicks or subscriptions. But we on the right don't participate, and we have learned not to believe these propaganda pieces. The left is still fooling itself.

I've actually been trained in that science so I know whereof I speak. It's a diligent process that sweats over literally every word so as to avoid any suggestion one way or another. Phrasings are rotated so that if there's a multiple choice, the first choice constantly changes so that that's not an implied suggestion, and so on. Value judgment adjectives are verboten. Entirely neutral.

That's not to say it can't be abused and deliberately slanted by those so inclined of course, but again that's why each poll, valid ones anyway, show you their methodology, so we can see for ourselves what the approach was. If there's any deliberate slanting going on it will show up there.

I don't believe current polls are honest, they are for propaganda, and besides, they can't poll the right so it matters not at all how carefully anyone phrases the questions, for good neutrality OR for evil slanting.

But that in no way means that a legitimate poll is illegitimate just because somebody else did a push poll. The fact that you can photoshop Robert Byrd in a Klan robe doesn't make all photography illegitimate. Nor does it mean that because some wackadoo ran a fake poll, the rest of us should stop participating in legitimate ones.

I take issue with that: sure, fake photos make all photography suspect! If people don't recognize that photos can now be faked very persuasively, they need to get their trusting center seriously overhauled, because they're terminally naive. Same deal with Nigerian princes, same deal with phishing hacks. Be suspicious, people, as soon as you find out the bad guys have found another good way to fool you. Polls not only were often designed to fool us -- they were also universally wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on two very important matters in 2016, and so polls should never again be attended to, at least by me, and I won't.

And not to be unkind but your declining to participate doesn't matter to the poll because it will just field someone else with the same profile to reach the base it needs.

Apparently not so, in spades. I've followed this issue of the collapse of the polling industry carefully because I was so betrayed by them, and their inability to talk the right into participating is considered well and away the biggest problem, and they don't know how to solve it.

To wade further into this muck, polls are not by any means always political. Industries for instance use polls to determine what consumers think of their product versus what they think about their competition. It would serve them no use at all to slant a poll into what the company wanted to hear; that would be a complete waste of time and money.

"Muck" is sure the right word. In my experience with commercial polls, which is considerable, businesses use them as a type of advertisement to show how happy, happy, happy you really are with their godawful company, even though you've arrived at that page with a heartfelt complaint. I think commercial polls are even more dishonest than political polls, and that's saying something. It's not dataseeking: it's all clickbait now, like those ads that promise to show what a star of yesteryear looks like today ------- but somehow after 147 screenfuls of ads, still hasn't got there yet. Most smart people, I would guess, figure out these dodges and quit doing them. Commercial polls are like the cashiers at the supermarket with the worst restocking and the worst shortages in the county asking, "Did you find everything?" They don't want to know what you didn't find!! (I know: I've done the experiment more than once. Ha. The next person asks me that does so at her peril.) They want you to say, "Yes, thank you," like a ritual so you go home thinking you found everything, despite all the items not crossed off on the list. I suppose you can guess I don't take commercial polls anymore either. I think it is important to recognize when we're being scammed, and avoid that! And we so very often are being scammed these days: things are different now.

Worse.

 

[Pogo]

False comparison I'm afraid. Election polls are by definition acutely dynamic. What respondents plan to do today changes, often radically, from what they planned to do yesterday at the same time. The instant case is about the respondent's own GENERAL tilt/identification, which evolves at more of a glacial pace. So what you have here is apples and oranges. A poll on something as continuously changing as an election has an exponentially shorter shelf life. All polls, legitimate ones, may be created equal but their subjects absolutely are not.

As regards your example above, again a national poll can indicate what the whole thinks, but "the whole" is not how we elect Presidents. Four years prior "the whole" indicated that Clinton would get the most votes, and she did.

I've heard a fan of the weather[wo]men make this argument, but IMO it's way bogus. Okay, so polls are allegedly a snapshot of the moment of the polling, unless (as is usual) their methodology STINKS, as do all the current political polls, because Republicans won't take part. But that is not what anyone wants or believes. People don't watch the Weather Channel to enjoy the infinite changes between Tuesday and Saturday in the forecasters' ha-ha "predictions." No one cares about that. What they want to know, and believe they are being told, is WILL IT RAIN ON THE WEEKEND. If they believed the weatherpeople were feeding them an ever-changing line of bull, they just wouldn't bother to tune in. But they badly want future-telling, and that is what they tell themselves they are getting.

Same deal with the political polls. Every single one of them may BE a (very badly taken) snapshot, but who cares? They just want to know that Hillary will win, 96% chance!! They just want to know that Britain is SURE to vote to "remain." And that's why all the silly polls we see day in and day out are read and promoted by some people who are eager to deceive themselves that these are future predictions. No one is interested in a moving dynamic, why would they be. The left likes all these petty political polls because nearly all pollsters are leftist and only leftists take them, so the results please the left and they are very willing to pay for these predictions with money or clicks or subscriptions. But we on the right don't participate, and we have learned not to believe these propaganda pieces. The left is still fooling itself.

I just don't get why you keep trying to compare polling with meteorology. They're in no way the same thing. Meteorology is a prediction, based on science. It's exactly the same thing you and I do when we drive toward a sharp curve and calculate, based on the science of our current speed and the degree of the curve, whether we need to slow down or not. In the same way meteorology can see what the weather is doing to the west and what's influencing its movement to the east, and predict what tomorrow brings. That's got zilch to do with polling what a set of people thinks or how they self-identify.

Secondly the repeated mantra that "Republicans don't participate" is absurd on its face. Not only is there no evidence thereto but the very poll in this topic, handily disproves it. It's a survey (rather than a poll) of how respondents define themselves; if "Republicans didn't participate", their number would would show up as Zero. So I'm afraid this malarkey about "leftists and only leftists take them" is foundation-free ipse dixit.

And it's worth reiterating, since it doesn't seem to be sinking in, that the instant case is not a predictive poll. It's not asking anything about "who/what will you vote for in X election". It's a survey of "who are you". It's entirely in the present tense.

I've actually been trained in that science so I know whereof I speak. It's a diligent process that sweats over literally every word so as to avoid any suggestion one way or another. Phrasings are rotated so that if there's a multiple choice, the first choice constantly changes so that that's not an implied suggestion, and so on. Value judgment adjectives are verboten. Entirely neutral.

That's not to say it can't be abused and deliberately slanted by those so inclined of course, but again that's why each poll, valid ones anyway, show you their methodology, so we can see for ourselves what the approach was. If there's any deliberate slanting going on it will show up there.

I don't believe current polls are honest, they are for propaganda, and besides, they can't poll the right so it matters not at all how carefully anyone phrases the questions, for good neutrality OR for evil slanting.

This is more of what we just disproved above. Show any evidence you have. Explain how Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson knew their approval was too low to run for re-election, if "Republicans didn't participate". WHO are these people that show up as "X number of Republicans think..."?

Again, if "they couldn't poll the right", then no issue we might define as "right" would show any support at all. It would be zero. And if that were the case there would be no point in taking a poll at all; it would be like taking a poll about "do you think water is wet".

But that in no way means that a legitimate poll is illegitimate just because somebody else did a push poll. The fact that you can photoshop Robert Byrd in a Klan robe doesn't make all photography illegitimate. Nor does it mean that because some wackadoo ran a fake poll, the rest of us should stop participating in legitimate ones.

I take issue with that: sure, fake photos make all photography suspect! If people don't recognize that photos can now be faked very persuasively, they need to get their trusting center seriously overhauled, because they're terminally naive. Same deal with Nigerian princes, same deal with phishing hacks. Be suspicious, people, as soon as you find out the bad guys have found another good way to fool you. Polls not only were often designed to fool us -- they were also universally wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on two very important matters in 2016, and so polls should never again be attended to, at least by me, and I won't.

Be suspicious? Absolutely. Demand proof? Certainly. Trust but verify? Words to live by. But again, the fact that it's POSSIBLE to photoshop the Beatles crossing Abbey Road on Segways in no way means the original walk the zebra photo of 1969 was suddenly not authentic. That too is absurd.

Not sure what two important matters you're thinking of from 2016 but again, polls indicate, and do so from as you said a snapshot; they're not predicting a bet-the-house-on-it.

So where do you get this idea that "Republicans don't participate" or "only leftists take polls"? You may not participate but that in no way means others don't.

And not to be unkind but your declining to participate doesn't matter to the poll because it will just field someone else with the same profile to reach the base it needs.

Apparently not so, in spades. I've followed this issue of the collapse of the polling industry carefully because I was so betrayed by them, and their inability to talk the right into participating is considered well and away the biggest problem, and they don't know how to solve it.

There is no "collapse of the polling industry". Again, show any evidence to that effect. I'm betting this comes from the same source that fed you this malarkey about "Republicans don't do polls".

Also while I'm not sure how it's possible to be "betrayed" by something that is by definition not an absolute science, it's worth pointing out that one of the many criticisms of the Electoral College system is that it makes us all dependent on polls to determine if it's even worth leaving the house on Election Day. Because unless one's own state is running close in the polls, the EC system leaves the voter no reason to leave the house at all, since it's predetermined.

To wade further into this muck, polls are not by any means always political. Industries for instance use polls to determine what consumers think of their product versus what they think about their competition. It would serve them no use at all to slant a poll into what the company wanted to hear; that would be a complete waste of time and money.

"Muck" is sure the right word. In my experience with commercial polls, which is considerable, businesses use them as a type of advertisement to show how happy, happy, happy you really are with their godawful company, even though you've arrived at that page with a heartfelt complaint. I think commercial polls are even more dishonest than political polls, and that's saying something. It's not dataseeking: it's all clickbait now, like those ads that promise to show what a star of yesteryear looks like today ------- but somehow after 147 screenfuls of ads, still hasn't got there yet. Most smart people, I would guess, figure out these dodges and quit doing them. Commercial polls are like the cashiers at the supermarket with the worst restocking and the worst shortages in the county asking, "Did you find everything?" They don't want to know what you didn't find!! (I know: I've done the experiment more than once. Ha. The next person asks me that does so at her peril.) They want you to say, "Yes, thank you," like a ritual so you go home thinking you found everything, despite all the items not crossed off on the list. I suppose you can guess I don't take commercial polls anymore either. I think it is important to recognize when we're being scammed, and avoid that! And we so very often are being scammed these days: things are different now.

Worse.

Wow, just wow. As I wrote that post yesterday it occurred to me that of the polls (surveys) I was involved with I can't remember a single one that was about politics; every one that I recall was about some commercial product, and NONE --- ZERO --- of them were push polls to persuade respondents to anybody's product. That's what advertising is for. Actually we didn't even know on whose behalf it was being done, and you clearly couldn't tell from the poll language, which was (AGAIN) meticulously worded, and all the pollsters coached, to lay out a completely neutral field of questions. For instance Kodak might want to know how its products were perceived to compare with Canon's. If theirs was deemed inferior, Kodak wanted to know that so they could respond. If Canon's was inferior, that didn't tell Kodak much. That is why they do this. Hearing a slew of domini dominis would serve them no purpose at all.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you have no idea what a poll is. What you describe above is not polling --- it's advertising. Entirely different.

However I should add that I rearranged my activities this weekend based on... wait for it.... the weather forecast. And in the event of what the weather has actually done, it was exactly right to rearrange as I did even though it meant more work. Something which shouldn't even be worth mentioning, let alone surprise anybody.

 

[Circe]

I just don't get why you keep trying to compare polling with meteorology. They're in no way the same thing. Meteorology is a prediction, based on science.

Because I think they are exactly the same: bogus future-telling, usually wrong. Science, indeed!

[Aggregated:]
So where do you get this idea that "Republicans don't participate" or "only leftists take polls"? You may not participate but that in no way means others don't.

There is no "collapse of the polling industry". Again, show any evidence to that effect. I'm betting this comes from the same source that fed you this malarkey about "Republicans don't do polls".

Secondly the repeated mantra that "Republicans don't participate" is absurd on its face. Not only is there no evidence thereto but the very poll in this topic, handily disproves it. It's a survey (rather than a poll) of how respondents define themselves; if "Republicans didn't participate", their number would would show up as Zero. So I'm afraid this malarkey about "leftists and only leftists take them" is foundation-free ipse dixit.

If you get to repeat, so do I; "I've followed this issue of the collapse of the polling industry carefully because I was so betrayed by them, and their inability to talk the right into participating is considered well and away the biggest problem, and they don't know how to solve it."

I followed the problem of the polls being so universally and disastrously wrong in the 2016 election for weeks after and this was the most-discussed issue. Certainly no rightwinger I know, here or elsewhere, takes polls. You are free to believe what you want to, all the same, as you well know.

You definitely get points for the Latin.

And it's worth reiterating, since it doesn't seem to be sinking in, that the instant case is not a predictive poll. It's not asking anything about "who/what will you vote for in X election". It's a survey of "who are you". It's entirely in the present tense.

I have to admit I cannot remember WHAT the "instant case" (nice term, I think I'll steal it) poll is about. The discussion is more interesting. I assumed it was favorable somehow to leftists, and that's why they are happy about it. My prejudice against polls is holistic. But if you are reassured by yet another propaganda poll, enjoy.

This is more of what we just disproved above. Show any evidence you have. Explain how Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson knew their approval was too low to run for re-election, if "Republicans didn't participate".

We did participate way back when. Well, I didn't, of course, too long ago, but people participated in lots of polls then, including all those ratings things for TV shows. More fool us. We eventually learned, however, as the scam artists came in.

Again, if "they couldn't poll the right", then no issue we might define as "right" would show any support at all. It would be zero. And if that were the case there would be no point in taking a poll at all; it would be like taking a poll about "do you think water is wet".

Don't get me started on the nature of reality. . . wet to whom? To me now, or to someone in a frogman suit, who wouldn't feel wet? Does the sun rise in the East and set in the West? You might say yes, but a lot of people have been severely punished and killed by religious authorities for saying no, not at all, the Earth turns, the sun goes nowhere. Oops, too late, I got started on the nature of reality.

Be suspicious? Absolutely. Demand proof? Certainly. Trust but verify? Words to live by. But again, the fact that it's POSSIBLE to photoshop the Beatles crossing Abbey Road on Segways in no way means the original walk the zebra photo of 1969 was suddenly not authentic.

I'd say it's a real, real good reason to be suspicious of all photos, now that we know that fakery is widespread.

Not sure what two important matters you're thinking of from 2016 but again, polls indicate, and do so from as you said a snapshot; they're not predicting a bet-the-house-on-it.

I thought the two most important failed polls from 2016 were obvious: Hillary losing and Brexit winning. Doesn't it give you a LITTLE pause that so many polling people were so sure Hillary would win by such giant landslides and certainties? 50% of America woke up shocked to see that Trump won, and the other 50% woke up shocked ----- to see that Trump won. Hey! unity at last.

Also while I'm not sure how it's possible to be "betrayed" by something that is by definition not an absolute science, it's worth pointing out that one of the many criticisms of the Electoral College system is that it makes us all dependent on polls to determine if it's even worth leaving the house on Election Day. Because unless one's own state is running close in the polls, the EC system leaves the voter no reason to leave the house at all, since it's predetermined.

No, no --- that's how Democrats think, not Republicans. We don't do that sort of probabilities consideration re leaving the house. We just vote, if we have to wade a flooded creek to do it. It's a well-known problem that Dems have, with us and with themselves. My favorite take on it is the old political concept of Democrat weather (the sun is shining on voting day) and Republican weather (it's raining cats and dogs, but here come the GOP voters). I used to regularly categorize the weather this way on Election Day to my first husband, a leftist. Come to think of it, I wonder if there is any correlation with that and his being a FIRST husband?? Huh. Could be.

However I should add that I rearranged my activities this weekend based on... wait for it.... the weather forecast. And in the event of what the weather has actually done, it was exactly right to rearrange as I did even though it meant more work. Something which shouldn't even be worth mentioning, let alone surprise anybody.

I swear to God, I think you men are all in love with those weatherladies. No one ever fell in love with a weatherman, so it's not a vice women get into. If one MUST get into future prediction, I would prefer tarot cards.

At least they don't pretend to be "scientific" at the same time as they are getting everything wrong.

 

[lennypartiv]

There is no "collapse of the polling industry". Again, show any evidence to that effect. I'm betting this comes from the same source that fed you this malarkey about "Republicans don't do polls".

There should be. Maybe they'll get 2024 right, but I doubt it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is what is called the "Trump Effect"

An average of 49% of adults age 18 and older reported Democratic Party affiliation or said they are independent with Democratic leanings throughout the first quarter of 2021, the pollster reported. The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Gallup poll shows largest increase in Democratic Party affiliation in a decade

More Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans by a margin that hasn't been seen in a decade, according to a report released by Gallup.

www.usatoday.com

The Trump Effect is when the CCP Democrats have to cheat in the tens of million column to "win"

 

[kaz]

This is what is called the "Trump Effect"

An average of 49% of adults age 18 and older reported Democratic Party affiliation or said they are independent with Democratic leanings throughout the first quarter of 2021, the pollster reported. The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Gallup poll shows largest increase in Democratic Party affiliation in a decade

More Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans by a margin that hasn't been seen in a decade, according to a report released by Gallup.

www.usatoday.com

The effect of the media belonging entirely to one party. Incredible in a free country that the media is just basically Pravda at this point

 

[kaz]

This is what is called the "Trump Effect"

An average of 49% of adults age 18 and older reported Democratic Party affiliation or said they are independent with Democratic leanings throughout the first quarter of 2021, the pollster reported. The survey was conducted by phone from January-March.

Gallup poll shows largest increase in Democratic Party affiliation in a decade

More Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans by a margin that hasn't been seen in a decade, according to a report released by Gallup.

www.usatoday.com

Negative...
That’s called the “Free Shit Effect”

It's amazing how quickly people will turn away from the party which says "Giving people more money will keep them from returning to work", while their families don't have enough to eat.

Report: American Billionaires Have Added More Than $1 Trillion In Wealth During Pandemic

More than 70 million Americans (or roughly 40% of the labor force) have filed unemployment claims since the start of the pandemic.

www.forbes.com

Last year, the number of billionaires in the USA jumped by nearly 50%, while 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty. Seems to me that the people who are getting ALL of the free shit in America are the billionaires. They're the ones who got 80% of the tax breaks.

You're a liar:

What the Canadian nosy neighbor said Republicans said: "Giving people more money will keep them from returning to work."

What Republicans actually said,, "Giving people more money to not work than to work will keep them from returning to work."

Those are COMPLETELY different points, you're a total liar like every other Democrat

 

[lennypartiv]

The Trump Effect is when the CCP Democrats have to cheat in the tens of million column to "win"

It's still stunning to me that was allowed to happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was only a matter of time before the American people came to their senses.

Republican policies SUCK!!! And, most importantly, are harmful to the country.

...and you only had to conspire with the CCPs bioweapon attack so you could cheat in the tens of millions column!