Official Election Poll Thread: Part 3

Part 2

OTHER Part 2

Get them margins while they're hot!

Things look a little better most every day.

r5 Agreed. May every week until election day give us headlines such as this one.

Thanks for starting a new thread for Part 3!

Now we can all migrate here!

Better yet, R7, those of who believe in the natural order of things can go to the existing thread linked at R2.

Any other orders we need to follow?

If you block the OP of this thread she constitutes the majority of the posts on this and the other thread she wanted everybody on but didn't take off.

I find self-esteem issues so annoying in other people but hopefully the expanded growth of this thread will sooth her until we hit... what? She panics in the early 500s, doesn't she?

R10 You need to let it go.

Want to cheer up your day? Take a listen to this. Michael Steele makes a big prediction at the end.

Nice! So Steele predicts Harris will win NC, GA, and even Florida!!

Michael Steele? Let’s not.

She’s either tied or up 1 in the states she needs to win. Hopefully Tim’s debate performance gets her better numbers because right now it’s looking like Trump is going to take it which will be both embarrassing and a nightmare.

Bad move to miss the Al Smith dinner. It’s one night only and while most old Catholics are MAGA, not all are. It’s a really dumb decision.

R16 It’s such an old-school New York elite event though. There’s really no one there she needs to win over at this point.

Sienna/NYT, Sep. 17-21

Arizona: 🟥 Trump 50%, Harris 45%

Georgia: 🟥 Trump 49%, Harris 45%

North Carolina: 🟥 Trump 49%, Harris 47%

Something is seriously wrong with NYT's polling this time around. There's no way in hell there's been a 9-point swing towards Trump in Arizona in a single month! And their national poll last week was a clear outlier as well.

[quote] Of the three states, Georgia is the one where the balance of polling is most clearly favorable to Mr. Trump. Ms. Harris hasn’t led a poll of Georgia taken in September, and Mr. Trump has led in several high-quality polls, like a three-point lead in a University of Georgia poll last week.

[quote] North Carolina, on the other hand, is arguably the one where the Times/Siena data most starkly departs from the most recent data. Our poll average previously gave Ms. Harris a narrow lead, as she’s had strong results from multiple high-quality polls — including our last Times/Siena poll of the state in August. This one is a very different result even if it’s also a return to normalcy in a way: Mr. Trump won the state narrowly in 2020.

[quote] Arizona is the murkiest. There hasn’t been as much polling of the state, period, and there’s never been a time when the polls there have strung together a consistent story. That goes for the last Times/Siena poll, which had Ms. Harris up five in August but now has Mr. Trump up five today. This is our biggest poll-to-poll swing of the year, and it’s hard to believe the race has really moved so much. It’s a helpful reminder that polls of this size (about 700 respondents) are subject to meaningful random sampling error. Nonetheless, Ms. Harris has led only two of the 18 Arizona polls fielded since that last Times/Siena poll; it was hard to make the case for a Harris lead even before this survey.

[quote] Something is seriously wrong with NYT's polling this time around.

With the history of undercounting Trump's support in the Blue Wall states, we have to consider that it's the favorable polls in those states that are seriously wrong.

r18 Share of black people in the NC electorate was 20% in 2016 and 23% in 2020. But NYT wants us to believe it will fall to 19% this year? With the first black woman president on the ticket? That tracks. 🙄

A ten-point swing toward Trump after the debate that no one else picks up? Come on.

Yeah, the Nates have gone nuts in this election cycle.

Silver is hardly nuts. A close election is in line with everyone else.

Did anyone watch From Russia with Lev? I mean OMG. Trump should be in jail.

R21 you assume they’ve made no change in their methodology since 2020. You could just as well state that this time around their adjustments overcompensated for earlier errors and thus overstate Trump’s support.

We won’t know until the vote count is final.

The problem with that documentary is that its primary source is a professional conman. Hard to take it seriously.

No, Silver *is* nuts, mainly for allying himself with Thiel.

[quote] We won’t know until the vote count is final.

We’ll never know the correct result at the time the poll was done.

As I said…

Someone said in an earlier thread we're getting early voting exit polling soon. When's that gonna happen?

r28 - Con man telling on Con men. He has texts, timelines, receipts, proof.

[R21] you assume they’ve made no change in their methodology since 2020.

I'd like to believe that, but we were also told in 2020 that the mistakes of 2016 had been corrected.

Here’s what a friend of mine in academia told me about the Arizona results:

[quote] An individual poll with no systematic error (i.e., capturing a representative set of voters who turn out on Election Day) typically surveys about 1,000 voters. The process of randomly sampling the correct poll is effectively like throwing a coin — in any individual toss / voter-selection event, you could get a voter on either side. This kind of "binomial" sampling process is well-approximated by a "Gaussian" distribution if the number of voters sampled is significantly greater than 10. For an evenly split election, this makes the sampling uncertainly or standard deviation (1000*0.5*0.5 =) 1.6% in the absence of systematic error. If you do repeated polls with identical methods in an identical population, 95% of the results will be within ± 2 standard deviations, which spans a 7.2% range. By the time you hear the results of 20 polls, which you almost certainly have, you would expect to get one poll outside this range even if perfectly calibrated to include a demographically consistent cohort of voters with static choices of candidate.

So the result is somewhat expected, statistically speaking.

New Wisconsin Poll: Harris 53% v. Trump 46%

Note—analysis in r35 is simplified to reflect a binary Trump/Harris poll. Undecideds and third-party will affect the analysis, but not very significantly.

Wasn't there a quality Wisconsin poll in late October that showed Biden with an 8% - maybe it was 5% - lead (& he won by about 1%)? I'm still suffering from PTSD over the last two presidential elections.

That’s why you really should not pay too much attention to individual polls. Look at averages and trends.

In 2020, Democrats had no GOTV operation because of Covid. Republicans did which helped them make up ground that year.

2024 will be different. Dems have the advantage in their GOTV operation.

In 2020, Republicans had no mail-in operation because of Covid. Democrats did which helped them make up ground that year

I don't believe in averaging polls - too many different methodologies & bad polls - but I agree trends are meaningful.

I wonder to what extent pollsters adjust their results to take into consideration factors like a disparity in GOTV operations.

And hopefully we don't get the same shitshow with the mail-in ballots we saw in 2020 because of the pandemic either, r40

R43 that metric is not easily determined much less relevant. It is not a factor in polling models used to determine “likeliness” of voting.

I think it is a factor in polling models. Pollsters try to adjust for perceived sources of bias and make assessments of things like GOTV efforts. The art in the science.

Not GOTV operations

Why not and how do you know?

Because there’s nothing to calculate before an actual election. There’s no metric to determine.

Do you think pollsters count door knocks as a variable in polling? No.

I think they generally try to adjust for any factor that will make their polls inaccurate. Obviously, it’s a judgment call. But they could look at past elections and see how much a robust/average/lackluster GOTV effort affected the final result and factor it in to their predictions.

I doubt if Simon Rosenberg will reference this latest NYT/Siena College poll. In the pre-6/27 debate era, I would religiously search out his take to support the general optimism I still had for Biden's chances. But over time, I began to realize he was just blowing smoke up his audience's ass, & cherry-picking poll results.

[quote] Share of black people in the NC electorate was 20% in 2016 and 23% in 2020. But NYT wants us to believe it will fall to 19% this year? With the first black woman president on the ticket? That tracks.

They don’t consider her black. They also hate her as a prosecutor. They routinely say that she put innocent black men in jail. This isn’t new. Also, believing that blacks are going to vote for someone who simply share a similar skin tone is completely racist. Democrats do this a lot.

[quote] 2024 will be different. Dems have the advantage in their GOTV operation.

Based on what? The majority of new voter registrations are Republican.

Trump has outsourced GOTV to consultants who are in it at least in part to make a profit. It is suspected that at least some of them will not put in much effort. Dems are relying on campaign volunteers.

R56 has a wild imagination.

R57 is a moron.

And

And

[quote] I doubt if Simon Rosenberg will reference this latest NYT/Siena College poll.

He did!

[quote] Yes, there is new NYT polling this morning with good data for Trump in AZ, GA, NC, but I want to be very clear - the NYT has been running 3-4 points more Republican than other pollsters of late, and there are at least three big problems with this new polling:

[quote] These polls show a 10 point swing to Trump in AZ and a 4 point swing to Trump in NC. Almost every other poll taken in the last few weeks shows Harris gaining ground, not falling behind. And a 10 point swing - come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote] Last week the NYT found Harris up 4 in PA, this week down 5 in AZ. These two states had the same results in 2020 - small wins for Biden. But they 9 are points apart now? Please.

[quote] In its new round of battleground polls somehow the NYT failed to poll the states where we have been performing best in the blue wall - MI, WI - and in the sunbelt - NV. Choosing those 4 states of the 7 battlegrounds was something……..

[quote] The NYT poll is just one poll among many, and should not dictate our understanding of the race or current trends, nor am I going to any more spend dissecting this new data. I and we have better things to do. We have an election to go win.

Trump puts his family and sycophants into influential positions and fires the competent people. If he wins it will be in spite of what he has done and not because of it. Lara Trump as RNC chair...come on.

I have someone blocked on this thread and ALL of their posts are either pro-Trump or naysayer-esque always rewarding Trump with the benefit of the doubt.

Some of the responses sound like AI, too.

And

Well, if he's outsourced the GOTV efforts, you can bet one or more of his kids/cronies owns the company hired.

That's how these grifters roll. Hire a friend or family members's company so you can continue to enrich yourself through back channels.

It’s “Sorry Donald “ in Nebraska

Excellent news, R66!

I'm confident she will win but I don't think she'll have a successful presidency. Whoever wins both the House and Senate will only have a slim majority, making it very difficult to get legislation passed or anything significant done.

Biden managed.

They’ll appeal, r67. And doxx that person who voted no.

Because this is the sort of trash MAGAts are.

They’ll probably appeal to SCROTUS in the hopes that THEY make it happen for the traitor.

Forget precedent or the states running their OWN elections.

R69: Exactly. He had been in government for 50+ years and had the necessary political skills. I'm sure she will win this November but she's not as politically talented as Biden.

[quote] They’ll appeal, [R67].

This wasn't a judicial decision, so an appeal is unavailing.

Then they’ll file suit either now or after the election to prevent Kamala from winning that EV.

That’s who they ARE.

Let's be real, it's highly unlikely the electorate will give 12 straight years of White House to a single party, that would be highly unusual. If Haley runs in 2028, she'll probably win.

[quote] If Haley runs in 2028, she'll probably win.

I don't see any possibility that this GOP would ever nominate Haley.

[quote] Then they’ll file suit either now or after the election to prevent Kamala from winning that EV.

Sure, anyone can file a lawsuit, but there is no basis to believe success is even a remote possibility. Just take the good news and run with it.

R74, R75, and R76: Why are you having conversations with yourself? Quoting yourself and then responding to…yourself.

I'm not R74, R77. I'm also not Lisa.

r77 I have no idea why you think I'm all those posters. I haven't posted since r44.

You really ought to stop with this Nancy Drew shit because it's getting fucking annoying and I imagine you're not twelve.

The Nebraska mini-crisis is over.

[quote]“Elections should be an opportunity for all voters to be heard, no matter who they are, where they live, or what party they support,” McDonnell said in a statement. “I have taken time to listen carefully to Nebraskans and national leaders on both sides of the issue. After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change.”

[quote]McDonnell said he told Gov. Jim Pillen his stance and suggested that the Legislature put winner-take-all to a vote of the people, as a proposed constitutional amendment, so people can decide the issue “once and for all.”

Another Emerson poll of battleground states released today, with Trump either tied or narrowly leading in all but one of the seven states. The race is deadlocked in Nevada, with Trump +1 in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin. He's up 3 in Georgia. Only Michigan, my home state, has Harris up, by 2.

Link, R81?

Emerson is the most right leaning of the polls so they use an R +5 polling model based on previous elections. That's a questionable approach with Dem enthusiasm post switch so don't read too much is it.

The NYT 49/49 poll is 54% men and 44% women. That's outrageous. If men outvoted women by that margin it would be something we have not seen in 100 years. So that poll is not capturing the 33 point gender divide in support for Harris and is not accounting for the motivation women have post Dobbs. So if a poll is tied when 54% are men then it's really Harris up 6 or 7. And yes, while that info is published who digs in the beyond the poll number to find that?

Polls are now weaponized to drive or suppress sentiment and turnout. You really need to look under the hood for the underlying agenda.

Emerson poll.

[quote] Polls are now weaponized to drive or suppress sentiment and turnout. You really need to look under the hood for the underlying agenda.

Although it may have looked that way with Harris’ rise in the polls, it was not unexpected for her to have a bump both from replacing Biden and from the convention.

Trump moving ahead in Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada is as predicted, with Harris’ bump cooling off, so not unexpected. She may need to concentrate heavily on the Northern states as her position there is likely to recede as well.

I’ve been lambasted for saying that I’m a psychic who correctly predicted the last election (and also knew the exact number of Electoral College votes Biden would receive). But I’m going to just throw this out there, a prediction I made back in February:

The Democratic candidate WILL win and we will also win a state that no one is currently discussing (not a swing state).

You better be here on Nov 6th R88 so we can give you your flowers...or slap the shit out of you!

[quote] The Democratic candidate WILL win and we will also win a state that no one is currently discussing (not a swing state).

There’s more than one state that she WILL win that is not a swing state and that people are not discussing since there’s no need to. Starting left to right, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, etc.

[QUOTE] There’s more than one state that she WILL win that is not a swing state and that people are not discussing since there’s no need to.

I didn’t realize that I would have to explain this, but yet, here you are. I’m talking about Ohio, Florida, or Texas. You were THAT kid in school weren’t you?

I’ll be here, R89.

r88 In addition to Biden's win, I predicted back in the summer of 2020 using my tarot cards that something scary and unprecedented was going to happen after the election but before the inauguration, but DLers in the predictions thread (including Oracle with his huge following) shat on me and told me that's a dead period and that I had no idea how US politics worked. So I wasn't at all surprised when the insurrection happened.

Anyway, I'm out of that business now. I do hope you end up being right.

Agree that some rando state will flip blue and everyone will be surprised.

Silver on outliers

North Dakota?? It is majority Lutheran.

(Go Walz!)

ND is so white, rural, “male” (mining, oil, farming) and insular (least visited state I think) that it would be extremely hard for any Dem to win.

Harry Entin: no clear leader in key battle states.

[quote] The Democratic candidate WILL win and we will also win a state that no one is currently discussing (not a swing state).

Sure, Sylvia Browne.

Why did NYT/Siena poll Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, and not Pennsylvania? Maybe they did but don't want to release it.

R99 Because it was polling the sunbelt states.

R89 😂

R90

I knew there was a reason why I blocked the tedious twat @R90. Shut it, Opie, and go sit in the corner, with your back to classroom.

66-28 for Harris among Asian Americans. Biden won them 54-30 in 2020.

You can argue all the polls you want. Clinton was supposed to crush Trump and look what happened.

Yeah because of election interference r100.

R106, oh please. That was 8 years ago, and every single poster on DL (well except for you, Boris) has PTSD from it. It will not happen again. We know what Dump is, we know we have to all go out and vote.

I guess as a Minskian, you can’t vote here.

[quote] It will not happen again. We know what Dump is, we know we have to all go out and vote.

Trump actually has a lot bigger pool from which to draw. There are lots more non-voting whites than non-voting people of color.

2016 was the perfect storm of about two dozen different factors all coming together against Clinton, some systemic (misogyny) and some wholly unprecedented (Comey, hacking), with the most important one being simply that the Dems already had their two terms in the White House. And Trump STILL only fucking squeaked in while losing the popular vote. So can we stop pretending already there was this massive 1984-style blowout? It was a fluke election, nothing more. 2020 proved it already and this November will only further cement that fact.

All of the media still sitting on hacked Trump files. You know that if Harris were to hacked, some conservative media would publish it, then the rest would follow saying “it’s out there now,” just like 2016 with Wikileaks.

How much of our current anxiety about polls and the accuracy of those polls stems from the shock of 2016 Presidential election result? People are so anxious about the rug being pulled out from under them again, they have a hard time trusting any predictive model and it all starts to look like astrology and wish fulfillment to survivors of that horrifying election result. I remind myself constantly that Donald Dump won the electoral college by slim margins (77K votes across 3 states) in a last minute surge that you can attribute in equal measure to Jim Comey's STILL SUFFICIENTLY UNEXPLAINED break from policy in giving a press conference that damaged Clinton as well as Clinton's bad decision not to go to WI, MI and PA in the final days of the campaign and lastly, and maybe most significantly, Kelly Ann ConJob found a way to convince Shitler Von Orange to "behave himself" and "campaign in those states and not sound as crazy as he is" That was 2016, Dump doesn't have the control over his presentation he had back then and he is unraveling in his latest really appearances to the delight of his base and the revulsion of those independent voters who are just now tuning in again. We can take hope in his continued unravelling and the trends that favor Harris, but the polls are going to be all over the place because polls are now clickbait as well as news and we can't go on that dopamine ride for the next month without crashing. Vote, volunteer and talk to PERSUADABLE voters. Don't waste a second on the cultified.

Iowa's 3rd Congressional District (GQR – Laccam's internal poll, Sep. 19-22): Harris 50%, Trump 43 %, Other 4% / House: Lanon Baccam (D) 50%, Nunn (R) 46%, Undecided 4% / n=400 LV, MOE=4.9%

Trump carried this district by 0.4% in 2020.

New CNN national poll of likely voters:

Kamala 48%, Trump 47%

Yikes, R114. That's not encouraging.

No, r115, it's not! The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

You don't have to be a pessimist to recognize that Harris will likely have to win the popular vote by at least 3% nationally to win the election. And national polls last week gave Harris a much bigger lead.

Stop worrying about the national polls and look at the fucking district poll at r113. If that remotely holds up, he's DONE.

A good visual to see how polling errors MAY come into play.

Remember that pollsters make adjustments each cycle to account for perceived errors in prior cycles.

R115, their last poll was Trump +3

r120 He's gonna hate that context, lol.

[quote] [R115], their last poll was Trump +3

Indicating the back and forth volatility.

I’ve seen articles explaining why people are so interested in pre-election polling, to give them some sense of what the outcome may be, but logically the best course would be to just wait until the actual vote results are posted. That’s especially true this election because it’s become clear that none of the polling for the national vote and the battleground states is going to be able to predict the outcome, not with the vote being so close.

[quote]but logically the best course would be to just wait until the actual vote results are posted.

For Vulcans, sure. It's in our nature to worry and speculate. And just plain old fear for our fucking future.

R122 Because it's an obsession. Can't you just let us have our obsession?

I’m hoping to see a clear trend. I’m not.

[quote] For Vulcans, sure

Live long and prosper.

r105 Kamala +31 among young likely voters, Biden got +24 in 2020.

r126 🖖

We need all hands on deck for get out the vote efforts.

I've been posting a weekly Tuesday roundup of the FiveThirtyEight polling averages, to track movement. Been posting it in the Part 2 thread so I'll copy it here:

Another Tuesday, another FiveThirtyEight roundup. Just SIX weeks to go until Election Day. Comparing polling averages for the battleground states and the national vote, week to week (Sept 24 vs Sept 17). Summary: a slightly worrisome backslide in Wisconsin and Georgia, but that’s mainly due to just a few polls. Need another week to see what seems real.

The data:

ARIZONA. Sept 24: Trump +1.0%. Sept 17: Trump +0.4%. Sept 10: A net gain of 0.6% for Trump. AZ (11 EVs) remains tied with Trump slightly favored.

GEORGIA. Sept 24: Trump +1.3%. Sept 17: Trump +0.4%. A net gain of 0.9% for Trump. GA (16 EVs) remains tied with Trump slightly favored.

MICHIGAN. Sept 24: Harris +2.4%. Sept 17: Harris +1.8%. A net gain of +0.6% for Harris. MI (15 EVs) remains a slight Harris lead but close to the statistical margin-of-error.

NEVADA. Sept 24: Harris +0.6%. Sept 17: Harris +0.6%. No change week to week. NV (6 EVs) remains tied.

NORTH CAROLINA. Sept 24: Trump +0.4%. Sept 17: Trump +0.2%. A net gain of +0.2% for Trump. NC (16 EVs) remains tied.

PENNSYLVANIA. Sept 24: Harris +1.3%. Sept 17: Harris +0.7%. A net gain of +0.6% for Harris. PA (20 EVs) remains tied, statistically speaking, with Harris slightly favored.

WISCONSIN. Sept 24: Harris +2.0%. Sept 17: Harris +2.9%. A net gain of +0.9% for Trump. WI (10 EVs) remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Sept 24: Harris +2.7%. Sept 17: Harris +2.9%. A net loss of 0.2% for Harris.

Like I mentioned last week, at this point we also want to look at Harris's % of the vote vs Trump’s. She is at 48.3% of the vote now. Trump is at 45.6%. Put a more optimistic way, she’s only 1.7% away from 50%. He is 4.4% away from 50%.

But that’s nationally. It’s all about the battleground states, obviously. I’m 50/50 nervous and optimistic, still thinking a stack of factors will help Harris and hurt Trump (she is crushing him in fundraising and she has a vastly superior volunteer and staff organization working on the ground in PA, WI, MI; she is driving an increase in younger voter registrations and they aren’t being counted in the polls; etc). The Sept 10 debate came and went; we’ll see if next Tuesday night’s VP debate (Walz vs Vance) changes anything in the polls but it probably won’t.

This is stressful but the truth is, Trump/Vance 2025-2028 would be a nightmare and we were so fucking doomed when Joe Biden was our nominee. Trump was on track to beat him badly and retake the US presidency. We have a real chance of victory here with Kamala. So.. high stakes, hopeful uncertainty! It is better than certain defeat.

Thank you, Torta! Your weekly roundups are a labor of love and we deeply appreciate them.

National poll (Reuters/Ipsos, Sep. 21-23): Harris 46.61%, Trump 40.48% / n=1,029, MOE=4%

Slightly decreased lead by Harris from their last poll in Sep. 11-12.

R132 Even though that seems like a greater lead, better numbers for her would be 52%-48%. You wanna see Trump at his ceiling and as few undecideds leftover as possible.

Looks like a slightly increased lead for Harris, R132.

r134 You're right and they corrected their article a minute ago to fix that error! And what a basic error it was, wish I checked the older poll myself before quoting them.

r133 Yeah, while that +6 national lead looks pretty juicy on paper and is exactly where we want her, not getting over that 50% is what can get you Hillary'd in the end.

R136 Exactly. I don't pay much mind to any national poll that has Trump either higher or lower than 47%-48% as it's been well established that's both his floor and his ceiling. I just pay attention to Harris' numbers in relation to that. Her ideal lead would be 53%-47%. That means all undecideds have been accounted for, and Trump has maxed out his base.

Pollapalooza today...

National poll (Quinnipiac, Sep. 19-22): Trump 48% (+1), Harris 47% / n=1,728 LV, MOE=2.4%

64% want to see the two candidates debate again.

So Trump is up again. Jesus.

[quote] I’ve seen articles explaining why people are so interested in pre-election polling, to give them some sense of what the outcome may be, but logically the best course would be to just wait until the actual vote results are posted.

No. It tells people where money needs to be spent and what areas need more volunteers.

R125, Harry Enten breaks down the current polling and the recent polling at link

Top line: In the last six polls, Harris has a lead in all but one (the recent NYT/Siena.) Averaging her lead, she's up over Trump by 3%.

When it comes to the Electoral College, Enten says if she holds a 2 - 3% lead in the popular vote overall, he estimates she's got a 63% chance of winning the EC.

If it's 1 - 2%, she only has a 33% chance of winning the EC.

This is supposedly very accurate, so it may not matter what else we see.

R142, why would they end their poll now and not in a month?

[quote] National poll (Quinnipiac, Sep. 19-22): Trump 48% (+1), Harris 47% / n=1,728 LV, MOE=2.4%

This one is trending on X at the moment, for obvious reasons.

Exciting PA poll coming out tomorrow – Susquehanna, a local pollster.

r144 Yeah, I'm sure Elon boosted it personally.

R108 lol I am not a Russian Troll, I voted for Hillary and sat there dumbfounded as I watched Trump win. All I am saying is she was supposed to walk away with it and he won.

Nebraska (SurveyUSA/Osborn internal, Sep. 23): Trump 56%, Harris 40% / senate: Osborn (I) 45% (+1), Fischer (R-inc) 44%

High-rated pollster, should be noted that Harris is up +15 in NE-2. It's the senate numbers that look intriguing.

I'm not a poll specialist but I do remember that in 2020 things were pretty much tied until 2 or 3 month before election day and then that's when the bottom fell off for the Democrats allowing the far right echo chamber to talk about some inescapable red wave, and for some fox news talking heads even a red tsunami. And then almost nothing happened.

Do we know what actually happened at that time? Were the polls manipulated? I faintly remember hearing an analyst saying months later that at the time a lot of republican organizations flooded the campaign with biased polls and that was enough to take over the narrative and lead to talks of a red wave.

Could it be what's going on right now? I know nobody talks of a red wave, but if this were to happen in four weeks from now, don't we have to remember what happened in 2020 that their red tsunami was nothing more than a piece of dribble red piss?

r148 You probably mean the 2022 midterms, because Biden led Trump the entire time back in 2020.

[quote]Do we know what actually happened at that time? Were the polls manipulated?

They were in a sense, a whole bunch of right-wing pollsters ere flooding the zone with their bogus results in order to demoralise the Dems and thus decrease their funding and turnout, and to cry foul about rigged results afterwards. Only the latter of which happened.

[quote]Could it be what's going on right now?

Yes, the same three or four pollsters are back at it to try and manipulate the betting markets and, by extension, help Trump when he goes to the billionaires with his begging bowl again. Now that money might still not lead to his victory, but it might be just enough for them to retain the Senate.

Damn, shame about Montana. The Senate absolutely needs to be retained.

[quote]Scoop: Dems are prepping a late offensive in the Florida Senate race, we’re told. With Montana looking shaky, Dems see Florida as ripe for a surprise pickup. Peters told us today he wants to get resources into both Florida and Texas.

Really interesting take on how the 2022 results may be a better guidepost than 2020 results. FWIW.

Pennsylvania (Muhlenberg College, Sep. 16-19): Harris 48%, Trump 48% / senate: Casey (D) 46%, McCormick (R) 42% / n=450 LV, MOE=6%

Conservative-leaning pollster. Crazy MOE, though.

Yes I obviously meant 2022, R149. This is what happens when I post before I get the caffeine flowing in my brain. Thank you.

Yeah, R151, Nate Cohn penned a similar article in 2023. I thought maybe, though, that was more dependent on Biden being on the top of the ticket.

Yeah, R152, only 450 voters is a small ample size. If they want MOE lower, they need to survey more like 1500 voters.

Pennsylvania (Monmouth, Sep. 19-23): Harris 48%, Trump 45% / n=653 RV, MOE=4.5%

A-rated pollster.

Why does 538 not include pollsters like Monmouth and Suffolk. Both highly rated by them but not included in "who's favored."

Dustin, blow in the wind… ok?!

Every pollster / aggregator has their own methodology.

How feckin’ hard is that to comprehend? From which directional school did you “graduate?”

Gurl, you just done shanked him for asking a simple question. Feels like I'm back in juvie...

Don't know if it's been posted yet, but here's a gift link to that Nate Cohn's article someone mentioned before.

It was posted hours ago.

R157 From everything I've read, it's not personal on 538's part. While they recognize that Monmouth is a respected and trusted pollster, it's about the way Monmouth poses their poll questions that don't exactly fit into 538's model--ie "Who will you definitely/probably/definitely not/probably not vote for?"

R158 Are you okay?

R162 the model is “personal” to the one who created/controls the model. You sound like a non-college graduate. Or a non-high school graduate?

R163 are you Dustin?

Pennsylvania (Susquehanna, Sep. 16-22): Harris 46%, Trump 46% / senate: Casey (D) 48%, McCormick (R) 40% / n=700 LV, MOE=3.7%

She was +4 in this poll in late July.

I'd like to see some A polls in swing states that only dig into persuadable voters so that we have a sense of how many persuadable voters there are and how they are leaning and what they are waiting for

So get a PhD in political methodology and statistics …and come back to us.

JHC🙄

Where did you go to college, R164? I’m not the poster you were speaking to, but I’m curious now. Seems like your go-to insult.

I’ll take your bait. Berkeley. Not that it matters.

Just block R164. She's got the Ozempic Crankies.

Got it, R170. With that attitude, I was expecting somewhere slightly better.

Yup, I’ve got r164 blocked from way back. Very cranky baby.

R158 is not a native English speaker.

Why is the Norwegian newspaper saying Trump is gaining ground and they are basically tied now, is this true? I hope not. I hate Trump.

r175 European news outlets for some reason like to present it as even more of a horse race than American ones. They probably see those kinds of articles getting a lot more clicks than articles about Kamala leading in the polls, and so they lean into it. This is a Europe-wide phenomenon and I personally recall it happening since Obama's first run, though it's probably even older than that.

But also, Trump sells. He just does.

R174 - R158 is pretending to be Irish, having just discovered the word "feckin'". This makes a nice change from his other new word "mafuckin'", when he is pretending to be from the hood.

Thanks for the answers. I have R158 blocked but that rancid cockswaddling cunt can go fuck himself. And them self-immolate.

He’s actually some unemployed white guy living on his mother’s sofa bed in the PNW.

[quote] Why is the Norwegian newspaper saying Trump is gaining ground and they are basically tied now, is this true? I hope not. I hate Trump.

They are tied. In the battle states they’re either tied or Kamala is +1. CNN has been reminding viewers of this daily.

Marist polls (A+, Sep. 19-24)

Arizona: Trump 50%, Harris 49% / senate: Gallego (D) 54%, Lake (R) 44% / n=1,264 LV, MOE=3.9%

Georgia: Trump 50%, Harris 49% / n=1,220 LV, MOE=3.9%

North Carolina: Harris 49%, Trump 49% / governor: Stein (D) 54%, Robinson (R) 43% / n=1,348 LV, MOE= 3.7%

I still think that Gallego up by 10 but Harris-Trump tied or Trump up by 1 or 2, just doesn't make sense.

Something in my gut tells me Harris wins AZ and NV, loses GA and NC, wins WI and Mi and (shocker) it comes down to PA.

Fewer than 40 days to go now! 😬

I think she should win Az, in a squeaker and claims a respectable win in NC after what's his name's black Nazi routine.

I do think there will be sufficient despairing "oh, fuck it, I really can't" to drive enough votes to Harris to carry the day, once the counting is done. Focus group of one but I think the people who love her outnumber the MAGAs and there's enough who could live with her as president to tip the balance. But I don't feel confident, I just can't accept the country is that deficient.

If you really were a psychic as you claimed upthread, you wouldn't need to engage in that peekaboo shit, r185. 🤭

That’s not how it works, dear/R185.

You’re a concern troll, ultimately. You give it away in R184.

I knew there was a reason I had your blocked.

Feeling pretty good about Michigan.

R182 Literally said the same thing in another thread. I think she loses Georgia and North Carolina, wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. Pennsylvania will be the decider.

So how long did it take to call PA for Biden in 2020, anyone remember?

I remember Pennsylvania being relatively quick. Georgia and Arizona took awhile.

Ohio will be the shocker if Florida doesn't flip first .

r191 So why did it take four days for news outlets to call it for Biden? Where was the holdup exactly? Wisconsin, Michigan? (He didn't need Georgia and Arizona to win the EC.) Was it because of the large number of mail-in ballots?

I don't want a repeat of that this year, though I could easily see the orange fucker declaring himself the winner on election night regardless of any results coming in.

I got it backwards. Arizona was called early in the morning after Election Day 2020. Sorry about that.

Wisconsin and Michigan were called late the day after Election Day.

Pennsylvania took 3 days.

[quote] Ohio will be the shocker if Florida doesn't flip first . Neither are flipping and Kamala ain’t winning. It’ll be called early for Trump. Mark my words.

[quote] Ohio will be the shocker if Florida doesn't flip first.

Neither are flipping and Kamala ain’t winning. It’ll be called early for Trump. Mark my words.

You type stupid r195 / r196.

R196, are you the yard sign troll? I miss his antics. Never was someone so wrong about something so inane as yard signs. You’re his doppelgänger.

Minnesota Poll: Voters split on opinion of Gov. Tim Walz

A Star Tribune poll found Minnesotans are divided along political lines in terms of what they think of him.

According to the poll, 48% of Minnesota likely voters said they view Walz favorably, compared to 47% who view him unfavorably.

Looking deeper at the poll, an overwhelming number of Republicans don't think he's doing a good job while most Democrats think he is.

"Approval for Gov. Walz looks like the rest of the country and our politics. Democrats support him. Republicans strongly disapprove of him. It's a little surprising though because his selling point is that he's a crossover candidate who does appear across the aisle," said Professor Larry Jacobs, of the University of Minnesota. In 2020, riots and civil unrest broke out in Minneapolis following George Floyd's killing and Walz and other leaders had to respond.

Four years have passed but according to the poll, 52% of those surveyed said they disapproved of his handling of it all during May of 2020, compared to 44% who said they do approve. There are divides along political lines; but 55% of independents said they disapproved. His record on the riots will likely be brought up during next week's vice presidential debate. Walz will face his Republican challenger Senator JD Vance.

[quote]A Star Tribune poll found Minnesotans are divided along political lines in terms of what they think of him.

Shocking!

New Reuters Ipsos poll shows Harris up nationally by 7 points!

I predict this coming week we will start seeing the polling fallout for Trump of this past week's slew of GOP scandals (plus his ubercreepy "protector" speech), and a slight boost for Harris from the Oprah segment. I think there will be a fairly steady stream of Harris +5 to +7 national polls. Then we have another .5% boost from the VP debate to look forward to.

How Harris and Trump handle the hurricane this weekend could also potentially be a huge contributor in next week's sunbelt polling. We saw the enormous political consequences it had for Bush during Katrina and Cruz during that deep freeze in Texas when they didn't step up as strong leaders.

I'm wondering if maybe it wouldn't be in the best interest of Walz and Vance to push the debate another week considering millions and millions could still be without power on Monday.

Like phony Jimmy GAF about Appalachia and Florida being without power from a natural disaster.

He and his orange running mate want to abolish NOAA and hurricane warnings.

New Bloomberg/Morning Consult numbers

Arizona - 🔵 Harris +3 Georgia - 🟡 Tie N. Carolina - 🔵 Harris +2 Nevada - 🔵 Harris +7 Michigan - 🔵 Harris +3 Pennsylvania - 🔵 Harris +5 Wisconsin - 🔵 Harris +3

Fox News polls (A-rated pollster, Sep. 20-24)

Arizona: 🟥 Trump 51%, Harris 48% / n=764 LV, MOE=3.5%

Georgia: 🟦 Harris 51%, Trump 48% / n=707 LV, MOE=3.5%

I'm voting for Kamala and that's all I can do. If she wins, wonderful! If she loses, it's beyond my control.

^^ Like an entry from Marcus Aurelius' [italic]Meditations.[/italic]

I’m voting this week, yes, for Kamala. I’m in PA.

Arizona (Suffolk/USA TODAY, Sep. 21-24): 🟥 Trump 48%, Harris 42% / n=500 LV, MOE= 4.4%

Arizona's lost.

R209, go get some coffee and chill. The numbers are within the margin of error and there’s a month to go. All of these Chicken Little posters are so annoying.

[quote] It’ll be called early for Trump.

The only thing that will b called early in relation to Donald Dump are the criminal defense attorneys who will still take his calls. At best, he'll end up with a mesothelioma lawyer,

Take a pill or two Svetlana, we are all on to you

+6% is outside of the margin of error of 4.4%.

[quote]+6% is outside of the margin of error of 4.4%.

IF that AZ poll is accurate (and that's a big if) a net 2 percent lead is not a significant lead if the trend lines are against you and the trend lines are VERY MUCH against the Orange Pustule

You’re right r212, but other polls have had it much closer, and this one was conducted a week ago. And there’s still a month left. My point? Stop being a Chicken Little.

r213 She's down in the Fox poll of Arizona at r205 as well. Apparently, she's bleeding Hispanics. I don't mean do be crass, but what exactly do those fuckers see in the orange fucker?

Whatever, she doesn't need Arizona, let them be deplorable if they want.

R212, I tend to agree. If you look at the trends, slowly and incrementally, the direction is in her favor. If there's no major fuck up, there's no reason to think the turtle (not Mitch) won't win the race, slowly but surely. She's even moving the needle on the economy ratings, slightly. I mean, I don't take it for granted but I think this is as good as it gets.

Isn't abortion on the ballot in Arizona as well? So, what, they're gonna vote for abortion protections and also for Trump, who's going to try to outlaw it federally? People are so dumb.

Same thing elsewhere.

"A key reason for the wariness is the anti-abortion movement’s recent losing streak on abortion-related ballot measures in seven states, including conservative Kansas and Kentucky. Nine more states will consider constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights in the Nov. 5 election — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota. In several of them, abortion opponents tried various unsuccessful strategies for blocking the measures."

How can that not help?

Isn’t the MOE either candidate in either direction?

[quote]I'm voting for Kamala and that's all I can do. If she wins, wonderful! If she loses, it's beyond my control.

Actually it’s not all you can do. You can donate, make calls, do text banking, drive people to the polls if you have a car. GOTV efforts are crucial.

r218 Hispanics are largely socially conservative, it'll be interesting to see those exit poll numbers for the Arizona abortion initiative, we'll get to see just how wide that gap really is.

[quote]Isn’t the MOE either candidate in either direction?

Huh?

[quote] Isn’t the MOE either candidate in either direction?

Yes.

Oh, Margin of Error. Got it.

What did you think MOE stood for up to this point? 👀

[quote] +6% is outside of the margin of error of 4.4%.

Margin of error is not a guarantee. It means that the true number will be within that range 2/3 times. Don’t forget about the other third.

From Politico.

[quote]For the first time ever, DNC is sending money to every state Dem party in the country to bolster down-ballot races. “From the school board to the White House, the DNC is doing the work to elect Democrats to office at all levels of government.”

Hopefully it does the trick and Dems keep the Senate.

Keep in mind that anything that would make the Arizona numbers not actually be what they appear to be would also apply to any poll results showing Harris ahead in other battleground states.

If you scroll through this, you'd obviously much rather be Harris than Trump. Can you imagine how we'd feel if these numbers were reversed?

If MOE is either candidate in either direction 6 is not outside the MOE of 4.4 since you you need to double to 8.8.

By that logic, Trump could be at 52% in Arizona and Harris at 38% at the same time. That doesn't track with reality.

With its consistently rosy poll results for Democrats, going back to when Biden was the candidate, Morning Consult is setting itself up to be either a hero or a disgrace once the actual votes are compared to its poll numbers.

Shot up like a rocket in Silver's model.

For reference, Biden was at 80% on election day.

R233 And the "we used to be Nate Silver" model has pretty much the same % probabilities. A week ago Trump was eroding Harris's lead in these models (based on multiple polls etc.); that slippage has stopped and is slowly going in Harris's direction.

A month out, it could go either way, but I'd rather be Harris than Trump.......

R233 For my own sanity, I no longer acknowledge Nate Silver as an entity. Not hitchin' my wagon to his mishegas model just because it happens to be in our favor this week.

She's going to the southern border in Arizona tomorrow, to try and staunch the bleeding.

I've never been to AZ and I know that 'Hispanics' are not a monolith so I can't comment on the situation there. However, Trump's description of the 'rust belt' as some hellhole where old ladies cannot afford apples is so off the mark. The situation has changed so much in the past 10 years. There are factories, warehouses, data centres. It's very easy to pick up a low skilled job that pays $20+ and you can rent or buy a home as an average person. You do not have to be a venture capitalist with a wealthy dad. Abandoned buildings have been turned into coffee shops, breweries, co working spaces, boutique hotels. The owners are usually under 40 and would have been lost to the coasts 30 years ago. The demographics are not in Trump's favor.

It's easy to believe polls that have Harris +3 or +4. If she can take PA, this thing will be over long before AZ and NV are counted. If she can take NC, it will be called as soon as MI, WI report.

I’m a woman and every male pundit on either side of the aisle has vastly underestimate the raw anger and outrage since the fall of Roe. Shortly After it happened, the Pod Save guys said it would make much of a difference and they were shocked—shocked!— that women stormed the polls in the midterms and special elections to stop this bullshit.

That’s why I don’t believe that the race is close. I believe it will be a bloodbath—with the right assholes bathed in blood.

Also, re polling, I live in Michigan and have been bombsrded by calls from unknown numbers all year. I finally answered one of the calls—thinking it might be a pollster—and it was. How many other voters in swing states are getting similar call bombardment and how many are actually answering the calls? I honestly don’t see how any poll is accurate given people’s preference to not answer calls—especially from unknown callers.

Anyway, I’m not worried. He’s done.

I feel like she's slowly rising... this is what the victory will be like, an edge. I don't think this is peak too soon because I don't think the peak is going to be so spectacular that it causes people to rethink. I think it is so gradual that in increments more people will quietly move toward her. Not a landslide, but it will likely be enough to get her across the line.

r237 That sort of revival doesn't necessarily mean people will start turning against Trump. Just look at this article about Dalton, published today.

It's more to do with education levels, which take a lot more time to change/improve than some factories and coffee shops popping up. Also, there's that persistent "fuck you, I got mine" mentality that unfortunately isn't going away anytime soon.

"Hispanics" of course are not a monolith, with many demographic differences among them all over the country. AZ is largely Mexican-American and while they are "culturally conservative" (including the burgeoning evangelical/charismatic Latino churches), the erosion for Dems in Latino voters that's been happening the last few election cycles is in second, third generation voters, especially younger men. Like working class white males all over the country, working class Latino males are vulnerable to Trump.

And, of course, Mexicans are resistant to women in power.... oh, wait....

r241 Those are Mexicans in Mexico. The ones who come over to the States bitch and moan about the "radical communists" back home. Same as with the Venezuelans and many others.

The social conservative part has more to do with them being anti-abortion because of their religion, than them being misogynists.

*socially conservative

[quote] For my own sanity, I no longer acknowledge Nate Silver as an entity. Not hitchin' my wagon to his mishegas model just because it happens to be in our favor this week.

Why not? You dumped him because it wasn’t in your favor before. Makes about the same sense.

Guess what? Mexicans in AZ are in fact like Mexicans in Mexico. The opposition to Sheinbaum were middle/upper middle class Mexicans (the old PAN coalition). Mexicans who migrate to AZ (and remember, there are many who for many, many decades have gone back forth across the border) are largely the middle/working class that elected her.

Also... in 2023 Mexico, unlike the United States, safeguarded abortion rights for the whole country. Our "ideas" about Mexico and Mexico have largely been stuck in the 80s and 90s, not this century.

Donald's gonna be yelling at Rupert all night long.

Why would Trump be unhappy with these numbers, R43?!

Her border speech was very effectively delivered. She impressed me. Dare I say, presidential. She really was.

You said that on the other thread.

We get it: “ effective.”

R249, so long as you confine your stalking to here, i can take it. Petty weirdo.

Pretty weird to upload two “effective” posts on political threads, one right after the other.

[quote] Isn't abortion on the ballot in Arizona as well? So, what, they're gonna vote for abortion protections and also for Trump, who's going to try to outlaw it federally? People are so dumb.

I've heard one theory that, once acting to enshrine statewide abortions rights, voters will feel more comfortable voting for Trump.

You heard dumb.

R251, the opinions of stalkers don't count.

So, R253, having decisively enshrined abortion rights in their state, are you expecting Kansans to deliver their electoral votes for Harris?

They are two independent facts. One does not rely on the other… which contradicts the statement in R252. That’s from the second week of a freshman class in Logic.

Voters can be a very peculiar lot, R256. They don’t always act in linear ways.

So, [R253], having decisively enshrined abortion rights in their state, are you expecting Kansans to deliver their electoral votes for Harris?

No, r255. Once enshrined in the State Constitution, Kansas will vote for Harris to prevent a Federal Ban on abortion. Takes Civics Class.

yeah. freshman logic would conclude that Trump should be in prison, not looming with a chance to be elected a second time.

R257 which was my point. Learn to read. TIA

R259 quite the opposite. Again. One fact is independent of the other.

Kansas is a Harris state. You heard that here first. SMH.

Hardball

Whiffle ball

Still expecting Trump to sue the Emmys for not giving him is due award for The Apprentice.

[quote]Donald's gonna be yelling at Rupert all night long.

Why? Those NC and PA numbers are looking pretty great for him?

Possibly overextending again? My alarm bells are going off, I'm getting Amy McGrath flashbacks from all this.

No, r267, Florida senate seat is possible.

Dick Rot is not popular. He’s not. The second most hated Senator after Fled Crud, if you believe the rumors.

He’s stolen from Medicare, stolen from the RNC Senate fund and tried to oust turtle (the last two are quite funny to me).

He’s arrogant and hated. He’s ripe for a kick to the cuntbone.

I'm surprised she is losing Arizona, does anyone know why? I really thought she would win both Arizona and Nevada.

Biden only won it by 10k votes and it was the closest presidential election in Arizona's history. No idea why they aren't feeling her when border crossings are at such a low. Inflation, maybe?

R246 Those are not good numbers. I really thought she was in the lead in Pennsylvania?

[quote] Isn't abortion on the ballot in Arizona as well? So, what, they're gonna vote for abortion protections and also for Trump

Yes, as you were told a million times already. Abortion on the ballot isn’t going to mean shit in the end.

Border states hate Kamala with a passion. They never forgot her comments about it a few years ago. It was beneath her to go see it for herself.

Yes—she’s cooked in New Mexico, California, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. She won’t win a single border state.

She was just there TODAY, r273.

R275 after years of ignoring them. Trump has been consistent, even with all his bullshit. He at least declares it a major problem and acts like he listens to them. The Biden brigade and the left have been dismissive for years. I’m not saying they just let anyone come across but them deemed anyone who declared it a national security issue a racist. People don’t forget that. Liberals began changing their tune when it ended up at their doorstep in their sanctuary cities.

Isn’t it amazing when you block someone (R274) and a whole bunch of posts in a row disappear? Replies in bunches in a row seems kind of troll-like.

Were they in bunches , or in a row. Please tell us more.

[bold]Midwest polls[/bold] (NYT/Siena, Sep. 21 -26)

Michigan: 🟦 Harris 48%, Trump 47% / senate: Slotkin +5 over Rogers / n=688 LV, MOE=4.3%

Wisconsin: 🟦 Harris 49%, Trump 47% / senate: Baldwin +7 over Hovde / n=680 LV, MOE=4.4%

Nebraska 2nd: 🟦 Harris 52%, Trump 43% / n=680 LV, MOE=4.1%

Ohio: 🟥 Trump 50%, Harris 44% / senate: Brown +4 over Moreno / n=687 LV, MOE=4.2%

How can it be that close in Michigan?

[quote]I'm getting Amy McGrath flashbacks from all this.

And Amy is poised to replace Turtle when he retires in 2026.

She campaigned with the party and didn't go away.

Will she be the class of the Democratic Super Majority?

In Kentucky, R281? Not a chance. It’s one thing to elect a Democrat in a statewide race, it’s quite another to do so in a national race like the US Senate. See Maryland & Governor Larry Hogan.

And she has a shitload of campaign cash.

Uh, r282, US Senate, IS a statewide race in ALL states.

Take a civics class.

Maryland will go Democratic.

R280, Nate Silver, who’s been covering presidential races since 2008, says that this is the closest presidential race he’s seen. I believe him. I also believe anyone who tells you now that s(he) knows how this race will be decided is not to be believed.

You are mistaken, R283. A US Senate contest IS, unlike a gubernatorial race, considered a NATIONAL race. I won’t tell you to take a civics class, but it is. A position in the US Senate is considered a national office. And yes, Maryland in 2024 will go Democratic. And Kentucky in 2026 will go Republican.

A major polling organization is reportedly giving Donald Trump’s campaign previews of its results before the public sees them.

On Thursday, American Muckrakers posted about emails it received detailing how the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports, which claims to be nonpartisan, shared polling results with Trump advisers and campaign officials like Dan Scavino, Susie Wiles, and John McLaughlin. The advisers, Rasmussen, and the nonprofit organizations that pay it for polling are violating tax and election laws.

r285, Sweetie, that is lovely, but we are talking about the significance of statewide races as they CANNOT BE GERRYMANDERED. Not what they are considered, nominally.

It is the reason that the pro abortion plebiscites in Kansan and Ohio were passed. All state no gerrymandering.

Just like US Senator. Watch for North Dakota, Texas, Florida, and NEBRASKA to replace incumbent US Republican Senators as there is no GERRYMANDERING in US Senate races. It's the women's issues.

The fact that after everything, EVERYTHING, it is still this close is not an indictment of the political class, the media, or the money in politics, but of the American people themselves.

I'll have what you're smoking, R287. North Dakota?!?

I have been following Katrina for a year. Yes, North Dakota, a state that elected Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and whose current Senator voted twice to acquit Trump and for all of his corrupt SC Justices who overturned Roe and started killing women.

Yes, North Dakota is in play.

^Oy vey.

R274 must be a foreign troll. Throwing California, NY, Washington etc. in there is the tell. Their talking point is border states and they just looked at a map to see what they were.

I think R274 was a sarcastic reply to R273.

Hah you’re right r293. I should have realized it, as I have r273 blocked, but not r274. Sometimes it’s hard for me to detect sarcasm.

WaPo seems to be yet another publication to which we can't link directly but this is worth a gander.... nutshell, Philip Bump has charted the average of the polling.

Trump leads, uncomfortably to me (based purely on the visual) in Arizona and Georgia. (I cannot understand Az not being tied, but I still think the abortion measure will deliver it.)

Harris leads, I think comfortably based on the visual in Michigan, Nevada and, importantly, PA.

It's a tie in NC.

Bottom line on R295, WaPo calls Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, PA, and NC all flip a coin outcomes.

[quote] Harris leads, I think comfortably based on the visual in Michigan, Nevada and, importantly, PA.

If she wins Pennsylvania & Michigan, Harris will likely win Wisconsin, too. The three almost always vote in tandem.

Amazon Prime will have election night coverage hosted by Brian Williams.

Hopefully he can call it for Kamala on election night. Wouldn't that be something, eh?

JFC I'm nervous. Someone talk me down. I'm in a safe state (MN), so besides giving money I feel useless. All of the efforts here you can sign up for are local door to door, which doesn't seem necessary.

R294 see what happens when you block too much.

My wonderfully sarcastic wit gets unfairly maligned. 🤓

R276 Yes, Trump is so interested in addressing the border problem he pulled the plug on the most conservative immigration bill in many, many decades. So interested in solutions! So ready to put his own interests second to those of the nation!

r299 The ugly truth is, postcards and phone banking don't really do anything beyond making you feel involved. It's either donating or door knocking, the latter of which doesn't make much sense in your case, like you said. I think most people in non-swing states feel a bit useless in this regard.

If the EC were gone, it would be completely different – everyone would be busy door knocking everywhere, because every vote would count.

Postcard if and phone banking work, r303.

You think everyone else is paying as much attention as we are, but it’s not true.

Phone banking and post carding remind people to vote, check their registration and when to vote. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who just “forget” or “can’t remember”

Only about half of eligible voters actually show up and vote.

Okay, yeah, I guess they are useful now in the age of extreme voter purges.

Chuck Todd said on his podcast this week how much this election is looking like 2020. How Harris's favorability ratings are almost identical to Biden's at this time then. And how she has succeeded - so far - in making this election a referendum on Trump, and not the last four years.

R305 If (when) Trump loses there will be some analysis about this.... he refused to acknowledge he lost in 2020, has behaved as a shadow President (having international visitor's to Mar-a-Lago as though it were the White House - even flags and seals as though it were Presidential), Fox and other outlets treating him as legitimate President. He's run as though an incumbent. Harris, the sitting Vice President, has run as an agent of change.

It's a change election and the sitting VP might well win. Trump's lost his way.

r272, [quote] Yes, as you were told a million times already. Abortion on the ballot isn’t going to mean shit in the end.

As you have avoided hearing a million times, Dump and the Congressional Republicans plan to implement PROJECT 2025 which includes a NATIONAL FEDERAL abortion ban that would override whatever is enshrined in those state constitutions. Along with other significant reproductive freedoms and just a bunch of shit nobody wants but angry controlling incompetent thugs in the Republican cum Authoritarian party.

So, NO

[quote]Yes, Trump is so interested in addressing the border problem he pulled the plug on the most conservative immigration bill in many, many decades. So interested in solutions! So ready to put his own interests second to those of the nation!

Exactly r301. Dump and his ilk are not interested in solving the border problem, they are interested in HAVING a border problem to run on and piggyback all their ill-conceived, inept and unpopular plans for the country under cover of "protecting the country"

Dump has NO plan for the border, NO record on the border and above all no bloody clue as to what border policies could work.

None of the Dump or stealth Dump supporters on the border could articulate what this cunt Trumps "border policy" is beyond kicking out any undocumented person without any concept of what that would do to the economy or HOW that would be done. He couldn't even build his fucking wall.

AND the cunt is selling overpriced watches and coins with his name on them. How could anyone be so gullible?

[quote] He's run as though an incumbent.

As I recall from the debate, Harris even made some reference to what would happen if Trump was "re-elected." I thought that was purposeful.

R306 YES!! When people say “but Biden was in power for the last 3 years so why is she saying turn the page?” Because the orange fucker has been a shadow president and nobody seemingly gives a shit! Imagine if Hilary spent 2017 meeting with world leaders in her home. Imagine if she was telling Pelosi to kill Bills and hosting press conferences with a fake seal behind her. impossible to imagine because she would have been arrested.

R308

2016 "We're going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay or it!!!"

Never happened. In fact the photo-op this election cycle at the border, where Trump stood in front of a wall, was in front of a wall that was built under Obama.

He's a fraud, plain and simple. I do think time will expose this to more people.... if he loses this time.

Listen to young, conservative men who will be voting for their first time explain in focus groups why they love Trump. They think he's a smart, successful businessman who fights corruption and keeps his promises. (They also like JD Vance because they think he's a moderate.) So much ignorance and stupidity on parade.

Their voices begin at the 5:53 mark in the video.

I don’t need to hear a bunch of silver spoon fed, entitled white boys snivel about how “oppressed” they are.

R312 HA! I JUST finished watching that episode and was about to post it here when I saw you beat me to it.

Yeah...those young conservatives are a BLEAK crew. It's like listening to a bunch of JD Vance clones.

I mean these are the same young men who fall for the scams that target them using pictures of a teenager leaning on a rented Ferrari with a rented woman on each arm. The same guys who signed up for Andrew Tate’s online courses believing that they would be successful businessmen at the end. The same dudes who fall into MLMs and gravitate to prosperity gospel megachurches. It’s not surprising that they would find Trump appealing. It’s as though AI created Trump to appeal to that demographic.

[quote] As I recall from the debate, Harris even made some reference to what would happen if Trump was "re-elected."

That is the correct word. He was elected before and if elected again, he will be re-elected.

Every.single.post on the antiMLM subreddit has the word “Christain” or “Trump”. Every person sucked in is a religious MAGA. MLM grifters cold approach people wearing Trump gear! The combo of stupidity, greed, ignorance and gullibility makes them prime marks. If Trump loses, I expect the family will go on the speaking circuit flogging Amway. They’ll create a demon spawn where Amway takes Trump’s crypto as payment.

[quote] He's a fraud, plain and simple. I do think time will expose this to more people.... if he loses this time.

Never. Gonna. Happen.

R316 as commonly understood in this country, it refers to an incumbent winning again, in particular in connection with an executive office such as President (since Cleveland’s second election is the single historical exception).

When Hubert Humphrey was returned to the Senate by Minnesota voters after losing to Nixon, no one said he had been re-elected, and so on. It has happened many times in the Senate and dozens of times in the House: all were elected again, not re-elected.

No reference to Cleveland having been re-elected, as he was not the incumbent.

According to the Cook Report, any additional polls aren't crucial now. It seems we have reached the point of diminishing returns, and each additional data point provides less and less information about the outcome. We need to wait out the 37 days.

R321 You have to be subscribed in order to read that. Doesn't even show on web archive. Would you be so kind as to copy/paste its contents? I'd really like to know what it says.

Watching Hulu in Ohio - ever commercial breaks are three anti-Sherrod Brown commercials Same three. It is nauseating.

r321 Interesting point. Should we be looking at early voting data instead, or just surrender ourselves to the ignorance and hope for the best?

321 - sorry, but the title says it all: "When More Data Doesn’t Equal More Clarity."

Here are the first two and a half paragraphs; the rest are paywalled.

"It is now becoming abundantly clear that the presidential race is so close that it is unlikely we will be able to safely predict the outcome before Nov. 5. Worse yet, we likely won’t know the outcome for sure until after Nov. 5. (Recall that the major networks didn’t make an official call of the 2020 race until the Saturday following Election Day.) Expect the slowest vote counting in years.

Even in the best of times for the polling profession, some races were so close that no pre-election poll, or exit poll for that matter, could tell you who would win until a substantial share of the raw vote was tabulated. Polls never were that precise. Nowadays, pollsters face methodological and sampling issues as well.

"Given that polling in the last two presidential elections understated the level of Donald Trump's vote, how do we know if they have fixed or overcompensated the problem? Whether one believes in “shy Trump voters” or that a significant chunk of Trump backers don’t trust institutions."

I'm going to take their advice and not search for morsels of information. We need to wait until election day or even inauguration day.

I have moved to the betting site's numbers.

These are the same feelings I got when Reagan beat Carter in 1980.

But this time the hopelessness is replaced by joy.

The other benefits are that Trump has been a stress test for the Republic.

We know how the SJ needs to be changed. We know how Christianity needs to be subservient to Civil Rights. WE know how voter's rights need to be reinstated. So much good he has done.

r322

I'd advise against checking the polling data unless you're directly involved in a campaign. It can be quite maddening. There was a case where a poll was found to be sending results to the Trump campaign for approval before releasing them, rendering the data essentially useless.

I'm personally holding off until after Thanksgiving. (I'm not joking)

Do you mean Rasmussen?

Yes, that was Rasmussen and it has now been removed from Silver's model as a result.

Yes, Rasmussen. But there are others, too. Josh Marshall mentioned Trafalgar (I think that's the name).

R327 I think burying one's head is an effective way to reduce stress. But I propose it's possible to simply read polls for useful information in its context and with clear understanding of the limits to conclusions one can draw.

As an example, about a week or so ago there was a poll out of Iowa that tracked how much better Harris was doing among white, middle-class voters there than Biden or Clinton did. (Iowa, of course, will go for Trump, but it's the details that may instruct.) Other examples are polls that show1) how younger men are more "conservative" than their older male peers and 2) how new voter registration is higher among younger women than other demographics.

What I agree is defeatist (and crazy making) is reading every release of any poll as though it were a conclusive decision on "who is winning"...

Trump is becoming more unhinged each day, Just called Harris born mentally impaired and said only a mentally impaired person could do what they did to our country. You cannot make this shit up.

R332 And Rep. Tom Emmer doubled down on this in the Sunday morning shows (ABC). Confirming that of course Trump was right on calling her mentally impaired because of her "allowing 400,000 criminals to cross the border...."

Still going with the betting sites in r326

[quote]It is now becoming abundantly clear that the presidential race is so close that it is unlikely we will be able to safely predict the outcome before Nov. 5. Worse yet, we likely won’t know the outcome for sure until after Nov. 5.

I stated the same thing, on DL, but that analyst gets paid and I don’t. That doesn’t seem fair.

[quote] Still going with the betting sites in [R326]

Unless the betting sites should switch to showing Trump winning. Then betting sites are completely invalid for predicting the election.

Got my mail in ballot for Palm Beach County, FL

Fly, butterfly ballot, fly!

I'm going with Allan Lichtman to feel better about the election. He predicted nine of the last 10 elections and the one he "missed" was Bush/Gore. I think had the Supreme Court not interfered, we would have had President Gore. Anyway, he has thirteen "keys" that he uses to predict the winner. It's totally non-partisan and has nothing to do with polls.

R336, as are do many polls.

Sticking with the betting sites for the last 5 weeks

On the 16th, which is too late in my opinion, my ballot gets mailed.

[quote]I stated the same thing, on DL, but that analyst gets paid and I don’t. That doesn’t seem fair.[/quote]

Media analysts get paid for stating what many of us already know.

R339 I just watched a clip with Lichtman last night. He said he stayed with Trump after the pussy-grab tape in 2016. And to miss 2000 is understandable.

Good enough for me. I need something to ease my terror and he'll do, though I had been getting suspicious with him becoming quite the fame ho.

[quote] Trump is becoming more unhinged each day

No, he’s not. This has always been him.

[quote] He said he stayed with Trump after the pussy-grab tape in 2016. And to miss 2000 is understandable.

Huh?

I love that we have ALL the late night comedians. Or at least the main ones (wasn't there a Fox news guy?)

Anyway, if we must face armageddon, they'll be there with us. Until the Rs pull a Putin and shut down any opposition on the airwaves.

[quote]I need something to ease my terror

It would be best to be pessimistic like Ben Franklin spoke favorably of. You should assume that Trump will be re-elected and then you can only be pleasantly surprised if he loses.

[quote] I love that we have ALL the late night comedians. Or at least the main ones (wasn't there a Fox news guy?) Anyway, if we must face armageddon, they'll be there with us.

What will the late-night hosts do when Trump finally exits the political stage? 95% of the comedy material will disappear.

[quote] What will the late-night hosts do when Trump finally exits the political stage?

Even if Trump loses, the Trump grift isn't going anywhere. Nor are his criminal cases.

A republic…unless you lose it.

I always wonder why "internal" polling would show something different than public polls. I think Michigan is too close to call.

Think harder! It might come to you, sooner or later.

R350, internal polls are indeed much more accurate. I don’t know the secret sauce, the pollsters keep that close. They also cost a shit-ton of money. Hillary’s internal polling showed her a few days before the election that she was on the verge of losing. That’s why she canceled some planned fireworks.

Closer…secret sauce.

Put down you sauce. Or whatever you’ve been drinking this afternoon.

R353, perhaps you’ve been imbibing and are now projecting, because I have no idea what you mean. Keeping something close (close to the vest) means keeping it secret.

No shit, Shirley. Keeping it close to the vest doesn’t make it any more accurate. In fact, it just as well could be less accurate. That’s how it works “in secret.”

So just an observation. I live in Ohio and in 2016 every yard sign in the surrounding areas were all Trump. Like locust. Now...I get a smile when I see Harris Walz signs in areas that shock me. Not just one, Many.

R356, we don’t go by yard signs.

Yard signs are as accurate as private polling

I am loving “no shit Shirley” - whether by accident or design.

[quote] How can it be that close in Michigan?

Talk to Elissa Slotkin.

There’s a lot of working class people in Michigan.

Are

Working class whites vote Republican.

r363, which is unfortunate because Republicans, since Reagan, forced them from the middle class to the working poor.

R246 I cannot believe Trump is leading in Pennsylvania. WTF?!

Something everyone already knows, that Pennsylvania is likely to decide the election. On the other hand, with Michigan in play, it may be that state that is the kingmaker.

[quote] I cannot believe Trump is leading in Pennsylvania. WTF?!

Pennsyltucky is MAGAville. It’s basically the South and has been for decades. A black woman from California is a hard sell.

If she loses over Pennsylvania we’re going to hear that she should have chosen Shapiro as her running mate non-stop for the next 4 years.

r357 Actually they are. Michael Moore was telling people back in 2016 who all said (and every poll said) Trump would lose hard that he disagreed. He was out in Michigan and saw the Trump signs all over. That he was going to win, and he did. What I am saying is these signs I see for Harris Walz are in very heavy Trump land. And not just one and 500 Trump signs. It is getting an even distribution.

R369, we’ve been through this. Signs mean nothing. There are Trump signs up all over Philly and all over PA. PA had them up in 2020 too. Guess who won.

Fat tranny Michael Moore said Trump would win in 2020 too. Most people aren’t displaying their political ideology for fear of vandalism.

Another likely House seat to flip

Rs lagging in PA

R373 So here's another conjecture, completely unscientific.

The country has Trump fatigue. Not just Dems, independents and never-Trumpers. I think MAGA is fraying just a bit. And Trump isn't helping...his "discourses" ramble on, longer and longer, and more incoherently, even though he plays the MAGA Greatest Hits. I think the documented "his people are leaving the Rally early" phenomenon is indicative. I think this means his turnout may be less than expected... and lots of old Trumpers will respond to poll surveying "yes, I'm for him", but on election day many will be busy, skip it, think he's going to win anyway... etc. etc. I think this means the "Trump outperforming the polls" pattern is over.

My dos centavos.

Mi*

R374, it’s interesting you posted that right after r373’s post about Dems requesting way more mail in ballots in PA. That fits with what you said re enthusiasm. Furthermore, come Election Day, if the weather is crappy, some people might just skip voting altogether, but Dems will have already voted in much greater numbers. I always thought that’s what happened in PA in 2016, the weather was horrible in Philly and that suppressed the vote.

Hah and I totally missed where you referenced r373’s post, r374.

R376 In 2016 several endorsements basically said “In X days Mrs Clinton will be the 45th president barring extraordinary circumstances” and I think either the NYT or the New Yorker said exactly those words. Everyone assumed she was going to win so Dems thought “eh my vote won’t be missed, she has enough, let me settle in for the evening”

In 2020 it took historic numbers of votes to (barely) beat him

This year we’ll need massive turnout plus Trump fatigue.

And I pray to all the gods ever invented that she wins NC and PA on the night. It’s the only way to send the fucker packing. If she wins by tiny margins that are called on the 11/7 then he’ll be right out claiming victory and stoking 1/6 Vol II.

R378, I hope so too, but PA probably won’t be called for a few days at least, due to the idiocy of the state legislature not allowing mail in ballots to be counted beforehand.

Kamala is dropping the ball letting Trump hog the spotlight talking directly to those who survived the Hurricane. He’s lying up a storm. Meanwhile Kamala is missing in action. This may end up being her Katrina, the storm that lost her the election.

R375 Actually, mis. (Plural)

Stop wringing your hands r380, Kamala knows what she's doing. Sometimes you have to let the child shit the bed to teach them a lesson. She's giving Trump that rope to do so.

R380 is our resident MAGA troll, all over these threads with lies and bullshit.

Has anyone read the JD Vance Dossier? Fascinating.

Interesting stat on Latinos. Harris is up 20 with Catholic Latinos but Trump is up 36 with Evangelical Latinos. I’ve never met an Evangelical Latino because Evangelicals are rare here so I tend to forget they exist. I had seen people blame conservative Catholics for Trump’s Latino support. No so. It’s also younger male Latinos driving support for Trump. She’s winning older Latino men by a big margin and all women.

Thus, you are totally ignorant of the shifts in religion among Hispanic or Latino/an Americans and more recent immigrants.

Thanks for playing.

R386 Are YOU up to date or are you cooking with day-old bread? Yes, the evangelical (and Mormon) outreach to Latinos has been very successful... in the last 40 years. Over 40% of central Americans are evangelical. In the US that means Latino immigrants (20%) are more likely to be evangelical than Latinos born in the US (12%). AND... that means that younger Latinos -- immigrant and native born -- are leaving the evangelical churches - like "white" US citizens. Evangelicals are losing Gen Z.

The move to Republicans by younger Latinos is similar to the younger dude-bro movement to Trump by non-Latino Americans. They are all much more likely to be influenced by Joe Rogan than Rick Warren or James Dobson.

I actually like to see the troll at R380 and have purposely not blocked it. Its posts offer a “preview” of how MAGA-land is spinning things. The desperation and hand-wringing (it pretends to be a Democrat sometimes, check its posts) is so performative.

To call this “Kamala’s Katrina” is so laughable, I’m not quite sure what to even say. First off, do you realize that she is not the current president.

What worries me is what I am seeing reminds me of 2016. Everyone coming out for Kamlea, Everyone thinking she is going to win easily and then boom President Trump...again. If he gets in again it is over for democracy.

R389 I don't see that. I see great and widespread concern that Harris may not win. I think working as an underdog is exactly what Harris and the Dems need to do. It seems very different from 2016 to me. Unfortunately, it also seems different from 2020. It is completely up in the air, in my opinion.

The msn home page is a hodge podge of Trump is winning, Harris is winning mish mash articles.

Another Tuesday, another FiveThirtyEight roundup. Just FIVE(!) weeks to go until Election Day. Comparing polling averages for the battleground states and the national vote, week to week (Oct 1 vs Sept 24). Summary: Micro movement from last week, truly micro, nothing significant at all. It seems like most of us are Decided Voters at this point, and the outcome is looking like it will be stressful and TIGHT.

The data:

ARIZONA. Oct 1: Trump +1.0%. Sept 24: Trump +1.0%. No change at all. AZ (11 EVs) remains tied with Trump slightly favored.

GEORGIA. Oct 1: Trump +0.6%. Sept 24: Trump +1.3%. A net gain of 0.7% for Harris. GA (16 EVs) remains tied with Trump slightly favored.

MICHIGAN. Oct 1: Harris +1.9%. Sept 24: Harris +2.4%. A net gain of +0.5% for Trump. MI (15 EVs) remains a slight Harris lead but close to the statistical margin-of-error.

NEVADA. Oct 1: Harris +1.1%. Sept 24: Harris +0.6%. A net gain of +0.5% for Harris. NV (6 EVs) remains statistically tied with a slight edge to Harris.

NORTH CAROLINA. Oct 1: Trump +0.4%. Sept 24: Trump +0.4%. No change at all. NC (16 EVs) remains tied. (Note: parts of NC have been devastated by Helene flooding, and it is not clear yet whether or how that could impact the NC election result)

PENNSYLVANIA. Oct 1: Harris 0.8%. Sept 24: Harris +1.3%. A net gain of +0.5% for Trump. PA (20 EVs) remains tied, statistically speaking, with Harris slightly favored.

WISCONSIN. Oct 1: Harris +1.8%. Sept 24: Harris +2.0%. A net gain of +0.2% for Trump. WI (10 EVs) remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Oct 1: Harris +2.8%. Sept 24: Harris +2.7%. A net gain of 0.1% for Harris.

We also want to keep looking at Harris's % of the vote vs Trump’s. She is at 48.6% of the vote now. Trump is at 45.8%. Put a more optimistic way, she’s only 1.4% away from 50%. He is 4.2% away from 50%.

But again this is all about the Battleground states. And it is looking extremely tight all in total.

The "Kamala trounces him like Biden did in 2020" optimists might be right. The "here we go again, Trump 2016 redux" pessimists may be right. But i think the polling averages are fairly accurate this time, and we will see Harris winning narrowly, and Trump and MAGA fighting the result with all their tactics and all their fury. We are fortunate that this time, though Trump has a majority of the US Supreme Court in his pocket if a conflict goes to the SCOTUS -- he does not have the power of the US presidency.

As the troll said, "just keep smoking copious amounts of pot." For real though -- thank you to anyone on here who is out there volunteering or is doing postcards or phoning from home. It might only make a 1% difference -- and we might desperately need that 1%.

[quote]What worries me is what I am seeing reminds me of 2016. Everyone coming out for Kamlea, Everyone thinking she is going to win easily and then boom President Trump...again. If he gets in again it is over for democracy.

The fact that it appears to you that "everyone" is doing that is the core of your problem. "Everyone" includes many, many other people who have political views that differ from yours.

[quote]But i think the polling averages are fairly accurate this time, and we will see Harris winning narrowly,

If they are indeed accurate, then what they show is that the race is too close to call and it makes no sense to predict which of the two candidates will be the winner.

R394 not quite correct. If they are accurate, as in correct for prior underestimations of Trump’s support, then the trend line is pretty clear that she will win.

Correcting for*

The polls are not capturing secret Kamala voters (wives of Republican men, for example). My mother is one for sure. They are very quiet about it.

Kamala will win a shocker state. Perhaps Ohio.

Agreeing somewhere between R394 and R395. The polls are suggesting this will be extremely close, with Harris more likely to win. It is more than naive to say she will win.

This is nothing like 2020. Everybody who understood data understood on Election morning 2020 that Biden would win. Same with Obama 2008. Those are the only two non-close, certain-outcome elections we've had since Bill Clinton stomped Bob Dole like a grape back in 1996. All the others have been justifiably stressful and this one joins them.

Ok, now you’re talking like a fuck - up.

In a prefect world, where something strange happens that varies (improves from Biden) from 2020, she gets NC, and then possibly FL. Nothing beyond that dream finish.

For R397^

This ain't no prefect world though.

Yes, I know—which is why I tried to put the kibosh on her fever dream of getting Ohio. Duh 🫥

The worm turns…

Harris will be +.05 for the next six weeks until LANDSLIDE.

You seem really aggressive and perhaps need to get laid, R402. I’m a “fuck-up” because I made a prediction? Okay, sweetie.

Go touch grass.

Republicans haven't realized that Shady Vance will flip Ohio for Dems.

That and the Ohio Women's Rights movement.

Welcome back Hoopies!

No. Only because you wrote a very dumb post about Ohio. Own up to it, “seeetie.”

R407 it’s ok, you can stop bullying the Ohio optimist now.

Good luck to yourself r407

[QUOTE] Own up to it, “seeetie.”

Oh, DEAR.

Wow! Good catch!

I’ve given up 538 as a source this cycle. Apparently they realized their model was unreliable just months ago, scrapped it with nary an acknowledgement & are now using a replacement model.

Why are you so triggered by the Ohio prediction? Is that you, Usha?

Zzzzz

Rasmussen has gone full MAGA propagandist, trollsters.

It's always been carrying the waters of Republicans, R415.

[quote] Everybody who understood data understood on Election morning 2020 that Biden would win

Wrong.

Kamala is fucked over the Hurricane. She blew it.

The Republican Governors of GA (Kemp) and Youngkin VA have praised the Biden administration for the storm response Despite the desperate attempts of Dump and Faux News to push this false narrative.

[quote]Everybody who understood data understood on Election morning 2020 that Biden would win.

However, a flip of 44,000 votes would have re-elected Trump, showing that a candidate would need greater than Biden's polling margin to feel confident they will win.

Unless the polling methodology of reliable firms has changed based on what they learned in 2020. Which in fact is the case.

But has been noted before, R421, we were told the same thing in 2020.

Fuck off R418. Project 2025 calls to dismantle fema.

Please let Trump attack Kemp again!

[quote]The Republican Governors of GA (Kemp) and Youngkin VA have praised the Biden administration for the storm response

We've seen that routine before, haven't we?

Democratic governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, speaking to Congress after Hurricane Katrina: "I want the people of Louisiana to know that we have a friend and a partner in President George W. Bush. I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Congress for your initial investment in our immediate recovery and relief."

Politicians know how to be politicians.

I should have stated, speaking to the Louisiana legislature, not Congress.

Why is Pennsylvania collapsing for Harris? Last time I checked she was leading by like 2-3 %. Now that entire lead is almost eroded and she's left with a lead of just 0.5 %, within the margin of error. WTF is up with Pennsylvanians? Why do they like Trump so much?

[quote]Why is Pennsylvania collapsing for Harris?

That's what bubbles do.

[quote] Why is Pennsylvania collapsing for Harris?

Why did it collapse for Hillary? Large portions of the Pennsylvania voting public are thought to resemble Alabama.

Dump is pouring all of his money into PA and Georgia. She has to counter.

She’s starting to remind me of Hillary. She needs to get off her ass and travel the country!

AARP released a poll with Kamala up +3 in PA.

By the way, the tale of the election will be the wave of young women who registered to vote out of nowhere. That’s not being tracked on polls and the numbers are big.

The consensus appears to be that this is a dead heat race, based on the available data. The unknown and unpredictable factor is the impact of turnout. Most of what you will see in the media in these last weeks before the election are Republicans attempting to suppress the vote and Democrats trying to increase the turnout.

Don't be manipulated into not voting, help others that might need help getting to their polling place or are afraid to go on their own.

Act. now is the time.

Battleground states, with third-party candidates: Arizona - Harris +3 (50-47); Georgia - Trump +1 (48-47); Michigan - Harris +3 (49-46); Nevada - Harris +1 (48-47); North Carolina - Harris +3 (49-46); Pennsylvania - Harris +2 (49-47); Wisconsin - Harris +2 (48-46)

Battleground states, head-to-head Arizona - Harris +1 (49-48); Georgia - Trump +2 (49-47); Michigan - Harris +3 (51-48); Nevada - Harris +1 (48-47); North Carolina - tied (49-49); Pennsylvania - Harris +1 (50-49); Wisconsin - Harris +2 (49-47)

Battleground states, with third-party candidates: Arizona - Harris +3 (50-47); Georgia - Trump +1 (48-47); Michigan - Harris +3 (49-46); Nevada - Harris +1 (48-47); North Carolina - Harris +3 (49-46); Pennsylvania - Harris +2 (49-47); Wisconsin - Harris +2 (48-46)

Battleground states, head-to-head Arizona - Harris +1 (49-48); Georgia - Trump +2 (49-47); Michigan - Harris +3 (51-48); Nevada - Harris +1 (48-47); North Carolina - tied (49-49); Pennsylvania - Harris +1 (50-49); Wisconsin - Harris +2 (49-47)

Sorry about the double post. At least it is pretty good news.

[bold]Wisconsin[/bold] (Marquette (A+), Sep. 18-26): 🟦 Harris 52%, Trump 48% / senate: Baldwin 53%, Hovde 46% / n=798 LV, MOE= 4.4%

According to a new poll of Arab American voters released today:

Trump and Harris in a virtual tie with Arab American voters (42-41%), with 12% supporting third-party candidates. Many undecideds shifted towards Harris after Biden dropped out.

Arab Americans identify as Republicans and Democrats at the same rate (38%). The number of Arab Americans who identified as Democrats has rebounded from the all-time low of 23% in October 2023. However, todays 38% remains below the traditional party identification that had the community consistently favoring the Democratic Party (40% Democrat/33% Republicans in 2020 and 52% Democrat/26% Republican in 2016).

[bold]National poll[/bold] (Susquehanna, Sep. 23 - Oct. 1): 🟦 Harris 49%, Trump 44% / n=1,001 LV, MOE=3.2%

Conservative-lean pollster.

Vance said it himself. His own state voted to neuter anti-abortion laws. Overwhelmingly. You don't think those same women are out to get the man who repealed roe v wade? I love they keep saying we returned it to the states. Yes you took a national freedom and turned it over to be voted on every four years my rich white men. How great for women!

r440 Harris is winning independents 53-37 in that poll !!

Yikes.

R443, Trafalgar is a right-leaning, crappy pollster.

Yeah, Trafalgar releases made-up numbers, please don't link to their polls in this sacred place.

The summary is still that the battleground states are a statistical tie or a balanced mix of some showing Harris ahead, some showing Trump ahead, which means that no one is able to predict the outcome at this point. This is unlikely to change between now and election day.

GOP winning independents in Arizona.

Bumped into two elderly retirees tonight. Asked them who they're voting for. They said they're independents and voting Trump because of the cost of living. I asked about the importance for social freedoms this election; abortion, gay rights etc. they said no importance that as retirees - it will be cost of living and then and their friends are all voting Trump.

Dear R448, We prefer quantitative to qualitative data on this thread.

I have a second cousin who is a crack addict in Bucks County, PA, who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. He has a conversion to Zoroastrism during COVID, then came out as Trans and adopted seven lizards. He's decided to vote for Harris, so this assures Harris gets PA.

[quote]they said no importance that as retirees - it will be cost of living and then and their friends are all voting Trump.

Have fun when Trump tanks the economy and cuts your Social Security and Medicare, you decrepit old buzzards.

Walz is in Pennsylvania now doing a bus tour.

R449 = troll post. If it was genuine, where are the pronouns?

R452 My bad. They loves the lizards.

Per the A+-rated Marquette poll, Harris continues to hold a 4% lead in Wisconsin.

Early voting tracker.

Our resident psychic still sticking with his peekaboo nonsense like a kiddie throwing a tantrum, lol.

R455 Why are Republicans in the lead in Illinois? That kinds shocks me.

It's just 33k ballots in a state of 12 million, it's way too early to read too much into it.

R452, how long have you been her?

R449 is a parody. Post

Are we now waiting for the effects of the VP debate and Helena to be reflected in the polls, or what? That, and any potential October surprises, obviously. What's a poll queen to do in this final month?

I’m more worried about the impact of Demetrius.

Right-leaning RMG Research and Napolitan Institute poll of Florida has Trump only slightly ahead of Harris, 50% to 48%.

r463 Yeah, saw that earlier today. If a right-wing pollster with a historical +5 Trump lean has her that close in Florida...

And the armpit got hit - that is where a lot of the orange fool’s support is.

This is what gets me. Trump didn't even try to win the nomination; he just got it despite DeSantis and Haley trying. He has performed terribly in the debate and has rallies where he is practically incoherent. Now, we have legal proof that he tried to overthrow the election, and still, he is winning or at least close to winning. I see more commercials for Trump watches than I do for Trump for president, and the guy is a heartbeat away from winning this election. That scares me more than anything, that half this country is on board with him.

He didn't just get the nomination, he had a vastly superior war chest, thanks to fundraising off his bogus rigged election claims non-stop since basically November 2020. And look up how many Republicans believe 2020 was stolen and you'll understand why they're butthurt and want Trump to have another go at it. Voters in the GOP primary chose him, he didn't just stroll into the convention and declare himself the nominee.

Also, he had a crazy rally schedule during the primary, his current campaign schedule pales in comparison. So he did work for that nomination, and that exhaustion might have contributed to him being nearly senile now.

Harris down by one (49-48) in new Michigan poll. Lagging behind Slotkin, who's up by five (49-44) in the Senate race.

^Highly questionable methodology:

"Methodology: The poll was conducted on Monday September 30, 2024, before the Vice-Presidential Debate. It was conducted entirely by text messaging a randomly selected list of registered voter’s cell phones and directing them to a SurveyMonkey poll (MMS-Web). 76,728 text messages were sent out with a response rate of .00928%."

A little off the thread's topic: I get several texts a day from "polling" sources (and, given that I have given a shit ton of $$ to Dems, I literally get 30-40 texts asking for me to donate more). I never answer any of the texts.

I think, with Big Data and AI knowing everything, it seems that polling methodology is curious. I wonder it by 2028 all our phones will simply analyze who we are for, and, like Trump said, we'll never have to "vote" again.

I donated to Kamala twice. I don’t have a landline. I’m in a swing state. I’ve never had any contact with pollsters. I was blaming the lack of landline

A new Cook Political Report Swing State Project Survey conducted by BSG and GS Strategy Group (September 19-25; 2,941 voters), shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading or tied with former President Donald Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. Overall, she holds a narrow lead of 49% to 48% in a two-way matchup.

Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.

Underneath the topline numbers, though, there have been some significant shifts, most notably Trump’s slipping advantage on his two strongest issues — inflation and immigration. However, Harris has seen some slippage of her own: as her lead among independent voters has shrunk from eight points this summer to two points in September.

However, for the first time ever, a plurality of swing state voters now think that a Democrat will win the presidential election. This month, 46% of voters think Harris will win, compared to 39% who think it will be Trump. That represents an 11-point swing in Harris’ favor since August, and suggests that Harris has been successful in presenting herself as a serious candidate, while Trump’s attempts to portray her as unable to do the job have not been effective.

There’s also been a marked drop in the number of swing state voters who are undecided or are planning to vote third party (from 10% in August to 5% now). Those voters, who are younger and more diverse than the electorate as a whole, are deeply pessimistic about the state of inflation (70% think it’s getting worse), and overwhelmingly trust Trump more than Harris on the economy. However, they also deeply dislike Trump’s style and behavior. The question isn’t just who they will ultimately support this November, but whether these more infrequent voters come out to vote at all.

As he did in August, Trump holds a five-point lead on the question on who voters trust to “deal with the economy” (50-45%). But, on the specific issue of “getting inflation under control,” Trump’s six-point lead from August has evaporated. In August, Trump led Harris on inflation and cost of living 48% to 42%. Today, voters are evenly divided (47%) on who they trust more to handle an issue that 60% of swing state voters say is the aspect of the economy that “concerns them the most.”

What’s also likely helping Harris is the fact that voters are slightly less pessimistic about the state of inflation and the economy today than they were in August. They also feel decidedly less gloomy about the economy and inflation than they felt in May.

Well, that orange fool is going to say he won as soon as the polls close on Election Day, so ignore him. He’ll try his lawsuits and pressure again.

This time, he managed to install his cultists in BOEs, so things may get ugly for a while. Be warned.

“Kamala Harris Gets A Georgia Boost As 120,000 New Voters Sign Up”

People need to start wishing Mr Trump a glorious history. Just like the Communists.

^^^victory

[bold]Nevada[/bold] (Sep. 16-19): 🟦 Harris 47%, Trump 44% / senate: Rosen (D) 48%, Brown (R) 44% / n=600 LV, MOE=4.1 %

High-quality pollster.

r477 Voter ID initiative got 71% and will easily pass. Honestly, I've always thought this was a hill Dems shouldn't die on, ID requirements for voting aren't that bad.

A well regarded poll, finding NC deadlocked at 48-48.

[quote] Honestly, I've always thought this was a hill Dems shouldn't die on, ID requirements for voting aren't that bad.

Yes they are. Their purpose is to suppress votes because people often don’t gave the form of ID required. For example, Republicans routinely say official student IDs are not valid.

The whole “problem” these requirements claim to address is a myth. There is no pattern of imposters stealing someone’s else’s registration to cast a ballot. It’s ridiculous.

The requirement needs to come with the mandatory provision of an easy, cost-free method of obtaining the needed ID.

All of a sudden people are dying on hills all over the DL.

All European countries have that requirement and yeah, the ID is issued free of charge.

Or at least stink differently.

In Venezuela the election system is digital, protected, secure. Voters at polling stations scan fingerprints to assure their identity, vote on a touchscreen, get a paper receipt recording that their vote was received appropriately, these hard copy receipts are kept by polling spaces as backup for the electronically aggregated receipts, those results are sent to Caracas through secure dedicated communication lines, NOT the internet. The system is firewalled from the internet. Each polling precinct produces an summary of votes that is posted publicly on websites for the public to review.

Oh, but Venezuela has a dictatorship! Corrupt elections! Actually the receipts and verifications from the system have proved that Maduro cheated and claimed re-election even though he lost by 30%. Even leftist governments like Brazil and Colombia are challenging him on the results, based on the receipts from the election network.

It's baffling to me that the US doesn't have a national, secure, efficient, trustworthy system to record and report the votes of qualified voters.

[quote] It's baffling to me that the US doesn't have a national, secure, efficient, trustworthy system to record and report the votes of qualified voters.

Because we are a federation with 51 different voting systems. The decentralized nature of US voting processes arguably is harder to manipulate than one uniform, centralized system. By all accounts except MAGAs (which is a fantasy), it is highly secure.

Federations are a pain in the ass, to be honest. Two tiers is better.... national and local. But in big countries, I suppose you can't make it work.

Powerful state governments are a check on the abuse of power at the federal level. Local governments are too weak to play that role by themselves.

All ballots are counted by hand in my country, but something tells me y'all are too big and too nuts and hate each other too much for that to work. Just look at Tina Peters, ffs!

I admit my friend who used to work the elections once told me her election board boss secretly counted twice the ballots for her right-wing party leader (it was a precinct he ran in, so it was crucial he won his seat, like in the UK). My friend wanted to keep her job, so she didn't say anything. But I suspect the numbers in the aggregate are so large, these small acts of cheating don't really add up to much in the end.

Silver might be right in this instance but my god, his mind immediately goes to betting, he's such an addict.

r486. Thank you.

R489. Our quadrennial general elections, at the state level, are a comprehensive ballot: We all vote for President at the same time as for the Senate and House—plus any or all of governor, legislature, mayor, city council, sheriff, dog catcher etc. etc. Utterly ridiculous to expect a hand count.

Local election year cycles vary by state/city/county.

[quote]Yes they are. Their purpose is to suppress votes because people often don’t gave the form of ID required. For example, Republicans routinely say official student IDs are not valid.

It should be made simple and uniform by legislating that ID for voting shall be defined as the same set of IDs allowed by the TSA to board an aircraft. Then there wouldn't be stupid arguments about foolish student IDs.

What’s foolish about a student ID? Next you’ll be telling us that out of state driver licenses aren’t valid either? Or that instate driver licenses with a home address rather than a local address are invalid? Fuck off.

There is no problem of people pretending to be someone else in order to vote. The whole thing is a Republican lie to justify voter suppression (poor people and students) which was picked up by Trump to justify his insurrection.

[quote]Voter ID initiative got 71% and will easily pass.

Clearly bipartisan support for the government to do the right thing and require ID. Plus 73% of independents supporting it.

Ok—explain specifically why not requiring Voter ID is a problem? What exactly is happening that showing a particular form of ID (but not another) will solve?

Do you imagine that there are lots of people going to the effort of registering to vote under fake identifies, but who will be deterred from actually voting by the need to produce a driver’s license? Or do you imagine that imposters are showing up at the poles and falsely claiming to be a legitimately registered voters? If so, why do we not hear of thousands of people being turned away at the polls because some imposter has already voted in their name?

Trump's spending of millions to study election fraud post-2016 election after losing the popular vote to Hillary by 3 million and the 30 or so cases they filed post-2020 election when he lost showed us one thing. There is no rampant election fraud. So you have to ask, what problem does voter ID solve? It's not voter fraud, so what is it? It is intimidation. A lot of voters who would vote Democrat, are lower-income minorities. They have a huge distrust of police, spurred on by Republicans. The same covers citizens who refuse to ID in public when approached by police, videoing it for YouTube. In some states you can purchase a firearm with no id, why would you need one to vote? If it is a violation of your first amendment rights to be id'ed by law enforcement why is it not a violation to be id'ed while voting? Plain and simple it is a way to intimidate lower income minorites from voting.

The only ID that should be accepted, if there were going to be requirements, is the one that’s mailed to you FOR FREE when you register. Requiring a drivers license or such should be disallowed, as driving is a privilege and voting is a right. It also costs money to get a drivers license ID.

And r499 is right. You can bet Repukes left no stone unturned in looking for voter fraud in 2020 and they found bupkus.

Not so much intimidation as an actual impediment to the exercise of the most fundamental civil right. Having a current, valid driver’s license costs money. If the voter is required to get a copy of a state-certified birth certificate or a passport, they also cost money. Finally, many students from out-of-state don’t have any proof of residency in-state other than student IDs.

The game is given away by some states where a hunting license is accepted but a student ID is not. They are clearing trying to make it difficult for voters presumed to vote Democratic to vote.

R489 is such an illiterate tool.

Ugh.. the battleground state polls seem to be moving just a bit tighter.

It is hard to believe, sometimes, that just 10 years ago Obama was in the middle of his 2nd term, things all seemed OK enough all in all, and we had no idea the Trump Era was about to begin. If anyone had made the prediction then, they would have been laughed off of Datalounge.

Harris ahead in Nevada.

It is surreal to me that we are going into election night not knowing what will happen.

It's like waiting for the results of a biopsy.

Yep, R505. It was assumed by republicans & democrats that Hillary was gonna win in ‘16. And it was thought that Biden was the heavy favorite in the run up to the ‘20 election.

r506, I'm still convinced that there was chicanery involved with the Trump camp. How can someone win the popular vote by 2.9 million and still lose?

In my state, you can get a state ID at the driver's license bureau (that's just an id, not for driving) and it costs $17 for 4 years and $33 for 8 years.

I think every state has something like that, hopefully not as expensive.

R508 - It should be free. Otherwise, it's a poll tax.

r502 Your only contribution in this thread, nice.

I stand by what I wrote and others seemingly understand me just fine, seeing how I've been posting on DL for twenty years now. It's not my problem you have comprehension issues, dear.

[quote] It is surreal to me that we are going into election night not knowing what will happen.

Imagine, leaving it to the voters to decide!

[quote] How can someone win the popular vote by 2.9 million and still lose?

How many times do you need the answer beaten into your head?

California, and the Democratic margin of victory there. In 2016, literally 100% of Clinton’s popular vote margin was from California. None of those excess votes had any effect on the Electoral College.

Irony: there is no federal constitutional right to vote. It’s implicit in the requirements for a republican form of government, due process and equal protection — but there is NO express constitutional right.

Steve Schmidt thinks the tide's about to turn in Kamala's favor and she'll win comfortable, and we'll know that night. David Pakman agrees, but isn't quite as sure. Well, neither one is cock sure, but they both think she'll pull it out.

R512 And all those millions of votes in CA simply don't matter. That's our system.

And it needs to be changed. The electoral college, with its preservation of "regional" balance, is no longer fair and balanced in a world with close digital connections... we live in the "same" state now...

And the electoral college in the past 40 years has let Republicans win the white house without majority votes and in turn appoint justices on the supreme court who make decisions contradicting with the majority wants (and let's not pretend those decisions are not political and cultural instead of "legal")

If the midterms are any indication, R515, there should be less “wasted” votes in California.

Fewer!

Why are they having Houchel stump for her? She’s hated.

[quote] Steve Schmidt thinks

I stopped reading after Steve Schmidt.

You can’t do anything without a form of government ID, so this entire thing is stupid. Every poor with exception of maybe the homeless have one.

Not true, at all.^^

Wrong, r513

[quote]The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude..

If anyone is feeling anxious about the state of the election for Harris/Walz, check out this video for some insight and inspiration. The 27 year old Chair of the Mecklenberg County Dems in NC may just be on the path to flipping the state. And if NC goes to Harris, she has a 97% chance of winning the election.

Watch the whole video. At the end, he lays out why there’s a good chance they can pull it off.

[quote] Not true, at all.^^

It’s completely true. You can’t even get into a hospital without official ID.

Harry Enten on CNN can be such a stupid "Dems are Doomed" tool sometimes.

The other day he put up a thinkpiece saying Harris may be doomed because a large % of Americans say they think the country is on the wrong track. What?? A very large % of Harris supporters would say they think the country is on the wrong track: The GOP-led House and the GOP-controlled Supreme Court and Trump having shredded so many healthy norms including the respect for truth itself...

The nation is so deeply polarized, the "Is America on the right or wrong track" question is meaningless alone, without also asking the respondent "do you think one party holds more blame" and if so which one.

R522 that’s not an affirmative right to vote. That’s a protection only to the extent there is a right to vote. It is a distinction with a difference. You never passed a Con Law class, did you?

You have to register according to local law.. You may be removed from the rolls under various circumstances. You may be barred from voting, etc. There is no express affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

R524 I did—just last week. On multiple occasions.

[quote] Harry Enten on CNN can be such a stupid "Dems are Doomed" tool sometimes.

[quote] The other day he put up a thinkpiece saying Harris may be doomed because a large % of Americans say they think the country is on the wrong track. What?? A very large % of Harris supporters would say they think the country is on the wrong track: The GOP-led House and the GOP-controlled Supreme Court and Trump having shredded so many healthy norms including the respect for truth itself...

While I'm generally loath to be critical of the likes of Enten, Silver, etc., who offer difficult takes ("don't shoot the messenger"), I absolutely agree with the analysis of R525.

Thanks, R528. This was the Enten-related piece that set me off, btw. I sit corrected - it was his "take" on a TV segment, not a published piece.

[quote] [R522] that’s not an affirmative right to vote. That’s a protection only to the extent there is a right to vote. It is a distinction with a difference. You never passed a Con Law class, did you?

It is a pretty explicit acknowledgment that the right to vote is part of the rights and privileges of citizenship. As are the 19th (“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”) and. 26th (“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”) Amendments.

Only a pedant would assert that there is no explicit right to vote.

That’s two Amendments protecting voting rights. If you’re point is that there is noting in the

^ three

Enter sounds like an old Jewish man. Shut your eyes and it’s Bernie Sanders. Now he tries to make jokes which are painfully unfunny. Whose nephew at CNN is he? He came out of no where.

[quote] You can’t even get into a hospital without official ID.

That’s because the hospital wants to be sure it’s going to get paid and they are confirming you are insured.

Are you going to assert, like Trump, that you need to show ID to buy a loaf of bread?

How’s this?—many states deny the right to vote to incarcerated persons and/or felony parolees. How can they do that? Because there’s no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

Or this?—states may disqualify you ballot for any number of reasons…missing signature, no id, not at current address, recent move, etc. etc. How can they do that? Because there’s no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

Any state legislature is free to change their state law and reserve the right to select Presidential electors to themselves—depriving their state’s citizensthe right to vote (indirectly) for President. How can they do that? Because there’s no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

And so on…

Felons surrender all sorts of freedom (including their liberty) following due process of law. The fact that states violate the Constitution with some regularity does not mean the Constitution does not grant a right. You are correct that neither the original 1787 document nor the Bill of Rights specified who has a right to vote (beyond a reference to eligible voters for state legislatures), but you ignore the subsequent amendments. That is a fatal omission from your argument that their right is unprotected.

Just hold your breath for as long as can…nothing is going to change much until we start counting…

[quote] Any state legislature is free to change their state law and reserve the right to select Presidential electors to themselves

I doubt that would be allowed. The original conception of the selection of Senators and Presidential electors has been explicitly (in the case of Senators) and implicitly (in the case of electors) abandoned.

r535, but we know that Constitutional ORIGINALISTS, like the six corrupt Republican Supreme Court Justices, only believe in the first TEN Amendments. You know, the ORIGINAL Constitution.

I suppose you think states are free to declare that only millionaires can vote. Nothing in the explicit text of the Constitution may say otherwise, but there is no way that would be regarded as Constitutional, except perhaps by Clarence Thomas.

r539, or land owners?

No. They don’t dismiss the later Amendments. That’s not what “originalism” means. The Constitution was fundamentally changed after the Civil War.

R535. No, is accurate. Your understanding of those amendments is mistaken, and there are decades of case law. You’ve put your cart before the horse, as far as the Constitution goes.

Per curiam

None of the Civil War amendments created a right to vote. They protect the right to vote to the extent it otherwise exists—which right does not of itself exist in the Constitution. Jeebus. Please go back to law school.

Bullshit. If a state tried to restrict voting to millionaires or land-owners today, they be shot down under the guaranty of a republican form of government, due process and equal protection. The original federalism of 1787 was replaced after the Civil War

R537 please retract your comment, since you are about to make a complete fool of yourself. The method by which states choose Electors is reserved to its Legislature. That’s basic constitutional law. 48 states and DC grant that power to the plurality of their state’s voters. Two states allocate the power between the entire state and separate congressional districts. If a state chose to do so, it has full power to revert the selection to their Legislature and not to the voters.

It’s no wonder Trump might win…with people who don’t even have basic knowledge of how our Constitution works.

Civics Classes have to be mandated in ELEMENTARY curricula.

R544 …see there: You noted three concepts that impact the right to vote, but none of them create an express right to vote—because there is none. I agree with your statement, but that does not correct for the earlier mistaken post by someone else(?). People should just know this: the Constitution does not expressly give them their right to vote. That’s why we had so much litigation and nonsense in 2020 and will again. All the bullshit about ballots etc. would be reduced or eliminatex if the right were more clearly defined—but it never was. So here we are…

The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to state governments at all. It limited only what Congress could do. All that changed after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment was interpreted to incorporate the protections of Bill of Rights to citizens against the states. Looking at the 1787 documents while ignoring Reconstruction is going to lead to a lot of fundamental misunderstandings

If a state today attempted to apply its original pre-Civil War powers to limit citizen voting rights, it would be stopped by the 14th Amendment, regardless of what the original text said. Of course, with this lawless Court anything is possible, but I don’t believe an attempt to return to 18th Century means of selecting Presidential electors would stand.

The Constitution has never been amended to take away the states’ right to determine the method of choosing their Electors. Don’t you read the news..we just went trough a whole rigamarole in Nebraska about changing their law. This is basic stuff. When you vote, you vote for Electors because your state’s Legislature has chosen that method—the Constitution gives them full power to change the method.

Nobody bothered to remove the original language, but it is now subject to interpretation in light of subsequent Amendments and precedents. How to allocate electoral votes to reflect the popular vote is something that remains within a state’s reasonable discretion, though one could imagine a future challenge to “winner-takes-all.” Removing the rights of citizens to vote for electors probably is probably a step too far even for this Court.

Last point: if the 14th and 15th amendments created a right to vote, why did we ever have a Voting Rights Act in 1965 (much less a Civil Rights Act in 1957 and 1964). Esch would have been superfluous.

Yet, they were not. Why? Because those amendments were in fact ignored for over a hundred years; they never were considered as actually creating an affirmative right to vote. Thus, Congress passed the 1965 Act to provide a statutory basis for an “incomplete” right referenced in the Constitution. And look at that 1965 Act today: decimated.

Counterpoint—“ The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

R550 you are wrong. Nebraska came within one state senator’s view of changing their process. No Supreme Court would have stopped them. Same would have been with Maine. And all of the states that have passed laws to award their Elector votes to the nationwide “winner” if and when a threshold is reached. All of these is an exercise of the core constitutional power of each state choosing how to select its Electors.

[quote] How to allocate electoral votes to reflect the popular vote is something that remains within a state’s reasonable discretion, though one could imagine a future challenge to “winner-takes-all.”

I am not wrong. You just didn’t read.

R552–that’s not a counterpoint, it proves my point. If there were an expressly affirmed right then further action wouldn’t be necessary. As ir is, it took over 100 years to get the legislation adopted. And which all intent and purpose is no longer enforceable. Get it?

Cite anything, anywhere on the case law, that such right is subject “reasonable discretion.”

The Constitutionality of a hypothetical pact to award electoral votes on the basis of national election results has not been tested because it remains a hypothetical, but it would certainly be subject to challenge by citizens of a state that voted for the other candidate.

[quote] If there were an expressly affirmed right then further action wouldn’t be necessary.

Now that’s just silly. The authors of the Reconstruction Amendments understood, as you apparently do not, that citizens of states that had just fought a civil war to preserve slavery we’re likely to continue to resist civil rights for Blacks, as in fact, they did. So they included an enforcement mechanism. The fact that whites then ignored the issue for a century after Reconstruction collapsed is not evidence that such enforcement was superfluous. The opposite is true.

Anyone can challenge anything. So what?

What’s your constitutional argument that states have limited power to designate the method for choosing Electors? Why hasn’t the Supreme Court overturned Nebraska’s and Maine’s method for choosing Electors—after all each dilutes the rights of the state “as a whole.”

[quote] Cite anything, anywhere on the case law, that such right is subject “reasonable discretion.”

The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other bodies with legislative power (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions). In June 2023, in the case Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give state legislatures sole power over elections and rejected the ISL.

R558 Too funny. Since the reality is that Congress and that states affirmatively chose NOT to enforce by (in)appropriate legislation until the mid-20th century. That’s not really a good rationale for your argument.

r560 you are mixing apples and oranges. Moore said nothing about the method for choosing Electors. Again, there is a separate Constitutional clause that governs here. Moore is irrelevant.

Why? The fact that we failed to protect Black civil rights for 100 years is not proof that such legislation was not necessary, nor is it an argument that the 1960s Civil Rights laws were not reflections of the changes made to the Constitution in the 19th Century.

State authority in general is now subject to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights and Equal Protection Clause . That applies even to provisions of the original Constitution such as the selection of electors.

R563 It is an argument that we have no express or affirmative right in the Constitution. We never had it. That’s the entire point here. We only have what’s cobbled together by string and glue among the states, Congress, the Executive branch and the Courts. You are proving my point, thank you.

R564 I’ll forgive you if you never took Con Law If you did, ‘tis a pity. You are mistaken on this point.

Not all right are “express.”

You think there is no Constitutional argument against the Texas legislature providing that Texas’s electoral votes shall be awarded in the sole discretion of the Governor of Texas. I think there are.

No where did I say that. Stop there.

If Texas, through its people / Legislature, chose to reserve the right to vote for Electors to the Legislature, or chose to allocate Electors by congressional district, it would be within its existing power under the U.S. constitution. That is all.

But it logically follows from your argument that the state legislature has absolute authority to determine how electoral votes are cast.

Your logic is flawed. And you misstate what I wrote. Read the Constitution — there is a specific clause on this very point.

Yes: it reads “ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

Your argument is that nothing in the subsequent changes to the Constitution restricts this authority.

My argument is that there are now limitations on this power.

This is what I’ve gotten from the conversation. The Constituion expressly forbids anyone or any laws preventing people from voting, but states continuously pass laws and requirements that prevent people from voting. Do I have that right?

Anyway, this thread is about polls, so would love to get back to the topic. But the conversation is important, so would suggest creating a separate thread.

The election thread that has become the red-headed stepchild of DL is available when this thread closes.

R532, CNN gets these weird fixations on talent. I get the feeling everybody thinks Harry is sooooooo funny. The same with Brian Stelter. Why they brought that fat fuck back... he's combative, yes, but after he lobs a grenade he sits there with the same look on his face that a baby gets when it shits its diaper. He's almost Republican talking head in his obnoxiousness. And don't get me started on the casket dance around Anthony Bourdain. He's dead. He did it to himself. Even he didn't want to be here.

R571 why keep misstating my argument? My point is that existing constitutional history and case law have accepted the power of a State to delegate choosing Electors to its Legislature or by another method such as by District. In light of the current Court’s originalism bent, I’m on solid ground. Thank you.

[quote] Whose nephew at CNN is he? He came out of no where.

Harry Enten didn't exactly come out of nowhere. He was at FiveThirtyEight and wrote for The Guardian before CNN.

No, r575. That was not your point, though I can understand why you wish to retreat to such a narrow one.

Your point was “ None of the Civil War amendments created a right to vote. They protect the right to vote to the extent it otherwise exists—which right does not of itself exist in the Constitution.”

Oh, Jesus. You are mixing up two entirely different discussions. The subthread about the right to vote is separate and apart from the subthread about the States choosing Electors. Different clauses of the Constitution… bye now.

No. The same reasoning underlies them both—that there are today no rights to vote that did not exist in 1787 and state legislatures retain the full authority to restrict voting (or award electors) as they did then, subject only to non-discrimination on the basis of race, gender or age.

You are hopeless.. . I’m the one who made those very arguments, separately, in the first place. I hope you make it to the voting booth—☮️

Yes—I am paraphrasing your silly argument to show that both of your asserted “separate” discussions are one.

Some advice? I wouldn’t continue your habit of insulting the intelligence of people who point out your mistakes. It makes you look worse.

🥲

Also, once you play the “peace out” card, don’t come back for the last word. It makes you look cheap.

Bless her heart.

I second that we finish off the other election thread before starting a new one. Any objections?

None from me, OP.

I suppose it makes sense to have everyone in one place, but having decided to be loyal to this thread, switching over to the red-headed stepchild thread feels a tad tawdry.

Well wear black for a year and then switch over to the other because this thread is dead in 12 posts.

I'll do my part to try to fill up this thread even though I've probably posted this already.

Yard sign poll.

I know yard signs don't vote. My anecdotal observation isn't a statistical sampling as that term is defined in conventional polling.

But in my rural northeastern Wisconsin region, while there are Trump signs, there are far fewer than what I saw in '16 and '20.

I also sense the enthusiasm gap is real.

Many Republicans, I think, just want Trump to go away, but he's running the school lunchroom like the All Bite No Bark bully he is, they don't want to be kicked out. There's too much of a social cost.

Whooops! -

All Bark No Bite bully he is,

Sorry, I didn't have my eye-opener of fully caffeinated, straight-up black coffee before I typed at r598.

R589 Similar experience here— I live in an extremely red state and there are Trump signs in my area but they’re small yard signs and not the giant flags and banners that were everywhere in 2020. And there aren’t nearly as many.

I agree Della, I’m in suburban Philly (Bucks), and there are a small number of signs compared to 2020. Annoyingly enough, the Repuke party gave out humongous Dump signs, so they’re an eyesore, but they’re not nearly as prevalent. I wonder what our Bucks yard sign troll thinks (not really).

I also belong to a bunch of Bucks Dem groups, and Harris/Walz signs are being stolen. They can’t keep the signs in stock at the local party offices, so the enthusiasm is definitely on the upswing for Harris and downswing for Dump.

[quote] the Repuke party gave out humongous Dump signs

Those are here, too, r592, and it makes me wonder if those are what are considered a ground game by the Committee to Re-Elect Trump (CRETIN).

My understanding is that among seasoned, experienced Repug operatives who have worked in campaigns in the past when Trump wasn't the candidate, there is a real question of whether the knock-on-doors, contact the voters ground game is where it should be.

CRETIN 2024 has "outsourced", whatever that means, its ground game. To who? To what orgs?

Anybody doubt The Big Grift is on? That Trump and the RNC, run by his Daughter-in-law aren't hoarding cash?

Good. Trump's moronic donators deserve to be rooked.

That was me at r593

[quote]And all those millions of votes in CA simply don't matter. That's our system. And it needs to be changed.

In 2020, the number of excess votes in California by themselves were 3.2% of the total of the votes nationally. There’s zero chance that a sufficient number of red states would ever agree to let Democrats have an automatic 3.2% advantage in a national popular vote and it coming from California, of all places. If it were midwestern Illinois, it would be very unlikely, but being California is an absolute no.

The Redheaded Stepchild (Give Peace a Chance):

Wrong thread, R596. This is our "new" thread.

Christ, not this bullshit again.

Could you two try therapy instead of finding your worth through thread hectoring?

Fuck.

R597 Oh, whoops! I don't know how that happened. Yes, meant to link to yours.

R598 I don't know what the voices in your head were doing, but no one here was hectoring. I just accidentally posted the wrong link.

I didn't read everything posted in the duel, but the person who stated that there is not a Constitutional right to vote is correct.