Official Election Poll Thread: Part 4

And so it begins.....Part 4.

Nate Silver, 10/10

D+3. 49.2 vs 46.2

Today's numbers. This is the key chart. The race has moved by 0.3 points toward Trump over the past week, slightly more in states than others (possibly noise).

Should Trump feel a little better about the race? Sure.

Has there been a major change? No.

Bumped, so people can find.

Thanks OP and R3.

I was more confident last week -- I'm really not liking the most recent Quinnipiac and Emerson data.

Simon Rosenberg with his Hopium Chronicles substack is making a persuasive case for Harris still winning, and for the polling aggregates being a bit wrong in Trump's favor. But we slide into belief rather than evidence, there.

It's all starting to feel closer to a 50/50 shot, to me. Not great. That said, if it were still Biden, we'd have thrown in the towel by now.

I’ll be playing the role of R1 here.

Thanks, OP.

Bump

Just speaking anecdotally as someone who answers a lot of poll calls I’ve stopped picking up the phone for unknown numbers the last few weeks

[quote] Simon Rosenberg with his Hopium Chronicles substack is making a persuasive case for Harris still winning, and for the polling aggregates being a bit wrong in Trump's favor.

I've given up following Simon. He didn't miss a beat spinning between Biden & Harris. Just too much of a party apparatchik to be credible to me.

Not that Harris has any chance of winning Florida, but the Marist poll is so different than the NYT/Siena College poll showing a Trump blowout.

well, this guy me feel better anyway.

He explains why some recent polls showing the race tightening (or Trump ahead) are flawed. He breaks some of them down - who was polled, whether the leaked "internal" poll had a hidden agenda, etc.

He's convinced Harris will win decisively and at least he's shows his work.

* he shows his work

Random you tube clips do not instill greater confidence 🤷🏻‍♂️

But he says WHY some of the polls are wrong, and I think he makes a lot of sense.

You instill no added confidence —but thanks.

R15, did you actually watch the video? The analyst says that polls count likely voters as those who voted in the recent past, which he concedes they should. But that doesn’t take into account all of the new voters—and why it matters is that recent elections are showing that likely voters has become less and less of a predictor. Hence the recent Dem wins where polls showed Repukes leading, and the good Dem showing in 2022.

Yes—it’s not his original idea. He is just repeating stuff on You Tube. That gives no greater confidence. That is all.

Ok r17, I guess you have a problem with data and analysis. And who cares whether it’s his original idea. He was able to sum up the situation very clearly.

Btw, here’s some more perspectives based on the same data as explained in R11’s video. These are political analysts and historians who are coming to the same conclusion.

I see someone with bad hair sitting in a parked car.🤷🏻‍♂️

…which does not inspire confidence anymore than some guy on YouTube. The argument raised has been well-covered in the press—we understand the point. These videos do nothing, truly. Tik Tok?!

She summed up the perspective of two experts in one video.so instead of listening to two long ass videos you got the Cliff Notes.

Or just scroll through the prior related thread, where this is amply covered? Just a suggestion.

Generally, I find the “the polls are wrong” arguments unconvincing.

R24 the polls are pretty much always wrong. What happened to the huge red wave predicted 2 years ago? Obama was trailing Romney for months before the 2012 election. Did Romney win? No. When have the polls actually been right?

The polls may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong in the direction you want.

I’m waiting for his soeech in Miami. He will definitely screw everything up with Latinos. He is not too bright and his mental health is declining. I bet he will blunder and say that Latino and immigrants are thieves etc something racist and xenophobic.Most of the audience are probably Cubans that look white and he will forget that his audience is Latino because he won’t see Mexican faces. He will fuck it big time.

WSJ’s latest

^ The Nevada poll is the most surprising. I had understood of late that that was the battleground state the campaign was most confident of winning.

R29, WSJ is a Murdoch publication. It is like a Fox that hasn't had to pay $787M in lying fines. It is not like Fox Analytics. It has not been able to poll Nevada since 2015. The other polls gauge NV better.

Polling is not part of Op-Ed. Their polling operation is respected.

[quote] The Nevada poll is the most surprising. I had understood of late that that was the battleground state the campaign was most confident of winning.

I assume you mean the Harris campaign, and I agree that NV should show Harris ahead. The set of polls also shows Harris ahead in Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona, so other than the Nevada poll, their polling methodology appears to favor the Democrats, so don’t know what happened with NV.

We keep forgetting about margin of error. Most reputable polls have a MOE of 4-5%. That means one poll could show Harris ahead in NV by 2% and the next poll by the same agency could show that Trump was ahead by 1%, and in reality Harris could be FURTHER ahead....

Aggregated polls, movement, the actual actions by the campaign, the hallowed , leaked, "internal polls", external events.... all can give a picture better than any single poll.

"When have the polls actually been right?"

Well.... if we're expecting early October polls to state what will happen weeks later, that is not how it works. The final polls were fairly accurate in 2004 (very close contest, Bush won narrowly) and very accurate in 2008 (Obama beating McCain by 7 pts). But yeah, not so accurate since then.

The final average of national polls in 2016 were almost spot-on. Giving Hillary another .5% win in the popular vote.

Polls are only showing the trend lines and the trend lines are trending to another 6% win to Democrats.

Don’t be greedy^. Take 3.5-4% and run with it. A squeaker: 276 electoral votes

Has the polls ever been so nuts?

I just got a text, my ballot’s on the way.

I’d like some of what r36 is smoking.

I got mine the other day, r39. Followed by my Dem sample ballot. I’ll fill it out tonight, after work.

Young Voters Have Moved Solidly to Kamala Harris

The problem with that argument, R43, is that the tightening has been seen in the non-partisan polls, including Emerson and Quinnipiac.

Isn't the argument the tightening is potentially exacerbated by the volume of partisan polls?

That might apply to poll averages, R45, but how could it affect the polls of reputable pollsters!

What makes a polling organization "non-partisan"? Do they just have to claim they are?

No one was arguing that, R46.

What, then, was the import of R45? That all these partisan polls are negatively shaping the views of voters?

[quote] Isn't the argument the tightening is potentially exacerbated by the volume of partisan polls?

Yes, but Harris has also seen her numbers tighten in the polls by the nonpartisan pollsters. Nonpartisan pollsters that had her up by 2 or 3 points a month ago now have her tied or slightly behind Trump in the battleground states. Her numbers are tightening not only among all polls collectively but also within individual polls.

I have never heard of anyone of my acquaintances that has ever been contacted to participate in any one of these polls.

A lot of shoot the messenger & blame the refs.

The contention was the number of partisan polls potentially skewed the extent of the tightening, R49. Jesus. It's not that hard.

Let’s try this one more time. Exactly how does the number of partisan polls impact the findings of the reputable, nonpartisan ones that are showing a tightening of the race?

No one said that. Fuck off.

Blocking you, R54. Don't bother. Imbecile.

Are people tracking the early voting numbers? Some incredible signals are coming in across states.

In PA, the percentage of black women voting so far is up 248% compared to 2020. For women overall, it’s 146%.

Women are coming in strong in Michigan as well.

Why is Harris losing Pennsylvania? Fuck this shit. I'm starting to lose hope now. The 4 last polls have had Trump in the lead. This fucking sucks.

Harris is ahead in Pennsylvania. Polls aren’t votes. Votes are votes.

R59 Look at this. Trump is in the lead in the 4 last polls.

[quote]In PA, the percentage of black women voting so far is up 248% compared to 2020. For women overall, it’s 146%.

So if Harris loses Pennsylvania, are these being presented as the silver lining?

R60, those polls are all within the margin of error. Some of them are Republican leaning polls. And every poll is guessing on turn out. One recent poll that has Trump up in likely voters had crosstabs that Philadelphia only contributing a twelfth of their 2020 numbers. Ridiculous guesswork.

I’m more focused on what’s happening right now with real voters. How people are early voting? Who’s winning the registration game. And who has the ground game to turn out votes?

Based on those factors, Harris is winning so far and if she keeps building her lead, Trump won’t be able to catch up.

Simon Rosenberg, yt, 2 days ago, "We Are Winning the Election..."

Minute 15 – his 2 favorite "quality" weekly polls are Economist/Yougov and Morning Consult. The latter had her up 6 pts this past week, up 1 and her biggest lead yet in that poll; and Econ/Yougov had her up 4 (also gaining 1 point over the previous week). The NYT poll which has been Trump-leaning has her up 4 (when she’s never been up before) and gaining 4 pts over the last poll.

Credible serious pollsters are showing her up 4 in PA and up 3 in MI, both Republican pollsters. He gave reasons to be optimistic about Arizona and even North Carolina… he said 50 to 55% of people will vote early. Dems are running ahead about 7 points ahea of where our early vote was this time in 2020, nationally.

It’s amazing that in just 1 month Trump might be elected president again. Americans are like battered wives.

Just six of 12 Pennsylvania swing voters who backed Donald Trump in 2016 but switched to Joe Biden in 2020 said they're all-in for Vice President Kamala Harris in our latest Engagious/Sago focus group.

Two others said they're going back to Trump, while the remaining four lean toward Harris but reserve the right to change their minds, as they grapple with uncertainty or mixed emotion.

"The idea that this close out, four Biden voters the last time around are not locked in for Harris is a sign of vulnerability," said Engagious president Rich Thau, who moderated the focus groups.

"That only half of them are locked in for Harris, that to me is consequential," Thau said. "It's not apathy. These are folks that will vote. The question is, for whom?"

The online panels, conducted Tuesday night, were comprised of four Republicans, three Democrats and five independents. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events.

One undecided who leans toward Harris had a vote-splitting approach. If Democrats are poised to lose control of the Senate, keeping a Democrat in the White House could provide a political counterbalance.

While the Harris campaign has deployed Republican surrogates including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to try to win over swing voters, just one of the undecided or Trump-leaning voters in this week's focus group viewed Cheney's recent endorsement of Harris favorably.

At the same time, 8 in 12 saw Democrats' argument that this presidential election is the most consequential of their lifetimes as an exaggeration.

"Many of these Pennsylvania swing voters have grown skeptical of end-of-democracy warnings, and now suffer from 'Most-Consequential-Election Fatigue,'" Thau said. Between the lines: Conspiracy theories continue to shape some voters' mindsets.

Trump was targeted in two apparent assassination attempts this year — one in Butler, Pa., as well as another at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla. Despite no evidence, five say they think it's possible Trump staged the attempt.

I think economy will be the deciding factor in this election. I have just seen stuff online, as I'm not American, but it seems like the prices of food have gone up a lot, just like here in Norway. We already have some of the highest grocery prices in the world, in just two years they have increased by 50 %, which is a lot. IF people are unhappy with current prices and inflation, I could see them voting for Trump. Maybe people think money is more important than abortion rights. I obviously don't agree, but I fear Trump will win. I really hope not though.

It’s the economy, stupid.

R63, I was a faithful consumer of Simon Rosenberg’s substack earlier in the cycle, pre & immediately post-June 27, when he consistently hyped Biden’s chances. And he didn’t miss a beat when Harris became the nominee. But his “hopium,” I came to realize, is his entire brand. So I no longer pay much attention to him.

"Much of the erosion in support for Ms. Harris is driven by a growing belief that Democrats, who have long celebrated Black voters as the “backbone” of their party, have failed to deliver on their promises, the poll showed. Forty percent of African American voters under 30 said the Republican Party was more likely to follow through on its campaign commitments than Democrats were.

“They sweep table scraps off the table like we’re a trained dog and say, ‘This is for you,’” LaPage Drake, 63, of Cedar Hill, Texas, just outside Dallas, said of the Democratic Party. “And we clap like trained seals.”

Mr. Drake, who owns a tree removal service, said he would back Mr. Trump.

“Regardless of how people call him racist and stuff, he is for the country of America,” Mr. Drake said.

The vice president’s support from Black women is strong, about 83 percent. Twelve percent of Black women said they would back Mr. Trump, with 5 percent undecided. But the slip from Mr. Biden’s 2020 numbers among Black men is striking; 70 percent said they would vote for Ms. Harris in November, down from 85 percent in 2020. This is in line with the gender gap more broadly, but relatively new among Black voters.

Still, despite Mr. Trump’s continuing efforts to convince African American voters that they were better off during his presidency, more Black voters now, than in February, say the policies of the Biden-Harris administration have helped them.

Substantially fewer now say that Mr. Trump’s policies helped them."

God, this thing is all over the map....

Remember the good old days, when Pennsylvania mattered most? Well, she's holding it.

"In Pennsylvania, Ms. Harris’s polling lead has been steady, though the state remains tight. Her advantage, 50 percent to 47 percent, falls inside the margin of error. But this was the third Times/Siena survey in two months showing support for Ms. Harris from at least half of the state. (Her lead in the poll was four percentage points when calculated using unrounded figures.)"

If momentum counts, this is what passes for it and she's got it, so that's something.

It’s not the economy . The economy is fine.

It’s misogyny with a soupçon of racism.

R71, that's just wrong. Poll after poll says how people feel about the economy is the biggest driver. It doesn't matter if the numbers say one thing but the feeling is another. It just doesn't.

Two others said they're going back to Trump, while the remaining four lean toward Harris [bold]but reserve the right to change their minds, as they grapple with uncertainty or mixed emotion[/bold]. [ref: R65]

Fucking hell, these people who think that indecision and reserving the right to be stupid fucks marks them somehow as intelligent. It's not careful consideration if you can't choose between two candidates distinct in every way; it's a mark of vain idiocy.

[quote] It’s not the economy . The economy is fine.

No it’s not. Every day Americans can’t afford shit. The very rich are doing good with the economy, the majority of Americans aren’t.

People are not going to tell pollsters (or in many cases themselves) that they are misogynistic or racist.

Actually, wages have grown faster than inflation, which is receding, and unemployment is very low. That is “fine” by most objective measures, though people do blame the incumbent for past inflation, which is also a major headwind.

A white male Democrat would be winning in a romp.

It’s sheer idiocy that thinks reproductive rights aren’t part of people’s views about the economy.

It’s like saying people aren’t concerned with inflation because they are more concerned with economy.

^not Biden. Too feeble-looking.

[quote] It’s sheer idiocy that thinks reproductive rights aren’t part of people’s views about the economy.

What?

At the end of our last wave of post-debate battleground polls, there were two state poll results that didn’t seem to fit the rest.

One was Pennsylvania: Kamala Harris led by four percentage points, making it her best result in the battlegrounds. It was our only state poll conducted immediately after the debate, when her supporters might have been especially excited to respond to a poll.

The other was Arizona: Donald J. Trump led by five points, making it his best result among the battlegrounds. Even stranger, it was a huge swing from our previous poll of the state, which Vice President Harris had led by five points.

In both cases, it seemed possible that another New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College poll would yield a significantly different result. With that in mind, we decided to take an additional measure of Arizona and Pennsylvania before our final polls at the end of the month.

The result? Essentially the same as our prior polls.

Ms. Harris leads by four points in Pennsylvania, just as she did immediately after the final debate.

Mr. Trump leads by six points in Arizona, about the same as the five-point lead he held three weeks ago.

That’s not what I expected. The average of other polls continues to show a tighter race in both states, and — unlike in Florida — there isn’t an obvious explanation for why the Times/Inquirer/Siena poll is producing a somewhat different result in these two states.

Nonetheless, the rest of this newsletter will try to make sense of it all. To be blunt, I can’t really make complete sense of it; there’s no conclusive explanation. You may find this unsatisfying — I do too — but it does yield an important insight: With less than four weeks to go, the polls don’t offer a clear answer on who will win.

Whether or not today’s polls are off-target, the last two polls of Arizona take a clear position: Mr. Trump is well ahead.

Other polls differ. As of Friday, he led by only one point in the Arizona polling average compiled by The Times, before the Times/Inquirer/Siena poll was added.

The other polls come a lot closer to what I would have expected. Arizona does not easily fit the two overarching explanations for Democratic weakness offered by Times/Siena polling this cycle. It’s not a state, like Florida, where Democrats struggled in the midterm elections. And while the state does have many Hispanic voters, Ms. Harris has a fairly healthy 20-point lead among them.

Instead, the two Times/Inquirer/Siena polls show something we’re not seeing in many places in the country: a real challenge for Ms. Harris among white voters, including white college graduates.

If I had to craft a narrative to explain why Arizona is playing out differently, it would probably center on the unusual Democratic dependence on Republican-leaning voters (think, McCain Republicans and independents). Republicans have a clear advantage in party registration; to win, Democrats need to peel off a sizable chunk of Republicans and win unaffiliated voters by a wide margin.

When Mark Kelly won his Senate race in Arizona in 2022, he won 10 percent of self-identified Republicans and 14 percent of registered Republicans, and he held a wide lead among unaffiliated voters in our final Times/Siena poll. His fellow Democrat Ruben Gallego is currently seeing very similar results in his Senate race against Kari Lake. Mr. Gallego’s seven-point lead is even larger than Mr. Kelly’s was two years ago.

Ms. Harris is not winning over traditionally Republican-leaning voters, at least not in the last two Times/Siena polls. She isn’t winning independents, and she doesn’t draw away more Republicans than Mr. Trump draws Democrats, perhaps because she is not seen as especially moderate.

It’s also possible, of course, that the Times/Siena poll is simply off by a few points. Polls are inherently imprecise, and the Times/Siena poll is not perfect. On balance, our methodological choices have yielded more accurate results than other surveys, but it’s certainly possible Arizona will go the other way this year; this is the kind of case that poll averages are built to handle.

Over the last month, we’ve done 14 state or national polls. Of those polls, there are only two where Ms. Harris is running more than two points ahead of President Biden’s performance in the 2020 election: the two polls of Pennsylvania.

While the Times/Inquirer/Siena poll in Pennsylvania doesn’t differ as much from the average of other polls as it does in Arizona, the stakes of a four-point lead for Ms. Harris in Pennsylvania could be quite a bit higher. If Pennsylvania really is her strongest battleground state, it’s a big deal.

Here again, this is not what I would have expected. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago when polls suggested that Pennsylvania seemed as if it might be the weak link for Ms. Harris in her likeliest path to victory. The voter registration numbers have looked very good for Republicans as well.

But the Times/Inquirer/Siena polling isn’t entirely alone in suggesting that Pennsylvania might be a relative strong point for Ms. Harris, at least at the moment. Just last week, Quinnipiac had Ms. Harris ahead by three in Pennsylvania, even as it had her trailing in Michigan and Wisconsin. And a series of district polls — a Susquehanna poll in the 10th District and a Muhlenberg College poll in the Seventh District — both looked good or even great for Ms. Harris.

There are plausible reasons for Ms. Harris’s strength in Pennsylvania relative to Wisconsin and Michigan: It has a more highly educated population; it also may have the smallest share of white evangelical Christians (newly relevant in a year when abortion is a key issue); and it has a smaller Arab American and Muslim population than Michigan does (many of these voters are furious with the Biden administration’s handling of the war in Gaza). Together, that may create the ingredients for Pennsylvania to scoot to the left of Michigan (it was already to the left of Wisconsin in 2020).

Of course, it’s hard to avoid wondering about another possibility: nonresponse bias, which could happen if Democrats were overly eager to pick up the phone. That seemed to be the likeliest interpretation of the last Pennsylvania poll, and there were signs of it in the data.

This time, it’s harder to find. In fact, white registered Democrats were only 4 percent likelier to respond to the survey than white Republicans. (After the first debate, they were 16 percent likelier to respond.) There could still be nonresponse bias if, for instance, we simply get the wrong kind of Democrats or Republicans, but it’s reasonable to expect that Republicans as a whole would be much less likely to respond if Mr. Trump’s supporters were less likely to respond. At the very least, this is very different than it was ahead of the 2020 election, when Democrats responded to the Times/Siena poll in far greater numbers than Republicans.

It’s also worth noting that, historically, Pennsylvania hasn’t been an especially bad state for nonresponse bias. It hasn’t been immune, of course; the polls underestimated Mr. Trump here in both 2016 and 2020. But by most measures, the polls were more accurate in Pennsylvania than in the other relatively white Northern states. So while nonresponse bias can certainly explain a good result for Ms. Harris, it is less obvious that it explains why Pennsylvania looks decent for her compared with Times/Siena results like Trump +17 in Montana, Biden +2 in Wisconsin, Trump +6 in Arizona and Trump +13 in Florida.

More on recalled vote There is, however, one warning sign in the Pennsylvania data — and it’s one we’ve been talking about a lot lately: “recalled 2020 vote.”

As regular readers may know by now, recall vote is a measure of how respondents say they voted in the last presidential election. Some pollsters weight their polls using recalled vote, essentially adjusting the number of Biden ’20 or Trump ’20 voters in their poll to match the outcome of that election.

Historically, weighting polls by recalled vote increases support for the party that lost the last election (because, among other reasons, people are more likely to say they voted for the winner). But there’s a case the measure is improving, and pollsters have been using it more, particularly as a way to make sure their polls won’t underestimate Mr. Trump yet again.

By recall vote, the Times/Inquirer/Siena poll in Pennsylvania is Biden +10, even though Mr. Biden actually won the state by just one point in 2020. While recall vote may be inaccurate, this is out of line with our other Times/Siena results. Our national poll, for instance, showed Biden +5 on recall vote (actual result, Biden +4.5).

Mr. Trump would lead the Pennsylvania poll if it were weighted on recall vote. And notably, the previously mentioned polls showing good results for Ms. Harris in Pennsylvania — the Quinnipiac poll, and the Muhlenberg and Susquehanna district polls — aren’t weighted on recall vote, either. And, like Times/Inquirer/Siena, the Muhlenberg poll of the Seventh District asked respondents about their recalled vote and found Mr. Biden with a wider lead on recall vote than the actual result (seven points, compared with 0.6 points in the district in 2020).

As I wrote last weekend, the recall vote measure has been extremely inaccurate in the past — so inaccurate that it would have made the polls less accurate in every election in recent memory. But a majority of pollsters are now using it anyway, and it’s entirely possible that it will make their polls look more like the final result in the end. After all, the apparent degree of error on recall vote varies greatly from election to election, and this election contains a variety of twists — namely, that the loser of the last election is running again (and doesn’t concede defeat) and the winner isn’t running again (and in a sense lost a rematch against the loser). Maybe, this time, it will do the trick.

If we had used recall-vote weighting this cycle, the Times/Siena polls would tell a very different story.

How recent Times/Siena polls would have changed

National: Harris+4 —> Harris+4

Wisconsin: Harris+2 —> Trump+1

Michigan: Harris+1 —> Trump+1

Pennsylvania: Harris+4 —> Trump+2

Texas: Trump+6 — > Trump+3

Arizona: Trump+6 —> Trump+6

Georgia: Trump+4 —> Trump+6

North Carolina: Trump+3 —> Trump+6

Florida: Trump+13 —> Trump+7

If the final election results look like these recalled-vote-weighted estimates, it would be something of a nightmare for Democrats. It would also be a world where the Democrats made a big miscalculation by not going harder for victory in Texas. Ted Cruz would be hanging on by a thread in his Senate race if these recall-weighted results were right, even as other Democrats fell behind (including Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who leads by five points in today’s poll).

There’s one other thing that’s interesting about these numbers for weighted past vote: If they were the final election results, it would mean a pretty good year for Times/Siena accuracy. The average error across the reported Times/Siena polls would be 2.7 points — well below the long-term average (4.3 points) for presidential election polling. The polls would have understated Mr. Trump by only one point on average — also better than usual, and far better than in 2016 or 2020.

Of course, “good” by statistical measures is not necessarily “good enough” for the purpose at hand. The recall-weight-voted polls tell a very different story about this election. Ms. Harris wins in one; in the other, she loses. But this is mostly because the election is so close: With the race essentially tied, even a modestly below-average amount of error can yield an enormously different outcome.

We will find out which set of results comes closer in November. Either way, the significant effect of recall-vote weighting — and the decision of pollsters to use it — illustrates the uncertainty that’s always inherent in polling and ultimately in our understanding of the election with less than four weeks to go.

I think she means if you want an abortion it's not fair if you can't afford it.

Actually, I don't know what the fuck she means either.

[quote]It’s amazing that in just 1 month Trump might be elected president again.

The last time a sitting vice-president won was 1988 with George H.W. Bush. Before that, it was Martin Van Buren in 1836. It would not be extraordinary if Vice-President Harris loses.

Let's not sane-wash our tilt to fascism.

Loses to TRUMP is the point. He’s a traitor, an idiot, a past loser, insane and a convicted felon.

Not to mention a fascist and a pathological liar.

Anyone a paid subscriber who can give us the balance of this post:

The past quarter-century of American politics has been dominated by two major trends. One is simply increasing political polarization: red states have perpetually become redder, and blue states bluer. In 1996, only 7 states were decided by 20 or more percentage points. But in 2020, 19 states were, leading to many wasted votes.

The other is increasing polarization along educational lines. As recently as 20061, there was basically no difference in voting Democratic or Republican based on whether a voter had graduated from college. But in 2020, Joe Biden won 54 percent of the vote among white voters who’d graduated from college but just 37 percent who hadn’t, according to estimates from the data firm Catalist.2

These educational splits have typically been lesser among nonwhite voters. But the increasing educational divide is coming into tension with the most longstanding feature of American politics: racial polarization. Since the Civil Rights Era, Black voters have been the building blocks of the Democratic coalition, voting for them in overwhelming numbers. Hispanic and Asian American voters have been more swingy but have usually at least leaned toward the Democratic Party.

However, Black and Hispanic voters are more working class — less likely to have completed college degrees — than white ones. So in principle, a continued increase in educational polarization would lead to erosion in Democratic support among these groups, but gains with white ones. From an Electoral College standpoint, this would actually be a good trade for Democrats since white voters are overrepresented in their impact on the Electoral College relative to their share of the overall voting population.

And in some polls, that’s exactly what we’re seeing. Donald Trump’s polling against Joe Biden had consistently shown him making huge gains with Black and Hispanic voters, especially younger voters and those without college degrees. Kamala Harris’s numbers have improved among these groups, but the same trend persists, including in the most high-quality surveys. For instance, a New York Times/Siena College oversample of Black voters from their recent national survey showed Trump winning 15 percent of the Black vote, up from 9 percent in 2020. That’s not great — Black voters are still very, very Democratic — but it’s potentially enough to make the difference in states like Georgia.

Meanwhile, a recent national NBC News/Telemundo/CNBC poll exclusively of Hispanic voters showed Harris winning them by only 14 points. Keep in mind that there’s never any hard evidence of how any racial group votes — we have to rely on exit polls and ecological inference, which themselves can be subject to error — but that’s a considerably narrower margin than in recent elections. In 2020, Biden won Latinos by 28 points, according to the AP Votecast exit poll, and 26 points per Catalist’s data. However, Harris is slightly improving on Biden’s performance in many if not most polls of white voters.

If these trends are real, then you’d also expect to see shifts in the electoral landscape, with Harris making gains in the whiter states, including the Blue Wall battlegrounds of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — but Trump improving his performance in the more racially diverse Sun Belt. And you do get exactly that in some surveys. A pair of NYT/Siena polls on Saturday found Harris leading Trump by 4 points in Pennsylvania but Trump up by 6 in Arizona.

But while these numbers are similar to previous NYT/Siena of these states, they differ from the polling averages there, which show much closer races in both cases — and they also differ from certain other high-quality surveys. Just this week, for instance, Wall Street Journal polls showed Trump 1 point ahead in Pennsylvania but Harris leading by 2 in Arizona. So let’s take deeper look and see if we can untangle the mystery.

Being unable to control the timing and number of children that you have is not cost neutral.

Not to mention the justice and equity arguments: those with economic resources and privilege will get the care they need. Those with limited economic resources will not have the same access.

I know this not "oh, it's the economy stupid" analyses... but uneven distribution of economic resources is central to the need for a nationwide law re-establishing the rights of Roe.

Who turns out is especially critical.

33-1 advantage in Republican shitpolling.

Give R92 a Nobel— a rocket scientist

I don't recall now which political writer's X I linked to, but the import of the comment was that Harris has a better outcome among likely voters, while Trump wins if the less likely voters participate. So yes, who turns out is dispositive. And it flips the pre-Great Realignment consensus that Democrats do better with higher turnouts.

^^ And Presidential elections are when less likely voters come out. So many moving and unsure pieces in this election. I kind of agree with James Carville who says the election will be a blow out (i.e. 6-7 of the battleground states going in one direction), only we don't know yet who is going to be the winner.

[quote] And Presidential elections are when less likely voters come out.

Absolutely. But we're talking about degrees.

Thank you. But there are hundred of people who have made the same point ahead of you—just on these threads alone.

We all get it.

I read that a focus of the Trump campaign is to get non-likely voters to vote (for Trump).

Really? I read that a focus of the Harris campaign is to get non-likely voters to vote (for Harris).

Funny, that.

In latest NBC poll, the two are tied, 48-48. Harris was up 5, 49-44 in its last poll.

In latest CBS poll, Harris is up 3 nationally, 51-48, & up 1, 50-49, in the battleground states.

^ same poll shows Independents going from Harris +4 in September to Trump +4 now.

In latest ABC poll, Harris is up 2 among likely voters (50-48) & registered voters (49-47). Down from 5+ & 4+ leads in mid-September poll. Among registered men, a 48-48 tie is now a 52-44 Trump lead. Among independents a 10% lead (51-41) has narrowed to 5 points (49-44).

Where the fuck is Nancy Pelosi now? She was so certain she was the doing the right thing.

Now what?

Chill out—

Nancy Pelosi is already being vindicated R105. Trump was on track to slaughter Biden. We'd have lost every battleground state and maybe even Minnesota. And Biden would have dragged our House and Senate hopes down with him. With Harris we have a real fighting shot, all evidence says it's 50/50.

Biden would be doing worse. He’s simply not up to the task.

It’s just too bad we had no opportunity to have a primary. Harris is just OK as far as I’m concerned. And this is not the election to try to break the glass ceiling with a woman of color. She’s doing better than I feared, but misogyny is a problem and so is racism.

Is it possible that the polls are actually getting it right? By that I mean Harris is on pace to edge out Trump with a win?

We know in 2016 and 2020 Trump was vastly underestimated and in 2022 Dems were vastly underestimated. Could the pollsters have found Goldilocks and these polls are exactly spot on? Which, again, would give Harris the win (barely).

Or am I just being delusional because the thought of four more years of Trump makes me want to scratch out my eyes?

R109, I think the comparisons between mid-term (& special) elections & presidential elections are off, especially in the current era, due to increased size of the latter in the latter. Where a larger electorate one inured to the benefit of Democrats, Trump’s appeal to the working class changes that dynamic.

R97 yikes. Elon Musk is paying people to vote - saw on Jimmy Kimmel a tweet or something offering $47 for a new voter - and added "Easy money!" God I hate that man - maybe more than the Don. He may have more ability to finish our democracy off with all that money.

Saw a Kimmel tweet or something? …you sound as dumb as any Trump supporter.

The Elon Musk $47 thing is real but it's a referral-reward offer, to get unregistered voters to sign up with a Trumpy vote registration org.

R112… that’s about as dumb as any Dump post I’ve ever seen.

[quote] Biden would be doing worse. He’s simply not up to the task.

I'm not so sure. Trump's collapse at his debate doesn't appear to have been a fatal blow. Would Biden be doing as bad among men? He already beat Trump. And he'd be running with the usual advantages of presidential incumbency.

Trump’s brand is incoherent and stupid. Biden’s is not so he’d be doing worse in all demographics.

Don’t you have to be up by 5 nationally to ensure a victory? Isn’t that the magic number? This feels like it’s going to be a disaster with the courts having to get involved or something. Too close to call with Trump already claiming victory.

Maybe, ElderLez. But one of Kamala's problem is an "otherness" that Biden would not have.

[quote] Don’t you have to be up by 5 nationally to ensure a victory? Isn’t that the magic number?

That has been the informed wisdom, but I'm inclined now to believe Nate Cohn's theory of the case - first posited in Sept. 2023 -that, due to his gains with Latinos & Blacks, who are less represented in the key Rust Belt states, Trump will be doing better in the popular vote, but not necessarily in the Electoral College.

Half dead is plenty othering.

Yeah, but Trump has the advantage that he already was president & many people have memory-holed what his presidency was like. And given him credit for the post-Covid economy he inherited from Obama.

Listen, Kamala could be up by 10 points on Election Day and that orange prick is still gonna be screaming he won and it was “rigged”.

Ignore that fat fool and keep working! We can do this.

CNN just delivered another blow to Democrats, more Americans identify as Republican now than Democrats. Republicans outnumber Democrats in all the battleground states and new party registration is now almost tied with Democrats. Republicans are nationally more popular.

Kornacki reporting it too. Both Trump and Kamala unpopular candidates. 50% negatives.

Trump can't be president again, he's fucking nuts. Stupidity + crazy = bedlam.

R125, so are most Americans. Have you seen how many people are on pills?

Revenge of the cranks.

The Harry Enten CNN piece at R123 is uncomfortably interesting. In the 2nd half he dives in on national. I wonder why the GOP is now +1 over the Dems in party registration, after Covid disproportionately killed older GOP voters and another four years of younger voters got registered.

I suspect it’s a mix of new-voter negativity towards Biden, and a growing % of younger voters registering Independent. But not at all sure of that. It does seem like another piece of possible evidence that the polls *aren’t* hiding a big Harris wave.

There wasn’t going to be a Harris wave. It is close all the way to the wire.

It’s almost like boomers dying off and being replaced by Gen X and millennials isn’t going to make the US less MAGA. Ditto for the US becoming a minority majority country soon.

R105 Nancy never wanted Kamala. She and Obama both knew Kamala would struggle to win and were pushing for an open convention. In hindsight maybe having a candidate chosen at the convention would have given them a honeymoon that lasted until election day.

[quote] after Covid disproportionately killed older GOP voters

This never happened.

R132 WTF are you talking about? I work in hospitals - I've seen how COVID has devastated communities that A) never masked and B) refused the vaccine. If you don't think COVID disproportionately affected older GOP supporters then you've got your head farther up Trump's ass than most of his supporters.

R131 you are full of it. You have completely misrepresented what was going on behind the scenes, where there was a full and immediate coalition formed around Harris. What either may have mentioned *once* publicly is no indication of what they were working towards behind the scenes.

[quote]If you don't think COVID disproportionately affected older GOP supporters then you've got your head farther up Trump's ass than most of his supporters.

Hell, it took out plenty of younger Republicans, too.

NPR? lol. Tell us another one.

[quote] Hell, it took out plenty of younger Republicans, too.

But apparently not enough of them.

I think the feeling was that blacks wouldn’t come out if Harris was passed over. It would be ironic if POC not coming out with her on the ticket cost Dems the election.

Yikes.

I see we're at the let's find a way to blame this all on black people phase of the campaign.

[quote] I'm not so sure. Trump's collapse at his debate doesn't appear to have been a fatal blow

Democrats and most independents are not in a cult. We actually care whether the President is sane and healthy.

Noting a drop in support for the Democratic candidate among Blacks is not “blaming this all on Black people.”

Correct: it’s rewarding Trump for how well he relates to Black America. 😵‍💫

[quote] Democrats and most independents are not in a cult.

Sadly, not all Trump voters are hardcore MAGAts. Many cannot stand the man, but will vote for him, nonetheless.

[quote] A CNN analyst reveals that for the first time since 1984, more Americans identify as Republicans than Democrats.

All the more reason for the GOP to continue in its MAGA ways, even if Trump loses. It's hard to argue that Trump and Trumpism is destroying the Republican Party when more Americans than ever are identifying as Republican.

[quote] Sadly, not all Trump voters are hardcore MAGAts. Many cannot stand the man, but will vote for him, nonetheless.

Those people, by definition, don’t care about how poorly he performs in a debate. They want their tax cuts or whatever it is that motivates them.

My point is that it is simplistic to say that because it doesn’t seem to matter how feeble Trump appears, the same is true for Biden. Different sets of supporters with different values.

The Democrats seem to be more burdened by the backlash against their fringe (progressives) than the GOP is by theirs (Christian Nationalists).

The Democrats seem to be more burdened by the backlash against WHAT HAPPENED DURIG COVID than the GOP.

FIFY—

For the ass at R131

I do know some Republicans in my neighborhood who tell me they will not vote for Trump. They are voting a write in. A couple mention Ronald Reagan - it makes them feel better. And yes they know it won't count by the are trying to make a statement.

Do you live in a battleground state, R150? If not, whomever these Republicans write in is of no moment.

There are anecdotal reports of anti-Trump Republicans signaling their disgust to non -MAGAS like r150, as if we should take hope that Trump is not as strong as the polls suggest, but why would these people be missed by the polls?

It's the soft racists who will vote for Trump. Dumb whites who have nothing more than White privilege to vote for.

[quote]Nancy never wanted Kamala. She and Obama both knew Kamala would struggle to win

Neither anticipated the Biden implosion. Biden, Nancy and Obama were good for Kamala to run in 2028.

That’s not correct: there was real anticipation that Biden would melt.

There were reports that Pelosi and Obama wanted some kind of quick primary process, fearing that Harris was a weak candidate, but Biden put a stop to the idea by quickly endorsing Harris.

I suppose we’ll have to wait for history to know.

[quote]Biden put a stop to the idea by quickly endorsing Harris

Last thing Biden wanted was for his step aside to become a divide.

Biden is the political genius of the last 60 years.

[quote] Biden is the political genius of the last 60 years.

Oy vey.

That is an odd thing to say about a politician who was dragged out of his own re-election bid.

R158, he wasn’t “dragged out.” When he realized his position was untenable, he bowed out and fully supported his successor. Now, you known who refuses to be dragged out? Dump.

r157, his manipulation of MAGA to get legislation passed, the volume of his legislation, getting elected in the first place with the aid of Tom Perez, is historical.

R159 is as out to lunch as Joe is. Jesus Christ. Must be a troll.

r161, stop the trolling of a regular poster, Ivan.

Joe hate is a tell.

R161 is a troll. Best block and move on.

Disputing that Joe Biden is the political genius of the last three generations is “Joe hate,” and whoever disputes this must be a Russian bot?

I see.

R155 we don’t need to wait. We already know…it has been much written about.

Joe Biden was a great President. He will go down as one of the best to ever do it. That's my opinion, and that will never change. Joe Biden was the victim of a hit job, pure and simple. Here's the thing, Democrats, the things you all care about, the other side doesn't. As a party, we are pretty out of touch with what many Americans care about. The other side knows what gets you worked up and gleefully pushes that until you fall into their trap. And you fall into their trap every single time. I enthusiastically support Kamala and believe that she will win this thing, but none of this election is about age or health or mental acuity, they just wanted Biden gone.

[quote]I see we're at the let's find a way to blame this all on black people phase of the campaign.

From Bill Kristol, of all people:

r164, there was no discussion, only dismissal. Typical troll-tactics.

[quote]As a party, we are pretty out of touch with what many Americans care about.

And there's the tell.

We might need to create barriers for white people to vote if Trump wins.

[quote] R164], there was no discussion, only dismissal. Typical troll-tactics.

Sometimes an idea is so patently ridiculous that no discussion is warranted..

Besides, it not like you supported your assertion that “Biden is the political genius of the past 60 years with any “discussion.” Odd argument for you to make.

[quote] Joe Biden was a great President. He will go down as one of the best to ever do it.

Said no one ever.

[quote]Joe Biden was a great President. He will go down as one of the best to ever do it. That's my opinion, and that will never change. Joe Biden was the victim of a hit job, pure and simple.

I appreciate his accomplishments in office, I appreciate what he did to put things where they are as opposed to where he found them, but his time has come and gone. The man now in office couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag. Certainly he can take credit for his significant accomplishments in earlier years of his term, but for a year easily he has not been himself. Except the stubborn part. It's alarming to watch him he seems so frail and befuddled as to where he is, who he is, what he is doing there...

If getting him out of the way of an election where the candidate had to have some wits about himself or herself was a 'hit job,' then anyone who has ever had to take the car keys away from grandpa is a hit man.

Trump is not a smart man, nor a clever man, nor a man armed with facts and yet even Trump was smart enough to see his opportunity in letting Biden hang himself. It was Biden, not fucking Nancy Pelosi or Obama or a squadron of hit men who, by way of one of the most miserable debate performances ever, legitimized Trump as a candidate. Anyone with a less addled brain could have made mincemeat of the idiot, could have embarrassed him, could have drawn a distinction of choice between candidates, could have set a framework for the election themes. Biden --or more likely 'Biden's people' stole that golden opportunity from all Democrats. And all anyone could come up with after the fact were incredibly lame excuses and pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps, and it did the Democrats no fucking good at all. Blaming Pelosi for the alleged cruelty of her 'hit' is fucking ridiculous. Blame Biden for blowing what should have been the easiest thing in the world: looking presidential and decisive against a crazed lunatic wearing the mask of a baboon's ass.

[quote] Blame Biden for blowing what should have been the easiest thing in the world: looking presidential and decisive against a crazed lunatic wearing the mask of a baboon's ass.

Or more fundamentally, for the hubris of thinking he should be President at age 86. He never should have sought a second term. Destroyed his legacy. Especially if Trump returns.

Into the Lion’s Den

Omg! Kamala on Fox. Hope Pete B is providing some strategic advice, he's the only Dem who regularly scores hits on Fox against Fox's intent.

I think (hope) it will be a net plus for her. She’s not going to convince the MAGAts, but there are unentrenched viewers of FOX (lunchroom denizens, visiting relatives, abused spouses, etc.) who will see she’s not scarey or “retarded,” and didn’t just turn Black.

A decent number of Republican women are concerned about the state of abortion and/or IVF. I suspect she’ll work that and taunts (delivered on “his” station) into every fourth answer. Brett Baier will be Chris Wallace-like tough, but fair. She can handle it.

The fact that big talking T’s too much of a pussy to do a second one-on-one debates her, won’t be lost on many.

“debate with”

Kamala is leading in several national polls released today. 😁

Also, the two Michigan areas with the highest return rates on mail-in ballots are Detroit and Flint. Very encouraging early signals for Harris there.

🔵 Harris 49% (+3) 🔴 Trump 46%

Tipp #A+ - 1212 LV - 10/13

“This is the first release of TIPP’s 23-day tracking poll series. “Recognized by The Washington Post in 2020 as the most accurate national presidential poll.” - Joe Scarborough

Yesterday, I was at an event in Middletown, Ohio. You all know where that is, since vile Jimmy claims to be from there (it’s NOT in Appalachia, either. It’s between Dayton and Cincinnati. Closer to Indiana. But I digress).

Anyway, there was only ONE lard assed white man wearing a traitor shirt. No hats, no flags. Just one cunt in a shirt.

There was also a fat guy wearin a Harris/Walz shirt, too, and a 20 something pink haired chick wearing a “white girls against white supremacy” t shirt.

"The new round of October polling from the Senate Leadership Fund shows all but one Republican candidate running behind Donald Trump in battleground states, a pattern that could sharply limit their ability to build a sizable majority unless they can force a change in the final weeks of the election.

Republicans are still favored to take control of the chamber, and their data brought some hopeful news with tightening races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. But other pickup opportunities, namely Maryland and Michigan, are moving in the wrong direction. And Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the two incumbents running in a state Trump won in 2020, looks surprisingly strong in Ohio."

[quote] From Bill Kristol, of all people:

Bill Kristol has been a stalwart anti-Trumper from the start. There are a lot of progressives who could learn a lesson from him.

Dave Wasserman's latest take.

Link stinks

^ Actually, not much of a take:

[quote] The national picture: Harris's lead in @CookPolitical's polling average down to 1.9% after peaking at 2.5% a few weeks ago. Since start of October, Trump has gained w/ non-college whites, while Harris has preserved gains w/ Black & 18-29 voters.

As Amy Walter just noted on PBS: at this point in the campaign each side is not trying to turn “swing voters.” Each is trying to get people less inclined to vote “off the couch.” They have the same strategy here on out, but each is using different tactics.

Harris is going on Fox not to get new votes from their viewers, but (1) to turn any Fox viewers off Trump and (2) excite lazy voters otherwise inclined to vote for her.

As always: it’s turnout, and turnout in the right spots. All is in the margins. The rest is spiderwebs in the breeze—gossamer.

Trump's special challenge - with what's perceived to be an inferior ground game - is to get infrequent & first-time voters to the polls.

That’s why Melon Tusk is PAYING them, r189.

Another Tuesday, another FiveThirtyEight roundup. Just THREE(!) weeks to go until Election Day. And early voting is already happening across the Battleground States. Below are the polling averages from week to week (Oct 15 vs Oct 8).

Summary: Not so good. Wisconsin and Michigan have tightened further, this past week. Nothing much changed elsewhere. Overall, either the polls will turn out to be wrong in one candidate's favor, or this will truly be a fight for every last vote and it will likely be contested vehemently for weeks into November.

The data:

ARIZONA. Oct 15: Trump +1.6%. Oct 8: Trump +1.3%. A net gain of 0.3% for Trump. AZ (11 EVs) remains statistically tied with Trump favored.

GEORGIA. Oct 15: Trump +1.0%. Oct 8: Trump +1.1%. A net gain of 0.1% for Trump. GA (16 EVs) remains statistically tied with Trump slightly favored.

MICHIGAN. Oct 15: Harris +0.8%. Oct 8: Harris +1.8%. A net gain of +1.0% for Trump. MI (15 EVs) is now statistically tied within the margin of error, Harris having a slight edge.

NEVADA. Oct 15: Harris +0.5%. Oct 8: Harris +0.9%. A net gain of +0.4% for Trump. NV (6 EVs) remains statistically tied with a slight edge to Harris.

NORTH CAROLINA. Oct 15: Trump +1.0%. Oct 8: Trump +0.9%. A net gain of 0.1% for Trump. NC (16 EVs) remains statistically tied with Trump slightly favored.

PENNSYLVANIA. Oct 15: Harris +0.7%. Oct 8: Harris +0.7%. No change. PA (20 EVs) remains tied, statistically speaking, with Harris slightly favored.

WISCONSIN. Oct 15: Harris +0.5%. Oct 8: Harris +1.6%. A net gain of +1.1% for Trump. WI (10 EVs) is now statistically tied, with Harris holding a very slight edge.

NATIONAL. Oct 15: Harris +2.4%. Oct 8: Harris +2.6%. A net gain of 0.2% for Trump. The tightening continues.

I'm staying hopeful. But going on the data alone, this could be the most intensely close election since 2000.

So all the battleground states statistically tied. It would better if that is how it were always reported instead of showing these tiny percentage figures as if they were meaningful. The outcome will be impossible to know until after the election. The voters on both sides can be happy for the next three weeks knowing that their candidate is on the precipice of winning.

They are, R192, all seven of them except maybe Arizona leaning Trump at 1.6%. I've never seen that happen before.

If they are within the margin… neither is “slightly favored”—jeezus.

[quote] If they are within the margin… neither is “slightly favored”—jeezus.

Yes, a candidate can be "slightly favored" even if their lead is within the margin of error. If a candidate is at 48%, for example, and the margin of error is plus or minus 3, the candidate could be anywhere from 45% to 51%, but they are more likely to be near the center of that range than at either extreme.

No. The mere fact that there could be an error in either direction negates your poor argument. No “leaning” conclusion can be drawn.

Thanks, Torta, for keeping track of all of that.

According to Nate Cohn, Harris, up 3 nationally in the Times poll, would be up 2 if the polls miss as they did in ‘22, while Trump would be up 1.

Pennsylvania (+1 Harris) would be either +6 Harris or +3 Trump.

Wisconsin (+1 Harris) would be either +3 Harris or +9 Trump.

Michigan (+1 Harris) would be either +6 Harris or +5 Trump.

Nevada (even) would be +3 or +3 Harris for either Harris or Trump.

North Carolina (+1 Trump) would be <1 Harris or +4 Trump.

Georgia (+1 Trump) would be either +1 or +2 Trump.

Arizona (+2 Trump) would be either +1 Harris or +5 Trump.

[quote] No. The mere fact that there could be an error in either direction negates your poor argument. No “leaning” conclusion can be drawn.

You're wrong.

Here is what AI says:

Yes, if a candidate is leading in a poll but their lead is within the margin of error, it indicates that the race is very close. While you can't definitively conclude that the candidate will win, you can say that they are slightly favored based on the available data. It's important to interpret these results with caution, acknowledging the uncertainty and the possibility that the opponent could be leading as well. Overall, the candidate's position suggests they have an advantage, but the outcome remains uncertain.

Same as before

R194, point taken but you might try being less of a cantankerous git.

R199 enjoy your AI fantasia. Some of us live in actual reality, where polling does not actually work the way you think it does. Probability has inherent limits. Read Statistics for Dummies!—right up your alley.

Gallup - remember when Gallup & Harris were THE pollsters? - shows independents have flipped 9% in Harris's favor, from 50-45 in September to 49-45 now.

Gallup? Don’t they handicap the races at Santa Anita?

🥴

I feel like all this Trump support is just a big bluff. He has absolutely nothing going for him as a candidate and only won by a fluke in 2016 - which the country paid dearly for. He doesn’t seem to be making any effort. I just can’t believe the majority of Americans - even in swing states - could be stupid enough to vote for this turkey.

I suspect even his backers - beyond Thiel and Musk - have reconsidered their support. Mostly because he’s too unpredictable and is in obvious decline.

And yes, while there is some appetite to institute Project 2025 fascist rule, I think that’s more extreme than most of the .01% want to support. You know why? Because ultimately they like a game that they know they can win. They know the rules of liberal democracy and they know exactly how to break them. That’s a system they understand and can play to their advantage. Project 2025? Not so much.

I think Trump is going to be toast. And it won’t be much of a surprise.

Have you all heard about the first day of early voting in GA? Record breaking.

It’s over 250K so far and that’s the biggest day of GA early voting ever. Twice as big as the first day of early voting in 2020.

[quote] He has absolutely nothing going for him as a candidate and only won by a fluke in 2016 - which the country paid dearly for. He doesn’t seem to be making any effort. I just can’t believe the majority of Americans - even in swing states - could be stupid enough to vote for this turkey.

He only needed 44000 votes to flip in three states to win in 2020, during Covid, so it’s certainly believable that he could win at least a razor thin victory in 2024.

But who’s voting, if I may ask?

Here is a Georgia newscast from today. You can see who’s in line.

R209 that looks encouraging! Fingers crossed.

[quote] that looks encouraging!

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

NBC Lester Holt just did two minutes on Trump being nuts🤙🏼

R206, Republican registrations across the country are nearly equal to Democrats and more Americans identify as Republican than Democrat. Sorry, but high turnout doesn’t mean Democratic votes. The GOP is pushing for early voting now and their minions are listening.

Trump may very well win by a hair and it’ll be a goddamn disaster. Prepare yourselves.

The double standard is shit. Joe may have been slow but he wasn’t bonkers.

[quote]I feel like all this Trump support is just a big bluff.

I understand. Your feelings are a much better predictor than scientific polling.

R213 doesn’t get how voter registration works in various states.

CA is one of the 5 bluest states with the highest percentage of non-part registration.

non-party*

R217, weren’t not talking about California. You’re methed out WeHo ass is a retarded. Go and take another load.

R217, we are not talking about California. Your methed out WeHo ass is retarded. Go and take another load.

Say it again!

Another local newscast from Georgia…

And more context around today’s Georgia vote:

“ In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, which Biden won by 37.1 points in 2020, 1,600 people voted on the first day of early voting in 2020. As of 1 p.m. today, 2,600 people voted. They are on track to double 2020’s numbers!”

For one day—that’s not a track record