Gotta love the NYT!

We'll see what the latest polling-design errors are after the election.

Because she needs a buffer for the EC.

They're

not

motherfucking

tied.

So you polled 1,000 people to skew numbers to fit your bullshit narrative. Pathetic.

I feel exactly the same as the Times. She should be leading big because he is a freak and a failure. The fact that’s it’s tied is ominous.

There were actually 2516 voters in the sample -- but who's counting?

NYT is a shit rag

[QUOTE]I feel exactly the same as the Times. She should be leading big because he is a freak and a failure. The fact that’s it’s tied is ominous.

OP has his head in the sand. A tie in the national vote would be disastrous for Kamala and produce results that are far worse than what Hillary had in 2016. That’s why the New York Times article explaining this latest poll practically sounded like an obituary for Dems.

[quote]Gotta love the NYT!

I do not either!

[quote] That’s why the New York Times article explaining this latest poll practically sounded like an obituary for Dems.

Everything the Times writes reads like an obituary for Dems. It's the Times' bread and butter--to stoke fear. A dead heat is only bad for Harris, apparently--and wonderful, apparently, for Dump, per the Times.

More clickbait.

That was my point, R9. Thank you for explaining it so clearly for the mentally challenged.

More shoot the messenger. Trump never even got close to a tie in '16 or '20 polls, let alone the lead as he is in some polls. So that's a concern. But I still think the race is a coin flip, because I think pollsters have resolved the undercounting of Trump support &, per Nate Cohn, Trump's Electoral College advantage may have dissipated.

Doom and gloom for the Democrats is the NEWS. It’s not the Times’ mission to make you feel better. Stop being a baby.

When the "messenger" is profiting from the message, it isn't just a humble reporting of the "news"--btw, polls are not news, they're a small cross-section of a subset of people, there are other polls, and they always shift. They've also been widely inaccurate in the past.

But sure, the Times is merely, you know, reporting.

[quote] Doom and gloom for the Democrats is the NEWS.

Explain, R12. Why is this such doom and gloom for one party only, when it's supposed to be a dead heat (or so say 2,500 people polled)?

r13, NYT only wagers the horserace, it doesn't care to evaluate the stakes of any election

Because R14 the informed wisdom - one I'd like to think no longer applies - is that Harris has to win the popular vote by at least 3% to win.

Right. Because being pessimistic about the Democratic ticket is a brilliant strategy for the NYT to sell more newspapers to its overwhelmingly liberal readers

Fox News is the most profitable “news” organization because it only tells its viewers what they want to hear. You apparently want a liberal version of that, but we tend to value reality.

There is no way he is going to lose the popular vote by only 3%.

Reality, R17--when talking about polls? Please.

I'm beyond concerned, but holding on to the enthusiasm shown in her rallies as a harbinger of eeking out a win.

So they should not conduct, or report on, or interpret polls because they may be wrong?

[quote]Explain, [R12]. Why is this such doom and gloom for one party only, when it's supposed to be a dead heat (or so say 2,500 people polled)?

The NYTimes is correct.

A tie in polling is not encouraging for Harris.

If the phenomena of the Trump polling undercount holds true this time around (as it did in 2016 and 2020), Kamala loses.

I agree

It always seems like this - Oh it's a dead heat - TIED! Every fucking time. And then it's not.

Click bait articles.

I can't wait for their coverage after Trump loses with their usual stable of bloviators (Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens) to start writing op eds saying that it's time for bipartisanship, how concerns of MAGA voters should be taken into account and, how, in the name of national reconciliation, they should be placated as much as possible. You know, the usual bothsiderism bullshit that would try to backsplain their coverage of the election. And they won't be the only ones.

Not to mention that millions of Harris votes are in solidly blue states where they are irrelevant to the electoral college tally.

There is some hope that Trump may also have a lot “wasted” votes in Florida and Texas if he has especially lopsided votes there.

[quote] Not to mention that millions of Harris votes are in solidly blue states where they are irrelevant to the electoral college tally.

How are they "irrelevant" to the electoral college tally, R26?

Because winning California by 10,000 votes is the same as winning California by 10 million votes.

The NYT has a dual purpose, their number one purpose is to make money and that will always be number one. Their number two purpose is to inform and that will always take second place because if they aren't successful with their first purpose the second purpose won't happen. Most of their readers tend to be more liberal and telling your liberal readers everything is fine won't sell papers or create clicks, making everything upsetting generates more income. The NYT is not alone in this, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post all do it, nearly everyone does it because they are all in this to make money.

The real news headline should be that too many people don't seem to realize this.

[quote] It always seems like this - Oh it's a dead heat - TIED! Every fucking time. And then it's not.

It wasn't in '16 or '20. On the basis of the polls, I awoke the morning of both election nights certain of Democratic wins.

[quote] I awoke the morning of both election nights certain of Democratic wins.

R30, you awoke the morning after the 2016 election certain that Clinton had won? Did you go to bed early? I knew by around 11 o'clock that night thaty she'd clearly lost.

R29 is on the money. My partner is your textbook liberal and keeps checking out their election coverage every morning when he gets up and then frets over these same articles we discuss here. I have to tell him to stop being a fear junkie and quit doomscrolling. But he gives them clicks and subscriptions.

R21, no they should not. Instead of reporting on the differences of the candidates and what they offer, the media has become a predictor of the horse race. That’s all they care about.

R21 Bingo.

And sometimes they say it out loud:

^ Sorry. For R29.

I don’t envy anyone making a polling model. Voting patterns have changed in truly unpredictable ways because of early and mail in voting, Roe, demographic changes, and propensity to vote. We’ve only had one post-Roe election and one sort of past pandemic.

Errors in assumptions in the models change the polling results. When the race is close, the effect is magnified.

No one knows what is coming. The ominous stories of shy Trump voters and yard signs in 2016 were echoed in 2020 and 2024.

😂 R33 give me a break. The Times has written THOUSANDS of articles about this election from beginning to end focusing on the candidates and their policy differences. You just chose to ignore them so you can be selectively outraged. OUTRAGE, that’s what you want! Even now there’s hundreds of election articles available on their site below the one the OP posted.

If you don’t see the difference in operating philosophy between Fox News and the New York Times, you really have no business talking about journalism. The Times has to be profitable to survive, but it has a deep internal culture that does NOT place profit above truth.

The idea from some here that "reality" is being ignored begs the question--what is all this reporting of unpredictable polls meant to achieve? For those who say others are sticking their heads in the proverbial sand--what would YOU say is to be done to reverse the situation? Please elaborate. If it all boils down to a handful of voters in swing states, what is the point of ANY of this reporting?

[quote] I awoke the morning of both election nights certain of Democratic wins.

[quote] [R30], you awoke the morning after the 2016 election certain that Clinton had won? Did you go to bed early? I knew by around 11 o'clock that night thaty she'd clearly lost.

Morning of, not morning after.

[quote] but it has a deep internal culture that does NOT place profit above truth

What a quaint notion, R38.

R37, that’s a bunch of horseshit. The biggest stories of the NYT are the polling, it’s been dominating their paper for months and months. I know the policy differences because I pay attention. Right now, the overwhelming stories should be on the policy issues, but they’re not. It’s all about the horse race.

R39 here, still waiting to hear a response from the tough talkers here crowing about bucking up to "reality."

[quote] Right now, the overwhelming stories should be on the policy issues, but they’re not. It’s all about the horse race.

As it has since time immemorial. And even more so since early voting has become the norm.

The policy issues are not important to the voters now. How can you be so naive? Now it is a horserace and that's what both sides want to read about.

Sheesh

[quote] She should be leading big because he is a freak and a failure. The fact that’s it’s tied is ominous.

It’s the classic perception of the glass. The Democrats decry that the glass is half empty and the Republicans cheer that the glass is half full. That’s an issue with the perceiver, not the messenger.

R42 is a moron. How the hell could the headlines not be about the horse race of the election at this time?

The bottom line is that the other stories are THERE, clown. All you have to do is scroll up on your iPhone! Is that so difficult? Scroll up on your iPad! Turn the page in your newspaper! Are you a child?

Here it is 11:44 on the East coast and that new poll isn’t even the top story anymore! They’ve already changed it to.. one of the hundred other articles they write everyday. Who could imagine.

[quote] The biggest stories of the NYT are the polling, it’s been dominating their paper for months and months. I know the policy differences because I pay attention. Right now, the overwhelming stories should be on the policy issues, but they’re not.

I totally agree that the focus should be on the issues, but I see that NYT is doing some stories on them. I’m not a subscriber, so I don’t know how many they’re doing. This is a story about immigration policy. Considering that the polls show that a majority of Americans favor deportations, the headline by itself would help Trump, but the story itself questions the effects of the policy.

Because the horse race is a bunch of horse shit r47! It’s not about the race, it’s about the polls! If it were about the race, the policy articles—and the stories about Dump’s obvious decline—would be the top stories. There are stories, and they’re fucking buried. Just stop, concentrating on the polls at the expense of the very real issues is a detriment to our citizens, but apparently it gets clicks, whereas a complicated story about why we should support Ukraine is a bore.

Btw, name calling is a sure-fire way for the rest of us to conclude there isn’t much going on upstairs.

[quote] There is some hope that Trump may also have a lot “wasted” votes in Florida and Texas if he has especially lopsided votes there.

Certainly true of Florida, not so much Texas. Conversely, Harris will have less "wasted" votes in NY & California.

[quote] There is some hope that Trump may also have a lot “wasted” votes in Florida and Texas if he has especially lopsided votes there.

Let’s turn that into numbers. In 2020, the combined number of excess votes for Trump in Florida and Texas was approximately 1 million. In California, the number of excess votes for Biden was over 5 million. People forget that the vote in Texas and Florida is not as lopsided as it is in California and that California is much larger than both Texas and Florida. No matter what is happening in the rest of the country, those excess Democratic votes in California will continue to make up several percentage points in any Democratic candidate’s total.

[QUOTE] There are stories, and they’re fucking buried

“Buried.” All you have to do is flick your finger upwards on your screen. How are they buried? Are you that lazy, R49? I truly don’t understand how I can find these other stories but you can’t.

Is this like the “Big Red Wave” they predicted in 2022 that turned out to be a colossal embarrassment as the Republicans fizzled so badly and all the polls were confident they’d sweep?

Fact: Republicans have lost every single election cycle since 2016. And who has been their leader since then?

This is basic arithmetic: common denominator.

He’s toxic , he’s a loser and this trend will continue on Nov. 6.

[quote]Is this like the “Big Red Wave” they predicted in 2022 that turned out to be a colossal embarrassment as the Republicans fizzled so badly and all the polls were confident they’d sweep?

Trump wasn't running in 2022.

And the polls were pretty accurate.

Yes, R51, that is precisely why a close national vote total sucks for Dems. We have so many blue state votes rendered useless by the undemocratic Electoral College system. California votes are less powerful than some states half its size. Therefore Californians who participated in the NYTimes poll can skew the results and make it seem like a close race when it really isn’t.

And why are so many people in here acting like this is unknown to them? Is 2024 your first presidential election? Or is it willful ignorance to help cope with the fear that Trump is poised to win the election?

[quote] Or is it willful ignorance to help cope with the fear that Trump is poised to win the election?

R55, he is not "poised" to win any more than she is. Fuck outta here.

Today’s editorial

[gifted]

[quote] make it seem like a close race when it really isn’t.

Neck and neck doesn't make it a close race, R55?

[quote]I can't wait for their coverage after Trump loses

"How Trump's Election Loss Spells Bad News for Dems"

I watch the polls and they're tied. I watch the rallies and they're anything but. So I forget the polls and hope for the best. VOTE!!!

R59 wins the internet today.

[QUOTE] he is not "poised" to win any more than she is. Fuck outta here.

This is the kind of election Republicans love. How dumb can you people be? They’ve literally been preparing for four years to steal an extremely close election just like this one. The Times is trying to warn you by following up the banner story on their final poll with this one:

Do tell, R62, what you're doing to prevent this, and what we all can do, since you're so good at pointing out the obvious? What ARE you doing?

Again, a lot of bloviating by the ilk of R62 and nothing more.

[QUOTE]Do tell what you're doing to prevent this

Posting about it on Datalounge. Isn’t that more than enough?

[quote] Trump wasn't running in 2022.

You’re hysterical 🤣

Trump is ALWAYS running. Whether on the ballot or not.

You’re either being facetious or laughably naive.

[quote] I watch the polls and they're tied. I watch the rallies and they're anything but. So I forget the polls and hope for the best. VOTE!!!

How does one ignore the fact that Trump has never polled this well in any of his campaigns? And as for rallies, I'm old enough to remember the great crowds McGovern had at the end of his campaign which saw him winning only Massachusetts & DC, so I've learned not to put much stock in such things.

[quote] Trump is ALWAYS running. Whether on the ballot or not.

But if he wins it'll be because of his ability to attract low-propensity voters. The ones who only vote - if at all - in presidential elections, when Trump is actually on the ballot.

R65 You're an idiot.

The fact is, Trump was not running n 2022. And contrary to what you believe, the fact is, the polling in 2022 was accurate.

Unless the VP's internals show something different, I think it will be a photo-finish race that may not be decided until a few days after election day. Quite frankly, I don't understand how half the country thinks that Trump is a viable candidate for public office, but here we are. I think we also have to understand that there are more than a few Trump voters who are smart enough to be quiet about it.

Yesterday the LA Times' billionaire owner quashed an endorsement of Harris, leading to mass resignations. Today, WAPO announced it would not be making an endorsement either. Then, the specter of the NYT's shameful conduct re their treatment of Biden's supposed incapacity vis a vis Trump's actual sociopathy and dementia, and so much more. I was taught that the Press constituted a Fourth Estate, and enjoyed its esteemed place in our nation due to its responsibility to ask hard questions and reveal truths without fear or favor. Oh well. Where does this end? When does this stop? Read some Hannah Arendt--the terminus is very very ugly.

How about stop treating politics like sports betting. The polls haven’t been accurate since cellphones became the dominant method of communication. Do the work to GOTV and stop handwringing over imaginary numbers.

R68 You’re a fucking, loser troll who knows exactly what type of gaslighting bullshit you’re trying to pull.

Trump IS the Republican Party. He is ALWAYS on the ballot. Just like you’re a pathetic, lonely, loser troll who plays dumb very well. Because you are.

You’re a laughable, lonely, unloved, smelly billygoat who has never made a difference in this world. And considering your “higher calling” as a right-wing troll, you never will.

Go to Newsmax, drink some potato vodka and fuck off.

I unsubbed from NYT because they pissed me off but so many posts here on DL link to NYT I'm reconsidering. And Wapo is delaying endorsing Kamala and may not, because Jeff Bezos is afraid of what Trump will do to Amazon - or some such. Oy vey.

I need to look up the democracies in the world that aren't "flawed democracies" like the USA, according to the UN.

Ha, R72. I've literally cried about the possibility of Trump winning. I've talked with a friend about joining some revolutionary forces if that happens. Or even flee the country. You've DEFINITELY got the wrong person.

[quote] Unless the VP's internals show something different

Molly Jong-Fast said earlier today that the Harris campaign is actively pushing the narrative that they’re behind. Because they’re not.

Why would anyone do this?

They are doing a 180 degree turn from 2016, where Hillary’s overconfidence helped sink her. Keeping everyone on edge will keep the energy and momentum going as opposed to the fait accompli attitude that brought us to this place where we are.

Essentially, they want everyone in a panic so the fire will continue through Election Day.

[quote] Molly Jong-Fast said earlier today that the Harris campaign is actively pushing the narrative that they’re behind. Because they’re not.

And they're working in concert with the pollsters?

I’m not mad at the tactic. It’s never good when Dems act like victory is inevitable, especially when leftist spoilers with a wedge issue are pressuring left-wingers to withhold votes over it.

I’ll say this, though, the GOP is not acting like a party that is confident they will win either. Committing voter registration fraud in PA, saying the NC electors should just give their electoral college votes to Trump before election day, making the newspapers they own can their Kamala endorsements. It’s giving desperation.

[quote] saying the NC electors should just give their electoral college votes to Trump before election day

WTF?!?

R72 What ballot was Trump on in 2022?

[quote] Committing voter registration fraud in PA, saying the NC electors should just give their electoral college votes

Can we get some sources on these?

R79 Have you been formally diagnosed as a pedant or is it just so obvious there’s no need to bother?

[quote] Essentially, they want everyone in a panic so the fire will continue through Election Day.

Isn’t it pretty to think so?

For you, R80.

I don't get why y'all get your panties in a twist at someone remotely suggesting this will be a tough race. Would you rather your voter base fall into a sense of false security?

Especially with a LARGE portion of potential Dem voters being EXTREMELY unmotivated to support Kamala. Do you want to give them more excuses to stay home?

R84, not sure if you’re a troll or a troll. Yup. Troll.

They need to publish the Washington Post Kamala endorsement. I have no doubt they can get their hands on it.

R85 The first sentence of the second graph revealed troll.

B+ for effort, though, 👏

[quote]Especially with a LARGE portion of potential Dem voters being EXTREMELY unmotivated to support Kamala.

True.

That's why Obama is finally out there trying to motivate black men.

And this: "A GenForward survey released this week found that nearly a quarter of young Black men say they are backing Trump, while 44 percent of young Latino men said the same." -the Hill

And the Times/Siena poll has hispanic men for Trump at 45%.

R85/R87 Better a troll than an unscrupulous partisan cultist too weak to look reality in the face.

[R85]/[R87] = low IQ idiots.

To his credit, R84 must've been in the top 10% of his English language program at Krasnoyarsk State University.

Here, R63/R39, is the new Times banner headline that goes in depth about the ramifications of another Trump presidency when it comes to abortion. Just like what they do on most days, despite your claims.

But people like you pretend they never write these stories or feature them prominently because it doesn’t fit your anti-Times narrative. You’ll go back under your bridge and wait for another headline about polls or an article that’s seemingly anti-Dem so you can get the old outrage machine cranked up and preach how the Times is letting democracy slip away by focusing too much on the horse race.

Yeah, this NYT hate is reminiscent of the hatred among some MAGAts for Fox News for not always being sufficiently slavish to Trump. But then the extremists on both sides have more in common than they would ever acknowledge.

My fear is that Harris will run away with the election, thus giving MAGA voters the argument that there must have been theft because all polls showed them neck-and-neck.

Good point, R94.

That is certainly a part of the GOP playbook.

[QUOTE] My fear is that Harris will run away with the election, thus giving MAGA voters the argument that there must have been theft because all polls showed them neck-and-neck.

That should be the least of your worries. Kamala running away with the election is the best possible outcome for America. Nobody will give a shit what MAGA voters say.

[quote] Kamala running away with the election is the best possible outcome for America.

Since that's not on the menu, I'm hoping for flipping the 2016 election, with Harris winning the Electoral College & Trump winning the popular vote. I'm quite sure Trump & his cult would accept the result with their usual equanimity.

Here’s another new prominent NYT election story at the top of their site right now about Trump getting under the covers with big business, which they never write about because tHe tIMEs oNlY fOCuSeS oN pOLLs. They’re a shit rag, according to R6. Nothing but anti-Dem clickbait, right R9? They don’t report anything that “evaluates the stakes of the election,” according to R15.

More horse race bullshit.

I’m assuming that was sarcasm, R100?

Aren’t you clever?

How about a smack across the face?

Don’t tease.

Maggie Haberman had an article up this weekend titled "Five Reasons why Donald Trump is Holding a Rally at MSG".

A chance to boost GOP chances in the House, ego boost being in the Garden, etc. etc. etc.

Guess which reason she didn't bother to mention?