While election almost certain to be decided by swing states, pollsters explain why growth in national polls is meaningful
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/28/harris-stretches-lead-over-trump
It only matters in the swing states. The ones where they’re trying to purge the voter registrations, sometimes successfully. The system is broken.
“There’s growing evidence to support a surprising possibility: [Trump’s] once formidable advantage in the electoral college is not as ironclad as many presumed. Instead, it might be shrinking,” Cohn argued.
That’s correct. The polls are still very close where it counts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/28/us/politics/harris-trump-poll-michigan-wisconsin.html
Is that like rubber bands, it’s the same amount only stretched? Like we changed the scales on the graph to make it look bigger.
Is it really normal to write like that headline in English? Because to me it sounds stupid.
Seems increases would be the “normal” word to use.
i agree but the title would become :
“Harris stretches increases lead over Trump in what could be significant increase”
… so then you have twice this same word in the title, which doesn’t sound so good.
Semantics but I mean it does actually indicate more people polling for her instead of Turnip so it’s not stretching in that sense.
I think they use that word because in American politics things are so polarized that it really feels like any gain really does seem like stretching the tiny group of people that can be won over like a rubber band.
Stretching a lead is a sports term. Most commonly in racing. Sports metaphors are common in politics.
oh man I remember how hilary was going to win by such a large margin in those polls.
kamala harris isn’t hillary, though. I heard a recording of myself from like 2005 and a someone was saying “yeah hillary clinton can unite people” and I said “…against her” and I barely cared about politics back then.
the gop has made inroads on the young white dude demographic, largely because of incels. Its more of a tossup for that reason and the electoral college (which lets all agree needs some kind of proportional rank choice fix, or to be dropped entirely for popular vote)
Turnout is typically very poor amongst young people. It will be interesting to see how much young people vote, and the gender breakdown. Because if turnout is consistent across gender, then any of those gains will be wiped out by young women leaning strongly progressive (or at least, liberal).
Except Professor Alan Licthman predicted Hillary would lose then and has predicted a Kamala Harris win. He actually uses a scientific method for his predictions.
Many of the keys are subject to arbitrary interpretation; Nate Silver criticized his process and arguably has a better probability model with more consistent accuracy across thousands of races somewhere around 90%. Key 2 was given to Biden despite the writing on the wall that 2/3 of Democrats wanted a contest both before and after the primaries. Key 3 Incumbency these days is more of a liability with both candidates distancing themselves. Key 9 Scandals have lost a lot of meaning in the Trump era.
Should be noted that he gave a full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton… only to predict she’d lose. The thing is, he had originally referenced in two different publications ahead of that prediction that she would specifically lose the popular vote. She didn’t. He then changed his model.
Also I’m not a fan of this guy because he belittled with insults those who called for Biden to step down… Despite not giving a prediction on Biden at the time.
arbitrary interpretation
They aren’t as arbitrary as they seem, it’s just that the media don’t go into the full detail.
For example, key 2 is actually “The candidate is nominated on the first ballot and wins at least two-thirds of the delegate votes”, which is clearly true
Furthermore, the entire point of this method is that it ignores opinion polls. So it makes no difference whether the public actually wanted a primary contest or not. Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether scandals have “lost meaning”.
Really? Because I remember:
- Hillary up +4 in the polls in the final count: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
- Hillary actually winning the national vote by +2.1 (within margin of error of above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
- James Comey informing Congress about additional Hillary emails on Oct 28; too late for many polls to absorb the information. These emails turn out to be nothingburgers.
People learned the wrong lesson from 2016 polling.
As a non-american this scares me.
What the fuck does Trump have to offer to the average citizen? He is basing his campaign on
- tax cuts for the extra rich
- iMmIgRaNtS (who Harris wants to stop anyways)
- licking the ass of Putin and Nethanyau
Unfortunately, politics is teams sports in this country. Too many people are concerned with their side winning rather than what is best for the country or even for themselves. The propaganda machine has pushed people to support a small subset of issues as the biggest issues and these are often not the issues that actually have any impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans. Critical thinking is not part of the discourse anymore for a large percentage, just rhetoric and slogans.
Trumps pov is easy to understand, and so he’s easy to buy. You only need to stroke Trumps ego and speak his language and he’s on your side. That’s why Republican politicians think they can control him, except he’s too neurotic and unstable, likely because of narcissism made worse by dementia.
No one really votes for Republicans, that’s why they have to gerrymander and keep the electoral college alive. There’s like maybe 35%-37% of the American pop. which really supports their pov. The swing states are only ever an issue because of voter disenfranchisement, not because people actually swing. Very few people actually swing vote.
The electoral college favors Republicans but the narrative that “no one really votes for Republicans” is fucking bullshit
Yes, they tend to lose the popular vote but even then % wise, it’s way closer than it should be.
The way you phrase it, makes it seem like they are a fringe group that through cheating manages to win even if they only have half as many votes as the Democrats.
They are popular even with, or perhaps actually because of, all of the racism, sexism and fascist tendencies. Do not downplay that.
So they believe that Democrats automatically means higher taxes for them, regardless of income level.
Should you manage to get them to consider the taxation would only target the wealthy, they are afraid the wealthy class will fire them due to the loss of money. Similarly afraid that stronger worker protections would just lead to the jobs going away. They think the benefits achieved by Democrats favor cities and rural areas don’t see their moneys worth. Now they didn’t spend that much money on taxes and they do get great benefit, but they see the cities get bigger stuff and that leaves an impression.
Speaking of jobs going away, they fear immigrants. Both on racist grounds and the general perceived increase in labor competition.
Fewer arms to Ukraine because they see it as wasting money on a cause that has nothing to do with them. More arms to Israel because they are afraid of Muslims.
Particularly dangerous as key people recognize this is a lot of people, but not the majority. So there’s a great fear that democratic voting means they would ultimately be marginalized. So they also are the party most inclined to game the vote however they can, mapping districts, limiting voting access, stalling absentee ballots.
