this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
310 points (95.6% liked)

politics

18930 readers
5360 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 1 points 35 seconds ago
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (6 children)

Stretching a lead is a sports term. Most commonly in racing. Sports metaphors are common in politics.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paf0@lemmy.world 109 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

It only matters in the swing states. The ones where they're trying to purge the voter registrations, sometimes successfully. The system is broken.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Down ballot matters everywhere.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Only if people are allowed to vote when they show up

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 57 points 16 hours ago

The Republican campaign strategy: “cheat to win, win to cheat.”

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 16 points 14 hours ago
[–] radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] ClanOfTheOcho@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago

I'm in a red state. I'm in a neighborhood with a lot of of retired Republicans. I don't see a single Trump sign, but there is a growing count of Harris signs, including "Republicans for Harris." ymmv

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 99 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

Vote anyway. Be part of a sweep.

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Vote for every office, not just the president

[–] essell@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago

I think she'll be busy enough with one job

[–] DokPsy@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago

In TX, Theodore "I left my dog snowflake at home while the state was freezing and without power for a family trip to Cancun then blamed my wife and children for the trip" Cruz is currently up for defeat.

He only just barely won against Beto O'rourke last time. Colin Allred is closing in and needs all the help he can get.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 38 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Make it Trump's most embarrassing loss to date!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] schema@lemmy.world 29 points 11 hours ago

A sweep will also make it harder for the inevitable attempt of republicans to invalidate the election.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

end this silver spoon narcissist retiree's bullshit. Please vote

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 97 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

oh man I remember how hilary was going to win by such a large margin in those polls.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Harris doesn't suck though. People actually like her.

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 34 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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)

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 1 points 51 minutes ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago)

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).

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 23 points 11 hours ago

Does no one remember Jame Comey, Director of the FBI, coming out just before the election and saying they were reopening the investigation regarding her email server?

The polls were right, at the time.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I saw an interview with him and he gives off quack vibes to me. 🤷🏼‍♀️

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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".

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself. But we know we live in times of historical firsts that defy extrapolation.

With key 2 it's less about the definition and more about the allotted weight of importance. Like, imagine if the DNC simply said that "we are unilaterally awarding all delegate votes to Biden and skipping a Primaries voting process for our Democratic voters." Yes, the key would still be True, but would that mean jack shit? Not really. And again, Incumbency is more a liability when the incumbent President's approval rating matches Jimmy Carter. His Charisma keys are another example of subjective interpretation and which itself is clearly reflective of opinion polls.

For all our sake, I hope he's right. But his prediction is just as if not more useless than the aggregation of A+ polls in moments of time that can actually adapt to changing circumstances, including things like impactful scandals, military success / failures, and social unrest.

At the end of the day Perception is Reality; even if the economy is doing well in short and long-term on paper, we again unfortunately live in unprecedented times where that is not being felt by the actual people who are, you know, going to the ballot box.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself.

Any prediction is based on history. Even pollsters believe the history of polling results before an election can predict how people will actually vote on election day.

What people usually don't realize about the "keys" is that they aren't advocating some political position, like "incumbency is good". It is more like a retrospective clinical study, where you look at a bunch of factors (smoking, exercise, TV watching, eye color) and see which ones best predict some outcome of interest (lifespan). If smoking has an association with lifespan and eye color doesn't, then smoking is a predictor and eye color isn't.

It doesn't matter if people don't understand why smoking would affect lifespan. It doesn't matter if people think eye color should be more predictive than smoking. It doesn't matter if people think cigarettes today are not the same as they used to be, so smoking should no longer be a predictor for lifespan. Predictors are predictors until they actually fail to predict.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Polls use scientific methods too, that doesn't mean they aren't wildly incorrect from time to time.

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 71 points 15 hours ago

Don’t trust polls. Vote.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 58 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

For fucks sake this should not be tight or close. It should be a gods damned CURB STOMP that destroys the Republican party for the rest of history DAMMIT.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Ozzy Osbourne would be a safer choice than this guy

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Oh yeah? But would Ozzy Osbourne put Trump's family members in positions of power, funnel as much booty - I mean national wealth as imaginable into Trump's personal pockets and benefit Trump's corrupt cronies? Sorry, I mean make America great again?

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 52 points 14 hours ago

Doesn't matter. Go vote. Complacency gave the orange toddler his first term. Just sayin.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 35 points 12 hours ago
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 23 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

We need to win by a lot more than razor thin margins, republicans are going to try and steal this one.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 5 points 54 minutes ago

And you want to win by a huge margin so they can actually implement good policies, and not have to barter with Republicans and the likes of Manchin.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 23 points 2 hours ago

Don't fucking listen to the polls. GO VOTE!

[–] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 20 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (4 children)

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
[–] Oyml77@lemmy.today 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

You're not mentioning racism and sexism, which is at least as important as what you're describing.

[–] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

As an American, this scares me.

I try to share this site when national pole articles come out, because these are the only numbers that matter in our election. It doesn't matter how blue California is if they rat-fuck the elections in the swing states.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›