🇺🇸 Discussion: General Election 2024, 🥥 VS 🍊

[Kane52630]

Wild.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

New battleground state polls show Harris, Trump in tight race

A poll released Thursday shows that former President Trump's lead in five key swing states have narrowed since President Biden exited the race.

www.scrippsnews.com

IIRC Emerson's polls have been underestimating Democrats (and Biden in the recent primary) in recent years.

Suozzi Holds Narrow Lead in New York Special Election

The final Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill survey of New York's 3rd congressional district finds Tom Suozzi (D) leading Mazi Pilip (R), 50% to 47% among likely voters with 3% undecided.

politicalwire.com

actual result:
Tom Suozzi (D) 54% (D+8)
Mazi Pilip (R) 46%

That said, I think Harris's electoral college floor is higher than Clinton 2016 and lower than Biden 2020 (Biden also was unlikely to do near his 2020 numbers). In other words, she could lose with like ~250 electoral votes or win with like ~280 electoral votes as it stands today. Hopefully the convention and VP can give the ticket a boost.


Harris +1



Harris +1

Harris Narrows Gap Against Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds

In a survey taken after President Biden stepped aside, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are locked in a tight race separated by a single percentage point among likely voters.

www.nytimes.com

Trump +1

Keep in mind that Harris must lead the popular vote by at least a couple of points to have good chance of passing 270 electoral votes. These +1 popular vote results also point to the current knife's edge electoral college results (~250 to ~280) I spoke about above.

 

[Boom]

I assume her statement on the Washington DC protest the other day is going to lose her some goodwill with the younger crowd.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

The Associated Press removes a fact-check claiming JD Vance has not had sex with a couch

Correction: he didn’t write about having sex with a couch.

www.theverge.com

 

[Lily Adler]

The Associated Press removes a fact-check claiming JD Vance has not had sex with a couch

Correction: he didn’t write about having sex with a couch.

www.theverge.com

This and Trump having an accident at the RNC are one of those things I can't tell are true or not anymore.

 

[Boom]

Since the RNC, JD Vance:

1) Suggests that Americans without kids are "crazy cat ladies," don't have any stake in the country's future and therefore shouldn't have equal say in how the country is run.
2) ****s couches.

 

[Lily Adler]

Since the RNC, JD Vance:

1) Suggests that Americans without kids are "crazy cat ladies," don't have any stake in the country's future and therefore shouldn't have equal say in how the country is run.
2) ****s couches.

I see the RNC vetting process isn't as extensive as the DNC.

 

[blueharvest]

Democratic delegates on Biden’s exit – and Harris’s rise: ‘We’re awestruck’

Officials say the transition is fueling new energy as they address questions over the process of choosing a new candidate

www.theguardian.com

 

[Man in the Suit]

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

New battleground state polls show Harris, Trump in tight race

A poll released Thursday shows that former President Trump's lead in five key swing states have narrowed since President Biden exited the race.

www.scrippsnews.com

IIRC Emerson's polls have been underestimating Democrats (and Biden in the recent primary) in recent years.



actual result:
Tom Suozzi (D) 54% (D+8)
Mazi Pilip (R) 46%

That said, I think Harris's electoral college floor is higher than Clinton 2016 and lower than Biden 2020 (Biden also was unlikely to do near his 2020 numbers). In other words, she could lose with like ~250 electoral votes or win with like ~280 electoral votes as it stands today. Hopefully the convention and VP can give the ticket a boost.


Harris +1



Harris +1

Harris Narrows Gap Against Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds

In a survey taken after President Biden stepped aside, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are locked in a tight race separated by a single percentage point among likely voters.

www.nytimes.com

Trump +1

Keep in mind that Harris must lead the popular vote by at least a couple of points to have good chance of passing 270 electoral votes. These +1 popular vote results also point to the current knife's edge electoral college results (~250 to ~280) I spoke about above.

I think these polls underestimate Democrat support like the red wave of 2022 which was more like a puddle.

At least I hope they do.

 

[InCali]

I think these polls underestimate Democrat support like the red wave of 2022 which was more like a puddle.

At least I hope they do.

Here's another thing that the interpretation of polls misses. The idea that the Dem nominee needs to win the popular vote by a certain amount in order to win electoral college is a guess based on certain assumptions and doesn't take into account within state dynamics (that' why they assign a certain probability to it). Now, is it LIKELY this is the case? Probably, but here's the thing, if, for example, you had a Dem that runs especially strong in the rust belt, that paradigm becomes irrelevant.

As someone who has forgotten more about this stuff than most people know, the generalities being thrown around cause me to shake my head because they are overly broad. The assumptions aren't necessarily wrong and there are reasons to believe they are correct, given a certain set of assumptions, but it's a very simplistic, and very possibly, incorrect analysis.

 

[Iceman]

This and Trump having an accident at the RNC are one of those things I can't tell are true or not anymore.

I think these polls underestimate Democrat support like the red wave of 2022 which was more like a puddle.

At least I hope they do.

Sounds like that puddle was from Trump himself.

 

[InCali]

Will THE childless cat lady endorse Kamala Harris?

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Here's another thing that the interpretation of polls misses. The idea that the Dem nominee needs to win the popular vote by a certain amount in order to win electoral college is a guess based on certain assumptions and doesn't take into account within state dynamics (that' why they assign a certain probability to it). Now, is it LIKELY this is the case? Probably, but here's the thing, if, for example, you had a Dem that runs especially strong in the rust belt, that paradigm becomes irrelevant.

As someone who has forgotten more about this stuff than most people know, the generalities being thrown around cause me to shake my head because they are overly broad. The assumptions aren't necessarily wrong and there are reasons to believe they are correct, given a certain set of assumptions, but it's a very simplistic, and very possibly, incorrect analysis.

I think it's largely due to Democrats really running up the score/votes in California. It skews polling as well as the final election results.

Let's take out California from the popular vote of 2020 and see what happens:

2020 election - California = result
Biden 81,286,454 - 11,110,639 = 70,175,815 (49.7%)
Trump 74,225,926 - 6,006,518 = 68,219,408 (48.4%)
other 3,078,684 - 395108 = 2,683,576 (3.4%)

So Biden's lead in 2020 goes from 4.5 points down to 1.3 points without California. It has a huge impact. Without California...Trump leads the popular vote in 2016 instead of Clinton +2.

 

[InCali]

I think it's largely due to Democrats really running up the score/votes in California.

Let's take out California from the popular vote of 2020 and see what happens:

2020 election - California = result
Biden 81,286,454 - 11,110,639 = 70,175,815 (49.7%)
Trump 74,225,926 - 6,006,518 = 68,219,408 (48.4%)
other 3,078,684 - 395108 = 2,683,576 (3.4%)

So Biden's lead in 2020 goes from 4.5 points down to 1.3 points without California. It has a huge impact. Without California...Trump leads the popular vote in 2016 instead of Clinton +2.

Absolutely 100% true. Take out NY also and I'll guess it becomes even more lopsided. So.....here's my point. It's totally fair to single out certain states, but you can't just do it for blue states. Sure, let's give CA and NY as givens, BUT my point is that, in the electoral college, certain states are key and key in those states like MI, WI, and PA are certain constituencies (for both parties). A projection of a certain percentage overall glosses over what may very well be more important than the overall vote. I could go on about how overall vote is indicative of what might happen in other states because it's certainly a factor, but, again, many eyes are already probably glazing over.

Right now, I'm thinking Tim Walz is, politically (union vote), the best pick. I'm not that familiar with him, but from what I have read, he might just be the best pick on policy too.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[InCali]

I think these polls underestimate Democrat support like the red wave of 2022 which was more like a puddle.

At least I hope they do.

It was more like some blood in urine (sorry for the graphic, but @Iceman was talking about Trump on the toilet at 3AM....he wins).

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

 

[InCali]

This Cat People thing is really frightening. Who's next? DOG people? Then what? Hampsters? Guinea Pigs? Snakes?? (okay, I'm cool with that....)

 

[Sithborg]

This Cat People thing is really frightening. Who's next? DOG people? Then what? Hampsters? Guinea Pigs? Snakes?? (okay, I'm cool with that....)

Well, Noem already went after dog people.

 

[InCali]

Well, Noem already went after dog people.

From a friend of mine.....

 

[squeekness]

Since the RNC, JD Vance:

1) Suggests that Americans without kids are "crazy cat ladies," don't have any stake in the country's future and therefore shouldn't have equal say in how the country is run.
2) ****s couches.

Only the finest people!!!!

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/blake-masters-political-leaders-children-00171216

“Political leaders should have children. Certainly they should at least be married,” Blake Masters, a venture capitalist locked in a tight race for an Arizona House seat, wrote Wednesday on X. “If you aren’t running or can’t run a household of your own, how can you relate to a constituency of families, or govern wisely with respect to future generations? Skin in the game matters.”

 

[Sithborg]

Oh god, that creep is still around.

 

[Lily Adler]

JD Vance opened a new can of worms and another stupid talking point for MAGA Republicans.