Official Election Poll Thread: Part 5

Carry on.

10/22 Harris holds 46%-43% lead over Trump amid voter gloom, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

Thanks, R2. Even with the cautionary language that Harris's lead, even if it holds, might not be enough to win the Electoral College, this somewhat buoys my spirits. I've been pretty much resigned to doom of late.

Optimistic take by CNBC analyst, Lew Lukens of Signum Global Advisors:

"Harris is expected to win both the popular and electoral votes: Advisory firm"

Advisory firm?

Posted from the end of the last thread:

Listening to the evening call of the co-writer of Game Change who is not John Heilemann & he said, obliquely, that he's been pitched a story for the last week that, IF true, would end Trump's campaign.

Let the guessing begin!

I can’t think of a single fucking thing, r6, that would derail Dump’s campaign with MAGA. And even if there were (he’s secretly trans? A cross dresser?) he’d just deny it.

From Forbes:

Harris leads by four points, 50% to 46%, in Morning Consult’s weekly poll released Tuesday, consistent with last week’s results, but down from her 51%-45% lead in the two polls prior to last week.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll, also released Tuesday, found Harris with a three-point lead, 46% to 43% (but two points when using rounded figures, within the poll’s two-point margin of error); last week’s Reuters/Ipsos poll also found her with a three-point lead, 45% to 42%.

Harris is up one point, 45% to 44%, in a USA Today/Suffolk University poll of likely voters taken Oct. 14-18 (margin of error 3.1), as Trump has narrowed the margins since the groups’ last poll taken in August that found Harris ahead by five points.

Harris also led Trump by just one point—49%-48%—in Emerson College’s poll of likely voters published Friday, after Harris posted two-point leads in September and early October and a four-point lead in August.

Trump regained a lead over Harris in a Fox News poll released Wednesday that found him up 50%-48% among likely voters—a change from Harris’ 50%-48% edge in September, after Trump led her 50%-49% in August.

Harris leads in two other surveys published Wednesday: She has a five-point advantage (52%-47%) in a Marist College poll of likely voters, up from Harris’ two-point edge in the closely watched pollster’s September survey, and a four-point (49%-45%) lead in an Economist/YouGov likely voter poll, equal to Harris’ lead last week.

That’s what I would’ve expected to hear from the host, R7, who’s more sympathetic to Trump than he lets on. But he was unequivocal in his statement that this story, if true, would end his campaign. I’ve ruled out the emergence of the Golden Shower tape. But maybe a dead girl or a live boy.

R6, why next week? Is he gaming for effect?

R10, not for next week. He meant he’s been pitched this story since last week. Others have been, too, he said.

Is this Mark Halperin? Didn’t he just predict a Dump win?

R6, sorry, I'm clinging to hope there's something out there... did he sound like he might or was it too hard to prove?

Yes, Halperin, R12. And he didn’t predict a Trump win, but did say he couldn’t not win IF the early vote continued in the battleground states at the current pace. That there wouldn’t be enough Democratic votes available on Election Day for Harris to win.

We've got to accept that nothing new about Trump will "shock voters" enough to make him lose the election. I mean his own Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called him dangerous and unstable. His own Chief of Staff today reported that Trump wanted have generals like Hitler and that "Hitler did some good things." All this while Trump is saying explicitly on the campaign that he wants to use the military to put people in camps and that he will go after "enemies of the people" like Pelosi et. al. And we are numb, nothing surprises, even just reporting what he says is perceived "oh, Trump is bad, yeah, what's new?"

The banality of evil has completely desensitized us to the peril.

That said... I'm starting to feel like Harris will win. I'm betting over 300 electors.

And lots of folks are saying that Halperin’s take is bullshit. The early vote is leaning in Harris’s direction in most swing states.

R13, he didn’t get into anything beyond what I noted. Just said this story is being peddled & would end the campaign if true. He didn’t address whether he thought it was true or not. At least not in the early part of the call when he raised it, then moved on. I didn’t watch the rest of the call to know if he revisited the subject.

Link please R16.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case, R16. Not all states release early vote data broken down by partisanship, so we have a small sample size. But where we do, in Nevada & Arizona, Republicans are outpacing Democrats in early voting. That’s particularly true in Arizona, where Democrats are well behind their early 2020 pace.

To carry over my point from the previous thread, we don’t know WHO all these early Republicans are voting for, just that they’re voting. Not all registered Republicans are MAGAts.

[quote] That’s particularly true in Arizona, where Democrats are well behind their early 2020 pace.

So confusing given choice is on the ballot in Az.

Point taken, R20, but polls are suggesting that only about 9% of registered Republicans are voting for Harris. And we know, at least in Arizona, that registered Democrats are not voting early in numbers comparable to 2020.

Sigh, I'm just going to resign myself to a loss and be pleasantly surprised if Harris wins.

That’s where I am, R23. I don’t want to experience another 2016 election night shock to my system.

When did it dawn on you about 2016? I remember feeling uneasy by Florida, but I wouldn't believe it.

I can’t remember exactly when, but I was literally shaking when he was declared the winner. And although alone, I blurted out loud, “God help us.” And as bad as I imagined Trump would be, my imagination couldn’t extend to how much worse he actually was. I thought this horror story was over with his defeat, & certainly after J6, but this monstrous clown will not die.

My husband is in media and he was on the floor of the Javitz Center that night. Hillary’s election night party. He says he will never forget the entire room’s slow morph from celebration to hesitant unease to anxiety to shock and despair. We were texting throughout and I was home online watching the smarter people on DailyKos comments come to the same realization.

I guess the minor upside today is this won’t be such a shock if it happens again. But it’s a horrible feeling to fully consider what will happen. Both domestic and global. Hug any Ukrainians in your life, that’s for sure.

Consider Trump winning in 2020 and this would be the last year of his 8 year term in office.

I worry he won't go.

[quote] Sigh, I'm just going to resign myself to a loss and be pleasantly surprised if Harris wins.

[quote] That’s where I am, [R23]. I don’t want to experience another 2016 election night shock to my system.

This is what I'm doing as well.

In the fall of 2016, I was going through a difficult time in my life. I had been wrongfully terminated by an employer which was tied to discrimination and i was dealing with lawyers and the labor department in my state. My cat died of an illness a week before the election. Election Night 2016 was a shock to my system and the next day I had to go to meeting with my lawyer and her paralegal. I hadn't slept much the night before and I rode the bus to her office because I didn't want to drive. Halfway through the meeting she and the paralegal had to step out to take a call from another client. While they were gone I broke down crying and when they came back into the room, I tried to regain my composure. They were sympathetic to me and said they were also upset about the election. I told them that I felt that the other shit going on in my life was adding to the sadness. 2017 was a turnaround year for me. The legal action I had taken against my former employer was successful. I got a remote job that paid well. But, I still was pissed about Trump being in office. I started to follow political news more closely and in 2019 I watched the Dem debates and spent a lot of time researching all of the candidates running.

When the 2020 election rolled around, I took the approach of being prepared for Trump to win and just shaking it off. At the time, I was telling myself that at least I was in a better place in my life compared to 2016. But, given what was going with the covid I was still worried for other people and the future of the country. I voted absentee ballot a couple of weeks before and dropped my ballot off at the county clerk's office. The day of the election, I did a few video meetings with colleagues and then listened to podcasts for the rest of my workday. That night I called my parents and a friend on the phone just to chat. I watched a couple of movies that I DVR'd from TCM. I would occasionally check election returns on my iPad. Over the next few days (Wednesday,Thursday, and Friday, I just did my work and avoided watching cable news. I just kept checking various news sites on election results. When that Saturday morning rolled around, I decided to tune into CNN and votes were still being counted in PA. I have a friend who has MS and is immunocompromised and she had covid concerns. She has vision loss related to the MS and stopped driving years ago. Another friend and I were taking turns picking up her grocery orders and dropping them off at her house. My friend lives 30 minutes away from me, but I didn't mind the drives to take her stuff because it got me out of the house and we usually chatted through an open window when I would drop stuff off. When I was about 15 minutes away from her house, one of the DJs on the radio station I was listening to announced that the race was called for Biden. I pulled over and checked news sites on my phone and a great sense of relief came over me. I got back on the road and drove to my friend's house and we chatted through one of her front windows. She was excited about the win. In the moment I really wanted to hug her and celebrate. I went back home and celebrated with a few glasses of wine and watched TV footage people celebrating on the streets.

Now in 2024, I'm disgusted with the idiots who have continued to support Trump after the January 6th insurrection and the evidence about the election interference. If Trump wins again, I can myself being very down due to people ignoring J6 and the election lie crap which is unforgivable imo. But, I'm trying to get myself into the headspace of just trying to be ok with Trump win. But, if Harris wins I can see myself crying tears of happiness because it will be good to know that enough Americans want Trump out of office.

r30--you handled the 2020 election better than me.

In 2015, I quit smoking; I started again when Trump said he didn't accept the results in 2020. I didn't stop again until after the Biden inauguration.

Look, there is absolutely fucking nothing on God’s green earth that will get through to the cult.

He killed a million of them with his Covid lies. They still worship him.

He stole top secret military documents and sold them to Putin and they make excuses for him.

He’s deteriorating right before their eyes and they deny his dementia and mental illness.

It’s a fucking cult.

[quote] He stole top secret military documents and sold them to Putin

Link.

R31 I was surprised with myself because the day of the election and the few days that I followed I didn't have tons of anxiety. I think just checking election news online and avoiding TV coverage was key in keeping my anxiety down. When I woke up that Saturday morning, something told me to finally watch news coverage which I did before heading off to pick up my friend's groceries.

Lately, I have been having moments of optimism and then moments of pessimism because I know that too many people still support Trump and I know misogyny is still a major issue here. This link is to an IG reel of Congresswoman Haley Stevens at Harris/Walz rally in Detroit and there's a part where she says "we're going to vote for the little girls who dare to dream". I don't want to be heartbroken for the young girls in this country. If Harris loses, the Democrats need to start working right away to limit any damage Trump can do as POTUS and I wish that midwestern moderate Democratic women like Haley Stevens or Elissa Slotkin would be embraced more by the DNC instead of people like AOC and other popular Dems from NY or CA. Slotkin has a background in the CIA and intelligence and Stevens served on Obama's US auto rescue task force staff in 2009. Both women are intelligent but have down-to-earth and humble attitudes. If Slotkin wasn't overweight and if Stevens didn't have that very thick accent and odd physical mannerisms, you would see them more in the media and being promoted by the Dems. Again if Harris loses, the Dems need to start giving focus and a bit of attention to some Dem women from states who aren't from New York, California, or Texas.

I'm in Europe, so I am grateful I can orchestrate a total media blackout until I wake up for results on 6 November. This is excruciating.

You pussies need to get outside and get some sunshine. Harris is going to win!

Still not holding my breath, R37. I've seen this movie too many times.

I agree, R38, I don't think there's any way Cruz loses this race. But I think we get closer and closer every election cycle.

Does anybody have the latest news/polling out of Michigan?

I’m seeing on Twitter predictions of Kamal losing the EC because of just losing Michigan. Is it really predicted to go to Trump at this point?

At the 2:00 mark, here is Halperin's very brief reference to the amorphous campaign-killing story. I've watched him enough to know that he typically has some wry, bemused expression if there's some wild claim being circulated. He seems stone cold dead serious about this story.

R40, there are all kinds of combinations that will support a Kamala win. The simplest is she wins the three blue wall states. With the Maine and Nebraska electoral votes split, that gives her a win. But she doesn’t need Michigan if she wins Arizona and Nevada. And there are other combinations where she doesn’t need Michigan, go to fivethirtyeight.com to try the different combos.

Arizona, R42, has typically been Harris's weakest link.

I still can’t imagine a scenario where something would derail MAGA. His idiot followers will claim the story is fake. But I’ll take a guess it’s something like Alzheimer’s and his doctors confirm it? I don’t know.

Halperin is a kind of a major troll. Why not just spew it? Why all the drama?

It's hard to read Halperin on that story pitch. Part of me thinks he dismissed it, because why draw attention if you're working on it (and know others have been pitched too.) But why mention it with no context at all about the credibility of the pitch. He just says it and moves on. Was he trying to fuel it? I can't figure that out. If he thinks it's true, or credible enough to pursue, why not say that much if you're going to mention it at all? Then again, maybe he was conditioning the ground in advance of it. I cannot read him.

Are there term limits for Cruz?

[quote] I still can’t imagine a scenario where something would derail MAGA.

Halperin's no shrinking violent about MAGAts. And, notwithstanding his objective reporter pose, I've certainly noticed some tells to indicate somewhat of a Trump bias. So if he's so certain this would be a campaign killer, I believe him.

R43, yes it has but there are other combinations of swing states that will give her the win. That was just an example. Just a reminder though, Dump only needs PA and Georgia in addition to his 2020 states to win. He’s pouring all his money into those states.

Members of Congress, R47, are not subject to term limits.

[quote] Does anybody have the latest news/polling out of Michigan?

Listening to Michigan native Mike Murphy on his Hacks on Tap podcast. He's seen internal polling & says it's all about turnout. If, he said, there's a robust turnout with infrequent voters, Harris wins by 3. If a lower turnout, he added, Trump wins by 4.

So let me get this straight. Gallego is up 7 points in the senate race, and abortion is on the ballot, but it's looking bad for Kamala in AZ? Sorry, don't buy it.

[quote] Arizona ballot data compiled by Uplift, a Democratic group that Mr. Almy works for, and reviewed by the Times, suggested that Republican ballots surged in the initial days of early voting and have tapered off to a 2020 pace more recently. Democrats, though, are well behind their 2020 early voting pace, suggesting a realignment reminiscent of the pre-Trump era in Arizona, when the state was a Republican stronghold and G.O.P. mail voters outpaced Democrats in early returns. (Mr. Biden was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state since President Bill Clinton in 1996.)

I don't accept early voting trends necessarily mean a ton about turnout in the end.

2020 was a COVID election - it is a natural early voting would be more popular because it was a way to limit your exposure to other people. Focus group of one, but, typically, I vote on election day because... that's election day. This election is not a COVID election.

[quote] Trump's doing much better with independents than in 2020. Harris leads them by a smidge nationally. Trump ahead a little in MI, PA & WI.

[quote] Only Nixon 60, Ford 76 & Kerry 04 have won indies & lost.

[quote] Remember: voters are more likely to see Harris 2024 as too liberal vs. Biden 2020.

Early voting in Arizona remains a problem.

[quote] Another huge day for GOP in in-person early voting today: +10,000

53 percent to 26 percent.

Still waiting for mail numbers.

More from Ralston:

[quote] The early voting blog is updated!

[quote] Out: Clark D firewall

[quote] In: Rural R firewall.

[quote] It's real: 16,500 votes because of massive landslides so far and higher than urban turnout percentage.

[quote] Dems need more mail, lots of indies, or big trouble in NV.

And his most recent post:

[quote] More Clark mail came in after I went to sleep, Dems cut into GOP lead a bit (not a lot).

For those like me who have become gloomy about Harris's prospects, I recommend the most recent Hacks on Tap podcast. Axelrod, Heilemann & Murphy offer some reason for optimism, albeit not unbridled optimism.

They need a bunch of :15 spots with all the disaffected Republicans and staff they can get:

"I'm John Kelly. I'm a retired general, a Republican and I was Donald Trump's chief of staff. I know this man and I am asking you not to vote for him on Nov. He is a danger to this country. No one can be as bad for America as Donald Trump. Please, if you love this country, don't vote for Donald Trump. He's a danger. I saw it up close."

[quote] His analysis of polling data in four key battleground states reveals razor-thin margins, with Trump holding a lead of less than one point in North Carolina and Harris narrowly ahead in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[quote] Based on current projections, Enten suggested that Harris could secure 276 electoral votes to Trump’s 262, just above the 270 required to win. But he issued a caution: if Pennsylvania flips, Trump could emerge victorious with 281 electoral votes. Given the slim polling margins in that state, Enten noted, it’s not such a “long shot” scenario.

Folks, y'all are looking for data to confirm your worst fears (or secret hopes, if you are trolling). It's too close to call, although Harris is in a better position than Trump both nationally and in 4 of the seven battleground states. This election more than most there are polling services that are trying not to underestimate the Trump vote, as well as trying to figure out how to reach voters in ways more effective in the past (DMs replacing 'landline' calls, e.g.).

Early turnout? Dems destroyed Reps in early turnout in 2020 (COVID and Dem GOTV strategies). Reps are "correcting" that this time. And, NO ONE knows how Reps will vote... especially older women.

It's too close to call. We won't know until the day after the election. It looks better for Harris than for Trump. So breathe, and enjoy your day.

For all the anxiety about PA at the start of this, it's the one place I feel least anxiety about.

Torta, is your husband someone of whom a political junkie would be aware? Does he share your assessment of the state of the race?

R63 Yeah, I don't have anxiety about PA. For me it's Michigan.

No anxiety about Pennsylvania?! The polls are all within the MOE. And we don’t even know if, unlike in the past, they have a good model of Trump voters.

I just think PA has been consistent for her in terms of the polls (even if the polls aren't especially comforting.) Michigan, on the other hand, feels to me like it's eroding.

[quote] So let me get this straight. Gallego is up 7 points in the senate race, and abortion is on the ballot, but it's looking bad for Kamala in AZ? Sorry, don't buy it.

Believe it. It’s all about illegals. Immigration hurts her.

Losing Michigan over Israel is pretty historic.

I see that Halperin - adding now that he doesn't believe it - followed up this morning on the candidacy-killing "story."

[quote] Speaking on his "Morning Meeting" show on YouTube, Halperin shared that although he does not believe the story is accurate, its impact—if it were—would be the October Surprise the political media has been waiting for.

[quote] "I know of one story... I don't believe it is true. But if it's true, it would end Donald Trump's campaign," Halperin said, adding that he's aware of various efforts to influence the race's outcome with less than two weeks until Election Day.

Could it be that he raped children with Jeffrey Epstein?

^ This has now gotten the attention of Drudge.

In an election where the seven battleground states are all polling within a percentage point or two, 50-50 is the only responsible forecast. Since the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, that is more or less exactly where my model has had it.

Yet when I deliver this unsatisfying news, I inevitably get a question: “C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut say?”

So OK, I’ll tell you. My gut says Donald Trump. And my guess is that it is true for many anxious Democrats.

But I don’t think you should put any value whatsoever on anyone’s gut — including mine. Instead, you should resign yourself to the fact that a 50-50 forecast really does mean 50-50. And you should be open to the possibility that those forecasts are wrong, and that could be the case equally in the direction of Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris.

It’s not that I’m inherently against intuition. In poker, for example, it plays a large role. Most of the expert players I have spoken with over the years will say it gives you a little something extra. You’re never certain, but your intuition might tilt the odds to 60-40 in your favor by picking up patterns of when a competitor is bluffing.

But poker players base that little something on thousands of hands of experience. There are presidential elections only every four years. When asked who will win, most people say Mr. Trump because of recency bias — he won in 2016, when he wasn’t expected to, and then almost won in 2020 despite being well behind in the polls. But we might not remember 2012, when Barack Obama not only won but beat his polls. It’s extremely hard to predict the direction of polling errors.

Why Trump could beat his polls The people whose gut tells them Mr. Trump will win frequently invoke the notion of “shy Trump voters.” The theory, adopted from the term “shy Tories” for the tendency of British polls to underestimate Conservatives, is that people do not want to admit to voting for conservative parties because of the social stigma attached to them.

But there’s not much evidence for the shy-voter theory — nor has there been any persistent tendency in elections worldwide for right-wing parties to outperform their polls. (Case in point: Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party underachieved its polls in this summer’s French legislative elections.) There’s even a certain snobbery to the theory. Many people are proud to admit their support for Mr. Trump, and if anything, there’s less stigma to voting for him than ever.

Instead, the likely problem is what pollsters call nonresponse bias. It’s not that Trump voters are lying to pollsters; it’s that in 2016 and 2020, pollsters weren’t reaching enough of them.

Nonresponse bias can be a hard problem to solve. Response rates to even the best telephone polls are in the single digits — in some sense, the people who choose to respond to polls are unusual. Trump supporters often have lower civic engagement and social trust, so they can be less inclined to complete a survey from a news organization. Pollsters are attempting to correct for this problem with increasingly aggressive data-massaging techniques, like weighing by educational attainment (college-educated voters are more likely to respond to surveys) or even by how people say they voted in the past. There’s no guarantee any of this will work.

If Mr. Trump does beat his polling, there will have been at least one clear sign of it: Democrats no longer have a consistent edge in party identification — about as many people now identify as Republicans.

There’s also the fact that Ms. Harris is running to become the first female president and the second Black one. The so-called Bradley effect — named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who underperformed his polls in the 1982 California governor’s race, for the supposed tendency of voters to say they’re undecided rather than admit they won’t vote for a Black candidate — wasn’t a problem for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012. Still, the only other time a woman was her party’s nominee, undecided voters tilted heavily against her. So perhaps Ms. Harris should have some concerns about a “Hillary effect.”

Why Harris could beat her polls A surprise in polling that underestimates Ms. Harris isn’t necessarily less likely than one for Mr. Trump. On average, polls miss by three or four points. If Ms. Harris does that, she will win by the largest margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College since Mr. Obama in 2008.

How might that happen? It could be because of something like what happened in Britain in 2017, related to the “shy Tories” theory. Expected to be a Tory sweep, the election instead resulted in Conservatives losing their majority. There was a lot of disagreement among pollsters, and some did nail the outcome. But others made the mistake of not trusting their data, making ad hoc adjustments after years of being worried about “shy Tories.”

Polls are increasingly like mini-models, with pollsters facing many decision points about how to translate nonrepresentative raw data into an accurate representation of the electorate. If pollsters are terrified of missing low on Mr. Trump again, they may consciously or unconsciously make assumptions that favor him.

For instance, the new techniques that pollsters are applying could be overkill. One problem with using one of those — “weighting on recalled vote,” or trying to account for how voters report their pick in the last election — is that people often misremember or misstate whom they voted for and are more likely to say they voted for the winner (in 2020, Mr. Biden).

That could plausibly bias the polls against Ms. Harris because people who say they voted for Mr. Biden but actually voted for Mr. Trump will get flagged as new Trump voters when they aren’t. There’s also a credible case that 2020 polling errors were partly because of Covid restrictions: Democrats were more likely to stay at home and therefore had more time on their hands to answer phone calls. If pollsters are correcting for what was a once-in-a-century occurrence, they may be overdoing it this time.

Last, there is Democrats’ persistently strong performance over the past two years — since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — in special elections, ballot referendums and the 2022 midterms. Democrats shouldn’t hang their hopes on this one: High-quality surveys like the New York Times/Siena College polls can replicate these results by showing Democrats polling strongly among the most motivated voters who show up in these low-turnout elections — but Mr. Trump making up for it by winning most of the marginal voters. So Democrats may be rooting for lower turnout. If those marginal voters don’t show up, Ms. Harris could overperform; if they do, Mr. Trump could.

Or maybe pollsters are herding toward a false consensus Here’s another counterintuitive finding: It’s surprisingly likely that the election won’t be a photo finish.

With polling averages so close, even a small systematic polling error like the one the industry experienced in 2016 or 2020 could produce a comfortable Electoral College victory for Ms. Harris or Mr. Trump. According to my model, there’s about a 60 percent chance that one candidate will sweep at least six of seven battleground states.

Polling firms are pilloried on social media whenever they publish a result deemed an “outlier” — so most of them don’t, instead herding toward a consensus and matching what polling averages (and people’s instincts) show. The Times/Siena polls are one of the few regular exceptions, and they depict a much different electorate than others, with Mr. Trump making significant gains with Black and Hispanic voters but lagging in the blue-wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Don’t be surprised if a relatively decisive win for one of the candidates is in the cards — or if there are bigger shifts from 2020 than most people’s guts might tell them.

It's funny how the polls tell one story - it's super duper tight - and the rallies tell quite another story according to which enthusiasm and engagement is mostly on Harris's side. I'm sorry, but I'm going to ignore the polls and will keep watching highlights of Trump's rallies with their spotty leaking crowds.

Not a bad guess, R71.

I’m fully confident that Kamala will win due to women and others being scared of Trump. But it will be close and we will have to sit through all the various legal and emotional that Trump will cause. I can’t think for a second that he will win. If he does, then Americans are doomed.

Bob Casey is losing in PA to a crazy anti-abortion MAGA cunt.

R76, I'm old enough to remember the large, excited, late election crowds for George McGovern ... who then proceeded to lose 49 states to Nixon.

This Halpern dude is smoking crack if he thinks anything is enough to break through to the cult.

Has he never heard of Jonestown? Koresh? That Hale-Bopp group of nutters?

The maggots will literally DIE before they turn against him.

I totally believe Dump is capable of that, r71, but he will just deny it and claim he’s being persecuted. Maybe if the actual victims came forward? There would have to be a bunch of them. Even then, I just don’t think the MAGA idiots would buy it.

R81, I don't know if he's thinking about the cultists. I think he's probably more thinking about the many non-MAGA Trump voters. Yes, they really do exist. It's why the Harris campaign is relying so much on Liz Cheney in hopes of peeling some of them off.

[quote ] Trump leads Harris by two points, 51% to 49%, nationally among likely voters, including those who are leaning toward one candidate, according to a HarrisX/Forbes survey released Wednesday (margin of error 2.5), and he’s up one point, 49% to 48%, without so-called leaners.

[quote] Trump leads 49%-48% with leaners, and is tied at 47% without leaners, if respondents can select third-party candidates, according to HarrisX.

[quote] In a Monmouth University poll of 802 registered voters taken Oct. 17-21 and also released Wednesday, Harris has a three-point advantage, 47% to 44%, over Trump among respondents who said they “definitely” or “probably” planned to vote for one of the candidates, while 4% chose “other” and 5% chose no candidate.

[quote] Trump regained a lead over Harris in a Fox News poll released Wednesday that found him up 50%-48% among likely voters—a change from Harris’ 50%-48% edge in September, after Trump led her 50%-49% in August.

[quote] Harris leads in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, while Trump is ahead in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. That means Trump would win the election if the state-level polling proves to be exactly right—but all seven swing states are within low single digits, and most have margins of less than a percentage point.

New Quinnipiac poll of Michigan & Wisconsin.

MICHIGAN: Harris 49%, Trump 46%, other candidates 2%

WISCONSIN: Harris 48%, Trump 48%

More from Quinnipiac:

[quote] In Michigan, Harris receives 49 percent support among likely voters, Trump receives 46 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent candidate Cornel West each receive 1 percent support.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Trump received 50 percent support, Harris received 47 percent support, and Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver and West each received 1 percent support.

[quote] In Wisconsin, the presidential race is tied, with Harris receiving 48 percent support among likely voters and Trump receiving 48 percent support in a multi-candidate race with all listed third-party candidates each receiving less than 1 percent support.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Trump received 48 percent support, Harris received 46 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver each received 1 percent support.

[quote] In the U.S. Senate race in Michigan, Democratic Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin holds a lead, with 52 percent support among likely voters and former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers receiving 44 percent support.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Slotkin and Rogers were tied, with each receiving 48 percent support among likely voters.

[quote] In the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin receives 49 percent support among likely voters and Republican challenger Eric Hovde receives 48 percent support, making the race too close to call.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Baldwin received 50 percent support and Hovde received 46 percent support.

God, is it time to turn the page. Tired of Trump. Tired of Nate Silver. Tired of Ted Cruz. Tired of Lindsey Graham. Tired of Matt Gaetz. Tired of a government controlling women's bodies and threatening to tell me my marriage is illegal.

R89 As I recommend to myself to stop watching the polls I just keep trying to kick the football hoping that for once Lucy won't pull it away and Harris sails through the goal posts. (Yeah, yeah, cranky metaphors...)

But these public polls aren't good for much other than showing "trends", and Q, which is a high quality poll, is showing movement TOWARD Harris. I'll take it.

[quote]Again if Harris loses, the Dems need to start giving focus and a bit of attention to some Dem women from states who aren't from New York, California, or Texas.

R34 You are speaking to the choir. White women and men with moderate attitudes from the flyover states must be identified and promoted. I know this is politically incorrect, but there can be too many black faces in an Administration, too many progressive faces, too many minority women, etc.

Damn, it felt good to block, R90.

There is a problem of many Democratic politicians from flyover states being ignored. Tim Walz was pretty much ignored and under the radar before being selected as Kamala's running because the Midwestern governors who were getting the attention in recent years were Pritzker and Whitmer. Tony Evers of Wisconsin is ignored. In Western flyover states, Dem governors like Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Jared Polis are mostly ignored. Most of the media attention Grisham gets is often tied to the Texas abortion bans because many women go into New Mexico to get abortions and clog up the system there. It drives me nuts how some pro-choice activists aren't giving Grisham credit for leading a state that is a reproductive freedom haven and has welcomed in some OB/GYNs who have fled from TX to NM.

There are Democratic Congresspeople and Senators of different races and backgrounds from flyover states who are also being ignored and pretty much cast aside because the media likes to prop up New York senators like Gillibrand and Schumer, NY congresswoman pretty girl AOC, and then add in Californians like Eric Swalwell, Pelosi, Adam Schiff etc. Swalwell and AOC are both smug as fuck like Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul are. If Swalwell attempts another presidential run, he's not going to appeal to people in the flyover states and it would be the same with AOC if she attempted a presidential run.

Is there a CNN Tow. Hall thread?

[quote] Today's update. Pretty good polling day for HARRIS after a good day for Trump yesterday. The model isn't that impressed by any of this and thinks that you're all overthinking what remains basically a 50/50 race.

From The GenForward survey, which ran from Sept. 26 to Oct. 6 by the University of Chicago and included 2,359 eligible voters 18 to 40 years old:

A quarter of young Black men are supporting Trump. (Black men overall backed President Joe Biden nearly nine to one in 2020.)

44 percent of young Latino men said they'd back Trump, an improvement over the roughly 38 percent who backed him in 2020.

Harris is at 58 percent with Black men, 37 percent with Latinos and 57 percent with Asian American and Pacific Islander men.

A majority of Black (63 percent), Asian American and Pacific Islander (60 percent) and Latina (55 percent) women say they will vote for Harris.

White women are nearly evenly split between Harris (44 percent) and Trump (40 percent).

R95, since white women far outnumber in the electorate the other groups in your cited survey, especially in the key Blue Wall states & Nebraska-2, Harris winning them, something neither Hillary nor Biden was able to do, augurs well for her chances of eking out a victory in the Electoral College.

[quote] In Arizona, Trump earns 50 percent to Harris’ 49 percent. North Carolina also has Trump at 50 percent, while Harris is at 48 percent. The two are tied at 49 percent in Georgia.

[quote] GOP statewide lead is 18,500, or 5 percent.

[quote] Rural landslide/high turnout is responsible. Suddenly Republicans have discovered the benefits of voting early and by mail.

Married white women care more about their pocketbooks and their kids (crime and trans crap) than abortion. That’s why there’s a split. Don’t expect women to save the day.

I'm not in place where I'm comfortable thinking Harris is going to win, R99, but winning white women - if that indeed happens - is not insignificant, when Trump has won them in both of his elections.

[quote] There is a problem of many Democratic politicians from flyover states being ignored.

Knowing which party refers to them as flyover states helps the people of Middle America to decide which party to vote for.

Beyonce confirmed for rally

[quote] In the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin receives 49 percent support among likely voters and Republican challenger Eric Hovde receives 48 percent support, making the race too close to call.

In the Emerson poll, the race is now a tie. It still feels unlikely to me, but it does seem possible that Baldwin could lose. Trump is a point ahead in WI in the same poll and he may pull Hovde over the finish line.

Kamala winning.

Despite some small recent trends favoring Donald Trump, 2024 presidential polls remain stubbornly very close, both nationally (where Kamala Harris leads by 1.8 percent according to the FiveThirtyEight averages) and in the seven battleground states. Trump currently leads in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, while Harris leads in Michigan and Wisconsin, per FiveThirtyEight, but no one leads in any battleground state by more than 2 percent.

Polls are not, of course, perfect by any means. So the big question right now is whether they are “off” in some systemic way that conceals the fact that one of the two candidates is really on track for a decisive win. As it happens, two iconic political-media gurus have weighed in on this question all but simultaneously, with neither professing to have a definitive answer.

Polling and forecast wizard Nate Silver (founder of FiveThirtyEight but now out on his own) has a New York Times op-ed that expresses a “gut” view that Trump has a small advantage, but nestles it in arguments that polling errors could go in either direction. He reminds us that state polls in 2016 and both national and state polls in 2020 underestimated Trump’s vote, and also notes an explanation that could again show an underestimation of that same vote:

[T]he likely problem is what pollsters call nonresponse bias. It’s not that Trump voters are lying to pollsters; it’s that in 2016 and 2020, pollsters weren’t reaching enough of them.

Nonresponse bias can be a hard problem to solve. Response rates to even the best telephone polls are in the single digits — in some sense, the people who choose to respond to polls are unusual. Trump supporters often have lower civic engagement and social trust, so they can be less inclined to complete a survey from a news organization. Pollsters are attempting to correct for this problem with increasingly aggressive data-massaging techniques, like weighing by educational attainment (college-educated voters are more likely to respond to surveys) or even by how people say they voted in the past. There’s no guarantee any of this will work.

But Silver concedes it could work so well that polls are actually overestimating Trump’s vote:

[T]he new techniques that pollsters are applying could be overkill. One problem with using one of those — “weighting on recalled vote,” or trying to account for how voters report their pick in the last election — is that people often misremember or misstate whom they voted for and are more likely to say they voted for the winner (in 2020, Mr. Biden).

That could plausibly bias the polls against Ms. Harris because people who say they voted for Mr. Biden but actually voted for Mr. Trump will get flagged as new Trump voters when they aren’t.

Meanwhile, MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki drills down into some comparisons of 2024 polls and the actual 2020 vote in key demographic categories and suggests there are signs the Trump vote is now being captured fully. In Michigan and Wisconsin, ground zero for 2020 polling errors based on underestimation of white working-class voters, Trump’s lead in that demographic is actually higher than his 2020 performance. So maybe the pollsters have successfully adjusted for past polling errors. Meanwhile, the Harris camp has grounds for suspecting her ultimate vote could be poorly reflected in the polls:

From Harris’ standpoint, part of the hope now is that polling is undercounting her support with what have long been core Democratic constituencies: Black, Hispanic and young voters …

The concern for Harris, obviously, is that her Hispanic support is far lower than Biden’s was, both in the 2020 polls and the final election results. But much of Trump’s new Hispanic support comes from younger voters who have not participated at high levels in past elections. If these voters end up sitting on the sidelines in this election, Harris could end up faring much better with Hispanics than the polling now shows. It’s also somewhat encouraging for her that Biden performed better in the election with Black voters than polling had suggested. Harris will need this to happen again.

There’s a reason Team Trump is devoting much of its get-out-the-vote strategy to low-propensity voters. If he doesn’t reach and motivate them, he could underperform compared to polls showing him making gains among Black, Hispanic, and first-time voters.

The bottom line is that if the polls are wrong, it could again be good news for Trump or instead good news for Harris. We just don’t know right now, even though many fearful Democrats and triumphalist Republicans share Nate Silver’s “gut” feeling that the 45th president wins all ties.

What's significant at R104's link is that Kamala has hit 50% in the TIPP tracking poll.

Which is a disaster, r107. She’s running against a mad man who is a convicted felon, who tried to get his supporters to kill out Congressional people to overturn an election.

What? Trump has a ceiling of 47%. If Kamala breaks out 50% or higher, she wins. Don’t you want her to win or are you a Trump fan?

R108 is a troll, and yes he’s a Dump fan who’s been shitting in every single election thread. There are only two weeks left, he will go slithering back to the hole he crawled out of soon.

[quote] Trump has a ceiling of 47%.

That WAS the informed wisdom, based on his performance the last two cycles. That may no longer be the case, since he seems to be overperforming with Latinos, Black men & young men.

Trump should be at 10%.

My one question re this analysis: how the fuck can you incorrectly remember who you voted for?!

There are a LOT of low information voters out there, R113, for whom who they voted in the past is clearly not top of mind.

Marist has polled early voters in several swing states.

AZ: Harris 55 Trump 44 NC: Harris 55 Trump 43 GA: Harris 54 Trump 45.

Uber-creepy:

At the Turning Point rally for Trump, Tucker Carlson says that Trump needs to win because Americans who are out of line need a president who is going to be like a tough disciplinarian dad.

“There has to be a point at which dad comes home….and he's pissed.

Dad is pissed. He's not vengeful. He loves his children disobedient as they may be. He loves them because they're his children….

And when dad gets home, you know what he says?

You've been a bad girl. You've been a bad little girl, and you're getting a vigorous spanking right now. And no, it's not gonna hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it's not. I'm not gonna lie. It's gonna hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You're getting a vigorous spanking because you've been a bad girl. And it has to be this way.”

tucker need s around spanking

Crazy won’t win. Tucker and Trump are dead meat.

[quote] Trump has a ceiling of 47%. If Kamala breaks out 50% or higher, she wins.

Trump won in 2016 with less than 47%. If he can get 47%, he can win.

STFU Debbie Downer. Not going to happen.

Is there a danger that if you don't vote early you have to wait for hours on election day?

Less so than in the election day-only voting of the past, R121.

[quote] North Carolina: Trump 50%, Harris 48% | Wisconsin Trump 49% Harris 48%

Holy shit! There have been multiple WI state Republican officials who have come out to say they are voting for Harris! At least three to four of them in the last 36 hours.

Here’s one:

Cowles: “I really think this is one of the most important things I’ve done."

[quote] Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump are virtually tied in the Sunbelt states of Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina, according to Marist polling released on Thursday.

[quote] In Arizona, Trump leads Harris 50 to 49 percent among likely voters. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3.7 points. However, Harris holds a 55 to 45 percent lead among Independents in the state who said they are likely to vote and a 56 to 44 percent lead among voters who said they have already voted. Trump leads with likely voters who have yet to vote.

[quote] The former president also led Harris 50 to 48 percent among likely voters in North Carolina with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 points. Trump also led Harris among Independents who said they were likely to vote in the state, 53 to 42 percent. However, Harris leads Trump 55 to 43 percent among voters who said they have already voted. Trump leads Harris 53 to 45 percent among voters who have not yet voted.

[quote] The race is tied at 49 percent in Georgia among likely voters, with a plus or minus 3.9 percent margin of error. Harris leads Trump 55 to 40 percent among Independents and 55 percent to 45 percent among those who said they have already voted. Trump, on the other hand, leads Harris 52 to 46 percent among likely voters who have not voted.

So the election is too close to call and it’s impossible to know before Election Day who is going to win, the same as it was yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and…?

Big Village National Poll:

Harris 51.6% Trump 45%

Most women voters will certainly not vote for Trump and I believe there will be more women voting this time because Kamala is running.

[quote] Most women voters will certainly not vote for Trump and I believe there will be more women voting this time because Kamala is running.

This CNBC article states that Trump’s lead among men is more than offsetting Harris’ lead among women, so the overall effect of the gender gap isn’t clear yet.

What is Big Village, R127?

FWIW....

In case you missed this yesterday:

Republican group Preserve America PAC has canceled $4.2M in reservations across Michigan markets today. The group has aired several ads attacking Kamala Harris so far this cycle.

The early voting numbers at r115 are FACTS.

“Who DID you vote for (at early voting)?”

Vs

“who WILL you vote for (whenever you get around to it? Assuming you do)?”

Those are Kamala votes IN THE BANK

[quote] Most women voters will certainly not vote for Trump and I believe there will be more women voting this time because Kamala is running.

And then you woke up.

Women hate women.

The problem with Matthew Dowd at R131 is that he ignore that there have been good polls, too, that have not been particularly favorable to Harris.

^ ignores

Returned ballots in early voting to date in PA:

Democrats 61.72%

Republicans 28.61%

Other 9.67%

It would be nice to see what the Pennsylvania numbers were at this time in '20, R138. I would expect Republican numbers then were even lower because Trump was still vilifying early voting.

[quote] rump has a ceiling of 47%.

More evidence that Trump's ceiling has gotten bigger.

This is FASCINATING. Maybe it’s bull but it’s pretty compelling data.

“The Blowout No One Sees Coming”

“Vantage has been tracking seven swing states daily since August. Until recently, the race consistently appeared as a toss-up. Just a few days ago, the numbers started to shift. It's clear the momentum is moving away from Trump. Here's how our nightly tracking data (1,200 interviews per state) stacks up against what FiveThirtyEight (538) and RealClearPolitics (RCP) are reporting in their averages.”

I've said this before on here a few times during this election season, and I'll say it again: the news sites, the pollsters, the non-news sites (ad dollars from campaigns) have ZERO to gain by letting either candide get ahead and look like a clear winner.

People would stop clicking.

Their revenue literally comes from the number of clicks they get on their site and pages, along with other things like average TOS (time-on-site) or TOP (you guessed it - Time on Page), among a hunded other "engagement" numbers that drive ad dollars for all monetized websites.

We will see the numbers move to Harris in the news and polls starting about now, until election day, in a slow and steady upswing. This will allow all the news sites and others to extract as much revenue as possible out of our collective election frenzy and anxiety, before it's over.

It’s always a conspiracy with certain people.

[quote] News: Those Washoe mail ballots I told you about have dropped and they did NOT help the Dems. Of the 16K counted, it was: 6K, D; 6K, R; 4K, Others.

[quote] GOP statewide ballot lead is 18,000 out of about 417,000 cast.

With Nevada not looking good, it may be that, as it was long thought with Biden, Harris's best path to victory runs through the Rust Belt states (& Nebraska-2)

[quote] With fewer than two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, Republican Donald Trump and Democratic U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris are virtually tied, 50% to 49%, in Pennsylvania, according to the Franklin & Marshall Poll. This result has a margin of error plus or minus 5 percentage points.

[quote] “It’s really a toss-up and that means we don’t know who is going to win,” Berwood Yost, director of the Franklin & Marshall College Poll, says.

[quote] Likely voters are registered voters who report being “certain” to vote and being “very interested” in the political campaign, the pollster says. It’s the closest measure to what voters are thinking.

[quote] According to this last poll of the year, Harris is favored, 48% to 44%, among all registered voters, which is within the poll’s sample error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

[quote] In the U.S. Senate race, incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Casey leads GOP opponent Dave McCormick, 49% to 48%, among likely voters, but among all registered voters, Casey’s lead expands, 49% to 42%.

Trump’s not even campaigning. He already knows he has it wrapped up. Kamala is close to doing supermarket openings.

[quote] Trump’s not even campaigning. He already knows he has it wrapped up. Kamala is close to doing supermarket openings.

I think she still has a good chance of winning, but we’ll see if she continues to pivot to campaigning for other people, like Allred, instead of for herself. I would expect her to return to Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to help the Senate candidates there.

R146 Y'all aren't even trying anymore.

Tonight in GA, Harris rally in front of more than 20,000, Bruce Springsteen, Obama, and a new and improved stump speech by Harris to rapturous response. I don't believe there was any supermarket openings involved.

On the other had Trump had a rally last night with Tucker Carlson ranting about how America was a "bad girl" and Trump was "an Angry Dad" who is coming home to spank the girl hard and make it hurt. Pretty much verbatim. Just a leetle beet weird.

Speaking of weird, where’s the couch fucker? He’s MIA

Just listened to a two-hour talk this morning with Karl Rove, who's become a much-loathed RINO to the MAGA crowd.

A summary of his opinions, in chronological order:

Harris starts out with 226 electoral votes (he's giving her Nebraska-2), Trump with 219.

The race is mostly stable. Addressing implicitly whether Trump has momentum, he noted that Real Clear Politics had Trump down in all the battleground states with the exception of North Carolina & Wisconsin.

Georgia. Although early voting is encouraging for Trump, he's cautious about reading too much into it. Black men in Atlanta are less likely to vote for Trump than their counterparts in Philadelphia. Georgia is better for Harris than is North Carolina. He wasn't asked & didn't indicate, though, who he thought would win the state.

North Carolina. As of Wednesday, Republican early voting has improved from 2020. Then, 43% of the early voting was Democratic, 29% "Unaffiliated" & 28% Republican. Now, it's Republicans at 34%, Democrats at 34% & 32% Unaffiliated. He wasn't asked & didn't indicate, though, who he thought would win the state.

Pennsylvania. He wasn't asked & didn't indicate, who he thought would win. But talking about Pennsylvania, he thinks pollsters have solved past problems.

Michigan. The weakest of the Blue Wall states due to Arab & Jewish voters. Nonetheless, he pegged Harris a "modest favorite." Talking about the big three polling averagers, RCP, Silver Bulletin & 538, he said RCP was, now, the weakest.

Wisconsin. "Dead even." But did note Wisconsin has the best state Democratic chairman.

Arizona. McCain forces & Mormon voters were factors in Biden's victory. The race is "tight as a tick. I think he takes it."

Nevada. When asked if this was Harris's best of the battleground states, he said no, Michigan was. The contradiction with his earlier statement that Michigan was Harris's weakest Blue Wall state wasn't noted.

Asked if Trump could sweep the Blue Wall states, he said, "Not gonna happen."

As to who was going to win the election, he said, "I have no idea how this is gonna turn out.' He added that he's "never seen an election in which there has been so few few states and yet the polls showing it's so close."

Trump is doing appreciably better in New York & California. When asked if that meant Trump could win the popular vote, he said, "I don't know."

In other words, Karl is unhelpful

Very much to the contrary, R152. At least not to someone like me whose gut - like Nate Silver's - was definitely telling him that Trump had this thing. More than that, as I've previously posted, I believed Trump had a 75% chance of winning. My takeaway now is that it's a jump ball. Also, that Nate Cohn's theory of the case, that the Republican's Electoral College advantage is not what it once was, such that Harris needed a popular vote win north of 3% to get elected is no longer operative. In addition, the poll problem of yore, undercounting the level of Trump support, may also be a thing of the past. So yes, I found the interview most constructive.

At this point women deserve to suffer under the abortion bans. Half of them vote for Dump and other repugs.

Tied in the final NY Times Siena poll. Considering the source, I’m glad it’s not worse and glad it’s the last one.

All those voters in Michigan who are punishing Kamala for Gaza when Trump takes power

Re: the last NYT/Siena college poll, described by the NYT reporters as "not encouraging" to Harris, we can only hope Nate Cohn's theory of the case - which Karl Rove implicitly adopts - holds up.

I'm not one of the people here who believes the NYT is pro-Trump or trying to push the horse race... I think it lives in a bubble and I deplore it for many reasons but I don't see that conspiracy.... that said even I questioned this opening line:

Kamala Harris and Donald J. Trump are locked in a dead heat for the popular vote, 48 percent to 48 percent, the final national poll by The New York Times and Siena College has found,[italic] as Ms. Harris struggles for an edge over Mr. Trump with an electorate that seems impossibly and immovably divided.[/italic]

Why shouldn't Trump be struggling for an edge over her? It is tie.

I dunno... if this happens, it's gonna be like one of those action movies where the next morning it's all smoking ruins. This could actually happen. Fuck me.

[quote] Why shouldn't Trump be struggling for an edge over her? It is tie.

It’s logical that it was framed that way. She (and Biden) were behind and since her announcement, her objective has been to catch up to and then surpass Trump. She’s gotten up to a steady tie and now struggles for an edge over Trump. She has plateaued.

Kamala Harris and Donald J. Trump are tied at 48 percent in the final New York Times/Siena College national poll of the cycle Friday.

When minor party candidates are included, Mr. Trump leads by one percentage point.

It goes without saying that this shows an extremely close race — and it’s not the only poll to do so. Over the last week or so, several high-quality polls have showed a tied race or even had Mr. Trump pulling ahead. A Wall Street Journal poll, for instance, found Mr. Trump up three points, while CNBC showed him two points ahead.

The New York Times’s polling average has Ms. Harris’s lead down to one point, as of late Thursday.

All of this raises a possibility that few people would have contemplated at the beginning of the cycle: a Trump victory in the national popular vote.

Democrats have won the national popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections — often enough for many to be lulled into the belief that Democrats have a lock on it. Many of these popular vote victories, however, have been close. A Republican win has been conceivable on several occasions, and even though it didn’t happen, it certainly could have under slightly different circumstances.

If Mr. Trump did win the popular vote this time, it would be straightforward to explain. The poll shows that Ms. Harris faces real headwinds — the kind that would ordinarily cost a candidate the election:

Just 28 percent of voters say the country is on the right track. No party has retained the White House (or won the popular vote) when such a small share of voters think things are going well.

President Biden’s approval rating is just 40 percent. No party has held the White House (or won the popular vote) when the president’s approval rating is that low.

There are deeper challenges for Ms. Harris as well. Mr. Trump has an advantage on voters’ most important issue, the economy, the poll says. And more generally, more voters say they trust him on whatever issue they care about most.

Of course, Ms. Harris could easily win the national vote. Mr. Trump has plenty of his own weaknesses — including some that have returned to the fore this week, like his former chief of staff John Kelly’s comment that he fit the definition of a fascist. But together, there’s more than enough here to make it easy to imagine a Trump popular vote victory.

Could Harris still win the Electoral College? In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by two points but narrowly lost the presidency because Mr. Trump performed well in the relatively white working-class Midwestern battleground states.

Four years later, Mr. Biden won the Electoral College, but his disadvantage in the key states relative to the nation was actually even greater than Mrs. Clinton’s was in 2016. He won the national vote by 4.5 points, but he won the tipping-point state — Wisconsin — by only six-tenths of a point.

With that history in mind, Mr. Trump might seem like a certainty to win if the national vote were tied — let alone if he actually won the national vote. But it may not be quite the lock many believe it to be.

As we’ve reported for more than a year, there are a lot of signs that Mr. Trump’s advantage in the Electoral College is fading.

This is partly about demographics: Ms. Harris is holding up relatively well among white voters, who represent an outsize share of the vote in the key Northern battleground states.

It may also reflect something deeper, playing out state by state in the wake of the pandemic, the stop-the-steal movement and the end of Roe v. Wade. All of these events were felt very differently in different states, and they seemed to leave an unmistakable mark on the midterm map.

In 2022, Democrats did well in many key states where democracy and abortion were on the line, while Republicans ran up the score in uncompetitive states like Florida or New York. The polls have shown a similar pattern this cycle, with Ms. Harris holding up in the battlegrounds while Mr. Trump puts up double-digit leads in Florida.

As a result, I wouldn’t completely write off a Harris win in the Electoral College even if Mr. Trump narrowly won the popular vote. I’m absolutely not saying it’s likely. It may be a bit too much to ask Ms. Harris to sweep each of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan if she’s losing so much ground elsewhere in the nation. It may seem especially challenging in these particular states, as the polls have erred here in recent cycles. One also wonders whether the Arab American and Muslim population in Michigan, angry over the war in Gaza, might just get Mr. Trump over the edge in this scenario.

But at least in the polling, all the pieces for a Harris victory in the Midwest remain in place, even as her national lead keeps fading. Most obviously, the polls still show it: Ms. Harris is still tied in the Northern swing states, even as she’s barely ahead nationally.

The underlying explanations for a diminished edge for Mr. Trump in the Electoral College remain as well. He’s still making most or even all of his gains among Black and Hispanic voters, who are underrepresented in the Northern battlegrounds. He still shows his greatest strength in the noncompetitive states where Republicans did best in the midterms, like our recent Florida poll showing him up 13 points.

This same pattern even exists within national Times/Siena polls: In our national surveys, Mr. Trump makes huge gains in the places where Republicans excelled in the midterms; he makes no gains at all where Republicans struggled, which includes states like Pennsylvania.

None of this makes a Harris victory without a clear popular vote victory easy or likely. But I wouldn’t write it off either.

She will win. He will try to cheat. 2020 all over again:

Curious to see how Simon Rosenberg spins the Times poll, if he acknowledges it all. He's got a tough job, but he signed up for it.

[quote] Curious to see how Simon Rosenberg spins the Times poll, if he acknowledges it all. He's got a tough job, but he signed up for it.

If you are genuinely curious about how the polls can be spun, simply listen to the profit driven, click driven media spin a self-proclaimed autocrat/dictator with multiple felony convictions and a record of nothing but failure and criminality into viable candidate in what they all admit will be a turnout election. All this in against the backdrop of record early voting in several key states. For example Cohn in this article waxing about the "head winds" Harris faces. Comical. He's rabidly unpopular and hardly inevitable. Harris will win this turnout election.

I keep coming back to the hard truth that we have a track record with Donald Trump as the R nominee on the ballot: both in 2016 and 2020 he did 3% to 4% better than the polling aggregate said he would. He did even better in some of the battleground states.

To believe Kamala Harris will win is to believe that 2024 is, and will be, completely different.

The arguments for this belief are persuasive. But so is the Trump track record.

Personally I needed to see her polling at least 2 to 3 pts up in the battleground states, in order to feel that a Harris victory was likely. She’s not; at 11 days out and with early voting/mail voting in full swing, it’s looking tied. I could try more optimism but I’m not feeling it.

[quote]To believe Kamala Harris will win is to believe that 2024 is, and will be, completely different.

I hear you, but consider the following, please:

2024 IS fundamentally different and this is why: Dobbs/ Abortion rights, and this is the first time since the Trump led Jan 6th insurrection that Trump has been directly on the ballot and record numbers of new voters, the Republicans against trump movement, white women breaking for Harris and Dump losing non college educated whites by a few points.

Keep in mind this hard fact: Donald Dump has ONLY WON one election and he won by a hair and malpractice, 77k votes over three key states that were mishandled by the Clinton campaign, allowing an upset ( along with Russian interference and Comey)

Since the 2016 election Trump has been nothing but a losing proposition in national elections for down ballot Republicans and himself.

So feel your feelings, and god knows I have felt the very same feelings, but when you need a break remember the above. This election is fucking with everyone's central nervous system.

That's why, Torta, the Rove interview gave me hope. He believes it's a tied race, that polling has corrected its past problems &, implicitly at least, confirms Nate Cohn's theory of the case. Imagine Karl Rove being my source for optimism!

Thanks, R167! I fervently hope you are right.

And yeah R168, strange to be looking to Karl Rove for an accurate/hopeful take on the race but here we find ourselves.

I take the polling with a grain of salt. It doesn’t factor in early voting or women who hopefully turn out in droves.

Women will turn out but not for Kamala.

Sure, Debbie Downer. Whatever you say.

The former President's longest serving Chief of Staff confirms that DJT is a fascist. Not leftwing hyperbole but a clear-eyed warning that Trump poses to the Republic.

And we argue about how much the NYT does or doesn't report election news neutrally, or how Trump's momentum is more significant that Harris's, or how black and latino younger men are leaving the Democratic party.

I believe that Harris will win. I acknowledge that it is very close and Trump could win. I expect that if Harris does win, Trump and MAGA will again attempt to overturn the election with more leverage than in 2020. I expect disruption and violence.

America has the power to reject a man who is clearly fascist. It may not.

The only difference is that Biden is in the White House, not Dump.

Approaching Mt. Doom

[quote] There's a real shot Trump may get his great white whale: winning the popular vote. Polls show the race nationally is basically even as Trump runs far ahead of where he polled in 2016 or 2020.

[quote] He'd be the 1st Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years & only 2nd in 36 years.

If so, we can hope for the inverse of the 2016 race.

I’m not convinced he will win but if he does, will the people who vote for him admit it later when he fucks everything up? Doubtful.

Thank God preparations for Trump's next insurrection attempt are in motion. Lol trump thinks he can just declare to himself the winner and roll into the Whitehouse. Lol. He's that stupid.

Why are these people saying it's the "final" poll? Is there some rule that you have to stop two weeks out?

They want you to believe them

Polling takes money. They only do it so many times. They figure that there’s nothing left to poll until Election Day.

[quote]Why shouldn't Trump be struggling for an edge over her? It is tie.

Kamala shouldn't be struggling because we've all seen how Trump's been in the last few weeks. Deeply disgusting and weird even by his own non-standards. That is what the NYT is implying. The bat-squeak of exasperation is there if you care to hear it. Incredulity that the race is so close given unique squalor in one candidate. With, we gather, more to come.

LIVE: ‘Ours Is a Fight For The Future’: Harris and Obama Share Stage for First Time in Georgia:

WTF?

According to The Hill, "Trump's LGBTQ+ Support DOUBLED Since 2020"

[quote] According to The Hill, "Trump's LGBTQ+ Support DOUBLED Since 2020"

According to The Hill, Donald Dump weighs 175 lbs, is all muscle and speaks coherently

So maybe it's not so much Borises who've trolled DL in greater numbers, R184, but Bruces.

Oh goody, the manipulative horse race roller coaster of polling reports is still working properly. Let's see, yesterday it was a news/media flood of mostly favorable info for Harris, so that must mean today is (checks), poor news for Harris and favorable reports for Trump. Yep. Predictable as fuck. This repetitive looping every election cycle is so obvious and yet, the general public are allowing themselves to veer wildly from hopeful and exuberant to emotionally distraught every other day because it's every other day that their particular choice is having a bad polling cycle according to the news and assorted pundits.

Amanpour & Co.: Former DOJ Official Warns of Potential “Election Crisis”

With early voting already well underway in the U.S. election, candidates Trump and Harris are both reaching out to Latino voters in swing states. But as the election date nears, fears are growing about how the country will cope with what could be a very close result -- especially in a key state like Pennsylvania, which might not be able to announce a final tally for several days after the election. Former Acting Solicitor General and Georgetown Law professor Neal Katyal tells the show why he's worried.

Is it Trumpist to drive a Tesla? Political polarization hits the brand

Some shareholders are concerned about Elon Musk’s support for the Republican campaign, even though revenue has continued to grow

Elon Musk’s personal and financial support for Donald Trump’s campaign, along with the shift in the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and his own controversial comments, have left some Tesla shareholders concerned about the potential negative perception of the brand. Numerous questions regarding this issue have surfaced in the company’s investor forum.

[quote]Oh goody, the manipulative horse race roller coaster of polling reports is still working properly. Let's see, yesterday it was a news/media flood of mostly favorable info for Harris, so that must mean today is (checks), poor news for Harris and favorable reports for Trump. Yep. Predictable as fuck.

Well, yes, it is predictable, but not for the reason you stated. If the actual answer is a tie, the polls are going to bounce around that, sometimes showing Harris with a small lead, and sometimes with Trump with a small lead. The problem is with anyone who lets themselves get emotionally affected by these results and who doesn’t understand that a small lead means it’s really a tie.

New poop statue displayed near US Capitol to ‘honor’ January 6 rioters

Artwork satirically commemorates people who broke in to the Capitol and defecated on the House speaker’s desk

A new temporary bronze installation depicting a pile of feces on Nancy Pelosi’s desk was erected in Washington DC this week across from the US Capitol, appearing to satirically “honor” the people behind the January 6 insurrection.

Has anyone ever been able to achieve the perfect DQ mound of poop? For me lately, it’s all been sequoias down the flume.

I have a sense we've entered the "Where's the outrage" phase of the campaign that informed the last weeks of Bob Dole's ill-fated 1996 campaign.

For anyone looking at polls and fighting back panic, go to YouTube and watch Rick Wilson “The Elephant in the Room”. Today’s upload is “Cut the Bullsh!t”.

Yeah, I know he was one of the bad guys, but he’s fighting to save the country now, so go watch. You will feel better.

R194 Link?

[quote] According to The Hill, "Trump's LGBTQ+ Support DOUBLED Since 2020"

I don’t doubt this at all. I know tons of MAGA gays and even trannies. They watch nothing but TikTok conspiracy videos.

[quote] I have a sense we've entered the "Where's the outrage" phase of the campaign that informed the last weeks of Bob Dole's ill-fated 1996 campaign.

Huh?

Who's that hottie on stage now in the Livestream at R183?

R194, hasn't the statute of limitations run on OG Never Trumper Rick Wilson's past? I mean, you wouldn't be so begrudging about Nicolle Wallace, another OG Never Trumper, would you?

I just voted early today in philadelphia at midday and the line took around an hour. More people than I’ve ever seen lining up for voting in my life

[Quote] tons of MAGA gays

Checks out

Here's a link for what R94 is referring to.

Thanks R202

I watched on my TV and didn’t even think about grabbing the link before posting

R195 - R202 just posted the link I omitted

R199

I’m not holding grudges. I acknowledged the past for those that do.

That being said, while I welcome Nicole, Rick, George, Liz and the rest of the Never Trumpers to the Save Democracy Coalition, I’m not exactly eager to give them a seat at the policy table. Not yet.

It certainly reminded me to stay focused and hopeful.

[quote] That being said, while I welcome Nicole, Rick, George, Liz and the rest of the Never Trumpers to the Save Democracy Coalition, I’m not exactly eager to give them a seat at the policy table. Not yet.

Even if such a promise gets more needed non-MAGA republicans to vote for her? She's already talked about adding a Republican to her Cabinet.

I have to back away from this thread. It's scaring the fuck out of me. I can't let myself even fathom another Trump term.

Gonna go listen to that new Gaga song and act like I'm 23 again.

R208, you have to face your fears, not run from them. Steel yourself for either possibility. Sticking your head in the ground isn’t going to make the future go away.

R209, I already voted. I've donated. I've done all I can do.

Now, my head is going firmly in the sand. Getting an ulcer won't change the outcome.

About Latinos supporting Trump.

Gaza will be blown off the map if Trump wins. This guy is a moron.

[quote] Married white women care more about their pocketbooks and their kids (crime and trans crap) than abortion.

You don't know what happens do you? There's a whole abortion-related world that most of us don't know about.

The quiet part of the abortion debate is that no mother wants her son (or daughter) saddled with an unwanted baby. Not in these days of DNA paternity tests.

I know of two cases where the idiot son got the school slut pregnant, and his mother harassed the girl until she agreed to an abortion. The pressure these mothers applied could almost be called abuse. The mom then drove the girl to the clinic and took care of everything.

I found out because FL had an amendment years ago saying no one under 18 could get an abortion without parental consent. My friend (mother of a teen daughter) "If she gets an abortion, I want to know about it." I then found out. It's a huge thing.

To get super politically incorrect since we are saying the quiet part out loud, add race and class to the situation.

Under the current FL abortion ban, if young Noah gets LaTinda pregnant, it's easy for LaTinda to say, "I'm the baby." Getting an abortion becomes difficult and expensive, plus she has the law on her side. LaTinda won't be easily intimidated.

Now, Noah's family has LaTinda and her baby as part of their lives for 18 years.

As to LaTinda's mom, she didn't raise no fool. Both know a good deal when they see it.

Hypocrite fuckers. My cousin was dating a very conservative guy, a “Reagan” Republican. He was very anti abortion—until my cousin got pregnant. He was a typical Repuke hypocrite and pushed her very hard to get an abortion. She did, and then he dumped her. He’s still a Repuke, married to another Repuke. Many, many times I wanted to out him. Maybe someday I will.

[quote] I know of two cases where the idiot son got the school slut pregnant, and his mother harassed the girl until she agreed to an abortion.

Depending on where the mother and school slut live, pushing the girl to get an abortion may now include handing her a plane ticket to an abortion state. If the mother is as motivated as you describe, buying a ticket on Spirit or Southwest is going to be no obstacle.

I bet plenty of rich or upper middle class Texans have probably sent off pregnant teens into New Mexico for abortions.

[quote] I bet plenty of rich or upper middle class Texans have probably sent off pregnant teens into New Mexico for abortions.

People find a way to make do.

There are abortion fund programs that are helping some women go to other states for abortions.

There is an atheist named Dan Barker who was a minister and a Christian songwriter prior to becoming an atheist. I watched some Youtube video years of Barker years ago where he mentioned still making royalties off Christian songs he wrote and he mentioned donating the money to an organization that helps poor women get abortions.

I’m a pilot and volunteer for a program where we transport women in areas where abortion is illegal to places where they can receive the medical they need, at no cost to them.

Yes, r219, on the same page.

Not a pilot or anything, but a room, a shoulder or ear and a ride.

It IS a big issue.

Once the federal government starts treating transporting a minor over state lines the equivalent of a violation of the Mann Act there’s going to be a whole lot of paternity payments.

Looking at the CNN poll, I just noticed that they have a +3 for the GOP on the generic Congressional vote. They put it in the next to last paragraph. I don't know why control of the House hasn't been written about much when it's actually a big deal.

This morning, we have a New York Times/Siena College poll in a place that might surprise you: New York City.

Overall, Kamala Harris leads Donald J. Trump, 66 percent to 27 percent. Although it’s a significant advantage, it also represents a major decline in Democratic support since 2020, when President Biden won the city, 76-23.

If it held, it would represent the worst showing for a Democratic presidential candidate in the city since 1988.

New York City does not figure prominently in the electoral calculus of either campaign, but it may nonetheless be an important part of the story of this election.

A strong Trump showing in the city would offer important clues about what’s propelling his gains nationwide. The poll adds to the evidence that his gains are concentrated in the places where Republicans fared well in the midterm elections, suggesting that the pandemic and the upheaval in its wake left a lasting mark on the electoral map — and may blunt Mr. Trump’s advantage in the Electoral College.

As we’ve reported all cycle, Mr. Trump has made important gains among Black, Hispanic and younger voters, but it increasingly seems his gains will vary greatly from state to state or even city to city. Our recent poll of nearby Philadelphia, for instance, showed Ms. Harris doing just fine there (79-16).

Of course, there are many differences between the two cities, but they’ve voted very similarly for decades. Just a few years ago, no one would have guessed that New York and Philadelphia would part political ways. The polls suggests that something is driving them apart — or perhaps more accurately, drove them apart.

Sometimes it can be hard to say why seemingly similar places drift in different directions, but in the case of New York City there’s no shortage of explanations for Democratic woes. The city and state have been something of a train wreck for Democrats in recent years, including Kathy Hochul’s surprisingly weak performance in the 2022 governor’s race — she won by only six points — and the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams last month.

We asked about many of the issues facing the city on today’s survey, — you can read my colleagues’ work on it here — but the presidential poll results suggest that the Democrats’ woes have reached as far up the ticket as they could go.

You may already know that the political pileup stretched back to races for Congress. In the midterm elections, Democratic candidates for U.S. House won the New York State popular vote by only nine percentage points on average, compared with Mr. Biden’s 23-point victory in 2020. The collapse was rivaled only by Democrats’ disastrous showing in Florida.

The Democrats’ poor results in New York State arguably cost them control of the U.S. House. At the time, many blamed poor turnout. This was undoubtedly a contributing factor, but the polling this cycle suggests the party’s weakness ran and still runs much deeper — deep enough to reach the presidential election, something few would have guessed at the time. On its face, it doesn’t make much sense: Why would Ms. Hochul’s unpopularity make people vote for Mr. Trump? That’s not the way presidential politics works, especially for someone as well known as Mr. Trump.

If the Times/Siena poll results describe reality, something bigger is going on. The New York City result fits a national pattern — one where Mr. Trump excels in the places where Republicans fared best in the midterm elections, while Ms. Harris holds up elsewhere.

This is very unusual. Midterm results usually don’t have a lot of predictive value for the next presidential election. If anything like it holds in the final result, it will suggest that 2022 wasn’t your usual midterm: It was the first midterm election in the wake of the pandemic and the upheaval that followed, from Jan. 6 to rising prices to the end of national abortion rights.

Many of these extraordinary events were felt very differently in different parts of the country or among different constituencies. No place in the United States was hit harder in the first pandemic wave than New York City. The city was also prominently affected by a rise in crime, and the arrival of a wave of migrants. Conversely, abortion rights were safe in New York; the Republican stop-the-steal and MAGA movement were a distant threat, too.

If the polls are right, all of this had a lasting effect on the political allegiances of many Americans. For New Yorkers, the effect was a shift to the right.

More evidence to support Nate Cohn's long-held theory of the case that Trump's EC advantage was not what it was. That the perceived wisdom extant in most quarters that she needs to win the popular vote by at least 3 points to get elected is no longer applicable.

Democrats have made a mess out of NY, so I’m not really surprised. What I am surprised by is Trump gaining support. I could understand any other Republican but not him.

But, R226, it's consistent with the gains Republicans made in distinct areas - including around NYC - in the midterms. Gains, critically, that were not seen in the Rust Belt states.

I remember being here in 22 and posting that the issue of crime would push NY right and could affect Congressional elections. Numerous responses calling me Boris and how crime was worse back in the day. NY then lost Dem sets to Republicans and lost Congress. The right wing swing continues here with many male POC going MAGA now. I used to think the Trump stink would suppress the shift but I guess not.

The cliché that ALL politics is local applies more than ever in this election. Polls have been failing to capture the real vote for several cycles. JUST VOTE

If you get out there and ask NYCers, across the 5 boroughs, a large % want a crackdown on crime especially the random street and subway attacks, and especially the recent leniency for juveniles. And a large % want the migrants GONE. And nearly everyone has a low opinion of Mayor Adams, a Democrat.

It makes sense that we see this shift today in the polls, vs 2020.

Crime was worse back in the day, but the way bail reform was implemented was nonsensical, crime is up compared to the late teens and commuters in the burbs who used to see the city themselves now work from home and experience the city through the 10 O’clock news; either Fox 5 or Sinclair 11.

The reason migrants are all over New York is literally because of Republicans. First, they limit the judges so that asylum cases take years to schedule. Then, they ship the migrants to New York because they think it’s owning the libs. Then, they block the legislation that is needed to fix this problem. Finally, they blame it all on Democrats. It is remarkably effective on the stupid and perennially embittered.

If you designate yourself a sanctuary city you should be open to taking them. Period.

The blowout is coming.

The race isn’t close. It’s not neck and neck.

You’re reading that right.

Harris is going to win in a blowout.

🧵

I’ll say it again for the people in the back: Trump and the GOP are in serious trouble— and they know it.

Want to know the state of the race? Follow along.

1) Look at the senate races in the swing states where the electoral college will be decided— Republicans are behind in every single one. Every. Single. One. And Democrats are within MOE in TEXAS AND FLORIDA. (Ted Cruz and Rick Scott)

2) Indies and the Gender Gap. Women and Independents will drive the election and they are breaking for Harris especially in Arizona and Nevada. NC, GA already in play thanks to the Gender Gap… but there’s one more…

3) Florida. Florida is in play with the abortion Amendment, Rick Scott - Powell senate race is competitive with Dems pouring millions into it. Trump was consistently 4-5pts ahead but now in MoE. If Harris wins Florida, it’s over.

4) Harris favorability is better than Trumps, and we’ve never seen a candidate with worse favorability than Trump.

5) It’s GOTV. It’s classic electoral strategy to push the narrative the race is close to motivate turnout at this stage of the campaign. The national polls and the MSM are full of noise and narrative pushing. Internal polling from both campaigns show Dem momentum and Harris ahead

6) Only polls that matter: swing states especially those with senate races.

This race isn’t close. Trump and Republicans know it.

Democrats know it.

7) Dems are looking to run up the score, and eradicate MAGA for good by taking back the house and holding the senate. — and it’s right there in front of them.

There’s a chance Democrats win Florida and NC and end this thing by 10ET on election night.

8) Hold onto your butts. Ignore the noise.

Trump and the Republicans are cooked and our long national nightmare is almost over.

9) Dems focusing on running up the score, and motivating voters for GOTV. They are having a rally in TEXAS this late in the game.

Media pushing narrative that the race is close simply for tv ratings.

[quote] 4) Harris favorability is better than Trumps, and we’ve never seen a candidate with worse favorability than Trump.

In the CNBC poll, her unfavorability is 49% and Trump’s is 48%. Her net favorability is now -13% (a big drop since September) compared to Trump’s -6%.

[quote] 1) Look at the senate races in the swing states where the electoral college will be decided— Republicans are behind in every single one. Every. Single. One. And Democrats are within MOE in TEXAS AND FLORIDA. (Ted Cruz and Rick Scott)

Georgia and North Carolina don’t have U.S. Senate election this year, and Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are tied or within the MoE, so Not. Every. Single. One.

In the end I can only see what's in front of me right now..

In my wealthy seacoast NH town of 4000 or so, and this general area (I am NOT one of them-wealthy- that is) Its generally pretty liberal. Only one particularly seriously wealthy cocksucker CUNT on the ocean on RT 1- who was a Trumper the last 2 rounds, is back to it- Probably a 7-9 million dollar home. There are about 20-25 homes of all shapes and sizes with Trump signs.. About 5 of those are living in 1.5 million-10million homes-

The rest- many of these folks are very rich-all Walz/Harris signs- in one case 20 homes in a row on both sides---So many "Veterans for Harris" signs. Which makes me SO HAPPY. One guy was coming home from a run with his dogs and I gave him the fist pump and he smiles and did it back. (Hot guy too!)Easily 80-100 homes here with Walz/Harris signs..

One bunch of fuckers this very morning put 7-8 MASSIVE Trumps signs all over their yard- They were doing it as I drove by, I opened my window, reached out my hand and FLIPPED THEM OFF- This is a very visible coastal route that everyone drives down- Surfers/Tourists/Looky Loos/All the Massachusetts folks who come up here and surf/hang-

But definitely Walz/Harris signs are about 80% vs. 20% Trump signs-- Easily. But this is the NH seacoast- Central NH is Trump Paradise.

Portsmouth NH is similar- I would say 80/20. One main drag called Woodbury Ave- solidly middle class for this area- Harris Signs on nearly EVERY home- There are roughly 75 homes -

The Trumpers are going full throttle decorating their yards though- Its so depressing. Their PRIDE in him.

I think this is a major moment for all of us- externally and our "Internal landscapes".. For me, with the possibility of NO Social Security- whether Kamala wins or not, the threat will always be looming of one of these cocksuckers finally winning..

I basically know that I have to change my life. (It reminds me of that Rilke poem) I need to grow up and figure out some alternative income streams, because my job is not going to do it. These people want to destroy most of us.

Its been a wake up call. And if somehow, they win- (at the very least, we already know that the election results will be contested and fought)- I am never watching the news again- I am going to hunker down and just try to make money- Until this guy causes World War 3.

If this recent wonderful post filled with all of this wonderful news about a blowout is true- It will be much harder for Trump to fight SHIT. If it ends up being really close-- Forget it- It will be a torture chamber for months.

This post IS my blog post I guess. Sorry. After my run (including in front of the aformentioned rich cocksuckers) and then grocery shopping/drive home- the signs just made me SO excited and hopeful. And scared to death of the outcomes.

Wait, Trump is now polled as more favorable than Kamala? WTF?

I wish I could say that most of the things claimed by the author of the "Harris blowout victory is coming" Xitter thread in R234 are true.

They're just not. Best case scenario, Harris pulls out a very narrow win and Trump/MAGA fight it with all they've got... but, fortunately, this time Trump lacks the power of the US Presidency that he held and used in the aftermath of 2020.

R237 you should have offered hot dog guy a bj, suck on his big sweaty horny cock

R238, it's just more proof of this media "conspiracy."

So basically Trump is winning?

Le fuck

R240- I was scared to be so brazen.

And I have never apparently had the experiences of all of the men here where every man is basically gay.

I have sat here for years going- Im a nice looking fella, WHAT WORLD ARE THESE GUYS IN? Its not mine!

I now read that this guy's post is basically 80% incorrect and I am back to wanting to die. Holy shit. WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?? This should be 70/30- easily.

THIS will be the story of the election.

“ 9.5 million early votes cast so far in the 7 swing states. 952,866 more women have voted than men, or 55.1-44.9%. The gender gap grew by 87,396 from Thursday. Gender turnout gap is +14% points in MI, +13 in PA, +12 in GA, +10 in WI, +9 in NC, +4 in AZ, -2 in NV. Good for Harris.”

I have to tell you- related to that other thread- I do follow Meidas Touch and that 3 named dude with the dark hair- If things are as bad and as close as I am reading- they should be ashamed of themselves. Its their same pandering all in CAPS headlines how Trump is toast/ Trump is done/Trump is going to prison.. Its a pure money grab. They should be encouraging people to vote. Meidas has around 3 million subscribers- the boy has almost 2 million I believe- It really angers me now. I have no axe to grind with them- but its really getting old.

R238 is a troll, Dump is NOT poling more favorably. This POS posts this or something similar in every thread, like they’re shocked to learn this “news.”

[quote]My husband is in media and he was on the floor of the Javitz Center that night. Hillary’s election night party. He says he will never forget the entire room’s slow morph from celebration to hesitant unease to anxiety to shock and despair.

Coverage of the entire night from Hillary headquarters in 2016 has been preserved on the C-SPAN website.

Just look at r244, who has posted real data. Stop believing the trolls.

Here’s a video explaining Nevada in great detail.

For you, R246, from yesterday's NYT/Siena College poll:

[quote] Harris’ favorable rating: The vice president has lost her favorability advantage over Trump. The two polls paint different pictures of Harris’ image rating — CNN’s poll has her significantly underwater (41 percent favorable/52 percent unfavorable), while NYT/Siena shows voters are split (48 percent favorable/50 percent unfavorable). But in both surveys, Harris’ image rating is virtually identical to Trump’s.

After watching the video at R249, I’m convinced Harris is likely to win NV.

MI, PA, WI and NV - Leaning Harris.

The Emerson poll also shows Harris and Trump basically tied on favorability.

[quote] Half of voters (50%) have a favorable view of Harris and half have an unfavorable view of the Vice President. Forty-nine percent have a favorable view of Trump, while 51% have an unfavorable view of the former president.

[quote] “Male voters are breaking for Trump by 13 points, 55% to 42%, a larger margin than in 2020, while women break for Harris by ten points, 54% to 44%, underperforming Biden’s support in 2020,” Kimball added.

[quote] The top issue for voters continues to be the economy at 45%, followed by immigration (14%), threats to democracy (14%), abortion access (7%), healthcare (6%), and crime (4%).

Trump’s one step away from taking a crap on a child on the stage yet people like him better than Kamala. Only in America, folks.

George Conway

The fact that “All polling is based on modeling from past elections,” which Stuart accurately notes, is something most people don’t understand.

It’s a necessity of public-opinion research. Because if you call up 100,000 people randomly, you’re going to get a good sample of people who answer their phones—not a good sample of the adult population generally, or the pool of registered voters. And you certainly don’t necessarily end up with a sample that adequately represents the people who will actually cast votes—because the identity of those people can’t be known until after they vote. (Also worth noting is that if you randomly dial 100,000 numbers these days, you might only get a few hundred responses—and that doesn’t help, either.)

You can ask people “are you gonna vote”—and you’ll get a lot of people who say they will vote but may not. It’s like asking, are you going to go to the gym today. “Sure I will.” Oops—it’s about to close; maybe next time. You can ask if they voted in the past, but humans are not always consistent.

So pollsters have to take whatever sample they have and weight the responses (by age, gender, party affiliation, race, whatever) to approximate their educated *guess* about the demographics of the people who ultimately cast votes. But those demographics are not knowable until after everyone votes.

Derek Jeter used to say about baseball, “this is why we play the games.” Elections are much the same.

By the way, all of the foregoing explains why polls are really good for two things—message testing and identifying trends—and less so for predicting outcomes in relatively tight races.

If desperation sets in, attack the polling.

That’s not an attack on polling. It’s an explanation of how polling works, and why it is not particularly useful in predicting a tight race.

Chuck Todd, who sees the race as being at a "knife's edge," believes the election will turn on whether Trump under/over performs among minority men & whether Harris under/over performs among married white women.

Women are turning out early

Markos Moulitsas, the founding "kos" of DailyKos, just put up an unusually good post about the state of the race. Summary: concern and optimism are both warranted.

Keep in mind, R258, that Trump won the white women vote both times.

Question, if Kamala wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, she is at at least 270, right? I mean, in addition to her "safe" states? The early voting is looking good right now. If she also wins New Mexico (it's currently looking good), she is over 270, right? Maybe she is able to pull off North Carolina too. I hope so! I think she will get just enough to win.

[quote] Question, if Kamala wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, she is at at least 270, right?

Yes, as long as she wins, as expected, Nebraska-2.

George Bush's chief strategist Matthew Dowd says the same thing as the guy from R234.

Dowd speaks to his colleagues working on the Harris campaign and knows the state of the race.

Stuart Stevens, who was Mitt Romney's chief strategist, is also saying the same thing:

Polls have sample sizes of hundreds or a couple of thousand. Early voting has sample size of millions. It’s not theoretical or speculative.

All polling is based on modeling from past elections. There has never been a gender gap like this in turnout. If Harris wins by a surprising number, this will be why pollsters didn’t see it coming.

It would be news if Matthew Dowd stated anything other than Harris is winning.

R250, if you’re not r238, I’ll eat my hat. The trolls have learned to clear their cookies. Btw your link says no such thing.

[quote] [R250], if you’re not [R238], I’ll eat my hat.

Start nibbling, R266!

James Carville thinks the key constituency group this year is white college educated men.

[quote] Btw your link says no such thing.

Huh?! It's directly from the linked Politico article!!

R269, the Politico article talked only about the polling, not the favorability.

[quote] the Politico article talked only about the polling, not the favorability.

No, it specifically talked about Harris's favorability:

[quote] Harris’ favorable rating: The vice president has lost her favorability advantage over Trump. The two polls paint different pictures of Harris’ image rating — CNN’s poll has her significantly underwater (41 percent favorable/52 percent unfavorable), while NYT/Siena shows voters are split (48 percent favorable/50 percent unfavorable). But in both surveys, Harris’ image rating is virtually identical to Trump’s.

“Oh god no, why are you calling me about this!?” said John Anzelone, a pollster for Kamala Harris and other Democratic candidates. “Are you trying to upset me?”

Anzelone had just gotten off the phone with one of his clients, a member of Congress running for re-election who was asking the same thing I was: what is going on with the early vote numbers, and are they as dire for Democrats as some anxious partisans are claiming? His answer: “Stop. Just stop. Do not go down the rabbit hole. It means nothing. Don’t ever even look at it. Every email that comes in with updated numbers I delete before even opening.”

This question–what the early vote numbers tell us, if anything–has consumed endless hours on cable news shows and miles of overwrought posts on social media since some of the battleground states kicked off early voting last week. As Election Day has morphed into Election Fortnight the angst and low-grade dread that used to be reserved for the first Tuesday afternoon in November now hangs around for weeks.

Most smart political analysts agree with Anzelone — the early vote numbers tell you next to nothing about who is going to win. Votes count the same, after all, whether they come in on November 5th or before. For several cycles now analysts have jumped on early vote numbers to show that a shocking and unforeseen result in a given state is imminent, only for that balloon to pop on election day as more voters come out and longstanding partisan alignments reassert themselves.

Still, that hasn’t stopped political operatives from both sides – but especially the GOP – from insisting that the numbers are good for them and devastating to the other side. And Republicans do have some reasons to be feeling good. In Nevada, for example, 24,000 more registered Republicans have voted than Democrats as of Friday in a state where Democratic strength in the powerful culinary unions has been thought to give them an edge – and where recent elections have seen Democrats lead early voting. In Arizona, Republicans are outperforming Democrats 42%-36% among the early vote — another reversal of expectations and trends. In North Carolina the GOP has a razor-thin lead, where the conventional wisdom would have had Democrats meaningfully ahead. And even in Pennsylvania where Democrats have a double-digit advantage in returned ballots, Republicans have still made massive gains over their 2022 and 2020 performances in the early vote. (Michigan and Wisconsin don’t offer party registration breakdowns for early voting, but there is fuzzier equivalent game going on in those states analyzing county data.)

Democrats are, meanwhile, offering various forms of the message chill. At Harris headquarters, a memo was passed around recently making a case for how little early vote matters to the final outcome. It is the position of the Harris campaign that Republicans, by instructing their rank and file to vote early this election, are simply pulling votes forward by days or weeks without meaningfully raising the party’s ultimate total. Plus, while the early vote data might reveal party registration, it does not reveal how anyone actually voted. The game plans for both campaigns rely on some meaningful number of voters registered with the one side voting for theirs. And while the early vote is thought to be a proxy for base enthusiasm, as one Republican operative put it, no matter what the early vote numbers show there is little doubt that Democrats come out to vote against Donald Trump.

“Ever since Trump has been on the ballot the one thing Democrats do not lack is enthusiasm, so if they vote now or vote on election day, it doesn’t really matter,” the operative said. “They are definitely going to be voting.”

The returned Republican ballots in Pennsylvania largely come from voters who cast a ballot in 2020, a sign that the early vote isn’t bringing new voters to the polls so much as cannibalizing the election day vote. This would be an especially good sign for Democrats, since the Trump theory of victory relies on first-time and low-propensity voters coming to the polls, according to Tom Bonier, the CEO of TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm.

“If I’m Trump I’m a little more worried than the Harris campaign, because the Trump campaign needed to change the makeup of the electorate to find an advantage that wasn’t there four years ago,” he said. “They need to turn out young people and people who don’t regularly vote — and there is no evidence of that materializing.”

A large reason for the strong Republican showing so far is that Donald Trump, after disparaging in-person and by-mail early voting in 2020, has been sending at least some new messages on the topic. “Swamp the vote” signs are displayed above his rallies, and Trump told the podcaster Don Bongino last week that “I am telling everyone to vote early” (though he also called early voting “stupid stuff” and suggesting that vote-by-mail is rife with fraud). The rest of the party and the SuperPAC’s pouring money into Trump’s re-election however been less conflicted, pummeling prime Republican voters with mailers and digital outreach urging them to come to the polls in such numbers that the 2024 election becomes “too big to rig.”

The perils however of comparing early vote from this year to previous election cycles is that widespread early voting is so new that it is nearly impossible to draw lessons from one year to the next. The midterm electorate, either voting early or not, is older, whiter, and wealthier than the presidential electorate. 2020 was the Covid year — for Democrats voting by mail became a public signal of taking the pandemic seriously, while for Republicans waiting until Election Day–at Trump’s urging–was a symbolic rejection of lockdown and social distancing. But prior to that election, early vote and vote-by-mail had been largely the provenance of Republicans.

Michael P. McDonald, a professor of political science at the University of Florida who tracks early voting, agrees that the first days of early voting, when what he calls “The Super-Voters” come to cast their ballot, are not particularly indicative of the eventual outcome. But as we get closer to Election Day, he said, the early vote starts to become more predictive of the eventual outcome than polls. In 2016 and 2020, while polls had Democrats winning North Carolina, McDonald’s analysis of early vote totals told him (correctly) that the polls were wrong. Analyzing vote data, he said, is similar to how pollsters model the electorate when they construct their surveys, looking at past voting patterns and making adjustments based on the demographics of the early vote totals and factoring in changes in state voting laws. “It’s all information you want to take in, and in a lot of cases it is more of a true signal than what most polls tell you.”

McDonald said he would have to wait until early voting ends in the weekend before Election Day to get a clearer picture of the state of the race, but for now, “It has been a good early vote period for Republicans,” citing North Carolina and Florida in particular. “That doesn’t mean Trump is going to win — but they are doing better than they have been in the early state of the early voting period. If the trajectory stays on track, we are going to have a very close election again.”

Sophisticated campaigns use the early vote data in order to find out which of their reliable voters have not yet shown up. Democrats have a 0-100 “contactability score” for every battleground state voter, and until their targeted voters mail in their ballots the Harris campaign will bombard them with micro-targeted digital ads, mailers and door-knocks until they do. Over on the Republican side the field operation has been largely turned over to two SuperPACs, one headed by Elon Musk and the other by conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. It is an unusual arrangement, but Republicans involved in the effort say the strong early vote totals show that critics have been wrong to doubt them. “We have hit all of our metrics, and surpassed all of our goals in terms of door-knocking and mail,” said one Republican official. “It’s early and we have a long way to go but the story so far is that Republicans are doing better and Democrats are doing worse.”

Republicans unaffiliated with the outside GOTV effort however aren’t so sure. “I just can’t help but feel like Harris has a better operation than we do,” said one Georgia Republican political operative. “Just look at what they are doing. Harris and Walz seem more focused on reaching out beyond the base, doing all this stuff here with Liz Cheney and whoever else. It seems like they are in persuasion mode and they are smart enough to know what they are supposed to be doing right now.”

Meanwhile, poor Anzelone just wishes everyone would stop doing this. We are going to find out who won soon enough, and poring over the early vote numbers to divine hidden meanings isn’t helpful.

“As a middle-aged mildly depressive guy, I have enough anxiety to deal with without hearing about early votes or exit polls or any of it,” he said. “Should you be freaked out by the early vote numbers? I doubt it. What I would do is put that anxiety on a closet shelf and go on with your day. This is advice based on years of experience of looking at early vote data and having it turn out to not mean a fucking thing. Quote end quote.”

R271, I hate to be that person, but I will. The Politico article—again—does not contain the paragraph you cut and pasted. Please look at the first story and tell me what paragraph you pulled the quote, because I don’t see it in that article. There are five paragraphs, which paragraph has the snippet you pulled? There are a slew of articles in the feed after the first one, but I went down a bunch and didn’t see anything else, was this pulled from an article further down in the feed?

R275, please go to the link & do a search for favorability. You'll get three hits. The quoted paragraph will be the second of the three hits.

Finally, r276. It was further down, not in the top article of the feed. And it still doesn’t say that Dump has better favorability numbers, just that at the least, they’re tied (in those two polls).

[quote] But in both surveys, Harris’ image rating is virtually identical to Trump’s.

R260 Yes, and he'll win a majority of white women this time... the important variable is how much less will the margin be. He won the demographic by 7 pts in 2020. Most recent polls show Trump winning white women by 1 point only. That's significant.

So it is all a moving target... Harris up with white women and down with white men, younger black and latino men. Harris way up with Gen Z women but down with Gen Z "boys".... the moving pieces are why no one is certain how this will go, not even Nate Silver's tummy.

In the last week I've begun to think Harris is winning it with over 300 electors and only a 2-3 % advantage in the national vote.

[quote] Most smart political analysts agree with Anzelone — the early vote numbers tell you next to nothing about who is going to win.

Well, I never considered the people to be smart who say there is meaning in the early vote numbers.

Is this true? Yikes. White men really hate Kamala.

I like this “in the bubble” response to Ari’s tweet (at @r280) from Lily Jean.

R280 That's 3% more than voted for Biden. 3% more voting for a black woman than voted for an old white man.

Republicans have won the white vote since... um, the 19th century maybe?

[quote] Republicans have won the white vote since... um, the 19th century maybe?

I don’t have the energy, can someone else handle this?

Trump’s wave of ads targeting Harris for transgender prison treatment (ironically a Trump administration policy) and organized rumors about her sex life may be taking hold. Can’t think if any other reason for her favorability to be sinking

R283 ok, since Nixon. Prove me wrong.

Harris is getting the support of more white women than Hillary and Biden. Same with all college-educated whites. If accurate, Trump can't overcome that.

White men generally hate women of any color.

They see women as baby making servants, not individuals with their own choices to make.

The reality is, women control the one thing most men want more than anything else - pussy.

They hate women for not spreading their legs for them. To men, that’s the only thing women are “good for” so a woman with power is to be feared and hated.

And the thugs know this and push the fear angle.

[quote] Trump’s wave of ads targeting Harris for transgender prison treatment (ironically a Trump administration policy) and organized rumors about her sex life may be taking hold. Can’t think if any other reason for her favorability to be sinking

An favorability bubble doesn’t have to have an active force to pop it. It can recede on its own. You had a lot of people at the beginning who were like, “I don’t know much about her or what her policies are or how good a president she would be, but she’s new, so I’m supporting her!” Over time, the exuberance is naturally going to wane.

Well sure, if you define her favorability as a “bubble” by definition it is going to deflate or pop no matter what.

I don’t see it that way. She is being hit with effective but unfair and inaccurate propaganda.

Typical Republican Swift Boating.

It would be odd if the onslaught of propaganda against Kamala, particularly the "low IQ" and "retarded" shit that Trump has been pummeling. I saw one of those street interviews in Russia, and the person was asked what they thought of Harris, and he said, "She's dumb."

Propaganda works. Maybe the only surprise is that it took a while for them to decide on what tack to take.

Anyway, look at how many dots are on this favorability-polling chart. I shudder to think where she'd be if that had a few more weeks to go after her.

*it would be odd if the propaganda didn't have an effect

Kamala is so dumb that she wiped the floor with Trump at their debate.

R292 Don’t you know/-regular white people have the power to continually change the goal posts. Don’t you know—Debates no longer natter. It doesn’t matter that a mafuckin orange cocksucker stated to a national tv audience of over 60 million, that Haitian Americans were stealing pets, cooking them, and then eating them as part of a balanced diet.

FUCK YOU CNN.

White women will break for Trump again. Mark my words. They’re insane.

Amer Ghalib, who leads city in battleground state of Michigan, says Republican is ‘right choice’ despite disagreements.

What do you even say in response to R287? Jesus. Go, maybe?

[quote] It's Saturday night? A bad time to post a really long newsletter?

[quote] Well, there's 10 days to go, so we don't care. Check your inboxes for a Model Talk.

Any subscribers who'd care to share this newsletter?

I think this might work, R297

Ah n/m, I see it only gives you a portion for free.

Trump had a lot of responsible people on his staff the first time who kept him from going too crazy. That won't be repeated if he wins.

I’m glad to see low attendance from my college town.

Also, R300 he had never expected, let alone planned, to be president. His early administration contained some adults in the room who restrained this very insecure man’s worst instincts. By the time he was freeing himself of these people, Covid hit. There’ll be nothing but supplicants in a second administration who would encourage his most despotic tendencies. And now he also has a detailed plan, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation. ,

[quote] Trump had a lot of responsible people on his staff the first time who kept him from going too crazy. That won't be repeated if he wins.

They may or may have been responsible people, but he did have a lot of independent people on staff. I agree that if Trump wins, there will be a push to harmonize the staffing so that everyone is aligned with the goals this time.

r251 Im hoping Harris flipping Ohio could be a surprise of the night

This is a genuine trend.

I hope, R305. And not just anecdotal evidence.

And in case you’ve missed just how SCUMMY these Republicans are, they’re attacking nuns.

Nuns are cunts. They deserve each other.

Whatever happened to the nuns on the bus who supported Obama in 2012?

Maybe the abortion subject has shut the nuns up.

R287 I actually agree with what Van Jones said last night on Bill Maher. He said (paraphrasing) that the left has made white people, specifically white men, feel like they are ALL the enemy just for being white.

It's so not true and it's really allowed many moderate liberal men to find a home on the right. It was a stupid move on our part. I understand why it started, especially during 2020, but we need to make that sentiment obsolete pronto.

Chickens for KFC!

FWIW

Pay attention to which states have Democratic Governors and which states have Republican ones. Those party machines may have more influence than anyone is discussing.

Interesting R313. With Harris ahead in Pennsylvania by 2 and Michigan by 4 - yet tied in Wisconsin and Arizona - she just needs either WI or AZ to win.

Morning Consult is one of the two weekly polls than Simon Rosenberg says he pays the most attention to, the other being Economist/YouGov.

The overall polling average reported on October 22 at Morning Consult was Harris 50, Trump 46.

I tried to see if there was a more recent report but couldn't find it. I'd love to see that number, if anybody knows it, or maybe they won't update this overall weekly average until the 29th?

[quote] Morning Consult is one of the two weekly polls than Simon Rosenberg says he pays the most attention to

That makes sense. Morning Consult consistently gives Harris her highest poll numbers (and Biden before her). While other polling firms show the national race as a tie, and the mean of the polls is a tie, Morning Consult gives Harris +4 above that. Presumably their state polls work the same way. Their polls are definitely the ones you would want to look at if you want numbers showing Harris ahead,

R305 I would love Ohio to turn blue, just to slap JD into place

Yale historian Timothy Snyder: "Can fascism be American?"

Thanks, R313. Morning Consult isn't an A-rated pollster, rated #107 by 538 & not among the top pollsters singled out for praise by Nate Silver, but I'll take their pretty favorable findings.

ABC/ Ipsos Poll:

Kamala Harris Leads Donald Trump by 51% to 47% among likely voters.

Harris leads by 62% to 33% among those who have already voted.

Now THAT'S an A+-rated pollster!

Looking at the cross-tabs of the ABC/Ipsos poll, it's a good sign that Harris, although still under water with white women, is polling seven points better than Biden's 2020 numbers, & is polling better with Blacks, both women AND men, than Biden ended up doing.

^And, in another critical group, white men with college degrees, a group Trump won by 3, Harris is up 4. With seniors, who vote more than any other group, we see a 10 point flip, from Trump winning by 5 in 2020, to Harris leading in this poll by 5.

JD Vance seems to have a rather strange definition of patriotism.

I’m impressed with this version of Jake Tapper at R325. He’s not usually that committed to fighting with the likes of JD Vance.

And Liz Cheney for the follow up slam.

Is it worth doing a DL poll to see how we feel right now or will it just devolve into accusations of trolling for even daring to ask? (In some ways, DL is culturally already up and running for any return to fucked up authoritarianism. We just have to drop the music a few keys.). But I'm curious. I would call myself thinking she will win, but not believing it confidently. It's not in my bones. But I remain astounded it is even possible she isn't ten points ahead. I mean, every day this guy, who is lowest of the lows, gets worse - whether your measure is economic competence or mental competence or respect for the Constitution, there is no measure by which this guy can be within ten miles of winning. Yet, here we are.

JDV is a man of at least some intelligence (however misused) obliged to defend the indefensible because of his ambition - and outraged at being put in that position by a capable interviewer. Hence the flailing and raised voice.

Any assured VP could have answered fair robust questions without losing his temper and lashing out. But as ever, Trump corrupts every single thing he touches, and JDV is now in way above his pathetic over-ambitious head.

R311 I been saying that. Just in general the left needs to stop attacking its own. Liberal ass, gay loving Taylor swift can rock some cornrows and the stupid ass left will say that’s wrong. Shit so fucking stupid.

I feel momentum has shifted in the last few days. It's still too close to call etc. etc. But it feels like there's some wind in her sails... Tuesday at the mall in DC where Trump encouraged the mob to attack the Capitol is a great visual and the opportunity to make "the closing argument"...

Time to turn the page. Won't it be just peachy if actually do it.

R331, I agree. Just enough in the last day or so. If she gives a powerful speech on Tuesday, it will strengthen her further. This is going to be Bush Gore, but this time I think it will be her. Vance's CNN interview is a disaster. I think there are enough people who will turn on the Republicans even this once, who will grasp the big picture even at the last moment and hold their noses (in some instances) and vote for her, unable to inflict Trump on the country. And, of course, he will keep running his mouth for the next week.

[quote] I’m impressed with this version of Jake Tapper at [R325]. He’s not usually that committed to fighting with the likes of JD Vance.

Great fun to see Jake dabble in journalism. He should keep at it! Fucking Barbara Walters filleted Dump in 1990 after one of his bankruptcy binges. And Walters knew PLENTY off the record stuff about dump including the true "nature" of Dump's relationship with Roy Cohn.

Vance was terrible in that interview and did more damage than good to the Dump campaign.

R330, Dems need to denounce the crazy left. The leftist crazies never vote anyway.

[quote]Is it worth doing a DL poll to see how we feel right now or will it just devolve into accusations of trolling for even daring to ask?

You might be interested in this thread:

Old Jimmy has been in hiding because everyone can see what a cunt he is when he shows his face.

He was probably told to press the flesh (in whatever way necessary) with the whales and the Federalist Society, just shut up and lay low.

Then, people start wondering where he is, he shows his face and just reminds everyone of what a fucking epic prick he is.

Keep running your fat mouth, Jimmy! Maybe even fucking OHIO will finally cunt punt you!

R355, thx.

[quote] Dems need to denounce the crazy left. The leftist crazies never vote anyway.

The should, but they won't. . Part of the reason is that fucking AOC is pretty much in the back pocket of many media outlets. If moderate and liberal Dems got together to call out the leftists, AOC and Bernie Sanders would be all over TV, podcasts, and social media trashing them and their followers would be whining up a storm. The hilarious thing is that if AOC was a very average or plain looking person, the media would have never swooned over her back in 2018. I don't think AOC is an extremely attractive woman with supermodel looks. But, she's a beauty queen compared to many plain jane female politicians. She has used that to her advantage and the media has propped her up. It was fucking ridiculous that she appeared on a few magazine covers shortly after taking office. I hope that some female moderate or liberal Dem woman who is a millennial eventually takes away whatever hold AOC has on the media. The media also needs to stop giving time and coverage to Bernie Sanders, his Bern Bro followers played into a big reason why the 2016 election turned out the way it did. Yesterday, on my YouTube homepage I saw a thumbnail link for a rally he did in PA. He should be kept away from the Harris/Walz campaign.

Guess what idjits? The crazy left votes.

R339 Because it’s a myth that the leftist crazies don’t vote. THEY DO. Even if they are so “bothered” they make it a protest vote. It’s the center type or apolitical but left leaning minorities who don’t vote.

Now's not the time to renounce the crazy left. Any time after Nov. 6 is, and the sooner the better. Even if they pull this off - and please God they will - we cannot go on like this every cycle, coming close to death and saved by abortion, because it's gonna wear out. We cannot count on the Obamas to save us every cycle, because with every year their pull diffuses, as the Clintons has. There's gotta be a story from the Democrats that pulls a comfortable majority, because focus group of one, but I can't stand this fucking shit.

I think the Trump campaign knows they don’t have numbers to prevail hence the reason he is not going to be in any swing state during this last week. He saving that bank for his legal affairs.

Trying to understand you: we are "this close to death" every election cycle because of the "crazy left"?

No, by the perception the Democrats are the crazy left. Entirely different thing. It's just a matter of message.

All democrats have to do is stop pandering to those Mexican immigrantion activists that want open border and get serious about immigration. This will weaken the maga’s claim that democrats are weak on immigration.

It was totally unnecessary for Biden to come up with that humanitarian parole for Haitian Venezuelans Cubans and Nicaraguans at the end he had to put a stop to the program.

Early voting line was surprisingly long by me.

R347 where do you live?

Lawn Guyland

Kamala looked great in Philly last night. Absolutely stunning. Because I noticed this campaign has aged her ass. She was looking a lil old during the debate lol. Not bad but if you black you know what I am talking about. Something she said really resonated with me that I never really thought about. A whole generation of young Americans have grown up with active shooter drills. That is sad. But she said it in an uplifting way, how it’s made them more prepared for the world. She’s awesome.

Why are major media outlets going along with the fake republican polls?

If you remove them, democrats are in the lead. Even Ohio and Texas are not safe for republicans.

I would like to see 538 and others show us the real averages without the fake republican polls.

That weirdo Nate Silver talkin bout, his gut predicts Trump. 🤦‍♂️

I am not buying the fake polls. Why is it that all the reputable polls have Harris up and all the shady polls have Trump up?

[quote] Why are major media outlets going along with the fake republican polls?

Yes, there are many such polls, but there are respected polls that are not encouraging, e.g., the most recent AtlasIntel poll, A-rated by Silver & rated #22 by 538, showing Trump up by 3 nationally.

Never heard of that poll.

I just don’t trust that even some semi-reputable right leaning pollster wouldn’t sell off their credibility for trump. Anything related to republicans is so untrustworthy

Prince, yes, I’m sure Kamala is not getting enough sleep these nights. She looks great today in Philly though.

Nate Silver keeps tweaking his message in order to chase clicks. Best ignored.

Has anyone asked Nate what the real averages are without the fake republican polls?

I bet the average is closer to +6 or +7 for Harris.

There is a lot of smoke around Ohio right now like they don’t want to come out and say it but internals might be picking up a Kamala win there.

The flower has wilted.

She's going to lose.

Sometimes democracy is shit because the people that compose the majority are idiots.

I am going through the legit polls now and clearly Harris has this. Just ignore the fake ones and it makes since why Trump has basically given up campaigning in battleground states. It would be throwing good money after bad. It makes sense as to why he has let loose and will say anything now.

I've ignored Silver for most of this cycle. His analysis is facile, and he's incredibly thin skinned when called out on it.

Matt Dowd knows what's up.

R357, believe it or not, Florida is a couple points closer than Ohio. And she might have boosted her popular vote total just a little more by rallying big in Houston on Friday night.

MSG is just a play for the jury pool at this point. That’s why he went to NYC. The internal polls must show that he is toast! NY is where the jury will be selected from.

It also shows why Harris has relaxed and decided to party with Beyoncé.

It’s all in the internals.

R320 just gave me the good fucking news that I needed to hear. Thank you, R320.

R363 you must have been reading the fake poll averages. Just focus on the real, “name brand” polls. They all have Harris up. It tells the real story.

R360, he sure does. He knows that all these websites are going to slow-roll Kamala's lead in order to maximize clicks on their websites and make more advertising dollars before the election is over. It is completely predictable.

Ok, thank you for that. I am not the only one who is scratching their head as to why they are adding all these fake polls to the average.

It seems sleazy. The only reason to do that is for attention and clicks.

Is there anyone mainstream that I can follow who is questioning the integrity of the fake polls and the sites that are using these shady methods?

I would like to see this question being asked on the mainstream media sites. It’s a very good question.

R366 I think it’s just a little bit of “just in case-ism”. Ain’t nobody an omnipotent omniscience God. However I know she is going to win. My clairvoyance is never wrong when I tap into it.

The thugs have flat out ADMITTED they are sending out lies showing dump ahead so they can contest the election, r353.

They want to say, “how can this be a blowout when the polls showed the traitor winning?” They then file lawsuits based on their OWN FUCKING LIES.

R369 I get why the shady republican outlets will fudge the polls, what I don’t get is why people like NBC news and 538 (ny times) would be using the fake polls when they report the poll averages.

They should be separating out the fake polls and giving us the average of the polls as if all the polls in that average are legit.

I get why shady republicans are doing what they do, but the media should know better. What is the REAL AVERAGE OF THE REAL POLLS?

Why can’t we see that number? Just leave out the shady ones.

Look at the Republicans panic already from the MSG rally!

After those racist “jokes” about Puerto Ricans, Bad Bunny, J. Lo and Ricky Martin have all come out to endorse Kamala and rail against what was said.

Rick Scott, you might be in trouble!

[quote] The thugs have flat out ADMITTED they are sending out lies showing dump ahead so they can contest the election

Where? Link.

The latest CBS News battleground estimates:

Michigan: Harris +2 (50-48)

Pennsylvania/Wisconsin: Harris +1 (49-48)

Nevada tied (49-49)

North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona: Trump + 2 (50-48)

Nebraska: Harris +4 (51-47)

All at or within the MOE. So no reason for any Harris or Trump supporter to be overly confident.

Has Rita Moreno commented on the Puerto Rican jokes?

Oh look, yet ANOTHER legitimate poll with Kam in the lead.

Even more reason to side-eye 538 and the like.

Ricky Martin wrote that song about Trump.

"Notably, four percent of Pennsylvanians are Puerto Rican. Around 500,000 people."

Yeah, but not many actually vote. That’s the problem.

Trump doesn’t care. He knows there is no way he can make up the battleground losses. So just red meat for the donation$$

^ Someone is not paying close enough attention to the battleground state polls. This election is at a knife's edge.

And some speculation he's ginning up his troops for another Jan 6 after he loses.

R362 is reading the fake republican polls that have been disproven smh. We’re not going to spread that false info here.

Kam is leading in all the battleground states when you leave out the fake polls.

R382 read the thread before commenting. We don’t want that chicken little crap here.

People who are nervous shouldn’t be on here. Go use that energy to drive people to the polls.

R383 I’m watching Have I Got News For You right now. Adam Kissinger is on there and said something very telling. He said it was the worst day of his life and it was crazy. Then he said THIS, “and all of my colleagues agreed with me until they didn’t.”

Yes, Trafalfar is one of the most-Republican pollsters out there. I routinely add at least a couple of points to the Democrat in any race they poll.

I think that this dude is vibing what is coming-

If I remember, poll troll doesn’t show up until the final stretch. But we are 10 days out so who knows. He was not given the floor as much as he should have last go round, so maybe he figured he was no longer needed.

[quote] Rs have added 2K to lead, which is now 31,000, or 5%. GOP surge slowed a bit Saturday, but Republicans still gained.

[quote] Dems need to decisively win indies to make this a late Election Night.

I wonder what will happen with Trump's Triumph of the Klan tonight at Madison Square Garden?

Poll Troll is gone I think.

r342 A very wise post.The psychodrama of such brinkmanship is unsustainable.It wont last forever but the fascist phase the republicans are in could be with us for quite some time but fingers crossed in a few weeks time the most toxic part so far of that is past as we enter hopefully a post Trump era.

r351 The corporate media are one of the big ingredients that have prolonged the Trump nightmare, helped create it in the first place and are a wider problem for democracy as they seek more crazy sensationalism and paid for journalism as their struggling financially.

What's wrong with Nevada? Are the people there that stupid?

Nevada was the only state in 2022 where an incumbent governor or senator lost reelection. The Democratic governor there lost, so that should have raised a red flag for the Biden/Harris campaigns.

I think Nevada will go blue this year. The automatic voter registration has changed everything there. I believe a majority or near majority of voters are listed as No Party Affiliation now. That group likely leans Dem but there’s no way to track them.

New residents to LV (many coming from CA) haven’t signed up with a party so they’re listed as independents.

I think a lot of us are mixing up two things, with this early voting:

(1) which party a voter is on file as being a member of, and

(2) who they’re actually voting for, which is all that matters in the end.

The party affiliation numbers might not be telling the whole story. We can see the larger official tally for (1). We only have some recent polls’ small data sets, for (2). But where we have (2), it looks highly encouraging. There appears to be some small degree of crossover R voting toward Harris, and a strong wave of recently decided voters going for Harris.

Staying hopeful!

r398, in Nevada we have the Independent Party.

You are talking about UNAFFILIATED NV voters.

Might this be good news for Harris?

[quote] Hot take? Turnout may drop in 2024. Fewer voters say they're certain to vote or enthusiastic about voting than in 2020.

[quote] Why? Voters feel less is on the line. Fewer say 2024 is the most important election of their life than said the same about 2020.

[quote] Makes each vote count more!

[quote] New polling from the Alliance for Black Equality, a super PAC mobilizing Black voters in swing states, found that Harris has increased her support by 10 points with Black Generation Z men since early October.

[quote] Overall, Harris’s support among young Black men increased from 59 percent to 69 percent between Oct. 4 and Oct. 19. Among Black men ages 23-29, her support rose from 49.9 percent to 62.2 percent. Similarly, among Black men 18-22, support skyrocketed from 47.7 percent to 52.7 percent.

[quote] If she can continue to make these types of gains over the next week, the poll predicts Harris would be able to win more than 90 percent of Black voters’ support nationwide.

Byron Donalds: Donald Trump is an alpha male. He absolutely is. No doubt about it. People like that.

PA registration

81% accurate

[quote] In 17 of the 21 presidential campaigns since the team moved to Washington in 1937, the outcome of its final home game before Election Day has accurately predicted the outcome. It was called the Redskins Rule, before the team changed its name, and it held that if Washington won, the incumbent party in the White House would win the election. If Washington lost, the other party would prevail.

Michigan

Michigan

Wisconsin

New Hampshire

Early voting - Arizona

Patriot polling? Really lol.

7% shift to GOP

R411, they post polls from all different firms.

Now we are doing no name polls with just a link and no context?

I’m so sick of these fake polls. Where is the integrity here?

Trying to divine the election outcome from early voting numbers is an exercise in futility this year.

25 day poll with almost 50k people, hell of a sample size

Well, this thread has been overtaken by the trolls. I go from r405 to r411, then skip a few more posts. I just wish they’d take a week-long nap.

The Michigan poll is amazing considering how wonderful Trump is going to be for Gaza!

Another.

[quote] As I wrote about last week, Harris is more popular than Trump, but has had trouble driving a substantive message — in part because she’s running away both from her unpopular positions in 2019 and her unpopular boss, Joe Biden. So a final week that’s all about Trump — and shows off some of the most unappealing elements of his campaign — could throw Harris a lifeline.

I wonder how much early voting will hurt. So many people have voted before being reminded of the shitshow that awaits them by watching the events of yesterday.

In my gut I think the bulk of the early Republican voters are probably split between Republicans for Harris and ultra MAGATs. I don’t see the I don’t like him, but… people running early to the polls. I think they are largely still reachable.

There’s been a surge of Republican registration because people want to vote in the Republican primaries in closed primary states.

And I know polls try to meet certain demographic representation numbers, but as we know the right has seen a surge of white people pretending to be black in social media to try to give legitimacy to racist talking points. I don’t believe that the polls have a good way to control for that new phenomenon.

I’m not saying it isn’t going to be closer than it ought to be, but if I were Trump I’d be deciding on which country without an extradition treaty to flee to.

Republicans always fall in line.

[quote] Republicans always fall in line.

The polls show that 90%+ of both parties are falling in line, as expected.

What remains of Republicans are those who haven’t long abandoned the Trump Party. Either in ‘16, ‘20 or after J6. From that subset, I expect they will largely fall in line.

No way that 90% of republicans are voting for trump. I look forward to exit polling that will show what matches up in real life. He might pick off a few non affiliated types but he is not getting 90% of repugnants. Not happening.

The high-rated polls are showing 51% Harris/47% Trump for their final polls of the election. Harris is over 50% which is the most important thing.

It's the same margin as 2020, which was 51.3% Biden vs. 46.9% Trump. It looks like nothing's changed from four years ago.

Bumping this tread for visibility. Someone is making a ton of individual poll threads to try to push this one down.

Things will slowly creep towards Harris until election day.

I think the leads have been there all along but we can pretend next week that she is “gaining” the favor that she already has.

Here you go guys, it was recommended to add to an Election thread--

To me this means he is losing Michigan-- I dont know...

Clearly the plan is to plant all the seeds to contest the results--

I just really hope we don’t end up with a tie. Things are so batshit crazy right now that anything is possible.

R424 How do account for the Republican primaries where over 20% of voters in some states voted for Haley... AFTER she had bowed out? I think the electorate after Jan 6 and the trashing of Roe is very different, very unpredictable. The surprise outcomes of 2022 are an example.

R433, they expressed their opinion then and have now returned to the fold. If that is difficult for you to understand, that’s a you problem.

R432, a tie, almost certainly, means a Trump win.

The pro-Israel billionaire widow whispering in Trump’s ear

Miriam Adelson, a major shareholder in a casino empire, is the largest donor to the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign

What can we do to get billionaire’s money out of the process? This article states that Harris has 82 billionaires (!) supporting her, and Trump has another 52.

[quote] With Election Day just over a week away, an exclusive Suffolk University/USA TODAY network poll shows former President Donald Trump with a small lead, 48% to 47%, over Vice President Kamla Harris in Wisconsin among likely statewide voters.

[quote] However, Door County along Lake Michigan, the state’s “bellwether” county—a county that has voted for the winning presidential candidate in every election since 1996­—shows Harris leading 50%-47% over Trump. Both polls are each within their respective margins of error.

Patriot Polling ranks 249 of 282 polls in the 538 pollster rank.

So fuck off R406 - R411.

Blocked.

If I've missed any other good pollsters (as determined by 538 & Nate Silver), please feel free to make mention of other national polls by the top pollsters. Unless otherwise indicated, all these latest polls are within the last few days.

NYT/Siena College - tied

ABC - Harris +4

CNN - tied

CBS/YouGov - Harris +1

Monmouth (10/23) - Harris +3

AtlasIntel (10/19) - Trump +3

Marquette (10/16) - Harris +1

Emerson -tied

R437 How to clean up the mess?

Well: pass legislation that funds elections with public funds, and limits or prohibits private funds. In a sense restore and extend the protections in place before the Citizens United ruling. Also, get rid of the Electoral College.

This would only be possible with a Democratic Congress and President, a Supreme Court that returned to the pre- Roberts era, and a Constitutional Amendment. Likely? Hell no. Possible? yes.

R449

WSJ - Trump +2 (Oct 22) Economist/YouGov - Harris +3 (Oct 22)

R442, the WSJ poll doesn't make the grade in either 538 or Silver Bulletin.

It's in the list of WP polls aggregated. I trust WP as much or more than 538, Silver Bulleting, or RCP.

Interesting that the WSJ is an outliner.

Thanks, R444. If you include the Fox poll, as does WaPo in its aggregation of polls, we have another Trump + poll. Their latest (10/16) has him up 50-48.

Oops. The latest Fox poll was from 10/23, & it shows Trump up 47-45.

I do not trust Fox or WSJ even if they said Harris was in the lead.

They are so shady.

[quote] When you remove the fake polls, the real polls show no momentum for Trump.

Not completely true. The NYT/Siena College, Emerson & CBS polls have shown some slippage. The ABC/Ipsos poll showed some gain.

Here is the link where an internal pollster debunks the claim that trump has momentum.

Let’s put that false narrative to bed. Trump has no momentum, despite these right-wing polls desperately claiming otherwise.

Those polls don’t show slippage. It’s just noise within the polling error margin. Big difference.

In that context, I agree, R451. But for our lay analysis, we'd prefer to see Harris 3 up, rather than 1 up.

I have a question about 2016…they say the polls were “off” in 2016. And these are the polling experts.

But what if they weren’t wrong. Because why is it just that one year?

I think the republicans cheated that year…and I have some evidence. Remember what the republicans got caught doing in South Carolina around that time? They were caught stuffing the absentee ballots …

OK, so it was North Carolina , Here is the link …Stay with me now…

“Four people plead guilty in North Carolina ballot probe of 2016 and 2018 elections”

RALEIGH, N.C. — Four people pleaded guilty on Monday to misdemeanors for their roles in absentee ballot fraud in rural North Carolina during the 2016 and 2018 elections. The convictions stemmed from an investigation that in part resulted in a do-over congressional election.

Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway accepted the plea agreements in Wake County court, which resulted in no active prison or jail time. Cases against six other defendants remained pending, with hearings scheduled through the end of next month, Wake District Attorney Lorrin Freeman said.

So we have evidence of ballot shenanigans from Republicans. Now who in here is going to tell me that this was the only state, let alone county, doing this crap?

Anyone?

So they were cheating and that’s why the polls were off only in 2016?

If you ask me, Republicans have been doing this in Red areas where they won’t get caught. They are padding the votes. Who is going to question red votes in a red area?

We I think we all should start questioning 2016 and the years since in red areas.

They are republicans which are the scum of the earth. Why wouldn’t they cheat? Their strong mora compass?

As the presidential contest enters the final sprint, campaign aides and allies close to Vice President Kamala Harris are growing cautiously optimistic about her chances of victory, saying the race is shifting in her favor.

Top Democratic strategists are increasingly hopeful that the campaign’s attempts to cast former President Donald J. Trump as a fascist — paired with an expansive battleground-state operation and strength among female voters still energized by the end of federal abortion rights — will carry Ms. Harris to a narrow triumph. Even some close to Mr. Trump worry that the push to label him a budding dictator who has praised Hitler could move small but potentially meaningful numbers of persuadable voters.

Officials within the Harris campaign and people with whom they have shared candid assessments believe she remains in a solid position in the Northern “blue wall” states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, saying internal polling shows her slightly ahead in all three — though by as little as half a percentage point.

They think she remains competitive across the four Sun Belt battleground states. Arizona and North Carolina appear to be the toughest swing states for Ms. Harris, these Democrats said, and they feel better about Georgia and Nevada.

Mr. Trump’s aides, for their part, believe that he can win at least one of the blue wall states, and that he remains competitive in all three. They are particularly hopeful about Pennsylvania, where members of his team say internal data shows him ahead, albeit within the margin of error. Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers are far more openly bullish, telling allies that he could sweep the seven battleground states.

This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen political strategists, campaign aides, pollsters and others close to the two campaigns and candidates, many of whom insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Few Democrats dispute that the race appears extraordinarily competitive: Never in modern presidential campaigns have so many states been so tight this close to Election Day. Polling averages show that all seven battleground states are within the margin of error, meaning the difference between a half-point up and a half-point down — essentially a rounding error — could win or lose the White House.

The tempered sense of Democratic confidence follows a period of high anxiety in the party as polls tightened in recent weeks. But now Ms. Harris and other party leaders have begun to discard their winking warnings that she is the underdog.

“Make no mistake: We will win,” she said at a rally on Sunday in Philadelphia. “We will win because if you know what you stand for, you know what to fight for.”

Mr. Trump, too, is broadcasting that he is marching toward victory. He has planned rallies over the final weekend before Election Day in New Mexico and Virginia, two comfortably Democratic states where polling averages show him trailing by at least six points.

A packed, nearly six-hour Trump rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City on Sunday night provided a vivid illustration of how he is leaning into his base as Ms. Harris courts moderate Republicans. Speaker after speaker promised that Mr. Trump would take back the White House, mixing in racist and misogynistic remarks, vulgar insults and profanity-laden comments to appeal to his most faithful supporters.

“The United States is now an occupied country, but it will soon be an occupied country no longer,” Mr. Trump told tens of thousands of cheering fans gathered in the deeply Democratic city. “Nine days from now will be liberation day in America.”

The former president is ending the race much as he has all his campaigns, with promises to stop what he falsely says is a flood of undocumented migrants who are taking American jobs, raising housing prices and causing a crime wave. Even as Democrats call him fascist, he has escalated threats to prosecute and jail his political opponents, whom he calls “the enemy within.”

Ms. Harris’s aides believe the argument tying Mr. Trump to fascism is helping her sway moderate Republicans, even though the leading super PAC supporting her bid has raised worries that it is not Democrats’ most effective message. Democratic officials emphasize that they have won — or overperformed — in a wide range of contests since 2016 by painting the former president as divisive.

And some of Mr. Trump’s advisers are concerned that the warnings from John F. Kelly, his former White House chief of staff, that the former president made admiring statements about Hitler while in office could break through with undecided Jewish voters, potentially hurting him in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Both campaigns also see reasons for trepidation within the election’s significant gender gap. While Ms. Harris leads with female voters, largely because of abortion rights, some Democrats fear she will not win over enough women to compensate for an expected deficit with men. And some of Mr. Trump’s advisers worry that abortion rights will remain a mobilizing force for Democrats even two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

For all his bravado in public, Mr. Trump is privately cranky and stressed, according to three people in contact with him, with a schedule marked by chronic lateness. Ms. Harris, aides say, is energized by her crowds, particularly the 30,000 supporters who watched her discuss abortion rights at a rally featuring Beyoncé on Friday in Houston.

And Ms. Harris’s running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, who predicted Democratic defeat in 2016, has told people privately that he would rather be in their position than in Mr. Trump’s.

“In 10 days, we beat him at the ballot box,” Mr. Walz said at an event on Saturday night in Phoenix. He added, “I’m a super optimistic person.”

Democrats are closing with a trifecta of messages that have been the foundation of Ms. Harris’s snap campaign: support for abortion rights, promises to improve the economy by lowering costs and housing prices, and warnings that Mr. Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. But she has largely refused to separate herself from the Biden administration, which remains broadly unpopular.

On Tuesday in Washington, she will deliver what aides are billing as a closing argument at the Ellipse, where Mr. Trump rallied the crowd that eventually stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The most powerful force in our politics since 2018 has been fear and opposition to MAGA, and it sure looks like it will be again,” said Simon Rosenberg, a strategist who was one of a handful of Democrats who correctly predicted the party’s overperformance in the 2022 midterms. “What is likely to happen in this election is that Trump will end up underperforming his polls.”

Some of Democrats’ assurance stems from their campaign’s sizable financial advantage and what they believe is their superior field operation. In the final weeks, the campaign has dispatched an army of 2,500 staff members across the battleground states, while the Trump campaign has an untested strategy that relies heavily on inexperienced super PACs and outside groups.

“We will win,” Gov. Tony Evers, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in an interview on Saturday from aboard a campaign bus. “We have a good ground game that’s going to carry us.”

In Michigan, union organizers have found a sunnier outlook for Ms. Harris than they expected when surveying their members. An internal United Auto Workers poll of the union’s members in battleground states found Ms. Harris with a five-point lead among white voters without a college degree, and a 13-point advantage among men without a college degree — striking results among types of voters she is not expected to win broadly.

While some party strategists are worried about the early-voting numbers in Nevada and Georgia, top officials in the Harris campaign say those figures are not as significant as they might seem. Their vote models suggest that Mr. Trump has successfully pushed many of his supporters to vote earlier, effectively cannibalizing the strong turnout he has usually garnered on Election Day.

“We feel very, very good about what we’re seeing for early vote,” Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the Harris campaign chair, said in an interview on Sunday on MSNBC. “Those lower-propensity voters that don’t always vote, they’re tuning in, and they’re showing up at a higher level in support of the vice president.”

Mr. Trump’s aides dispute this analysis, saying they are pleased with their improvement in early voting. Their campaign is focusing its final efforts on what aides believe is a small fraction of undecided voters — largely younger men — who could be persuaded to support the former president.

Democrats are somewhat resigned about their weakness among Michigan’s Arab American voters, who remain furious about U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

Another area of concern for Democrats is the fate of their senators in several battleground states. Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin were both polling well ahead of Ms. Harris until recent weeks. Now they are also locked in tossup races for their political survival.

And Democrats, even at the top levels of the Harris campaign, worry that the party is not correctly modeling the electorate in its polling, repeating a misstep that led Mr. Biden’s campaign aides to overestimate his strength in the final days of the 2020 race.

Any minor endorsement or shift in movement has Democrats jittery. When Terrelle Pryor, a well-known former professional football player from Jeannette, Pa., posted an Instagram story last week of his ballot filled out for Mr. Trump and other Republican candidates, Pennsylvania Democrats privately passed around a screenshot and anxiously wondered if they were losing ground with Black men.

“The smallest thing could alter the outcome,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior aide to President Barack Obama. “It could be the weather in Waukesha County, a voting machine screw-up in Fulton County, Ga., or the vibes the last few days.”

Donald J. Trump and his allies are full of bravado over his chances of victory in the closing days of the 2024 campaign. But there are signs, publicly and privately, that the former president and his team are worried that their opponents’ descriptions of him as a racist and a fascist may be breaking through to segments of voters.

That anxiety was clear after Mr. Trump’s six-hour event at Madison Square Garden in New York City, where the inflammatory speeches on Sunday included an opening act by a comedian known for a history of racist jokes who derided Puerto Rico as “a floating island of garbage” and talked about Black people carving watermelons.

The backlash among Puerto Rican celebrities and performers was instantaneous across social media, prompting the Trump campaign to issue a rare defensive statement distancing themselves from offensive comments. In a tight race, any constituency could be decisive and the sizable Puerto Rican community in the battleground state of Pennsylvania was on the minds of Trump allies.

Danielle Alvarez, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, said in a statement that the Puerto Rico joke “does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.”

The Trump ethos has generally been to never apologize, never admit error and try to ignore controversy. Ms. Alvarez’s statement was a rare break from that practice, reflecting a new concern that Mr. Trump risks reminding undecided voters of the dark tenor of his political movement in the closing stage of the 2024 race.

Some of Mr. Trump’s Republican allies, seeming to harbor similar misgivings, were quick to criticize the joke and the comedian, Tony Hinchcliffe, who made it.

David Urban, an informal Trump adviser with long ties to Pennsylvania, where there are large numbers of Puerto Rican voters, posted on X: “I thought he was unfunny and unfortunately offended many of our friends from Puerto Rico,” adding the hashtag “#TrumpLovesPR.”

The pushback also came from officials in Florida, where Mr. Trump’s campaign is based and some of his advisers have spent their careers.

Senator Rick Scott of Florida posted on X on Sunday: “It’s not funny and it’s not true.” Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, of South Florida, condemned Mr. Hinchcliffe’s comments and said she was “disgusted,” adding that it did not reflect Republican values.

“Puerto Rico isn’t garbage, it’s home to fellow American citizens who have made tremendous contributions to our country,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida posted on X on Monday. But he also made a point to note that “those weren’t Trump’s words. They were jokes by an insult comic who offends.”

Beyond the rally backlash, Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, the retired four-star Marine general John F. Kelly, has brought new attention to Mr. Trump’s past remarks and behavior. He described his former boss as a fascist and claimed that Mr. Trump made complimentary statements about Adolf Hitler.

At the Georgia Tech campus in Atlanta on Monday night, Mr. Trump exaggerated and misstated the criticism, falsely claiming that Vice President Kamala Harris had said that everyone who doesn’t vote for her is “a Nazi.” He talked about his father, Fred Trump, whose parents were German, and claimed his father had told him, “Never use the word Nazi. Never use that word,” and “Never use the word Hitler.”

Mr. Trump, who has accused President Biden of running a “Gestapo administration,” a reference to Nazi Germany’s secret police, added, “I’m not a Nazi. I’m the opposite of a Nazi.” He told the rally crowd on Monday, “She’s a fascist, OK? She’s a fascist.”

Asked to comment on appearing concerned that the attacks on Mr. Trump could sink in with voters, Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, did not address the question. Instead, she said, “Due to President Trump’s plans to cut taxes, end inflation, and stop the surge of illegal immigrants at the southern border, he has more support from the Hispanic American community than any Republican in recent history.”

Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Mr. Trump’s running mate, dismissed any concerns. “Maybe it’s a stupid, racist joke, as you said,” he told reporters on Monday. “Maybe it’s not. I haven’t seen it.” But, he added, “we have to stop getting so offended at every little thing in the United States of America.”

Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist who has specialized in mobilizing Latino voters, asked publicly on Sunday for $30,000 in small donations to a PAC so he could send the video of the offensive comments to Puerto Rican voters in Pennsylvania.

By Monday morning, he had met the goal and had sent a blitz of 250,000 texts with 15 seconds of the comedian’s set disparaging the island.

“Puerto Ricans have a unique affinity for their homeland,” Mr. Rocha said. “When you attack the island, it cuts so deep with the community.”

Ms. Harris seized on the remarks, telling reporters at Joint Base Andrews on Monday morning that Mr. Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden offered fresh evidence of the former president’s divisiveness. Mr. Trump, she said, “fans the fuel of hate and division and that’s why people are exhausted with him.”

Ms. Harris, the Democratic nominee, is preparing to deliver a speech at the Ellipse near the White House that’s being cast as the closing argument of her three-month campaign, after she replaced President Biden on the ticket. It is the same spot where Mr. Trump delivered a speech to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, calling on Congress to reject President Biden’s electoral college votes. Hundreds of those supporters then marched to the Capitol and violently disrupted the certification.

Mr. Trump’s current extended orbit is a mash-up of longtime political veterans, down-ballot elected officials and operatives who embrace the New Right view that the country is in an existential battle internally and that the ends justify their means for victory.

Most on the Trump team believe the attacks on Mr. Trump over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and the fighting over whether he is racist cover ground that is already known by an electorate that has become numb to Mr. Trump’s provocations and threats to weaponize government.

His advisers and close allies have marveled privately that nothing has appeared to harm Mr. Trump so far politically, and it has given many a sense of invincibility about what he can get away with. And they think in a fragmented media environment in which nontraditional outlets have enormous sway, such headlines and stories matter less than they once did.

Some of them also view Sunday’s rally as a success, arguing that Mr. Trump’s filling an arena in deep blue Manhattan offered a demonstration of his political strength to voters around the country.

But few of Mr. Trump’s own events contained the kind of overt racism and misogyny the Madison Square Garden rally did.

“She’s a fake — I’m not here to invalidate her — she’s a fake, a fraud, she’s a pretender,” Grant Cardone, a businessman and internet figure, told the crowd. “Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country.”

And some of Mr. Trump’s own close allies privately expressed concern that the headlines about the event came at a problematic moment, when the small group of persuadable voters across the country is tuning in to the election, and that it was a needless risk when people are already casting ballots during early voting in many states.

There have been other moments suggesting the Trump team has concerns.

While Mr. Trump’s allies often publicly insist that voters have tuned out warnings about Mr. Trump’s authoritarianism, there were clear signs the Trump campaign was concerned about the statements from Mr. Kelly. Mr. Trump and others who worked for him have denied Mr. Kelly’s accusations.

The Trump team mobilized at full force to rebut Mr. Kelly — indicating they feared the attacks could appeal to the roughly five percent of voters they assess as undecided — in the lead-up to the Madison Square Garden rally.

After Ms. Harris called Mr. Trump a fascist, his campaign released a video featuring a Holocaust survivor, Jerry Wartski, who rejected comparisons of Mr. Trump to Hitler and demanded that Ms. Harris apologize. Mr. Wartski also attended Mr. Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden, where several speakers tackled accusations about his character head on.

Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer and longtime friend, said from the stage that Mr. Trump respected all faiths and that “accusations of extremism, they couldn’t be further from the truth.”

Sid Rosenberg, a New York talk radio host, responded to Hillary Clinton likening Mr. Trump’s event to a pro-Hitler rally from 1939. Mr. Rosenberg joked that it was “out of character for me to speak at a Nazi rally, I was just in Israel.” He said that a vote for Mr. Trump was a vote for an administration “that cares about the Jewish people,” while calling Democrats “Jew-haters.” Hulk Hogan, more simply, looked at the crowd and said, “I don’t see no stinkin’ Nazis in here.”

Mr. Trump himself also tried to signal his strength with diverse groups, citing that Jews, Muslims and Catholics alike were all lining up behind him. “The Republican Party has really become the party of inclusion,” he said.

Perhaps most striking was the joint statement issued days before the rally by House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, calling on Ms. Harris to stop calling Mr. Trump a fascist. It accused her of inflaming political tensions, ignoring Mr. Trump’s history of demonizing his own opponents.

Mr. McConnell’s presence on that statement was especially notable.

Despite his endorsement of Mr. Trump months ago, Mr. McConnell told his biographer Michael Tackett that he hoped the former president “would pay a price” for his role in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. According to Mr. Tackett’s biography, Mr. McConnell called Mr. Trump “erratic” and said that American voters chose wisely in voting him out of office. He also said he viewed Mr. Trump’s actions in connection with Jan. 6 to be “as close to an impeachable offense as you can imagine,” though he did not vote to convict him in an impeachment trial and said the criminal justice system would be the place to address it.

r428 Yup -a lot of astro turfing by Trump Supporters just like Chief MAGA Elon Musk is using twitter to astro turf selective polls and betting odds in Trumps favour.

Jon Ralston continues to paint a discouraging picture of Nevada.

[quote] Half the vote is in now (at least), and the Republicans have opened up a 40,000-ballot lead, or 5.7 percent. A relatively small amount of Clark County mail ballots is killing the Dems while rural margin has lifted Rs.

Some solid and good news- Highly recommended that you watch!

regarding NORTH CAROLINA!! with Matthew Dowd

Please note that the OP here ONLY posts negative things about Harris. He links to Republican-leaning polls to "announce" that it's too late for her to overtake Trump.

Someone else needs to make the next thread. This guy is a troll.

As is "Torta," who was EXTREMELY anti-Harris when he "returned" back in July. Now, he mostly posts "dire and dreadful" news about Kamala.

Trolls, both of them.

Thank you for letting us know r466. If either of those are the defeatist troll then good riddance.

[quote] regarding NORTH CAROLINA!! with Matthew Dowd

What’s going on here?

watch R465 video^^

I'm in NC. It's a MAGA hellscape. Though I'm not sure all those early Repuke votes were for Dump. No sense in wasting more money here if it's a lost cause. We have three very blue metro areas. Everything outside those areas is poorly educated MAGA. My mental health is circling the drain.

She’s just moving the money around WITHIN the state of NC.

“Citing numbers from AdImpact, the Journal reported Harris will focus her energy and her campaign’s war chest on the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill areas:”

“Per the outlet, polling shows Harris and Trump tied at 47% in the state. Trump won its 15 electoral votes in 2016 and 2020. President Barack Obama carried the state in 2008 but lost it in 2012 to then-GOP nominee Mitt Romney in his successful reelection campaign.”

“GOP strategist Chris LaCivita commented Harris was “giving up on North Carolina,” but that does not appear to be the case”

R468 did you read your own article?

You asked what was going on here but then did not read the article?

Girls, girls, girls, always end your AI requests with "and keep it to 250 words".

R468? The article answers your question as to what is going on.

Did you outsource reading the article to us? Are we your assistants now?

Can you be more specific with your question?

[quote] She’s just moving the money around WITHIN the state of NC.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense since NC is a tie and there’s no reason to abandon it.

but that was clearly in the article. I don’t see what r468 is asking.

Anyone else know why they asked that question when the answer is in the article that they linked?

[quote] Please note that the OP here ONLY posts negative things about Harris.

There's some posters here who have invaded this thread to attack honest brokers, who strive to be intellectually honest, noting the positive & not so positive news.

Harry Enten's tweet, for example, echoing Karl Rove's sentiments, would be most welcome news if borne out at the polls.

[quote] Don't count on polls underestimating Trump:

[quote] 1. No party has ever been underestimated 3 pres. cycles in a row.

[quote] 2. In 2020, right leaning polls correctly said averages were way off. In 2024, averages look a lot more like the right leaning polls.

[quote] 3. 2022: Dems were underestimated.

For your consideration R466, rather than hijack this longstanding thread, I propose you create your OWN thread, where only good news is welcome.

Well, I've lost interest in posting the weekly changes to the FiveThirtyEight polling averages, because (a) it remains absurdly tight across all the battleground states, (b) nothing has changed really, and (c) even Nate Silver himself says this scenario is useless for predicting the winner, and you might as well flip a coin.

Feeling optimistic. And itching for the whole thing be over.

"As is "Torta," who was EXTREMELY anti-Harris when he "returned" back in July. Now, he mostly posts "dire and dreadful" news about Kamala."

R466, not sure what your problem is. I am 100% Harris, a total booster, am directly funding some friends volunteering for her right now via Zelle, they've been canvassing in Pittsburgh, and I've donated $800 total to her campaign since late July! Can you show me even one anti-Kamala post I've ever, ever made? I was briefly pessimistic 1-2 weeks ago based on the data but that's not at all the same thing as bashing the candidate herself.

[quote] Well, I've lost interest in posting the weekly changes to the FiveThirtyEight polling averages

Thank goodness.

R466, let me make it clear, too. Like Torta, I'm a fervent Harris supporter. Who will be utterly crushed if Trump wins again.

OP has over 120 anti-Harris posts in just this Part 5 thread alone - use Ignore-dar and you will see. The "Torta" character has dozens as well, almost all pessimistic, trying to make gay Democrats here too depressed to vote.

The OP **ONLY** posts negative polls and analyst commentary, and DEFENDS it. OP said there is no ceiling for Trump, whereas Harris has peaked and is fading.

Why are DL-ers allowing these trolls to try to "subtly" depress gay voter turnout here? They want us thinking it's ALREADY hopeless - Trump has ALREADY won, as the OP asserts in post after post.

WAKE UP, DL.

Zzzzzzz.... What? Did you say something?

R482, you’re insane. Your description of me is like some wackjob on the street trying to tell passersby that fire is actually water.

R482, there are plenty of polls showing Harris ahead nationally and in some battleground states. Why don’t you be less bossy and less mouthy and post some of those polls instead, you parasite?

R485, can you not read? The OP **ONLY** posts negative Harris posts here - over 120 of them. ALL designed to make posters here feel like it is already inevitable that Trump has won. You don't understand that OP is not just "showing some different polls"? OP is ONLY posting "It's Over!" poll posts here.

Defeatist Troll "Torta"'s posts:

[quote]I keep coming back to the hard truth that we have a track record with Donald Trump as the R nominee on the ballot: both in 2016 and 2020 he did 3% to 4% better than the polling aggregate said he would. He did even better in some of the battleground states. To believe Kamala Harris will win is to believe that 2024 is, and will be, completely different. The arguments for this belief are persuasive. But so is the Trump track record. Personally I needed to see her polling at least 2 to 3 pts up in the battleground states, in order to feel that a Harris victory was likely. She’s not; at 11 days out and with early voting/mail voting in full swing, it’s looking tied. I could try more optimism but I’m not feeling it.

[quote]If you get out there and ask NYCers, across the 5 boroughs, a large % want a crackdown on crime especially the random street and subway attacks, and especially the recent leniency for juveniles. And a large % want the migrants GONE. And nearly everyone has a low opinion of Mayor Adams, a Democrat.It makes sense that we see this shift today in the polls, vs 2020.

OP/ r477 I am not the one who called you a troll. I do think your overall point is good. But, your evidence is heavily anecdotal. The averages looking more like the R numbers doesn't point to them being more accurate. It just means pollsters adjusted their strategy. But I have heard that across the board, so we could still end up with another over correction. Also it means absolutely nothing that they haven't been wrong three cycles in a row before.

IDK who will win. I pray it is Kamala. There is reason to be confident she will. But, to your point, there are also a few areas of concern.

Last comment for the evening — I agree with Matthew Dowd here. He says in his estimation the polling aggregate is likely underestimating Harris if it’s underestimating anyone, and that the result could be like 2012 where the polls said “horse race” and then Obama defeated Romney by 3.9 pts.

As my witchy ex roommate said, So Mote It Be.

Wow, do Ignore-dar on r485 while you're at it: super defeatist troll who says Trump is almost certain to win.

R485 is also the poster above who didn't even READ his own link, and he took it to be BAD FOR KAMALA.

See? The TROLLS are defending the TROLLS.

[quote] I agree with Matthew Dowd here. He says in his estimation the polling aggregate is likely underestimating Harris if it’s underestimating anyone, and that the result could be like 2012 where the polls said “horse race” and then Obama defeated Romney by 3.9 pts.

Fervent supporters of Harris state that the polling is underestimating support for Harris. Fervent Trump supporters state the polling is underestimating support for Trump. Both have something to point at to buttress their assertion. The only correct answer is that the polling shows the race as too close to call and that’s the best we can know until the election happens.

Ok just to respond again R486, still no clue why you’re gunning for me so hard but re those two quotes,

1) That was my one standout low point last Tues or the week before. Was feeling more pessimistic at the time. Delving into much more detail on the early vote since then.

2) That was specifically about NYC, not about the national or battleground states. And it’s true.

I mean I hope it's leaning that way? But NYT makes it look like Pa is now for Trump?

Torta, OP, and the NYT say that Trump is taking it all!

Get ‘em R489! No rest for the wicked!

The thread is for posting polls, not meltdowns. Don’t hijack the thread.

[quote] The OP **ONLY** posts negative Harris posts here

[quote] [R482], you’re insane. Your description of me is like some wackjob on the street trying to tell passersby that fire is actually water.

I co-sign what Torta observed. And here are some of my "**ONLY** ... negative Harris posts" to which R482 apparently objects: replies 3, 6, 223-225, 292, 302, 321-323, 402, 420, 440 & 457,

More polls.

Is there an official Kamala DC speech thread?

Be careful, r497, only four of the seven states have Harris ahead in that listing. R482 will explode or drink another bottle.

Watch her right now!!

The new Detroit News/WDIV poll has Harris up 46.7-43.7 (LV). The same poll had her up by 2.6% earlier in the month & Trump +1.2 in early August. On the other hand, Emerson has Trump up 1, 49-48.

[quote] There are too many polls in the swing states that show the race exactly Harris +1, TIE, Trump +1. Should be more variance than that. Everyone's herding (or everyone but NYT/Siena).

{quote] Lotta polling. Good news for Harris in MI and NC. Good news for Trump in GA and AZ.

[quote] Enten concluded battleground state polls from the 2022 midterms underestimated Democrats by four points. He theorized if a similar phenomenon occurred next week, Harris would sweep the battleground states – winnig the election in a clean sweep.

[quote] “Maybe that’ll happen,” he said. “Maybe it’ll happen. But I think that there are folks who are undressing the underestimating the idea that maybe Kamala Harris will be underestimated by the polls, at least a week out.”

Can someone parse that last sentence of Harry’s?

Can Joe please STFU already?

I just hope that we don’t end up with a tie.

Harry E lost me when he said undressing. As in him undressing. Slipping off his briefs. Playing with his hairy pinga

R507 that might be a fake quote, it’s nowhere in the news.

An error in the transcription. What he actually said:

[quote] But I think that there are folks who are underestimating the idea that maybe Kamala Harris will be underestimated by the polls

[quote] Harris holds 48% support among likely voters in Arizona, according to the poll, to 47% for Trump. In Nevada, 48% of likely voters support Trump and 47% back Harris. Those 1-point margins fall within each poll’s margin of sampling error, finding no clear leader in either state.

[quote] The Nevada poll suggests little change in the state of the race there since late August, but in Arizona, the new results point to a shift in Harris’ favor. The new poll finds Harris improving there with core Democratic constituencies such as women, Latino voters and younger voters. The shift is notably concentrated among women, who now break for Harris by 16 points, while men continue to favor Trump by a 14-point margin.

[quote] Independent voters in both states split roughly evenly between Harris and Trump. In Arizona, 45% support Trump to 43% for Harris, a 6-point improvement in support for the vice president since August. In Nevada, independent likely voters divide 46% Harris to 43% Trump, about the same as in August.

The highest courts in both Michigan & Wisconsin have denied RFK, Jr.'s request to have his name removed from the ballot of their states.

[quote] Kamala Harris' lead over Donald Trump dwindled in the final stretch of the U.S. presidential contest, with the Democrat ahead by a single percentage point over the Republican, 44% to 43%, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Tuesday. The three-day poll, completed on Sunday, showed the race effectively tied ahead of the Nov. 5 election. The poll had a margin of error of about three percentage points in either direction.

[quote] While Harris has led Trump in every Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered voters since she entered the race in July, her lead has steadily shrunk since late September. A prior Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Oct. 16-21 showed Harris, the current U.S. vice president, with a two-point lead over former President Trump.

AtlasIntel also released a new nationwide & battleground state poll. Trump remains up by 2 nationally (50-48), down one from its 10/19 poll), & leading, from 1-4 points, in all the states* except for North Carolina, where Harris is up 1 (49-48).

*The Times has both candidates with 49 in Wisconsin, but it gives Trump a +1 margin.

I’d never heard of AtlasIntel polling before this last month.

Are the legit? Or just another reich wing shitpoller trying to fuck up the average?

I also had never heard of AtlasIntel until recently, only to discover it's highly rated by both 538 (#22) & Nate Silver ("A"). Obviously, the Times thinks enough of it to include it in its list of pollsters. WaPo, however, does not include it in its amalgamation of polls.

If Trump is really up 2% nationally, Harris will most likely lose. I think she needs to be up by 4% to get the job done nationally. But the poll may be wrong.

This election really is too close to call. I don't feel the cautious optimism I felt in 2020. Praying Harris will win.

AtlasIntel is out of Brazil, per their website.

Sorry, but I find that suspicious, as well as Silver’s rating of them. They don’t seem to have much of a track record.

R518, both Harry Enten & Karl Rove have implicitly confirmed Nate Cohn’s theory of the case - dating back to Sept. ‘23 - that the Democrats need to win the national vote by as much as 4% to get elected is no longer operative.

Misogynists and racists vs everyone else.

It’s not just Silver, R520, but 538 & the Times that seem to think well of AtlasIntel.

AtlasIntel is a bit suspect (based down in Sao Paulo Brazil, and current results seem more Trumpy than the industry average) but they ended up fairly accurate both in 2020 and 2022.

I’d still look more closely at the analyses of early voting, though, at this point.

For a mood boost, enjoy the last 20 seconds of this footage of Kamala Harris’s crowd in DC this evening. Trump could never.

The Susquehanna University poll out today has Harris leading in Michigan by 5.1 (51.7-46.6).

Correction. It was the US Supreme Court, not the state supreme courts, that turned down Kennedy’s appeal to strike his name from the ballot.

[quote]The Susquehanna University poll out today has Harris leading in Michigan by 5.1 (51.7-46.6).

Emerson has Trump +1 in Michigan. That's a big difference between the two polls. I thought the polls would coalesce around a consensus the last week.

Trump co is in meltdown mode over Biden’s garbage comment.

The comments.

Uh huh.

[quote] Trump co is in meltdown mode over Biden’s garbage comment.

Put “meltdown” in quotes. They hope lightning will strike twice, being able to capitalize on the garbage comment as they were able to in 2016 with deplorables.

Either DL is broken again or we have trolls at r527 to this post.

Biden is right. MAGATS are garbage.

They’re trying to turn this into Hillary’s basket of deplorables moment.

Could he not have just kept his mouth shut for one more week?

It won't matter.

Who wants to tell her?

Nate Silver says that Biden needs to go away.

The girls are fighting.

Nate is a cunt.

Trump’s web site is now all about Biden calling them garbage.

[quote] Biden is right. MAGATS are garbage.

I can forgive the people who supported Trump in 2016 and/or 2020 and then ditched him after J6. The people who have continued supporting him after J6 are garbage. Let's not forget Trump has multiple accusations of sexual assault and abuse, he has taken various inappropriate pictures with Ivanka, numerous scams, bankruptcies, election interference, calling veterans suckers and loses and that Vietnam would have been a waste of time for him and mocking a disabled reporter.

ance mentions a Trump supporter mourning the loss of her son to Fenatyl as an attempt to get sympathy. I have posted about this on DL, I worked as a case manager for people with disabilities for 7 years and have volunteered at disability related non-profits for over 20 years going back to my college days. I have met some amazing people through my past job and volunteer work. But, I learned that some people with disabilities and/or their loved ones can have their own nasty views whether it be racism, homophobia, sexism, classism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia etc. One of the organizations that I have volunteered with aids people with traumatic brain injuries. The client/participant base varies from people who recovered with minimal disability after a TBI to people who are wheelchair bound, non-verbal, and very dependent on the care of others.

Around 2012, the non-profit set up a private Facebook group and I joined along with various people I met at events and knew quite well. Two older women friended me on Facebook. At the time they were in their 70s and proved themselves to be quite tech savvy. These two older women have/had adult children who were severely disabled due (wheelchair bound, non-verbal). I sympathized with these women back then and I did assist both women with writing grants to make upgrades or repairs needs to maintain accessibility in their homes.

Both women were always nice and polite with me. However, their Facebook pages over time were filled with rants and nasty memes against immigrants, Muslims, atheists, etc. Over time it just became difficult to have respect or sympathy towards them. The disabled adult of one woman passed away in late 2021 and it was around the time covid was surging and her other adult children talked her into not having a funeral . I felt sad when I heard the news and reached out to that woman via Facebook and also talked with one of her kids and sent them DoorDash gift cards so they could order a couple of meals for delivery. Several months later, she started posting again on Facebook and her hatefulness was amped up and she was trashing Kamala Harris and making fun of her laugh and looks. She has expressed hatefulness towards other female politicians like Gretchen Whitmer, Nancy Pelosi, and others and she calls them stupid and useless. Perfect example of a nasty female misogynist and I'm still FB friends with her because if Harris wins, I want to see what kind of nasty shit she posts. If Harris loses, I know she will gloat and praise her false Orange God Trump. But, I know she will still have to face the reality that other female politicians that she trashes aren't going away. There are going to be other Democratic women who will attempt presidential runs and there will be Congresswomen and female senators standing up to whatever shit Trump tries to pull if he gets re-elected.

The other Trumpster woman has an adult son who is non-verbal, blind, and wheelchair bound. She posted a meme last spring about how the Nazis killed disabled people. This other woman hates immigrants and posted a meme a few months ago saying that the Border Patrol should put alligators in the rivers along the Southern border. I have no respect or sympathy for her like the other woman. The fact that both women have spent caring for severely disabled adult children doesn't give them a free pass for supporting a sexist, predator, and bigot like Trump.

R537 I posted above about working as a case manager for disabled clients and volunteering with non-profits. I'm not surprised by this. From looking at the woman's twitter page, she posts quite a bit about religion. My take is she probably grew up in a conservative religious household and somehow her family is convinced that she is going to be ok under another Trump presidency.

There are probably the types who think since they are Christian it will be enough for them and their daughter/sister to be completely accepted in Trump Land, but it won't be enough.. If this woman and her family looked at many of the posts on Stormfront they would see some of the nastiest comments made about biracial people and those people are voting for Trump. Maybe, the woman and her family should watch BlacKKKlansman and learn more about David Duke. Nick Fuentes wouldn't give this woman the time of day because she is biracial and disabled. If she met with Trump, maybe he would be fake nice to her. But, once she would be out of his sight he would mock her like he did with the journalist Serge Kovaleski.

R537 won’t see it coming u til her last breath in the gas chamber.

Nobody seems to be talking about the Biden gaffe. So what, he insulted the fans of a stupid comedian.

R545 It will be probably be all over the news tomorrow. I would love for people to point how Trump and Vance have insulted various groups of Americans.

R544 I don't think anything extreme like that will happen. But, that woman Renatta is still going to be in a world of hurt under another Trump presidency for several reasons. Any civil protections that she has in the workplace might be striped away. Ableism still goes on despite ADA and other laws. Any health issues she has related to her disability may worsen if RFK Jr is made secretary of HHS and any cuts to Medicaid or ACA will likely impact her right away. Now, if she has a family who is well to do and has resources to supplement her, maybe she'll be ok.

One of the sad things is that if Trump wins, the people who will be fighting to protect Medicaid, ACA, and other programs Renatta likely benefits from are the Democrats who she is trashing on her Twitter page. She doesn't get that many of the Republicans she looks up to aren't going to be in her corner if she needs to help with medical bills and civil rights protections.

[quote]Nobody seems to be talking about the Biden gaffe.

Are you in the bubble? Right now, "garbage" is literally the #1 trending topic on X. Fortunately for Harris, this occurring so late in the game will temper its effect.

Also, "Joe Biden" is currently the #2 trending topic on X.

Nobody believed that the nazis would really make concentration camps and put people to death until it actually happened.

So I ask that you , when it comes to avowed Nazis like the trumps and his supporters, think of the worst possibilities first, not last.

It’s time to get real.

They want us to believe that even though tons of old bigots have dieid out since 2016 that young men are suddenly turning into violent bigots to replace them. I don't buy it. It's a lie. Gen Z and Gen Alpha is NOT turning to the right.

Hmmm Biden is not in the top 50 trending on twitter so that must be set to your personal top or your most searched.

Not even in the top 100 on twitter.

Why would they? Republicans are just kleptos looting the young people and they know it.

Nobody even heard about the Biden thing.

They will be onto something new tomorrow. Back to the horse race with the new polls and fallout from Puerto Rico.

Biden’s gaffe is unwelcome but it won’t have any material effect. People know he is feeble and misspeaks.

Vance yesterday: Kamala Harris and Joe Biden ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Vance two days ago: Americans need to stop getting so offended.

It's almost like he's a hypocrite or something.

NV voters do not do national polling. We barely do state race polling.

What is baked in is that pollsters cannot break the code of America's first MINORITY Majority State.

Most are poor or lower middle class.

Do you really think that ANY of our voters on Social Security or Medicare will vote for Trump?

Do you really think ANY of our Latinos will vote for Trump?

Do you really think ANY of our Black voters will vote for Trump?

We have a robust AAPI community, nobody has polled them, but face it, they won't vote for Trump either.

Not to say some rich, Latinos, Blacks and Asians will vote for Trump, but like Log Cabinettes, they vote their cash.

The problem is with the Polling Industry, which is also vested in being NOT WRONG. Got that? They really don't care about being right. They can't sell their services if they are straight out wrong. When you have an entire industry hedging its bet on not being wrong, you understand why, what should be a blowout election for Democrats against a corrupt and mentally defective prior president, is TIGHT, IT'S SO CLOSE. IT'S NECK AND NECK. Bullshit. Pollsters pulled this race to the center for self-preservation reasons.

USA Today has Michigan back where it should be - a tie.

No one cares about what Biden said. We are already on to the next thing.

Nevada is the only state in the midterms to defeat an incumbent governor or senator, R557. In this case, it was a Democrat, a governor, who lost. That had to be a red flag going into this presidential year.

The problem was the NV State Democratic Party that did not support a tough Democratic Governor making tough decisions during the Pandemic. He should have stressed that he was keeping Nevadans safe. He was defeated by the Gaming Industry, who did not appreciate him shutting down the casinos, which have gone on to reap Draconian profits after the pandemic. The replacement was a cookie cutter, white supremacist supporter, ALEC rubber stamp, who went back to Koch Bros school vouchers and all sorts of benefits for the rich. He, too, may be a one term governor considering our smart, Black NV AG is ready to take him on.

[quote] Do you really think that ANY of our voters on Social Security or Medicare will vote for Trump?

R557 well yeah, I kinda do believe old people will vote for Trump. They're the most likely to watch Fox News all day. A few understand the risk to their programs, but I bet most of them think the Republicans would never touch their entitlements because old people vote more than anybody else.

New Suffolk/USA Today poll of Michigan likely voters has Trump ahead of Harris 47.4% to 47% (4.4 MOE)

[quote]I kinda do believe old people will vote for Trump.

You don’t have to guess. A recent poll showed that 51% of those 65 and over are voting for Trump.

But that's a much smaller amount than it's been.

Biden’s quote is everywhere now. Such a fucking idiot.

Christ.

Well, at least she's putting distance between her & Biden ...

[quote] If Harris loses you're going to get a hot take with the power of Arcturus from me about Joe Biden.

Final poll.

Every four years, the pundits say “it all comes down to turnout.” The line is such a cliché — it’s never inaccurate but also means nothing — that it’s sometimes a joke on social media.

This year, though, I’m not laughing. This time, the election really might come down to turnout.

Usually, this is not my view. If anything, I have tended to think of turnout as a somewhat overrated factor in explaining election results. The makeup of the electorate is relatively predictable; the big question is usually whom those voters will support. In Pennsylvania in 2022, for instance, the same voters backed a Democrat for governor by 15 percentage points and another Democrat for Senate by five points, and backed Republicans in the U.S. House. This wide variation all came from the same turnout!

But this election seems different. As we’ve reported all cycle, Democrats excel among high-turnout voters, while Donald J. Trump is strong among relatively low-turnout voters. He’s made his biggest gains among low-turnout demographic groups like young men and nonwhite voters.

This pattern has held all the way to the final stretch.

In the most recent wave of New York Times/Siena College polls of key battlegrounds, Kamala Harris led collectively among voters who turned out in recent primaries or the 2022 midterms, while Mr. Trump had a 12-point lead among the 2020-but-not-2022 vote and a 19-point lead among those who didn’t vote in 2020 (but who were registered at the time; new registrants are evenly divided).

This is an extraordinary change from as recently as a decade ago, when Democrats were presumed to be the party that benefited from high turnout. During the Obama era, Democratic chances seemed to depend on mobilizing young, nonwhite and infrequent voters to the polls.

Now, all these familiar maxims have been turned upside down. As the prominent Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg put it: “The Harris coalition rests on the most reliable voters (older, college educated). Trump needs every single low-propensity less educated young person to come out and vote for him.”

Ms. Harris can probably take it to the bank that primary-or-midterm voters will turn out in a presidential election. Those who didn’t vote in 2022, let alone 2020, are a little more iffy. Tens of millions of them will undoubtedly vote, but just how many — and exactly which ones — can easily decide the election.

In the extreme, the Times/Siena data suggests Mr. Trump could win the presidency, perhaps even fairly handily, if he could turn out all registered voters. To take a striking example: Ms. Harris or President Biden has never led a Times/Siena poll of registered voters in Michigan so far this cycle.

If, on the other hand, Ms. Harris could replay the midterm electorate, when more casual voters stayed home, she could easily win over 300 electoral votes and carry the swing states by a comfortable margin.

The broader demographic story of the election may also hinge on turnout. As we first reported a year ago, Mr. Trump is faring surprisingly well among young, Black and Hispanic voters, but almost all of that strength is contained among those who sat out the midterms.

This is not simply about education: Even the college graduates who sat out the midterms were far likelier to say they backed Mr. Trump.

Of course, just because Mr. Trump leads among irregular voters does not necessarily mean he will win the irregular voters who decide to show up. In the midterms, Democrats managed to draw a disproportionately Democratic group of voters out of the pool of voters who didn’t vote in primaries. This time, it’s possible they could draw a disproportionately Democratic group out of the Republican-leaning pool of those who didn’t vote in the midterms.

Imagine, for instance, that the infrequent Black or young voters who say they back Mr. Trump in the polls generally don’t show up, while those who back Ms. Harris really do come to the polls. This does not strike me as especially far-fetched (and I wrote that sentence before a comedian at a Trump rally referred to Puerto Rico as an “island of garbage” and set off a torrent of social media criticism).

The Times/Siena polling suggests something like this is a real possibility. The poll asks voters how likely they are to vote, and Ms. Harris usually fares best among those who say they’re almost certain to vote, while Mr. Trump fares better among those who aren’t sure.

This should not be especially surprising, as Ms. Harris fares best among higher-turnout voters. What is more surprising is that this advantage penetrates even within different turnout groups. For instance, Mr. Trump leads by seven points among 2022 nonvoters who say they’re almost certain or very likely to vote, while he leads by 14 points among those who are less likely.

All of this information is incorporated into the Times/Siena poll, which estimates the likelihood people will vote by blending their track record of voting with whether they say they will vote in the coming election. Historically, both measures have independent value in predicting turnout. In this election, they point the same way: As a result, Ms. Harris has usually fared better among likely voters than registered voters in Times/Siena polling. We consistently find her ahead in Michigan, for instance, even as she consistently trails among registered voters.

This basic approach has validated well after elections: The electorate in the Times/Siena poll usually closely resembles the actual electorate, based on the final turnout data available months after the election. In fact, this is probably the one thing that hasn’t contributed to survey error in Times/Siena polling in recent cycles.

Nonetheless, this record does not necessarily mean anyone should be confident in this exact view of the electorate. In the past, Times/Siena polling hasn’t found such a stark relationship between these turnout measures and vote choice. As a result, it has been far less sensitive to these kind of choices — and the eventual turnout.

This cycle, it’s easy to see how this ends up going differently, with big consequences for the outcome and our understanding of the election. These scenarios can even be mixed and matched: What if white working-class people with no record of voting turn out for Mr. Trump, while the dissenting and disaffected young and Black voters stay home? In this scenario, many of the big demographic swings toward Mr. Trump that we’ve reported about this cycle might fade, but Mr. Trump could win nonetheless. There are countless other possibilities.

There’s another reason not to be so confident in how low-turnout voters will behave this cycle: They are also fairly likely to be undecided. Even during the last Times/Siena polls, they were far less likely to know whom they supported. As a consequence, they may have also been far less likely to know whether they would vote at all. As they decide, they may also decide to turn out — or not.

If these voters break one way or another as they tune in to the race, it’s easy to imagine how either side wins comfortably.

R568 The Biden gaffe gives Harris the perfect opportunity to establish that is not Biden, is different from Biden, and will be more effective in reaching out to Trump supporters. The gaffe did "step on" the news cycle that could have focused more on the speech in DC last night.

But "I disagree with those who speak ill of anyone who disparages someone because of whom they vote for"...i.e. Biden. A perfect closing argument that "if you don't like Biden, I am NOT he..."

Biden DID NOT say what he’s being attacked for saying, but he’s so inarticulate that he blundered into being misconstrued.

R574 As often the case with Joe, what he actually said is not what he actually meant.

Again, its main impact is to give Harris an opportunity to create distance from Joe.

Harris deserves credit for recognizing that calling half the country garbage is a BFD, and then doing something to fix the situation. A big contrast to Hillary.

[quote] I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for.

DL, Kamala strongly disagrees with you.

On his podcast, David Axelrod said the Harris campaign is now primarily targeting just five of the battleground states, not concentrating as much on North Carolina & Arizona. The plan, he said, is to have an insurance policy if there's a crack in the Blue Wall states, primarily in Wisconsin.

[quote] If Trump wins, the signs were there all along.

[quote] No incumbent party has won another term with so few voters saying the country is on the right track (28%) or when the president's net approval rating is so low (Biden's at -15 pts).

[quote] Also, big GOP registration gains in key states.

[quote] This remains the closest presidential election I've ever seen...

[quote] I have no idea who is going to win. I haven't had an idea of who is going to win. The polls are ridiculously close and have been for a while.

[quote]No incumbent party has won another term with so few voters saying the country is on the right track (28%)

I don't think the country is on the right track, either, given the alarming rise of the racist, xenophobic and deeply stupid MAGA movement.

But I'm enthusiastically voting for Harris.

Final CNN poll:

PA Tie 48-48

MI Harris leads 48-43

WI Harris leads 51-45

Jesus what the fuck is wrong with PA?!?!

If she loses PA and the White House, we can all blame her for not picking Shapiro.

[quote]If she loses PA and the White House, we can all blame her for not picking Shapiro.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[quote] If she loses PA and the White House, we can all blame her for not picking Shapiro.

Or blame him for making it impossible for Harris to pick him.

We need more states following suit:

The state of Michigan has stripped two local officials of their duties overseeing the 2024 election after they insisted on doing a hand count of ballots that likely would have delayed reporting the results from their town.

[quote] Jesus what the fuck is wrong with PA?!?!

Whole swaths are said to be like Alabama.

R582, if the leads in Michigan & Wisconsin hold up, it's hard to see Harris losing Pennsylvania, as those states tend to vote together.

So there’s two groups of polling for Michigan. One group indicates the race is tied or Trump ahead by a point, and the other group has Harris ahead by 5. One of these groups deserves a black eye after the election (unless the actual vote falls right in the middle between the two).

Part 6.

What is different is that in 2016 we had no idea how off the polls were.

In 2024, we know the polls are useless and WORK THE FUCK TO GOTV!

Polling relies on assumptions about the composition of the voting. If the polls were farther apart, incorrect assumptions would mostly average out. As they did in 2012 and 2020. When they are close, wrong assumptions may means the results are flipped. As they did in 2016 and 2022.

[quote] What is different is that in 2016 we had no idea how off the polls were.

The average of the final national polls were pretty spot-on in '16. It was the state polls, primarily in Michigan & Wisconsin that were wildly off in both '16 & '20. In Clinton & Biden's favor.

[quote] After consistent gains by Trump in mid-October, really pretty steady over the past 10 days.

R593 Will they do another one after Biden’s maga garbage comment?

Was Kamala's pushback on Joe a Sister Souljah moment?

[quote] Will they do another one after Biden’s maga garbage comment?

Yeah, that's going to hurt Harris with the the all-important undecided MAGA voter.

Why do people like Torta and Prince-Akeem even post their handles? What is the point? You clearly want to be “known” on an anonymous board for whatever reason. I always view that with a lot of side-eye.