Rock the Vote '24: update (09/10) - It's "Debate Night" - do yourself a favor and play a video game instead

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Nyt fact check: true

 

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Teamsters representing Nevada, California, Guam, and Hawaii says w/e we're still endorsing:

 

 

Probably an important endorsement in Nevada, honestly.  

[Jason]

23 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Bro. Two posts above you.

 

 

 

new content line

[PaladinSolo]

Presidential Polling:

 

Harris (D): 50% (+1)

Trump (R): 48% (-2)

 

Beacon/Shaw Research / Sept 16, 2024 / n=1102

 

(% Change With August 26, 2024)

 

This is the fox news poll. 

[5timechamp]

Apparently Huckabee Sanders has joined the chorus of GOP Christian fundamentalists who insist adoptive/foster families arent real families… “Harris lacks humility because she doesnt have children”.. these f’n people are so f’n obnoxious.. they want birth at all costs, some of that may lead to adoptions or foster care yet if they do their family doesnt count..

[Chairslinger]

7 hours ago, Jason said:

Maybe It Won't Be That Close?

TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM

---

Stuart Rothenberg is one of those old school election watcher/analyst types, from...

 

 

7 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

You don't have to, all it is is an opinion on someone else's opinion. The source article is free to read:

 

So, you’re sure the presidential race will be close? - Roll Call

ROLLCALL.COM

---

Momentum and candidate skills matter while polls tell only part of the story in the presidential race, columnist Stuart Rothenberg writes.

 

 

I have to say, I have a hard time believing that all the enthusiasm, the huge grassroots donation numbers (particularly from first-timers), the non-insignificant bipartisan support from the other side, and all the ither advantages only result in a barely above margin-of-error poll advantage. So he might have a point.

 

 

 

I kind of skimmed these posts earlier than I saw an article on Yahoo and read it and kind of assumed it was from the same(ish) source but I think it's a different pollster coming to the same conclusion.

 

Anyway, an interesting read....

 

You can read the article for the methodology, but I think these two paragraphs sum up the state of things pretty well for how his model is seeing things....

 

 

Quote

 

Well before the Biden-Trump debate, the Republican was far ahead; on Miller's chart, he stood on top of the ski slope. Trump looked to command almost 400 of the 538 electoral votes in mid-June. After the onstage match on June 27, Trump got even more dominant, and he peaked in the days framing and during the Republican convention at a share of almost 500. The Democrats' odds rose sharply after Biden withdrew on July 21, and by the time Harris secured the nomination on August 6, the Democrats were solidly in the lead at around 325 electoral votes. They kept gaining over the following two weeks, hitting 400 in a stunning reversal by the time their convention ended on August 22.

 

Then, Trump staged a comeback. In the days before the September 10 Trump-Harris debate, Harris was still ahead, but Trump had nearly caught up. "At that point, the race was essentially a tossup," observes Miller. "The forecast for the Democrats was 288." It was the onstage battle in Philadelphia that wrecked the 78-year old former POTUS, according to the Miller numbers. Within a day after the candidates left the podium, Harris had jumped to exactly over 400 electoral votes. The Harris endorsement from Taylor Swift, secured the day of the debate, probably helped sink Trump's chances, according to Miller. Since then, Harris has maintained for 400-plus vote total.

 

 

 

 

[Reputator]

33 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

I kind of skimmed these posts earlier than I saw an article on Yahoo and read it and kind of assumed it was from the same(ish) source but I think it's a different pollster coming to the same conclusion.

 

Anyway, an interesting read....

 

You can read the article for the methodology, but I think these two paragraphs sum up the state of things pretty well for how his model is seeing things....

 

Wow, so that's a pretty wild prediction on the site mentioned.

 

https://virtualtout.com/

 

438 ECs is greater than I think even the most optimistic die-hard leftie fanatic would even dream of.

[Fizzzzle]

Polls are fucking useless.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

 

I kind of skimmed these posts earlier than I saw an article on Yahoo and read it and kind of assumed it was from the same(ish) source but I think it's a different pollster coming to the same conclusion.

 

Anyway, an interesting read....

 

You can read the article for the methodology, but I think these two paragraphs sum up the state of things pretty well for how his model is seeing things....

 

 

 

 

 

This is some serious fan fiction. For trump to get 500 electoral votes he’d have to get California which lol sure

[Massdriver]

Absurd

[Xbob42]

Prior to the debate, Trump was posed to win 845 electoral votes, including the votes of England, Canada and even the lower third of Australia. But after the debate, Harris is now leading with an expected 640 electoral votes thanks to Mexico and Greater Ohio. 

[PaladinSolo]

Marist (A+)

 

Michigan

🟦 Kamala Harris 52% (+5)

🟥 Donald Trump 47%

 

Wisconsin

🟦 Kamala Harris 50% (+1)

🟥 Donald Trump 49%

 

Pennsylvania

🟦 Kamala Harris 49%

🟥 Donald Trump 49%

 

[PaladinSolo]

General election poll - Pennsylvania 

 

🔵 Harris 49% (+3)

🔴 Trump 46%

 

F&M #C - 890 RV - 9/15

[PaladinSolo]

Anyways Nate's model has stopped huffing whatever it was on and is coming back to reality.

 

[Fizzzzle]

19 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Anyways Nate's model has stopped huffing whatever it was on and is coming back to reality.

 

Polls are useless garbage. The margin for error is usually accepted to be about three points. Dr. Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every election for the last 40 years except 2000, says that the margin for error in polling is more like 9%. At that point you already know who is going to win.

[PaladinSolo]

NEW YORK TIMES (A+) poll, Sep 11-16 National:

Harris 47%

Trump 47%

 

Pennsylvania;

Harris 50%

Trump 46%

[PaladinSolo]

General Election poll - Swing State's 

 

Arizona - 🔴 Trump +1

Georgia - 🔴 Trump +3

Michigan - 🔵 Harris +2

Nevada - 🟡 Tie

N. Carolina - 🔵 Harris +1

Pennsylvania - 🔴 Trump +1

Wisconsin - 🔴 Trump +1

 

Emerson #B - LV - 9/17

[thewhyteboar]

2 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

NEW YORK TIMES (A+) poll, Sep 11-16 National:

Harris 47%

Trump 47%

 

Pennsylvania;

Harris 50%

Trump 46%

Hmm. If she’s up that high in PA, why would she be tied nationally? 

[PaladinSolo]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

Hmm. If she’s up that high in PA, why would she be tied nationally? 

Polls wrong or some polls have been showing her slip a bit in blue states like NY where Hochul is a cancer. Ec and ev might just be a lot more balanced this year. 

[5timechamp]

Meanwhile down at self ownage avenue

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

To show the PA polls this week together:

 

 

It will likely be close, but things look better for Harris than Trump, especially if you consider other factors like ground game, enthusiasm, post-Dobbs overperformance of Dems in results, etc.

[CitizenVectron]

Also, the NJ-10 byelection results point to positive movement from 2020:

[SuperSpreader]

46 minutes ago, 5timechamp said:

Meanwhile down at self ownage avenue

 

 

 

Damn Nicky, that's what we're calling Spanish? SWALLOW MORE VOWELS BRUH

[Jason]

Trump Speaks of Nonexistent Debate ‘Audience,’ Says ‘They Went Crazy’

WWW.MEDIAITE.COM

---

Former President Donald Trump forgot that there was no audience at his presidential debate last week with Vice President Kamala Harris.

 

 

If Biden had said this after the first debate the NYT would still be talking about it today. they would be weaving it into Yankees game recaps.

[image or embed]

— devin kharpertian (@uuords.bsky.social) September 18, 2024 at 10:14 PM