The only poll that really matters is the election itself. Don't be complacent! Get the job done and vote Blue!
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
372 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3327 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Vote, get active, and get involved
I need to do that mobilize thing.
Highly encourage it! If it feels intimidating, you also can try to get some friends and or family to go with you too (plus getting even more impact with more people)
Polls do matter. They are a valuable way for ordinary people to see how the election might be going right now and to get an idea about how the population feels. Obviously though, nothing in politics can ever matter as much as voting.
A lot of people will vote based on who they think will win. I don't understand this, but it's a thing.
People like reflected glory, which they get by rooting for the "winning team."
You see this when people with no investment in a sport pick a team to root for in a big game. It's generally who they think will win, even if that guess is just based on vibes.
How many Germans with this mindset rooted for the Nazis, I wonder? It's one thing to root for the top dog in a sports match but it's unprincipled in politics. It's another level of ignorance and irresponsibility.
I agree that's the intent, however, they too often can be misleading, used in misleading ways, or simply misunderstood. I think too many people sat at home in 2016 saying "Well, Hillary has this one in the bag." Let's not do that to Kamala Harris, and more importantly, to ourselves.
It also pisses off Orange Man. And with enough temper tantrums and mental breakdowns, MAGA might wake up to how fucking stupid that guy is.
In a multi-way ballot, Harris’ lead widens, receiving 47% to Trump’s 41% among registered voters, and 50% to 42% among likely voters.
Yeah, I've been wondering about this. People talk like RFK and Stein are spoilers for the Dems, when it seemed really obvious to me that RFK and Trump must share some of the brainworm-victim demographic.
RFK sounds "progressive-independent" on paper or on his website, with all the good bullet points that are almost perfectly tailored to try and steal democratic votes- but the second he opens his mouth at any event it is complete far-right insane word vomit. Any "on the fence" voter who does even the barest research or watches one event will go "Oh HELL no".
Any “on the fence” voter who does even the barest research or watches one event will go “Oh HELL no”.
That's still actually a pretty high bar for "on the fence" voters. Anyone who is of voting age, lived through the past 8 years, and is still undecided about Trump is probably already an idiot who can't even be bothered to do basic research outside of reading facebook while on the toilet.
Must remember that there is a MASSIVE pool of "unlikely voters" sitting on the sidelines and up for grabs. These voters are very familiar with Trump, but they aren't very familiar with Harris and especially Walz. That means there is big potential to turn Unlikely Voters into Likely Voters for Harris.
We really need voter turnout to be historic.
That means getting a greater chunk of the Voting-Eligible Population to turn out. Ideally we need to exceed the already high turnout of recent elections of ~66%.
Website is harvesting your data: 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact [email protected] or call (847) 497-5230.
Close to 50-50 on polymarket.
Seems like a pretty clear trend line, though~
What was their walz prediction on Monday?
They look like they put up "right-ish" numbers long term, but seem very wrong short term. I recall seeing walz at 3% a week before he was on the ticket, which is a pretty wide miss.
Walz has been way above 3% since I started watching. Shapiro was the heavy favorite (like 60-70%) most of the time, with Walz at 10-15% iirc. Then when it narrowed down to him and Walz, it wnt to about 50-50 though I didn't keep an eye on it. There might be graphs on the site showing how things moved. Supposedly these betting markets have been more accurate than polls historically, though maybe that has changed in the past few years, as people figured out you can manipulate public opinion by dumping money on your candidate.
Yeah, somebody pointed out that they tracked pretty close to 538, which suprised me. Digging into it, that seems to only scale to "big" questions, and even then is wildly wrong in the days/weeks range.
Digging further, one of the big markets got a huge chunk of money from Peter thiel (who dumps hundreds of millions into far right campaigns) and then added Nate silver to its "advisors."
So at this point, the neutrality and quality of all of these things are suspect.
The Center Square - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Center Square:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_2d832b5c-55a4-11ef-a7cb-d7d365429b0b.html?a=