🦄 The Casual 2024 Presidential Election

[poochyena]

"Your food costs $2000/yr more, but you also earn $2000/yr more, so it's a wash."

Its not even true either. People think if wages are up 10% and inflation is up 10%, its a wash, but they forget about debts. If wages and inflation are up equal, then you are spending a smaller % of your income on debt payments. Debt payments don't increase with inflation. Anyone with long term debt like student loans, mortgages, or car loans are benefiting from inflation.

 

[fractl]

Its not even true either. People think if wages are up 10% and inflation is up 10%, its a wash, but they forget about debts. If wages and inflation are up equal, then you are spending a smaller % of your income on debt payments. Debt payments don't increase with inflation. Anyone with long term debt like student loans, mortgages, or car loans are benefiting from inflation.

That's only true for fixed interest rate debt. Any debt that is variable rate would be more expensive with higher interest rates (and interest rates were raised a lot to slow down inflation).

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Because they fucking feel things are bad, which leads to conclusions like the country being in depression or there being high unemployment or the stock market hasn't been hitting record highs this year.

Apologies for the heavy snip, but I want to focus on this element. You don't get to tell people that their economic position is great and that they should feel great due to your hand-picked metrics. It comes off like gaslighting.

I hail from the rust belt, and less fortunate friends have been hurting as their household budgets have been shooting up. Even here in the Big Apple, the relentless pace of housing inflation is grinding down many people and triggering relocation. A soaring stock market only helps those with assets, and low employment doesn't help people who have a job but shrinking purchasing power.

This isn't to minimize partisan filtering, as data shows that perception of the economy is highly skewed by Democrats and Republicans based on who is holding the presidency (e.g., perceptions flip overnight on a party change). But it's a fatal flaw to write off the concerns of those whining voters, because portfolios are doing well.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

That's only true for fixed interest rate debt. Any debt that is variable rate would be more expensive with higher interest rates (and interest rates were raised a lot to slow down inflation).

Right. Any indexed interest rate like credit card debt becomes tougher to pay off if rates go up.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

Apologies for the heavy snip, but I want to focus on this element. You don't get to tell people that their economic position is great and that they should feel great due to your hand-picked metrics. It comes off like gaslighting.

I hail from the rust belt, and less fortunate friends have been hurting as their household budgets have been shooting up. Even here in the Big Apple, the relentless pace of housing inflation is grinding down many people and triggering relocation. A soaring stock market only helps those with assets, and low employment doesn't help people who have a job but shrinking purchasing power.

This isn't to minimize partisan filtering, as data shows that perception of the economy is highly skewed by Democrats and Republicans based on who is holding the presidency (e.g., perceptions flip overnight on a party change). But it's a fatal flaw to write off the concerns of those whining voters, because portfolios are doing well.

For a handful of posters here, there's a very regular misunderstanding. Metrics are aggregates. Voters are individuals.

This has been pointed out so many times so thoroughly (and is such an obviously critical context) that I now assume it's being misunderstood on purpose.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

For most of the year, they've let the rage flow freely and now at the 11th hour, they're worried the voting choices may be counterproductive to their near and long-term goals.

Flipped around: The Biden/Harris administration completely refused to apply consequences to systemic and intentional humanitarian suffering for a year. And now at the 11th hour, they're worried the voters' choices may be counterproductive to their political survival.

It seems odd to punch down at vulnerable minority groups when the executive holds all the cards and has been flipping said minorities off for a full year without even moving a modicum away from unconditional weapons for Netanyahu.

Scroll up to my earlier post where an administration official confirmed bluntly to minority representatives that no slaughter or starvation could ever slow the flow of weapons, as a policy choice.

 

[Auguste_Fivaz]

Interview with Layla Elabed, one of the leaders of the Uncommitted movement, which decided not to endorse a candidate for president but urged their followers not to enable Trump to win.

Apparently their leaders faced a big backlash.




https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/kamala-harris-donald-trump-election-israel-michigan.html
She also talks about broader policy goals and the alliances they've made with other activist groups on other issues.



Probably going to be too little, too late.

For most of the year, they've let the rage flow freely and now at the 11th hour, they're worried the voting choices may be counterproductive to their near and long-term goals.

Democracy is hard.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

So, there was some talk about Harris not differentiating herself from Biden. Turns out, that's by design, and it's a planned separation:

NBC - Harris team and White House discussed plans for her to distance herself from Biden

That’s why Biden’s comments Tuesday night that Harris would “cut her own path” set the stage for her to declare that, if elected, her presidency would not be a “continuation” of his during an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, these people said.

No one in the White House was surprised by those comments, one of the sources said, since conversations had happened privately before the Fox interview.

Biden has been emphatic that Harris should do “whatever it takes” to win and that he understands she represents a new generation of leadership, this person said.

People gotta remember, Harris has only been at this for two months, and the nominee for one month. That she's been at this without a major mishap, and battling evenly with a strong opponent, even factoring in the reuse of Biden campaign staffers, is respectable.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

and battling evenly with a strong opponent

She's battling evenly with a truly historically pitifully horrible and inept opponent. Which is why I was glad to see her go on Fox News. Because Harris's problem is not that she's a better or worse candidate than Donald Trump. Her problem is overcoming the barriers to accessing voters that the media ecosystem has curated.

The best product on Earth with a completely ineffective go-to-market plan & execution is a de facto dead on arrival product.

 

[wavelet]

What’s weird is that both groups are extremely small portions of the US population; the attention they each attract is wildly disproportionate to their numbers. Jews make up 2.4% of the US population, while Arabs are only 0.65% of the population. Only eleven US cities have more than 100,000 Jews, with New York having about 4 times as many as any other city, 2.1 million. Only eleven US states have more than 100,000 Arabs (according to an Arab American Institute survey), with California, Michigan, and New York leading the way.

Neither the Jewish American nor Arab American population seems likely to be nearly big enough to sway the election, so I don’t know what Musk‘s PAC is trying to get out of this. All it shows is the moral bankruptcy of modern Republicans, and their willingness to use both Jews and Arabs as political pawns without caring about either at all.

Jews are only 2.4% of the population... But most of them are concentrated in key states, and apparently (have not been able to find out detailed numbers on this) tend to be the ethnic group with highest voter turnout (several search hits mention it's typically 80%+, vs. 50% for the electorate at large (2020 was a siginficant exception)).
They're also overrepresented in Congress almost 3x (6% of lawmakers).
In 2016, Jews provided 50% of D presidential campaign contributions, and 25% of R.
The top 15 contributors to Harris' campaign were Jewish billionaires, according to Forbes.

So nothing weird about that.

 

[Starbuck79]

It's starting to make the media rounds today but former Wrestler turned actor Dave Bautista and Jimmy Kimmel have put out the most brutal and personal attack against Trump.

Video in the linked article

Here is a preview but the text doesn't do it justice. You need to see the video.

“A lot of men seem to think that Donald Trump is some kind of tough guy,” says Bautista while training in a gym. “He’s not. Look at him. He wears more makeup than Dolly Parton. He whines like a baby. The guy’s afraid of birds. Donald Trump had his daddy pay a doctor to say his feet hurt so he could dodge the [Vietnam War] draft. Look at that gut — like a garbage bag full of buttermilk. He sells imaginary baseball cards pretending to be a cowboy-fireman. He’s barely strong enough to hold an umbrella. Look how he drinks water — like a little pink chickadee. He’s got jugs, big ones — like Dolly Parton. He cheats at golf, and creeps around beauty pageant dressing rooms. You know that little dance he does? He looks like he’s jacking off a pair of giraffes.”

Continues Bautista: “He’s moody, he pouts, he throws tantrums. He acts like a 5-year-old behind the wheel of a truck. He bends over for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. He’s cattier on social media than a mean girl. The guy needs help walking downhill. This November, let’s stop kidding ourselves. Donald Trump is afraid of rain, of dogs, of windmills, Meryl-fucking-Streep and being laughed at. Mostly, he’s terrified that real, red-blooded American men will find out that he’s a weak tubby toddler. What’s wrong, tough guy? Did someone grab you by the pussy? Little bitch.”

Found the video:

 

[Starbuck79]

So, there was some talk about Harris not differentiating herself from Biden. Turns out, that's by design, and it's a planned separation:

NBC - Harris team and White House discussed plans for her to distance herself from Biden



People gotta remember, Harris has only been at this for two months, and the nominee for one month. That she's been at this without a major mishap, and battling evenly with a strong opponent, even factoring in the reuse of Biden campaign staffers, is respectable.

It's almost as if he team are professionals who actually know what they are doing and not random people on a message board...

 

[CatBus]

You need to see the video.

Yes you do. It was sort of standard macho stuff I didn't feel I really needed... until the giraffes. Now I can imagine a tiny accordion and a pair of giraffes any time he's onscreen.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Yes you do. It was sort of standard macho stuff I didn't feel I really needed... until the giraffes. Now I can imagine a tiny accordion and a pair of giraffes any time he's onscreen.

That was the point, though. It was both a parody of toxic masculinity, and an attempt to reach those motivated by toxic masculinity. They're so steeped in it, they can't even admit Trump doesn't match their own stated ideals. "Guys, stop lying to yourselves..."

I think it's a good idea to call out the hypocrisy. Same with the "Christians" and "job creators".

 

[CatBus]

People seem to be willing to go to great lengths to ... [checks notes] ... prevent a stolen election.

https://www.wired.com/story/dhs-election-denial-violent-attacks/
Tell me you can't win a fair election without telling me you can't win a fair election.

 

[wco81]

Apologies for the heavy snip, but I want to focus on this element. You don't get to tell people that their economic position is great and that they should feel great due to your hand-picked metrics. It comes off like gaslighting.

I hail from the rust belt, and less fortunate friends have been hurting as their household budgets have been shooting up. Even here in the Big Apple, the relentless pace of housing inflation is grinding down many people and triggering relocation. A soaring stock market only helps those with assets, and low employment doesn't help people who have a job but shrinking purchasing power.

This isn't to minimize partisan filtering, as data shows that perception of the economy is highly skewed by Democrats and Republicans based on who is holding the presidency (e.g., perceptions flip overnight on a party change). But it's a fatal flaw to write off the concerns of those whining voters, because portfolios are doing well.

If their portfolios are doing great, these are people who are like more insulated from higher living expenses.

It's the people who are living paycheck to paycheck, who didn't have discretionary funds to invest, who are more sensitive to COL.

The question is, where's the data showing that there are more such people, living paycheck to paycheck, in the last 4 years than the previous 4 or the previous 20 years?

There should be more, since we went through the highest inflation in 4 decades. But how many more?

Because people who "feel" the economy is bad or tell pollsters the country is headed in the wrong direction are not basing it on economic data but their anecdotal experience, or POV -- a lot of Republicans see their huge brokerage balances and will still tell people the economy is shit when their own bottom line indicates otherwise.

You don't expect policy makers to adjust or make new policies based on the "feels" of people making TikToks or telling posters, sometimes through a partisan lens.

For instance, should the Fed cut interest rates more aggressively since polls show that a majority of the country believes that the country is on the wrong economic track? Should Congress and the WH consider passing stimulative measures when forecasts are for continued growth through 2025, with no signs of big increase in unemployment, because people have been feeling bad about the economy?

Because many people "feel" things are bad?

Unfortunately, we may find out if Trump wins and enacts all these shitty policies like way more tariffs. Rather than cutting prices to pre-pandemic levels, we'll likely see inflation reignited. We will see what happens when we ignore evidence and make policies based on feels.

 

[wco81]

For a handful of posters here, there's a very regular misunderstanding. Metrics are aggregates. Voters are individuals.

This has been pointed out so many times so thoroughly (and is such an obviously critical context) that I now assume it's being misunderstood on purpose.

That's great, let's make major policy decisions, as well as political ones, based on the perceptions of individuals, you know, their economic anecdotes about making ends meet, instead of data for the country as a whole.

Let's not even limit ourselves of economic policy. Trump says crime has skyrocketed, exact opposite of what the data shows. So let's expand law enforcement and build more prisons.

Trump says tens of millions of people are entering this country illegally a month. You know that would imply 200 million illegal entries a year, in a nation of 330 million. So forget the actual data, let's build fortresses on the border and huge detention and deportation camps.

Because individual feelings are more valid than "aggregate data!"

We will never use data for governance again!

 

[wco81]

Flipped around: The Biden/Harris administration completely refused to apply consequences to systemic and intentional humanitarian suffering for a year. And now at the 11th hour, they're worried the voters' choices may be counterproductive to their political survival.

It seems odd to punch down at vulnerable minority groups when the executive holds all the cards and has been flipping said minorities off for a full year without even moving a modicum away from unconditional weapons for Netanyahu.

Scroll up to my earlier post where an administration official confirmed bluntly to minority representatives that no slaughter or starvation could ever slow the flow of weapons, as a policy choice.

Did you even bother to read the linked interview?

It's an activist talking about the potential downsides of her activism, how the outcome of the election, which they may influence, could harm their own interests.

Like all the protests they've held at campuses and around the country, they may face greater repression from a Trump administration if they attempt to continue their activism for their cause. Then she mentioned other causes for which they've partnered with other activist groups..

Who's punching her down exactly? She's talking to a journalist who hasn't asked her anything in the interview that is remotely critical of her activism.

Her movement obviously hasn't gotten the results that they wanted but nobody in the article is attacking her or her movement.

That will probably come after the election. Regardless of the results though, that movement will have less influence. If Harris wins, Democrats have no reason to be receptive to whatever they advocate, because she will likely win despite what the Uncommitted movement did.

If Trump wins, well he was never going to be accommodative to them and the best they can hope is that he ignores them, rather than actively coming after them, like brutally shutting down any protests after the election or doubling-down on the Muslim ban.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

"Look at that gut — like a garbage bag full of buttermilk."

Lost it. That's harsher than a picture of Trump sans spray tan.

polls show that a majority of the country believes that the country is on the wrong economic track?

Not picking on you here, just a perfect example I absolutely hate this question. Do I believe this country is on the wrong economic track? Yes. What do I think should be done about it? Feed every billionaire into a wood chipper. Give Lina Khan unfettered plenipotentiary powers and a license to kill. Legally codify employees as stakeholders. Make asset stripping and the associated self-dealing illegal.

It's like dissatisfaction with the current administration -- is it because they're doing too much, or not enough?

 

[Not_an_IT_guy]

Here is something that occurred to me last night. Like many people I had a great deal of difficulty understanding why anyone would look at trump and say "yeah, that's they guy I want leading the nation". Like, even Patches O'Houlihan had a good reason for drinking his own urine (because it is sterile and like the taste), but voting for trump? I did not get it.

Then it occurred to me, there are a great many people who feel, (often rightly) that the system has screwed them over. Whether it is supermarket conglomerates raising prices faster than inflation because they can, or capitalists shutting down their job and moving it overseas to save a dollar, or people who tell you that you are wrong just because you believe that god said that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is just the common sense position.

If you hate "the system" only one politician has worked tirelessly to wreck it with any success, and that is donald trump. He promised that he would break our system and his every action while president furthered that goal. If you are truly in the "fuck it, tear it all down" camp, then he is the guy for you, and apparently there are lot of people in that camp.

Note, I am not making any personal comments about the logic and long term effects of this attitude and action. But, once you look at it in that lens, suddenly the support makes sense. Sadly telling that person that they are cutting off their own nose to spite their face is usually taken to be condescending gaslighting, and frankly most neoliberal philosophy is just that (which IMO is the dominant philosophy in both political parties).

I have no solution, but at least this way I feel less baffled by why we are in this situation.

 

[Not_an_IT_guy]

Feed every billionaire into a wood chipper. Give Lina Khan unfettered plenipotentiary powers and a license to kill. Legally codify employees as stakeholders. Make asset stripping and the associated self-dealing illegal.

I am intrigued by your ideas and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[karolus]

Here is something that occurred to me last night. Like many people I had a great deal of difficulty understanding why anyone would look at trump and say "yeah, that's they guy I want leading the nation". Like, even Patches O'Houlihan had a good reason for drinking his own urine (because it is sterile and like the taste), but voting for trump? I did not get it.

Then it occurred to me, there are a great many people who feel, (often rightly) that the system has screwed them over. Whether it is supermarket conglomerates raising prices faster than inflation because they can, or capitalists shutting down their job and moving it overseas to save a dollar, or people who tell you that you are wrong just because you believe that god said that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is just the common sense position.

If you hate "the system" only one politician has worked tirelessly to wreck it with any success, and that is donald trump. He promised that he would break our system and his every action while president furthered that goal. If you are truly in the "fuck it, tear it all down" camp, then he is the guy for you, and apparently there are lot of people in that camp.

Note, I am not making any personal comments about the logic and long term effects of this attitude and action. But, once you look at it in that lens, suddenly the support makes sense. Sadly telling that person that they are cutting off their own nose to spite their face is usually taken to be condescending gaslighting, and frankly most neoliberal philosophy is just that (which IMO is the dominant philosophy in both political parties).

I have no solution, but at least this way I feel less baffled by why we are in this situation.

The sad thing is that he will do little for them besides making them feel good for a short time.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

So, there was some talk about Harris not differentiating herself from Biden. Turns out, that's by design, and it's a planned separation:

NBC - Harris team and White House discussed plans for her to distance herself from Biden

According to the article, this was reactionary - a response to interviews where she emphatically insisted that she wouldn't do a single thing differentially with the benefit of hindsight.

NBC News was first to report that Harris’ campaign was examining ways to distance her from Biden after criticism about her interviews.

If she was going to sell herself as a distinct proposition the time to start doing so was as the presumptive nominee so she could define herself, not with two weeks to go after saying the exact opposite a week before. The administration being really unpopular was completely known going into the transition.

My take is that the former Biden campaign team repeated their fundamental error and interpreted the post-Biden sugar high as a durable and innate lead, putting the campaign on a glide path. So no interviews, no policy differentiation, and lots of vague vibes.

Then the momentum reversed, and they desperately scrambled to reverse course across the board, pulling every lever they could find:

• "Put Harris in front of every microphone!"
• "Deploy Obama to scold Black men!"
• "She's breaking with Biden!"
• "We're going to hold Israel accountable (after the election; trust us)!"
• "Go on Fox News!"
• "Book Joe Rogan!"
• "We're pro-Crypto, now!"

 

[Technarch]

Biden really should've made inflation illegal.

Why didn't he? Who knows.

Biden really should've created lasting peace in the Middle East for the first time in recorded history. In one term.

Why didn't he? Who knows.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

She's battling evenly with a truly historically pitifully horrible and inept opponent.

An opponent who won 63M votes in 2016, 75M in 2020, and is in a dead heat with his current opponent.

Regardless of what you or I think is a proper campaign, all that matters is he gets enough votes to win. And he's well within reach.

 

[Happysin]

My take is that the former Biden campaign team repeated their fundamental error and interpreted the post-Biden sugar high as a durable and innate lead, putting the campaign on a glide path. So no interviews, no policy differentiation, and lots of vague vibes.

Then the momentum reversed, and they desperately scrambled to reverse course across the board, pulling every lever they could find:

• "Put Harris in front of every microphone!"
• "Deploy Obama to scold Black men!"
• "She's breaking with Biden!"
• "We're going to hold Israel accountable (after the election; trust us)!"
• "Go on Fox News!"
• "Book Joe Rogan!"
• "We're pro-Crypto, now!"

Or, you know, she's running a campaign at 2X speed because that's the time the was given.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

An opponent who won 63M votes in 2016, 75M in 2020, and is in a dead heat with his current opponent.

Regardless of what you or I think is a proper campaign, all that matters is he gets enough votes to win. And he's well within reach.

That doesn't make him a strong candidate. Just like Biden defeating a historically unpopular incumbent by the narrowest skin of his teeth didn't make Biden a strong candidate.

If Trump were a strong candidate, he'd be able to keep his sh*t together enough to assuage the off-putting impression that he's not a vain, shallow, whiney manchild and then be likely beating Harris by double-digits in the polls. But he can't, because he's an absolutely, atrociously terrible campaiger who can't actually campaign or execute a strategy of anything other than immediate raw impulse.

 

[Technarch]

An opponent who won 63M votes in 2016, 75M in 2020, and is in a dead heat with his current opponent.

And is backed by an oligarchy of billionaires, corporate executives, foreign despots, and the most effective propaganda media arm of all time.

 

[Jordan83]

Pity that the folks they are targeting are negative information voters. They will actively seek to reject all information coming towards them.

I don't think it's helpful to generalize every farmer this way. I know farmers in Michigan who vote Democrat.

 

[Starbuck79]

An opponent who won 63M votes in 2016, 75M in 2020, and is in a dead heat with his current opponent.

Regardless of what you or I think is a proper campaign, all that matters is he gets enough votes to win. And he's well within reach.

Baier tried to trap Harris with this during the Fox interview, basically saying "Trump can't be as bad as you say because 50% of the people support him." He was just begging her to take the bait and have a "deplorables" moment.

 

[dmsilev]

If Trump were a strong candidate, he'd be able to keep his sh*t together enough to assuage the off-putting impression that he's not a vain, shallow, whiney manchild and then be likely beating Harris by double-digits in the polls. But he can't, because he's an absolutely, atrociously terrible campaiger who can't actually campaign or execute a strategy of anything other than immediate raw impulse.

Is Trump a disciplined campaigner? No, of course not. But he absolutely is a strong candidate. He speaks a language that a vast swath of the electorate finds immensely attractive, and many of them have become intensely loyal to him. How is that not a strong position for running for elected office? Just look at the 2016 primary race.

 

[Macam]

Not picking on you here, just a perfect example I absolutely hate this question. Do I believe this country is on the wrong economic track? Yes. What do I think should be done about it? Feed every billionaire into a wood chipper. Give Lina Khan unfettered plenipotentiary powers and a license to kill. Legally codify employees as stakeholders. Make asset stripping and the associated self-dealing illegal.

Wish you had posted this two days ago because I would've written in The Sheep Look Up for president. Sadly, I already dropped off my ballot.

 

[Starbuck79]

Here is something that occurred to me last night. Like many people I had a great deal of difficulty understanding why anyone would look at trump and say "yeah, that's they guy I want leading the nation". Like, even Patches O'Houlihan had a good reason for drinking his own urine (because it is sterile and like the taste), but voting for trump? I did not get it.

Then it occurred to me, there are a great many people who feel, (often rightly) that the system has screwed them over. Whether it is supermarket conglomerates raising prices faster than inflation because they can, or capitalists shutting down their job and moving it overseas to save a dollar, or people who tell you that you are wrong just because you believe that god said that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is just the common sense position.

If you hate "the system" only one politician has worked tirelessly to wreck it with any success, and that is donald trump. He promised that he would break our system and his every action while president furthered that goal. If you are truly in the "fuck it, tear it all down" camp, then he is the guy for you, and apparently there are lot of people in that camp.

Note, I am not making any personal comments about the logic and long term effects of this attitude and action. But, once you look at it in that lens, suddenly the support makes sense. Sadly telling that person that they are cutting off their own nose to spite their face is usually taken to be condescending gaslighting, and frankly most neoliberal philosophy is just that (which IMO is the dominant philosophy in both political parties).

I have no solution, but at least this way I feel less baffled by why we are in this situation.

I think there are a lot of people who know that the President doesn't have much direct effect on their life. All of the "Policy" parts of the campaign are just empty promised. Either their lives are good and they don't care about others OR their lives aren't and don't beleive that the Government can do anything to help.

Either way, they vote for the guy who acts like they wish they could and say what they wish they could say.

 

[Happysin]

Early voting continues to suggest that Dems are going to win the battlegrounds, except for Arizona and Nevada. By gender and party affiliation, the numbers are optimistic.




I continue to believe the nearly 15% split by gender among party lines is the l clearest through-lines for the upcoming election, and I strongly suspect we're going to see an outcome that demonstrates that union jobs in what we traditionally consider "women's jobs" are going to be the linchpin.

This might literally be the year where American politics is going to be forced to realize that the SEIU and not the Teamsters represent the largest groups of workers in the US.

There's been much talk about the great realignment coming for the major parties, but it looks like the divisions might literally be along gender, something that's never happened before (in no small part because women have a much smaller history of being able to vote).

Among the interesting outcomes so far, Florida is trending in a way that Republicans have work cut out for them (Texas hasn't reported enough to be interesting).




Florida cast almost 11m votes in 2020, so this gap is easy to make up for the GOP, but it also means the wind is not at their back. I'm not holding out for a flip, but results like this probably mean the Trump campaign is going to have to spend money in places they don't want to right at the end of the election.

Compared to 2020, this is the right direction for Harris. This is still going to be an annoying nailbiter of an election, but we live in a world where winning Florida seems just about as likely as losing outright. I don't hate that.

 

[AdrianS]

Not to totally derail this thread, but I think Obama has to carry a fair slice of the blame.
He campaigned well, speechified well, but as president was all-in with the FAANGs about "the future is in information technology", and loved hobnobbing with the techbros.

Which isn't reassuring if you're not a tech nerd, and the only "tech" job a minimum wage worker is going to get is packing boxes for Amazon.

I'm picking Obama as an example, but it has been a clear trend in the Democratic party for the last 20 years or so.

 

[LTParis]

Nevada has under 10k votes registered. Not a good baseline on that yet.

Arizona Dems have to make up a deficit for sure. I find it odd that Kari Lake is losing between +5 and +12. But Harris is -1.6 right now.

 

[teleos]

Nevada has under 10k votes registered. Not a good baseline on that yet.

Arizona Dems have to make up a deficit for sure. I find it odd that Kari Lake is losing between +5 and +12. But Harris is -1.6 right now.

Nevada looks like a Harris win, Arizona is a likely loss....

 

[Shavano]

For a handful of posters here, there's a very regular misunderstanding. Metrics are aggregates. Voters are individuals.

This has been pointed out so many times so thoroughly (and is such an obviously critical context) that I now assume it's being misunderstood on purpose.

No, it's because when we talk about elections, we're talking about aggregates.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Nevada has under 10k votes registered. Not a good baseline on that yet.

Arizona Dems have to make up a deficit for sure. I find it odd that Kari Lake is losing between +5 and +12. But Harris is -1.6 right now.

Arizonan's haven't turned their backs on conservatism. They just hate Lake.

Politico - Normie Republicans Are Having Their Revenge on Kari Lake

Still, for Lake, the issue has mattered because her shifting stance on abortion rights revealed qualities that some voters already didn’t like about her: “She speaks to what she feels she can sell,” said Ruth Lambert, who set up a hub in conservative north Phoenix for people collecting signatures for the abortion ballot initiative.

Trump has made wildly conflicting statements about abortion, garnering some backlash from his anti-abortion supporters. But his base holds him to his own standard. In Lake’s case, Gallego hammered her in campaign ads using her old statements, which exacerbated her preexisting issue: Moderate voters she needed to win already felt her rhetoric was too extreme, and they didn’t buy her newly subdued approach.

 

[Happysin]

Nevada has under 10k votes registered. Not a good baseline on that yet.

Arizona Dems have to make up a deficit for sure. I find it odd that Kari Lake is losing between +5 and +12. But Harris is -1.6 right now.

If it means losing Arizona, but keeping that Senate seat, I'm in. Lake is scary.

That said, I did try on my last voting post to point out relevant versus not relevant results so far. Georgia, for example, is breaking records for early voting, and I'm quite literally here for it. (more than double than 2020 early voting records so far)

I'm not looking at polls anymore, just votes now.