Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Having a real hard time reconciling the possibility that a D senator is polling 8 points or greater over a R, and a D presidential candidate is in a dead heat.

 

 

"Trump only" voters - they are only replying to the Harris/Trump question and not the others. 

4 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

In what world does this make sense?

One where the sample sets are different. 

It's a margin of error thing. Put it on the pile for the average.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Trump = Pro Inflation

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Geez. He will really promise anything at this point.

Surprised he hasn’t promised the incel guys that he will fly in Eastern European women for them.

He'll set up a crypto based mail order service too bad the perfect name is already taken, Amazon.  We need to workshop the names,  Glamazon, V-bay, realdolls, Epsteingirls, Alibabes...

 

Posted
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Fucking Pennsylvania man. 

I mean, bitch and moan, but here's all the post-debate PA polls.  Only 1 bad poll there (Insider Advantage, a right-wing spam poll) 

Suffolk - Harris +3 (49-46)
Insider Advantage (GOP) - Trump +2 (50-48)
Q-Pac - Harris +6 (51-45)
Marist - TIE (49-49)
Franklin & Marshall - Harris +3 (49-46)
Emerson (GOP) - TIE (49-49)
NYT/Siena - Harris +4 (51-47)
WAPO - Harris +1 (48-47)

Average: Harris +1.9 (49.3-47.4)

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, G650 said:

Nate Cohn actually wrote an article about it this morning

What’s clear is that recent results from higher-quality polls are very different from those of the last presidential election. If true, it would suggest that Mr. Trump’s advantage in the Electoral College, relative to the popular vote, has declined significantly since 2020.

This wouldn’t come from nowhere: Almost exactly one year ago, I wrote that there were signs that Mr. Trump’s Electoral College advantage edge was fading, including in the 2022 midterm elections. In fact, today’s poll result is reminiscent of our polling ahead of the midterms, which found Republicans leading nationally but Democrats running strong in Pennsylvania and other battlegrounds. It was hard to believe given recent history — I didn’t believe it, and neither did others pollsters I spoke with — but it turned out to be right.

We will re-examine the case for a fading Trump Electoral College advantage soon, including a dive into the geographic distribution of his strength in Times/Siena national surveys over the last year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/upshot/harris-trump-poll-pennsylvania.html

That is why everyone who believes that Harris needs win by 3+ to win the EC aren't correct - I think it was calculated that she can win by a little as +1.5 and still win the EC.  But obviously, more is better. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, bitch and moan, but here's all the post-debate PA polls.  Only 1 bad poll there (Insider Advantage, a right-wing spam poll) 

Suffolk - Harris +3 (49-46)
Insider Advantage (GOP) - Trump +2 (50-48)
Q-Pac - Harris +6 (51-45)
Marist - TIE (49-49)
Franklin & Marshall - Harris +3 (49-46)
Emerson (GOP) - TIE (49-49)
NYT/Siena - Harris +4 (51-47)
WAPO - Harris +1 (48-47)

Average: Harris +1.9 (49.3-47.4)

It's more frustration than bitching and moaning. That being said, for context, I was still nervous well into the 3rd quarter of the Michigan game. 

PA just feels much more sticky and not moving positively towards Harris with the momentum we see in other places. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, bitch and moan, but here's all the post-debate PA polls.  Only 1 bad poll there (Insider Advantage, a right-wing spam poll) 

Suffolk - Harris +3 (49-46)
Insider Advantage (GOP) - Trump +2 (50-48)
Q-Pac - Harris +6 (51-45)
Marist - TIE (49-49)
Franklin & Marshall - Harris +3 (49-46)
Emerson (GOP) - TIE (49-49)
NYT/Siena - Harris +4 (51-47)
WAPO - Harris +1 (48-47)

Average: Harris +1.9 (49.3-47.4)

Collectively, it still seems "tied" for the moment.  By that, I mean that Harris hasn't conclusively broken out beyond the margin of error.  She likely is trending in the right direction, but we need a bit more time to see if she can establish a lead outside the margin of error.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Biden won it by 1.1% in 2020. That's probably about right.

The question might be what Biden was polled to win it by in 2020, versus the results. I realize there's the whole not counting "I'm voting Trump" hang up calls, from then to now, but that might be interesting.

Posted
1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There would be a mushroom cloud where the Fox News headquarters used to be if Kamala loses the popular vote but wins the EC.

Dotard: "Nothing like this has ever happened before!!"

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There would be a mushroom cloud where the Fox News headquarters used to be if Kamala loses the popular vote but wins the EC.

Trump has never lost the real popular vote. Haven't you been paying attention the last 8 years?

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Also remember that:

Harris is likely up 3-4 on average - the range of outcomes can be anywhere from Trump +1/tied to Harris +6 or 7 (that whole MOE thing).  I laugh at some polls for being bad, but kudos to high-quality pollsters, like NYT/Siena, who publish their results regardless of what others are seeing.  Takes away the herding.  This still showed movement towards Harris.  

But she's not losing the popular vote and it won't be tied, lol.

She doesn't need to win the PV by much to win the EC.   Hell, Dems almost won the House in 2022 and lost the national margin by 2.2 points.  

If she's tied nationally and still somehow up 4 in PA, she's already won MI/WI and probably NV and won the EC

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It looks like the big ticket items on election night to get an early victory for Harris will be NC. 

https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/election-results/election-night-reporting-timeline

PA and GA took forever last time, although it's now clear how much of that was re-counts or not. I think PA didn't start counting mail-ins until after polls closed, where NC already has them counted and dumps them into the pool almost immediately. Who else will we likely get defined answers on election night that swing things one way or another?

Posted
4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It looks like the big ticket items on election night to get an early victory for Harris will be NC. 

https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/election-results/election-night-reporting-timeline

PA and GA took forever last time, although it's now clear how much of that was re-counts or not. I think PA didn't start counting mail-ins until after polls closed, where NC already has them counted and dumps them into the pool almost immediately. Who else will we likely get defined answers on election night that swing things one way or another?

I started to write a reply that PA should adjust their counting procedures to avoid the ballot conspiracies. Then I realized that there is no end to the right's conspiracies. You can keep addressing their concerns, and they will always have another concern if they lose.

They don't even trust each other when it comes to primary ballot counting. I believe they've run off more GOP election officials than Dems.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

So you're essentially creating a policy that will force credit card companies to stop issuing cards to Americans with poor credit - essentially, the Americans you're (I assume) trying to help here. Love it when policy just ends up shooting itself in the foot.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It looks like the big ticket items on election night to get an early victory for Harris will be NC. 

https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/election-results/election-night-reporting-timeline

PA and GA took forever last time, although it's now clear how much of that was re-counts or not. I think PA didn't start counting mail-ins until after polls closed, where NC already has them counted and dumps them into the pool almost immediately. Who else will we likely get defined answers on election night that swing things one way or another?

The big thing with PA was the vote by mail was ridiculously slow to count and there was A LOT of it (1.5 million ballots).  The one good thing about it not being a COVID election is that most voters have indicated in PA polling is that they are going to vote in person.  I think Suffolk had it 72/25 or something, which was similar to 2022, and Fetterman was declared the winner at 1am eastern time. 

The media was able to declare Whitmer the winner just after midnight in Michigan; it took until the next morning for Ron Johnson to be declared the winner in Wisconsin.  

I think we will get Election Night calls in NC, MI, PA and possibly Wisconsin, unless it's decided by 26k votes like the 2022 senate race was.  GA may take a while, but the 2022 run-off was called right after midnight and it was a high turnout runoff - 3.5m votes and 2020 was 4.8m. 

Not even going to bother with AZ and NV, but with NV, whatever Ralston says the day before the Election, that's what I am going with, because he picks the winners.

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I think we will get Election Night calls in NC, MI, PA and possibly Wisconsin

Oh good, we will get to hear Dotard's concession speech before going to bed.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Posted
1 minute ago, dieucla98 said:

So you're essentially creating a policy that will force credit card companies to stop issuing cards to Americans with poor credit - essentially, the Americans you're (I assume) trying to help here. Love it when policy just ends up shooting itself in the foot.

Forget stop issuing the cards. They would immediately lower all credit limits if not terminate any new charges,  if banks could only charge 10%.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, locodos said:

Are you disgruntled because your office is next to the facilities or the fact this man is most likely using your bottled water as a make shift bidet?  

DSC01508-scaled.jpeg

IMG_0041.gif.d6e4e00045d647d4dae1bb3eff20587f.gif

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

You know it is pretty weird that only swing states are stolen from Dotard. The dems somehow never steal, say, Oklahoma or Mississippi. 

If the Dems were smart, they'd steal FL and Texas and he'd have no chance to win. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
33 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Trump = Pro Inflation

Of course he is, because he’s an impulsive idiot who knows nothing about economics. So he inevitably proposed dumb shit that will lease to 

But specifically: the 2020 stimulus was a significant contributor to the 2022 inflationary spike. That includes the $1,200 checks Trump had his name printed on and attached to a letter bearing his signature. And of course, he signed the CARES Act that authorized the stimulus payments. 

Tl;dr: Trump’s fingerprints are all over government spending that contributed to the recent inflation that everyone blames Biden for.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

LOL this is funny: https://fortune.com/2024/09/18/trump-vs-harris-election-odds-who-will-win/

Interesting model, but come on now bro, Harris is not winning 400 EVs. I fucking wish. 

In late 2020 and early 2021, this reporter wrote several stories focusing on the election predictions advanced by Thomas Miller, a data scientist at Northwestern University. I was intrigued by the highly original methodology Miller deployed in calling the trends, and outcomes, first in the presidential race, then for the two Georgia senatorial contests, where the surprise twin victories gave Democrats control of the upper chamber.

In all three 2020 contests, Miller beat virtually every pollster, and modeler parsing multiple voter surveys. He missed the size of Biden’s win in the electoral college by just 12 votes, tagging every state for the correct column save Georgia. For the two senate runoffs, Miller refined his approach to sorting data on the Peach State, and scored again. A week before Election Day on December 6, 2020, the polls gave Republican David Perdue a wide lead over Democrat Jon Ossoff, and showed the GOP’s Kelly Loeffler in a dead heat versus opponent Raphael Warnock. By contrast, Miller’s numbers had Loeffler heading for a big loss, and Ossoff en route to a modest victory. Once again, the contrarian academic nailed it: Miller was just 0.2% short on Warnock’s 2.0% margin, and precisely on target in forecasting Ossoff’s 1.0% final bulge at the ballot box.

For gauging Biden-Trump rematch, Miller developed a “generalized, linear model” based on results from the most recent sixteen presidential elections starting in 1960. Starting with that year’s Kennedy-Nixon race, every presidential race has been decided by 538 electoral votes. “The model’s based on a lot of historical data,” says Miller. It shows that the daily pricing on PredicitIt translates closely into the share of the popular vote favoring each candidate. Say on a certain day, bettors give candidate A a quote of 52 cents, amounting to 52% chance of winning. By Miller’s reckoning, those 52% odds should also mean that at that moment, the best forecast holds that 52% of likely voters plan to cast their ballots for candidate A.

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.

As of September 16, PredictIt is showing a price of 55 cents for Harris, and 45 cents for Trump, the reverse of the scenario before Biden’s departure. Once again, those odds translate in 55% of the popular vote for the Democrat according to Miller’s model. If the situation persists, Trump faces an absolute rout. “It would be somewhere between the defeats of Barry Goldwater by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Bob Dole by Bill Clinton in 1996,” says Miller. “We’re talking about a blowout where Harris gets over 400 electoral votes and wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and every other swing state.”

 
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

So you're essentially creating a policy that will force credit card companies to stop issuing cards to Americans with poor credit - essentially, the Americans you're (I assume) trying to help here. Love it when policy just ends up shooting itself in the foot.

With the way his campaign is going, in a couple weeks he's going to announce a bill that would provide all Americans with free tickets to any Taylor Swift concert, and on-site abortion services provided at each venue.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, bitch and moan, but here's all the post-debate PA polls.  Only 1 bad poll there (Insider Advantage, a right-wing spam poll) 

Suffolk - Harris +3 (49-46)
Insider Advantage (GOP) - Trump +2 (50-48)
Q-Pac - Harris +6 (51-45)
Marist - TIE (49-49)
Franklin & Marshall - Harris +3 (49-46)
Emerson (GOP) - TIE (49-49)
NYT/Siena - Harris +4 (51-47)
WAPO - Harris +1 (48-47)

Average: Harris +1.9 (49.3-47.4)

The trend has been great. I hope she sustains this momentum and I think she's got the right team to do it. The variations are probably due to how the different pollsters apply handicaps to the data.

I looked at the methodology for Marist, though, and while I expected it to be in the neighborhood of +2 to +3 Republican respondents it was actually +3 Dems (Poll of 1,754 Pennsylvania Adults, among them 1663 registered voters and among them 1476 likely voters).

Of the Trump voters, 90% strongly support him and 1% might vote differently, while for Harris voters 91% strongly support her and 0% might vote differently.

Of the self-identified Democrats, 4% are voting Trump; of the self-identified Republicans, 3% are voting Harris.

Of the self-identified Independents, Trump leads 49-45 (in a 2020 PA exit poll, Biden won independents 52-44)

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/pennsylvania

Of the respondents who believe the most important quality is change, Trump leads 60-38.

Harris leads in Philadelphia 83-15, +68

Harris leads in Philadelphia suburbs 59-40, +19 (that's a touch less than what Biden did in 2020)

Trump leads NEPA 51-47, +4 (Trump's margins there were much higher in 2020, although it's hard to know how Marist was defining NEPA)

Trump leads Central PA 62-35, +27 (Trump's Central PA margins in 2020 were generally +30)

Trump leads West PA 56-43, +13 (Hard to know how Marist is defining this, but his margins in rural West PA counties ranged from +18 to +52 and he lost Erie and Allegheny coutnies)

Trump leads with whites +3 (in 2020 he won whites +15)

Trump leads with men +10 (it was +11 in 2020)

Harris leads with women +12 (Biden had them +11 in 2020)

4% of Biden 2020 voters are supporting Trump 2024, while 3% of Trump 2020 voters are supporting Harris 2024.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

As of September 16, PredictIt is showing a price of 55 cents for Harris, and 45 cents for Trump, the reverse of the scenario before Biden’s departure. Once again, those odds translate in 55% of the popular vote for the Democrat according to Miller’s model.

Um I don't think that's how that works.

  • Haha 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Of course he is, because he’s an impulsive idiot who knows nothing about economics. So he inevitably proposed dumb shit that will lease to 

But specifically: the 2020 stimulus was a significant contributor to the 2022 inflationary spike. That includes the $1,200 checks Trump had his name printed on and attached to a letter bearing his signature. And of course, he signed the CARES Act that authorized the stimulus payments. 

Tl;dr: Trump’s fingerprints are all over government spending that contributed to the recent inflation that everyone blames Biden for.

The Republicans that know Trump's policies are bad refuse to speak up. At best they will go with the, "what Trump really meant..."

Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Um I don't think that's how that works.

It’s not. But kudos to that guy for getting Biden’s EC total almost right in 2020 and nailing the GA Senate races. I’m gonna keep an eye on him for shits and giggles 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
25 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

So you're essentially creating a policy that will force credit card companies to stop issuing cards to Americans with poor credit - essentially, the Americans you're (I assume) trying to help here. Love it when policy just ends up shooting itself in the foot.

Because like all things with Trump, he has zero clue how anything works. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Something smells in that lack of a national Teamsters endorsement. 

Need local 104 to endorse, they've already endorsed Gallego 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, South Austin said:

With the way his campaign is going, in a couple weeks he's going to announce a bill that would provide all Americans with free tickets to any Taylor Swift concert, and on-site abortion services provided at each venue.

"... The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. ..."

  • Haha 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Something smells in that lack of a national Teamsters endorsement. 

That's just the dollup of Trump's shit on the tip of Sean O'Brien's nose

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

For Harris to surpass 400 EVs, she would need to win every swing state along with TX, FL and OH. I haven't seen any evidence that today supports this as a strong possibility. Impossible? No. Likely, No. 

The big problem with Trump and polling is the Trump voters who understand they have zero defense in voting for him. They just will give him their vote but they won't admit it to anyone. They definitely won't tell a pollster.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Red Five said:

You know it is pretty weird that only swing states are stolen from Dotard. The dems somehow never steal, say, Oklahoma or Mississippi. 

The stupid morons still think they were stolen just not enough to win.

I am not fucking kidding when I say 45% of the population might as well be neo nazi zombies, the post apocalypse came just with dumbass people, if they were 51% then it would be the fourth reich.

Posted
2 minutes ago, ROFL BOX said:

FB_IMG_1726756032910.jpg

I have had some experience with elderly narcissists. Their "casual bullshitting" from their earlier years quickly turns into "Just say whatever pops into your head. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, because if you're saying it, that means it's true." 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Because like all things with Trump, he has zero clue how anything works. 

It really is amazing how ignorant he is on just about any subject he speaks about.   Like stunningly ignorant. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

It really is amazing how ignorant he is on just about any subject he speaks about.   Like stunningly ignorant. 

The "up is down, down is up" degree of it is what still amazes - and will ALWAYS amaze - me.

He constantly says "nobody knows more about X than me!"  When reality is that whatever X is, his fucking take on the subject demonstrates that he knows absolutely fucking NOTHING about X.  It's not that he's engaging in puffery, or exaggerating the level of his expertise -- it's that he declares that he is the world's foremost expert on any number of any subjects when the reality is that he is the world's premiere fucking idiot about each such subject.

And half this country fucking believes him, because we have glorified and weaponized abject stupidity.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Fox News did an over sample of black voters in 7 swing states 

Harris 82/12

Remind me why everyone thinks he is winning 20-25% of the black vote?

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Fox News did an over sample of black voters in 7 swing states 

Harris 82/12

Remind me why everyone thinks he is winning 20-25% of the black vote?

Cuz Donnie Two Scoops loves black people!

1c288f82bce7476e4be006b7c5aefb97

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The big thing with PA was the vote by mail was ridiculously slow to count and there was A LOT of it (1.5 million ballots).  The one good thing about it not being a COVID election is that most voters have indicated in PA polling is that they are going to vote in person.  I think Suffolk had it 72/25 or something, which was similar to 2022, and Fetterman was declared the winner at 1am eastern time. 

The media was able to declare Whitmer the winner just after midnight in Michigan; it took until the next morning for Ron Johnson to be declared the winner in Wisconsin.  

I think we will get Election Night calls in NC, MI, PA and possibly Wisconsin, unless it's decided by 26k votes like the 2022 senate race was.  GA may take a while, but the 2022 run-off was called right after midnight and it was a high turnout runoff - 3.5m votes and 2020 was 4.8m. 

Not even going to bother with AZ and NV, but with NV, whatever Ralston says the day before the Election, that's what I am going with, because he picks the winners.

PA could have been called on election night in 2020. The state was publishing their mail in ballot requests and return rates by party affiliation in the weeks leading up to the election. I remember telling my team at work the Friday before the election that if Trump was up by less than X votes he’s going to lose and it would take 2 days to verify. 

I understand not wanting to call it until it was confirmed, but even Shapiro was on tv as AG the next day saying that it was inevitable that Biden would pass Trump and it was just a matter of adding them up. 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...