news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Virgos Groove]

10 hours ago, Communion said:

I was trying ti remember where I saw the tweet that pointed out Dems have removed universal healthcare from their platform but yes.

People can give Dems credit on LGB- issues and abortion, but clearly Dems have regressed to even pre-Obama days on things like healthcare, immigration, foreign policy, etc.

I mean, Ronald ******* Reagan, who is nobody's ally of Palestine, was tougher on Israel than Biden and Kamala have been.

 

Even the anti-war Dems have pretty much disappeared. The Progressive Caucus being forced to pull a letter that said "Hey, we're giving billions to Ukraine and we should absolutely still be giving billions to them, but maaaaybee let's try some diplomacy as well? No? Okay. Sorry for taking your time, Supreme Commander Biden. " due to backlash from NATOids tells us just how right-wing the Overton window has shifted.

 

Or how European leader's relative reticence to an ultra-hawkish policy towards Russia is now considered "being a Putin shill" and "being compromised".

 

Or how Obama's (who is nobody's anti-American) refusal to engage in nuclear war with Russia over Crimea is now considered "naive" and "short-sighted".

 

Or how war with China is now considered an inevitabilty by both parties, even though China doesn't want that and American citizens aren't particularly keen in dying in a Shenzhen trench either.

 

It's like we're living in the upside down world.

Edited September 23 by Virgos Groove

[byzantium]

48 minutes ago, Armani? said:

Neither of the 2 results were possible either, just trash all around

 

We should be reading any poll with a 6-7% margin of error.  The main takeaway from this poll is that, like almost any other AZ poll, Trump might very well take AZ.  I'm just not seeing how productive "poll denialism" is as an endeavor.  

[Pavement Princess]

33 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

Burkman trying this with Robinson because his AI firm failed?  

 

 

 

Been staring at the man on the right for the last 5 minutes wondering if it

was Barron Trump (it's not)

[Armani?]

29 minutes ago, byzantium said:

We should be reading any poll with a 6-7% margin of error.  The main takeaway from this poll is that, like almost any other AZ poll, Trump might very well take AZ.  I'm just not seeing how productive "poll denialism" is as an endeavor.  

+5 Kamala or +5 Trump in Arizona will not happen. I didn't say Trump couldn't win the state

[Armani?]

 

 

[thesegayz]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

A right wing Zionist arguing this isn't the election to criticize the Dem candidate for having far right policies. You can't make this up. 

 

Don't share characteristics about yourself thinking they somehow give your opinions a set of credentials and people won't engage with the contradictions apparent in those traits.

 

Like your little friend who calls for killing the homeless who liked this post. I don't care that they're from San Fran. I make fun of them for thinking living there gives them a false authority to speak on and defend harming the homeless, yet the reality of them being in the 1% of all income earners nationally makes their tirades and the way they speak of the homeless as lying addicts with disgust actually worse, not better. I literally care less when finding out the person dehumanizing the homeless is a six-figure privileged urbanite. Like I actually hope they get mugged now! Karma!

 

I don't care if Harrier is from Australia. I take issue when someone who isn't from America and from a country with universal healthcare tries to throw their weight around and speak with a false authority on how Americans should fight towards universal healthcare. 

 

Australians don't have to deal with the financial corruption of American elections. That's just a pure based fact. No other Western nation has the corrupt campaign finance system that America does. No other nations has elections cost this much or the level of corruption that occurs with lobbying and political donations.

 

So non-Americans who want to speak authoritatively on what Americans should do to have healthcare as a right need to reconcile with lacking that experience and knowledge. 

 

The opinion of someone not from America thinking Dems are genuinely good and act in the interest of voters is irrelevant to me and largely not evidence-based because they have no way of experiencing living in a country where 85%+ of the country can want a policy yet it just not be legislatively possible because a rich 1% of voters can donate unlimited amounts of money to buy politicians. 

 

You literally admit this. Medicare For All is not legislatively impossible because the public will isn't there. You're flat out saying it won't happen because private insurance makes too many rich people too much money by being a for-profit, private industry!

Guess I was wrong about doxxing. Because you don't know anything about me. 
 

I was on unemployment last year, had to apply for healthcare coverage, lost my housing, and had to move back in with family. When I was growing up, my family was on WIC, chip, and Medicaid. I made a lot of money, but had zero financial education, so I'm paying the price for that now. THANKS for kicking me when I'm down, you really show how morally upstanding you are.
 

What's ironic about you being so angry when anyone confronts your problematic behavior is that you devolve into the very thing you criticize. Wishing that I'd get mugged? I've been physically and verbally attacked in SF. Yes, by people who were out of their mind. I've had to get in between men who were making women uncomfortable and deal with being screamed at and followed home on the train.

 

Call me all the names you want. I feel very sorry for you. 
 

I will be reporting you and I encourage other folks who are harassed by you to do the same.

[Sannie]

59 minutes ago, tiejc said:

These Siena polls are giving me depression. We can't have a nice day huh

Girl, we've had nothing but good news for, like, two weeks. This is the best poll Trump has had in ages and it doesn't even change anything for Kamala since she's doesn't technically need those three states, though winning would be a nice buffer.

 

30 minutes ago, byzantium said:

We should be reading any poll with a 6-7% margin of error.  The main takeaway from this poll is that, like almost any other AZ poll, Trump might very well take AZ.  I'm just not seeing how productive "poll denialism" is as an endeavor.  

Nobody's denying Trump could win AZ, he absolutely could, but it's not exactly denialism to doubt a 10-point shift for virtually no reason.

[Mike91]

1 hour ago, dabunique said:

 

We really don't need polling for WI, MI, and PA. We already know what's probably going to happen.

 

Trump will have a lead early on during election night until votes from Milwaukee, Philly, and Detroit come in and put Kamala over the top (hopefully). 

[Sannie]

1 minute ago, Mike91 said:

We really don't need polling for WI, MI, and PA. We already know what's probably going to happen.

 

Trump will have a lead early on during election night until votes from Milwaukee, Philly, and Detroit come in and put Kamala over the top (hopefully). 

I think you mean, once Democrats start dumping their illegal, dead voter ballots into the computers at 2am.

[Sannie]

 

I'm okay with MI, PA, WI, and NV (as a buffer). I really don't want her to win with just the rust belt because I don't doubt NE trying to do something fishy and annoying with its one vote.

[Blade]

regarding the NYT polls showing Harris going from +5 in AZ to -5

[Armani?]

This is Trump +5  in Arizona according their poll relative to 2020

 

White Non College - 63 Trump (+3)

Black - 82 Kamala (-5)

Hispanic 56 Kamala (-6)

 

Looks like a pre dropout Biden scenario 

[Thuggin]

1 hour ago, Vermillion said:

 

Nessel is so shameless, like you really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to extract "it's because she's Jewish" out of that  and then Jake Tapper states it as if it's absolute fact

[Rotunda]

I know crosstabs hate to see Armani coming 

[Vermillion]

 

[byzantium]

27 minutes ago, Sannie said:

Nobody's denying Trump could win AZ, he absolutely could, but it's not exactly denialism to doubt a 10-point shift for virtually no reason.

Does that poll go back to the same people?  
 

Otherwise it's entirely possible, that you could get a 10 point shift just from having a different sample.  

[Sannie]

6 minutes ago, byzantium said:

Does that poll go back to the same people?  
 

Otherwise it's entirely possible, that you could get a 10 point shift just from having a different sample.  

Sure, but then no poll would ever be truly accurate. I think the post above makes the most sense: the real number is somewhere between the two clear outliers. This particular poll seemingly has an R+3 or 4 bias so they may be purposely polling different people.

Edited September 23 by Sannie

[Rotunda]

5 minutes ago, byzantium said:

Does that poll go back to the same people?  
 

Otherwise it's entirely possible, that you could get a 10 point shift just from having a different sample.  

It's not doubtful that both poll results were correctly gathered. It is doubtful that both accurately reflect the population. 

[Armani?]

12 minutes ago, byzantium said:

Does that poll go back to the same people?  
 

Otherwise it's entirely possible, that you could get a 10 point shift just from having a different sample.  

But 10 point shift in a state from a A rank poller being accurate? Now...

 

The margin of error is not 10 points

[GhostBox]

with a tied race like we have now we are gonna get some wild numbers in both directions sometimes. Just like that WI number for Harris 💀

[byzantium]

56 minutes ago, Armani? said:

+5 Kamala or +5 Trump in Arizona will not happen. I didn't say Trump couldn't win the state

But anywhere from a +2 Trump to +2 Kamala margin is consistent with these polls being correct which is what I think we all know is the realm of possibility for AZ.  

[Armani?]

Just now, byzantium said:

But anywhere from a +2 Trump to +2 Kamala margin is consistent with these polls being correct which is what I think we all know is the realm of possibility for AZ.  

True, it's just that specific poll is throwing off the trend in the averages

[byzantium]

3 minutes ago, Armani? said:

But 10 point shift in a state from a A rank poller being accurate? Now...

 

The margin of error is not 10 points

If the "real" shift went from Trump +1 to Trump +2, a shift from Kamala +5 to Trump +5 is within the margin of error.  The first poll would have been 5 points off and the second one 3 points off.  
 

all I'm saying is these polling results are normal polling results we would expect in a close race without something being inherently wrong.  

[byzantium]

10 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

It's not doubtful that both poll results were correctly gathered. It is doubtful that both accurately reflect the population. 

What the poll says is that the election will be decided within the margin of error and that AZ should be correctly categorized as a swing state.  That seems pretty accurate 

[shelven]

Obviously at least one, and possibly both, of the NYT's Arizona polls was an outlier (there wasn't an actual 10-point shift in the electorate away from Harris after the debate), but I think @byzantium and I are just trying to caution people away from automatically writing off today's poll because it looks worse than the others. While today's poll can be an outlier, it's also possible that the first poll was the outlier and this one was the accurate state of the race all along, or (like Elliott Morris said) that the reality is somewhere in the middle at Trump +1 or Trump +2. 
 

Denying the possibility that a "bad" poll for the Dems is actually the real one, particularly when that poll comes from a very good pollster, is why everyone was so stunned when Hillary lost.