It’s starting
-
I don’t get it. That would apply to Trump who was actually president not Kamala who never has been.
-
I don’t get it. That would apply to Trump who was actually president not Kamala who never has been.
@jon-nyc said in It’s starting:
I don’t get it. That would apply to Trump who was actually president not Kamala who never has been.
As a reminder, in January/February 2020, most people acknowledged that it had been a pretty good 4 year term, and even you acknowledged that as it stood, he would have won reelection.
-
As another reminder, this is the second election in a row that the Dem powers that be overrode the primary process to get the candidate they didn’t want removed.
Actually the third, but the Clinton thing was far more subtle, at least.
But they’re the party of Democracy. LMFAO.
-
RCP Polling Average had Kamala up 1.3% yesterday, and down to .2% this morning. That’s a huge drop over 24 hours.
-
You know @LuFins-Dad I did predict this like a year ago: "Biden 321 electoral votes, Trump 217. Biden gets 79 million votes, Trump gets 69 million."
Except I forgot it was opposite day. Looks like it might be Trump getting 321 electoral votes (from 79 million votes).
-
-
So many people publicly criticizing a fascist just before he might come to power. I don't even know how evolution selected for such people. There's a good chance they'll all be in concentration camps in a few months, and they could have chosen so simply to avoid that fate - by simply not criticizing Trump. It's a wonder how they are the result of an unbroken chain of descendants.
Maybe they are just so courageous, that they accept the personal sacrifices they have made, in the name of truth, empathy, and democracy. I guess that must be it.
-
RCP just went Trump +.1 on the popular vote.
-
RCP just went Trump +.1 on the popular vote.
-
It’s not close, we just can’t be sure who is the beneficiary of the large polling error.
The lack of outlier polls kind of points yo the fact that something’s wrong.
-
@jon-nyc said in It’s starting:
Going for the photo finish.
Yeah… Looks like Tim Walz’s genetic code…
-
@George-K said in It’s starting:
All well within the margin of error. And I have a hunch it’s not going to be even close to the margin of error. I have no idea which way the error goes, though I think the increase in Republican registrations in swing states bodes well.
I don’t think Harris wins Georgia or NC…
-
https://www.natesilver.net/p/a-shocking-iowa-poll-means-somebody
Another such maverick is Ann Selzer of Selzer & Co. (Selzer and NYT/Siena are our two highest-rated pollsters.) As my former colleague Clare Malone wrote in 2016, Selzer — like NYT/Siena — has a long history of bucking the conventional wisdom and being right. In a world where most pollsters have a lot of egg on their faces, she has near-oracular status.
So Selzer’s new poll of Iowa tonight was highly anticipated by polling junkies, despite Iowa being unlikely to be a decisive state. In June, Selzer’s poll for the Des Moines Register showed Donald Trump with an 18-point lead over Joe Biden in Iowa — surprisingly big, even considering how much Iowa has trended red over the years. (It voted for Trump by 8 points in 2020.)
In September, her survey had Kamala Harris just 4 points behind Trump — considered an outlier at the time.
Her new poll? It shows the state trending even bluer, with Harris leading in Iowa 47-44.
I have been every so often looking at the virtualtout polling, which is based on betting markets, etc. referrenced here:
I dont see why VP Harris is showing a sudden increase in poll numbers. I still think that President Trump will win.
