In Nate Silver’s electoral forecast, Trump is now leading Harris by 6.5% to win the electoral college.
This final stretch is eerily similar to Clinton/Trump.
I would appreciate people not knee-jerk downvoting this post just because they don’t like what it implies. It’s worth being aware that Trump has been steadily gaining for a month, Harris has been losing ground, and this model now has her likely to lose. Ignoring these facts makes it difficult to do anything about them.
Guys, chill. Breathe. Calm the fuck down.
First off, Harris hasn’t been “losing ground” for a month. This change reflects a few tight polls in some swing states, while she’s still ahead of Trump in most of them.
Second, early voting shows ludicrously massive turnout for Harris, something that didn’t happen with Clinton. Harris is not Clinton 2.0, stop pretending she is.
Third - and I can’t believe I keep having to say this - polling is fuuuuuucked right now. None of the pollsters, large or small, know what to do with a young electorate that votes but doesn’t answer unsolicited phone calls or texts. They’re heavily relying on all sorts of assumptions to weight what little data they have, and using lots of focus groups.
Fourth, there is a huge enthusiasm gap, and it’s obvious. Trump isn’t filling tiny venues anymore, while Harris is filling stadiums.
Now is not the time to just give up, all right?
👍
No one here is saying anything about giving up except you, and I don’t really see anyone here freaking out. If anything, yours is the most hyperventilating post in the thread so far. It’s simply a fact that there are important factors to consider in this election cycle that extend beyond just the latest round of polling, so that cheap dismissal doesn’t take us very far.
First, Harris’s declining numbers against Trump aren’t just a short-term blip; they’ve been slowly sliding for over a month. Meanwhile, Trump’s numbers are increasing in key areas, making it clear this isn’t just a temporary polling fluctuation. This trend is sustained and suggests a shifting momentum, especially in battleground states where the electoral college ultimately decides the race, but it is also reflected in national polling.
Second, while early voting and mail-in ballots are showing high turnout for Harris, it’s crucial to remember that the landscape for mail-in voting is significantly different from when Hillary ran in 2016 – you’re talking about pre-covid, which was before the massive expansion of early and mail-in voting. Additionally, Trump has actively encouraged mail-in votes to be predominantly Democratic because it fits into his strategy.
His plan is to challenge these ballots afterward, using claims like “lopsided results” and fraud accusations – the people standing in polling places dressed as “ghosts” to represent “ghost voters” and the continuing accusations that illegal immigrants are being “allowed” to vote by democrats is part of that strategy. He’s setting the stage to question the validity of those votes, which is an approach that has been openly discussed. And he has actively encouraged Republicans not to use mail-in/early voting, so it’s completely expected that they would be overwhelming democratic. That’s quite literally what his campaign wants.
Regarding polls and young voters, yes, polls have a hard time measuring younger voters, but polling has been roughly as accurate with young voters’ numbers as they have with any other demographic. Additionally, there’s another issue at play: even though young voters are more likely to say they’ll vote, they continue to actually vote at significantly lower rates than older age groups. As an aside, young voters are also most likely to say they voted even when they did not, which is surprising given it’s quite easy to show when it isn’t true because whether or not you voted is public information. It’s a real challenge, and the assumption that young voter enthusiasm translates directly into turnout isn’t reliable.
Lastly, enthusiasm gaps are noticeable, but what truly matters is the electoral college. National enthusiasm or filling large venues doesn’t translate into winning key states. Harris’s steady decline in critical swing state polls is the bigger concern. It’s worth staying vigilant and aware of the more complex dynamics at play, and your blinkered view of the state of the race doesn’t help anything.
I was a big pusher of the idea that Biden should drop out after the first debate, and that Harris would be the only possible replacement, since she had already won on a ticket with Biden and, as VP, was his understudy anyway.
There was a lot of pushback from people then, but a handful of people argued against it because they claimed that the heartland of America was simply too sexist to vote for a woman. It explained what happened in 2016, and they said it would happen again.
I’m wondering if they were right. And the difference between 2020 and 2024 is that enough people in the wrong EC states will simply never vote for a woman as President.
I was fucking pissed as hell (and remain pissed) that the democrats didn’t have a real primary. I think Harris was an extremely weak pick and wouldn’t have survived it. Trump cannot be allowed to be president so Democrats should have found their best candidate.
And I disagree, somewhat, about gender… I’d hope it’d be irrelevant but it sadly isn’t - but Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and Harris isn’t a great candidate either. Gender is playing a role, but a good candidate (like Warren) could definitely overcome it.
I really thought Mayor Pete would have been a good candidate. He’s a bulldog in debates with Republicans, but we’d probably end up with a similar problem. The obvious choice then probably would have been Gavin Newsom, but that dude just seems like such a slick, slimy douche. But I guess that would have been an advantage.
Nate Silver’s last Silver Bulletin makes the interesting point that Harris has higher likeability ratings, but she has very little clear messaging. Trump’s pretty clear about what he’s going to do, even if it’s appalling, illegal, or harmful. And as Nate says, he has clear “personal injury attorney” messaging: I’m a slimy, aggressive asshole, but I’m your slimy, aggressive asshole. Kamala’s messaging appears to be (at the surface level), we can’t go back, but we’re going to go forward in a different way, and I’m not Joe Biden, but I’m not not Joe Biden, but, hey, I’m not Trump! I.e., he’s pointing out how muddled her messaging is.
It’s sad to say, but Buttigieg’s sexuality is as big a challenge in a general election as Harris’ gender - maybe moreso. He’s smart, tenacious, and would be a good leader. I would vote for him over Trump. But too many voters in swing states can’t see beyond the fact that he’s gay.
I don’t know what I’m missing here, but I don’t see numbers for the race at the link provided. I just see national polling numbers.
The raw numbers aren’t directly on that post, we just have this - which mentions the model’s avg crafted from statewide polls is 1.9 vs 1.3 from the national polls.
Last update: 11:45 a.m., Thursday, October 24. We’ve been starting to see more national polls showing Kamala Harris behind — certainly not a good sign for her given her likely Electoral College disadvantage. Her lead in our national polling average is down to just 1.3 points. The good news for Harris is that our model doesn’t care that much about national polls; instead, our forecast of the popular vote, which is mainly based on extrapolations from state polls, has her up 1.9.
Scroll down to the subtitle posted as the post title. It’s roughly the fourth poll on the page. Sorry, I didn’t know how to link it directly to that poll.
I can’t figure out what you mean. The subtitle in the lemmy post goes to the same place. Within the article I dont see a link elsewhere.
… it’s the 4th poll on the page. It’s also the 6th graph. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Bad news for everyone except Trumps rich friends.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
