politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
JFC, I guess I'm breaking the data down for you:
Public Opinion Strategies (7/23-7/29): Harris: 45% Trump 45%
Morning Consult (7/24-7/28): Harris: 53% Trump 42% (This is a HUGE outlier)
SoCal Research (7/25-7/26): Harris: 46% Trump: 49%
Redfield and Winton Strategies (7/22-7/24): Harris: 41% Trump: 44%
Glengariff Group (7/22-7/24): Harris: 42% Trump: 41% (Only other poll with Harris having a slight lead, and it's within the margin of error)
Emerson (7/22-7/24): Harris: 49% Trump: 51% (Though this one does have them tried if you add in third parties)
So, when you said, "You must not have looked at the polling recently. She's ahead in Michigan," (and by the way, dont think I didnt catch that goalpost move with, "equal to Harris lead") that wasn't really true; she's ahead in one of the 3 latest polls (by a margin so large it seems like a polling mistake), and she's only ahead in two of the six polls done in the last month. You are right though, the 538 Average does have her up by 2.2%, but again, that's probably mostly because one poll is giving her a ten point lead, which is a huge outlier from the rest of the data.
Anyway, is the data good enough for you yet, guy who demands data but only cites a signal polling average throughout his grand assertions about Shapiro, Harris, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan? Have I finally given you enough proof to meet your rigorous evidentiary standards? Standards which you yourself will not meet? Well, I actually don't care. Here's a bunch of quotes from the article you think proves, "they," will vote for Biden:
BOY, I SURE WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, WASN'T I?
The article from months ago, about Biden? Yeah... Sure.
You really do have a habit of ignoring any point that's inconvenient to you. So I'll leave you to read my previous post again.
Wow, what a great point. Except the context I brought the article up in was, "This is the baggage Harris inherents as a member of the Biden administration, she needs to distance herself from Biden's position in Israel if she wants to win Michigan, this makes Shapiro a very bad choice." So, what Muslim Americans were saying about Biden 3 months ago is actually very relevant given that context, and it's not a great point.
But thanks for, "You really do have a habit of ignoring any point that's inconvenient to you." Watching you ignore your misinterpretation of Harris' Michigan polls, misunderstanding that entire article, and that you've still provided no evidence to support any of your assertions, that legit made me LOL. Anyway, as someone else in this thread said, once it had become clear you had no idea what you're talking about, "We're done here."
If you want to talk about that why not any of the articles published in the last week about it? Why an article from months ago colored by Biden being the candidate?
Because you claimed that the Uncommitted voters would still fall behind Biden in the general, and that article very clearly shows many Muslim Americans would not. But you're right, there have been a lot of articles written in the last week about how Harris is trying to win back the Muslim groups that Biden lost. Those articles are also great examples of why Shapiro, who once said Palestinians are, “too battle-minded," for peace, is a bad VP pick.