this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
636 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4146 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Voters over 70 are backing Harris over Trump, 51 to 48 percent, Emerson College poll finds

A new poll shows some baby boomers and members of the Silent Generation are switching allegiances from former President Donald Trump to Vice President Kamala Harris. 

The Emerson College poll released Thursday  shows voters over 70 backing Harris over Trump 51 to 48 percent. That’s a small but positive shift for Harris, as last month, 50 percent of the group supported Trump while 48 percent backed President Joe Biden, who dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris last month.

The group includes some baby boomers, who were born between 1946 and 1964, and the Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

When it comes to Harris’s running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, 39 percent of voters have a favorable view. The same number has a favorable view of Trump’s number two, Ohio Senator JD Vance.

But 49 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of Vance while only 39 percent have an unfavorable view of Walz.

I can't believe Walz and Vance have the same favorable view.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

You can make a poll give you any result you want. Just like with elections and gerrymandering.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I can’t believe Walz and Vance have the same favorable view.

A lot of this is generically partisan. Walz has a 10% higher "Never heard of him" figure, and that's going to change depending on how the media frames him. I'm less worried about what actual Republican media tries (they've been pretty ham-handed with their early snipes) and much more worried what we're going to see out of the Papers Of Record, given that the NYT/WaPo Op-Ed boards were seriously gunning for Shapiro and now they're all being pissy about it.

But I also think Trump's kinda-sorta right, in saying that people don't really care about your VP. These are going to be hyper-partisan elections. The idea that you're going to have Republicans break ranks for Harris because of Walz feels overly optimistic. Not when they're still stuck on the FOX News bandwagon, and they're inevitably going to get an earful about how Tim personally lead a delegation of illegal Chinese Muslim Immigrants to a factory town in Ohio to hold up the jobs factory and steal all the jobs.

Overall favorability is going to decay as the parties go hard into the negative ads. And I fully believe this is going to be one of the grossest elections of my lifetime, what with Dems finally deciding to be mean to Republicans and Republicans being even more desperate and hysterical than usual.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

He's nationally unknown. As people get to know him more you'll see his favorable grow. Vance's won't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Those numbers are such bullshit. 538 has just a solid line of 39% or whatever the fuck. Literally nothing makes a difference. You know, we used to put world events on these graphs and see how the populace responded. Now… just line. They’re not human.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The larger number of 'not sure' may be due to having three extra weeks of knowing of Vance. Some people either are truly not sure or at least want to sound like they are carefully evaluating a candidate they only heard about in the last couple of weeks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

People like my mother, who, when asked about Vance responds “I’ve yet to read his works”; when asked about Walz “oh you mean Tom Cilz, right?”

Its the lead poisoning

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's what you get when fox news spouts outright lies and deception 24/7, when facebook controls the algorithm and gives zero fucks about content moderation, when campaigns are able to spend millions on attack ads, etc.

The U.S. election system is a joke.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

The U.S. election system is a joke.

The aristocrats.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The U.S. ~~election system~~ is a joke.

FTFY

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Imagine if you will a world so ignorant that its citizens could be unsure of a candidate like Trump or Harris, and then decide to vote for the other. This is America.