this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
167 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19234 readers
2227 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More than 1.4 million have already voted in the presidential election, as battleground state polls show no clear frontrunner

More than 1.4 million people have now voted in the presidential election, as Kamala Harris and Donald Trump continue to crisscross the country in the final stretch of a neck-and-neck campaign.

Their vice-presidential picks, JD Vance and Tim Walz, also faced off this week in the only vice-presidential debate of this cycle. But initial polls suggested voters saw the debate as a draw, without clear impact on the race.

Harris earned her highest national polling average since July, though the presidential race remains extremely close in battleground states, according to the Guardian’s poll tracker. Harris is leading in five of seven swing states, according to the Guardian’s average of high-quality state polls aggregated by the polling analysis platform 538 over the last 10 days. But overall, both candidates continue to have about even odds of winning.


🗳️ Register to vote! https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The Guardian’s tracker is based on an average of high quality polls over the last 10 days compiled by 538. As of Friday, the forecasting site said the race was essentially a toss-up, with Harris having a 55% chance of winning and Trump having a 45% chance.

Huh?

Also, I'm a firm believer that liberals don't answer phone calls from numbers they don't know and conservatives are the type to send money to Indian call center scammers just because they called.

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

I wonder if the percentages refer to the popular vote, and it's a toss-up because of the GOP advantage in the Electoral College?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

They do use weights and adjustments to deal with this. I don’t know about US polling but in the UK there is a shy conservative factor. People don’t like to say or admit they are conservative, so the polls factor this in. They also factor who answers and responds and try to correct for it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

liberals don’t answer phone calls from numbers they don’t know

Conservatives don't signal when they are going to vote against their candidate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Asking pollsters to be mind readers is a bit much, in my book. Besides. How can we count on Conservatives not voting for Trump? In that polling place, with hopes for more Conservative judges, fewer abortions, and more 'Real America', the cagey Conservative can vote for the evil without having to own that vote. I've met plenty of Conservatives who say, "I don't like the guy personally, but I do like my 6-3 court, and Liberals want to take that away from me."

If they vote for us, great! That'll make a marginal victory into a landslide victory, and might push a marginal loss into a solid victory. But we can't count on them. We need to do the work to make sure we get past that 50%+1 margin in at least 270 EVs worth of states and not count on other people to do it. I don't want to wake up Wednesday morning and see that Stein got more votes in the state that we needed to get to 270 than Trump won that state by....

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the methodology isn't good, they should ask if the respondent is a republican or a democrat before asking for whom they intend on voting, they could this way adjust the response rate according to the actual number of voters of each camp and compensate the tendency of the democrats to not answer the phone. /s

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

a perfectly placed /s is golden. bravo.