140
'That's a fact': MAGA pollster says Kamala Harris 'leading by unbelievable numbers'
(www.rawstory.com)
They're trying to suppress Dem turnout.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
140 points (81.8% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4400 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Meanwhile, NY Times:
Is that seriously what they’re saying? Man they’re out of touch!
The chart is unreadable.
are they using < as the opposite of +? does this make sense to anyone else?
why?
They're using it as (+0<1), there's no - here bc that would be + (the other candidate)
well I appreciate the attempt to explain it.
still can't say I grok it. +0<1 just means plus nothing is less than 1 to me, which yeah, 0 is less than one.... but I'm too slow or sick today to comprehend the significance it's supposed to relate.
it makes sense to you?
I think it means + more than zero but less than one
So like, +(between 0.01 and 0.99)
TY! that makes more sense than whatever is going on in my head. phlegm vs math
Electoral College is biased towards Trump (or any candidate popular in red states which get more representation per capita). These polls mean nothing.
Vote vote vote.
MAGA pollster: "Harris is leading Trump by 50% in the end of September. Then in October, when Trump releases his October surprise, we can release a poll saying Trump is only down by 2%, showing he has the momentum. Then come November, we can release polls showing he was up 50% going into the vote and that proves [it was stolen from him/those numbers released by compromised Sec. of State are correct]."
MAGA pollsters try to scare MAGA voters into voting.
Or convince Harris voters that it's a done deal. It's not done until all the votes are in. No matter what polls say.
No she's not. In fact, no one is voting for her. Absolutely no one.
But if YOU vote for her, she just might win. You're the only one whose vote you can control, so go vote.
"The entire world is against Donald Trump," Baris told host Peter Navarro. "I mean, the idea that [Harris] is the underdog is ridiculous. Everyone from Fox News, the people who run Fox News to the people who run MSNBC want Harris to win, and even put their name to an endorsement for her."
I don’t trust anyone who says Fox News wants her to win. This person is either lying or delusional.
What a bullshit, clickbait headline. The actual story is at the end:
Baris claimed that conservative polls showed that Trump was tied or had a "believable" edge against Harris.
"And when you look at the track records of the pollsters in those two courts, right in those two camps, really, you know the ones who are showing the tighter race with Trump with an advantage, have better track records," he insisted.
He's not saying her numbers are "unbelievable" as in, "holy shit that's awesome!" He's saying they're literally unbelievable, as in, "I don't believe that's real."
"These results are so unbelievable, the Demonrats must have stolen the election from you! Now go ~~riot~~ peacefully make your voices heard while I stay far away from what you're off to do!"
Not quite a Karl Rove reaction, but similar. "These numbers can't be right, it's not the numbers we paid to get."
I was going to say, I'm sure they would find a 0.1% lead unbelievable.
Reading the article, it sounds more like Baris is making shit up to try and energize Trump voters.
And to set up the steal as "legitimate."
Whatever plan they decide to go with to steal the election they'll point to instances like this to "prove" it was stolen from them. :/
"On the one side, you have the one school that is showing Harris with a lead but leading by unbelievable numbers, Peter," he said. "That's a fact, you know. [...] And then really an edge that is not — is never going to materialize." Baris claimed that conservative polls showed that Trump was tied or had a "believable" edge against Harris. "And when you look at the track records of the pollsters in those two courts, right in those two camps, really, you know the ones who are showing the tighter race with Trump with an advantage, have better track records," he insisted.
So when he says “that’s a fact”, he’s trying to say it’s a lie.
Problem: She's not, she's really really not. The EC race, you know, the only one that actually COUNTS, looks like it will be a squeaker.
She is ahead in the polls by a narrow margin in enough states to carry the electoral college. It's still way too close, and we can't take anything for granted. But the best available data says that if the election were held today, the odds of Harris winning are at least better than a coin toss.
Last I saw, she hit EXACTLY 270 which is as narrow as it gets.
As of right now, 270 to win's polling averages put Harris ahead of Trump in NV, PA, and WI by 1.6, 1.7, and 2.1 respectively. Those leads are small, but larger than Trump's leads in NC or AZ which are at 0.8 and 1.0, and in a similar ballpark to GA's 2.0 Trump lead.
In MI, Harris has a lead of 4.2, which is better than Trump's 4.0 lead in IA and just behind his 4.3 lead in FL
Still too close, especially given how unreliable polls can be, but it's what we have to work with.
Don't believe the hype. VOTE.
This sounds like a fundraising headline only.
It was immediately followed by, "...but if you donate just $5 by our deadline today at 3pm, you'll be added to our list of Premium Gold tier Platinum Donors, and Trump promises he'll say thank you."
I’ve been told trump didn’t see my name on a list so many times I swear jd vance is secretly an elf.
Yeah they said the same thing about Hillary. Gotta get those EC votes
Gotta abolish that fuckin' thing, frankly. 🫣
Requires constitutional amendment. You know what doesn't? Getting rid of the Reapportionment Act. Expanding the House by a considerable margin will bring back a more fair EC.
That'll just create more things to gerrymander.
you know what else doesn't? bringing in puerto rico, guam and american samoa. they are citizens, they should have a real say.
Here's hoping something works.
Never seen a president win by a poll. Must be a new European thing?
An election is basically just polling everyone.
Yes but with a legal backing.
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.rawstory.com/harris-trump-polls/