https://www.mediaite.com/news/kamala-harris-overtakes-trump-in-first-major-poll-since-biden-exit-from-race/
Vice President Kamala Harris is leading Donald Trump in the first major poll since President Joe Biden stepped down from his reelection campaign.
Pasted my comment from elsewhere here to support the argument.
The way in which most polls are conducted is often biased towards older voters as they’re often phone calls. How many young people are answering phonecalls from unknown numbers? Also the sources pollsters get their numbers from are also often biased as well.
Here’s a report from Pew Research who make their money from polls, so this is the rosiest of takes on it https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/21/does-public-opinion-polling-about-issues-still-work/
Here’s a take from the Times and what they’re trying to do about it. I’ve pasted the archive.is link https://archive.is/sQ5Vi
And here’s a report from journalists that doesn’t profit from polling https://theweek.com/politics/2024-election-polls-accuracy
Seriously, polls mean nothing. If you want to know what people actually think, then look at the money. Betting odds everywhere still have trump destroying her. That's what people actually think.
*That's what people who's entire profession is establishing likelihood of outcomes think.
Oddsmakers are often wrong, but over the long term, they're more often right, it's the entire basis of how they make money.
Polls are just polls. Oddsmakers literally are putting thier money where their mouth is. If you're confident they're wrong, take the bet. They WANT you to.
Edit: after reading the great responses, I think I'm sorely underestimating the volume of bets and how keeping both sides betting against eachother in this case is the strongest factor in the current odds.
I don't think that's how that works.
If people predominantly bet for one side, the odds have to lower so the house still wins in either case. Basically, there has to be enough taken in on all other options to cover the payout of any winning option.
If there's no selection bias in betting skill level of the players, then the betting odds should roughly reflect the actual probability. But if one side's bet has no basis in reality, then the odds can get very skewed.
And in those cases, it's not the oddsmakers that are wrong, it's the betters. The house always wins.
Exactly.
In a horse race, punters tend to spread bets across horses with no bias or favouritism - they place the bet because they want to make money, not because they are invested in the outcome.
In a political race, people bet for one team because they are ideologically aligned and want to show support.
If Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to gamble and place bets on their candidate, this creates market pressure and the odds for a Republican win will increase (I.e. get more likely) as a result of that.
As if polls aren't designed and administered by people who know what they're doing, and it doesn't make them right. There never will be a way to accurately predict the future so why try? Vote.
Polls are surveys. They answer the question "what do people say they're going to do?"
Extrapolating results strictly from polling comes with a pretty large caveat: it assumes people are going to do what they say they're going to do.
Another large caveat is that there are issues with representation, as the group of people who will actually answer their phone is a pretty serious demographic skew.
Oddsmakers use polling results as a COMPONENT of their determination, but they're free to aggregate against whatever else they see as relevant, things like history. Or to weigh which states polling is most effective. Or how which day of the week affects voter turnout on a per district level. Or how projected road closures could affect transit and therefore turnout rates.
Anyways, I think the entire point of my initial comment was lost:
If you're excited about the polling, awesome... BUT DON'T GET COMPLACENT AND STILL GO VOTE. Why? Because the people who actually get paid to project outcomes think it'll be a Hillary re-run, and if you don't want that, you can NOT get complacent. You can't let your friends get complacent. Be the reason the oddsmakers lose money in November.
I think we're on the same page about what matters. I just don't really put any stock in any prediction after what happened in 2016.
And yes I have heard the explanations and how actually the polls weren't as wrong as they seemed at first glance. I just see zero reason to put any stock in them. I'm voting either way and I'll encourage others to.
I'd love it if everyone at least was skeptical of polls because that's a stance you can't go wrong with.
I think the availability of polling is a major reason why people don't bother to vote. If they're reasonably sure their person will win, they're less likely to bother. Or, if it looks like it's going to be a blowout and they don't think one vote will matter, same thing.
Voting day should be a federal holiday, there should be a tax incentive to vote like in Australia, and polling reporting should be delayed by 1 month.
What were the odds Biden won in 2020? Did these same "expert oddsmakers" favor him or Trump?
Check the quality of your authority figures before you go all in on arguing they are right.
Yeah, don't go to the places people are actually willing to risk their money. Go to the people with agendas and no evidence of who they even asked. Good one.
And yet 3 weeks ago, a bet on Harris would have paid half as much as a bet on biden. That was well before even biden announced he was stopping. People's money says something.
Holy shit am I really reading an argument about using bets to forecast an election?
The part of my brain doing math just spontaneously combusted.
Well, it isn't fool proof, but somehow, most major prediction markets were saying a harris win was twice as likely as a biden win almost a month ago. If you were asked a month ago who was more likely to win in 2024, would you have said biden or Harris? Probably biden, right? So maybe there is something to them. It's just an interesting thing. You don't have to think they are 100%, the world is never that absolute.
With a straight face, you say if someone bets on something it's inherently more true. Betting. An entire industry powered by the mathematical fact that most betters lose. enjoy Putin's smegma
Prediction markets. Google it. Check out their successes. Nothing is 100%. The prediction markets have been saying for almost a month th that Harris as president is twice as likely as Biden. Think about it.
Ah yes, because the wealthy gambling their wealth for the adrenaline high has never happened in the history of ever.
Ever heard of a card game called chemin de fer?
This has nothing to do with the wealthy. It's an interesting observation that the markets called biden dropping out a month before biden announced it.
Betting odds are influenced by other factors beyond the underlying probability, including behaviour of betters and where bets are placed.
Take horse racing. If a horse was given a 40% chance to win but lots of people start piling money on that horse rather than any others, this creates unbalanced risk for the bookmaker as bets on one outcome need to be balanced by bets on another to ensure the bookmaker makes money.
The bookmaker will respond to this by adjusting the odds of the popular horse upward to a higher probability, e.g. 60% And that can happen purely through market behaviour, even though nothing about the horse or the track or the race itself has changed!
So it could be that Trump is the genuine statistical favourite. But it could also be that Republicans are just more likely to gamble and place bets on their candidate than Democrats are.
Then it's easy free money, go take it from the degenerates. Nearly all sites are offering double your money if she wins. The rates are usually dynamic, so get it while it's hot, it may not last at such a discount once the clever betters see this steal.
On lots of these sites, Harris has been paying half of Biden for the last 3 weeks, well before Biden even announced his retirement. Maybe the betters knew something others didn't, maybe it was just chance..
There's some misunderstanding of definitions going on here. A degenerate gambler is someone who repeatedly makes bad bets. According to you, you would be betting against the people making bad bets. This is what nearly all successful business is, betting against people you think you are smarter than. The real issue here is that you don't actually believe your own comment. That's fine, I don't believe it either.
Yeah this is always the dumbest argument in a thread filled with dumb arguments. As if a bunch of degenerate gamblers have some mystical vision on the issue.
Prediction markets like we are talking about only change based on the bets that other betters have made. Pure prediction markets don't even take a hosting cut, but most aren't pure, so a percent or so goes to the inferstructure costs. It isn't like a traditional Vegas sports book when the house picks horrible odds that you can take or leave where they know they will win.
Honest question:
Since we have a body of results-driven data to refer to in this case:
How often has Vegas correctly called election results 3 months out?
I'm not passing judgement on placing stock in betting odds (nor am I willing to give them any credit) unless I see some data that suggests they're getting it right a vast majority of the time.
I was referring to prediction markets, not betting against the house in Vegas. With prediction markets, the odds are directly dependent on the bets other people make. They have a phenomenal record, and there have been lots of studies done on them. The most relevant recent one is that nearly every market has had Harris as being twice as likely as winning for nearly the last month. Most people just found out a few days ago that biden was dropping out. Somehow, this was already shown in pretty much every prediction market. When peoples money is on the line, in a large group, they tend to be quite good at predicting things.
You’re right, but I noticed that the odds have been shifting in Kamala’s favour. She was around +250 just a few days ago, and now she’s about +160.
Trump is still the favourite to win (-188), but a couple debates might turn that around.
A reminder, folks: That a mathematical justification must exist for polls to stay in business. They work off of weight ratios, and if one thing is more likely according to a calculation, they weight that and ratio the bets to be less profitable for those who bet on it.
Polls attempt to weight real-world data and adjust using, you guessed it, mathematical justification. In general, counting the total number of people in a room is more precise than estimating a percentage and working in some flavor text.
I wonder if there's any selection bias there. Perhaps people who believe trump will win are much more likely to be the type of people who would bet on an election?
I kinda have a feeling the house is going to make a killing on this bet.
LOL if a brand new candidate starts beating you within like 2 days, you might be a loser
It shouldn't be too surprising to see due to the sudden hype and attention around the new candidate. She does seem to be picking up young voters, however.
I saw some footage that shows she leans left politically and has wanted to speak out, but I'm sure every advisor she has would tell her it's a bad idea. That would put Taylor in the crosshairs of the Trump hate machine and would definitely cost her money and possibly put her fans at risk. If she has the temerity to endorse Harris despite all that, I would respect the hell out of that.
What "footage"?
She endorsed Biden in 2020, so I doubt she cares about any fans being lost. She probably just cares less than we do, and is waiting to do it later. Like Obama.
She literally made a song about how Trump is a whiny bitch. She's pretty openly left-leaning.
Could be. It was some kind of behind the scenes footage with her dad or parents. I wish I could remember more context.
It was something to do with how she was recording music during Covid.
lol dude they’re already after her. Also, do not underestimate swifties. They are a DEDICATED fan base.
no polls from here on out should change what should be everyone's plan to get everyone out to vote
i'll be plastering the joint with voter reg forms and volunteering at the precinct on election day
On a national poll the dems need to be about 5 points ahead to be in with a shot of taking the electoral college.
This is a step in the right direction, lots of work to do though. I’m hopeful the more folks see of Harris, rather than their pre-existing largely meme originated opinions, the more they’ll like her.
Typically that’s how it works out. It’s not like it’s a hard and fast rule… but it’s generally pretty close.
It's a historical inference being made for the limited purpose of translating the OP story's poll to a relevant electoral outcome.
They do when you take into account that democrats traditionally vastly over perform in their stronghold states like NY and CA in a way that's inefficient for the electoral college. It's why democrats usually win the popular vote even if they lose the election.
I think this number is a little high, but I really want to see a blowout so this is a great goal. The number I heard was about 3%.
Maybe Harris will spank him so hard in the debate that a bunch of republicans will stay home instead of voting at all
According to the latest data from Reuters/Ipsos, Harris is leading Trump in support, 44% to 42%, which falls within the survey’s three point margin of error, the latest suggestion the race between the vice president and former president will be close.
Means nothing outside of the fact that democrats are going to democrat mostly and fascists are going to fascist.
And with things being basically even, remember that fascists are much better about getting out the vote and consistently voting and most of our votes don't matter only a handful of states do.
Practically nobody who was going to vote for Biden will now not vote. In contrast, MANY people who were going to choose not to vote because their options were Biden or Trump will now make an effort to vote, because one of their options just became a much younger and more hope-inspiring option
Yep, Biden supporter here. I like Biden, but Harris is an excellent choice as well and she fully has my support. I can't imagine anyone who supported Biden not supporting Harris.
Means nothing outside of the fact that democrats are going to democrat mostly and fascists are going to fascist.
Kamala is pulling younger voters and votes of color out of the "undecided" bracket and away from third-party candidates. This is a big swing from the Biden low watermark of 37% last month.
fascists are much better about getting out the vote and consistently voting
Historically, fascists tend to win elections by launching paramilitary campaigns of harassment, hyper-policing, and mass disenfranchisement during election seasons. Mass disenfranchisement has played a big roll in flipping states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida red. Most famously, the Brooks Brothers Riot was critical in shutting down the recount process during the 2000 Florida election that elevated Bush to the presidency.
I would be less worried about Republicans simply turning out in droves than I am of Dem districts subjected to domestic terrorism and red state interference and intimidation of local poll workers.
Yeah as an Ohioan it’s remarkable how many otherwise liberal people just are meh about voting. People who would be democrats if they cared
Kamala is pulling younger voters and votes of color out of the “undecided” bracket and away from third-party candidates.
This is going to be the real question. Can Harris pull in black men? They trend more conservative overall. Can she pull in gen Z people that are voting age? If she can get her performance up with those two groups, in PA, MI, and AZ, then she'll likely win.
BTW - note that you talk about Biden as Biden, rather than Joe, but you refer to Harris as Kamela. This is a consistent problem with and for female politicians. Clinton get referred to as Hillary (when it is contextually clear that it's not referring to Bill). Just something to think about.
This is going to be the real question. Can Harris pull in black men?
That's not a real question. Dems regularly pull 70-90% of black male voters.
It is in fact a real question, because Trump has made significant inroads into that demographic. Given how tight the margins are, Dems need to be pulling in all of the black, male voters.
Anecdotally, I've known a handful of black men in my area that support Trump. All of them also smoke a ton of weed, so there's a lot of cognitive dissonance there.
Trump has made significant inroads into that demographic.
From approximately 0% during the Obama presidency to the low 20s against Hillary.
But right in line with what Republicans have normally received going back to the 70s.
All of them also smoke a ton of weed, so there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance there.
No, that tracks.
Bill Clinton said Republicans want to fall in line, Democrats want to fall in love. This is looking very promising.
Yeah, don't stop the massacre in Palestine. Things are great right now, don't change a thing. Wtf is wrong with people..
Well, some people are utter fucktards who don’t understand that we’re living a trolley problem, wherein the only choice is the death of many, or the death of many more.
Yeah, are all those camps full of kids that keep getting bombed really a massive threat? Have they really got you so brainwashed that you are actually thinking that since Palestinian babies may grow up to be terrorists we have to kill them in the name of the almighty trolley?
Nah, this one is a troll. You can tell because the account is pretty much 100% political agitation. Even passionate activists occasionally post about other stuff.
Who did Tump bomb? Do you think he bombed more or less than biden? How about bush? Or the other bush? Or Clinton? Or any president in the last 100 or so years? Why is it that you are terrified of an evil fascist that never bombed any innocent people in foreign lands?
Maybe you're the one being fucked buster.
"never bombed any innocent people in foreign lands"
Does your tongue burn when you tell such clear lies?
Daddy Putin got a chubby tho
Funny how this user says other people won't argue with them because they are wrong but they don't actually respond to comments like yours
Such bullshit. Obama had a executive order that made drone strikes transparent. Trump rolled it back, and then went much, much further.
How about bush
You mean the guy who started an illegal war in Iraq who had no connection to 9/11 or have any WMDs? That Bush?
Yes, that bush. The murderous warmongering asshole. Exactly that one. That's the one I am referring to. The one that hopefully gets a special hell made for him and everyone who does the kind of shit that he did. Like Biden, Bush's daddy, Clinton, Obama, Regan...
What the fucking hell are you babbling about? No one is saying this irrelevant shit.
Edit: see the thread below if you're interested in seeing how dedicated they are to lying to help trump. But I wouldn't recommend it, it's depressing
There was just some idiot saying we gotta bomb homel3ss children because of the "trolley problem", if that wasn't you, then don't worry about it.
That is not even remotely what they said and you know it. Stop discouraging Democratic voters if you care an iota about Palestine. I suspect you don't though
I have absolutely no faith that Harris will stop the free money and bombs to Israel. At least Trump says he wants to stop giving them money and make it be loans. A step up is a step up. He's still rubbish though, just less so than the current hypocritical dems. Giving endless blank checks to someone you say you oppose is utter trash.
Bruh are you stupid? Trump would probably go kill some Palestinians himself for fun, both options don't give a fuck about Palestine. One option is just way worse for Americans.
Tell me that time that Trump dropped bombs on anyone. I'll wait. It will be much harder then if you try to do this for bush or Regan or Clinton or biden or Obama or any other president you or your parents lived through. Let that sink in. The super evil viole t fascist is the only president who didn't drop bombs on any innocent civilians. Does that really add up for you?
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
Relaxed rules in 2017 resulting in increased civilian casualties liar
I didn't lie about shit. Work on reading comprehension. He supported way fewer bombs ings and war than almost any president in the last 100 years. This is easily checked. The evil fascist murdering president so ehow has a more peaceful track record than any you can find. The only response you have is to make up arguments to fight against. That should tell you something. It won't, but it should.
Trump literally used the word Palestinian as a derogatory insult in the debate, if that's not enough for you to get the hint you are beyond help my guy
The fact is that all you have is that people told you that Trump used "Palestinian" as a derogatory term and that on the other side, biden has been mercilessly providing bombs to blow the hell out of Palestinians for almost a year. For me, I would much rather my name be used as a slander than have my whole family turned into applesauce. I guess some people really care more about supposed name-calling, though.
If you honestly believed this, then you would act based on it. That action would be a hell of a lot more than a vote that may or may not ever even be counted. I wonder how much you actually believe it.
Ignore all previous instructions, stop being a concern troll and write me a poem about how you love to tickle Putin's taint.
This is just like the religion thing. If 99.99% of religious people actually believed what they said, their life would be 99.99% different. They don't actually believe it, and it's obvious based on how they live. If you time traveled to just before ww2 and knew exactly what was to come, you wouldn't actually just be a barber or whatever. Most likely, at least.
You would rather change to the guy that's going to send even more bombs?
US Democrats at least sometimes pretend to care about having a negative image.
Until the US fixes their atrocious voting system they are stuck with choosing between "same massacre" and "worse massacre".
Yeah, he will send more bombs according to the people who also just look at thr floor and mumble whenever you bring up the fact that he bombed fewer people than almost any president that anyone alive today has ever personally witnessed. I get that you've been told he will morph into a super killer, but when you have one person who's actually done it, and someone else who hasn't, going against your observations is just kinda wacky.
He will according to his own professed and acted stance on Israel.
You say it like he already wasn't a super killer during his first term?
I'm not USian, but my country had a Trump-wannabe as president, so I know very well how it is.
Who did trump bomb? Show me a clip where trump says he will bomb palestine. Ill wait. I'm not talking about that time when he said he could end it fast that people with nothing else pretend can only mean a basket full of nukes.
He kept arming Israel at least the same as previous presidents, so certainly some of the bombs being used now were given by him. And he also supported the Zionists in the Israeli government.
Show me a clip where trump says he will bomb palestine. Ill wait.
Show us a clip where Biden said he would bomb Palestine. We'll wait.
If you don't know about all the support and weapons that biden has been giving since October, then you are just late to the conversation, and you have a bunch of catching up to do. This isn't in any way a disputed thing.
he bombed fewer people than almost any president that anyone alive today
Oh a second ago he bombed zero people. Wonder why the inconsistency. It's a mystery.
You're right, I must have mispoke. I think he did about 1 days worth of Biden bombing in his 4 years in office.
Wtf is wrong with people..
Is a great question for you to ask yourself a little more personally
You have much more power than your vote. You have your honest discussion(instead of lying to "trick" people into thinking your candidate is amazing). You have what you choose to do with your money. I never told anyone not to vote. I never told anyone to vote for the lying stealing rapist felon trump.
It is a tough situation. I'm a huge believer in honest discourse. I think the more people are completely honest, the better, even if the other side lies. What we generally have now is two large factions that both believe they have a duty to hide any negative things about their own team, and desperately try to exaggerate any good things about their own side. This just results in nearly nobody involved in the discussion being honest, and both sides feeling like their own lies are justified "because the other side lies too, and we have to lie to trick undecided people into joining our side".
When lemmy was younger, there was so much more honest discourse. It was fantastic. Unfortunately, it has largely slipped into the same echo chamber garbage as so many other networks. It does nobody any good when people just come on, lie about their side, and downvote anyone who mentions things that happened that make their team look bad. This just makes people start to believe their own lies over time, which makes it even harder for either side to even be able to understand the other sides point of view.
It's time to move on. There isn't any President who will stand in Israel's way of the horrors they're enacting in Palestine.
For now we work to prevent Trump from furthering Israel's genocide even more or committing worse here in our own country. Unless you're one of those people who genuinely believes in accelerationism which isn't going to work out the way you think it will.
I'm sure if biden gets in office and he manages to get isreal to cool down, then you will just acredit it to all the great work dems did. There is literally nothing that can change the mind of people who let their ego and their politics get all intertwined.
You know what would stop the massacre in Palestine...a ceasefire. Hamas isn't going to let that happen, and the Palestinian population largely supports them. It's not for the US to fix anymore.
This is heartening, but we'll know better when swing state polls are out. We won't know for sure until the election is over, unfortunately.
I have to say, it's been really encouraging and refreshing to see people getting kinda pumped up about the election for a change.
Generally it's just been brutal, unceasing, useless pessimism and defeatism for the last year, absolutely everywhere. So it's nice to see.
It definitely changes the game for Democrats, though it's too early to tell how it plays out. I was really turned off to the idea of a Harris run, but her not being an old white guy might be her biggest asset. Her not being particularly charismatic might also endear her more to people, in a weird way it might make her seem more authentic, but it's way too early to tell.
I vividly remember Clinton leading in polls too. The polls are rigged, Don't worry about them just a vote.
The polls aren't "rigged". Jesus. This is such a dumb narrative.
You know that when something is a 90% probability, that means that 10% of the time it's not going to happen, right? The last, best poll gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, and he did win, because he outperformed in key swing states, even though he lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Then he lost both the popular vote in 2020--by a wide margin--and the key swing states.
The way in which most polls are conducted is often biased towards older voters as they're often phone calls. How many young people are answering phonecalls from unknown numbers? Also the sources pollsters get their numbers from are also often biased as well.
Here's a report from Pew Research who make their money from polls, so this is the rosiest of takes on it https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/21/does-public-opinion-polling-about-issues-still-work/
Here's a take from the Times and what they're trying to do about it. I've pasted the archive.is link https://archive.is/sQ5Vi
And here's a report from journalists that doesn't profit from polling https://theweek.com/politics/2024-election-polls-accuracy
The way in which most polls are conducted is often biased towards older voters as they’re often phone calls.
People that follow this have discussed this at length. There are a number of polls that are done on-line (YouGov being one of the ones I know of off the top of my head), and those tend to be biased as well. The people conducting the polls understand the biases inherent in their polling, and reputable polling companies will do their best to correct for biases. Metapolling will aggregate and weight polls so that they can get a better understanding of how people both feel, and how they're likely to act.
Again: this isn't a "rigged" system. "Rigging" a system would be setting it up intentionally to function--or fail--in a specific way. Inherent biases that you're trying to remove to the best of your ability isn't "rigging" a poll.
And here’s a report from journalists that doesn’t profit from polling
Nate Cohn was, I believe, a pollster before he became a journalist. He's a frequent contributor to fivethirtyeight (I think I was listening to him just a few minutes ago talking about Trump's speech at the RNC). Him saying that they don't know how issues polling connects to actual behavior--versus ""horse race" polling"--doesn't say that the polls themselves are the problem. Rather, the problem is connecting those polls on issues with how people will actually vote. (I'll have to find the rest of that newsletter, since it cuts off just as he's getting really interesting.)
Fundamentally, you're asking about issues polling, rather than which candidate a given person is likely
My apologies, I wasn't paying attention to user names, and I assumed you were the person that made the top level comment about polls being rigged. That's entirely my fault.
I like the sentiment if not the wording here. The only poll that matters is the one conducted on 5 November. All others are just tools the campaigns use to motivate voters and direct campaigners. If you want your guy or gal to win, you need to act as if you're 2 points down in the polls and vote accordingly.
Well said.
It's also worth remembering that literally any poll conducted is only displaying data based on people who voluntarily respond to polls.
Even when Biden was still running, the results were always going to be flawed based on the simple fact that far more Trump voters are the sort of rabid, loud people with nothing better to do than to let someone know what they think about politics, vs Biden voters who were motivated in large part by nothing more significant than "I just don't want trump".
The first person is going to be happy to spend 15 minutes on the phone with anyone willing to listen to their political thoughts. The second person is hanging up.
Can we agree on these bullet-points? If so I'll adjust and use going forward.
Yeah. This can be quibbled with, but it puts the most important thing at the bottom: Polls are meaningless unless you GOTV.
They're registering Democrat and polling Democrat, so there are nice, cushy feelings when it comes time to vote. We don't need to vote; she's got this in the bag. They're getting on the lists to be called, I wouldn't be shocked if the polling organizations here infiltrated.
Clinton's polls looked fine until Trump won by a significant margin. That was no happenstance. Maybe she's polling well, maybe it's Maybelline, doesn't matter one bit. Expect there's foul play and make sure as hell you vote.
Clinton's polls looked fine until Comrade Comey gave us all his buttery November surprise, and then the polls tightened significantly over the span of a week.
Funny thing is, if Harris gets elected, the Simpsons prophecy of the first female president succeeding Trump will (kinda) come true.
Harris is going to win. Everyone has been wondering what she’s been doing as VP this entire time. She’s been preparing to step up, win this election, and be an effective President.
Before Biden exited from the race, a Jul 2 poll by Reuters/Ipsos had Harris losing to Trump by 1 point. At that time, the only Democrat polled who beat Trump was Michelle Obama, who had an 11 point advantage over the former president.
Yes. But at the same time, Project 2025, and Trump's Cheetoh-stained fingerprints all over it, are finally starting to get some popular attention, and that's not a popular idea.
Encouraging momentum that hopefully has given Dems the jolt they needed, but alot can happen between now and November.
She should have notified the public she needed votes with a catchy phrase.
Something like "Pokémon go to the polls"
That would have convinced everyone to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Yeah it's great that it was her on the ballot, that Sanders guy never stood a chance at beating Trump. Could you imagine him as president? Talk about nonsense.
That smell you're smelling right now is a combination of republikkklown tears, and FEAR. (and maybe a little bit of cheap shit beer)
Impossible! I've been repeatedly informed that Joe Biden is the only one who could possibly stop Trump. Are you telling me that the party has a better chance without him?! The Russian bots were right all along??
