U.S Election

[Master Obit 808]

1 hour ago, La Tombe said:

If the world today was led by more women…the world would be better. I think so. Because most of women have more decency, are less corrupt, than some men like Trump. I’m depressed that most of countries today are still led by men since their foundation. I would like more women as president or prime minister in this world. 

Wrong. It's not the gender that matters, it's the ideology. Unfortunately, to get to such a position requires a certain level of narcissism and ruthlessness and that's why our female PMs haven't exactly been pillars of virtue either.

[Sinbabad 1,073]

27 minutes ago, La Tombe said:

0 degree of reflection there 

It’s your reflection who is absurd. You’re saying that women have better qualities, that the world would be a better place with women in power.

But at the same time you don’t want Marine Le Pen as president because you don’t share her opinions.

That shows that the more important thing is not gender but ideology.

[ajlposh 546]

This thread is making the Jimmy Carter one seem like a breath of fresh air

[Clorox Bleachman 2,382]

 

If Trump were female (what kind of hypothetical is that??) then this statistic would not exist. He could never have built his reputation from the 80s onwards without being a man. Regardless, womanhood does not make one a good leader by default, although in this case the better candidate is a woman.

[Summer in Transylvania 2,131]

1 hour ago, La Tombe said:

Most of countries today are still led by men since their foundation.

[Mango 155]

27 minutes ago, Master Obit said:

Wrong. It's not the gender that matters, it's the ideology. Unfortunately, to get to such a position requires a certain level of narcissism and ruthlessness and that's why our female PMs haven't exactly been pillars of virtue either.

Certainly the first one was, the second to a lesser extent. The less said about the third, the better.

[gcreptile 10,929]

Conspiracy theory time...

 

Iowa wasn't exactly on the minds of pollsters this year, and so not many polls were actually conducted.

But curiously, within 24 hrs after the Selzer poll, three republican-affiliated polls appeared, showing Trump +7, Trump +8, Trump +9:

https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1853284236112871763

 

Trump won the state in 2020 by +8, so it looks like these polls show that not much has changed here.

Especially the Emerson poll is curious. It was sponsored by "RealClearDefense" and came out basically simultaneous to the Selzer poll. RealClearDefense is an off-shoot of the RealClearPolitics site. It's unclear why a news aggregator blog would want to sponsor a poll.

 

It is becoming increasingly more likely to me that a lot of these polls are fake.

 

It happened in 2022, too, lots of polls predicting a "red wave" that never came. This year, it's even worse - as "normal" pollsters go out of business and journalism has to cut costs.

Simon Rosenberg keeps an eye on these "red wave" pollsters on X: https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1853214212048228543

He mentions some of these outfits that are decidely partisan like InsiderAdvantage. He counts over 70 polls in the last week that are probably narrative-setting polls. Over 50% of all polls!

 

Most notorious of these "we're independent, but actually not" pollsters is, of course, Rasmussen Reports. 

Mark Mitchell, the Rasmussen Reports CEO has tweeted that unfortunately, Selzer came out too late for them to "prove them wrong":

https://x.com/Mark_R_Mitchell/status/1852857348580356348

 

Because for Republicans, the polls are a partisan issue, another tool in their arsenal to influence elections. It's an "us vs. them" thing. He thinks that the Selzer poll was made on purpose to suppress republican turnout, ignoring that this poll has been around for decades. It's also projection.

The republican polling forms try to establish the idea that Trump is ahead by a lot, and if he loses, it can only be because of fraud (the Trump campaign has already started to claim fraud before the votes are actually counted).

 

Especially, the Iowa situation tells me that republican pollsters not only put their thumb on the scale, they probably fake results outright.

As a consequence, I believe that the following polling outfits are probably useless:

- InsiderAdvantage

- Trafalgar

- Emerson College

- TIPP

- Morning Consult

- Rasmussen Reports

- Atlas Intel

- every pollster associated with Tony Fabrizio

- American Greatness

Edit: - Mitchell Research

 

[The Old Crem 3,548]

I think there might be a big possibility that picking Walz over Shapiro could cost Kamala the election 

[time 8,567]

10 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I think there might be a big possibility that picking Walz over Shapiro could cost Kamala the election 

I'd go so far as to say there's a definite possibility of certain maybe.

[prussianblue 993]

@The Old Crem, maybe save this and refer to it daily? Could share it with the family too.

 

 

[Windsor 2,233]

Betting odds are favouring Trump.

 

Having said that the returns on a 50/50 bet for either of them make it worth a punt. 

[Mango 155]

8 hours ago, gcreptile said:

It is becoming increasingly more likely to me that a lot of these polls are fake.

It's infinitely more likely those are the ones showing Harris leading. She's the Democrats' weakest candidate since Kerry.

 

Also, Selzer ran a D+3 poll in a R+10 state.

[The Old Crem 3,548]

‘NEW: per @NBCNews final poll, share of voters who rate their election interest as at least 9 out of 10, by gender...

Year: Men/Women

2008: 79%/78%
2012: 79%/80%
2016: 76%/77%
2020: 84%/83%
2024: 74%/80%

If Harris wins tomorrow, this will be a big reason why.

 

On the other hand, Black voters (75%), Latino voters (64%) and 18-34 year olds (52%) lag behind the national average in election interest, w/ young voters especially trailing past years. If Trump wins tomorrow, that will be a big part of the story.’

[CaptainChorizo 1,968]

Think Harris wins tomorrow and will sweep all or almost all of the swing states.  Feels almost like a reverse 2016 where him and a lot of the Republican party have surrounded themselves with terminally online young consultants and idealogues. And Trump himself seems to have mentally declined a lot in the last few years  even if its not to the degree Biden did.

[The Old Crem 3,548]

Nevada Independent’s @RalstonReports predicts a Harris squeaker.

 

Thats a boost for Harris as he is highly respected. 

[Mango 155]

8 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Nevada Independent’s @RalstonReports predicts a Harris squeaker.

 

Thats a boost for Harris as he is highly respected. 

He predicted Nevada would go to Biden in 2020 by 4 points. It went by almost half that, by 2.4.

[livingbygrace 289]

have to say the feds have bad timing and kicked a wasp nest with this story of P Nut the squirrel and a Raccoon taken out of people's home and killed for no good reason.. It has gone viral and everyone is yelling about Government Over Reach, and making it an election thing now. Crazy world we are living in.

[The Old Crem 3,548]

‘Why both parties believe they’ve going to win:

Dems:
-Selzer/heartland polling/WA primary->Blue Wall
-Dobbs/women
-final NYT/Siena polls (mostly)
-a belief that they have the late momentum

GOP:
-early voting data
-betting markets
-national polls tightening
-a belief that there will be another polling error’

[arghton 6,633]

An outside perspective:

 

On one hand, we've got Harris. What are her largest controversies, gaffes, etc? Plagiarism, a couple of ads? I've never heard anyone explain why she's the devil, from an outside view she seems a decent person and somewhat normal despite those clumsy attempts to catch younger voters. Much more pleasant than Hillary "Pioneer of Women's Rights/Messiah/Martyr" Clinton.

 

On another there's Trump. Convicted felon, shady business deals with Russians and Saudis etc, kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, has praised Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-un and hanged out with Epstein and Diddy. Not to mention the countless amounts of false statements, sexual assault allegations, grifts (including that "Trump Bible" that turned out to be printed in China) and whatever else.

 

Harris' circle seems to have mostly younger Democrats.

Trump's circle? He says the most important part is that they're "completely loyal to him". There's again lots of more or less shady Russia connections (Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Kushner, Musk, etc.) and lots more scandals. 

Then there's the talk about "enemies from within" and using the National Guard to "handle" them. Of course, on top of all that, Project 2025. Transgender people are a small minority (est. 0.5-1%, more or less, according to a quick google search), but mentioned quite a large amount of times in there very negatively and might be the most common target of these alt-right "influencers/activists", YouTubers and others. Always easy to attack small minorities. 

 

I feel quite fortunate that the right-wing parties here at home have distanced from the present-day Republican party, I have hope that one day the Republicans would abandon Trump and his posse. Good were the times when Dubya was the epitome of American craziness to me, atleast he was funny. 

[maryportfuncity 10,592]

Trump's recent "microphone issues" which are gathering hits at an impressive rate: