449
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
449 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18998 readers
2314 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.
- 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.
- 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
We need a landslide for Kamala - Enough to scare at least a few republican SC members out of giving the win to the GoP out of fear of lynching when a bunch of states inevitably refuse to certify results
Then we need to be prepared for an actual attack on the government and pissed off Trumpers killing citizens
Can't assume anything but worst case and prepare for it as the GoP is in full Hitler's Nazi Party mode
Let's make it happen
Find how to register to vote for where you are
Find opportunities to volunteer for dems around you and online
Write letters to voters in swing states or in competitive downballot races
I would've imagine the first step is to get a gun or something
I'm not sure you understand what a revolution is. It doesn't involve attempting to work within the existing failed system to try to change the system.
Exactly. I encourage you all the buy a gun, because they all already have them.
Stock up for a couple months worth of supplies and food. Ensure you have some alternative ways to heat and cook food. Have some self defense strategies/supplies. It is a good idea to prepare for an emergency anyway. Worst case scenario, you are prepared for a natural disaster or power outage or a strike.
And after that, we need a revolution. Everyone appointed by Trump will be given the option of resigning office or being relocated to Gitmo. This has not been politics as normal. This has been an attempt to resurrect the late 19th-century spoils system.
Agreed. Kamala had the start of that during/ before the campaign. Like actually great performance. Since/ during the campaign, she's shifted to the right, focusing mostly on how "good she is for business" and touting Republican endorsements. She refused to engage with the uncommitted movement. Before the convention, her trajectory had her heading into the 50-55% zone by election day. That stalled out with her rightwing shift. She's on track to lose this election.
You don't deserve these down votes.
It's not just that Democrats need to win big to shut the other side up, they need to win big just to overcome their inherent disadvantage in the electoral college.
With Kamala sitting around 2.2% nationally on average, being within the margin of error of the states she needs to win, and her momentum seemingly stalled for the reasons you listed, Democrats should be worried.
As someone who would vote for her, or just about anyone who is not Donald Trump, I hate this.
Lemmy reacted the same with regards to addressing the reality around Biden's chances of winning and his obvious failings at being able to turn things around. Moderation have cultivated a toxic culture of radical rejection of any kind of criticism of Democrats. There were bans about it.
However, this condition is not unique to Lemmy. Its symptomatic across corporate/ cable news as well. The inability to accurately and faithfully address your own teams performance is absolutely hampering the left/ Democrats ability to be successful in this election. We need to be more critical of the people supposed to represent us because we need them to be actually capable of winning the election. The stakes are too high to leave entire sections of the actually registered Democratic electorate for Harris to be chasing Republicans (when that strategy has been demonstrated to fail for almost 30 years.
We need Harris to do better, not just because its the moral and right thing to do, but because we abso-fucking-lutely can not afford to lose this election. Don't hide a candidates weaknesses, bring them up and force them to address them. Force them to become a stronger, more electable candidate. I mean jesus fucking christ, your opponent is a felon and rapist. Harris can't do better than a 2% spread on DJT? Do fucking better Harris. Stop chasing the fucking Cheney war criminal families endorsement and go apologize to the uncommitted crowd.
How do you say she’s in track to lose. All the data I’ve seen makes me optimistic.
Safety for Democrats is leading in national polling by +10. Kamala isn't +5. She needs +5 to be break even due to structural issues like the electoral college and voter suppression. Her trajectory prior to, and through the convention supported her getting into the safety range. I think that because of what we've seen from the supreme court, this needs to be a blow out. We know republicans will be doing everything they can to steal/ cause chaos and confusion around results/ fail to certify etc. If it isn't violently clear from a major victory, this thing goes to Trump.
Its delusional to think that Kamala is on track for that kind of major victory, but as with Biden's performance and likelyhood of winning, self-delusion around their favorite teams ability to actually win seems to be Lemmy's kink.
538, which goes by electoral votes, has here winning 55 times out of 100. It's not an overwhelming win for sure and still not much better than a coin toss...but also not "on pace to lose the election."
538 is meaninglessly bad after Silvers exit. I get that you don't get it, but if Kamala doesn't "win by a landslide", which would be 55% plus in the national aggregate and winning basically all of WI/MI/MN/PA and at least one of AZ/NC/GA by numbers which do not warrant a recount, Republicans win.
They key that you need to understand is that break even, is actually losing badly for Democrats. The deck is literally stacked against them. And its going to be worse this time. Republicans realize that all they need to do is, if it comes down to one state, get that to the supreme court and they win. The Democratic path to victory has to be effectively uncontested/ insurmountable. Anything less and its Bush v Gore all over again.
Polls were historically accurate in 2022. To say they are meaningless makes no sense.
I have my concerns about the election for sure. But you claimed she is on pace for losing, the numbers suggest otherwise. Your hand wringing is not a good replacement for actual analysis.
I am 100 not saying the polls are wrong. However 538 completely changed when Nate Silver left. They are a shell of their former self and their models are a joke. No one should be taking them seriously. The weights and polls 538 was including in it's aggregate has Biden to win when he was polling at 37%.
If you want good polllingnirnmodelinf silver bullets, nates personal project is far superior.
I am 💯 a polls nerd and check my posts for some analysis I've done.
Go back to the data on 2020. Biden under performed his polling across the board. He was leading and did win, but not nearly the the margins he should have.
That's the thing: there are no numbers which do not warrant a recount here in Georgia anymore. The MAGA elections board has passed rules that force them to do hand counts (which they can easily fudge to be slightly off), then use that manufactured discrepancy as an excuse to refuse to certify. Even if there are a fucking million more votes for Harris, ratfucking it so that one hand count comes out 1,000,001 and another comes out 1,000,000 will cause them to say "welp, something went wrong and the vote is invalid" and send fucking Trump electors anyway.
So write off GA. Harris has to win Either NC or AZ to make it such that TWO state level results would have to be forced to the SC. Whichever Sunbelt state +1.
It's hard. "Doing ok" isn't fucking good enough and the apologists willing to make excuses for Democrats at every turn are the very reason Democrats struggle so hard to do anything legislatively or electorally.
Remember that the GoP is gunning to not certify election results so it goes to a Republican controlled SC that has been shown to be corrupt
I don't know what the threshold needs to be for the SC to behave, but it needs to be hit, whatever it is
What you just described is basically a statistical tie and worse odds than what 538 (regardless of it no longer being Nate Silver's original model) gave Hillary to win in 2016.
As I said, it's not much better than a coin toss. And what you just linked to has trump winning 35% of the time. If you say it is going to go one way 35% of the time and it never goes that way, your models are bad because it should have been 0%.
Also, polls were historically accurate in 2022.
Ah, goalpost-moving. I should have known.
Show me how I changed the standard?