492
Hey Dems, stop doomscrolling and go win the election
(www.washingtonpost.com)
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 14 Oct 2024
492 points (92.7% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2700 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As much as I want to buy into this optimism, I'm having trouble equating Harris's marginal lead in the average national polls with a comfortable electoral college lead.
When battleground state polling is within the margin for error for states she needs to win and the no toss-ups map looks like this, you really need to have an abundance of faith in professional poll aggregators' judgement and weightings to feel comfortable.
From the data table at the bottom of this Nate Silver article (below the sports betting), he suggests Harris needs to win the popular vote by a +2 to +3 margin in order to have a greater than 50% probability of winning the electoral college. The latest polling from the Silver Bulletin has her at +2.9, just enough to give her "a slight advantage, but with emphasis on slight."
Nothing about this makes me feel comfortable.
Thanks for all the doom scrolling links.
Yeah and Nate Silver was calling a landslide Clinton victory, too. It's just another talking head.
I was following that. Nate was saying 71.4% chance for Clinton (just checked again) when basically all of the rest of the media was treating it like 99%. Effectively he was the one suggesting she might actually lose. (Even if it still didn't seem likely)
Just two days out he even had her probability of winning at just 64.2%, still better odds than what we're seeing for Harris right now. And you're right, he was the only reputable poll aggregator who was making downward adjustments of that magnitude, that late in the race.
Trump can win Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, AND Arizona but Harris would still win if she gets Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
That's a comfortable lead no matter how you spin it. Its a lead, but within the margin of error. So there's work to do, in particular we must now step to the polls and vote. Close this out.
National polls don't matter. Ignore them. Focus on the electoral college maps and the specific states.
My brother in anti-Trumpism, the only spin here is yours in saying her lead is comfortable.
Your original OpEd focused on national polling, so that's what I responded to. But yes, ignore the national polling, focus on the swing states, the electoral college is what counts.
From the same WaPo article as your picture is this swing state focused chart:
It shows the 2020 polling error, which was largely in Trump's favor in swing states (other than GA). If the same polling error still exists now in 2024, all that comfort disappears. The polling error was even greater in Trump's favor in 2016, however was in Obama's favor in 2012.
The point not being that Trump will outperform the polls this time, but that margins of error matter, and the reality could swing either way. With polling in so many states being within the margins, we're likely seeing the closest election of our lifetimes.
And all this isn't meant to be doom and gloom, but I ain't going into this election with Clinton levels of comfort, again. You're absolutely right on the game plan though. If you live in any of these states, your vote this time will likely be more consequential than it ever will be.