Donald Trump gets bad news about Kamala Harris (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 1 month ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 108 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A new poll suggests Kamala Harris, if leading the Democratic presidential ticket, could beat Donald Trump in the popular vote.

Emphases mine.

Just a reminder that Hillary won the popular vote by about 2.9 million yet we got Trump anyway because of the electoral college.

I hate that the stakes are so high and we're at the mercy of swing state voters who are still undecided at this point. As for myself, I'll be sticking with the candidate that has already beaten Trump once.

(Laughs nervously)

[-] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it's like... no shit, few of us expect Democrats to lose the popular vote unless our guy does something like bribes a pornstar or commits fraud or something.

[-] Kolrami@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

few of us expect Democrats to lose the popular vote

Anything is possible. Long before the debate, national polling for Biden has been significantly worse than he performed in 2020 and Clinton in 2016.

[-] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

I do not believe in 'undecided' voters. I don't think they exist.

So this is not going to be decided by then. This is going to be decided very simply: will enough people in the right states bother to vote?

[-] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I agree. There are no undecided, only people that don’t answer polls. There isn’t anyone so disconnected from reality that they can’t feel if they like a president or not. Especially since we’ve seen both at work.

[-] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago

It's way worse, though. It was an online survey. You know. The kind of survey that a shit ton of people who vote wouldn't have participated in. There's a lot of 70 year olds who vote, are misogynistic, and still lean hard to the right. Those people don't take surveys and polls on the internet.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

While the online poll showed Harris leading Trump in a popular vote, the popular vote does not decide presidential elections

The poll does not appear to have anything to say about swing states…

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I dont want her to be president.

But she's the only one the DNC will let run. And she can actually beat Trump in the general.

Unfortunately Biden and his supporters are willing to let trump win than someone besides Joe. Even though Kamala is going to do all the shitty neo liberal shit they want, and probably pull the same no primary shit in 2028 if she wins this election.

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

I think anyone below the age of 70, with the blessing of the DNC, can win. Trump is a weak candidate who only really appeals to angry dumb people and guys with bags of money.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yep

Moderates want to act like he's some great politician that's unbeatable except for checks notes two of the most unpopular Dem candidates to ever run for president?

The last 8 years has felt like a mashup of Groundhogs Day and Brewster's Millions.

But for whatever reason, at least on here some people seem to have fully fallen for it

[-] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I'm pessimistic and hope I'm wrong, but I think we might be underestimating the pull of racism/sexism that still exists.

I feel like if we put Kamala at the top of the ticket, she'd need a really strong and 'traditional' running mate. Like, this guys got to be the straightest, whitest and richest guy you've ever seen. I kinda feel like they've been exploring that with a lot of top democratic people meeting with Biden lately.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A new poll brings bad news for former President Donald Trump, as it suggests Vice President Kamala Harris would have a 2-percentage-point edge over Trump among registered voters if she secured the Democratic presidential nomination.

Since June 27, following President Joe Biden's poor debate performance against Trump, pressure has mounted on the incumbent to drop out of the 2024 presidential race, with several congressional Democrats urging him to step aside and allow a different candidate to take the party's nomination.

The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, released Thursday, surveyed 2,431 adults and found that if Harris were to replace Biden on the Democratic presidential ticket, she would lead Trump in the popular vote: 49 percent to 46 percent among all adults.

The poll, conducted online between July 5 and 9, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, which could place the candidates in a deadlock.

Despite the pressure, Biden has repeatedly reaffirmed that he is not dropping out of the race, and no official candidates have been proposed by congressional members, though some are looking to his vice president.

The Democratic National Convention, where the party is set to officially nominate a candidate, is scheduled to take place in Chicago from August 19 to 22.

The original article contains 559 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

National polls for presidential candidates are not only irrelevant, but actively harmful.

[-] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

....to which Mr. Trump replied.

"Fetch me two more Big Macs, young man."

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yay polls!

Polls are so great. So much fun.

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Much accuracy

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Woo, she'd barely win the popular vote and lose the electoral college!

Why don't we get a real fucking candidate.

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 4 points 1 month ago

because the DNC doesn't want a real candidate. They still don't even think Trump's a threat.

Both sides had 4 years to prepare. The GOP, as much as I loathe them, used those years well to develop a plan to destroy our democracy. The Democrats decided early on that they had 2024 in the bag, and have done nothing in the intervening years. They could have picked basically any Democrat and built up their candidacy for the last four years, they could have had a real primary with debates, but instead we've all been told to shut the fuck up and vote blue no matter who.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That’s the problem, isn’t it? Show me your idea of a real candidate and I’ll find you a bunch of Dems who would rather have Harris or stick with Biden.

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

There are a number of them being floated right now. If Biden had dropped out a year ago, they would've had a traditional competition in the primary. Then we would've all gotten complacent and assumed we had it made, and we'd end up in 2016 again.

But to directly answer your question, the names I see being floated the most are CA gov Newsom, MI gov Whitmer, KY gov Beshear, and PA gov Shapiro. And yes, switching to any of them would be difficult and risky.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Buttigieg is also brought up pretty frequently and while I'm not a huge fan of him he seems to poll better than Harris. Personally I'd prefer a climate focused candidate like Whitehouse but I know it's a hard sell to the establishment.

[-] jeena@piefed.jeena.net -3 points 1 month ago

I would vote for Michelle Obama if I were American.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

You generally don’t get good performance by hiring someone who doesn’t want the job.

[+] Sanctus@lemmy.world -9 points 1 month ago

Good thing she's VP to an ancient already. What's the angle here? We get her either way dont we?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hey!

It's that account that literally just said it has to be Joe because Kamala wasn't polling ahead of trump even tho she's not campaigning yet...

What's the new reason for why only Joe can be the candidate now?

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

[removed by mod]

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

What’s the new reason for why only Joe can be the candidate now?

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

Newsweek sucks and doesn't even link this new wonderous poll. There's your reason.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

So...

If I link you the poll, I'll get to hear the new reason?

In the interest of speeding this along:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-age-campaign-poll/story?id=111825221

That links to the pdf.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

So first off:

As the horse race shows, those views may not be determinative. Biden's job approval rating is stable, albeit at a weak 36%. Though neither is broadly popular, Biden continues to have a better personal favorability rating than Trump. And Biden leads Trump by 17 points, 39%-22%, in being seen as more honest and trustworthy, essentially unchanged from the spring.

What these polls focus on determines their outcome. People think Biden is more trustworthy than Trump. Which is a good thing I guess.

Second:

Were Vice President Kamala Harris to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee, vote choices are 49-46%, Harris-Trump, among all adults (and 49-47% among registered voters). Harris’ 49% is slightly better than Biden’s 46%, although she doesn’t have a statistically significant lead over Trump.

They claim she has no statistical lead. So are we just pussy footing around here yelling at each other? She's the VP anyway, at 81 Biden has a high fucken chance of not serving the whole term. Not that I'm advocating for that. But the last time we did this, again I'll reiterate, we fucking lost dude. People dont like swapping candidates this late, it creates uncertainty. Which, could consume Harris's entire nonstatistical lead. I'm down with whatever, I'll vote D. But that doesn't mean I won't say shit when we are repeating history again either way we slice it.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

But the last time we did this, again I’ll reiterate, we fucking lost dude

The last time we ran an incumbent like Biden, we fucking list dude.

That's what you're not understanding.

Everything we normally go off of, says Biden will lose.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Barack didn't lose my guy. That was the last incumbent we ran.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The last time we ran an incumbent like Biden,

An incumbent like Biden

#AN INCUMBENT LIKE BIDEN

not just "an incumbent"...

Biden has a 34% approval rating and the first incumbent since Jimmy Carter to not sweep his party's primary...

That's what you're not getting.

You think if we replace him. It means we'll lose because we replaced a candidate before and lost.

But if you want an incumbent similar to Biden...

Damn near everything lines up with Jimmy Carter.

What can you tell the class about Jimmy Carter's second term in office?

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

This argument is useless. I'm voting D. If you want to run around and scream until your head falls off that Biden needs to go then so be it. All your doing is sowing division. I'm getting it. I'm getting it completely. Switching the candidate this late will make all the swing voters uncertain, it just will. Because we dont have a shining beacon to align behind no matter how much you want Harris or anybody else. Nobody cares about those people, none of them are inspiring.

You're trying to bring up Jimmy Carter's second term for no reason. It doesn't matter because Carter was not attempting to resist a hostile takeover. The only thing that should be happening right now is the FBI jamming itself all the way up every Republican ass for being demostic terrorists. Then we should both, the Rubepublicans and the Democrats, get new candidates and run it. Thats what we deserve. But its not happening. It won't happen for Trump, and Biden would need the donors to cut the ~~dark~~ campaign funds.

But none of that is happening. What is happening is a fascist wannabe dictator will run. Thats a fact. Sensible people will just vote against him and the tipping point will be whether or not we have enough sense left in us to prevail. Enjoy. This is going nowhere and is not constructive.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Sensible people will just vote against him and the tipping point will be whether or not we have enough sense left in us to prevail.

Then we won't lose any votes switching the candidate...

And the most important thing is stopping trump.

So we should switch candidates to get as many votes as possible

Bro this is so simple, I think you can get it

But if you're really ready to give up, just dont reply.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

You just ignored like everything I said. You clearly aren't interested in having a discussion. You just want people to decry Biden for someone with, from your own sources, not a statistical lead. There's nothing to talk about. You aren't interested in my point of view, you just want me to adopt your's with no convincing evidence.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024

73 points (84.1% liked)

politics

18586 readers

4291 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News