Harris' lead over Trump narrows to 46% vs 43%, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds (www.reuters.com)

submitted 2 months ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 51 points 2 months ago

I hate these hyperbolic headlines describing some tiny poll movement in a single poll well within the margin of error, describing it a some definitive clear change in support.

Here's the times sienna poll today for instance, another high quality pollster, where she went from tied to now 3% ahead and is leading for the first time in that poll since July.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4921203-kamala-harris-donald-trump-national-new-york-times-poll/

If the race is truly a 3 point gap right now, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent, you're going to see polls with her everywhere from one behind to 7 ahead. It's a bad idea to hyper scrutinize or draw big conclusions from tiny changes in one poll.

[-] kamenlady@lemmy.world 45 points 2 months ago

I really would like to see those 43%.

Like, after years and years of Trump upping the ante in presenting himself as the biggest turd alive, there are still people that sincerely think "yeah, I'd like him as president - he represents the values i stand in for"…?

I would just like to see the people, because a minority of them will be your typical MAGA-Puppet.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 29 points 2 months ago

Most of them are completely isolated from all news or political information, except for the local radio they hear on their way to work, and Fox News.
It's hard to believe, but millions of people simply haven't heard about how shitty Trump is.

[-] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

The moment something negative is said about Trump, they will tune out. They'll proudly tell you this too.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

They do have one liberal on Fox News that has laid out most of Trump's bigger oopsies at one point or another but they apparently ignore every single word she says.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

I have many extended family members among the 43. They dismiss any criticism against Trump as "fake news" and "liberal media agenda." Nothing will ever make them not vote Trump. It's wild.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Have they listened to Trump speak? Because that was enough for me

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

They love how he speaks.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I'm in a large city in Iowa on the edge of town. If I drive 5 minutes down the road I will see for sure one small Trump sign, one small Harris sign, a farm house with a few Trump signs of various sizes, then another with a few large ones held up with fence posts. That's places that I know of off the top of my head, but if I drive further I will not see another Harris sign unless I get down town residential. They are disgustingly all over.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

A lot of these morons see politics as a team sport. You might as well ask a Packers fan to support the Vikings or a United fan to get behind City.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

“yeah, I’d like him as president - he represents the values i stand in for”…?

reddit.com/r/beholdthemasterrace

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Respondents rated the economy as the top issue facing the country, and some 44% said Trump had the better approach on addressing the "cost of living," compared to 38% who picked Harris. Among a range of economic issues the next president should address, some 70% of respondents said the cost of living would be the most important, with only tiny shares picking the job market, taxes or "leaving me better off financially." Trump had more support than Harris in each of those areas as well, although voters by a margin of 42% to 35% thought Harris was the better candidate to address the gap between wealthy and average Americans.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

It would be nice to press these people on why they think that, though it's probably just "that's what I heard."

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

It's not that complicated. Inflation is 20% since Trump left office, it was only 8% for Trump. Unemployment was good during both terms, other than COVID lockdown periods. Trump had good wage growth numbers, Biden only has ok numbers for yoy, not across his whole term.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

It's a coin flip, just like it has been the entire time.

[-] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Polymarket has Trump ahead by 6 points. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm signing up for a passport today just in case.

[-] auzy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

We'd be happy to have you in Australia mate.

God we need more normal people here. Happy to ship out cookers and loonies up to the US as a trade

[-] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I appreciate the warm welcome! We'll see if I can find a place with low enough rent, I assume Australia has something like the same housing crisis the US and Canada has?

We have plenty of cookers and loonies here too, yours would find their people here. Would make a great swap imho

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago

If you're wondering why her, her campaign, and DNC leadership keep pretending it's a coincidence the more conservative she becomes the worse she polls...

It's because they're all making a lot of money from donors in return for all her conservative shifts.

Presidential campaigns "cost" over a billion dollars now. That's a lot of fat to trim off for a lot of people.

And with the DNC valuing donation bundlers over any other skill, it's seems like it should be pretty obvious they care more about grifting money than getting Harris elected.

Anyone that says it takes over a billion dollars to beat trump shouldn't be running a campaign for local dog catcher. But they'll never stop trying to get more money. Instead of just trying to get more votes.

The people running the party have different goals than the voters in the party

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Some 53% of voters in the poll said they agreed with a statement that “immigrants who are in the country illegally are a danger to public safety,” compared to 41% who disagreed. Voters had been more closely divided on the question in a May Reuters/Ipsos poll, when 45% agreed and 46% disagreed.

Ahhh good to know some things never change. Good old hateful racist assholes Americans being asshole Americans. I hate living here with these fucking ghouls. The only dangerous people are actual American citizens...

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

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 2 points 2 months ago

Thank you for those links and insightful take. I had wondered about this myself - with your take I can see a way forward now.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

That 53% of voters includes ever trump voter in the country.

So if it's every trump supporter, it's only 10% of people who aren't voting R no matter.

Republicans pander to the majority of their base. And Dems also pander to the Republican base.

It's one of the biggest and most obvious problems with our political system. When both parties keep moving right, it's obviously going to result in the country overall moving to the right.

It's really not complicated, but some people love to misrepresent it.

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

the Democratic chase for the centrist unicorn stuffs us all into a very cramped and increasingly hot basket.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Which is why we need to be smart.

We need to cancel the electoral votes of the South, until they sort their shit out, call it Reconstruction 2.0.

We have to fix this cancer on our nation if we ever hope to function again, and the longer we push it off, the worse the metastasis gets.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 2 months ago

That 53% of voters includes ever trump voter in the country

Perhaps not every single last one, but good point overall.

So if it’s every trump supporter,

I would need more evidence to support the rest of this. But yeah we at least can get a better handle by filtering out those supporters - the remaining percentage is likely to be much smaller.

Republicans pander to the majority of their base. And Dems also pander to the Republican base.

Actually this is not true. AOC for example, endorses Harris (as per https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cj4xegj1jq2o ) but is definitely more liberal than Harris and not afraid to state it (see https://qz.com/aoc-mark-cuban-kamala-harris-ftc-lina-khan-billionaire-1851669012 )

Harris is in a tough spot to win the election but wait another generation or decade and I have a feeling that things are going to look very different.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

...

90% sure we've went over this before...

X% of voters includes Republicans that will never vote D under any circumstances

To motivate people who will vote D. We need to focus on what they want.

Did it work this time?

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 2 months ago

X% of voters includes Republicans that will never vote D under any circumstances

Agreed, but..

To motivate people who will vote D. We need to focus on what they want.

This does include some moderate Republicans, think Liz Cheney. With the GOP turning the way it has - practically being a personality cult for one guy now, it makes sense that those folks who got left out would try to find a home with the Dems - and in the short term that alliance means a better chance at securing the White House.

I get the point you are trying to make. But you don't seem to understand mine. And keep in mind that this isn't the first time I've tried to explain this to you.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago

Do you want to just insult people?

Or are you willing to abide by this subs rules and have a reasonable discussion?

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 9 points 2 months ago

His comment was no more insulting than yours, IMHO.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

You can still vote for someone even if you think we deserve a better candidate, I've been doing it for decades at this point...

There's no reason to insult people or act like you can't criticize the least worst option while still holding your nose and voting for them.

The majority of Dem voters shouldn't be shocked by that. We've been doing it for a long time...

I can count the people I know who wanted Biden or Hillary as president on one hand but virtually everyone i know still voted for both of them in the last two elections.

It would just be a lot easier to stop trump if we ran a candidate that Dem voters wanted to be president.

That shouldn't be a relevation either

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I think there's a time and a place for criticizing our candidates. The time is during the candidate's term and in the Primaries. During the General, it's a bad time to do so. And you have to realise: You don't always get what you want. You say you want a candidate that Dem voters want to be President. The opportunity for that to happen is in the primaries. Unfortunately, the time for that has come and gone.

Biden won those primaries. The voters for the Democratic Party, who ALL get a say, put Biden up front. And people hammered Biden, including bad actors from the other party as well as from foreign countries, until Biden had no room for error. When he flubbed the first debate, we used the rules for succession, with him stepping down and his VP taking the top spot, like what would happen if he was rendered incapable of serving while he was in office.

I return to my key point. Trump or Harris are our choices today. No Third Party will win. As long as you are voting for Harris, criticise away. Just know that I will push back against any post that seems to suggest our candidate is horribad and shouldn't be voted for. Not voting for Harris means we get Trump.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The time is during the candidate’s term and in the Primaries.

You think we had a primary?

And during their term? That's like saying the best time to negotiate price is after the sale is made...

Your view only makes sense if you're operating under the assumption the candidate won't listen to any criticism or adjust their policy to align with Dem voters more and maximize their chances of winning the election.

Biden isn't the candidate anymore, Harris certainly isn't perfect but I believe she's at least willing to open a dialog with Dem voters, even after the shit that was pulled at the DNC where she did the opposite.

Dem voters aren't Republican voters, telling them to shut up and vote D depresses turnout, what improves Dem turnout is the candidate listening to voters so that they feel part of the party and more likely to support the candidate, even if the candidates position doesn't change.

It's really as easy as that to boost Dem turnout.

It's only bad for the Dem candidate if they act like a spoiled toddler who's told there's no ice cream till the vegetables are gone

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

[removed by mod]

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

Yeah…I thought you might be reasonable, but this? This proves you aren’t reasonable.

Can you try again but this time not violate this subs rules?

I didn't bother reading the rest when the very first sentence is an insult

Edit:

Rule 3 in case you can't see the sidebar:

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.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I just called you unreasonable. We'll see if the mods think that's a violation of the TOS. Have a nice life, either way.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

"Unreasonable" isn't pejorative.

"Fucking unreasonable" would be removed.

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

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Not sure, I left it.

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

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)

It's literally right there...

By your own admission:

I just called you unreasonable

That's against civility rules.

But what I said still stands, if you try again without the civility breaking parts, I'm willing to spend some time to help you understand.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 2 months ago

It would just be a lot easier to stop trump if we ran a candidate that Dem voters wanted to be president.

Okay, so worth asking: how can we win with a different hypothetical candidate who appeals to Dems only but not moderate Republicans? Keeping in mind that individuals in smaller states like in the midwest have more voting power per person and also that the makeup of the Electoral College is such that the GOP has an advantage?

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 2 months ago

The people running the party have different goals than the voters in the party

I do recall this in being a factor, it was thought that the GOP couldn't prevent that guy from winning the nomination in 2016 while the DNC had the power to annoint Clinton over Sanders.

Presidential campaigns “cost” over a billion dollars now.

Yes. Citizens United. At least the DNC is able to match the GOP here though.

And with the DNC valuing donation bundlers over any other skill, it’s seems like it should be pretty obvious they care more about grifting money than getting Harris elected.

That's not obvious at all. Alternative view: they're just trying to outspend the GOP in the hopes that this get Harris elected.

The people running the party have different goals than the voters in the party

Again, not at all obvious.

Anyone that says it takes over a billion dollars to beat shouldn’t be running a campaign for local dog catcher.

Of course that's not it! The question is, if the GOP has a billion dollar lead over Harris, can the GOP prevail over Harris?

Maybe not, but, why take that chance?

But they’ll never stop trying to get more money. Instead of just trying to get more votes.

I mean they're trying to use the money to spread outreach and engagement (which hopefully turns into legitimate votes for Harris). I understand the frustration with the overall system but ultimately this is all for the goal of getting more to turn out for Harris.

this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024

83 points (86.7% liked)

politics

19233 readers

2844 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

• 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