Harris will likely win

[starwater]

Counteracting on the other negative thread. The polls are not correct. Republicans according to Ms. Cheney are publicly saying they are voting red but privately will vote for Harris.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

George Mason polls via the Washington Post show a Harris victory. Comfortable in the states, but tight in the Electoral College. Really want to win Nevada and Arizona just to give some space.

 

[pood]

Counteracting on the other negative thread. The polls are not correct. Republicans according to Ms. Cheney are publicly saying they are voting red but privately will vote for Harris.

It seems likely to be true that a lot of women, more than usual, including many Republican women, will vote for Harris, without necessarily admitting to it. OTOH, there’s also going to by a misogynist vote among men who would normally vote Democratic, but won’t vote for any woman, as happened to Hillary in 2016. The “Bernie Bros” come to mind.

 

[starwater]

Liz Cheney has a striking answer to a key Lindsey Graham question

Lindsey Graham wants to know “what the hell” anti-Trump Republicans are thinking. As it happens, Liz Cheney has an answer to his question.

www.msnbc.com

Love the response from Liz:

“Well, don’t listen to Lindsey Graham,” Cheney responded. “It’s good life advice, actually.”

Graham was anti-Trump until he was summoned to Mar-a-Lago and was required to kiss the ring.

 

[Politesse]

. The “Bernie Bros” come to mind.

Seriously? There's no basis for that accusation. Less than ten percent of Sanders voters went for Trump and almost none of those had been Democratic voters before.

 

[TomC]

. The “Bernie Bros” come to mind.

Seriously? There's no basis for that accusation. Less than ten percent of Sanders voters went for Trump and almost none of those had been Democratic voters before.

Nevertheless, all those Bernie Bros who stayed home or voted third party effectively voted for Trump. I'm confident that was more than 10%.

I believe it had a lot to do with the confident predictions of Hillary Clinton victory. Why bother voting for someone who is not your favorite person if you're confident that she'll win regardless?
Obviously, Harris is too smart to make that mistake.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

. The “Bernie Bros” come to mind.

Seriously? There's no basis for that accusation. Less than ten percent of Sanders voters went for Trump and almost none of those had been Democratic voters before.

Nevertheless, all those Bernie Bros who stayed home or voted third party effectively voted for Trump. I'm confident that was more than 10%.

I believe it had a lot to do with the confident predictions of Hillary Clinton victory. Why bother voting for someone who is not your favorite person if you're confident that she'll win regardless?
Obviously, Harris is too smart to make that mistake.
Tom

Seeing the polls got Hillary Clinton's numbers pretty close (they didn't catch that a huge amount of the undecided would head Trump), I don't think that is accurate. Polling was right, the reading of the tea leaves was wrong. People were warning the walls was in danger and were ignored because the idea of Trump winning seemed ridiculous.

 

[pood]

12 percent of Bernie voters went for Trump in 2016.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The lack of skepticism around the polls has been annoying me.

 

[Elixir]

12 percent of Bernie voters went for Trump in 2016.

But 38.4% of that 12% are now aware that Trump is a fascist moron.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The lack of skepticism around the polls has been annoying me.

Why should the polls be alarming folks? They are echo'ing '16 and '20. We've learned that the Republicans will vote for whomever is on the ticket, and that Evangelical just meant racist MoFo.

 

[TomC]

. The “Bernie Bros” come to mind.

Seriously? There's no basis for that accusation. Less than ten percent of Sanders voters went for Trump and almost none of those had been Democratic voters before.

Nevertheless, all those Bernie Bros who stayed home or voted third party effectively voted for Trump. I'm confident that was more than 10%.

I believe it had a lot to do with the confident predictions of Hillary Clinton victory. Why bother voting for someone who is not your favorite person if you're confident that she'll win regardless?
Obviously, Harris is too smart to make that mistake.
Tom

Seeing the polls got Hillary Clinton's numbers pretty close (they didn't catch that a huge amount of the undecided would head Trump), I don't think that is accurate. Polling was right, the reading of the tea leaves was wrong. People were warning the walls was in danger and were ignored because the idea of Trump winning seemed ridiculous.

A couple of weeks or so before.
Up until late September I kept seeing Clinton Victory in the 90s.
And it only took a few thousand votes in the swing states to change history.

Yeah, everyone who didn't vote Clinton voted for corruption and an end to RvW and everything else Trump was promising in 2016.
Because anything else was a vote for Trump. Didn't matter if they stayed home, voted for Green Party, or whatever, it was a vote for whoever won the EC.
Tom

 

[pood]

Majority of early Michigan voters are women, according to Michigan’s secretary of state. I expect that is promising news. Also early voting is way up in a lot of states.

 

[pood]

Harris leads trump 63-34 percent among early voters, USA Today poll says.

 

[Elixir]

Majority of early Michigan voters are women, according to Michigan’s secretary of state. I expect that is promising news. Also early voting is way up in a lot of states.

There’s still a chance of a “blue wave” IMO, but if so, it won’t be apparent until after the election.
More likely it will be a Trump victory without congressional coattails, making the conversion to outright dictatorship even more urgent.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The lack of skepticism around the polls has been annoying me.

Why should the polls be alarming folks? They are echo'ing '16 and '20. We've learned that the Republicans will vote for whomever is on the ticket, and that Evangelical just meant racist MoFo.

Here is my prediction map. Based on what you ask? Just my completely non-expert hunches (although we might still win Georgia, possibly West Virginia). Besides prediction is just speculation anyway.

 

[pood]

12 percent of Bernie voters went for Trump in 2016.

But 38.4% of that 12% are now aware that Trump is a fascist moron.

But 92.1% of that 38.4% of that 12% WANT a fascist moron in the White House.

 

[pood]

This election reminds me of a short story by Ray Bradbury, “The Sound of Thunder.” The presidential election is narrowly won by a democratic candidate against a Fascist. But there is a time travel tourist industry that takes tourists to the past to hunt dinosaurs. They have to stay on a narrow strip and shoot dinosaurs that were about to die anyway, for fear of changing history if they don’t. Anyway, some doofus panics when he says tyrannosaurus rex and steps off the strip and crushes a butterfly, or whatever a butterfly ancestor was back then. Engraged, the tour leader shoots the doofus and then the dinosaur. They return to the present. Because of that one crushed butterfly, history is subtly changed (the butterfly effect!). The language is slightly different, spelling is slightly different, and the election outcome is slightly different, too — the fascist wins.

Sure hope nobody is hunting dinosaurs in the past right now.

 

[TomC]

The lack of skepticism around the polls has been annoying me.

Why should the polls be alarming folks? They are echo'ing '16 and '20. We've learned that the Republicans will vote for whomever is on the ticket, and that Evangelical just meant racist MoFo.

Here is my prediction map. Based on what you ask? Just my completely non-expert hunches (although we might still win Georgia, possibly West Virginia). Besides prediction is just speculation anyway.

I understand putting California and Indiana in "safe" zones.
But Pennsylvania and Michigan and North Carolina?

Whatever you're smoking I'll need some on election day.
Tom

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The lack of skepticism around the polls has been annoying me.

Why should the polls be alarming folks? They are echo'ing '16 and '20. We've learned that the Republicans will vote for whomever is on the ticket, and that Evangelical just meant racist MoFo.

Here is my prediction map. Based on what you ask? Just my completely non-expert hunches (although we might still win Georgia, possibly West Virginia). Besides prediction is just speculation anyway.

I understand putting California and Indiana in "safe" zones.
But Pennsylvania and Michigan and North Carolina?

Whatever you're smoking I'll need some on election day.
Tom

I'm smoking about as much as the people saying Trump will "definitely" win. It's all meaningless speculation and no one knows shit. And for funsies, people like to pretend they're super smart future predictors, see.