Derec
Contributor
The polls have problems, but they are overstated. 2016 election was an wobbler with Hillary favored by polls, but not decisively so. Nationwide polls saw her clearly ahead, and lo and behold, she did come out ahead in nationwide vote (but still <50%). State-by-state polls were less clear, and that was reflected in Nate Silver giving Hillary just over 70% chance of winning. That means just under 30% for Trump to win. Less than half, but high enough for the election outcome to be far from clear. Trump winning had the probability just under rolling a one or a two on a standard die. How confident would you be not to roll that?So polls have proven poor predictors in the last two cycles. In both 2016 and 2020 Trump performed better than the polls suggested. Hillary was the clear polling leader in 2016 - or so they told us.
That many pundits flunked probability and stats (or more likely never took it) and "told us" nonsense is not the fault of the polls.
On the other hand, Trump is a far diminished candidate compared to 2016 or even 2020. He is now the feeble old man in the race, running against a relative spring chicken. And he is getting more unhinged almost by the day.In the end, i just don't see the enthusiasm for Harris enough to push her through in places like rural Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Kamala is way too left for the US electorate, and Trump may be pretty much the only Republican nominee she could win against, but that is the race we have in 2024.
True. Many Muslim 5th columnists tell pollsters that they want to vote for the rabidly anti-Israel Jill Stein.Another factor is how really divided the left is - especially over Israel and Palestine.
I do not think Yahya Sinwar et al had American electoral politics in mind. But I do think dividing Israel from Arab states that Israel was started having better relations with was a big part of their calculus.I said on these boards that the purpose of this attack was to divide the American public - especially the left in swing states like Michigan with large minorities of Muslims.
They are not very "liberal" or "democratic" to support Hamas and Hezbollah. Or the theocracy in Iran.It's working. Many people in America support the rights of Palestinians and they are generally liberal democrats
This is the reality of "Michigan Muslims":
Nothing "liberal" or "democratic" here.
We shall see. Best case scenario: Kamala wins despite losing Michigan Muslims and their far-left allies, marginalizing them as a force within the Democratic Party.who are pissed at Biden/Harris for their support of Israel. This could have a HUGE impact in Michigan. That's why I think Trump will likely win.
Sadly, no. Democrats have focused so much on women's issues, they have neglected appealing to men.Another factor, mentioned above is the African-American vote. A poll today indicates that of Black voters under 50, 25% will vote for Trump. for Black men, the number is 28%. This is absurd.
As will her past support for banning fracking. That's why she should have picked Shapiro.And again, in key states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan it could hurt her.
Yupp. Which is why Yogi Berra is right: predictions are hard, especially about the future.These races are all so fucking close.
Last edited: