People didn't actually think the debate was going to move the needle, did they? Not in the post-truth, hyper-partisan world US American politics currently inhibits. It also shows why the risk of a second debate is totally on Harris, so it is wise for her to not even consider it and move on. Trump just needs to show up spiked on Xanax or Ambien and he likely secures a landslide.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Presidential elections weren't like this until a certain somebody started running in them
This is not accurate. Historically, presidential elections used to get quite heated, and the name calling was extreme. The problem today is the immediacy and repetition of the name calling presented in the media which makes it seem more substantial and intense.
So far, the debate doesn't seem to have moved the polls at all.
Makes you wonder what's even the point of campaigning at this point.
I'm not sure this is accurate. I think the polling data is going to be very faulty because pollsters are over-sampling one population and not gaining any data from others. Those with landlines are getting over sampled and those who rely solely on cell numbers are being under-sampled. Less than 25% of Americans still maintain a landline. 73% of Americans rely strictly on cellular for their phone service. The younger the customer the more likely the reliance on cellular services. With the explosion of spam calling on cellular networks and the proliferation of anti-spam services on cellular lines, polling is going to be highly skewed toward the elderly and technology disengaged - or Republican voters.
If you believe that the impact of Harris' performance in the debate had no effect, I don't think you're paying attention. The noise on the wire and in social media, especially amongst women, has shown that the Harris message, especially on abortion, has resonated and impacted a significant group. Same with the Taylor Swift endorsement and the increase in voter registrations. There has been a huge ground swell in support one way and a depression in excitement the other way. The second "attempted assassination" will likely see an up tick for Trump, but every time he campaigns he has a negative impact on all but his cult following.
I'm not sure this is accurate. I think the polling data is going to be very faulty because pollsters are over-sampling one population and not gaining any data from others. Those with landlines are getting over sampled and those who rely solely on cell numbers are being under-sampled. Less than 25% of Americans still maintain a landline. 73% of Americans rely strictly on cellular for their phone service. The younger the customer the more likely the reliance on cellular services. With the explosion of spam calling on cellular networks and the proliferation of anti-spam services on cellular lines, polling is going to be highly skewed toward the elderly and technology disengaged - or Republican voters.
If you believe that the impact of Harris' performance in the debate had no effect, I don't think you're paying attention. The noise on the wire and in social media, especially amongst women, has shown that the Harris message, especially on abortion, has resonated and impacted a significant group. Same with the Taylor Swift endorsement and the increase in voter registrations. There has been a huge ground swell in support one way and a depression in excitement the other way. The second "attempted assassination" will likely see an up tick for Trump, but every time he campaigns he has a negative impact on all but his cult following.
It's true that the polling averages haven't changed much, but she was losing the spread in polling going up to the debate, and probably would have continued to slip after the debate, but I think the debate helped stop that momentum.
The polling has actually been really strong post debate, except for one very bad Atlas poll. It's highly regarded and heavily weighted in the averaging sites. It's hard to make sense how it was +3 Trump, when every other poll was more like +4/+5 Harris and the state polls last week were strong for Harris too.
The Following User Says Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
The fact that is even close at all is clear evidence of the ruination of the American reality. This is like a litmus test for rational thinking, and the US is failing, badly.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I don't see that article debunking anything at all. That article supports what I said. The pollsters have altered their methodologies to make up for the fact that consumers now use different technologies and their old methods are unreliable. Ironically, pollsters have begun to leverage even more unreliable methods of polling (opt-in for example) to gather data. These methods are as unscrupulous as push-polling used by some of the RW data services. We are in a new world of political polling and much of the data has not been proven consistent nor reliable. Only multiple cycles will prove these methods useful, and the previous elections (mid-term, state, local) have shown polling to be inaccurate, usually outside their margin for error by more than double. Polls have value, but unless the survey tools are properly vetted and applied using proven methodologies the data becomes suspect. Because we are in a brave new world of polling and technology, I would suggest you take all of these polls with a massive grain of salt and look for other data points, like potential turnout or enthusiasm levels. Those have been the indicators in the past two presidential elections that have made a difference.
“We need to see it toned down, starting on the left,” Scott said on “Hannity.” “I’ve already heard it from our side. Every one of us wants to focus on the issues. But every single time we see another attempt against President Trump. You gotta ask yourself, is there a plot? Two assassination attempts in six weeks?”
The right wants violence. Perhaps their talking of ‘issues’ promotes violence. Let’s talk about the Elon Musk tweet right after the assassination attempt.
Last edited by TherapyforGlencross; 09-17-2024 at 11:19 AM.
I don't know what to believe anymore when it comes to polls. Just looking at Pennsylvania this morning, one shows Trump up by 2. But another new poll shows Harris up by 3.
Nationally it looks like Harris is up by 5 or 6 in most polls I've seen.
I don't know what to believe anymore when it comes to polls. Just looking at Pennsylvania this morning, one shows Trump up by 2. But another new poll shows Harris up by 3.
Nationally it looks like Harris is up by 5 or 6 in most polls I've seen.
This is not accurate. Historically, presidential elections used to get quite heated, and the name calling was extreme. The problem today is the immediacy and repetition of the name calling presented in the media which makes it seem more substantial and intense.
IDK, convicted of 34 felonies a few months before the election, tried to overthrow the government in a deadly riot last time, multiple assassination attempts, eating cats and dogs.
Things like these would have been disqualifiers in the past
I don't know what to believe anymore when it comes to polls. Just looking at Pennsylvania this morning, one shows Trump up by 2. But another new poll shows Harris up by 3.
Nationally it looks like Harris is up by 5 or 6 in most polls I've seen.
