this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
203 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19085 readers
4352 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 22 hours ago (6 children)

I actually wish they wouldn't publish early results like this. Because you know there are people who will now go "well, I guess I don't actually need to vote afterall" or "I guess my Jill Stein vote is actually harmless afterall" etc.

This sort of thing (IMO) potentially gets less Harris votes down the line.

[–] FlowVoid 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

FWIW, studies have shown that voters are more likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as winning than one they perceive as losing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I'd love nothing more than to be wrong, so if there are studies saying I am then that's great. I'm curious what it does to their likelihood to vote at all vs who they vote for.

It feels like what it should drive is complacency to me (along with energizing the R voters) but I'm super happy for my feeling to be wrong.

[–] Makeitstop 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

People who feel discouraged and demoralized are less likely to put in the effort to vote. The perception that your side is losing tends to demoralize, while the perception that your side is winning tends to be encouraging. And even among undecided voters, the bandwagon effect tends to nudge them towards the side they view as in the lead and more popular. This is why push polls have been around for ages, to influence people by convincing them that your side has more support than it really does.

The idea that people will get complacent is something that I think is largely inspired by the 2016 election, when turnout was relatively low and Hillary lost. But Hillary was also a deeply unpopular candidate with a lot of baggage that voters found hard to ignore. Harris isn't universally loved, but she's a lot more popular than Hillary was. And the stakes in 2016 weren't quite as obvious and stark as they are now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

Those are good points!

[–] TipRing 10 points 22 hours ago

It will also motivate Trump voters to get to the polls to counter. Plus a 2-1 at this point just shows Democrat enthusiasm being high, which is good, but early vote numbers are a poor predictor of election outcomes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 22 hours ago

That's why they do it! Gotta manufacture that last-minute nail-biter to keep the eyes glued to the TV for their 24 hour coverage leading up to the polls closing, and as long as it takes to count each state's votes!

[–] spankmonkey 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It will also motivate people who are worried that other people won't get out and vote, so it will incentivise them.

Not everything needs to be negative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I can't see how hearing "D is up 2x over R" doesn't help R more than D at this stage in the race.

Not everything needs to be negative.

And yet, some things are.

[–] spankmonkey 8 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

I live in a state that has given all of the electoral college votes to a Republican since Nixon. Seeing a lot of Harris signs instead of Trump and early voting leaning Dem nationwide makes me motivated to vote instead of feeling completely defeated like in prior years.

Not that I think Harris will take the state, but that there is a chance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: I live in NYC and have seen more Trump signs and merch than I am comfortable with

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago

I live in the DC area. It's the same even though I know it's a solid blue area for like a 30 mile radius

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 hours ago

I was going to guess Texas and say there's a chance, but apparently Texas went to Carter. So one of the midwest states. Still...turnout could make a difference, I'd have to dig in real deep to see how many of the elections for all those states were close wins, even if they all went Republican. The advantage of some of them is the population, your vote there could count a lot more to push over the edge than in a populated state.

Can't change it if you don't actually vote. It also still ticks the popular vote up one more.

[–] Omegamanthethird 2 points 22 hours ago

Dems: We got this.

Reps: Fuck I gotta go vote.

[–] DBT 1 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I thought they couldn’t actually count the votes until Election Day?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago

They can’t, but organizations can conduct exit polls where they simply ask people who they voted for.

[–] FlowVoid 5 points 21 hours ago

This is not a count, it's a poll of people who said they voted.