this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
550 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19241 readers
3966 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. 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.
  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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LovableSidekick 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Latest Selzer poll, regarded by pollsters as the gold standard, shows Harris +3% over Trump. An earlier assessment gave a scale of what various Trump leads over Harris might mean - if he led her by 11% it would predict a decisive victory for him, with lesser leads meaning not quite as strong a victory, down to a Trump lead of only 3% predicting a strong showing for Harris. Harris leading Trump is literally off that scale and predicts a Harris landslide.

[–] spongebue 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you talking about nationally, the recent Iowa poll, or something else? Because Trump has never won the national popular vote but still made his way into office

[–] jj4211 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Looks like the Iowa poll, as in of Harris had a real lead on Iowa of all places, there's no chance for him in swing states.

However there's just no way, in anyone's fever dream, that Iowa would go for Harris, so we have to assume there's some freak anomaly rather than anytime to count on or predict how things are going.

[–] WrenFeathers 4 points 1 month ago

If I understand correctly, they haven’t been wrong before, so…. This would be a first if you’re saying it’s inaccurate.