this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
74 points (68.7% liked)

politics

19129 readers
2621 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] justhach 181 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

"~~Kamala Harris~~ Hillary Clinton predicted to win by nearly every major forecaster"

Its like 2016 never even fucking happened lol

[–] givesomefucks 31 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

She was predicted to win the popular vote....

And she did.

Looking at statewide polling and a lot of battleground states were coinflips.

The problem was anyone mentioning that got screeched at for wanting trump to win....

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This comment also aged like milk. Trump is 5 mil over harris in pop vote

[–] givesomefucks 7 points 2 weeks ago

I really didn't think she'd fuck it up this much.

The last three elections have been like Brewster's Millions where it's like the Dem is trying to lose.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

She was predicted to win the popular vote…And she did.

But this article is saying it's based on the EC,

Nate Silver's latest forecast now gives Vice President Kamala Harris a slight edge in the Electoral College
The model shows Harris securing 271 Electoral College votes to Trump's 267.

[–] MeekerThanBeaker 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That is too close. I hate that it's that close.

I want her to get over 350... over 400 even.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Hey, same here. And you know what? There's hope - at least one pollster is predicting a major blowout for Harris, https://app.vantagedatahouse.com/analysis/TheBlowoutNoOneSeesComing-1

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Do you want them to not make any predictions until voting is over or what?

[–] rockSlayer 25 points 2 weeks ago

That would be an improvement

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, that is what we want.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago

OK, good luck with that.

[–] spankmonkey 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

YES (no predictions)

Honestly there should be zero results posted until all votes are counted. Counting as they come in influences later voters, especially in western time zones.

I thought there was an election in the not too distant past where the news declared a winner before Hawaii even finished voting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I disagree with the "no predictions" part, but fully 100% agree with not releasing any results until all votes are tallied.

[–] spankmonkey 2 points 2 weeks ago

What would they base predictions on without results?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Tallying the votes makes the results though.

[–] [email protected] 85 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I wouldn't say giving Harris a 50.4 percent chance of winning is predicting her to win. That's effectively a coin toss.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

yeah, I really hate seeing these types of articles during elections. some will skim past it and go "well, its cool. I don't need to vote, she got it" and that kind of lazyness is how elections are lost.

[–] WhatAmLemmy 18 points 2 weeks ago

That's the whole point. America's plutocracy — who own most of the media — want a fascist dictatorship. They've been financing and amplifying Trump the entire time.

What more could a capitalist want than no competition, low/zero taxes, and not having to worry about the risk that democracy represents to their wealth and power...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

If it's greater than 50% it's 100%!

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 weeks ago

I didn’t know milk could age this quickly.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 weeks ago

Vote. Pressure those around you to vote as well. I had to watch Gore lose, Hillary lose, we can't keep doing this.

[–] Ellvix 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Articles like this are going to make people think they don't have to vote. Ffs

[–] EndOfLine 21 points 2 weeks ago

I can't help but feel like that's the point.

[–] sudo_shinespark 29 points 2 weeks ago

Cool story, bro.

PLEASE GO VOTE IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY

[–] jaggedrobotpubes 23 points 2 weeks ago

Every poll is a lie. Vote!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, if you leave it in the sun all day

[–] DirkMcCallahan 17 points 2 weeks ago

This is extremely misleading. Most data-driven outlets are open about saying that a 51% chance of a Harris victory is essentially a coin flip.

And the ones that are based off of gut feelings rather than data? They're less than useless.

[–] JigglySackles 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And this shit is exactly why listening to polls is useless.

[–] TropicalDingdong 2 points 2 weeks ago

polls were actually pretty good.

[–] paddirn 16 points 2 weeks ago

Until the votes are counted, this doesn't mean shit.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

America did it again.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

I’m hopping this is true!

Please vote everyone!

[–] nutsack 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] nutsack 3 points 2 weeks ago
[–] GrammarPolice 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This aged well

[–] Stovetop 9 points 2 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Please make it so

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

But remember, we DO. NOT. LET. UP.

Not until every vote has been cast. Not until it's over. Don't get cocky, this is the narrowest race I've ever seen and by god there is no room for apathy or overconfidence.

[–] HorreC 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I love how the only time @[email protected] gets a positive subject rating is only if its towing the line info (not that its not factual, some times with a bad title) but the other posts where they make great points or even just reporting other facts, and they downvote them into the ground.

[–] return2ozma 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm a little controversial here I guess hah

[–] wolfeh 2 points 2 weeks ago

Newsweek was putting these headlines out for months saying that Harris was ahead, contrary to many other polls. This has been an agenda they're pushing. Something's not right here.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago