American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 52 of 57)

Nate Silver wrote a story the other day about how this election should really be a layup for Trump.  Biden is deeply unpopular, the economy is good in certain ways but very bad in other ways (mostly around prices), and it's an election where people are looking for a new candidate.  If the Republicans had nominated someone like DeSantis or even someone like Ted Cruz, they would probably be winning fairly handily vs Biden or Harris.

The problem is that the Republicans nominated Trump.  Not only someone who is deeply unpopular himself but someone who unites the Democratic coalition in a way that no one else does.  There's a chance that if the Republicans had selected Nikki Haley, for example, that women wouldn't be overwhelmingly supporting Harris even in the abortion environment we find ourselves in.

Then not only did Trump get nominated, he's made a number of mistakes.  Selecting Vance was a mistake when he clearly needed to select a woman.  He's made no effort to engage or attract middle of the road voters, leaving them susceptible to attraction to Harris.  He's shored up the base, for sure, but he hasn't stopped.  He appears almost never on any sort of mainstream media, opting exclusively for right-leaning/friendly media (unless the mainstream media is covering an event he's doing).

Now we can argue all day about Nate Silver and what he represents (I've certainly soured on him), but I do think he makes a good point.  I think inflation alone made this a very difficult election for Biden or Harris.  Prices are higher and even though it's not their fault and it's not a problem that will go away regardless of who wins the election, people are looking for a change at the top.  People that voted for Biden as a change are now considering voting for Trump for another change.  People that remember 2019 prices think that going back to Trump will go back to 2019 prices.  That's a thing that's happening and nothing positive that Harris does or something negative that Trump does is going to change their minds.

But Trump has left an opening, and it's Harris' job to drive right through it.

I did find myself sad for Trump supporters last night.  There was a question that an older woman in Michigan asked Trump in a town hall, and she basically sobbed through the idea that prices needed to come down and asked Trump for his plan.  And his answer, of course, was nonsensical, but his plan is basically to try and reduce the cost of energy and hope that solves all his problems.  His plan is to raise tariffs and assumes that American manufacturing can absorb all the new demand in every sector.

And I felt bad for the woman.  She trusts this man explicitly, and he has no plan.  Barely, as he would say, the concepts of a plan.  Is there a chance that tariffs will increase American manufacturing?  Sure.  Will it happen in time and in every sector?  I doubt it.  Will drilling so much that the cost of gasoline goes down help with all prices?  I can't imagine.  And it will never go back down to 2019 prices just like 2019 prices were never going to go down to 2015 prices. 

Now, in a wild attempt to convince voters, he's talking about how he's going to massively reduce home insurance costs.  He didn't elaborate, of course, but people are going to believe him.  And if he wins, they're going to expect him to follow through on his promises.  And he's just not going to be able to.  Either he's going to do nothing to help them, or he's going to actively make things worse.

And people are struggling.  The problem is that Donald Trump has zero regard for them, and he wouldn't help them if he could.  He'll help them if it also helps him, but that's about where it ends.

To me, his base is an abused wife that stays with him even though he's constantly abusive.  He cheats on her, and he hits her.  And yet she loves him, and she believes his lies.  I hate Trump, but I pity his supporters.  I really think they simply don't know any better, and they'll follow him to their own doom.

My post about political anxiety in Canada was referring to a conservative Canadian politician who is likely to be the next Canadian prime minister. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poilievre He's basically Donald Trump lite in Canada. I will not vote for him, but many will; the current prime minister (for whom I will grudgingly vote) has managed to alienate progressives and centrists alike. Even people who might support the (supposedly) progressive party will not support its present leader.

You may wish to consider caution with this metaphor.

I am not saying you have done anything inappropriate, and this is not a reprimand, but a confession: I have used this metaphor in the past, and I was wrong to do so, and I deeply regret it.

I do not think you are wrong to use it, but speaking only for myself: I have elected to retire this one from my own usage.

I once knew a woman who was the webmaster for Hollywood actress Allison Mack. This woman was regularly posting about how Chloe was her favourite character on SMALLVILLE and at one point declared that Chloe was the most important character in the series. At that point, I snarked -- and I should not have -- that Chloe's two minutes of screentime across most episodes made her trivial and irrelevant and that anyone who called Chloe a lead character was like a...

Well, you know what I said. I won't say it twice. I shouldn't have even said it once.

This web designer was deeply hurt and upset, and I blew it off, and I shouldn't have done that either.

At one point, she accidentally instant messaged me, sharing some difficulties with Allison Mack. I would take this opportunity to 'apologize', but not, I think, as sincerely as I would now; I said I'd been unwell and unhappy, but I think I was using illness as an excuse. She deserved better from me and deserved a sincere message of regret and responsibility from me.

In recent years, the world learned: Allison Mack was running a cult, she was physically and emotionally abusive to those she inducted into her cult. She had inducted this woman, this wonderful web designer, into her cut. She was abusing this woman savagely. This means my remark about this web designer was both grossly inappropriate and savagely accurate, and the accuracy of my comment actually makes it all the more cruel, insensitive and shameful on my part.

I have thought about the situation with Allison Mack and her web designer a lot, and about my words. I have concluded that I should have used a different metaphor.

I should have likened the situation to someone in a pyramid scheme who constantly thinks their big payout is coming soon (it isn't) or someone in a cult who constantly thinks the ascension is any day now (it's not) or to a politician insisting they can win when their fundraising and support have fallen through the floor or to SLIDERS fans who constantly thought that with one more season, John and Jerry and Sabrina and Tracy would come back (they wouldn't).

Is your use of this metaphor apt? I think so... but it's a sensitive area and I have learned not to make light of this subject. This is not a reprimand. I am not saying you have done anything wrong. I am saying it was wrong for *me* to use the metaphor that I did. I should not have done it. I won't do it again.

You aren't me. The subject to which you apply this metaphor is not the same. Your use of it is not the same. For one thing, you are speaking about a media appearance, not a private person. For another, you are describing the situation generally as opposed to directing it towards a specific individual. My mistakes are not yours.

Since we're friends, I merely wish to share my own contemplations on this, for you to use or dismiss as you see fit, and you can come to your own conclusions and decisions. Thank you for attending my TED Talk.

Exhaustive discussions over "language" are fine and dandy, but are as actionable as me farting into the wind.  The uber-sensitivity only stifles inventive thought, and divides, it only divides.  The first amendment allows for it, as simply being crass with language is protected, and one should not fear for that.  The outrage police have soiled political discourse, particularly on the left, and driven a mass of people towards the Orange menace.  In fact, I would say that besides inflation, it's up there in 2nd place for driving left of center folk into Trump's small hands.  There has been a high level clampdown on free thought and discourse, which largely came out of the COVID paranoia, and has increasingly turned younger generations off.  Yes, we want to caution against "misinformation," but the result has been a string of justifiable accusations against the main stream media, and Democratic officials.  That combined with the Democratic Party's absurd inaction on immigration (The Fed even commented that illegals make the unemployment statistics worse), rampant crime post-lockdown, and the pro-trans movement which continues to freak out parents.  This string of foolishness is why the tree in my yard would poll better than Joe Biden on almost any issue.  And now Kamala is being tasked with trying to convince voters that she effectively either disagreed with that foolishness (and stayed silent), which few believe, or that she's willing to "change."  It's going to be a highly difficult ask.  If Trump wins, one can easily point to the breakdown of classical, actual liberalism, in favor of the un-American and idiotic ideals of the left that has submitted itself, largely through fear of being "racist" to a movement that seems to despise America's actual ideals.  It's boxed the left into this ridiculous space where antisemitism and anti-colonialism mix, and the result is toxic.

Anyway, after my rambling TED talk, the view of Northwestern University data scientist Thomas Miller is an interesting one.  He uses the betting markets, rather than polling, to conclude that Kamala Harris will still win in a landslide.

https://www.newsweek.com/data-scientist … on-1955575

Aside from the "fine and dandy" part, this comment strikes me as a defence coming from a person may often be very careless with language, who might regularly offend others, who dislikes discussions of this nature because then they have to confront how they may have regularly offended and upset others with their words.

When someone claims that examining "crass" language can only stifle and divide, it sounds to me like they don't want to be held accountable or responsible for their own words.

I also observe that people who complain they are being stifled and divided by analyzing language will often try to stifle review of their words and divide their protest across various excuses: they claim they shouldn't be held responsible for anything they said because they didn't think it through or they posted it a long time ago or their words weren't meant to be reviewed or they don't remember writing it or they shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything they said on the internet or passingly or ever.

It seems to me that this is the response of someone for whom words have often blown up in their faces. I think someone like this will often blame others for being oversensitive and restrictive; they will dismiss examinations of language; they will attempt to intimidate by claiming that calling for awareness of the weight and power of words are an attack on civil liberties and personal freedoms.

I think they do this because their words have exposed them when analyzed and they don't like what's revealed. I pulled all of that with Allison Mack's webmaster. I see what my words back then reveal about me and I feel just awful about it.

I should have seen that instead of this woman being oversensitive to words, I was reckless with them. Instead of restricting me, she needed me to be more responsible. Instead of impeding my liberties and freedoms by questioning my words, she needed me to understand what words can do and how they need to be wielded with care.

I could have been compassionate but realistic, empathetic yet factual. And maybe, if I hadn't been derisive, scornful and mocking, this woman wouldn't have gone on the defensive and gotten in deeper with Allison Mack.

I will not be so arrogant as to claim full responsibility for this web designer's choices. I'm sure there are lots of unfortunate reasons why this web designer joined Mack's cult, but I wish I hadn't given her one more.

People are responsible for the words they use and for how their words reflect their character and values, and the world has every right to analyze what they -- or I -- post in public, even and especially if some of us may deeply regret what we've said.

So in 2020, pretty much the whole time, I was fairly calm the entire cycle.  I got into some brushups on Twitter with MAGA folks and spent a good deal of my time feeling good about a win.  Even when the election was closer than anticipated, I figured it was only a matter of time.

When Biden was the nominee, I was full of dread.  After the assassination attempt, I was beside myself.

With Harris as the nominee, I was hopeful but scared.  But the more I was exposed to her and saw how people are responding to her, I'm back to a quiet calm.  I'm still nervous at the idea that Trump could be president (probably more nervous than when it was just possible that he would *stay* president), but I'm feeling more confident that he won't be.

At this point, I'm most nervous about:

1. Polling error.  My confidence is based on what we're seeing in the polls, and if they're off more than 2-3 points against her, Trump will win.
2. Some kind of economic disaster in the next six weeks.  The closer we get to the election, the less likely that is.  And as Grizzlor pointed out, it seems more likely that the economy will get better.  I don't know if six weeks of good economy or lower gas prices or higher stock prices are likely to impact enough people that it impacts the election in any meaningful way, but we're maybe in a place where a cumulatively good economy for the last couple years, added with negative feelings on Trump and his economic policies, matched with potential positive feelings about Kamala's economic policies, might sway a "primarily economic" voter to switch from supporting Trump a few months ago to voting for Harris.  Hopefully that extremely run-on sentence made any sense
3. Election day chaos and/or post-election nonsense.  Harris is winning enough states with quality statewide polls that she should get to 270.  And there's enough closeness in Georgia/North Carolina/Arizona and Nevada that she has a couple avenues if she doesn't win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  It makes me pretty nervous that Trump just needs to win NC/GA/PA, and he's the favorite to win two of those.  And it makes me nervous that the Trump campaign is competent enough to be aware of this and using that strategy pretty effectively.  And since Georgia seems likely to be Trump because of Georgia's election authorities, then North Carolina is a must-win if she can't win Pennsylvania.  But it's comforting to know she has a backup.  And Robinson in NC might be a big-enough distraction for her to sneak a win there.  So my fear would be that Trump doesn't even care about the election and wants to overturn the results.  And while I think the Democrats are ready, I worry about what kind of unexpected things Trump's team has come up with.

I've been seeing more stuff about the GOP flooding the market with Republican-leaning polls.  Like they did in 2022.  What I guess I don't understand is...what's the point of that?  I guess the idea is that if Democrats think that Republicans are winning in the polls, they are less likely to vote.  But is that true?  It wasn't true in 2016 or 2020 for Republicans, who showed Trump down in the polls and still voted.  It wasn't true in 2022 when the GOP did this same thing, leading to predictions of a Red Wave, and Democrats still voted and won.

I think the people that are more likely to pay attention to polls are also the people that are most likely to vote no matter what the polls say.  And I'm also hesitant to believe it because...wouldn't the inverse also be true?  If your preferred candidate was comfortably above in the poll and something came up, wouldn't you be less likely to vote because it's already in the bag?

I don't know.  I just think it's sorta pointless.

*******

Experts in Pennsylvania seem to think that the signs of Harris doing well are there.  I've read that a few times, but it's hard to know who really knows what they're talking about.  Independent polls seem to have really turned towards Kamala since the debate.  I think the only question is whether or not she can keep up the momentum.  I do think it's interesting that she's been overtly pro-gun recently, touting that she and Walz are both gun owners and claiming last night that she'd shoot an intruder.

I don't know if it's enough to make any real dent in any true 2A person, but I see how it could be an effective strategy.  If you're a person who doesn't like Trump and your top two issues are guns and the economy, she might be able to convince you that 4 years with Harris will be okay.

The Sienna/NYT polls have been all over the place.  The worst one I've seen though is ActiVote, who just put out a poll of 400LV which took them a MONTH to sample.  I mean, on the one they still were doing Biden vs. Trump!  It's a total joke.  Simon makes mention of this, but no matter the poll, you NEED to pay attention to the crosstabs.  What is the sample made up of?  Gender, party affiliation, how do they feel on certain issues, etc.  However, about a month from now, I would look at where Real Clear Politics has it's averages, and check sites like 538. 

Are there really any undecided's left?  I mean, come on now.  I'm very intrigued whether the dumpster fire Robinson down in North Carolina will harm Trump?  Might happen.  The polls are snapshots.  The betting markets are often a better check these days, because they are measuring intent.  It's going to be all about the turnout.

PS: Nebraska will NOT be altering their electoral vote procedure, so the likely victory in 2nd district for Harris will net her 1 vote.  That's huge obviously in attempting to get to 270.

The polls aren't right or wrong, there is the margin of error for a reason.  The cross tabs though can often better explain certain results.  Sienna might have oversampled men nationally, while going the other direction for one of the states.  For example. 

The extra counting in GA to me, is nothing but a nuisance and won't amount to anything. 

If he loses, Trump will then have to likely face one if not two Jack Smith-led prosecutions, which would be the full end of him. 

GOP isn't going anywhere.  The Democratic Party continues on a path away from blue collar issues and towards identity politics, and behemoth spending projects that have historically bad results.

Trump doesn't have politics.  Just in the last month, he has invented new policies, backtracked, zig-zagged, everything under the sun.  He is currently aligned with an absolutely ridiculous program where Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr., Tulsi, and Vivek are marching through battleground states entertaining the sheep.  Those people have incredibly divergent stances on major issues.  Moreover, Trump is increasingly backed by Crypto morons, but his main backers in Super PAC's remain the tried and true corporations.  The GOP is lobbied massively by big Ag, big Pharma, big Oil, and big Insurance, as are the Democrats.  Yet you have MAGA now boasting how RFK Jr. is going to fire and hire a litany of federal watchdog agencies.  I poke the RFK crowd on Twitter all the time, because they are just delusional and lying to themselves.  Trump will drop that guy like an old rag if he wins. 

I beat you to the "I can sleep at night" GOP candidates being incredibly more palatable than Trump.

Anywho, another former pollster who I think really "gets" the numbers and the kinds of polls being dumped out there, is Adam Carlson (@admcrlsn).  He posts a LOT, but his analysis is pretty honest.  He gets into the weeds on the crosstabs, and also points out the massive dumping of online-driven polling.  He seems to be focusing on how the polling demographics are very, very, very similar to 2020's results.  Moreover, he says what I've been saying, that the MAGA insistence on comparing same-time polls with 2020 or 2016 is pointless, as the electorate shifts and the polling methodology surely has changed big time.  They do not reveal theirs so speculating is also fruitless.  My take on his analysis remains that Trump ***could*** be slightly stronger with Black and Hispanic men, and definitely with conservatives.  That likely results in slight advantages in AZ, GA, NV, and NC for him, as well as PA.  However, as always, it's a question of who votes?  Adam even lampooned polling some because human psychology gets involved, and many people apparently forget who they voted for, and also lie about whether they voted, and would they this time.

What does a Trump surrender look like? Simon Rosenberg says it looks like this:

I don't know why Nate Silver is given any kind of air time anymore, since it has been proven that he is nothing but a Trumper spreading right wing lies that benefit Trump. I snipped the right wing propaganda from the article. If you want to read it, you can go to Newsweek.

Anyway......

Kamala Harris' Chances Surge in Major Election Forecast

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris- … st-1960686

Kamala Harris has seen a significant boost in her 2024 election prospects, according to a major new forecast.

The Economist's latest election forecast shows that Harris now has a 3 in 5 chance of winning the Electoral College in November, compared to Donald Trump's 2 in 5 chance. This marks the vice president's strongest position since becoming the Democratic presidential candidate. The forecast also shows that Harris is expected to pick up 281 Electoral College votes, while Trump is expected to win only 257.

Over the past three weeks, Harris' chances have risen sharply by 10 percent, up from an even split with Trump on September 8, when both had a 50-50 chance of victory, with the Democrat predicted to pick up 270 Electoral College votes—just enough to win—while the Republican was predicted to win 268 votes.

Harris' overall chances of winning the election have also increased by 6 percent since September 8, from 52 percent to 58 percent, while Trump's chances have declined by 7 percent, from 48 to 41 percent.

Meanwhile, the forecast shows that the vice president is predicted to win in four swing states—Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin—while Trump is predicted to triumph in Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona.

[snip right wing propaganda against Harris]

It has been another positive week for the vice president in the polls. The most recent Outward Intelligence poll, conducted between September 22 and 26, put Harris 6 points ahead nationally among 1,735 likely voters.

Another poll, conducted by Echelon Insights, which was cofounded by former Republican digital strategist Patrick Ruffini and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, found that Harris is 7 points ahead of Trump in a head-to-head matchup, on 52 percent to his 45 percent. The poll surveyed 1,005 likely voters between September 23 and 25.

A Clarity Campaign Labs poll from September 24 also put Harris 7 points ahead.

However, some polls conducted in the last week, including a survey by Quinnipiac University put Trump 1 point ahead when third-party candidates were included, while the two nominees were tied in a head-to-head matchup. A CNN/SSRS poll conducted between September 19 and 22 also showed Harris and Trump neck and neck among registered voters when third-party candidates were included.

However, despite fluctuating polls, Harris remains ahead in every polling aggregator. For example, FiveThirtyEight's polling tracker puts the vice president 2.8 points ahead, on 48.6 percent to Trump's 45.7 percent.

The pollster's forecast also shows Harris has a 57 percent chance of winning the election, picking up 283 Electoral votes to the Republican's 255.

Race to the White House gives Harris a 60 percent chance of winning the election, with 289 Electoral College votes to Trump's 248.

I'm feeling optimistic about the election.  I think the Democratic ground game is better, and I think Trump's growing ugliness is only going to turn off people.  I worry that some people aren't paying attention, but the whole "Kamala is stupid" road that Trump is going down has got to be having some people questioning their idea to vote for Trump.  I just refuse to believe that enough people in this country are willing to vote for that man.

But I went for a walk with my family in the neighborhood we live in.  Last election, there was some Trump signs and some Biden signs.  And while I've seen *very few* Trump signs on the side of the road with the other political signs, I walked down a street that had four Trump signs.  It's just so disheartening that my neighbors fall in line with this guy.  Someone holding their nose and voting for Trump is one thing, but to opening support him to your neighbors just feels so despicable to me.

And again, one of my biggest problems with Trump is I don't want to feel this way anymore.  I don't want to feel this way about my neighbors or think less of them for their chosen candidate.  I want to live in a word where I can walk down my neighborhood and react like I did when I saw a John McCain or a Mitt Romney sign.  I wasn't going to vote for them, but I didn't immediately think bad thoughts.

These people know who they're voting for.  They know what they're going to get.  And they're going to vote for him anyway. 

So I feel pretty good about the election.  And I feel pretty bad about my neighbors.  I just really want to win this, get to January 20, 2025 with Kamala Harris as president, and stop thinking about Donald Trump and his followers for as long as humanly possible.

See, I don't think we should think of it that way.  Obviously, we don't want them to win, but like it or not, we're stuck with these guys.  And we've got to find a way to get back to a sense of normalcy.  Trump supporters deliver our mail and cook our food and defend the falsely accused and make us laugh and teach our kids (I wasn't trying to pick any particular profession here - just tried to get a wide scope of jobs).  And ten years ago, we were cool living next to them.  We probably voted for the same people.  Cheered for the same sports teams.  Sat in movie theaters with them, shopped alongside them, ate in restaurants with them.

You gotta remember that they're not the enemy.  They're our neighbors and fellow Americans.

Now some of them suck.  Some of them belong in jail.  Some of them are hateful monsters that are beyond redemption.  I'm not talking about those guys.  I'm talking about the people who barely pay attention to politics who remember life in 2019 being pretty easy and want to return to that.  People that have been convinced to be afraid of nonsense but are truly afraid.

And we gotta remember that me hating my neighbors with Trump signs is what Putin wants.   It's what Trump wants.  It's what China wants.  I always get a bit uncomfortable when people from both sides talk about splitting the country into a Red USA and a Blue USA because that's the whole point of what Putin and China are trying to do.  They can't beat us when we're united so they try to divide us.  A United States alongside a Trumpistan allows for China to be the dominant force in the world.  Without a united USA to back NATO, Putin can do what he wants.

So we have to get back to a place where we can disagree on politics without hating the other side.  Where we aren't willing to abandon our neighbors because we disagree on how taxes should work.  That's why I want to hold the line and destroy Trump.  He's the only one spewing hate.  The rest of the republicans aren't fighting him on it and they're disgustingly defending him, but I don't believe any prominent Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon and calling Harris mentally impaired.

Trump wants to divide us because Putin wants to divide us.  I think when Trump is gone, a lot of that will also go away.  I think we'll still be polarized, but I think we'll get over it.  And just look at local races.  Trump-Allred has a ton of attack ads that air constantly, but the race isn't anything like Trump-Harris.  Cruz is attacking Allred's policies, but he's not attacking Allred as a person.  He isn't hurling insults.  It's a heated race but I think it isn't unusual.

We can get back to that.  But we gotta beat Trump and show the next Trump that this stuff doesn't work.

Wow. I will probably carve out some time to read it on Saturday.

Is the mainstream media covering this?  I think a lot of what I've read is damning, but I'm wondering if it's reaching the undecided / unfinalized voters that could be swayed by this information.

It also makes me upset at Merrick Garland because this should've been slam dunked a long time ago.  I know that this stuff takes time, but from the accounts I've read, DOJ didn't get involved until after the 1/6 hearings.  And obviously its too late for this election, and a 50/50 election might put the whole thing in jeopardy when this should've already been wrapped up.  The documents case got derailed by bad luck (although freakin' Cannon got the assassin trial too which makes me wonder if it's luck at all), but the DC case would've been done if not for a two year delay.

If you are someone who finds the accusations against Trump damning, you're not voting for him.  There's NOBODY left to persuade on that end.  Criminals have been elected before, people vote selfishly. 

The bigger story was Vance refusing to say Trump lost.  Bigger story should be the big job numbers from September.  Or Pete Buttigieg resolving the potentially disastrous longshoremen strike in just days.  Or Joe Biden and Kamala visiting the hurricane victims in Western NC.

I don't disagree with you, Grizzlor. This is spot on.

Kamala has kicked up her media game - at least to the point where it's noticeable to me in Texas.  She has done a couple podcasts (one aimed at black men and another at women), she did the 60 Minutes interview, and she's doing local/regional stuff in the battlegrounds.  I think she's doing Howard Stern too.

Trump is just doing stuff for his base and his rallies.  He's not making any effort to recruit new voters.  So if there are undecided voters willing to give her a chance, she's reaching them.

I think her campaign is doing a good job.  There's talk of spending money on an informercial that could be aired in battlegrounds and nationally.  Obama did something similar in 2008.  Might as well with all the money she has.  And I saw Walz went on Fox News which I still think is important.  I don't think it's smart to assume that every Fox News voter will vote for Trump.

I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic that the polls are right or that the polls are underestimating Harris.  It's very nerve-wracking to know that a test for the soul of my nation is a month away, but I'll vote for her in a couple weeks and I'll know that I did my part.

I cannot remember where I saw the article, but the Trump campaign has outsourced most of it's "ground game" to a number of third parties.  The most prominent one is funded by Elon Musk.  Their goal is to pay volunteers and whatnot in the battleground states to canvas very specifically.  This is not unique.  However, normally you would give canvassers a list of folks who are effectively "on your team."  The point is you know they are reliable votes, and you want to be 100% sure they physically vote.  These groups though are not really doing that much.  Instead, they are sifting through the edges, to attempt to pry Trump votes out of low participation voters.  Hence the push toward black and Hispanic men, and other groups who may be audible to the Trump platform, such as the Amish in PA.  They have done this in recent elections, including 2022, and were not particularly successful.   With how tight things are, it could be vital.

So.

Nervous.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/ … mains-high

From Dave Wasserman, "in key battleground states Harris leads 51-47 among voters who always show up.  Trump has a lead of 52-45 with low/mid-propensity voters."  This probably explains the Trump (and friends) strategy to try to coax these disengaged voters out of the woodwork.  Which is why I would temper the enthusiasm of the Hopium types going on the 2022 electorate, which of course, was sans-Trump.  What we ARE seeing is a clear more from 2020 even of the college grad demo towards Kamala, and those are the folks who vote in fair higher percentages.  Good for her.  Trump though is still likely to pull a greater portion of the blue collar segment, particularly with men of color.  So as I have been saying, you really cannot "pick" a winner prior, it's going to be about demographic turn out.

Quinnipiac stinks, their polls are all over the map.  They have been a highly reliable polling group in the past, .  One pollster (forget which) was just caught "removing" samples from the entire city of Philadelphia.  They were found out when they put a PA poll out showing KH in the lead with RV (registered) yet trailing with LV (likely) which made no sense.  The LV results were missing the Philly %, so duh. 

Simon is correct, and unfortunately RCP (who have never made themselves out to be impartial) continue to over rely on R polling, and often leave out other D leaning polling which have similar shoddy metrics.  The polling continues to show that a verifiable % of Nikki Haley voters in the BG States (Granted many were simply naughy Dems) are supporting Harris instead.  I saw a number that was maybe 9%.  That's not a ton of people, but it's people nonetheless who Trump has chased off.  And they vote.  If you got off your butt to vote in a primary that was already decided, you are 99% sure of voting in the General.  I hasten to call these folks simply "White College" voters as they are not simply white, but the traditionally strong Republican contingent of them are shaping up to move further to Harris than perhaps even Biden got in 2020. 

Yes, Trump has made gains with union members, and with men of color.  That's a concern.  But I do feel like Harris may have picked up enough (or Trump lost) with other demos.  However, here's the problem with that strategy.  THEY DON'T VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If you look at the data, Harris is as I said, in better position with highly motivated voters.  Trump is solid with those who traditionally, are not.  The RFK Jr. crowd, the bro culture podcasters (Theo Von, Rogan, Barstool, etc, etc), the bitcoin morons, and worst of all, the tech billionaire crowd.  These are heavy on men, men who are 25-45 years old, often single, often non-college, etc.  They do not vote.  Yes, Trump will do well with this group, well enough to make it closer than 2020 perhaps, maybe even squeak out the win.  But the odds are not in his favor there.  As I said, it is an ecosystem that the rest of the country's demographics simply aren't a part of.  They are ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT, and by virtue, distrust the political process.  They continue to trade conspiracies on every subject, attack proven experts, and spend way too much time on FanDuel.  Trump has spent so much time attacking early and absentee voting, vote counting, certification, he's done immense harm to his own chances.  This is why the campaign's Plan B is to challenge the vote immediately, and cause chaos.

A couple interesting developments:

1. Kamala Harris has released her medical records and is punishing Trump on the idea that he won't release his.  It's getting some national traction.  It obviously won't lead to Trump releasing anything, but maybe if it gets enough attention, it can bring back "Trump is old and obviously in decline" back into the national discussion in the next few weeks.

2. Kamala is doing an interview on Fox News.  This will be the first time that I assume a lot of Fox News viewership will get exposed to a one-on-one interview with her.  If Cheney-like Republicans are willing to give her a chance and willing to vote for her, it could be a great opportunity to make a difference.  And just like point #1, there is zero chance that Trump would go onto a hostile network and face tough questions.

Kamala is also doing a Town Hall right now on CNN with Charlamagne Tha God. She is going everywhere. Next week she has a CNN Town Hall moderated by Anderson Cooper on 10/23.

Go Kamala!!! So much for Trump (Hitler)'s BS about she's not doing any public interviews. Hahahaha!!!

I think Kamala going on FOX and Rogan demonstrates the willingness to reach beyond diehards and to reluctant voters.

I am really scared.

But I am continuing to fulfill my responsibilities and do the things I need to do for myself and others.

I'm afraid, but I'm trying not to let it stop me from doing anything.

I watched clips of the Fox News interview.  I thought Bret Beier would be fair, but someone must've convinced him to be combative and argumentative.  I think Kamala handled herself pretty well, but I can also see why she might not be as polished in interviews.  She didn't always keep her cool, but I think she did a pretty good job overall in a really hostile interview.

Online, Democrats and Kamala supporters thought she was very brave for doing the interview at all and thought she did a great job all things considered.  Republicans and Trump supporters thought she was terrible and that it ended her campaign.  In other words, the Kamala voters saw what they wanted to see and the Trump voters saw what they wanted to see.  And because of that, I don't really think much was gained or lost by the interview on the whole.

However...

I think there's a decent chance that non-MAGA Fox viewers might've been impressed by the way she stood up for herself.  Maybe even the wife/husband of a Trump voter might've been convinced to vote for her.  She was probably hated by the majority of the normal Fox viewers that tuned in.  But there's a chance that a few viewers here and there were impressed.  And maybe those are the voters that will decide the election.  So while I don't know if she accomplished a ton going on Fox, maybe she accomplished enough.

Harris Will Beat Trump Decisively; Most Polls Are WRONG - Here's Why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK4AowD6okI