Polling from the last few days offers some evidence that Kamala Harris is enjoying a modest post-convention bounce, with Nate Silver’s aggregate having her lead on the national popular vote out from 2.3 points to 3.8 points. However, Harris has taken a turn for the worse on Silver’s forecast model, on which Donald Trump is now rated a 52.4% chance of winning with Harris on 47.3%, restoring him to a marginal favouritism he lost at the start of the month. This is entirely down to state-level polling from Pennsylvania, where “it’s been a while since we’ve seen a poll showing her ahead”. However, Harris remains a 56-44 favourite in The Economist’s model, which has hitherto tracked Silver’s very closely. Adrian Beaumont has more at The Conversation.
Adrian Beaumont update at 2:08pm William’s link above referred to an article I published on Sunday. I’ve done another US article for The Conversation today which incorporates Nate Silver’s latest forecast.
Putin wants stability. For him and Russia. Which isnt too different to how US foreign policy has worked.
Where is poroti when you need them.
Team Katich
Yeah I always looked forward to Poroti quoting Glen Greenwald’s
Talking points
Anyhoo September is not a good month for Trump and his acolytes.
We live in interesting times.
I’m confused. Like Stooge, I thought Kamala would be surging to victory on the back of women’s demands for abortion rights.
Instead we have old white men (and women) holding back the tide in the battleground states and a very tight election where anything could happen.
What’s happening in Arizona, where the McCains are said to backing Kamala? Trump apparently is in front and Gallegos’s Senate lead is shrinking.
Despite having Democratic governors in most of the battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Kamala is tied or just a squeak ahead.
Why is it so?
Thinking the CNN/SRSS sample could be flawed in Arizona – most other polls have Gallego near +10 whilst this one only +3. Would also flow through to the poor AZ presidential number.
The other thought is that the RFK Jr crackpot cookers could have gone en masse to Trump
New Swing States Senate Polling:
Pennsylvania:
Casey (D): 46%
McCormick (R): 46%
Arizona:
Gallego (D): 47%
Lake (R): 44%
Michigan:
Slotkin (D): 47%
Rogers (R): 41%
Nevada:
Rosen (D): 50%
Brown (R): 40%
Wisconsin:
Baldwin (D): 51%
Hovde (R): 45%
CNN/SSRS / August 29, 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/04/trump-kamala-election
Also fails to mention the GOP courting the so called “Incel” vote. Utterly despicable turning a generation of young men against women & stirring up misogyny to win an election. Scumbags.
@Toorak Toff, I think the main reason that Trump has gone from 10+ ahead against Biden to now probably losing again per the polls, is that as we get down to the pointy end folks are reminded what senile racist losers Trump and his supporters are and what a disaster for America it would be to have these fascist idiots blowing the budget out again by another 3+ trillion dollars. Just spitballing.
Why is Harris not miles ahead in the polls asks Toorak Toff?
Well she is sane, not demented, intelligent, eloquent and is not a felon. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.
Any day of the week, twice on Sundays, she is the better candidate.
But she is a woman.
And she is a POC, just spitballing here, but in the privacy of the polling booth people can let their insecurities loose, not to mention their racism and misogyny.
The real question is what will the magats do if, and when, Drumpf loses? They are ready. Is the rest of the world?
sprocket_ @ #405 Thursday, September 5th, 2024 – 10:11 am
Outside of the obvious races of Montana and Ohio, this race I think presents the next biggest risk of a Senate seat (and chamber majority) loss for the Democrats. And I haven’t just formed this opinion because of this poll. It’s obvious PA is a key battleground state and the Republicans are putting a lot of eggs into that basket. Also, the Republican candidate – a RWer whose politics most here might dislike, sure – is actually, on-paper, a good, strong candidate (as opposed to some weaker candidates the Republicans have nominated and whiffed with in recent times.) IMO, if they had nominated McCormick, instead of Oz, to run against Fetterman they probably would have won the PA US Senate race in 2022.
I guess we can thank Trump for one thing. If it wasn’t for him the yanks wouldn’t elect a non-white female as POTUS for another century or so.
Granny Anny @ #410 Thursday, September 5th, 2024 – 12:11 pm
If anything, the “anti-woke” pseudo-class reductionism that arose in the wake of his initial election, has actually been the biggest potential hurdle to that happening. Thankfully, Democrats have resisted the urge to be wimpy on that front and declare it “too risky” to go with someone who isn’t a white man for at least another generation or two – unlike so-called “progressives” in this country who do exactly that.
Early report of Liz Chaney coming out and endorsing Kamala Harris.
In a speech at Duke University, which just happens to be in North Carolina…
”Early report of Liz Chaney coming out and endorsing Kamala Harris.”
That might resonate with moderate Republicans and persuade them to switch sides?
Not really. Dems were solidly behind Biden until he made his position untenable with that debate performance. Harris (or anybody else) was too risky until Biden turned himself into the bigger risk.
And then there was minimal time for alternative candidates to compete, precisely because Dems spent so long being risk adverse with their nominations.
New thread.
C@tmomma
https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/08/30/us-presidential-election-minus-10-weeks/comment-page-8/#comment-4362138
Thanks.
I’m not convinced it’s sharp enough, and hasn’t lost the original clear message, but fair enough.
“. . . [then they can also] figure out the basics of civics.”
Yes they can, but they often don’t want to, so don’t expect them to.
“but… the US does this sort of thing around the globe too. So dont blame the Russians.”
Katich
Exactly the message Russians posing as natives spread all over media/social media. I had you down as someone better than to fall for it.
So I’m with Victoria in her response to you on this.
A very dangerous path to go down. . . where you end up equating the USA with Russia or China. Their endgame is very different and one has checks & balances and the others don’t.
“Putin wants stability. ”
No he doesn’t. He wants to recreate the USSR and more. He wants invincibility, though I think he’s smart enough to know he won’t get that one in what remains of his little lifetime.
Russia will never catch up China and the USA now, but can still cause terrible damage in pursuit of their aims.
I also doubt it will improve post-Putin, even though he is particularly evil there are others like him and maybe even worse – depending on the type of ‘handover’ of course.