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

politics

19244 readers
2799 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
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] justhach@lemmy.world 181 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

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

Its like 2016 never even fucking happened lol

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month 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....

[–] Razzazzika@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month 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.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 13 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

That would be an improvement

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, that is what we want.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 month ago

OK, good luck with that.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month 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.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 1 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

What would they base predictions on without results?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Tallying the votes makes the results though.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 85 points 1 month 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.

[–] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month 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...

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 month ago

I didn’t know milk could age this quickly.

[–] Ellvix@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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

[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 41 points 1 month ago

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

[–] sudo_shinespark@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

Cool story, bro.

PLEASE GO VOTE IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Every poll is a lie. Vote!

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, if you leave it in the sun all day

[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month 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.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

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

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

polls were actually pretty good.

[–] zanyllama52@infosec.pub 13 points 1 month ago

America did it again.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

I’m hopping this is true!

Please vote everyone!

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] Syd@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This aged well

[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 9 points 1 month 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.

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago

Please make it so

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago
[–] HorreC@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love how the only time @return2ozma@lemmy.world 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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm a little controversial here I guess hah

[–] wolfeh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month 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.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago