Actually, that may be enough. There's some evidence that the EC edge for the GOP is smaller than in the past. We'll find out how it works this year when the votes are counted.
It's been a steady race for a while. Will it be that way till Election Day? Maybe. Or maybe not. I tend to think the last couple weeks of October could see a move in one direction or another. Which may or may not happen.
In any case, the latest five polls in the 538 average have Harris +4, +4, +3, +3, +4.
Josef
I'm going to be 🤞 till she wins. We don't need another four years of Trump and all the weirdos he surrounds himself with.
CalStateDisneyland
The real tension for me is whether the House of Representatives will certify a Harris victory. Or will it otherwise use the Vance rationale of social media censorship to justify an argument the election is invalid and vote to elect Trump.
The foundations of America are trembling if such a question can be legitimately asked. And I think it can be legitimately asked.
Honeyboy Wilson
The new House certifies the presidential election. If Harris wins then there's a very good chance that democrats will win the House. And, of course, the current VP is in charge of certification on Jan 6. And that's Harris.
Both houses need to object to votes during the couting, so as long as the senate is semi-sane the House cannot block the counting.
I think there are enough Republican senators that are at least semi-sane to ensure that the counting goes ok, as long that the states certify the electors.
The main question is whether the Trmpists can stop some states from certifying a Harris win by using threats and violence.
The latest ruling in Georgia is encouraging. "No election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance,” ruled Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney."
trying_to_be_optimistic
Not preparing for civil unrest seems dangerous at this point. I’m not a “prepper” either. Just eyes open. Incredibly sad.
megarajusticemachine
Rolling Stone ran an article back in March that said Biden's team was preparing for the legal fuckery even before the 2020 election, and were still working on it for this one. Considering recent history, I'm sure mere violence is now part of that too - and that their work didn't stop when Harris stepped forward. Do you have proof they're not preparing? It may seem misguided, but these are reasonable folk and I see no reason to suspect they're bumbling fools. I do understand apprehension for awful reactions on the right's part though.
trying_to_be_optimistic
My comment was too vague. Thanks for your reply. I meant individuals should prepare. Thanks for your comment about her and Biden’s teams. I can’t imagine you’re wrong.
D_Ohrk_E1
You should appreciate the irony of MAGA calling for Trump to use the Insurrection Act to nationalize the states' national guard to do whatever he wants, meanwhile, Biden is the POTUS in position to do this to crush civil unrest caused by these MAGA insurrectionists.
“Harris (52%) leads Trump (47%) among likely voters nationally, including those who are undecided yet leaning toward a candidate. Earlier this month, two points separated Harris (50%) and Trump (48%) among likely voters.”
middleoftheroaddem
Just speculation on my part but, I read Harris doing a Fox News interview, as a sign that the Harris team believe they are behind: who knows what the Harris internal polls really show.
If the Harris team felt confident, I would guess that Harris would NEVER agree to a Fox interview....
wvmcl2
Hmm. Seems every time Harris does something gutsy it's interpreted as a sign of weakness.
middleoftheroaddem
wvmcl2 - I HOPE you are correct. I guess we will all see, soon enough.
Joel
"I would guess . . ."
You? Who are you?
Josef
Or it could be a sign that she thinks she can persuade Fox viewers. As I recall Pete Buttigieg did really well when he was on a Fox program. I recall him getting a standing ovation. It's possible she might reach some of them. Any amount will help.
cld
She doesn't need to persuade them, she needs to de-motivate them.
Solarpup
I take it as a sign that she's taking the task at hand seriously. You go after every gettable vote. She's had my vote from the moment the DNC coalesced around her candidacy. But there are gettable Republicans out there who watch Fox news.
I don't take this as a sign of panic, but a sign of seriousness. If you really think a Trump win is an existential threat to our democracy -- and I do, and I think she does -- leave nothing on the table, regardless of the polls.
Josef
+1. No vote should be dismissed or taken for granted.
Jasper_in_Boston
Exactly. Even if they think they're ahead, it's obviously close, and in that situation you want to be aggressive, which means campaigning as if you're behind.
barleyfreak
Not a sign she thinks she is behind. There really is not anything significant to lose here IMO, only to gain. The overwhelming majority of Fox viewers are not going to vote for her no matter what. There may be some undecideds though. Or perhaps more accurately, undecided if they are going to vote or not. To anyone on that fence, I think she has a good shot at convincing some to vote. And maybe others to not vote.
KenSchulz
There are workplace break rooms and other public places where Fox News is on constantly; not everyone exposed to it is MAGA.
bebopman
I’m no strategist but I read it as the opposite. I think she is trying to get Trump to use up money/time/resources, even a little bit, nailing down a group he should already have. He has fewer resources than she does and probably doesn’t want to have to use some of it on wavering fox viewers . ( I think there are a few) . It’s a sign of confidence that she may reach a few people just by not eating a baby on camera.
D_Ohrk_E1
I'm not sure if they think they're behind, but I'm certain that the playbook is to run as though they were behind, chalking it up to lessons learned from Clinton's loss.
KenSchulz
Yes!
Jasper_in_Boston
This.
Joel
Sam Wang over at Princeton Election Consortium has Harris behind with 260 electoral college votes. Why the big discrepancy?
cld
Something about how different polls give different levels of weight and credibility to registered voters vs likely voters, which can be tweaked to give the results you're really looking for.
Brett
Not great, but if she does better in the swing states it won't matter.
D_Ohrk_E1
In their August campaign period's FEC filings, Trump raised $10M in individual contributions while Harris raised $99M. At the same time, Trump was outspending his fundraising while Harris was not.
We know she's raised $1B total since she jumped into the race and has a large cash advantage. As a result, she has a massive ground game while Trump is conspicuously absent in the GOTV operations in many parts of the battleground states. Supposedly, he's outsourcing that to SuperPACs, but that means more cooks in the kitchen with different ideas of what makes a great stew.
If a ground game is worth 0.5 pp, I'd bet on Harris maximizing her vote potential and Trump falling short, with Harris sweeping all of the battleground states.
I’ll be happy with any win, of course, but the more convincing, the better, in terms of shutting up at least some of the MAGA cult. And it could add some recruits to the Lincoln Project and Never Trumpers to try to seize the remains of their party back. So, beating the GOP like a filthydirty carpet is relevant.
Not enough.
Actually, that may be enough. There's some evidence that the EC edge for the GOP is smaller than in the past. We'll find out how it works this year when the votes are counted.
It's been a steady race for a while. Will it be that way till Election Day? Maybe. Or maybe not. I tend to think the last couple weeks of October could see a move in one direction or another. Which may or may not happen.
In any case, the latest five polls in the 538 average have Harris +4, +4, +3, +3, +4.
I'm going to be 🤞 till she wins. We don't need another four years of Trump and all the weirdos he surrounds himself with.
The real tension for me is whether the House of Representatives will certify a Harris victory. Or will it otherwise use the Vance rationale of social media censorship to justify an argument the election is invalid and vote to elect Trump.
The foundations of America are trembling if such a question can be legitimately asked. And I think it can be legitimately asked.
The new House certifies the presidential election. If Harris wins then there's a very good chance that democrats will win the House. And, of course, the current VP is in charge of certification on Jan 6. And that's Harris.
Both houses need to object to votes during the couting, so as long as the senate is semi-sane the House cannot block the counting.
I think there are enough Republican senators that are at least semi-sane to ensure that the counting goes ok, as long that the states certify the electors.
The main question is whether the Trmpists can stop some states from certifying a Harris win by using threats and violence.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12
look for "Objecting to the Counting of One or More
Electoral Votes"
The latest ruling in Georgia is encouraging. "No election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance,” ruled Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney."
Not preparing for civil unrest seems dangerous at this point. I’m not a “prepper” either. Just eyes open. Incredibly sad.
Rolling Stone ran an article back in March that said Biden's team was preparing for the legal fuckery even before the 2020 election, and were still working on it for this one. Considering recent history, I'm sure mere violence is now part of that too - and that their work didn't stop when Harris stepped forward. Do you have proof they're not preparing? It may seem misguided, but these are reasonable folk and I see no reason to suspect they're bumbling fools. I do understand apprehension for awful reactions on the right's part though.
My comment was too vague. Thanks for your reply. I meant individuals should prepare. Thanks for your comment about her and Biden’s teams. I can’t imagine you’re wrong.
You should appreciate the irony of MAGA calling for Trump to use the Insurrection Act to nationalize the states' national guard to do whatever he wants, meanwhile, Biden is the POTUS in position to do this to crush civil unrest caused by these MAGA insurrectionists.
Marist has her up by five.
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/
And it’s “likely voters”.
“Harris (52%) leads Trump (47%) among likely voters nationally, including those who are undecided yet leaning toward a candidate. Earlier this month, two points separated Harris (50%) and Trump (48%) among likely voters.”
Just speculation on my part but, I read Harris doing a Fox News interview, as a sign that the Harris team believe they are behind: who knows what the Harris internal polls really show.
If the Harris team felt confident, I would guess that Harris would NEVER agree to a Fox interview....
Hmm. Seems every time Harris does something gutsy it's interpreted as a sign of weakness.
wvmcl2 - I HOPE you are correct. I guess we will all see, soon enough.
"I would guess . . ."
You? Who are you?
Or it could be a sign that she thinks she can persuade Fox viewers. As I recall Pete Buttigieg did really well when he was on a Fox program. I recall him getting a standing ovation. It's possible she might reach some of them. Any amount will help.
She doesn't need to persuade them, she needs to de-motivate them.
I take it as a sign that she's taking the task at hand seriously. You go after every gettable vote. She's had my vote from the moment the DNC coalesced around her candidacy. But there are gettable Republicans out there who watch Fox news.
I don't take this as a sign of panic, but a sign of seriousness. If you really think a Trump win is an existential threat to our democracy -- and I do, and I think she does -- leave nothing on the table, regardless of the polls.
+1. No vote should be dismissed or taken for granted.
Exactly. Even if they think they're ahead, it's obviously close, and in that situation you want to be aggressive, which means campaigning as if you're behind.
Not a sign she thinks she is behind. There really is not anything significant to lose here IMO, only to gain. The overwhelming majority of Fox viewers are not going to vote for her no matter what. There may be some undecideds though. Or perhaps more accurately, undecided if they are going to vote or not. To anyone on that fence, I think she has a good shot at convincing some to vote. And maybe others to not vote.
There are workplace break rooms and other public places where Fox News is on constantly; not everyone exposed to it is MAGA.
I’m no strategist but I read it as the opposite. I think she is trying to get Trump to use up money/time/resources, even a little bit, nailing down a group he should already have. He has fewer resources than she does and probably doesn’t want to have to use some of it on wavering fox viewers . ( I think there are a few) . It’s a sign of confidence that she may reach a few people just by not eating a baby on camera.
I'm not sure if they think they're behind, but I'm certain that the playbook is to run as though they were behind, chalking it up to lessons learned from Clinton's loss.
Yes!
This.
Sam Wang over at Princeton Election Consortium has Harris behind with 260 electoral college votes. Why the big discrepancy?
Something about how different polls give different levels of weight and credibility to registered voters vs likely voters, which can be tweaked to give the results you're really looking for.
Not great, but if she does better in the swing states it won't matter.
In their August campaign period's FEC filings, Trump raised $10M in individual contributions while Harris raised $99M. At the same time, Trump was outspending his fundraising while Harris was not.
We know she's raised $1B total since she jumped into the race and has a large cash advantage. As a result, she has a massive ground game while Trump is conspicuously absent in the GOTV operations in many parts of the battleground states. Supposedly, he's outsourcing that to SuperPACs, but that means more cooks in the kitchen with different ideas of what makes a great stew.
If a ground game is worth 0.5 pp, I'd bet on Harris maximizing her vote potential and Trump falling short, with Harris sweeping all of the battleground states.
Wisconsin + Michigan + Pennsylvania = 270. Everything else is irrelevant.
I’ll be happy with any win, of course, but the more convincing, the better, in terms of shutting up at least some of the MAGA cult. And it could add some recruits to the Lincoln Project and Never Trumpers to try to seize the remains of their party back. So, beating the GOP like a filthydirty carpet is relevant.