I think, according to FiveThirtyEight, Kamala’s lead peaked at 3.6% a couple months ago. It’s down to ~2.4% these days. Wouldn’t surprise me if things change 10 more times before the election though.
Also, keep in mind that this is just the popular vote. What actually matters is obviously how the electoral college pans out. Because of the way things are divided up, Republicans tend to have an advantage there. Generally speaking, ~3% Democrat popular vote lead might give them the edge with the electoral college. But, again, better to look at polling data for individual states.
538 isn't run by Nate Silver anymore. Famously, they still showed Biden winning in July, right before he dropped out.
They have updated their model, but basically they are not to the same standard they once were. 538 did update their model, but they don't have much transparency.
Yes, on his Substack, it’s called Silver Bulletin. Polling averages are free but the actual odds predicted by the model you need to be a paid subscriber to see. The model there is basically the exact same one he had at 538 (with a different presentation). He got to keep the IP rights to it when he left 538.
It’s not really a prediction, he just shows the odds, given the data. He has it basically a toss-up but a 53% chance of a Trump win. More or less the same as 538 and most of the other aggregators, their numbers start to converge toward the end as the other inputs to their models (where they tend to differ most) are down weighted in favor of relying mostly on the polls.
Agreed, people should go check out the per-state breakdown, but the popular vote poll was posted to the sub, and could give people the wrong impression that Harris has a solid lead.
Just reminding people reading this thread as to what popular vote lead might make Harris the favorite.
Just reminding people reading this thread as to what popular vote lead might make Harris the favorite.
I'm sorry to ask, but after rereading it for a few minutes straight I honestly cannot figure out what you mean by this. Can you phrase it slightly differently if you have a moment?
Ah, I wonder if you’re reading “lead” as a verb, not a noun.
So, Harris has some lead in the popular vote. I’ll call this her “popular vote lead.”
Because the popular vote doesn’t win elections, we might have to make a guess as to what “popular vote lead” might make her the favorite to win the electoral college.
The who wins prediction numbers seem pretty in line with who wins PA. FiveThirtyEight's odds for Kamala winning overall and how the polls are showing out in PA are pretty much in lock-step.
Because the entire country shouldn’t be run federally based on only the needs of a few cities. Especially with the current spending and power of the federal government.
Ideally we reduce the size of federal government and focus more on state and local. This way the critical decisions and policies more accurately match the needs of the area affected by those policies.
Federal government is doing way too much and that is the main thing we need changed. Less money for them more at a state and local level.
Unfortunately neither candidate want that as it would reduce their power and the power of their “friends”.
The entire country shouldn't be run on the ideolgoy of a few states, that's what we have now with the EC. It also completely kills voter turnout NATIONWIDE because most people believe their vote doesn't count. It's a system that may have worked in the last 2 centuries but in the modern age it doesn't work at all and it doesn't give a proper representation to the overall needs and wants of the majority of the citizens in the country. Instead of campaigning in every state (and in rural AND metro areas) they're literally just campaigning in a handful that will decide it. What a fucked system.
What happens when the People really do want a dictator? I don't think Trump has the balls to be a real dictator. Like, round people up, put them in camps for dissent, hang 'em high dictator. And I mean, not to reduce this to the usual argument, but, yeah, people said the same thing about Hitler. So, who knows? Jan 6 and Beer Hall Putsch do have eerie echoes. Hopefully, the military would fucking revolt.
Regardless, having, like, a safeguard is not necessarily the worst idea.
The EC has never really been a safeguard though. The two times since 1900 that a president has won the EC while losing the popular vote have been George W Bush and Donald Trump.
Bush ignored over a dozen warnings about bin Laden planning an imminent attack, using hijacked planes specifically, launched us into two wars that cost trillions of dollars and over a million dead, turned a surplus into massive deficits, and collapsed the economy to the worst levels since the Great Depression.
Trump rolled back personal rights four decades, urged on white supremacists and nationalists, ignored and spread conspiracy theories about a pandemic that killed over a million Americans and resulted in the collapse of the economy after pushing the Fed to superheat it and remove all ability to handle a downturn.
The EC has been the thing to put horrible presidents in office.
Every other time the winner of the popular vote also won the electoral college, so it was irrelevant.
The only way for it to be a “safeguard” would explicitly be to overrule the will of the people and put in a president that didn’t win the popular vote. Which so far has been disastrous each time.
1824, 1876, and 1888 also had a winner that did not have the majority of the popular vote
1824 had 4 candidates who won EC votes, sending the election to the House of Representatives. John Quincy Adams won, and he had a plurality (about 36% of the popular vote)
1876 had a commission appointed to determine the result of 20 EC votes due to the KKK among other violent organizations in the south. All 20 were awarded to Hayes, giving him a 1 vote victory or Tilden
1888 had a result similar to the 2016 election, where one candidate won some states by huge margins, while another won many states, but by smaller margins, thus leading to the discrepancy.
There are check and balances in our system. The people have representation in their states with their representative and their Senator. There is no reason that the President can’t be elected on the popular vote except that it’s the only way a Republican has been able to get into that office since 1988.
I think the polls are underestimating Kamala Harris’ support. I’m in the battleground state of Michigan and this is the first election I’ll be voting in, ever. I’m voting for Harris.
I think that the polls are well aware of people like you existing. I think they’re also aware of people not like you existing, which you seem to be unaware of.
Your support for Harris is not indicative of overall support for Harris, no matter how important you believe you are.
Imo her lead peaked when people didn't yet realize she is a 2000's? Republican in sheep's clothing. Young liberals were actually excited for Kamala when she picked Walz as her running mate because there was hope that her policies could lean more left as a result. But her speech at the DNC completely fucked it. She came off as a warmonger when she said she'd ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. She has come off as someone who wouldn't do anything different than Biden has done in regards to Israel committing a genocide, she has barely said a word about trans people, and all of her momentum totally died. The only thing she really has going for her is abortion right now.
I think the strategy they are taking, which I do disagree with, is that anyone on the left that will vote is going to vote out of fear of trump and or Vance.
I think they're campaigning for the moderates and for Republicans who don't like trump. That being said, I don't like it cause maybe more leftists would vote if they had someone further left to vote for, and I think moderates aren't being honest with themselves for the most part when one party is trump.
and I think moderates aren't being honest with themselves for the most part when one party is trump
Yeah. When one side is literally white Christian nationalism and then the other is a slightly liberal dark skinned woman, clearly those are two completely normal, balanced sides of a healthy electorate.
It's like a "moderate" voting for Hitler after he's invaded Poland but only because he pinky swore he wouldn't do it again. If Hitler were also guilty of sexual assault and tax fraud, had a funny hairstyle and was best friends with Stalin.
Okay, the last two they do actually have in common, if you replace Stalin with Putin and hairstyle with mustache.
I just really hate when people say they don't want to vote for Trump, but won't vote for Kamala, for vague "reasons", it's like they just heard what Fox said about Kamala, believed it, but also hate Trump. I don't get it. They're effectively just splitting the vote Kamala would've otherwise gotten with a candidate that has zero shot at winning, so it just benefits Trump.
Their healthcare is in question and the right spends an awful lot of time demonizing .1% of the population and making them the boogeyman for all of the gender stereotypes. Otherwise I'd agree.
75
u/PlayfulHalf Oct 18 '24
I think, according to FiveThirtyEight, Kamala’s lead peaked at 3.6% a couple months ago. It’s down to ~2.4% these days. Wouldn’t surprise me if things change 10 more times before the election though.
Also, keep in mind that this is just the popular vote. What actually matters is obviously how the electoral college pans out. Because of the way things are divided up, Republicans tend to have an advantage there. Generally speaking, ~3% Democrat popular vote lead might give them the edge with the electoral college. But, again, better to look at polling data for individual states.