National

[ National ] [ Main Menu ]


  


441614


Date: September 26, 2024 at 05:01:29
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably realize

URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/26/the-presidential-race-is-far-tighter-than-many-democrats-probably-realize


The presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably realize
| John Zogby | The Guardian


Harris is leading in five of seven key battleground states – but her leads are only
one or two percentage points

Thu 26 Sep 2024

Amid the turbulence, conflict, hyperbole, unprecedented misogyny, and
downright hate that provides the backdrop for US elections this year, one thing
remains in equilibrium: the 2024 presidential election. Vice President Kamala
Harris may lead following a honeymoon, a great nominating convention, and a
solid debate performance, but she never leads by much. Former President
Donald Trump may at other times lead nationally and in a few battleground
states, but by one or two percentage points, more or less.

Around 5%-8% of voters remain undecided but they are probably not really
focused on anything more than keeping their job, getting the kids off to school,
grocery shopping, and the other demands of everyday life. And there is only a
little wiggle room, with so many decided voters firm in their support for their
candidate or their intense disgust for the other candidate.

Here’s where we stand: Momentum appears to be with Harris, who leads in four
of the last five nationwide polls (in one by as many as six points) and is tied in
the other. She also leads in five of the critical seven battleground states. But her
leads are under two percentage points and mainly under one percentage point.
The reverse is true for Trump, who presently holds tiny leads in only two states.

What makes this dynamic so intriguing is that, in this context, a shift of one or
two points can change the leader, or the perception of the leader, making these
minor bumps appear larger than they really are. What also makes this so
fascinating is seeing some of the normal voting group alignments shifting.

We pollsters began to take notice of the “gender gap” in 1988, when men
supported Republican George HW Bush and women were highly in favor of
Democrat Michael Dukakis. There have been such gaps in every election since,
but in 2024 they are especially acute. In the latest New York Times/Siena
College poll, Trump leads Harris by 17 points among men in Georgia while in the
same state she is ahead among women by eight – a 25-point gap. The gender
gap is 15 points in Pennsylvania and strong double digits in other states and
nationwide.

We are also paying close attention to the breakdown of voters by race. When
Joe Biden left the race in late July, he was only about 60%-65% among Black
voters. Harris is now polling at around 80% in most battleground states –
including 82% percent each in all-important Pennsylvania and Georgia. In some
states, however, Trump is polling close to 20% among Black voters – with his
support among young Black men approaching 30% in several instances.

By way of historical comparison, Black Americans normally give around 90% of
their vote to Democratic presidential candidates. Barack Obama received 96%
and 93% of the Black vote in his two elections, where they represented around
13% of the total vote. By way of contrast, Hillary Clinton won 87% support
when Black turnout was only 11% of the total and, while she won the overall
popular vote, this meager turnout hurt her in a few states. Trump picking up
such a larger piece of the Black turnout could hurt the Democrats significantly.

What we need to watch closely from here is gender and race. Harris will focus
her attention on appealing to young women on the issue of reproductive rights,
closely followed by the dangers of climate change and gun violence. These
may not be the top three issues to all voters, but they are certainly critical to
young women. And she needs them. Meanwhile, her running mate Tim Walz will
represent the ticket to white working-class voters in the Midwest to prevent the
bleeding among that group among Democrats.

At the same time, look for Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, to continue to
do the aggressive male thing – attacking childless women, calling their
opponent a diversity hire, and the like. Trump’s latest gambit is patronizing
women by telling them they do not need abortion to achieve self-actualization
and empowerment, that he will protect them, that they don’t need to be
worrying their pretty little heads about abortion rights.

This message is not directed at women at all: it is an appeal to young men who
are confused in a world where the definition of manhood is changing, who find
it difficult to steer their lives when girls are doing better on test scores,
attending and completing college in higher rates, and otherwise outperforming
males in a world that men had once dominated. It is men who are finding it
harder and harder to define their careers and future, who fear they are losing
ground.

So Trump and Vance will continue to promise a return to an America where, in
the words of Archie Bunker, “Girls were girls and men were men”, the same
world where communities were white and the US was always right.

At the moment, the presidential race is in balance. The numbers are tied. The
fears of another election too close to call and the turbulence beyond are very
real. We are at equilibrium and very possibly at the calm before the storm.

John Zogby is senior partner at the polling firm of John Zogby Strategies and is
author of Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read the Polls and Why We Should
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you
would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism during one of the most
consequential news cycles of our lifetimes.

We have never been more passionate about exposing the multiplying threats to
our democracy and holding power to account in America. In the heat of a
tumultuous presidential race, there is an urgent need for free, trustworthy
journalism that foregrounds the stakes of November’s election for our country
and planet.

Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have
a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about
what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire
owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the
public interest – not profit motives.

And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a
desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of
neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the
lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation
and demagoguery can damage democracy.

From threats to election integrity, to the spiraling climate crisis, to complex
foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualize, investigate and illuminate the
critical stories of our time. As a global news organization with a robust US
reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so
often missing in the American media bubble.

Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism
because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like
you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and
accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.


Responses:
[441640] [441632] [441654] [441639]


441640


Date: September 27, 2024 at 13:26:20
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably...

URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/09/27/the-talented-mr-trump/


September 27, 2024
The Talented Mr. Trump
Matthew Stevenson

I read the polls (hard as it is to imagine Americans with landlines deciding the election), so you don’t have to, but about the only thing they tell me is that the country is close to electing as its next president someone who is criminally insane, and then perhaps further enabling his psychosis with a House, Senate, and Supreme Court safely in the hands of Republicans such as cinema vaper Lauren Boebert, human trafficker Matt Gaetz, and the paid vacationer, Clarence Thomas.

I suppose the above could also be written more accurately as “criminal and insane” (forensically and to Judge Judy, there might be a difference), although I think that would be splitting hairs—especially those strands that in recent weeks have morphed from Day-Glo orange to what now appears to be Baywatch lifeguard blond.

As a consolation, I cannot say I put much stock in the polls, in part because I have met a number of pollsters in spin rooms, at campaign events, and in New Hampshire living rooms.

In person, they remind me of the punters who used to spend much of their lives in New York’s Off-Track Betting parlors handicapping, for example, the fourth race at Aqueduct Racetrack or circling the names of sure-thing horses in the tabloid Daily Racing Form—and then mumbling to themselves and throwing their tickets on the coffee-stained floor when their pony came in sixth.

* * *

In the current horse race (perhaps in the future election day will be known as The Supreme Court Classic?), the pollsters only goal is to cover all the angles, so that after the contest is decided they can say, “Mostly we got it right.” (The captain of the Titanic could make the same claim.)

In this election, that means making the easy calls up front: Kamala Harris will win the popular vote, and the Republicans will take control of the Senate. Then it means announcing that the Electoral College and the House of Representatives remain “too close to call” or “within the margin of error.” After that, you’re on your own.

In national polling (which mean nothing as the United States does not have a direct election of its presidents), Harris leads by 47.9% over Trump’s 45.8% while in the battleground states of the Electoral College, Trump is ahead in three states (Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina) while Harris is ahead ever-so-slightly in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada. In a blend of battleground state polls, Trump holds a slight lead of 0.2%.

* * *

In its extensive model, the polling website 538 says that if the election were held 1,000 times, Harris would win 555 times, while Trump would win 441 times; in four such simulated elections, there would be no winner (and the House would decide the matter). The 538 projection updates constantly, as new polling data is fed into the model.

Thanks, 538, but if the Steve Miller band has its way, we might not get even one election, let along 1,000.

The no-toss up model at Real Clear Politics (perhaps to send off alarm bells to its Trumpist readership?) has Harris winning the Electoral College by 276 – 262, although that assumes she carries Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada (where, except in Michigan, her margin is less than one percent).

* * *

Not unexpectedly, the most convoluted, cover-all-the-bases analysis came out in the New York Times, where its pollster, Nate Cohn, wrote in his The Tilt column:

The core battlegrounds are clear enough: The polls show Ms. Harris leading in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, states that would be enough for her to win the presidency, provided she wins the more Democratic-leaning states and districts where she currently leads. On average, Ms. Harris is faring a hair better than President Biden’s election results across these states.

The national polls, on the other hand, show Ms. Harris faring about two points worse than Mr. Biden’s results. Clearly, Mr. Trump is polling better in noncompetitive parts of the country, even as Ms. Harris shows resilience where it counts. Together, it reduces the size of Mr. Trump’s advantage in the Electoral College.

Wake me up when you figure out who the Times thinks might win. I somehow doubt language such as this counts as a forecast:

With the polling predictably focused on the battlegrounds, we may not have a great idea on this until the final results arrive in November. If the results wind up looking somewhat more like the midterms, I won’t be surprised. Much crazier things have happened.

Personally, I am skeptical of most polls, but at least they reveal one clear trend: in 2024 Americans might well elect someone to their highest political office who isn’t simply a financial fraudster, convicted felon, and adjudicated sexual abuser, but a person whose mental competence would be questioned by any EMS team that happened to collect him from the sidewalk on a cold winter night (while he was claiming to have won the presidency in 2020 and going on about immigrant Haitians eating Springfield’s dogs and cats).

I might have more faith in the polls if one of the questions posed was, “Do you believe that Donald Trump is sane?”

* * *

The fact of the matter is that countries routinely lose their collective minds. Germany did in 1933 when it allowed Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists to seize power, but so did the United States when it tolerated a war in Vietnam for more than a decade, and Russia today is in the hands of a tsarist pretender who claims to represent a public from whom he might well have stolen a trillion dollars.

In 1984 historian Barbara Tuchman devoted an entire book to what she called The March of Folly, which is about countries that over time lost touch with reality. Would not the re-election of a mentally impaired Donald Trump to the presidency warrant at the very least a postscript?

Obviously, there is no polling data on what accounts for large portions of the American electorate in 2024 supporting a candidate who is physically, morally, and politically unhinged.

I can only guess that Trump has been given a national hall pass because his gold-embroidered name represents a brand that is synonymous with power and money, which in the current election cycle carries more weight than honesty, character, integrity, or personal accountability. On national political issues, Trump just rambles, as if Mad Libs scripted his speeches.

Here—picked almost randomly—is something that he said this week in Georgia:

Remember one other thing, and I think it’s terrible, she lied about McDonald’s. She said, “I was a worker in McDonald’s and I stood over the french fries.” I’m going to a McDonald’s over the next two weeks and I’m going to stand over the french fries because I want to see what her job really wasn’t like because she never… I stood over the french fries and that was tough. It was hot outside and it was hot over… She never worked there, it was a lie. And when I asked her at the debate, I said, ” I want to talk about this,” ABC said… ABC, which is the worst of them all by the way. Did you see that David Muir’s ratings are way down? I love that bit can he lost his credibility (sic). I love it.

Maybe there’s an app that translates Trump’s digressions into the language of The Federalist Papers? Or at least makes him sound normal?

No one trying to hire an eighth-grade social studies teacher or Little League coach would give serial felon Trump a second look, yet he remains the Republican nominee and a serious candidate to become the next president.

* * *

Branding is the commercial equivalent of immunity (that commodity so beloved by the Roberts Supreme Court), and it has allowed all sorts of flimflam entities—think of Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bernie Madoff, Theranos, etc.—to survive for years despite being little more than fraudulent shells set up to bleed customers.

The genius (if that’s the word) of the Trump brand is that it allows its grand wizard to wrap himself in the flag and, thus suitably disguised, to use the political system as a cover behind which he can bilk billions in savings from a gullible public (and then when challenged to hide behind a corrupt Supreme Court).

In just the last two weeks, Trump has launched his own watered-down, three-card monte Trump Silver Coin ($31 of silver in a coin that costs $100) and his own cryptocurrency, World Liberty Financial, as if the illusions of the publicly-listed Trump Media were not enough embezzlement for one campaign season.

Nevertheless, in the current election, Trump’s grifting barely moves the outrage dial, even though Trump is the political embodiment of Charles Ponzi—raking in millions from his political supporters who in return only want to attend his rallies and hear a few one-liners about Joe Biden.

* * *

Beyond branding offering a cloak of immunity to reprehensible candidates, there’s another element that has devalued American democracy to near worthlessness, which is that elections have been reduced to cheap, serial entertainments, yet another Netflix drama involving sex, lies, and videotape.

Trump gets away with his sexual, financial, and political crimes because he’s not judged as a potential state magistrate (someone to govern a nation at a critical time), but as a sitcom actor, vaudeville performer, or sideshow act that Americans can digest (and enjoy) with their TikTok attention spans. In 2024, a vote is little more than a thumbs-up emoji.

Who needs to read position papers on tariffs, monetary policy, climate change, or Gaza when Trump appears each morning in your in-box riffing about hungry Haitians or “liking” Laura Loomer’s latest plea for apartheid in America.

The truism of 2024 is that the Republican Party is nothing more than a cult, a political Jonestown with Trump at the head of his own version of the People’s Temple.

While that may be true, and while that might well explain why Trump can be close to winning the election, it glosses over the fact that Trump’s appeal is more like that of the Wizard of Oz, which allows him with smoke and mirrors to hold a nation under wraps from behind a shabby curtain.

We would do better to remember the words of the Scarecrow, who said: “Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don’t you think?”

Matthew Stevenson is the author of many books, including Reading the Rails, Appalachia Spring, andThe Revolution as a Dinner Party, about China throughout its turbulent twentieth century. His most recent books are Biking with Bismarck and Our Man in Iran. Out now: Donald Trump’s Circus Maximus and Joe Biden’s Excellent Adventure, about the 2016 and 2020 elections.


Responses:
None


441632


Date: September 27, 2024 at 08:02:59
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably...


yeah, well..unless you have lost faith in polls because
they've been so wrong.

But hey, as long as you feel validated, that's all that
counts.


Responses:
[441654] [441639]


441654


Date: September 28, 2024 at 01:35:47
From: Cinnamon in Oregon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably...


From where I sit, the problem is that "people who will take phone polls" are only a subset of "people who will vote". And people who will take polls on the phone are a distinctive group.

First off, many conservative voters distrust everyone - politicians, the media, and pollsters. And so...they refuse the take the survey. BUT...most of those people will vote. And polls aren't picking them up.

Second, a big chunk of those willing to respond are people with strong opinions. People with not-so-strong opinions or who maybe don't really understand the issues don't take the polls - BUT they will still vote. And polls aren't picking them up.

Then, from where I sit, it seems that open, friendly, more liberal people are more likely to respond to polls than closed, defensive, more conservative people. But they ALL vote.

So there is a disparity between the two groups - those who will respond to polls vs. those who will vote.

I am assuming that the people at the top of polls have a good idea how to factor all these things into the final tally. But, still, it's subjective.


Responses:
None


441639


Date: September 27, 2024 at 09:54:51
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably...


december 1979? 11 months before the november 1980 election? lol


Responses:
None


[ National ] [ Main Menu ]

Generated by: TalkRec 1.17
    Last Updated: 30-Aug-2013 14:32:46, 80837 Bytes
    Author: Brian Steele