• bradinutah@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    153
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The only poll that really matters is the election itself. Don’t be complacent! Get the job done and vote Blue!

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Highly encourage it! If it feels intimidating, you also can try to get some friends and or family to go with you too (plus getting even more impact with more people)

    • Furball@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Polls do matter. They are a valuable way for ordinary people to see how the election might be going right now and to get an idea about how the population feels. Obviously though, nothing in politics can ever matter as much as voting.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        A lot of people will vote based on who they think will win. I don’t understand this, but it’s a thing.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          People like reflected glory, which they get by rooting for the “winning team.”

          You see this when people with no investment in a sport pick a team to root for in a big game. It’s generally who they think will win, even if that guess is just based on vibes.

          • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            How many Germans with this mindset rooted for the Nazis, I wonder? It’s one thing to root for the top dog in a sports match but it’s unprincipled in politics. It’s another level of ignorance and irresponsibility.

      • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree that’s the intent, however, they too often can be misleading, used in misleading ways, or simply misunderstood. I think too many people sat at home in 2016 saying “Well, Hillary has this one in the bag.” Let’s not do that to Kamala Harris, and more importantly, to ourselves.

      • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        It also pisses off Orange Man. And with enough temper tantrums and mental breakdowns, MAGA might wake up to how fucking stupid that guy is.

  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    3 months ago

    In a multi-way ballot, Harris’ lead widens, receiving 47% to Trump’s 41% among registered voters, and 50% to 42% among likely voters.

    Yeah, I’ve been wondering about this. People talk like RFK and Stein are spoilers for the Dems, when it seemed really obvious to me that RFK and Trump must share some of the brainworm-victim demographic.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      RFK sounds “progressive-independent” on paper or on his website, with all the good bullet points that are almost perfectly tailored to try and steal democratic votes- but the second he opens his mouth at any event it is complete far-right insane word vomit. Any “on the fence” voter who does even the barest research or watches one event will go “Oh HELL no”.

      • paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Any “on the fence” voter who does even the barest research or watches one event will go “Oh HELL no”.

        That’s still actually a pretty high bar for “on the fence” voters. Anyone who is of voting age, lived through the past 8 years, and is still undecided about Trump is probably already an idiot who can’t even be bothered to do basic research outside of reading facebook while on the toilet.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Must remember that there is a MASSIVE pool of “unlikely voters” sitting on the sidelines and up for grabs. These voters are very familiar with Trump, but they aren’t very familiar with Harris and especially Walz. That means there is big potential to turn Unlikely Voters into Likely Voters for Harris.

      We really need voter turnout to be historic.

      That means getting a greater chunk of the Voting-Eligible Population to turn out. Ideally we need to exceed the already high turnout of recent elections of ~66%.

  • Chaosppe@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 months ago

    Website is harvesting your data: 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

    We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact [email protected] or call (847) 497-5230.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      What was their walz prediction on Monday?

      They look like they put up “right-ish” numbers long term, but seem very wrong short term. I recall seeing walz at 3% a week before he was on the ticket, which is a pretty wide miss.

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Walz has been way above 3% since I started watching. Shapiro was the heavy favorite (like 60-70%) most of the time, with Walz at 10-15% iirc. Then when it narrowed down to him and Walz, it wnt to about 50-50 though I didn’t keep an eye on it. There might be graphs on the site showing how things moved. Supposedly these betting markets have been more accurate than polls historically, though maybe that has changed in the past few years, as people figured out you can manipulate public opinion by dumping money on your candidate.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yeah, somebody pointed out that they tracked pretty close to 538, which suprised me. Digging into it, that seems to only scale to “big” questions, and even then is wildly wrong in the days/weeks range.

          Digging further, one of the big markets got a huge chunk of money from Peter thiel (who dumps hundreds of millions into far right campaigns) and then added Nate silver to its “advisors.”

          So at this point, the neutrality and quality of all of these things are suspect.