472
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
472 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2464 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Both things can be true.
...What we've found for the last 10 years or so now is that when it comes to Republican candidates, and especially Trump, reality no longer matters. At all. There are 743,000 things that should have disqualified him for president. That Republicans should have noped out on, said "this is definitely not our guy". They just don't matter. For a number of reasons.
His campaign could be literally a dog shitting on a US flag. And it wouldn't change anything; he would still poll virtually the same. There are almost no actual "undecideds" leaning towards him.
At this point, it's about voter motivation and access. His guys CAN be less motivated to vote, and Harris supporters can definitely be more motivated to vote. That's where we are.
Thanks. And I was having such a great week.
Isn't that true about all US elections? There are no "undecided" voters, just Dems and Reps and the result is always based on who can motivate their voters the most.
Not all.
And it didn't use to be. Well, as bad, anyway.
Also, democrats and Democrat-aligned seem to be more likely to consider other options, or to call out their leaders. Not always, and probably not even most of the time. But significantly more often.
Also, it goes in one direction. I know plenty of democrats who voted for a Republican president, but hardly any republicans that voted for a Democrat president.
If that were true, then nobody would be worried about third-party voters. Off the top of my head, you might want to consider it 1992, 2000, and 2016.
(Of course motivating people is really important, too.)
Agreed, but I don't know the mindset of those people and how to think of them. Do we just take them out of the voter pool? Are they potentially swing?
My take on 2016 was that the Dems were deeply unenthusiastic about Hillary - and who can blame them - so they didn't show up to vote. On the other hand the Reps were stoked about Trump so they turned up at the polls.
Swing voters? I don't get it. I cannot see any rational person sitting in the middle comparing Trump and Harris and picking Trump as a better presidential option. Irrational people? My gut tells me they they are probably sitting and the far ends of either camp.
My guess is that the people closer to the middle aren't actually swing voters, but they are far more likely to have their enthusiasm to vote influenced than the true believers.
The big question, in my opinion, is how much - or how little - the polls reflect the enthusiasm to go out and vote. My impression is that Dem enthusiasm in high right now, while not so much for the Reps. It's possible that a 50/50 poll may hide the fact that a big chunk of one of the 50% is much less likely to actually vote.
I'm Canadian, so I see the news but I don't have day to day experience with US voters. Of course, neither do the 90% of Americans that don't live in those swing states.
Many polls are of registered likely voters. So as you point out, that data alone is not particularly informative on this issue.
My question is how much "likely" translates to "voted". It seems easy to respond, "Yes", when asked on the phone, but requires a bit more enthusiasm to actually go stand in line and cast a vote.