-40
Trump Takes Lead in 538 Simulations (projects.fivethirtyeight.com)
submitted 2 months ago by credo@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

For the first time since 538 published our presidential election forecast for Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, Trump has taken the lead (if a very small one) over Harris. As of 3 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 18, our model gives Trump a 52-in-100 chance of winning the majority of Electoral College votes. The model gives Harris a 48-in-100 chance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

How is anyone planning on voting for this giant piece of shit? 2016? Ok I could sympathize with one or two people. But in 2024!? Jesus fuck, you have to be a real knuckle dragging hood wearing degenerate to try and make that case. How about trump and everyone that loves him just move to Texas and build a wall? I’m sure the entire world would be grateful.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

It's the result of settling for "not trump".

To some people "good" is binary. So they do think both parties will fuck them over economically and not actually fix the shit that honestly the majority of Americans agree need fixed.

So all the economic policy is a write off.

That leaves social issues they don't really understand because they were raised vaguely religious and have fallen for right wing propaganda.

All politicians are corrupt liars

Is something you will hear damn near anytime politics come up in deep red areas. Which is why yelling about how trump is a corrupt liar to your face turns blue doesn't accomplish anything.

They know that, they're not even in denial about.

To be clear, I'm voting D. But the county I grew up has never voted less than 95% for trump.

That's what they're ok with voting for him tho. But if Dems ran a charismatic progressive who people believed was different and authentic?

Well, look what Obama did

While moderates have favored the Democratic candidate in each of the past five elections, Barack Obama gained the support of more voters in the ideological “middle” than did either John Kerry or Al Gore before him. He won at least half the votes of independents (52% vs. 49% for Kerry), suburban voters (50% vs. 47% for Kerry), Catholics (54% vs. 47% for Kerry), and other key swing groups in the electorate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/

His gains wasn't from progressives, we always show up. His gains were because people in those deep red areas believe all politicians are corrupt liars, and if a rare one shows up that seems authentic, they don't give a fuck about party labels.

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I was a big Bernie fan :( you make some great points though. The big problem I see is it’s not just a difference of ideology, you literally have one candidate calling himself a day 1 dictator and shitting on poor and brown people and women, and the other not doing that. How can you go for ketchup steak Hitler? I guess if the Old Testament gives you a boner for all the slaves and genocide and stuff, then that’s your answer.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm not just defending them because that's where I came from, I'm not defending them at all honestly.

Just explaining the "why". If you just write them off as evil idiots, it's harder to prevent it next time. We need to understand "why" because the fight against facism is literally never over. Might be 5 years, might be 50, but they'll be back.

How can you go for ketchup steak Hitler?

Because they think both parties are the same, and they see Trump's comments as "telling it like it is".

When you think both will be dictators "at least he admits it" could be a positive.

They believe all the rightwing bullshit about what Kamala will do despite Biden not already doing it. From that perspective they have the choice of two evils and "the lesser of two evils" for them is the one that's "honest" about being a dictator and says he agrees on social issues, not even getting into SC seats.

Every excuse for voting R for them tho disappears if we run a good candidate. So the most extreme will stay home and the moderate ones will vote D.

That's how we win votes from Republicans, if we try to meet them in the middle with conservative policy, it just legitimizes the conservative party. Those voters don't want a negotiator.

Obama showed us the path relatively recently, it's just the money behind the party would rather trump wins. Someday we're going to have to re-evaluate why the people running the DNC are just whoever gets the most donations from corporations and billionaires and put someone that knows how to win elections in leadership

[-] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago

I have family: TL;DR they want more Christianity in power, several specifically WASPs, and somethingsomething the end justifies the means to structure that authority.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I think it's the same sort of reactions that you see on the vote pattern for this post or anything else suggesting Kamala might not win.

People don't want (or maybe nowadays lack the capacity) to hear/read/engage critically with news they find upsetting. So you get these echo chambers, immune to outside info.

From someone who doesn't follow non-Conservative news, inflation is absurd, housing is increasingly out of reach and uncontrolled immigration is a problem. I personally think some of these are global issues, some are deep systemic and other than immigration, I'd be stunned if the republicans actually addressed those issues. But, the same mental habits that lead Lemmy to downvote statistical reporting because we don't like what it says are the same that prevent trump voters from changing.

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I don’t think you’re entirely wrong there. I think you describe the human condition in a lot of ways. I’ve felt for a long time the biggest problems are socioeconomic and classist rather than purely political- and those issues are only indirectly addressed by the currently political spectrum (at best).

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
-40 points (26.2% liked)

politics

19239 readers
1381 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS