#2012 Election Polls

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Right-wing media figures are displaying irrational levels of confidence in Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidential election. While poll aggregators and models suggest the race is a toss-up, MAGA pundits are deluging their supporters with the message that Trump’s victory is inevitable.  Whether or not this is a deliberate strategy, the result is that right-wing audiences — which generally trust information only when it comes from right-wing sources — are not being prepared for the possibility of Trump’s defeat. That makes it more likely that they will disbelieve such an outcome and rally to a Trumpian effort to overturn it.  [...]

Right-wing commentators aren't preparing their audiences for the possibility of defeat

Polls currently show a tight race for president that could go either way. “In an election where the seven battleground states are all polling within a percentage point or two, 50-50 is the only responsible forecast,” Nate Silver wrote in an October 23 op-ed. “Since the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, that is more or less exactly where my model has had it.” But it often seems that the U.S. commentariat has sorted itself such that the nation’s most hubristic optimists are all supporting the GOP while its most anxious pessimists are loyal Democrats. The result is that right-wing pundits spend every election cycle predicting victory, while left-wing pundits worry over the prospect of defeat. This election is no different. In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, right-wing media figures embraced poll trutherism and told their audiences that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was going to defeat then-President Barack Obama in a “landslide.” The right was so primed for victory that Fox political analyst Karl Rove, who had predicted a sizable Romney win, ended up arguing with his own network’s decision desk over the state of the race as results rolled in on election night showing Obama had been reelected.

Trump epitomizes the right’s irrational confidence — but with the added twist that only fraud could explain any Republican defeat. 

“We should have a revolution in this country!" he tweeted on election night 2012, calling the results “a total sham and a travesty.”  After eking out a narrow electoral vote victory in 2016, he falsely claimed that he had lost the popular vote only due to “millions of people who voted illegally.” And he asserts to this day that he won the 2020 election but it was robbed from him by fraud, a lie that has permeated his party.  The 2022 midterms brought more predictions of an impending “red wave” of Republican victories. Tucker Carlson, for example, told Fox viewers in the leadup to Election Day that only fraud could explain Democratic victories in races like the Pennsylvania campaign for U.S. Senate and the Arizona gubernatorial race.  Following the GOP’s lackluster showing that year, Carlson seemed chastened. 

[...]

All this has happened before

By way of preparing my own audience: It is possible none of this will ultimately matter. With numerous swing states polling within the margin of error, and the chance of a systemic poll error in play, Trump could very well win legitimately in November. But if the election returns show that Harris has triumphed, Trump has a backup plan ready to go: He can attempt to subvert the election, as he did in 2020. While elements of that plan could be different, the broad strokes of declaring victory, presenting himself as the victim of election fraud, filing pretextual lawsuits, and ultimately leaning on Republican officials at the local, state, and federal levels to hand him the presidency remain unchanged. This strategy rests on Trump being able to convince the Republican base that he won the election. In 2020, he had the support of a vast right-wing media ecosystem that, with few exceptions, had already prepped its audience to disbelieve the results of the election if Trump won. The result was a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol that threatened American democracy. Since then, the right has purged media figures and Republican politicians who had stood in the way of the plot. And now, in 2024, the same players are again laying the groundwork for a Trumpian subversion effort. In a few weeks, the country could once more be positioned on the edge of the abyss.

The right-wing media apparatus is projecting irrational confidence about a Trump win to serve up efforts to steal the election in his favor.

[tmnt-multiverse-election]

Popularity Poll Results 8/21

Donnies

Omega @kathaynesart (Replica) - 117 (22.8%)

Krangified Donnie @abbeyofcyn (Krangified Donnie) - 80 (15.6%)

Swanattello @tangledinink (Swanattello) - 74 (14.3%)

Ghost @amevello-blue (Ghost In The Shell) - 60 (11.7%)

Donatello & Leonardo @kaysdenofchaos (Battle Scars) - 45 (8.8%)

Donnie @phykoha (Tiny Mutant Feral Turtles) - 41 (7.99%)

Donnie @kaysdenofchaos (Teenage Mutant Meddling Turtles) - 39 (7.6%)

Feral Donnie @kittynomore (Snapper Lou) - 31 (6.04%)

Mustachello @revitalizationrat (Mustachello) - 26 (5.07%)

Leos

Feral Leo @cupcakeslushie (feral Leo au) - 119 (23.2%)

Toast @intotheelliwoods (2 Arms Left) - 90 (17.5%)

Future Leo @cosmoscrow (Odd Man Out) - 84 (16.4%)

Kid Leo @angelpuns (Kid Leo au) - 74 (14.4%)

Donatello & Leonardo @kaysdenofchaos (Battle Scars) - 45 (8.8%)

Sensei @remedyturtles (Little Kid with a Big Death Wish) - 44 (8.6%)

Leo @villainleoau (Villain Leo au) - 42 (8.2%)

Hop @nights-flying-fox (Dimention Hopper Leo) - 15 (2.9%)

Raphs/Mikeys

Mikey @tizeline (Tiz Sep) - 167 (32.6%)

Raphael @thegunnsara (Hamato Warnderers) - 144 (28.1%)

Dai @sweeneydino (Paper Scales/Little Dragons) - 102 (19.9%)

Glamrock Raph @thejade-forest (RotTMNT x SB) - 100 (19.5%)

Side Characters

Shelldon @the-lavender-clown (Fool's Gold) - 172 (33.52%)

Cassandra Jones @gremlinscomics (Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself) - 171 (33.33)

Kasey Jones @caseyjones-junior (Krang Parasite) - 170 (33.14%)

OCs

Calamari @cokoweee (Quilt) - 130 (25.3%)

Hamato Antonello @ants-turquoisewave (Led Astray) - 108 (21.1%)

Caiji @gornackeaterofworlds (Butterfly Effect) - 98 (19.1%)

Cerise Mylene Hamato @fanartmayhem (Mikey's Unplanned Purpose) - 90 (17.5%)

Liam @fishsticksloser (Last Echoes) - 87 (16.96%)

Now is the time to continue propaganda and ask the candidates questions before the debates officially start in September.

Good luck everyone.

Honorabl mention that I forgot in the poll: August Hamato @star-sparkler (August Hamato). Go show them some support!!

[never-quite-buried]

The only thing that would have made this better (funnier) is if Unification had released on nov 5th. The “its weird that it happened twice” memes would’ve been out of control.

[flamedoesart]

something in my gut is telling me she's gonna win this election.

[what-eats-owls]

So there's something I want to say re: intentionally withholding your vote, and I want to do it without coming across as condescending or dismissive.

I've worked as a field organizer in two campaigns, 2010 and 2012, and my job was to help turnout the vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ticket. Technology may have changed, but people are still knocking on doors for specific voters the way they were 12 years ago.

If you say you're not voting/voting 3rd party, the campaign volunteer is supposed to mark that and move on. Their job, in the final month of the election, is to make sure the campaign's supporters have all the information and resources they need to cast a vote.

They aren't collecting data on why you're withholding your vote. They aren't submitting opinion polling results to the campaign. Something like 155 million people voted in the 2020 election, and if you say you're not voting, the campaign is not going to waste a volunteer's time and morale begging you to vote when there are literally millions of other voters to turn out.

Let me repeat that: The campaign does not track why you're not voting. They simply note your vote is not a priority for turnout and move on.

I say this because I see a lot of promotion of non-voting like that's a boycott, when the function is not the same. A boycott is a coordinated mass refusal to engage with an institution—which sounds similar if you see a vote as a good or service to withhold. Unfortunately, it's not.

A vote is a choice you're making as part of a community hiring committee. Your abstention doesn't prevent someone from being hired. It just lowers the threshold for the worst candidate to succeed.

All this to say: In my direct experience as an organizer, abstaining from the vote sends a message. That message is not "You need to try harder to win my vote." It's "Don't waste time on me."

[visenyaism]

Stuff about American election night that you should know:

We’re one week out! Crazy. So I know too much about US politics because I explain this for money, so I figured it might be helpful to talk a bit about what we should expect from election night. If you're not American, are new to our insane election system, or are anxious about what's happening next week, here's the deal with next Tuesday:

1. Most important thing: Do NOT expect to know the winner on election night. Different states have different laws about when they can start counting early/mail-in votes, which often slows down reporting time.

2020 took until the Saturday after to call because of the high mail-in vote count due to Covid, and while that isn't happening this time, it'll take longer than 2016, 2012, or 2008 because the polls are predicting that this one's going to be a lot closer than those. Consider just going to bed instead of staying up for the results.

2. Because of the Electoral College, popular vote doesn't matter as much as who wins each individual state does. Every state has a certain amount of electoral votes based on population, whoever wins a state gets all their votes, whoever gets to 270/538 wins. We know how most states are going to vote. The Electoral College puts the election in the hands of 7 "swing" states that could go either way. This time, that's Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada. These are the states to watch. Here's the map:

3. No one will know anything until polls close and states start reporting results. Doomscrolling is kind of pointless anyways, but it's especially pointless before 7pm. here's a map of closure times:

4. Data will shift throughout the night. Rural counties report results first because fewer people live there. This means the earlier you check, the more conservative the state maps might look. Do not look at the election results for any state with less than 90% reporting and freak out, especially if the state hasn't been called (deemed mathematically impossible for the other candidate to win) by multiple news outlets.

5. Voter fraud happens way less than you think it does. Pretty much never, actually. One study claims you're more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to witness actual, impersonation-based voter fraud in a modern US election. Be extremely skeptical of any voter fraud claims you might see.

6. Avoid getting news from social media accounts that aren't news outlets. There's a lot of disinformation out there, especially as AI/Deepfake tech is getting worse. Fact-check everything you might see. Anyone can make a destiel meme about the election. make sure it's true before you reblog it.

7. The electoral college sucks shit and does allow for a 269-269 vote tie. In this case, it goes to the House of Representatives, who are majority-Republican and will pick Trump. Some states might be within 1% (like 49.3%-49.7%) and candidates can demand recounts, which might delay official results by weeks or months. It HAS to be over by mid- December when the Electoral College officially votes.

8. take care of yourselves. if we're not going to know on election night, you may as well power down your phone and go to bed at a reasonable hour.

[centrally-unplanned]

Let's see if I have one more election take in me:

I am deeply sympathetic to Sam Kriss's rage against the Democratic corpo-political shibboleth, and not just because we are both deeply enmeshed in the grand tradition of dissident Oxbridge-style cantankerous internet rants. He is right that Kamala was a weak candidate, for one. But more importantly, I still feel what he feels deep down. I remember the starry idealism of my halcyon youth, of believing that conviction, that vision, that the zeal only a platform birthed from authentic principles, tempered by struggle and sweat, would carry the day over crass, paint-by-polling-numbers incrementalism. When he describes Harris thusly:

"She’s a machine politician. She wants power, but not for any particular reason. It’s just that life is a game, and the point is to reach the highest level."

I see my own reaction to her when she first stepped into the 2020 limelight, and low-key hating her for it. I feel his heart, for it is my heart.

But it is not my brain. Because I am not a teenager anymore, and his critique is fucking bullshit.

He says all this stuff like:

The reason Kamala Harris lost is the same as the reason she was the candidate to begin with: the Democratic Party is allergic to democracy.

And how the electorate is seen as but ants from inside the towers of the Machine, like the Dems just invented "not running a primary" this time as a lark. As opposed to neither party in America ever having primaries against incumbent presidents! Because they are normally popular, and it would be a waste of everyone's time to do that! Could you imagine, launching a real primary against Obama in 2012? And possibly sabotaging his brand a bit for absolutely nothing? It is a reasonable policy, particularly when incumbents used to have an advantage for being so. Now they clearly don't, Biden was unpopular and too old, and the Dems took too long to realize it. A costly mistake, but it is a purely strategic error. Big orgs have inertia, and the Dems fucked up. It has nothing to do with an "allergy to democracy".

And Kriss can go off summarizing how the Harris campaign was offering voters nothing:

But for some unaccountable reason, among the general public, ‘Kamala: You Already Like Her!’ was not the brilliant pitch it seemed to be. [...] Another option would be to actually offer something to the voters.

Which sounds neat, but he made it up! I remember Kamala's actual campaign speeches, ads, and platforms, which she repeated so monotonically in her tightly-scripted campaign appearances: protect abortion rights, expand the welfare state, provide better child care support, lower the cost of housing. And most importantly, she ran on Biden's record of a strong economy and promised to deliver more of it. What does even mean for this to not be a real platform? Beyond not having some synthesized, totalizing "Critique" of modernity that packages it all into a beautiful, systematizing little box.

Because I promise you, voters synthesize jack shit. None of this is why Harris lost - voters have made that pretty clear:

You can find other data ofc, this or that point varies, but the story is not opaque. They didn't like Biden! They didn't like his inflation. They didn't like immigration, or they didn't like his liberalism, and they thought Kamala was too similar. She had too much policy baggage. And she wasn't charismatic enough to dig herself out of that hole - no disagreement from me on that front.

Though even then, by that we mean she lost an election by ~3-4% margins after getting subbed in at the 4th quarter while down by ~8% in the polls. That ain't bad!

None of the voters who matter share Kriss's sensibilities, and he cannot hide his disappointment in that. So he pretends that Donald Trump, the guy who promised 20% tariffs on everything to fight inflation, is giving them a real vision:

That’s what Trump did: he offered an enemy to blame and the prospect of doing violence to them

I don't know man, I think swing voters just don't like the last four years and think 2019 was better. I don't think the promises of orgastic violence against democrats are why Trump won! Actually a bit of an unforced error on his part.

But since Kriss presumes to value democracy, that thesis can't hold - so the lack of reality delivering on what his vision for democracy should be is displaced onto Harris's mistakes. The voters can never fail you. You can only fail to elevate them with the right candidate. Which, tactically? Sure, why not. But you can leave the moralism at the classroom door.

This ties into our dreaded media discourse debate, so it is time to bring in another explainer, by Michael Tomasky:

The line-by-line isn't interesting here; instead I want to focus on this quote:

Weren’t they bothered that Trump is a convicted felon? An adjudicated rapist? Didn’t his invocation of violence against Liz Cheney, or 50 other examples of his disgusting imprecations, obviously disqualify him? And couldn’t they see that Harris, whatever her shortcomings, was a fundamentally smart, honest, well-meaning person who would show basic respect for the Constitution and wouldn’t do anything weird as president? The answer is obviously no—not enough people were able to see any of those things. At which point people throw up their hands and say, “I give up.”

To which the immediate reply is: my dude, what are you talking about??

A 56 percent majority of Americans say Trump is probably guilty of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results through false claims of voter fraud, including 40 percent who believe he is “definitely guilty.” Republicans are less united than Democrats. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats believe Trump is guilty, while nearly 7 in 10 Republicans think he is innocent. Among independents, nearly twice as many think Trump is guilty as think he is innocent.

You know how when you ~13 years old, and you have that friend who is just old enough to start taking Dungeons & Dragons books filled with splash art of succubi into the bathroom with him, but not yet old enough to get that "talking to girls" is an acquired skill? And they are blatantly, openly salivating over the first chick in the 7th grade class who discovered what power the combination of a camisole and a push-up bra holds over the male gaze? And she just completely ignores his faltering attempts at ~casual conversation~, so his brain script-cycles through its backlog of tween sitcom plots until it lands on, "Hey, what if I confess to her? Then she will know about my feelings!"

And you have to pull him aside and gently explain that, bro. She knows. That is not your problem.

Kriss is too intelligent a thinker to not understand this, but our dear Tomasky - and so many like him - has stuck his 14-year-old head in the sand over this. Swing voters know Trump is a scumbag! They know he lost the election, they know he raped a few women in his day, they know he is a serial fraudster. Even a bunch of those Republicans who, in polls, go "oh it's all a Dem conspiracy"? They know too; they just have the decency to lie about it. How could they not? Every media outlet in the country has been repeating it for a fucking decade! I might think voters are morons but even I won't stoop this low; they have eyes and ears, they aren't illiterate.

They just don't care.

Not enough at least, not enough to make it the only thing they consider. And here is the rub, here is the grand mistake Kriss & Tomasky are making - they are at least somewhat right to not care. The height of the Democratic privilege is that they get to play this card because they don't have to deal with it being turned against them. Kamala is a political chameleon but she is a decent person. She would never take a bribe from a foreign government, she would never assault a coworker, she would never, ever, deny a free and fair election.

Which means you don't have to choose between voting for a rapist and voting for someone who is going to shove a bullshit interpretation of the 14th amendment down your throat via a stacked court to ban abortion nationwide, forever. Pro-life people think abortion is genocide against babies! Why are you surprised they aren't voting for the pro-baby-genocide person because she is nice? How sure are you that you would do the same when that is reversed? I guess those boycott-Harris-because-of-Gaza people got some cred, but I think we all agreed they were dumb, right?

This is the rub of why outsiders always have so much difficulty understanding how people like Berlusconi, Trump, Le Pen, etc, get so much vote share - they have no stake in the political struggle beyond the vague idea of democratic norms. It is easy to say "Italy, choose a non-crook!" when you don't have to live with the policy programme of the other guy. From the inside the price of those principles is far, far harder. It isn't shocking that most choose not to pay it.

This isn't to give voters like a moral pass - Trump's conduct is truly disqualifying, I would vote Republican if the shoe was on the other foot in this case. My point instead is that they generally won't as a simple fact of life, and blaming them is futile. If you have wound up in a situation where the political system has taken its pool of hundreds of millions of potential candidates and narrowed it down to two for the voters, and one of them has "launched a coup but will say go to hell to the inflation guy" as a bundled package, someone fucked up and it isn't the voters.

You need political elites to do their part in the system - Republicans never should have let Trump be their candidate in 2016. Open primaries with no organizational thumbs on the scale are a mistake, actually, allowing arbitrary minorities to generate subpar candidates. The decision to let Biden run again was, fundamentally, born from the same impulse - the Democratic Party had no leadership capable of telling him no, because they outsourced that job to "primaries". The Dems are not "allergic" to democracy; democracy is allergic to too much of itself.

But the cat is out of the bag now! These changes happened for a reason after all. Which I won't dig into here - I will keep my point as focused as something as sprawling as this can be. Voters will not save you, and you should not be disappointed when they don't. It was never their job.

[mariacallous]

The nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate has shaken up the race in ways that have yet to fully play out. However, given the fact that she could become the first woman U.S. president, it is surely worthwhile to consider the role of the women’s vote in November’s election.

One need only look back to the 2022 midterm election, where the women’s vote was arguably instrumental in rebuffing a predicted “red wave,” leading Democrats to exceed electoral expectations. That election occurred less than five months after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to greatly restrict access to abortion. This led to a greater-than-expected Democratic vote among women, especially young women, for House of Representatives and other state candidates.

Now, just weeks after most polls had President Joe Biden trailing his Republican rival Donald Trump, the emergence of Vice President Harris as the Democratic candidate has already injected enthusiasm among many Democrats, especially women. As my Brookings colleague Elaine Kamarck has argued, women’s health, abortion, and reproductive freedom—issues Harris has championed—will once again be leading issues for this election. Harris has also voiced support for issues important to women including paid parental leave, child care, and the economy, as well as other policies that have the support of many younger and minority women. Indeed, the broader support of women’s groups for Harris’s candidacy has already been evident in funding and outreach.

With Harris’s nomination, will new enthusiasm and a voting surge among women be enough to power her to victory in November? To address this question, this analysis first reviews the role of women’s votes in recent presidential elections and which women’s demographic groups were most favorable to Democratic candidates. It next shows how gender differences in voter turnout have provided women with a numerical electoral advantage over men. The analysis proceeds to look at changes in the demographic make-up of women voters, from 2012 through the present, showing the rise of Democratic-favorable groups within their ranks. It concludes with a voter simulation of 2024 election results showing what recent polls imply, if we assume that the new enthusiasm for Harris translates into higher voter turnout and increased Democratic support among women, both dynamics that could help increase her chances for victory in November.

Women have a history of backing Democratic candidates in presidential elections

Examining gender differences in presidential voting preferences shows that women have voted for Democrats over Republicans in every presidential election since 1984.1

This is evident for recent elections, as seen in Figure 1, which shows the D-R (Democratic minus Republican) vote margins by gender for presidential elections between 2000 and 2020. In each case, the D-R margins are positive for women and generally (though not always) negative for men, and women voted more strongly Democratic than men, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican ultimately won the presidency.

Election year 2020 showed sharp gender disparities for the seven battleground states, displayed in Figure 2. In each of these states, only one of which (North Carolina) Trump carried, women registered positive D-R margins compared with negative margins for men. The widest gender disparities were in the three “blue wall” states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, as well the southern state of Georgia.

Gender differences also pervaded demographic groups in the 2020 presidential election (see figure 3), as was the case in earlier elections. D-R margins are higher for women than for men in groups where women voted strongly Democratic: Black voters, Hispanic voters, and voters aged 18 to 29. Even for non-college white women voters—who favored Republicans—the negative D-R margins are not as large as those of men. Only among Asian American voters were men’s D-R margins higher than women’s.

Women’s turnout rates are higher

Perhaps even more important than partisan preferences, turnout rates—the share of eligible voters who vote—will help dictate women’s influence in the coming election. Turnout rates for women have exceeded those for men in presidential elections dating back to 1980. Figure 4 depicts gender differences in turnout for presidential elections since 2000. The 2020 election showed the highest overall turnout rates in decades. Because of their higher turnout rates, and the fact that women live longer than men, the 2020 election had 9.7 million more female than male voters.

Largely because of their higher turnout rates, women comprised more than half of all voters (53%) in 2020. Yet their shares vary across demographic groups (see Figure 5).  Women comprised 58% of all Black voters, 55% of Asian voters and 54% of Hispanic voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters aged 65 and older were also women. And among white non-college graduate voters, a group that tends to vote Republican, women still comprised a majority (52%).

The female electorate is becoming more diverse and highly educated

As the size of the female electorate increases, its demographic makeup is changing. Figure 6 shows the shifts in the profile of eligible women voters between 2012 and 2024 by race and education. Notably, there are gains in women’s groups that tend to vote Democratic—white college graduates and people of color—and a decline in the women’s group that tends to vote Republican—white non-college graduates. For the first time in a presidential election, the latter group will make up less than 40% of the women’s electorate.

The seven battleground states, shown in Figure 7, also display similar shifts in the demographic profiles of their female electorates. In each, there is a decline in the share of white non-college graduate women, and an increase in the share of women of color. This is occurring in the “whiter” states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, as well as the more diverse states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina. In Nevada, for example, the share of women who identify as white non-college graduates declined from 48% in 2012 to 35% in 2024, while at the same time the share of women who identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian or other nonwhite races rose from 36% in 2012 to 47% in 2024. Thus, with respect to demographic attributes, the female electorates in each state have become more Democratic-leaning in their voter profiles.

Simulating the 2024 election after Harris announcement

Polls taken both before and after the shift from Biden to Harris as the likely Democratic nominee offer crude indications of what the 2024 election might hold. Three polls of likely voters conducted by the New York Times/Siena College on June 26, July 3, and July 25—after Biden bowed out of the race and endorsed Harris—reveal the changes that took place in men’s and women’s D-R voting margins (see Figure 8).

The D-R margins for women–at 14% for Harris vs. Trump on July 25, were especially high, though countered by a still-high negative D-R margin of 17% for men.

Still, the high women’s D-R margin favoring Harris greatly reduced the overall D-R margin compared with the earlier two Biden vs. Trump margins shown in Table 1. That is, in the two polls taken while Biden was still the assumed Democratic nominee, the negative D-R margins of -4% and -6% (44%  Biden vs. 48% Trump on June 26; and 43% Biden vs. 49% Trump on July 3) strongly favored Trump. Yet, the July 25 poll for Harris vs. Trump reduced the D-R margin to just -0.6% (47.5 for Harris vs. 48.1 for Trump) when we applied this to a simulation model discussed below.

Of course, the July 25 poll was taken just after Biden withdrew and endorsed Harris as the likely Democratic nominee. Clearly, Harris’s campaign had not yet fully begun and the immediate support from many women’s groups suggests that both female turnout and voting preference could increase on Harris’s behalf in the weeks and months ahead. To estimate these likely effects, we conducted simulations of national D-R margins—a base simulation—and two additional simulations based on assumptions of greater women’s turnout and a stronger voter preference for Harris (see Table 1).

All three simulations begin with the 2024 national female and male eligible voter populations reported in the Census Bureau’s monthly Current Population Survey. The “base” simulation applies the 2020 election female and male voter turnout rates, presented above, and the Harris vs. Trump voter margins from the July 25 poll shown in Figure 8. The second simulation alters the base simulation by increasing women’s turnout rate by 10%, from 68.4% to 75.2%, larger than the 5.1% rise in female turnout which occurred between 2016 and 2020. The third simulation alters the second simulation by also increasing the female D-R voting margin by 5 percentage points.

The results in Table 1 show that while the base simulation yields a small Trump advantage, a 10% rise in women’s turnout would bring a small Harris advantage. Moreover, both increasing women’s turnout by 10% and the women’s D-R vote advantage by 5 percentage points would yield a clear Harris win (49.2% Harris vs. 46.3% Trump). These assumptions, reflecting a rise in women’s enthusiasm for Harris between now and Election Day, could put a popular vote win for her well within reach. It is also possible that the strong Trump voter preference for men, reported in the New York Times/Siena College poll, could shift as more male voters become familiar with her campaign.

The impact of an energized women’s voting base

The simulations conducted here make plain that rising women’s enthusiasm for Kamala Harris’s candidacy could lead to consequential shifts in the 2024 election through increases in voter turnout and voter preference. This is especially notable given the recent history of women’s support of Democratic candidates in national and congressional elections. Beyond looking at polls alone, simulations such as these show how taking into account the eligible voter base and rising voter turnout rates can affect election results.

These simulations should not be viewed as predictions; much will depend on how well Harris can continue to energize an already favorable female voter base. It also depends on her performance in crucial battleground states, which will determine how she fares in the Electoral College. What these simulations do show is how an enthusiastic voting bloc, when translated into voter turnout and voting preferences, could impact the final election result this coming November.

[eucatastrophicblues]

I deradicalized when I was 19.

I left school early to go to a Sarah Palin rally in 2008. I was a committed Republican/Libertarian who knew communism was bad and capitalism was good. I was fifteen, and I was surrounded by adults who said that if Obama won God would punish America and it was a sign that He turned His face from us. I believed it.

Four years later, in 2012, I voted for that same Antichrist. I stood in line for four hours to do it at a polling place near my college. I didn’t tell a soul at home which way I voted. It was my first election. They believed he was a monster and I believed they’d been lying to me about God being a Republican.

Deradicalization is possible. If you’re feeling lost, feeling trapped - reach out. Find progressive Christian spaces. Ask us about our faith. There are better paths to salvation than American conservatism.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

Montana Republican Senate nominee Tim Sheehy appears to have been caught in yet another lie about his military service. NBC News reported on Thursday that despite Sheehy claiming to have been discharged from his service in the military because he was declared medically unfit to serve, his discharge records say Sheehy voluntarily resigned and did not cite any medical conditions. 

[...]

This is the latest false claim Sheehy appears to have made about his time as a Navy SEAL, service he has touted on the campaign trail in his quest to unseat Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In April, The Washington Post reported a discrepancy in a story Sheehy told about being shot in the arm. On the campaign trail, Sheehy said he was shot in the arm while serving in Afghanistan in 2012. However, in October 2015, Sheehy went to the emergency room after a trip to Glacier National Park, where he reported having a gunshot wound in his arm. He told a park ranger that he had shot himself in the arm in the park by accident, and was fined $525 for illegally discharging a weapon in a national park. He later said he purposefully lied to the ranger about the gunshot wound because he hadn’t reported being shot in the arm to the military. He said he didn’t report it to the military at the time because the wound may have been from friendly fire and he didn’t want anyone in his unit to get in trouble.

[...] Questions about his military service are not the only scandal Sheehy has faced during the election. Sheehy was hit by a lawsuit in April from former employees of his aerial firefighting company of defrauding them out of millions of dollars.  Sheehy has also been slammed by Native American groups in the state after he used racist stereotypes in talking about the Native population in the state. At a fundraiser in November 2023, Sheehy talked about going cattle branding on Montana’s Crow Reservation, and said it’s “a great way to bond with all the Indians out there while they’re drunk at 8 AM.” Polls show Sheehy, a multimillionaire Minnesota transplant, leading Tester in the race, which could determine control of the Senate. Tester has an uphill battle to overcome the likely double-digit win former President Donald Trump will pull off in the state, which would require Tester to win over a number of GOP voters.

GOP Montana Senate nominee Tim Sheehy caught in yet another lie about his military service record.

This should be disqualifying, but sadly, he’ll defeat incumbent Jon Tester (D) and flip this seat (and likely the Senate) red.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

I keep thinking of my family in the USA who used to be Republican, and I mean hardcore Republican, had voted Republican in every election up to 2012, Obama vs Romney. My aunt just couldn't in good conscience vote Republican that election so she voted Obama. Pretty sure her husband voted Romney (but notably didn't try to coerce her into voting his way!).

And then came Trump vs Clinton. My uncle HATED Clinton. Absolutely hated her and groused and swore all the way to the polls and back...because he voted for her anyway, as did my aunt. Trump was just that bad and, well, my uncle loved his family. They both voted Biden and they both voted Harris.

The thing is, my aunt and uncle swung their votes due to their love of their family and friends. What a whole lot of men have shown this election is that they don't.

[spaceguy44]

2024 US Election Post-mortem

I need to get my thoughts out about the election. I'll split it into a few main parts. (This will be long) 1. Why did Kamala lose/Trump win?

There's 2 main reasons for the result.

1. The biggest thing isn't that Trump gained a lot (he did somewhat), but that Kamala lost hugely. Kamala ran an "strong" but status-quo style center-lib campaign. This was not the right move to capture the electorate in today's America. It hasn't been since 2012. People at every part of the political spectrum have expressed disdain with the way establishment Democrats have run things. People want change! They have since 2008. Obama convinced everyone that he represented change. Hillary lost in 2016 because they didn't get that change after 8 years, and wanted something new no matter what. Biden did a good job in 2020 of being somewhat of a change candidate, but it was really COVID that allowed him to win. I do think Trump would've won in 2020 if it weren't for the pandemic. Kamala had momentum at first because she literally was "change." Biden was hugely unpopular, and people didn't like the return to liberal status quo, even if he did do more than even Obama to bring (domestic) left-wing policies to the forefront imo. Kamala represented hope at first that we could get away from the Biden that everyone hated, and bring in a whole new kind of politics and movement that would take us out of the neoliberal malaise that was the again Biden. What happened in stead was the establishment decided that there was a contingent of Americans that were allergic to left-wing politics, and they need to be captured.

THIS IS THE MAIN POINT OF FAILURE FOR BOTH HILLARY AND KAMALA. I do not believe there is a (large) population that is inherently right-wing, and another that is centrist, and another that is left-wing. I do think there are some that you could never convince one way or another, but it's just impossible that so many people could vote for Obama, and then turn around for Trump if people had some sort of weird internal political compass that they adhered to regardless of policy. No, Trump (and the right more broadly) MADE his base. This is the other reason Trump won.

2. Trump did make some gains, though I believe the right campaign from Harris could've overcome that. I think the Trump gains are more indicative of what Harris lacked. Kamala tried to adjust her campaign to match an electorate. Trump didn't give a fuck. He said what he wanted, and people liked that. They don't care about decorum. They don't care about "unity". They want someone they think will "fight" for them. People saw Kamala bringing in the Cheneys and just saw another neolib that would flake on any conviction to grab a vote. People don't want a policy. People want a candidate with conviction. Trump was also adept at playing on people's fears and insecurities. He MADE them into Trump supporters by playing on those fears. Harris did not try to make Harris supporters by playing on fears (at least enough). She was best with the abortion stuff, but that wasn't the issue that exit polls showed people care about. The top issue was the economy. Yes, "the economy" is objectively doing better if you look at the stats, but people don't feel like it because prices are still high despite the buying power of the dollar recovering (inflation was reduced!). People felt that because corporations kept prices at pre-inflation reduction levels. Harris briefly flirted with price capping, which would be the exact sort of populist policy that directly addresses people's fears/insecurities and breaks from the status quo that could excite a mythical "Harris base" that maybe existed for 2 weeks.

It's the same with immigration. Trump created a "big lie" about the border being in crisis, and played on the truly hurting average middle-American's insecurities. You have a population that is hurting for corporate consolidation destroying small local business, that has been devastated by opioids, and is seeing the towns and culture they grew up with decay and seemingly leave them behind. Are Trump's policies going to uplift them? Hell no! Does he talk to specifically them all and directly address their insecurities though? Absolutely. In stead of addressing these people (these are the ones on the red arrow map that's been going around), she accepted the lie about immigrants and rejected making any radical policy change from the system that threw middle America under the bus.

I should say I am literally living in a small rural city in a deep-red state, so I know what they're saying. These people aren't necessarily bigots. Some are, but I think most think they aren't. I think anyone can be prone to getting caught up in a hate movement if the right buttons are pressed, and Trump deftly presses those buttons. What needed to happen was pressing the right buttons to address their insecurities and fears that doesn't rely on hate and scapegoating. This is what I think Bernie Sanders does well in general polls, but there's too much movement within the Dems to preserve the liberal status quo. That needs to change or, the Dems die. LIBERALISM IS DEAD. We address the fears that made people Trump voters, or democracy dies! Here are 2.5 other smaller reasons: 3. Sexism, Racism, and Religiosity. I will not deny that these do play a part in certain parts of the electorate. However, I don't think they're insurmountable hurdles in a general election. I think Obama's campaign is proof of this. But we shouldn't deny that there are a significant portion that wouldn't vote for Kamala for purely bigotry reasons. Hell, I know some personally. But I do think it is a mistake to blame these for our failures. WE LEARN NOTHING OTHERWISE! 4. Believe it or not, but there's just a lot of people out there that just don't care or avoid politics all together. These people aren't bad or deficient, but they just don't include thinking about politics constantly as a part of their lives. They think about the election for a few days, and then get on with their lives for 4 years and tune out everything. Generally, these people are privileged, though there's also some that have been so hurt by our system and policies, that they tune out in pure nihilism about it all. These people vote on vibes, they vote based on what those they care about support, and many just sit out the whole thing. Voter apathy is definitely a thing, and it hurst especially the left imo. I do believe the majority of people would loath Trump's policies if they actually knew what they entailed, so this apathy only takes away from the left. 5. Kamala did NOT lose due to the Gaza protest. She might have lost a bit of support by not being an empathetic foil to Trump's "glass the whole strip" rhetoric, but I don't think it made a significant difference. And I'm gonna be real with y'all; Tumblr is mostly full of it if they think they can accomplish anything with a protest vote for Gaza. I learned this in 2016. That action won't do anything, and it's too risky when a literal fascist is on the other side of the ballot. Yes, I hate that Kamala did not oppose the current Biden policy of letting genocide happen, but Jill Stein/no vote can't pressure these people in the establishment without hurting their campaign financing. The votes are in, and 3rd party votes would not have saved Kamala.

2. What happens now? What is a 2nd Trump admin like?Maybe this is a bit of copium, but I do think that Trump will still be overall very incompetent and unable to enact the worst of his policies. Terrible things will still happen (and I'll get to that later), but I think some of the catastrophizing is a bit overblown. Let's take the mass deportation policy for example. This would be a horrible campaign on the level of the worst historical genocides. He would need to create an ICE apparatus so large that it would rival the fucking gestapo. Just think of all the agents and infrastructure that would need to be developed to round up ~20million people and transport them to the border and detention facilities. There's no practical way to deport that many people. The logical end point is concentration camps. Yes, we have them already to an extent (I mean the euphemistically named "immigrant detention facilities"), but we don't have anything that could handle "mass deportation." Building the facilities, hiring the agents, buying the buses and trains, and executing the warrants all takes a lot of time and money. None of this goes unnoticed, and it won't go without resistance today. Congress still controls the purse, despite what the supreme court says about Trump's immunity to do whatever he wants. SCOTUS said he can't be prosecuted for committing a crime, not that he can break a constitutional rule. The margins are too thin in the new congress, and I genuinely do not think that he has the political tact to navigate around how much resistance he'll get. My main evidence for this is the border wall. He had all the support he needed within congress and his base to try to "build that wall." The GOP even controlled both branches of congress, and shutdown the government multiple times to try to get his way. They had a majority in the house his first 2 years. It meant nothing! He got a regressive tax cut passed, and that's about it. I know there's a lot of bullshit he can pull to push terrible things through, and he'll have ghoulish cronies that will be the actual brains behind things, but honestly, they're dumb as shit too. They're too evil for their own good. They will eat themselves alive through infighting and liberal resistance before they can start a genocidal campaign on American soil. That's not to say there will be some horrible things. Here's what I do think he'll be able to do: - Ban abortion nationwide either through the Comstock Act or SCOTUS. - Completely fuck up half of our federal institutions that keep us informed and safe (ie. dismantling or gutting of Dept. of Education, EPA, FTC, NSA, HHS, and more). - Allow for more religious integration into our public institutions like schools - Essentially turn our government into an oligarchy (or more of one than it already is) - Reverse gay marriage rights (overturning obergefell) and restricting the rights of LGBTQ+ in the public sector overall. - Exacerbate the Gaza genocide - Let Putin have his way with Ukraine - Royally fuck up the economy with Tariffs - Probably get us into some kind of overseas war - If he survives to the end of his term, I do think that our democracy will be incredibly fucked. Like, I think they'll be able to push through so many bullshit rules that we won't be able to come back unless an actual leftist populist makes huge rounds.

Overall, it's gonna suck, especially if you're LGBT in a red state. I think he'll also continue targeting undocumented migrants, but I doubt he'll be able to put together the infrastructure to genocide them. Yes, Hitler and his regime were incompetent too, but it was really the enabling act post-Reichstag fire that allowed for him to start pushing the policies that would become the holocaust. It was only at that point that he had no more resistance, and could order whatever he wants. We're definite not there yet with Trump.

3. What do we (the left) do now?Honestly, just stay vigilant, be active within your community, make connections (even with Trump voters), and don't give in to the despair. Once you're hopeless, it will only make it easier for them to keep winning. We fight against the fascists until the bitter end. The only endpoint of fascism is self destruction. I am a leftist, but I am not a revolutionary. I think armed action rarely leads to good outcomes, and history shows that. However, if we get a Reichstag fire moment or an enabling act moment, that's not the point to lose hope. If people start turning their neighbors into the gestapo-fied ICE, that's not the point to hide. These represent the time where politics should be abandoned, and an actual violent fight for freedom and liberty should begin. I pray we never come to that point. Hopefully, these next four years will look like a continuation of 2016-2020. We'll have a slow degrading of our rights, but if too many of those we all care about are hurt, we can come together and help to reverse it. I know things are super polarized and we all have our own little bubbles in society, but there comes a breaking point where too many people are hurt, and even the biggest MAGA head will have someone they deeply care about that is very hurt by Trump. This is my hope, though it unfortunately relies on things getting worse first before becoming better. 

[socialistexan]

From the latest NPR poll, Harris's approval number is up to 40% and at a net of -4%, which doesn't sound great until you consider that is significantly higher than both Biden and Trump. That's even after Trump had a post assassination attempt bump in approval rating in this same poll from -18% to -6%.

The -2% among people who are for sure voting this year is particularly notable.

iirc that's probably the highest net approval of an politician running for President since the 2012 election when Obama has a +4.2% and Romney had a +4.8%.

As always, it only one poll and it is an outlier for Kamala's approval ratings compared to before Biden dropped out, which was around -13%.

[tomorrowusa]

« Robert Kennedy, Jr., the Jeffrey Dahmer of the animal kingdom, has horrified his family almost as much as Jeffrey Dahmer horrified his family by endorsing the most horrifying Republican presidential nominee in history. »

— Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC earlier this week commenting on RFK Jr.'s endorsement of adjudicated sex offender Donald Trump.

Like Trump, RFK Jr. is WEIRD. So it was just a matter of time before the two found common ground.

Lawrence O'Donnell's reference to Jeffrey Dahmer was likely sparked by RFK Jr.'s latest disturbing incident involving animals.

Environmental group calls for investigation of RFK Jr. chainsawing whale head

Here's an excerpt from an article at NJ.com.

Because if you thought that Central Park bear story was strange, or that photo of him with a barbecued carcass of a dog — or was it a goat? — was weird, or his brainworm affliction explained a lot ... well, it seems we all missed another RFK Jr. adventure from the wild kingdom, revealed in a profile of his daughter Kick, in 2012, and it’s a whale of a tale:

The latest on RFK Jr.'s political degeneration is that he's been appointed to Weird Donald's "transition team".

Trump Fills His Transition Team With Moronic Conspiracy Theorists

Of course Trump's actual transition team consists of the authors of Project 2025.

It's up to us to make sure that Trump doesn't need a transition team.

It's only 69 days until Election Day. If you have moved since the last time you voted then you need to register at your new address. Voter registration is tied to location; even if you just moved across the street you need to register at your new address. Don't give GOP vote-suppressors an excuse to challenge your right to vote.

Pass this message about the need to update voter registration to people you know to have moved in the past couple of years. That includes people you know online on other platforms.

Whatever the polls say, remember that polls don't vote – individual people vote. Getting people to make voting a high priority eliminates the possibility of an unpleasant surprise on November 5th.

[autistichalsin]

A primer on Margin of Error (MOE) and what this means for the polls as election day gets closer

A new poll from Selzer came out of Iowa today showing Kamala +3 for the state. This is significant because 1. The past few elections have gone to Trump; 2. This pollster has called Iowa's vote in every state since 2012, often coming remarkably close to actual numbers.

However, there's been some confusion as to how Trump still could get more votes in Iowa without the pollster necessarily being wrong (this has been a point of confusion since 2016). Essentially, this relies on a concept called margin of error. In this instance, the MOE was 3.

Essentially, the margin of error goes both ways; Kamala could be three points lower or higher than this poll predicts while Trump could also be three points lower or higher. If you combine the worst case scenarios suggested by the latest Selzer polls, you could be looking at Trump actually being up 3; however, even this is still INCREDIBLE news for the dems.

A longer-winded explanation on margin of error and confidence intervals: for a confidence interval, you are trying to find a range that, if you repeated your trial/experiment (in this case, elections), the result would be in this range (x) percent of times (usually, this is set at 95%). Suppose you were growing flowers, and wanted to know how many pink roses you could expect; suppose we also calculated the proportion of pink flowers in our sample to be 1/4; 25 out of a total of 100 roses grown during the experiment.

The margin of error = Z value (more on that in a minute) times the square root of ([p times (1-p)]/n), where p = the sample proportion, n is your sample size, and the Z value is a way of measuring how far a value is from its population mean. The Z-score is standardized, and when your alpha is 0.05 (that is, your desired CI is 95%), it will equal 1.96.

Our margin of error would then equal 1.96 * √(.25[1-.25]/100), or approximately 0.0845. Therefore, our margin of error is 8.45%. We can therefore conclude that when replicating our study of 100 roses, there will be between 16.55 and 33.45 pink roses 95% of the time, as the MOE is added and subtracted to both ends of your number.

To tie this back in to the election: if 47% of voters in this poll are voting for Kamala, with an MOE of 3, and we assume a representative sample (no sampling error), that means she can expect to win between 44% and 50% of votes in Iowa 95% of the time. Similarly, Trump can expect between 41 and 47% of votes 95% of the time. Thus, while the pollster was fairly confident in their Kamala+3 result, it could be as high as Kamala +9 or as low as Trump +3.

This is also why polls can have the wrong result but not be bad/flawed polls! If they were still within their margin of error, their sample was still very likely to have been a representative one, and their poll was just "unlucky", so to speak. if they call for a candidate to win by 5, their MOE is 6, and the other candidate wins by 1, they are still within their MOE, and their methodology wasn't inherently flawed. On the other hand, if they called for a candidate to win by 10, and their opponent won by 10, with an MOE of 3, there were likely problems that could range from flawed methodology to sampling error.

In short: it's not about the absolute result (Dems/Repubs winning) and is instead about how close the win was to what was predicted.

Now, and this can't be stressed enough: fuck the polls. Don't listen to them. Vote like you're behind (with urgency) but also well within striking distance (not hopeless). Make a plan to vote and bring as many friends as you can to the polls if you haven't already voted. Our democracy depends on it.