If I was the dems, I wouldn't have let a million-plus poor working class people die of preventable COVID deaths. Apparently the poll numbers are lower than what Hill-dawg had at this point. Looking forward to hearing how this is all Russia's fault.

  • Self_Sealing_Stem_Bolt [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I'll say it again: historically dems have needed the black vote to win and kid killer kamala doesn't have it. In the run up to the 2020 primaries, she had a projected 1%. What's changed? This could be an election with a record low turnout.

    • edge [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      What's changed?

      She's the Vice President and handpicked successor of the person they voted for in 2020, and basically promising to be the exact same as him.

    • buttwater [they/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      What's changed?

      The same DNC-media apparatus that forced Biden through in 2020 is now putting it's weight behind Harris

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I'll say it again: historically dems have needed the black vote to win and kid killer kamala doesn't have it.

      That's what happens when they nominate someone who made a career out of prosecuting black people in "California's top cop" Harris.

  • Barabas [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’ll blame Muslims this time around I think. Then they’ll gloat about people in Palestine and Lebanon getting what they ‘deserve’ for not endorsing Kamala Harris.

  • Infamousblt [any]
    ·
    2 months ago

    When Harris loses it's actually my fault, personally. The KGB paid me quite a sum to personally convince people that genocide is actually a bad thing and I've done a pretty good job I think

  • Vernon_Tennessee [null/void, he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Im really surprised that after 2016, so many libs are going on about how Kamala is an absolute lock to win. Granted, Trump is really fumbling at the moment, but he appeals to a larger base.

  • Moss [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Im honestly shocked it's this low. Trump completely failed to capitalize on his first assassination attempt, that photo should be the photo on the decade but nobody talks about it anymore. Vance also seems like a terrible VP pick

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    After deciding watch the US presidential debate for some godforsaken reason, I can see why. Trump did his usual nonsense, making up racist myths about immigrants, but people know what to expect from him, he's been doing this for close to a decade now, no surprises there. You know what you're getting with Trump. Harris had the opportunity to leave an impression, and she just didn't. She bombed hard, tried to enter a mudslinging contest with Trump over who is more racist and xenophobic making up her own racist myths about immigrants and Palestinians, and sounded detached from reality, especially on Ukraine, claiming that Russia would invade Poland next, in contrast to Trump's more "pro peace" solution. Harris' only solid win was on abortion, and one has to ask if that's enough to win an election.

    • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      I've been trying to grasp the mind of a typical swing state voter post-debate. I personally thought the whole thing was a shitshow (who was weeping over hosting the Taliban at Camp David for?), but the overwhelming consensus in lib circles was that Harris trounced Trump hard and is going to crush him in November.

      As for Trump himself, he seems even less coherent than he was in 2020 and JD Vance is a legitimate nonentity, so I have no idea what's there to excite anyone outside the die hard Trump faithful, but I also have zero sense of where republican enthusiasm is sitting. The more exposure I get from the immigrants-eating-pets discourse, which is all people seem to have taken away from the debate, the more I'm convinced that the country has just completely lost even the pretense of seriousness.

  • the_post_of_tom_joad [any, any]
    ·
    2 months ago

    The Dems are ambivalent about losing an election, probably because their larger platform of elevating fascists and then campaigning against them is one they literally cannot lose.

  • Sasuke [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    doesn't tied polls mean the dems are set to lose? some screenshots below from 538

    spoiler

    2016 election:

    Show

    2020 election (which biden won with a narrow victory):

    Show

    2024 election:

    Show

    • riseuppikmin [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The only states where polling actually matters are:

      • Wisconsin
      • Pennsylvania
      • Michigan
      • Ohio
      • Georgia
      • Arizona
      • North Carolina
      • Nevada
      • Possibly whatever district Omaha, NE is in if it's actually that close

      Any analysis/polling done by the media that isn't solely focused on those states are busywork/useless neoliberal job programs for their fail-offspring.

      • ihaveibs [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        What do you mean, the polls show that Texas is definitely in play for the Dems, for real this time! football-lucy

        • riseuppikmin [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I think I'm gonna run for democraric governor of Texas. It seems like the easiest way to soak up millions of dollars with no expectations of anything happening.

          Actually I take that back the person running against McConnell for his senate seat in Kentucky who absorbed millions of brunch dollars probably takes the cake. Amy something I think?

      • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Essentially a dead heat all over:

        Show

        The only swing state where Harris is squeaking by above the probable margin of error is Michigan.

    • ihaveibs [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Tough to say. Historically, the error around polls is inconsistent i.e. polls could bias towards Republicans in one cycle and then flip and favor the Dems the next. But when you have literally the same candidate for one party running in each of the last three cycles and the same inner circle of people running for the other, it's very plausible that the polls are biased similarly in each cycle. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see similar results this time, but it's impossible to know for sure.

      Oh yeah, there is also basically a polling industrial complex now where polls that look good for the Dems blow up on Reddit and other social media. Creates an environment that incentivizes polling companies to fudge numbers. Impossible to know for sure if this is happening but I don't discount the possibility

  • MF_COOM [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Weren't covid deaths overrepresented in traditionally republican demographics?

    Don't get me wrong I also think they should have responsible covid policies but I don't think you can blame their polling on that I think they just suck.

    The US is such a reactionary country that I think responsible covid policies would probably hurt them at the polls tbh

    • Dickey_Butts [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      2 months ago

      Good question, I remember hearing that covid deaths were disproportionately people of color who are not typically republican voters, but I'm not really sure.

      • qaopjlll [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        I've read that was the case for the first year of covid but heavily conservative counties have had significantly higher death rates than lib/swing counties ever since the vaccines became widely available.

  • UlyssesT
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    deleted by creator

  • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    everyone not voting democrat told democrats exactly what they needed to do to get their votes and democrats hedged their bets on orange man being so horrifically bad that we would all be FORCED into voting democrat to prevent him and they wouldnt need to make any concessions to the left or actual “progressives”.

    well we’ll see how that works out for them

    one thing the democratic party elite underestimate is how bad it is for those of us at the bottom, economically or due to social/racial etc identity. it actually for a fact cant get that much worse for us. it can get a lot worse for the comfortable middle class though. when middle class white Californian women sadly get subjected to the same abortion laws that poor black women all over the south are subjected to then what’s gonna happen? or when all the comfortable middle class people are suddenly paycheck to paycheck? we all know right wing economic policy will extract all it can from them as it has to us

    this is starting to sound like a manifesto so i’m done but yeah it was a bold strategy, dems. let’s see how it plays out