79
Why Kamala Harris’ New Polling Edge in Favorability Is Such a Big Deal
(poweredbygay.social)
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 23 Sep 2024
79 points (87.6% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1159 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
Who the fuck gets complacent? If people don't go vote (and physically could), they weren't ever gonna vote, they are just chirping online.
I think there's two main reasons this keeps coming up every time a poll shows that Harris has even a chance at winning:
In 2016, Hillary Clinton was way ahead in the polls, only to lose. This was due to many factors, but one that gets a fair amount of blame is that a lot of people hated her and didn't want to hold their nose and vote for her. Staying home was a lot easier when she was supposed to win by a wide margin.
While a lot of people pushing third party candidates were never going to support Harris, there are also those who think that it's ok to vote third party in states that aren't seen as in play in order to "send a message" without risking a Trump win. But if the polls are off and that state is closer than expected, those votes could still cost the election.
Historically, being ahead in the polls helps a candidate. The bandwagon effect is real, and can help drive up turnout and shift how people perceive an election or issue. That's why partisan polls designed to skew the numbers have been around for so long.
Either way, it doesn't hurt to remind people that no matter what they expect the outcome to be, we need as many votes as we can get. Bigger margins can help fight off conspiracy theories and legal challenges, and more turnout in down-ballot races can make the difference between gridlock and real progress.
1 I can't believe. They were never gonna vote.
2 I can. Good reply thanks.
Overall it becomes its own little alarm fatigue if on every single post of this all top comments are the same.
I'm a bit skeptical about the idea of people staying home in large numbers specifically because it was supposedly safe. But I think you can get to about the same place through an enthusiasm gap.
People who might have been moved by a better candidate and/or campaign but weren't very motivated by Clinton stayed home. It's possible that some might have been swayed if the race was neck and neck since it would have helped drive home the stakes.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are politically disengaged, and a large portion of the population votes on vibes more than reason and policy.
I lived in a solidly blue state in 2016. I voted for Jill Stein (I know, I know, this was before it was widely known that she is a Russian asset and is generally a shitty candidate across the board, and I regret my choice) because I really disliked--and still dislike--Clinton. If people do that in states that are solidly blue, where there's not any significant risk of a red candidate winning, I'm not too worried. If people do that in swing states to 'send a message', then the message we're going to have is that we're fucked.
And, TBH, I'll be fine either way. I can pass as the 'right' kind of person if I have to. I know a lot of people that can't though.
Some think that if a candidate is doing well or poor enough they won't bother to vote because it won't matter. Kind of like when everyone assumes someone else called 911 when there's an emergency.
Do we have any evidence that that has ever happened, ever ever? Based on the exit polls, we didn't see that in 2016 (Democratic turnout was about what we expected it to be). And we know that people really like to play for the winning team, even if the team is already winning.
I am pretty confident I've heard that the opposite is true--that hopeless feeling like the other side is certain to win, and your vote will not change anything, can get people to stay home--but I haven't heard anything compelling suggesting that complacency can get people to sit out an election.
Evidence?
Yeah, do we have any evidence that people have stayed home because they thought everything was settled and there wasn't any need for them to vote?
This seems to be received wisdom, but this will be my sixth general presidential election, and in that entire time I haven't seen any news or studies or polls (or even any anecdotal stories) about it.
If they exist, I don't want to share a planet with such an idiot.
I cling to my original hypothesis that they are just lazy, and never intended to.
(I'm obv not speaking of those who can't get off work, have an emergency, disability, etc. That's another discussion)
Around half of voters are going to vote for Trump. A decent portion of people voting for Harris are swing voters, meaning they at least consider voting for Trump. A significant portion of people are going to vote for Jill Stein, despite the fact that Trump winning is BAD for just about everything she cares about, and host of human rights she doesn't seem to care about.
Irrationally hopeful voters are at the bottom of my shit list.
Irrelevant to the topic of Democratic voters starting home from "complacency"
If we're talking about objective impact, then I guess the shit list is Trump voters at the top, then Jill Stein voters and non-voters.
My guy I'm straight up not discussing that lol