58
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 30 Oct 2024
58 points (90.3% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3234 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
She could get these out of the margin of error if she can just signal that she would be tougher on Israel and get back the couple percentage that she's left on the table with Arab, Muslim, and anti-genocide voters.
If you want Harris to win, you want these people to come back to the table. The only place to make up the difference is with young (18-30,30-45) women voters, where she break hard. Trying to read the exit polls for tea leaves has been tough. Though enough that based on early voting the Harris campaign cancelled ad-buys in NC, because the EV exit polls showed a clear bias for Trump. So at least in that race, whatever their strategy was, didn't work. Also consider that Harris also led in NC for a couple of brief moments in early/ middle September (before her rightwing pivot). I think this is evidence that there is still money being left on the table by Harris, and while it might be too late, if she can pivot back on some leftish priorities (there is really only Israel/ Gaza), this can get her the couple ten's of thousands to hundred-thousand votes she'll need in these key states.
So without a pivot, you have one demographic path to victory, and an un-measurable/ unreliable one (NC case). Pivot and you at least open the door to a second path to victory.
Where are you seeing those exit polls?
https://carolinaelections.com/tracker/61
There was a better dashboard that I found yesterday that I can't seem to track down again, but its the same data feeding into it.
This is the "mixed results" or unclear signal we're seeing. Republicans are leading in turnout by about one percent. This was apparently sufficient for the Harris campaign to start cancelling already purchased ad space in the state. Which is a bit telling considering that the campaign has basically more money than god and no way to spend it all before Nov 5th.
However, scroll a bit further down, and you'll see a 10 point gap of women voters over male voters. Keep in mind, white women voted in favor of Trump in 2020.
So there are two competing narratives coming out of this story. One is that Trump is already running away with it in regards to Republican voter turn out. The second is that Harris is running away with it in regards to woman voters. I think the weight goes to the former, since white women are a historically un-reliable voting block for Democrats.
Can you square this for me?
So early votes are very solidly Republican in (NC). Like, if we assume Republicans voted for Trump and Democrats voted for Harris, we'd be calling NC already for Trump. If this were a normal election, we could pretty confidently say that NC is going to go for Trump.
The conflicting result, is that women are voting at an eye-blurring 10% more than male voters. This requires we speculate that women voters (and specifically, Republican women) are breaking disproportionately for Harris. But its notable that +10 to women is a remarkable result. But the historical data would suggest that this favors Trump, since white women mostly vote Trump ('16, and '20) in this state.
So the naive, historical interpretation is that Trump is/ has already won NC. This could be backed up with an additional line of evidence that the Harris campaign has given up on NC.
The speculative interpretation is that Republican women are turning tides on their individual ballots and breaking for Harris. This would be ahistorical given '16 and '20.
The naive historical interpretation fails to explain the gender gap.