"Staff of Nude Africa Porn Site Quit to Distance Selves from Mark Robinson"
NORTH CAROLINA (The Borowitz Report)—In an official statement released on Tuesday, the entire staff of the pornographic website Nude Africa has resigned in order to distance themselves from Lt. Governor Mark Robinson.
“We have long been proud of our association with Nude Africa,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson’s posts on the website have tarnished Nude Africa’s good name.”
In order to “restore the stellar reputation of Nude Africa,” the ex-staffers urged the porn site’s proprietors to “demand that Mr. Robinson drop out as a commenter on Nude Africa’s message boards at once.”
Asked about the controversy, Sen. JD Vance said, “Before I comment, I need to spend a few more days looking at Nude Africa.”
Starting to see more polling showing “it’s a blue wave” than polling with Trump being ahead. That about sums up where we are right now in the cycle + just how much has changed since Biden dropped out. Before that, Biden’s best polls showed a tie or slight lead and worst had Trump winning in a wave.
Before anyone asks, no, there is zero downballot data showing that right now, the wave polls are outliers. The average is about D+2 right now in the GCB and Washington primary had it at D+4, so that’s about the range of where the data shows us to be currently. Slightly less or slightly more than 2020.
I wouldn't call this "blue wave" polling. But it also doesn't point to a Trump lead in the EC. The overall picture is pretty consistent - a very close race with a slight tilt to Harris.
Don't waves typically materialize in the final 1-2 weeks? Plus, there is so little reliable House polling its hard to say which seats will be swept up until we get some actual results.
Waves in a presidential year are pretty hard to come by to begin with. The last one would have been 2008 - and that materialized well before the election (I would argue in fact in 2006.)
The 2018 wave was also pretty evident long before the voting started (I mean we picked up a Senate seat in Alabama in late 2017 among other overachievements.)
As I recall, Doug Jones won because of the GOP’s "candidate quality problem". That issue seems even more prominent in this cycle, which explains why all the Democratic Senate incumbents except Jon Tester are polling well.
With challengers Mucarsel-Powell in Florida and Allred in Texas having longshot chances, we may just hold the Senate – despite an outrageously difficult map.
An aside: I do wish President Biden had appointed Doug Jones as Attorney General, rather than Merrick Garland.
Candidate quality was obviously a problem that year in Alabama, but if HRC (or any Dem) have won in 2016 you can bet that there just wouldn't have been enough enthusiasm to steal that seat.
So anything at 5+ is at wave level imo. There’s been a few polls that have shown that. They’re outliers, but they’re more frequent than ones showing Trump winning nationally.
What I see the polling showing is the blue wall fortifying, NV is far and away the least polled of the swing states and I think she's probably doing a little better there than the polling would indicate based on the state's history in that regard plus because its been been less polled the shitty right wing pollsters have had a disproportionate impact on the averages there. But NC looks like a total coin flip and Trump looks like he has a slight edge in AZ and GA.
While I disagree about what the polling writ large is showing, I do think this may end up being what we see with results. One theory I've had is that Harris will do way better with young voters than she is in polling and the main piece of evidence I've used is that while the horserace numbers tend to show it around Harris +10 with voters 18-29, there have been a couple of polls of just 18-29 voters and those tend to be much better for her. And one such poll dropped today, the Harvard poll showed her up 61-30. It makes sense on a couple levels, the fist being just the really small numbers you'll get in this cohort in a horserace poll gives it a really high MOE. But also, it intuitively makes sense to me that a MAGA young voter is more likely to answer a poll than the rest of their age cohort and so you're getting a more MAGA sample unless you're really focusing on making sure you get a representative sample.
Why is the Working Families Party running a candidate, Anthony Frascone, against Mondaire Jones? Surely the party knows their candidate is a spoiler, benefiting only Mike Lawler. Do they really prefer Lawler over Jones??
Jones opposed Bowman for re-election, said he would have attended Netanyahu’s speech if he were in congress, and cost the left a seat by running in a NYC district in 2022. Those are three reasons I can think of.
Enough party members in the district were pissed off enough to deny Jones the spot even though the party leadership was opposed to Frascone. You piss enough people off enough times, and you get what you deserve.
Nick Spano (I'm sure about). Vincent Leibell (I think). There doesn't seem to be a record anywhere so I have to go by 20 year old memories and look things up.
So you're basing your claim on the WFP having a "long history of supporting Republicans" on one candidate you're sure about and one you aren't. And this somehow discredits their decades-long history supporting progressive candidates and movements. Cool!
They primarily back Democrats but will also support Republicans who are/or claim to be, favorable to labor. Most of those Republicans are gone around here so they have less of an opportunity to do that.
That would be more convincing if Tester had a track record of winning by more than the skin of his teeth, as opposed to Collins who managed to dominate even amidst the brutal headwinds of 2008.
That and the fact that Democratic voters are generally more willing to split ticket vote than Republican voters. Too many of us still believe in the mythical creature that is the "reasonable Republican."
I think Murkowski is the real deal. She continuously puts her career at risk to vote the way she wants to. Collins does the absolute bare minimum necessary to hold onto power in a blue state.
Judicially, I remain unconvinced. 177 of Biden's 203 Article III nominees that have come to the floor have gotten at least 1 GOP vote. Collins has backed 173 of them, Murkowski 151, and Graham 150 (next up is Tillis at 75). Collins has been the solo GOP vote for 3 of them, Graham for 2, and Murkowski for none.
Fair point, although they're a wash when it comes to the Supreme Court. Collins supported Kavanaugh and Murkowski supported Barrett while the other did not. Murkowski changed her No vote on Kavanaugh to Present as a courtesy to an absent GOP Senator, but I don't think this changed the outcome any.
Yes. Murkowski is the key swing GOP Senator that Democrats can count on with key issues, especially with abortion.
There are issues I disagree with her about but all things considered she’s the one true moderate Republican in the Senate we can count on.
Collins voting to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court showed no spine, especially considering Collins for a long time before that had a good pro-choice voting record.
She’s the only real centre-right Republican in Congress.
Before someone replies, Brian Fitzpatrick votes with the majority, whichever party that may be, which is politically smart. But that also means he’s voted quite a bit more right in this term than the last one. So I don’t count him as consistently centre-right, more of a go along to get another term person. He votes with Democrats when they hold the majority and Republicans when they hold the majority.
Well, I consider Adam Kinzinger to be an example of that mythical creature: "the Reasonable Republican". But then again, that’s probably why he had zero chance of re-election.
Looking at past returns in Montana, I was struck by how consistent Dem presidential performances returns have been there. In 6 of the last 10 elections, our candidate has fallen in the 4.1% band from 37.6% to 41.7% (underperformances from Gore and Hillary, overperformances from Obama '08 and Dukakis). By that measure, it makes it the fifth-most consistent state, with only MS (3.2%), PA (3.5%), IN (3.8%), and AL (4.0%) having a tighter band.
You have a link to the poll? What is up with polling either take one day like RMG or a month in the field like the ActiVote poll in Ohio? I know people here may not love dissecting the polls but we also have standards for accuracy.
Ok, just looked into this. It was done completely online between September 12-19. Mixed feelings about only online polling. By the way, the NYTs has a great piece out about the changing landscape in Montana. This part stood out because it doesn't seem like everyone loves the wealthy Republicans moving in and buying land. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/22/us/montana-senate-tester-sheehy.html
Still, not everyone is abandoning the Democrats, and particularly not Mr. Tester. Lyle Thomas, an 84-year-old rancher who describes himself as an independent, said he has long voted blue and has concerns about the honesty of Republican leaders, including former President Donald J. Trump and Mr. Sheehy, who has acknowledged lying about how he ended up with a bullet in his arm.
Mr. Thomas has been wary about the wealthy, mostly Republican newcomers who have flooded into the area in recent years, saying they have scooped up land and charged hefty fees for people to hunt.
“It’s changed our state so much — and not for the better,” he said as he moved a truckload of cattle fencing posts. “It’s going to take a real severe winter to keep them all out of here for a while.”
Tami Healy, who lives at a senior center, said she disliked the current White House and was uncomfortable with abortion, but she has been alarmed by how far Republicans have gone to prohibit it when the issue deserves more nuance. She trusts Mr. Tester to understand how Montanans think about things.
7 days is considered too long to poll, isn't it? After your first paragraph, though, we get into anecdotes, and you know what they say about those vis-a-vis data.
First poll I’ve seen with Tran ahead of Steel. The era of the Biden district suburban Republican may be over if these are anywhere close to right. Ugly numbers for the GOP incumbents.
If the road to a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives runs through California, a new poll suggests Democrats are narrowly on track to get there.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California, California State University Long Beach and Cal Poly Pomona, found Democratic candidates to be slightly ahead of Republicans in four of the state’s six most closely-watched swing districts.
One caveat is that in CA47 Min (D) is down 4 to Scott Baugh (R) in these polls in a seat held by outgoing Rep. Katie Porter. Baugh is refusing to debate Min so it may be Min is down in this seat.
An internal, but it matches what it feels like here on the ground. Des Moines, and Polk Co. Dems in general, are much more organized than they've been the past few cycles. Since this race was so close last time, it won't take much of an improvement at the top of the ticket to push Baccam over the top. They've run a good campaign, they're starting to get some outside investment, now they just need the environment to be just a bit improved over 2020 and I think we flip this seat.
Great to hear that Dems are actually contesting Iowa once more. Still, I wish we also had polls or at least some updates and news about how things are faring in IA02 and IA01. Outside of the 4th district all 3 districts should be quite competitive.
There are two new polls of IA-03 today, showing Lanon Baccam up +3 / +4 against the Republican incumbent, Zach Nunn. Has this been on the Democratic Party’s list of Congressional districts to flip, or on anyone’s radar? Must confess I haven’t seen it mentioned much.
CNN, national, has Harris +1. In a sample that they've weighted by party ID... to R+2 (32 D, 34 R, 32 I)... because that was their reading on party ID in their own June poll. I'm not making this up:
"The sample was also weighted for party identification in detail (leaners broken out)
and collapsed crossed by age and race. The benchmarks for party identification crosses were taken from CNN's national poll conducted by SSRS via web and phone from June 3-23,2024"
Lest anyone think he's a good-faith actor, Pillen really wanted to call a special session for winner-take-all but remains short on votes. He's not a hero; he's just bowing to reality.
YES!!! Kamala Harris supports eliminating the filibuster to restore abortion rights that were stripped away by Roe v. Wade being overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Harris made those comments on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Wisconsin Today on Monday.
Just end the filibuster entirely. The "remove it for priorities only" game just turns a short media hit into 2+ year long game of slow bleeding with the media where all other priorities also get gridlocked.
The "remove it for XYZ" thing is too inside baseball. If we get a trifecta just rip the bandaid off and get legislating. Incremental removal penalizes us more outside of the very first media cycle.
No. Remove it for XYZ is the perfect thing because people, including alot of Senators dont want radical change. We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message.
But the truth is - once you set the precedent of getting rid of it for XYZ you essentially have gotten rid of it for everything. Then its just politics - is thing ABC popular enough that you get 50 votes for it to ditch the filibuster.
While I agree about the resistance to change, the filibuster was removed 11 years ago for judicial nominees yet still remains for most everything else so I’m not sure I buy your argument.
Not to mention, doing it the incremental way means not only do Dems have to wait until there is enough urgency to change the rules, they also have to wait until whenever the next trifecta is to enact anything. Even with the problem Senators from WV and AZ Biden could have accomplished a lot more in the first two years of his term without the filibuster.
And I think your comment about the a zero vote majority actually argues for eliminating the filibuster. If you were a Senate candidate in 2026 which would you rather run on? “Look at all we did with a tied Senate, imagine what we could do with a majority,” or “We couldn’t accomplish anything because there were only 50 of us, but if we get 52 this session, well, we’ll still do jack shit because reasons”.
That's what I mean with inside baseball. The only voters that know what the filibuster is are voters that already have their votes locked in. American voters assume that the senate operates in a purely majoritarian fashion. Preserving something that they don't even know exist because we're afraid of their resistance to change is not sound thinking.
If we ditched the filibuster entirely the only hit would be from the media for a single news cycle before they lost interest. Remember, in the past few months we've had:
- A presidential candidate drop out
- A presidential candidate shot once with a second assassination attempt
- Dick Cheney endorse a democrat for president
- A presidential candidate convicted of 34 felonies
With I don't know how many other events that even I've mentally moved on from. All of those disappeared from the media cycle in less than a week. These are major events that would have dominated the news for weeks, months, or the entire election cycle in years past. The filibuster being toasted would be forgotten within a week, and likely before that. It's a boring topic to cover and most people are unaware that it exists and/or how it functions. It doesn't hold a candle to those stories, and those could barely last days in our media environment.
But if we make an exception for subject A, we still take that one week of bad coverage. Then when we add an exception for B in the future, we take that hit again. Then again for C, D, E... And then when republicans gain a trifecta at whatever point in the future, they just kill it outright and the media shrugs and says "you started it" and they pass their full agenda in contrast to how we flagellated ourselves for no actual benefit.
"We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message."
It's a completely winning message. Sure, it's possible to overreach, but in general, getting stuff done when you won the popular vote is exactly what the voters want.
Overreach. Do whatever you can to ensure Republicans can't sweep back into power and keep doing the people's work without obstruction and let the chips fall where they may.
Ensuring voting rights and doing something to prevent the unconstitutional and corrupt actions of the Supreme Court is not overreach. It's essential! You should define which actions are overreach and which are not. DC has certainly waited way too long for statehood! Remember "No taxation without representation"? We all learned that in grade school, right?
For now she needs to focus the campaign on abortion(after the election is over, then these can come into play; though most likely, none will pass in the short-term)
Either Trump will be the first Republican to win Hispanic voters (by 8%) in this poll or Harris will get 46% among white voters. I am not sure both can be true here.
Apparently at Trump's rally last night in Indiana, Pennsylvania (never heard of it before), there was an unusually large number of young people (mostly men), complaining about the cost of everything "doubling in the past 4 years". Concerning (America has the world's LOWEST inflation right now). This will need to be countered by newly registering a hell of a lot of NEW young voters for Democrats in these last few weeks; not just in Pennsylvania but in ALL the swing states, because this race is closer than many realize and the thought of 4 more years of Trump until 2028 is nightmare city. How many more SCOTUS seats could he fill by then?!
Fun fact: There’s a university there called Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and about 70 miles northeast of there there’s a California University of Pennsylvania!
I don't see how what people said at a Trump rally is evidence of any change in voter sentiment. GOTV efforts are neither more nor less needed than before those Trump supporters said whatever they said.
Also, we’ve seen young men, namely young white men, at Trump rallies back in 2016. This isn’t news to me.
I remember back when Trump won in 2016 there were video clips showing hordes of young men Trump supporters cheering his win. Frankly, they may be scattered around states like PA, not necessarily in respective cities like Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh.
This plus the Harvard poll of voters between 18-29 that showed Kamala up 61-30 is a 2nd instance of where these focused samples are showing much wider spreads for Harris than the crosstabs in the horserace polling.
Andy Borowitz nails it!
"Staff of Nude Africa Porn Site Quit to Distance Selves from Mark Robinson"
NORTH CAROLINA (The Borowitz Report)—In an official statement released on Tuesday, the entire staff of the pornographic website Nude Africa has resigned in order to distance themselves from Lt. Governor Mark Robinson.
“We have long been proud of our association with Nude Africa,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson’s posts on the website have tarnished Nude Africa’s good name.”
In order to “restore the stellar reputation of Nude Africa,” the ex-staffers urged the porn site’s proprietors to “demand that Mr. Robinson drop out as a commenter on Nude Africa’s message boards at once.”
Asked about the controversy, Sen. JD Vance said, “Before I comment, I need to spend a few more days looking at Nude Africa.”
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/staff-of-nude-africa-porn-site-quit
LOL at the last sentence. :-)
I presume JD Vance is seduced by both his couch and the Nude Africa website. So easy for him to confuse the two.
Polls out this morning:
Morning Consult: Harris 50-45
Suffolk Michigan: Harris 48/45
Elon North Carolina: Harris 46-45
Noble Predictive Nevada: Harris 48-47
Starting to see more polling showing “it’s a blue wave” than polling with Trump being ahead. That about sums up where we are right now in the cycle + just how much has changed since Biden dropped out. Before that, Biden’s best polls showed a tie or slight lead and worst had Trump winning in a wave.
Before anyone asks, no, there is zero downballot data showing that right now, the wave polls are outliers. The average is about D+2 right now in the GCB and Washington primary had it at D+4, so that’s about the range of where the data shows us to be currently. Slightly less or slightly more than 2020.
I wouldn't call this "blue wave" polling. But it also doesn't point to a Trump lead in the EC. The overall picture is pretty consistent - a very close race with a slight tilt to Harris.
Don't waves typically materialize in the final 1-2 weeks? Plus, there is so little reliable House polling its hard to say which seats will be swept up until we get some actual results.
Waves in a presidential year are pretty hard to come by to begin with. The last one would have been 2008 - and that materialized well before the election (I would argue in fact in 2006.)
The 2018 wave was also pretty evident long before the voting started (I mean we picked up a Senate seat in Alabama in late 2017 among other overachievements.)
As I recall, Doug Jones won because of the GOP’s "candidate quality problem". That issue seems even more prominent in this cycle, which explains why all the Democratic Senate incumbents except Jon Tester are polling well.
With challengers Mucarsel-Powell in Florida and Allred in Texas having longshot chances, we may just hold the Senate – despite an outrageously difficult map.
An aside: I do wish President Biden had appointed Doug Jones as Attorney General, rather than Merrick Garland.
Candidate quality was obviously a problem that year in Alabama, but if HRC (or any Dem) have won in 2016 you can bet that there just wouldn't have been enough enthusiasm to steal that seat.
Agree about Jones vs Garland.
For me, this is how I view ratings:
Tilt 0-2 points
Lean 2-5 points
Likely 5-10 points
Safe 10+ points
So anything at 5+ is at wave level imo. There’s been a few polls that have shown that. They’re outliers, but they’re more frequent than ones showing Trump winning nationally.
I recall that Obama won by about 8 in 2008 and brought something like 18 flipped House seats with him. That was a wave.
Ah, those halcyon days of youth. I was actively disappointed in the breadth of the Obama 2008 wave.
What I see the polling showing is the blue wall fortifying, NV is far and away the least polled of the swing states and I think she's probably doing a little better there than the polling would indicate based on the state's history in that regard plus because its been been less polled the shitty right wing pollsters have had a disproportionate impact on the averages there. But NC looks like a total coin flip and Trump looks like he has a slight edge in AZ and GA.
While I disagree about what the polling writ large is showing, I do think this may end up being what we see with results. One theory I've had is that Harris will do way better with young voters than she is in polling and the main piece of evidence I've used is that while the horserace numbers tend to show it around Harris +10 with voters 18-29, there have been a couple of polls of just 18-29 voters and those tend to be much better for her. And one such poll dropped today, the Harvard poll showed her up 61-30. It makes sense on a couple levels, the fist being just the really small numbers you'll get in this cohort in a horserace poll gives it a really high MOE. But also, it intuitively makes sense to me that a MAGA young voter is more likely to answer a poll than the rest of their age cohort and so you're getting a more MAGA sample unless you're really focusing on making sure you get a representative sample.
Why is the Working Families Party running a candidate, Anthony Frascone, against Mondaire Jones? Surely the party knows their candidate is a spoiler, benefiting only Mike Lawler. Do they really prefer Lawler over Jones??
These sort of things always puzzle me.
Jones opposed Bowman for re-election, said he would have attended Netanyahu’s speech if he were in congress, and cost the left a seat by running in a NYC district in 2022. Those are three reasons I can think of.
Are those really the WFP's motivations or just general criticisms? Frascone sounds more like a GOP plant than a challenge from the left.
Enough party members in the district were pissed off enough to deny Jones the spot even though the party leadership was opposed to Frascone. You piss enough people off enough times, and you get what you deserve.
I'll go back to the point that Jones is a political lightweight(I'm not convinced he actually loses but imo if he does, only he is to blame)
He won the primary
Someone didn't get their envelope. The Working Families party has a long history of supporting Republicans.
Really? I was under the delusion that it was a small progressive party, aligned with Democrats.
This isn't true
I have lived here my whole life and it is absolutely true. They do less of it now than they used to, but it how they have always operated.
What Republicans have the WFP supported?
Nick Spano (I'm sure about). Vincent Leibell (I think). There doesn't seem to be a record anywhere so I have to go by 20 year old memories and look things up.
So you're basing your claim on the WFP having a "long history of supporting Republicans" on one candidate you're sure about and one you aren't. And this somehow discredits their decades-long history supporting progressive candidates and movements. Cool!
I am curious about this; if you have time, could you elaborate?.. I think it might make for a worthwhile discussion
They primarily back Democrats but will also support Republicans who are/or claim to be, favorable to labor. Most of those Republicans are gone around here so they have less of an opportunity to do that.
We got into it here. Short answer is he won primary over opposition of WFP leaders. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/27/2248846/-Morning-Digest-Why-a-tiny-primary-could-have-big-implications-for-November#1
The mistaken notion that Jones losing will force the Democratic Party to move left in terms of ideology.
Wow! Sounds just like the Democratic Socialists of America denouncing AOC because of... well, whatever.
This is not what's happening here. As we wrote in link above, the WFP leadership opposed Anthony Frascone, he won the primary anyway.
MT Senate RMG: Sheehy 50 Tester 43. Looks like a one day poll.
If there's any candidate on our side who can pull a Susan Collins, it's Tester.
That would be more convincing if Tester had a track record of winning by more than the skin of his teeth, as opposed to Collins who managed to dominate even amidst the brutal headwinds of 2008.
That and the fact that Democratic voters are generally more willing to split ticket vote than Republican voters. Too many of us still believe in the mythical creature that is the "reasonable Republican."
I think Murkowski is the real deal. She continuously puts her career at risk to vote the way she wants to. Collins does the absolute bare minimum necessary to hold onto power in a blue state.
Judicially, I remain unconvinced. 177 of Biden's 203 Article III nominees that have come to the floor have gotten at least 1 GOP vote. Collins has backed 173 of them, Murkowski 151, and Graham 150 (next up is Tillis at 75). Collins has been the solo GOP vote for 3 of them, Graham for 2, and Murkowski for none.
Fair point, although they're a wash when it comes to the Supreme Court. Collins supported Kavanaugh and Murkowski supported Barrett while the other did not. Murkowski changed her No vote on Kavanaugh to Present as a courtesy to an absent GOP Senator, but I don't think this changed the outcome any.
I wonder what Murkowski's terms would be to be a Dem-caucusing independent, if her vote would get us to 50 (with Walz breaking ties).
I'm just not seeing it
Yes. Murkowski is the key swing GOP Senator that Democrats can count on with key issues, especially with abortion.
There are issues I disagree with her about but all things considered she’s the one true moderate Republican in the Senate we can count on.
Collins voting to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court showed no spine, especially considering Collins for a long time before that had a good pro-choice voting record.
She’s the only real centre-right Republican in Congress.
Before someone replies, Brian Fitzpatrick votes with the majority, whichever party that may be, which is politically smart. But that also means he’s voted quite a bit more right in this term than the last one. So I don’t count him as consistently centre-right, more of a go along to get another term person. He votes with Democrats when they hold the majority and Republicans when they hold the majority.
Well, I consider Adam Kinzinger to be an example of that mythical creature: "the Reasonable Republican". But then again, that’s probably why he had zero chance of re-election.
the IL legislature drew his district out and he couldnt win it as a Republican so he retired
As far as I remember, Kinzinger’s voting record was quite conservative.
Yes, he is very conservative. But he is a patriot – not a Fascist. That makes him our ally.
Harris is down in this poll 59-38, yea i get she's down big but hopefully high teens and not low 20's so to give Tester a fighting chance.
It would suck but wouldn't shock me too much if she lost MT by around 20.
I don't know why she'd do worse than Biden here, who lost by 16.
Looking at past returns in Montana, I was struck by how consistent Dem presidential performances returns have been there. In 6 of the last 10 elections, our candidate has fallen in the 4.1% band from 37.6% to 41.7% (underperformances from Gore and Hillary, overperformances from Obama '08 and Dukakis). By that measure, it makes it the fifth-most consistent state, with only MS (3.2%), PA (3.5%), IN (3.8%), and AL (4.0%) having a tighter band.
You have a link to the poll? What is up with polling either take one day like RMG or a month in the field like the ActiVote poll in Ohio? I know people here may not love dissecting the polls but we also have standards for accuracy.
Ok, just looked into this. It was done completely online between September 12-19. Mixed feelings about only online polling. By the way, the NYTs has a great piece out about the changing landscape in Montana. This part stood out because it doesn't seem like everyone loves the wealthy Republicans moving in and buying land. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/22/us/montana-senate-tester-sheehy.html
Still, not everyone is abandoning the Democrats, and particularly not Mr. Tester. Lyle Thomas, an 84-year-old rancher who describes himself as an independent, said he has long voted blue and has concerns about the honesty of Republican leaders, including former President Donald J. Trump and Mr. Sheehy, who has acknowledged lying about how he ended up with a bullet in his arm.
Mr. Thomas has been wary about the wealthy, mostly Republican newcomers who have flooded into the area in recent years, saying they have scooped up land and charged hefty fees for people to hunt.
“It’s changed our state so much — and not for the better,” he said as he moved a truckload of cattle fencing posts. “It’s going to take a real severe winter to keep them all out of here for a while.”
Tami Healy, who lives at a senior center, said she disliked the current White House and was uncomfortable with abortion, but she has been alarmed by how far Republicans have gone to prohibit it when the issue deserves more nuance. She trusts Mr. Tester to understand how Montanans think about things.
7 days is considered too long to poll, isn't it? After your first paragraph, though, we get into anecdotes, and you know what they say about those vis-a-vis data.
Should what they say about that be taken only anecdotally?
/s
First poll I’ve seen with Tran ahead of Steel. The era of the Biden district suburban Republican may be over if these are anywhere close to right. Ugly numbers for the GOP incumbents.
https://x.com/cjwarnke/status/1838570089219518829
New polling in
@politicoca
:
@AdamGrayCA
leads 44% to 42% in #CA13
@RudySalasCA
leads 43% to 39% in #CA22
@gtwhitesides
is leading 44% to 43% in #CA27
@WillRollinsCA
and
@KenCalvert
tied at 46% in #CA41
@derektranCA45
leads 45% to 43% in #CA45
If the road to a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives runs through California, a new poll suggests Democrats are narrowly on track to get there.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California, California State University Long Beach and Cal Poly Pomona, found Democratic candidates to be slightly ahead of Republicans in four of the state’s six most closely-watched swing districts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/24/dems-edge-california-swing-house-races-00180648
One caveat is that in CA47 Min (D) is down 4 to Scott Baugh (R) in these polls in a seat held by outgoing Rep. Katie Porter. Baugh is refusing to debate Min so it may be Min is down in this seat.
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. So he wouldn’t have to debate Kamala Harris again.
Internal Democratic IA03 poll shows why the DCCC is in Iowa.
https://x.com/stella2020woof/status/1838586319460499793
Baccam (D) 50%
Nunn (R- incumbent) 46%
An internal, but it matches what it feels like here on the ground. Des Moines, and Polk Co. Dems in general, are much more organized than they've been the past few cycles. Since this race was so close last time, it won't take much of an improvement at the top of the ticket to push Baccam over the top. They've run a good campaign, they're starting to get some outside investment, now they just need the environment to be just a bit improved over 2020 and I think we flip this seat.
Also has Harris up 50-43 here: https://x.com/jamesd0wns/status/1838582766109110362
That would be nice. Was about dead even between Biden and Trump (Trump +0.3).
Great to hear that Dems are actually contesting Iowa once more. Still, I wish we also had polls or at least some updates and news about how things are faring in IA02 and IA01. Outside of the 4th district all 3 districts should be quite competitive.
Every House seat counts!
There are two new polls of IA-03 today, showing Lanon Baccam up +3 / +4 against the Republican incumbent, Zach Nunn. Has this been on the Democratic Party’s list of Congressional districts to flip, or on anyone’s radar? Must confess I haven’t seen it mentioned much.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/house/2024/iowa/3/
CNN, national, has Harris +1. In a sample that they've weighted by party ID... to R+2 (32 D, 34 R, 32 I)... because that was their reading on party ID in their own June poll. I'm not making this up:
"The sample was also weighted for party identification in detail (leaners broken out)
and collapsed crossed by age and race. The benchmarks for party identification crosses were taken from CNN's national poll conducted by SSRS via web and phone from June 3-23,2024"
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25172742/cnn-poll-harris-and-trump-locked-in-exceedingly-close-presidential-race.pdf
So we're about one point off a 2014 electorate and Harris still leads. She's +90 among Dems, +4 among Indies, and -87 among Republicans.
(This is also a 3-point improvement for Harris from the last CNN poll in late July.)
4 actually. Was 49-46 Trump.
True, but one of those 4 points is the RV-LV adjustment in this poll. It's a 3-point shift among RVs.
The fact that even with that she's ahead in the poll is (knock on wood) a good sign.
Agreed. They had Trump by 4-6 points against Biden earlier this year (January and April), which was maybe 3-4 points to the right of the averages.
CNN/SSRS (09.19-09.22.2024):
RV:
🟦Harris: 47%
🟥Trump: 47%
🟪 Oliver: 2%
🟩 Stein: 1%
LV:
🟦 Harris: 48%
🟥 Trump: 47%
🟪 Oliver: 2%
🟩 Stein: 1%
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1838620245419815407
Doesn't R+2 track with recent national affiliation? With so many Democrats switching to independents in recent years?
NE 2: Pillen will not call a special session.
Good news.
Lest anyone think he's a good-faith actor, Pillen really wanted to call a special session for winner-take-all but remains short on votes. He's not a hero; he's just bowing to reality.
@Reuters General election poll
🔵 Harris 50% (+6)
🔴 Trump 44%
IPSOS #B - 785 LV - 9/22
YES!!! Kamala Harris supports eliminating the filibuster to restore abortion rights that were stripped away by Roe v. Wade being overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Harris made those comments on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Wisconsin Today on Monday.
https://www.wpr.org/news/kamala-harris-presidential-campaign-vice-president-housing-affordability-pfas-pollution-wpr-interview
They need to do it for more than abortion:
1) DC statehood
2) SCT reform
3) John Lewis Voting Rights Act
Just to get warmed up.
Just end the filibuster entirely. The "remove it for priorities only" game just turns a short media hit into 2+ year long game of slow bleeding with the media where all other priorities also get gridlocked.
The "remove it for XYZ" thing is too inside baseball. If we get a trifecta just rip the bandaid off and get legislating. Incremental removal penalizes us more outside of the very first media cycle.
No. Remove it for XYZ is the perfect thing because people, including alot of Senators dont want radical change. We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message.
But the truth is - once you set the precedent of getting rid of it for XYZ you essentially have gotten rid of it for everything. Then its just politics - is thing ABC popular enough that you get 50 votes for it to ditch the filibuster.
While I agree about the resistance to change, the filibuster was removed 11 years ago for judicial nominees yet still remains for most everything else so I’m not sure I buy your argument.
Not to mention, doing it the incremental way means not only do Dems have to wait until there is enough urgency to change the rules, they also have to wait until whenever the next trifecta is to enact anything. Even with the problem Senators from WV and AZ Biden could have accomplished a lot more in the first two years of his term without the filibuster.
And I think your comment about the a zero vote majority actually argues for eliminating the filibuster. If you were a Senate candidate in 2026 which would you rather run on? “Look at all we did with a tied Senate, imagine what we could do with a majority,” or “We couldn’t accomplish anything because there were only 50 of us, but if we get 52 this session, well, we’ll still do jack shit because reasons”.
That's what I mean with inside baseball. The only voters that know what the filibuster is are voters that already have their votes locked in. American voters assume that the senate operates in a purely majoritarian fashion. Preserving something that they don't even know exist because we're afraid of their resistance to change is not sound thinking.
If we ditched the filibuster entirely the only hit would be from the media for a single news cycle before they lost interest. Remember, in the past few months we've had:
- A presidential candidate drop out
- A presidential candidate shot once with a second assassination attempt
- Dick Cheney endorse a democrat for president
- A presidential candidate convicted of 34 felonies
With I don't know how many other events that even I've mentally moved on from. All of those disappeared from the media cycle in less than a week. These are major events that would have dominated the news for weeks, months, or the entire election cycle in years past. The filibuster being toasted would be forgotten within a week, and likely before that. It's a boring topic to cover and most people are unaware that it exists and/or how it functions. It doesn't hold a candle to those stories, and those could barely last days in our media environment.
But if we make an exception for subject A, we still take that one week of bad coverage. Then when we add an exception for B in the future, we take that hit again. Then again for C, D, E... And then when republicans gain a trifecta at whatever point in the future, they just kill it outright and the media shrugs and says "you started it" and they pass their full agenda in contrast to how we flagellated ourselves for no actual benefit.
"We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message."
It's a completely winning message. Sure, it's possible to overreach, but in general, getting stuff done when you won the popular vote is exactly what the voters want.
Overreach. Do whatever you can to ensure Republicans can't sweep back into power and keep doing the people's work without obstruction and let the chips fall where they may.
Ensuring voting rights and doing something to prevent the unconstitutional and corrupt actions of the Supreme Court is not overreach. It's essential! You should define which actions are overreach and which are not. DC has certainly waited way too long for statehood! Remember "No taxation without representation"? We all learned that in grade school, right?
For now she needs to focus the campaign on abortion(after the election is over, then these can come into play; though most likely, none will pass in the short-term)
President
🔴 Trump 48%
🔵 Harris 48%
Last poll (8/23) - 🔵 Harris +1
Quinnipiac #B - 1728 LV - 9/22
Here is the link https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3908
Either Trump will be the first Republican to win Hispanic voters (by 8%) in this poll or Harris will get 46% among white voters. I am not sure both can be true here.
Um. Neither of those
Apparently at Trump's rally last night in Indiana, Pennsylvania (never heard of it before), there was an unusually large number of young people (mostly men), complaining about the cost of everything "doubling in the past 4 years". Concerning (America has the world's LOWEST inflation right now). This will need to be countered by newly registering a hell of a lot of NEW young voters for Democrats in these last few weeks; not just in Pennsylvania but in ALL the swing states, because this race is closer than many realize and the thought of 4 more years of Trump until 2028 is nightmare city. How many more SCOTUS seats could he fill by then?!
💙🇺🇲😢🙏
Fun fact: There’s a university there called Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and about 70 miles northeast of there there’s a California University of Pennsylvania!
I don't see how what people said at a Trump rally is evidence of any change in voter sentiment. GOTV efforts are neither more nor less needed than before those Trump supporters said whatever they said.
Also, we’ve seen young men, namely young white men, at Trump rallies back in 2016. This isn’t news to me.
I remember back when Trump won in 2016 there were video clips showing hordes of young men Trump supporters cheering his win. Frankly, they may be scattered around states like PA, not necessarily in respective cities like Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh.
Would those young people especially the men ever have voted for Biden or Harris under any circumstances? I doubt it!!
This campaign released a video from JD Vance saying eggs cost $4 in front of a price tag that eggs cost $3.
Sounds like he just pulled a Dr Oz!
So, at a Trump rally, there were a lot of self-selected Trump supporters (from who knows where, because people can travel) in the audience?
The makeup of members of the audience of a political rally are not an indicator of anything.
Looks like Vance and Walz are both neck deep in debate prep.
Mayor Pete is the stand in for Vance, and Emmer is the stand in for Walz. Honestly both of those are great choices as proxes for the debate.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/24/walz-buttigieg-debate-prep-minneapolis-00180736
Latino vote Pew: Harris 57 Trump 39.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/09/24/in-tight-u-s-presidential-race-latino-voters-preferences-mirror-2020/
This plus the Harvard poll of voters between 18-29 that showed Kamala up 61-30 is a 2nd instance of where these focused samples are showing much wider spreads for Harris than the crosstabs in the horserace polling.
And both numbers are plausible