2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[Nymrohd]

Can someone explain to me how on earth Kennedy can have as much as 7-10% in several battleground states in the polls? It just seems so weird to me. Is this some form of protest voting?

[shimerra]

Can someone explain to me how on earth Kennedy can have as much as 7-10% in several battleground states in the polls? It just seems so weird to me. Is this some form of protest voting?

Kind of is a type of protest vote. The simplest way to describe it is people tend to fuck around a bit more in a survery. Even if they're being 100% honest at the time people are much more likely to indicate voting in surveys for Rand Paul, Ross Perot, Kennedy, etc. in a poll then they are to actually vote for said candidate in the election. When the pollster comes round it's a bit of a fuck the establishment I'm going 3rd party. Then election day comes and reality sets in and most of us realize that 3rd party in the US system is effectively throwing away your vote entirely and don't do that. I forget the exact rate but we're talking people are 4-5x more likely to say they'll vote 3rd party in a survey then ever actually do it based on surveys vs. actual votes received. Getting these shockingly high survey responses it generates momentum and temporary excitement. But a 10-15% will vote for response in a survey almost always translates to a 1-3% of the actual vote share when the day comes if they're lucky.



So long story short is Kennedy appeals to some people probably more than we'd like. For some it's a simple fuck the establishment response. For a few a little bit of trolling. But they all combine to inflate the survey responses and 90% of them don't actually want to throw their votes and on election day see the writing on the wall for a 3rd party vote away so they vote for one of the big two.

[Nymrohd]

Kind of is a type of protest vote. The simplest way to describe it is people tend to fuck around a bit more in a survery. Even if they're being 100% honest at the time people are much more likely to indicate voting in surveys for Rand Paul, Ross Perot, Kennedy, etc. in a poll then they are to actually vote for said candidate in the election. When the pollster comes round it's a bit of a fuck the establishment I'm going 3rd party. Then election day comes and reality sets in and most of us realize that 3rd party in the US system is effectively throwing away your vote entirely and don't do that. I forget the exact rate but we're talking people are 4-5x more likely to say they'll vote 3rd party in a survey then ever actually do it based on surveys vs. actual votes received. Getting these shockingly high survey responses it generates momentum and temporary excitement. But a 10-15% will vote for response in a survey almost always translates to a 1-3% of the actual vote share when the day comes if they're lucky.



So long story short is Kennedy appeals to some people probably more than we'd like. For some it's a simple fuck the establishment response. For a few a little bit of trolling. But they all combine to inflate the survey responses and 90% of them don't actually want to throw their votes and on election day see the writing on the wall for a 3rd party vote away so they vote for one of the big two.

The thing is, that 1-3% vote in battleground states is more than enough to decide the election.

[Benggaul]

The thing is, that 1-3% vote in battleground states is more than enough to decide the election.

That depends on where the votes are coming from. MAGA seems convinced RFK is siphoning votes from Biden. I think given his anti-vaxx stance that's not really a given.

[shimerra]

The thing is, that 1-3% vote in battleground states is more than enough to decide the election.

Yes and no. That 1-3% is being generous historically speaking, the dream for a 3rd party so to speak. Pretty much unless you're Ross Perot you've had basically no impact on federal elections in the last 60 years even if you've hit that rate as a 3rd party candidate. Sometimes someone like Jill Stein has an impact but that's mostly because they almost only siphon votes from a single party.

And in this case Kennedy seems to be taking votes from both camps. Dems were more worried about Kennedy in the beginning but there's some evidence to say Trump might actually lose more votes. Either way even given the tightness of the last few rates and the most optimistic of projections for what he'll actually see vote wise Kennedy's going to be lucky to have an impact at all.

That depends on where the votes are coming from. MAGA seems convinced RFK is siphoning votes from Biden. I think given his anti-vaxx stance that's not really a given.

They were at first and so was Biden's camp. The consensus was 100% that Kennedy would overall be worse for Biden than Trump.

Reality has shown both the Trump campaign, and make no mistake the few people who have a brain and still work there do see this trend, and Biden's campaign are noticing that it's a much more even split between who Kennedy syphons votes from making him basically a non-factor. In fact as Kennedy gets more face time and election day approaches he's shown to be leaching more from Trump than Biden because of his bat shit anti-vaxx, chem trail, conspiracy BS plays better with Trump's base than Biden's.

Either way Kennedy's not looking to be a huge upset overall but we'll have to wait and see until closer to the election date if he might have an impact in the handful of states that will decide the election.

[Nymrohd]

That depends on where the votes are coming from. MAGA seems convinced RFK is siphoning votes from Biden. I think given his anti-vaxx stance that's not really a given.

Sadly, moderates and even liberals are not immune to anti-vax idiocy. I think he is probably siphoning votes from either side.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes and no. That 1-3% is being generous historically speaking, the dream for a 3rd party so to speak. Pretty much unless you're Ross Perot you've had basically no impact on federal elections in the last 60 years even if you've hit that rate as a 3rd party candidate. Sometimes someone like Jill Stein has an impact but that's mostly because they almost only siphon votes from a single party.

And in this case Kennedy seems to be taking votes from both camps. Dems were more worried about Kennedy in the beginning but there's some evidence to say Trump might actually lose more votes. Either way even given the tightness of the last few rates and the most optimistic of projections for what he'll actually see vote wise Kennedy's going to be lucky to have an impact at all.

I understand. It still makes it much harder to read polling.

[Benggaul]

Sadly, moderates and even liberals are not immune to anti-vax idiocy. I think he is probably siphoning votes from either side.

Of course, the anti-vaxx nonsense started on the left. But MAGA have pretty much made it a part of their identity. RFK also didn't do himself any favors by picking an anti-IVF running mate.

[shimerra]

Of course, the anti-vaxx nonsense started on the left. But MAGA have pretty much made it a part of their identity. RFK also didn't do himself any favors by picking an anti-IVF running mate.

@Nymrohd this. Being anti-vaxx is 1000% more a right wing thing now a days. For every flower power no chemicals in my blood nature child, which was left wing anti vaxxing pre-covid, there's 100 Republicans who don't trust big evil gubberment 5 g chip implanters.

So yes you're right he probably is syphoning anti-vaxxers from both. But the fact is now a days if you're anti-vaxx, especially covid vaxx, its like a 94% predictor that you're right wing. So again he's not syphoning the same things from each side at the same rates. As I said before people were certain Kennedy was going to be worse for Biden until he started dropping a metric shit ton of crazy views and conspiracies. And that stuff is just factually playing better with a likely Trump voter than a Biden voter.

[Ivanstone]

Of course, the anti-vaxx nonsense started on the left. But MAGA have pretty much made it a part of their identity. RFK also didn't do himself any favors by picking an anti-IVF running mate.

I wouldn't assume that. The Anti-Flouridation crowd started on the right and the right wing anti-vax crowd is just an extension of that.

[Gorsameth]

Can someone explain to me how on earth Kennedy can have as much as 7-10% in several battleground states in the polls? It just seems so weird to me. Is this some form of protest voting?

Because you can get those numbers for literally any answer no matter the question.

[Milchshake]

I wouldn't assume that. The Anti-Flouridation crowd started on the right and the right wing anti-vax crowd is just an extension of that.

It's the Joe Rogan acid test again. The people that failed it in 2016 ... continue to fail it today.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nia-rcna158648

House Freedom Caucus chair Bob Good appears that he will lose his primary race.

But he's not calling it quits yet!

Rep. Bob Good said Monday his campaign would file a legal challenge to “try to block certification” of the Republican primary election in a key city in Virginia’s 5th District as he trails his opponent in the vote count.

NBC News has not called the race between Good, the chairman of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, and his Republican challenger, John McGuire, a state senator who leads by a few hundred votes after last Tuesday's election.

Good claimed during an appearance on Steve Bannon's "War Room" podcast Monday that Lynchburg “did not secure their drop boxes.”

“There’s no accountability for when those boxes were opened,” Good said. “They were apparently left to be stuffed for two or three days after the election.”

“We’re going to be making the legal challenge in the next couple of days to demonstrate that Lynchburg, the biggest city, can’t be certified,” he added.

Neither Good’s campaign nor the chairman of Lynchburg's electoral board immediately responded to requests for comment.

Good also complained on X last week that there were fires in three precincts on Election Day. “What is the probability? Does anyone recall even 1 fire at a precinct on election day?”

Oh good, they're calling voter fraud on each other : 3

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/25/nob...rump-inflation

Another one for the "MUH ECONOMIC ANXIETY I CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY FIRST AND FOREMOST" crowd -

Sixteen Nobel prize-winning economists are jumping into the presidential campaign with a stark warning: Former President Trump's plans would reignite inflation and cause lasting harm to the global economy if he wins in November.

Why it matters: The Nobel laureates are lending their academic prestige to a political argument the Biden administration has been making for weeks: Inflation would be worse under Trump.

"While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden's economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump," the 16 economists write in a letter, first obtained by Axios.

And they do name names -

The message was spearheaded by Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001.

He was joined by George A. Akerlof (2001), Sir Angus Deaton (2015), Claudia Goldin (2023), Sir Oliver Hart (2016), Eric S. Maskin (2007), Daniel L. McFadden (2000), Paul R. Milgrom (2020), Roger B. Myerson (2007), Edmund S. Phelps (2006), Paul M. Romer (2018), Alvin E. Roth (2012), William F. Sharpe (1990), Robert J. Shiller (2013), Christopher A. Sims (2011), and Robert B. Wilson (2020).

Everyone who actually cares about the economy (and not just personal enrichment) seems to be in agreement on this that Donald is an economic disaster waiting to happen.

[Gestopft]

Can someone explain to me how on earth Kennedy can have as much as 7-10% in several battleground states in the polls? It just seems so weird to me. Is this some form of protest voting?

3rd party is usually some sort of weird protest or antiestablishment voting. I think there are two important things here though:
1) His name/family is Kennedy. Without that name recognition he probably would be quite a bit lower
2) while it's tempting to think of 3rd party candidates as spoilers for either of the main candidates, in reality a lot of the voters that actually vote for them weren't going to vote for the main party candidates anyway.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/colorado-...872ba590af56d5

rofl lauren boebert won her primary.

it's increasingly hard to think there are any serious republicans left

[Nymrohd]

https://apnews.com/article/colorado-...872ba590af56d5

rofl lauren boebert won her primary.

it's increasingly hard to think there are any serious republicans left

I mean, Trump endorsed her.

[masterhorus8]

I mean, Trump endorsed her.

She also changed districts. Was there even anyone running against her?

[Shadowferal]

She also changed districts. Was there even anyone running against her?

Too many. And none of which had any name recognition. And both a crowded field, and name recognition played in her favor.

[Benggaul]

Too many. And none of which had any name recognition. And both a crowded field, and name recognition played in her favor.

I was about to write this. She had to flee her own district and join a saturated field of nobodies just to have a chance. I believe it's another safe GOP district as well (admittedly I didn't look TOO deeply) so it looks like the House will still have one of their dumbest Reps next year.

[Mekh]

I was about to write this. She had to flee her own district and join a saturated field of nobodies just to have a chance. I believe it's another safe GOP district as well (admittedly I didn't look TOO deeply) so it looks like the House will still have one of their dumbest Reps next year.

Of the seven nobodies only one or two indicated in a debate that they wouldn't support a convicted and jailed Trump. And if the voter base wants to go crazy-maxing, they might as well vote for the proven lunatic.

[Milchshake]

I was about to write this. She had to flee her own district and join a saturated field of nobodies just to have a chance. I believe it's another safe GOP district as well (admittedly I didn't look TOO deeply) so it looks like the House will still have one of their dumbest Reps next year.

Correct, she relocated from a Trump +7 district, to a Trump +13 district. Also the most conservative district in the state.

This is a text-book case of Tribalism. Our local concern trolls would deny it though.