Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
You wanna not perpetuate the clickbait BS, and just give us the "detail", FFS? 🤦🏼♂️
edit: It's a completely shit "article" of a mere four sections of limp, repetitive "quotes" drowned in ads, etc. that finally give up the ghost:
"...the folks that we’re focused on, those lower propensity voters that don’t always vote, they are tuning in and showing up at a higher level in support of the vice president.”
Apparently, it's just "early voting turnout is good"
Thank the gods for the article, then. That simple phrase alone can't possibly carry the deep complexity of that convoluted concept. Whew.
The person who's job it is to get Harris elected is optimistic? Would you be surprised if Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles are bullish on Trump's chances?
44 million people have voted
Early voting has been going on a few weeks in my state already. I've got my vote in.
Make sure to remind and encourage any dem-leaning friends and family you know to vote too! Volunteering is also great to help bring those numbers up
This could just mean that the people who'd vote anyway just voted earlier, not necessarily that there's significantly more non-voters voting now.
My prediction is Kamala will win everything except Arizona and Georgia.
They're will be immediate fuckery in PA with the MAGAts shrieking that illegals voted, but as long as it's not a 270 vs. 265 EC vote situation, we should be good.
Pa resident here, the fuckery has been going on for months already. Couple weeks ago a federal judge ruled county elections boards were within their rights to refuse to count mail-in ballots with minor clerical deficiencies on the envelope it was mailed in. Pa has 67 counties, guess how many elections boards are run by republicans. Now guess which party benefits more from having those votes thrown out.
"Our margins are strong, and the folks that we’re focused on, those lower propensity voters that don’t always vote, they are tuning in and showing up at a higher level in support of the vice president.”"
This is important because these are the voters that pollsters don't count as being "Likely Voters".
They specifically mention Nevada in the article, so look at the LEFT hand column of the polling data:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV
RV
RV
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV
RV
15 polls, 12 of them counting "Likely Voters".
HuffPost - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for HuffPost:
Wiki: reliable - A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: mixed - In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: unreliable - Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jen-omalley-dillon-confident-2024-kamala-harris_n_671f5305e4b0a55cb4cd95d6