this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
73 points (68.5% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3448 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] justhach@lemmy.world 181 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

"~~Kamala Harris~~ Hillary Clinton predicted to win by nearly every major forecaster"

Its like 2016 never even fucking happened lol

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

She was predicted to win the popular vote....

And she did.

Looking at statewide polling and a lot of battleground states were coinflips.

The problem was anyone mentioning that got screeched at for wanting trump to win....

[–] Razzazzika@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This comment also aged like milk. Trump is 5 mil over harris in pop vote

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I really didn't think she'd fuck it up this much.

The last three elections have been like Brewster's Millions where it's like the Dem is trying to lose.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

She was predicted to win the popular vote…And she did.

But this article is saying it's based on the EC,

Nate Silver's latest forecast now gives Vice President Kamala Harris a slight edge in the Electoral College
The model shows Harris securing 271 Electoral College votes to Trump's 267.

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is too close. I hate that it's that close.

I want her to get over 350... over 400 even.

Hey, same here. And you know what? There's hope - at least one pollster is predicting a major blowout for Harris, https://app.vantagedatahouse.com/analysis/TheBlowoutNoOneSeesComing-1

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Do you want them to not make any predictions until voting is over or what?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

That would be an improvement

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 week ago

OK, good luck with that.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

YES (no predictions)

Honestly there should be zero results posted until all votes are counted. Counting as they come in influences later voters, especially in western time zones.

I thought there was an election in the not too distant past where the news declared a winner before Hawaii even finished voting.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I disagree with the "no predictions" part, but fully 100% agree with not releasing any results until all votes are tallied.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

What would they base predictions on without results?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Tallying the votes makes the results though.