A new Morning Consult poll shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump nationally, 51% to 45%.

Key takeaway: “Her 51% of support among likely voters, which is also at a record high, is driven largely by her best figures to date among Democrats, Biden 2020 voters, liberals, women, 18- to 34-year-olds and millennials.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Trump has a hard ceiling of about 46%. His only way to victory is driving down Harris’ numbers.

    Expect the rhetoric to get much worse.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Trump has a pile of “I don’t want to admit I’m voting for the orange turd but I really like his racism policy” votes that aren’t getting counted in these polls.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re talking about under polling, which happened for Trump in 2016 and less so in 20. What makes it a little different this time is looking at state level election runs where Senate and Congressional candidates are up as well.

        • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think Trump was under polled in 2016 due to this:

          • A month later, on Oct. 28, 2016, Comey told lawmakers in a letter that the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” and that investigators would “review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information.”
          • On Nov. 6, 2016, Comey told Congress in a follow-up memo that the FBI had “reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State” and that officials “have not changed our conclusions.”
          • The election took place Nov. 8, 2016.
    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Trump may have a hard ceiling of “likely voters”, but my fear is that there are a lot of unlikely/“low information” voters that are backing Trump.

      They are simply not paying attention to anything but their paycheck, which is not rising as fast as prices are. They remember all the chaos of the Trump Presidency, but also remember when they could afford rent.

      The same thing happened in 2020. I keep reminding people that 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016. Those people looked at all the chaos of the Trump Presidency and said “Yup! We need more of that”, after not caring 4 years prior.

      Polls don’t matter, votes.do. And thanks to the EC, votes in certain zip codes are more impactful than others. Harris not only needs to get good turnout, but get good turnout in the right zip codes to win this.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you are Trump, you are counting on unlikely voters. Hell of a thing to count on. Good luck with that.

        There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.

        • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          No. You’re counting on your zealots to overthrow the government and violently seize power for you through undemocratic methods.

          He tried to do it once, and he’s going to attempt to fucking do it again. My guess he’s going to try to get Harris’ delegates below the threshhold and the vote for president will go to the gerrymandered GOP house.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.

          What exactly do you mean by this? When you say “the electoral vote”, you’re not referring to the number of electors in the electoral college, are you?

          Because if you are then that sounds silly lol, I’m probably misunderstanding you

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            No, you’ve got it right. Most often the electoral vote follows the popular vote. There has only been twice in history when it didn’t. One was Trump in 2016. Clinton won the popular vote. For Trump to do that twice is a very low probability.

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ohhh you just mean “there’ve only been 2 times in history where the popular vote disagreed with the electoral vote.”

              When you said “only 2 times the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote” it sounded like you were comparing the size of the popular vote to the size of the electoral vote. Which would be silly, b/c the popular vote is always larger than the electoral vote lol

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Most often the electoral vote follows the popular vote. There has only been twice in history when it didn’t.

              Wrong.

        • ccunning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.

          It’s happened five times before (unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying)

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s more than two, yeah.

            Of the five, one had no party affiliation (Jackson/Adams) and the rest were all “won” by republicans.

            Expect them to cheat bigly.