At some point hoping for a late turnout surge seems like clinging to straws--or assuming the left is going to vote en masse on election day to make up for early vote deficits.
At some point hoping for a late turnout surge seems like clinging to straws--or assuming the left is going to vote en masse on election day to make up for early vote deficits.
This is exactly the sort of unconstructive, evidence-free comment I was referring to when I mentioned yesterday that some people were spamming these threads with repetitive doom.
The early vote deficits are concerning. Pretending they don't exist won't make them go away. The only thing I will concede is that, now COVID is over, vote patterns may be different.
So nobody else has to look it up, Michael Pruser works for Decision Desk HQ. That organization used to be reasonable but has unfortunately taken a hard turn to the right ever since its former head, Brandon Finnigan, left. I'm still on their e-mail list, and their "analysis", if you can call it that, is very hard-right and highly misleading. I wouldn't trust what they say now.
Thanks for doing the due diligence here; in no way is that proper usage of the word 'Facts'(it's getting tiresome as well, so thanks again for updating the source)
Because doing an aggregation of polls like that to predict a win isn't exactly taking into account non-polling data. It may be to a certain degree helpful in aggregating polls but they don't reveal the whole truth.
We have no idea what the election results will be. You'll deserve a lot of kudos if Kunce wins in Missouri, but you have a habit of treating events that have not yet occurred as facts, and that's counter-factual and disturbing.
First off, I am referring to the decision by Decision Desk HQ to announce Harris as having a 47% chance in light of the fact that early voting numbers. Prior to that, I would have not said the prediction is a fail. Same with Trafalgar Group, Gallup, etc. making the argument. What used to be predictions per polling analysis aren’t as useful as they used to be this close to the election and they really don’t make a lot of sense if we already have voting numbers coming in.
I am not predicting Kunce is going to win. I’ve said plenty of weeks ago I believe it’s going to be a Likely Republican race but I also don’t believe it’s going down more in the direction of favoring Democrats than it did before (in fact, I believe Hawley will likely win by 3-4% points). Why you are believing the opposite of what I have said is beyond me but I suggest you revert back to my original arguments. Polls, money and rallies DO matter in the bigger picture of assessing how credible a race is but certainly more information is warranted.
No, I understand you think Hawley will probably win, but most of us, I think, consider a close win by him quite unlikely and would be really happy if that eventuates!
You are wrong, simply wrong with using the word 'Facts' because in no way is it a fact, it's conjecture only(and it's from a right-wing source); it could be or could be not true (we shall see);but, you stating non-facts as facts is ridiculous
He wouldn’t post it every day if people didn’t need to read it every day after posting the same debunked bs to derail the left website here. There’s an easy solution. Stop doing that and he won’t post the comment. See? Simple. That it’s not for many here speaks volumes on some people’s intent and whether they do want a constructive discussion (they don’t btw).
At some point hoping for a late turnout surge seems like clinging to straws--or assuming the left is going to vote en masse on election day to make up for early vote deficits.
This is exactly the sort of unconstructive, evidence-free comment I was referring to when I mentioned yesterday that some people were spamming these threads with repetitive doom.
Please do not make comments like this.
The early vote deficits are concerning. Pretending they don't exist won't make them go away. The only thing I will concede is that, now COVID is over, vote patterns may be different.
Do you realize that your final sentence destroys your entire argument?
No. I said “may”. It still doesn’t mean those voters will necessarily magically show up.
https://x.com/MichaelPruser/status/1852048096760349143?t=j56wJ-02tLa6Kh32MMBdBg&s=19
"Republicans still have a sizable amount of rural turnout to run through, and at this rate, Clark County Democrats will not be able to keep up."
Facts.
Clark County Democrats won’t be able to keep up?
We don’t know that. Official Election Day is still on Tuesday. Once again, premature assessments.
These are not facts. Just pure speculation at this point.
So nobody else has to look it up, Michael Pruser works for Decision Desk HQ. That organization used to be reasonable but has unfortunately taken a hard turn to the right ever since its former head, Brandon Finnigan, left. I'm still on their e-mail list, and their "analysis", if you can call it that, is very hard-right and highly misleading. I wouldn't trust what they say now.
Thanks for doing the due diligence here; in no way is that proper usage of the word 'Facts'(it's getting tiresome as well, so thanks again for updating the source)
Also, Decision Desk HQ committed a major FAIL by saying Kamala Harris has a 47% chance of winning.
Seriously!
How do you know that's wrong?
Because doing an aggregation of polls like that to predict a win isn't exactly taking into account non-polling data. It may be to a certain degree helpful in aggregating polls but they don't reveal the whole truth.
We have no idea what the election results will be. You'll deserve a lot of kudos if Kunce wins in Missouri, but you have a habit of treating events that have not yet occurred as facts, and that's counter-factual and disturbing.
First off, I am referring to the decision by Decision Desk HQ to announce Harris as having a 47% chance in light of the fact that early voting numbers. Prior to that, I would have not said the prediction is a fail. Same with Trafalgar Group, Gallup, etc. making the argument. What used to be predictions per polling analysis aren’t as useful as they used to be this close to the election and they really don’t make a lot of sense if we already have voting numbers coming in.
I am not predicting Kunce is going to win. I’ve said plenty of weeks ago I believe it’s going to be a Likely Republican race but I also don’t believe it’s going down more in the direction of favoring Democrats than it did before (in fact, I believe Hawley will likely win by 3-4% points). Why you are believing the opposite of what I have said is beyond me but I suggest you revert back to my original arguments. Polls, money and rallies DO matter in the bigger picture of assessing how credible a race is but certainly more information is warranted.
No, I understand you think Hawley will probably win, but most of us, I think, consider a close win by him quite unlikely and would be really happy if that eventuates!
You are wrong, simply wrong with using the word 'Facts' because in no way is it a fact, it's conjecture only(and it's from a right-wing source); it could be or could be not true (we shall see);but, you stating non-facts as facts is ridiculous
Wait, you're going to accuse someone of being repetitive when you post that quote from Skaje every day?
He wouldn’t post it every day if people didn’t need to read it every day after posting the same debunked bs to derail the left website here. There’s an easy solution. Stop doing that and he won’t post the comment. See? Simple. That it’s not for many here speaks volumes on some people’s intent and whether they do want a constructive discussion (they don’t btw).
OK, but how would he know that people are going to keep posting the same bunked bs since his is the first comment every day?
Weeks of the same bs on a daily basis, then two days of the repost with the bs minimized. Seems pretty simple.