Yeah well, I keep telling myself any line drive to the outfield should be a triple for me. The evidence plainly indicates it's a double at best. By a lot. lying to one's self is powerful but not effective!
Does Harris get a bump in the polls?
- Thread starter binsfeldcyhawk2
- Start date
Yeah well, I keep telling myself any line drive to the outfield should be a triple for me. The evidence plainly indicates it's a double at best. By a lot. lying to one's self is powerful but not effective!
- Sep 13, 2002
- 96,738
- 199,553
- 113
Need a 3-4 point lead to feel pretty secure about EC. This is trending the right way.Harris widens lead over Trump in postdebate poll
If the election were held today, 50 percent of respondents said they would cast their ballot for Harris, up from 49 percent who were polled before the debate.
Trump, on the other hand, lost support. Ahead of the debate, 46 percent of respondents said they would cast their ballot for the former president if the election were held today. After Tuesday’s debate, that decreased to 45 percent.
A majority of Harris’s support comes from Democrats, but she leads Trump among independent voters with 46 percent support to his 40 percent, the survey found.
The 1 percent bump prediction is looking good
I am guessing it will give her a little bump but probably not enough to really matter. Still too much time for something to happen. Good for her that she actually remembered her lines and didn't have her normal gaffs and cackles.
The second piece doesn’t really matter. R’s are taking the senate this year.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 96,738
- 199,553
- 113
The composites look like they'll be showing 4+ in a week or so nationally.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 96,738
- 199,553
- 113
Trump Is Losing The Post-Debate Debate, TooPlus: A bomb threat in Springfield.
Debates Can Have Consequences—William KristolFor all the hoopla that surrounds them, presidential debates usually come and go to little effect. The political world pays attention for a day or two, but the public little notices, nor long remembers, what is said there. One of the candidates may get a little boost and the other take a bit of a hit, then memories fade and the impact dissipates. The campaign caravan moves on. This is true not just of debates but of many other occurrences in our public life. Things can seem like a very big deal when they happen. Then they fade. That’s the normal course of seemingly dramatic events. But we don’t live in normal or standard times. For better or worse, in 2024 we seem to be on Lenin Non-Standard Time: “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” In such a time, there are moments whose repercussions reverberate and whose impact grows. The aftershocks are even greater than the original disturbance. That now seems to be the case with Tuesday night’s debate. For one thing, it seems that Tuesday night’s will be the only Trump-Harris debate. Multiple debates usually result in mixed verdicts, and a general blurring of any one encounter’s impact. Trump’s choice—at least for now—to reject any further debates turns Tuesday night’s affair from a best-of-three series into a one-game elimination playoff. Trump lost that one debate. Bigly. And he’s been losing as the aftershocks ripple through the political universe. For example, the debate made it easier for wary Republicans, conservatives, and moderates to come on over to the Harris camp. From former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to George Will, a permission structure has opened up to allow other current and past Republican officials—perhaps including Gonzales’s former boss, George W. Bush?—to support Harris. No single endorsement may matter much, even if Will remains our leading guardian of the conservative faith. But together, their impact could percolate down to voters. And then there’s Taylor Swift, who—don’t be shocked!—matters more than Alberto Gonzales or (even!) George Will. Since her endorsement of Harris, there’s been a noticeable surge of voter registration among young people, especially young women. And then there are the candidates themselves. Harris seems confident, and Trump shaken. And confidence matters in politics, as in other performing arts and other forms of combat, including sports. The calendar may also be Harris’s friend. The Federal Reserve will cut interest rates next Wednesday, which will be good news. It might make it an opportune moment for a Harris speech laying out a forward-looking economic agenda with a mix of popular progressive proposals and reassuring centrist gestures. Focus group reports after the debate suggested that the Harris campaign still had more work to do to neutralize or limit Trump’s advantage on the issue of the economy. This would be a good time to do that work. Then the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term begins October 7. In the run-up to that, there will be a renewed focus on the Dobbs decision and its fallout, but more broadly on the importance of the next president’s four years of judicial appointments. Harris’s exchange with Trump on abortion rights was the strongest moment of the debate for her, people who have seen the dial tests tell me. A week or two of debate on reproductive rights, judges, and for that matter the rule of law won’t help Trump. This is all good news, but it’s obviously no reason for overconfidence. The Trump campaign will continue to pummel Harris with ads on immigration and crime, and prior to the debate there’s no question those ads were doing some damage. The fact that the immigration discussion at the debate was about eating pets rather than about the border was a bit of a reprieve for Harris. But it’s only a reprieve, and the Trump campaign will continue to hammer away. And of course on the disinformation front we have figures from Vladimir Putin to Elon Musk, plus a huge MAGA infrastructure, working hard to confuse and mislead the public. The possible effects of that may not be known but shouldn’t be underestimated. Trump’s come back before. He’s hard to finish off. Still, it’s been a good week. Maybe even a historic one. On Wednesday morning, I wrote: “On June 27, at this year’s first presidential debate, Joe Biden lost his chance for a second term. Last night, at this year’s second presidential debate, Donald Trump may well have lost his chance for a second term.” I’m now inclined to upgrade “Trump may well have lost his chance for a second term,” to “Trump most likely lost his chance for a second term.” So I’m upbeat, but still inclined to worry. A likelihood isn’t a reality. There are fifty-three days left to turn it into one. |
A lasting 1 pt bump in this tight election cycle is big IMO.
That is the question. Is it something that will last and will it sway enough suburban white women.
Not to mention, the ones he got fact-checked over were truly whoppers and shouldn’t have been let go. Nothing Harris said comes close to comparing.
Yeah I always figured that given the senate map this year. Battle for the Dems Keats for me centered on limiting the damage.
We're such a dumb nation...giving back the Senate to Republicans...great idea. 400 more bills to sit on McConnell's desk, I guess.
