Harris' lead over Trump narrows to 46% vs 43%, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Harris' lead over Trump narrows to 46% vs 43%, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
reuters.com
Harris' lead over Trump narrows to 46% vs 43%, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
reuters.com
I really would like to see those 43%.
Like, after years and years of Trump upping the ante in presenting himself as the biggest turd alive, there are still people that sincerely think "yeah, I'd like him as president - he represents the values i stand in for"…?
I would just like to see the people, because a minority of them will be your typical MAGA-Puppet.
Most of them are completely isolated from all news or political information, except for the local radio they hear on their way to work, and Fox News.
It's hard to believe, but millions of people simply haven't heard about how shitty Trump is.
The moment something negative is said about Trump, they will tune out. They'll proudly tell you this too.
They do have one liberal on Fox News that has laid out most of Trump's bigger oopsies at one point or another but they apparently ignore every single word she says.
“yeah, I’d like him as president - he represents the values i stand in for”…?
A lot of these morons see politics as a team sport. You might as well ask a Packers fan to support the Vikings or a United fan to get behind City.
I'm in a large city in Iowa on the edge of town. If I drive 5 minutes down the road I will see for sure one small Trump sign, one small Harris sign, a farm house with a few Trump signs of various sizes, then another with a few large ones held up with fence posts. That's places that I know of off the top of my head, but if I drive further I will not see another Harris sign unless I get down town residential. They are disgustingly all over.
Respondents rated the economy as the top issue facing the country, and some 44% said Trump had the better approach on addressing the "cost of living," compared to 38% who picked Harris. Among a range of economic issues the next president should address, some 70% of respondents said the cost of living would be the most important, with only tiny shares picking the job market, taxes or "leaving me better off financially." Trump had more support than Harris in each of those areas as well, although voters by a margin of 42% to 35% thought Harris was the better candidate to address the gap between wealthy and average Americans.
It would be nice to press these people on why they think that, though it's probably just "that's what I heard."
It's not that complicated. Inflation is 20% since Trump left office, it was only 8% for Trump. Unemployment was good during both terms, other than COVID lockdown periods. Trump had good wage growth numbers, Biden only has ok numbers for yoy, not across his whole term.
It's a coin flip, just like it has been the entire time.
Polymarket has Trump ahead by 6 points. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm signing up for a passport today just in case.
We'd be happy to have you in Australia mate.
God we need more normal people here. Happy to ship out cookers and loonies up to the US as a trade
I appreciate the warm welcome! We'll see if I can find a place with low enough rent, I assume Australia has something like the same housing crisis the US and Canada has?
We have plenty of cookers and loonies here too, yours would find their people here. Would make a great swap imho
If you're wondering why her, her campaign, and DNC leadership keep pretending it's a coincidence the more conservative she becomes the worse she polls...
It's because they're all making a lot of money from donors in return for all her conservative shifts.
Presidential campaigns "cost" over a billion dollars now. That's a lot of fat to trim off for a lot of people.
And with the DNC valuing donation bundlers over any other skill, it's seems like it should be pretty obvious they care more about grifting money than getting Harris elected.
Anyone that says it takes over a billion dollars to beat trump shouldn't be running a campaign for local dog catcher. But they'll never stop trying to get more money. Instead of just trying to get more votes.
The people running the party have different goals than the voters in the party
.
Some 53% of voters in the poll said they agreed with a statement that “immigrants who are in the country illegally are a danger to public safety,” compared to 41% who disagreed. Voters had been more closely divided on the question in a May Reuters/Ipsos poll, when 45% agreed and 46% disagreed.
Ahhh good to know some things never change. Good old hateful racist assholes Americans being asshole Americans. I hate living here with these fucking ghouls. The only dangerous people are actual American citizens...
...
90% sure we've went over this before...
X% of voters includes Republicans that will never vote D under any circumstances
To motivate people who will vote D. We need to focus on what they want.
Did it work this time?
The people running the party have different goals than the voters in the party
I do recall this in being a factor, it was thought that the GOP couldn't prevent that guy from winning the nomination in 2016 while the DNC had the power to annoint Clinton over Sanders.
Presidential campaigns “cost” over a billion dollars now.
Yes. Citizens United. At least the DNC is able to match the GOP here though.
And with the DNC valuing donation bundlers over any other skill, it’s seems like it should be pretty obvious they care more about grifting money than getting Harris elected.
That's not obvious at all. Alternative view: they're just trying to outspend the GOP in the hopes that this get Harris elected.
The people running the party have different goals than the voters in the party
Again, not at all obvious.
Anyone that says it takes over a billion dollars to beat shouldn’t be running a campaign for local dog catcher.
Of course that's not it! The question is, if the GOP has a billion dollar lead over Harris, can the GOP prevail over Harris?
Maybe not, but, why take that chance?
But they’ll never stop trying to get more money. Instead of just trying to get more votes.
I mean they're trying to use the money to spread outreach and engagement (which hopefully turns into legitimate votes for Harris). I understand the frustration with the overall system but ultimately this is all for the goal of getting more to turn out for Harris.
I hate these hyperbolic headlines describing some tiny poll movement in a single poll well within the margin of error, describing it a some definitive clear change in support.
Here's the times sienna poll today for instance, another high quality pollster, where she went from tied to now 3% ahead and is leading for the first time in that poll since July.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4921203-kamala-harris-donald-trump-national-new-york-times-poll/
If the race is truly a 3 point gap right now, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent, you're going to see polls with her everywhere from one behind to 7 ahead. It's a bad idea to hyper scrutinize or draw big conclusions from tiny changes in one poll.