"Nearly half of voters, in contrast, say Ms. Harris is too far to the left; only 41 percent say she’s 'not too far either way.' This is one of Mr. Trump’s overlooked advantages. Yes, he’s outside of the political mainstream in many respects.... But he’s also taken many positions that would have been likelier to be held by a Democrat than a Republican a decade ago, like opposition to cutting entitlements, support for a cooperative relationship with Russia or opposition to free trade.... Only 40 percent of likely voters said Ms. Harris represented 'change,' while 55 percent said she represented 'more of the same.' Mr. Trump, in contrast, was seen as representing 'change' by 61 percent of voters, while only 34 percent said he was 'more of the same.'... When Ms. Harris entered the presidential race, she seemed like a candidate with a lot of potential liabilities. She took many unpopular positions in her 2019 presidential campaign, and she was tied to the Biden administration’s immigration policy as well. In August, it seemed she could
glide past all of these issues by running as a 'generic' Democrat.... The risk, however, was that Ms. Harris was inevitably going to be defined, one way or another, and that her campaign was mostly forfeiting its opportunity to clearly define her in the eyes of the public. In this poll, the risks associated with this strategy are evident...."
Writes Nate Cohn in
"New Poll Suggests Harris’s Support Has Stalled After a Euphoric AugustAlmost 30 percent of voters said they needed to learn more about her" (NYT). A new NYT poll has Trump 1 point ahead of Harris, "the first lead for Mr. Trump in a major nonpartisan national survey in about a month." And, by the way, "Why haven’t there been more polls?"
Cohn points to a few "positions that would have been likelier to be held by a Democrat than a Republican a decade ago," but we could easily add to that list: support for endless wars, opposition to freedom of speech, persecution of political enemies....
पोस्ट्स
११० टिप्पण्या:
The polls have been done, but not published because they favor Trump.
The "euphoric August" was always a sham.
Harris will barely clear 60 million actual legal voters.
They are just trying to cover their mail in vote fraud.
A "non partisan" poll, eh?
The more you know Kamala, the less you like her.
Donald Trump has no problem with “free” trade. He just happens to be the only politician that understands that “free”’trade has to be fair. Taking it up the ass from corrupt foreign countries for graft is not “free” trade.
The implosion is beginning. A full two months of coverage, starting with Kamala's pending dumpster fire of a debate, will finish the job. You can't have two consecutive cycles of increased voting totals for MAGA, and the increasingly overt vote fraud needed to counter it, before you completely erode the national unity needed to maintain the American empire.
Hillary Clinton still isn't in prison. Trump's a lefty in my book until she is.
Judge Merchan should be in prosecuted. He is a corrupt judge.
Media (D) will dutifully respond with more Trump-hate....
and gushing Kamala love.
Thirty percent of voters are far leftwing Democrats who believe any move to the center is right wing extremism.
Democrats control the vote-counters in the very few precincts that matter in a national Presidential election. This "likely voters" poll is meaningless. They can still put up cardboard over the windows where it counts so that Americans cannot witness their election being stolen.
Hilariously - Kamala has dropped all of her previous hard-leftist stances - to be more like Trump.
Media dutifully washed her record clean.
I still call her DeFund the Police / Pro-Street terrorist Kamala.
Where have these 1/3 of the people been? She ran for President before and was shellacked. She has been reintroduced to voters more times than Hillary Clinton but these people have never heard of her? Holy carp…
"a few "positions that would have been likelier to be held by a Democrat than a Republican a decade ago" Well, maybe 30 years ago. Trump = Dick Gephardt minus pro-life.
"A new NYT poll has Trump 1 point ahead of Harris, "the first lead for Mr. Trump in a major nonpartisan national survey in about a month.""
Cute how it is "non-partisan" poll by the NYTimes. If even the NYTimes can't rig the poll enough to put Harris ahead by at least the 4% she needs to win the electoral college, it must be really awful running as the incumbent this cycle.
Euphoric is an over the top excess expression. Red flag- a sign of a liar…
The problem for Harris is that she is a moron and there is simply no realistic way to run as the outsider/non-incumbent in this election. The Democrats can try all they like to hide the fact that people are unhappy about the outcomes of the Biden Administration's incompetence but it can't ever actually work on real life voters. All the Democrats might be left with is how many fake mail-in-ballots can they get away with stuffing into the boxes.
BUT! Kamela's SURGE Continues!!
in the latest NYT's poll.. She's ONLY DOWN a few points!
at This Rate of Surge.. SOON she will be only several points down..
which means.. By the time early voting starts (this afternoon?)..
MANY voters will favor her..
which Means, she will only win the vote count by some TENS OF MILLIONS of votes counted.
as The Most Famous Democrat FAMOUSLY SAID:
It's Not Who Votes That COUNTS.. It's Who COUNTS The Votes
I would like to hear the respondents list the issues on which Trump is “too far to the right.”
They will do it again and call it tradition or just how it’s done..
Many on the corruption-excusing loyal D-left were "euphoric" after Joe was successfully kicked to the curb. Loyal D's were going to show up and vote for him, but they all know deep down that Joe is a creep - with a horrible family.
Fortunately for the Democrat Party; a full two months of coverage, will come a FULL two months too late.
MSN: Early voting has already started. That's actually a great thing.
However, this poll was apparently done before Dick Darth Vader Cheney endorsed Harris so there is still hope for the Democrats.
According to all the Media accounts I hear - Trump has been the president for the last 4 years.... and the entire Biden/Kamala/puppet/joke/high inflation/massive gov debt/free stuff for illegals/ open border/ free loan pay-back/pro-Antifa shit-show - can be blamed on Trump.
Democrat precincts ALWAYS close last.. It just takes MORE TIME to count votes that don't exist.
It's The WAY It's ALWAYS Been.. Just look at JFK! Don't Stand in the way of Tradition!
The pliant media has failed to define Kamala in her absence. It will be Trump or Kamala that will define her in the final stretch.
Trump has never actually changed politics from before he ran for office- the Democrats have moved far to the left in the last quarter century.
Harris will be more in the spotlight since she is less well known than Trump .
That is probably Trump's greatest disadvantage.
People already know him.
One of the main policies of hers that I do support is the one where she’s not Donald Trump.
Maybe they should consider replacing Harris with some fresh face. It’s never too late you know!
where to start? just off the top of my head..
Free Speech..
Not fighting GLOBAL WARS..
No mandatory "vaccines"..
Allowing people that earned money to keep SOME of it..
Not using the FBI/CIA to spy/MURDER political opponents..
Not using the FBI/CIA to spy/MURDER average citizens..
don't forget; George (worse than Hitler) Bush have endorsed Harris TOO
"The risk, however, was that Ms. Harris was inevitably going to be defined, one way or another,.... It's not a 'risk', it's an eventuality. I think they've been hoping that 'joy' and directionless celebrating for no clear reason other than 'Election !' would carry them over the line. Democrats sure don't think much of their voting base.
There was initial great relief that they were free from the cadaver. Now the reality that they are stuck with the drunken moron is setting in.
Apparently all the joyful shapeshifting hasn't had the intended effect. Pretty much like an attempted political facelift by Madonna's plastic surgeon.
But on the other hand, their base certainly does seem to take instruction well.
It is funny to watch Rich pretend that people don't know who Harris is.
Everyone knows who Harris is. That is why she has won exactly ZERO delegates in Democrat Primaries. This is why millions of Democrats are leaving the party.
But you guys can have the Cheney's and all of their supporters.
Ethnic Springs, hate crimes, witch hunts, human rites, Diversity, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform, nationwide insurrections, neighborhood incursions,, redistributive change, progressive prices, Capitol punishment, Dreams of Herr Mengele, slavery, torture-torture, American Civil Liberties Unburdened....
Trump was a little too far to the right when the bullet whizzed by.
Cult-Of personality is king with the corruption excusing loyalist left. Nothing new here, Rich.
This polling is indisputable proof Russia has once again been meddling in our election.
Labor, environmental, and fiscal arbitrage games. A Green blight on green and blue environments.
This is actually good news for Harris. In an open primary with other Democrats four years ago, she failed to reach a high single digit of support from Democrat voters. Now here she is just one point behind Trump. It's good to have the NYT and network news as your press agent.......If she does fall further behind, perhaps she can follow the example of Joe Biden and resign in favor of Mark Kelly. There's still time.
That was the Inga/Rich line parroted here for the last month.
oh snap.
This is the disadvantage to early voting. The media is trying to prop up Kamala Harris, but making her appear to have mammalian intelligence is simply too much for even the most obsequious reporter. And if her popularity plummets, early votes can't go to Tim Walz alone.
This call for mandatory gun confiscation by kamala-la-la-la, on top of kamala-la-la-la's call for obliterating free speech with govt censors:
:NBC: Should Kamala try to pass mandatory gun confiscation, which she has repeatedly said she supports?
Top Harris surrogate Raphael Warnock: "We're not going to be able to get where we need to go without action."
NBC: Yes or no?
Warnock: Yes"
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1832773149206905084?t=d5eQF-yNcjX2nn4uG1pDhA&s=19
@Kevin, I have to say I chuckled at that line.
I'd suggest a "Trump is a moderate" tag
You want to get your most committed but least likely cohorts to turn out for early voting. Dems should focus on young, single women. Likewise, Republicans on young men.
Hate to be Mr. Picky again, but last sentence needs work. Pretty sure you intend that Democrats used to be against endless war, for free speech, etc. (although if we're only going back 10 years, even that might not be the case.)
I was wondering what happened. Seemed like there were multiple highly unfavorable polls reported every day until Biden got the chop and the Politburo installed Kamala, then they fell off a cliff and only two or three new ones came out every week.
I have no doubt that the news-media scum run every poll past the Harris campaign before and after it is performed. Oversample Democrats by 9%? Withhold damaging poll results in swing states? Yessir, boss, whatever will bolster the fortunes of the Party, you got it.
Exactly.
So its now cool to joke about the assassination?
I am sure the left are glad you have given the green light.
I was uneasy about Trump when he started running in 2015-6, but he did seem to me to be a breath of fresh air, compared to the other candidates who were using the same bottled rhetoric and promising to do things that they couldn't do and wouldn't do and that Republicans hadn't done when they had a chance. Trump dropped some of the more strident Republican positions and adopted some issues which had been Democratic talking points in previous years.
But if you challenge the political Establishment, you'll find the political Establishment rallying against you and you'll be painted as an extremist. "Extreme MAGA Republicans" were nothing of the kind, but if you change the political landscape, your position in that landscape changes. If you have an effect on the country, you become the pole that the other side organizes against.
I'd advise Trump to go easy on calling Kamala a Marxist. In statewide races, it works to say: "[Name] is too extreme for [state]." It doesn't play well in nationwide elections. Politicians are opportunists, not creatures with principles, and increasingly, Democrat presidents do what the party, the bureaucracy, and the interest groups want them to do. Their choice is to go a little slower or a little faster. American politicians aren't hard-edged or determined enough to be old style Marxists, and if they're new style Marxists, then not much of Marxism remains.
Democrats have always run on the idea that Republicans are going to cut Medicare and Social Security.
Can 't be something with nothing. While Kamala's early childhood was spent in Berkeley, she may have been born in a hospital in Oakland. The main Kaiser hospital that serves Oakland and Berkeley and much of Alameda County is down near Lake Merritt in Oakland. And these days she claims to be from Oakland. But like Oakland, when you take a serious look at Kamala, you realize that there is no there there--to steal a line from Gertrude Stein.
Has anyone noticed the coverage of the election on the news side of the WSJ. These two comments from readers on front page news articles sum it up nicely:
"Let's all forget about the war in Ukraine, the out-of-control national debt, the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, our failing education system, the high price of food and gas, the war in Gaza, and our deteriorating relationship with China, and instead, let's all focus on whether or not Donald Trump invited some guy named Brian for pizza" said the Wall Street Journal. "
"The food angle is the feature of the day. Investigative journalism at its finest. One of Walz’s subtle goals: Republicans who shy away from sampling apple blondies with a maple glaze look less bipartisan than he does."
NYT defines "non-partisan" as "done by NYT."
Not joking, but actually he was too far to the left, so it only grazed his right ear.
Why, because Kamala isn't losing by much more?
" Yes, he’s outside of the political mainstream in many respects...."
Based on the poll presented, it would seem he is very much in the political mainstream today and Harris/NYT are the ones looking in from the outside. But they are to arrogant/blind to see this.
True. He was a business Democrat until just before he came down the escalator.
But Rich, why is Camel-toe adopting Trumpian positions on fracking, etc. then?
"Not joking, but actually he was too far to the left, so it only grazed his right ear."
Depends on your point of view, Trump or the assassin's.
"So its now cool to joke about the assassination?"
No, the assassin's side doesn't get to.
Bush tried to hint at a plan to improve the return on Social Security with private investing and had to quickly retreat.
Kamala sez: "Don't forget Penzey's for all your spice needs! (no Republicans please)"
https://www.penzeys.com/shop/about-republicans/
John Henry
Is there anyone today who doesn't believe JFK was cheated into the presidency in 1960?
Primarily Illinois and Texas.
The only reason for lbj to be on the ticket was to manage the Texas cheating.
John Henry
John Henry
Candidate Harris will speak enough platitudes and promise enough largesse to be reported by the media as perfection in a politician. That she did the opposite of her campaign policies since entering politics, and simply cannot for example give every voter $25k for a new house, is quite beside the point. All she has to do is make it seem almost plausible that she got 85 to 90 million votes, the majority of which are unverifiable mailed ballots.
"But you guys can have the Cheney's and all of their supporters."
They've always had them. Only difference now is that they're losing their grip on the Republican party and they're having to pick a side more publicly than they would like.
"Democrats sure don't think much of their voting base."
Look at the ones who post here. Do *you* think much of them?
Democrats have always run on the idea that Republicans are going to cut Medicare and Social Security.
As far as I recall, it has only been for the past 60 years or so. Then, I am only 71.
If we had privatized SS, the average rate of return on investment would be 7-8%. As it currently stands, the rate of return is about 1-2%.
Think about that for a minute when Dems run with that tired old lie about SS.
A privatized 7-8% return would increase the number of people who are not dependent on the government. So of course Democrats are opposed.
"Alarm bells are sounding in the DNC this morning…and for good reason.
By comparison, in 2020, NYT/Siena’s first post Labor Day poll showed Biden with an 8 point lead over Trump at 49-41.
The current poll is a disaster for Harris."
https://x.com/ElectionWiz/status/1832751614504947907?t=lW_wJ8rmiwIQNCg6XcwtKw&s=19
Harris's failure to catch on with the voters may be because over the past few weeks they have tried to pay their grocery bill with "joy" and their insurance bill with "vibes". Their "joy and vibes" card was declined.
"New Poll Suggests Harris's Support Has Stalled After Public Notices She's an Idiot." FIFY
Know the summary before all the bullshit spread ,it will help you not look the fool and just parrot what you hear your favorites say.https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/
"Almost 30 percent of voters said they needed to learn more about her"
Why? The democrats themselves say you're not voting for Harris, you're voting for the team. Anybody who's been paying attention (which I guess is the point) know exactly what we'll get with Harris.
It is almost like you didn't bother reading them yourself, DinkyDick. All of them were really good except for the ones caused by the COVID shutdowns and Summer of George. You can keep pretending things have really improved in the las 4 years but all the polling surveys suggest they haven't- they have gotten worse.
Hilarious, Original Mike. That's not how that works, beyond the fact that you are attributing the act incorrectly.
OK, I laughed. Mark--Lighten up, Francis!
I think that will be the obituary they will bring themselves to write after November. More exposure only drives up her negatives and she has to run against a well know Trump brand name. It will be as basic as that.
I've noticed Vance and other surrogates are getting mileage just calling Kamala a "San Francisco Democrat" and tying her to the unpopular, crime ridden, homeless capital of the U.S, San Francisco. Trump is going to trump but I think reminding voters Kamala is a California democrat is damaging enough.
Regarding the economy (inflation, jobs numbers): Harris-Walz spokesman Ian Sams stated: "We’ve got 60 days until the election. You know, we don’t have time to sit around and think about why, over the last few years, certain things may have happened or may not have happened.”
People are supposed to vote for this?!? You've been in power for 4 years. You should have been thinking about it every single day.
" beyond the fact that you are attributing the act incorrectly."
No, I'm not. The side that's been doing "Trump is Hitler" 24/7 needs to accept responsibility for their actions.
I can't ever remember Trump being ahead in any poll since he began running in 2016. The only time was like the spring of 2020 before covid lockdowns and that miasma took over was Trump ever polling ahead of democrats. Given there is a "secret voter" multiplier of 5% for Trump he must really be running away with it at this point. Guess they will need to try to assassinate him again.
"Given there is a "secret voter" multiplier of 5% for Trump he must really be running away with it at this point."
IDK about that. They may be trying to light a fire under the democrats. You can assume that the polls are manipulated, but I don't think it's possible to know how or why.
Was this a national poll? I can't imagine it's a New York poll.
It really is one hell of a statement, isn't it? Sure, "certain things may have happened or may not have happened.", but let's not dwell on that. We only have 60 days remaining, so why not just focus on the future!
"Let's not bicker about who killed who…"
Rasmussen had him ahead in 2016, in the closing stretch,
No, he's not endorsing Kamala. George W. Bush says he won't endorse Kamala after Cheney backs her campaign.
Rich will disagree.
I keep tellin' ya. Trump is a moderate.
"This is pretty wild, per new NYT/Siena poll. The demographic that identifies most as Democrats is voters age 65+. The demographic that identifies least as Democrats is voters age 18-29"
https://x.com/mtracey/status/1832813035657814408?t=zX7uuz9y4IAodpDmAD_njQ&s=19
Its almost like Rich et al get every single factoid wrong and are simply gaslighting every single thing....
"The demographic that identifies most as Democrats is voters age 65+."
Back last summer, when Biden was the candidate, the 65+ crowd was the most pro-democrat of all the age groups.
its a skill to get things consistently wrong like that
M tracey is a lefty who didn't buy the Russian hoax, and enjoyed humiliating kurt eichenwald,
In August, it seemed she could glide past all of these issues by running as a 'generic' Democrat.... The risk, however, was that Ms. Harris was inevitably going to be defined, one way or another, and that her campaign was mostly forfeiting its opportunity to clearly define her in the eyes of the public. In this poll, the risks associated with this strategy are evident...."
Yep. The low information voters are waiting to find out what Harris stands for. They don't care what "anonymous staffers" say to the NYT, they want to know what Harris has to say.
And since Harris is refusing to say, that means Trump gets to pull up her old video and tell them what Harris believes.
The longer she goes without saying, the more the LIVs will believe that Trump ads
Harris will be more in the spotlight since she is less well known than Trump .
That is probably Trump's greatest disadvantage.
How dumb does one have to be to think the more Harris is exposed, the more of a disadvantage it is for Trump.
Seriously. Find another hobby.
I don't understand Althouse's final paragraph. Who is she talking about?
National totals are meaningless. In a fairly close election, it doesn't matter if Candidate A wins, say, California, or New York, by 60-40 or 55-45, but that will effect the national poll results. The only polls you should pay attention to are the "swing state" polls -- and even there you have to judge how accurate the polls for those states are. Personally, if a polester asked me, a "swing state" resident, who I was voting for, I might not answer, or I might possibly lie.
In my lifetime – or the part of it in which I was old enough to pay attention to political issues – it was often the Democrats who got us into wars and the Republicans who got us out.
Ike, the first President I remember, “went to Korea” and ended the war that started under Truman. Kennedy almost got us into a war with Cuba, and he and Johnson did get us into war in Viet Nam. Nixon got us out (yes, the Democrats in Congress played a big role, and they eventually assured that the North Viet Namese would win when they violated the negotiated terms of peace). The “Carter Desert Classic” almost got us into a war with Iran, but the incompetence of the US civilian and military leadership saved us from that. We did get into a few brush fire conflicts under Reagan, but we ended up with peace with the Soviets. Bush 1 facilitated the end of the Cold War, but did get us involved in some strategically unnecessary conflicts in the middle east. It was Bush 2 that got us involved in a “war against terror” that he wasn’t allowed to call a “crusade” because it might annoy those we wanted to call our allies. Then we had Obama, who boasted that he personally approved all US drone strikes during a “non-war”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Trump started no new wars during his term.
Biden has been supporting NATO aid to Ukraine, which I think is the right move. He has also been supporting Israel against Hamas, but giving at least lip-service to the non-existent “2-state solution”.
That was what Bush tried to discuss. He was shouted down.
"I don't understand Althouse's final paragraph. Who is she talking about?"
When I write "Cohn points to a few 'positions that would have been likelier to be held by a Democrat than a Republican a decade ago,'" I'm quoting from the linked article, where it says, "But he’s also taken many positions that would have been likelier to be held by a Democrat than a Republican a decade ago, like opposition to cutting entitlements, support for a cooperative relationship with Russia or opposition to free trade."
The "he" is Trump.
Interesting that three of top "Republicans" in Trump's transition team are ex Democrats: Trump, Bobby Kennedy, and Tulsi Gabbard. All anti war. I can live with that.
But Rasmussen was an outlier as they were in 2020. Trump has never been ahead in any of the typical polls that the media points to. This is unusual.
Mark would like to ban your thoughts and speech
"That's a long wait for a train that ain't never gonna come."
Rich makes some extraordinary assumptions. One of them is that he's smarter than you. Hilarity ensues.
(A) Alan Lichtman PREDICTOR of 9 out of 10 last winning presidential picks and(B) Nate Silver picked Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly in 2016 71/4% to 28.6 NOW USING BOGUS CALCULATIONS..I'll go with letter A
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा