POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[GrantDawg]

Lol...

Fox News' Peter Doocy: "Since when does the vice president, [Kamala Harris], have what sounds like a Southern accent?"

Karine Jean-Pierre: "I have no idea what you're talking about. ... Do you think Americans seriously think that this is an important question?" pic.twitter.com/QvlPPh9hlU

— The Recount (@therecount) September 3, 2024

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Kind of like insinuating the Dems as a party are racist?

If you are supporting an ethnic cleansing, I have news for you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mota

Yet all over the world we see people targeting Jewish people just because of their race. I was at a restaurant in Toronto in October and a group of pro-Palestinians were screaming at the restaurant and the customers inside because it was Jewish-owned.

You are comparing a genocide to someone being yelled at. And my tax dollars are not funding that group of pro-Palestinians.

Both are wrong and should not happen. You don't have to choose one or the other. Anti-Semitic harassment is bad. So is genocide.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Lol...

Fox News' Peter Doocy: "Since when does the vice president, [Kamala Harris], have what sounds like a Southern accent?"

Karine Jean-Pierre: "I have no idea what you're talking about. ... Do you think Americans seriously think that this is an important question?" pic.twitter.com/QvlPPh9hlU

— The Recount (@therecount) September 3, 2024

I would have asked where he and his hard-hitting questions were when Brian Kelly was giving his first LSU press conference.

[RainMaker]

Feels like the GOP oppo research is not great when your biggest attacks are that Kamala maybe talks with a Southern accent and is pretending to be black and her Vice President played too much Sega Dreamcast.

[Lathum]

Truth social down to $17.90 last I saw. He is eligible to cash in on his shares soon at which point the stock will be worthless. He is going get rich ruining so many of his followers and they will still fawn about what a good businessman he is.

[JPhillips]

Tucker Carlson came out as a Nazi sympathizer, in a just asking questions way, of course.

[Atocep]

Trump said parents are sending their kids to school and they're coming home with gender affirming surgeries.

[Ksyrup]

After being held at the school for 2-3 days for the surgeries. Totally believable.

I also like how he's trying to turn the narrative from "incoherent ramblings" to "my weave."

[Thomkal]

Biden adminstration will announce today that they are accusing Russia of continuous efforts to influence the 2024 national election by using Kremlin-run media and other online platforms with spreading disinformation to US voters. This is a developing story so there may be law enforcement and legal actions taken in connection with this


https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/polit...luence-efforts

[Vegas Vic]

This is kind of surprising to me. In today's update from Nate Silver, he now has Trump as a 55.8% favorite to win the election. Pennsylvania is beginning to look like a source of concern for the Harris/Walz ticket.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-...-this-election

[RainMaker]

I think he projects a convention bounce that just didn't materialize. Her campaign and enthusiasm came back down to earth too after she decided to just run on the same shit Biden did.

The shift rightward never seems to help Dems but they have to do it for the donors.

[Edward64]

Only seen this pic on the 2nd tier MSM so no idea if legit. We'll find out in a day or two with a denial or confirmation.

[albionmoonlight]

Do none of them know how to pluralize words?

[albionmoonlight]

dola: is there any reason to think that that photo is not true? It is important for Harris to try and build a brand outside of coastal liberal. So Walz coming from a midwestern family of Republicans would seem to help that rebranding. But the Harris campaign may have also been fooled and shared this picture too early. Hard to know.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Do none of them know how to pluralize words?

I think there is a teacher in the family who could have helped.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This is kind of surprising to me. In today's update from Nate Silver, he now has Trump as a 55.8% favorite to win the election. Pennsylvania is beginning to look like a source of concern for the Harris/Walz ticket.

Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other

There’s no “normal� in this election

Why Harris is leading in our polling averages — but not in our forecast. And why it’s hard to know where we’re headed next.

Nate Silver

Sep 03, 2024

∙ Paid

305

Share this post

There’s no “normal� in this election

www.natesilver.net

Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other

218

Share

Beginning this week, we’ll run two Model Talk columns per week for paid subscribers instead of one. So I want to come out of Labor Day weekend strong with a Model Talk — but today’s newsletter is really trying to accomplish a few different things, so let me give you a quick table of contents:

• First, I’ll reiterate the difference between our polling averages or snapshot of the current state of race and our forecast of the November result, which have begun to differ since the Democratic convention but will eventually come back into line;

• Second, I’ll explain why it’s hard to know the “realâ€� state of the race — what default conditions are when there isn’t a bunch of crazy news happening;

• And third, I’ll work through what will happen if Kamala Harris holds her current position in polls. Hint: she’ll eventually become the favorite again. This last part is paywalled.

Subscribe

Before any of that, though, a quick note on how we sometimes see our work being cited in the media. The polling averages are free for everyone, and we’re always happy to see them referenced in the press. That includes readers who take screenshots and post them on Twitter or other platforms. We’d just ask for two common courtesies: please don’t cut out the Silver Bulletin watermark in the bottom-right corner of the chart, and please try to link back to the model landing page or otherwise provide appropriate attribution.

By contrast, the Silver Bulletin forecast is paywalled. We’re not inclined to police occasional “leaks� of this content on free platforms like Twitter — and indeed, we sometimes provide teases there or in the newsletter ourselves. But these should fall within the spirit of fair use guidelines; you shouldn’t be sharing every paywalled chart every day, for instance.

Our concern is less about cannibalizing content that could induce people to become paid subscribers and more that these charts can get taken out of context. For instance, we’ve seen cases of people using this chart—

—to imply that we have Donald Trump forecasted to win the election by 10 or 11 points. The biggest landslide since Reagan in 1984! But that’s not at all what this chart is saying. Rather, it displays the probability that Trump will win the Electoral College — which is about 55 percent in our forecast, compared to about 45 percent for Harris.

Rather than a landslide, that implies an extremely uncertain and probably ultimately very close race — well in the range of what we’d consider a “toss-up�. In fact, the chance of a landslide — either Harris or Trump winning the popular vote by 10 points or more — is only about 5 percent in our model.

Why Harris is ahead in our polling averages but not in our forecast

As you can see from the forecast chart, Harris’s odds have declined slightly over the past two weeks, as she’s gone from roughly a 55/45 favorite to a 45/55 underdog. It’s not a huge change. Probability calculations can be highly sensitive just to either side of the 50/50 mark. If the New York Knicks make a buzzer-beater just before halftime to go from trailing the Boston Celtics 61-60 to leading them 62-61, they might tick over from “underdog� to “favorite� in a win probability model. But it isn’t as though the game has been fundamentally transformed. Still, the decline in Harris’s forecast reflects three factors:

(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.

(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.Â*

Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.

Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot� on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.

(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast.

The race has never been in a “steady state� since the Biden debate

What’s made this race uniquely challenging to forecast is that there hasn’t really been a slow news cycle since the debate on June 28. In rapid succession, we had: the debate, an incredible pressure campaign by Democrats to get Biden to drop out, the assassination attempt against Trump, Trump naming JD Vance as his running mate, the Republican convention, Biden dropping out, Harris securing the nomination overnight, Harris naming Tim Walz as her running mate, the Democratic convention, and then Kennedy dropping out.

In principle, you could say something like: let’s look at the polls from back when things were “normal�, ignore what they say immediately after one of these “crazy� events, and then wait for them to settle down again. (In fact, as I’ll explain below, the model sort of attempts to do this.) But it’s hard to know what counts as “normal� in this election:

• You could say that now is “normalâ€�, which would be a good answer for Democrats since normal means Harris leading. And that might be reasonable. The news cycle was quite slow last week heading into the holiday weekend, and there’s no longer much press coverage about Harris’s favorable momentum and so forth. Maybe we’re already out of the convention bounce window.

• You could say that the period just before the DNC began was “normalâ€� — Harris had been the presumptive nominee for several weeks at that point. This is a decent answer for Democrats, as Harris was slightly ahead in our forecast. However, she may also have been benefiting from some bounce-type dynamics then. The vibes had been extremely good for Harris, and Trump had been caught flat-footed by her entry into the race. This may not have been sustainable.

• You could say that “normalâ€� is about when we relaunched the model on July 30, when Harris had been the presumptive nominee for a week but before her bounce/buzz had really built up. But this is not a great answer for Democrats. At that point, national polls were roughly tied, and Harris was a slight underdog in the Electoral College.

• You could say that “normalâ€� was before the Biden-Trump debate, at which point Biden was about a 2:1 underdog — and Harris’s polling wasn’t any better than Biden’s. Indeed, Harris has been unpopular for most of her tenure as vice president until just recently. If her favorability numbers revert to their long-term average, that probably means Trump back in the White House.

• Or you could ignore the polls entirely and calculate “normalâ€� based on other factors — what we call “the fundamentalsâ€� around here. Our model’s answer, based on the economy being about average and there being no true incumbent in the race, is that “normalâ€� means a tie in the popular vote but Democrats being underdogs in the Electoral College.

• Finally, although this isn’t what our model does, you could calculate “normalâ€� based on the fact that Democrats have had an edge in the popular vote in most recent elections. On average between 2016 and 2020, Democrats won the popular vote by 3.3 points; on average since 2000, they’ve won it by 2.3 points. That might support the notion that something roughly like Harris’s 3.5-point lead is sustainable, or maybe we’d expect a decline of a point or so.

Any and all of these answers are defensible, I think. And if you take a mental average of them, they work out to Harris being a favorite to win the popular vote but perhaps a slight underdog to win the White House because of the GOP advantage in the Electoral College. And that’s basically what our model shows right now.

But look, if you have a different theory of the case, I’m not inclined to get into too much of a huff about it. We’ll know more in a week or so — although then we’ll have yet another disruptive event, the first (and possibly only) Harris-Trump debate on Tuesday.

What if Harris holds her current numbers?

But let’s say that something roughly like the first version of “normal� is correct and Harris is able to maintain the status quo in the polls. In other words, every poll from now through November exactly matches our current polling averages: every national poll has Harris up 3.5 points, every Michigan poll has her up 1.9, every North Carolina poll has her down 0.3 points, and so forth:

What would happen then?

This post is for paid subscribers

Subscribe

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

PreviousNext

© 2024 Nate Silver

Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice

Start WritingGet the app

Substack is the home for great culture

Share

Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Yeah, I've seen several articles that the honeymoon is over and she's crested the wave and on the way down.

[HerRealName]

Doesn't Nate Silver work for Peter Thiel now? I'm wondering how reliable he is at this point.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Only seen this pic on the 2nd tier MSM so no idea if legit. We'll find out in a day or two with a denial or confirmation.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola: is there any reason to think that that photo is not true? It is important for Harris to try and build a brand outside of coastal liberal. So Walz coming from a midwestern family of Republicans would seem to help that rebranding. But the Harris campaign may have also been fooled and shared this picture too early. Hard to know.

There appears to be an extra hand under the right arm of the chair...

[Danny]

I think thats arm flab

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yeah, I've seen several articles that the honeymoon is over and she's crested the wave and on the way down.

I think there was excitement that she would breathe some life into the party and differ from Biden on many of his unpopular issues. But she hired the Biden team to run her campaign and is basically giving speeches like him. It's a safe route I guess but can't blame voters who didn't like Biden already to not be terribly enthused with her campaign.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think there was excitement that she would breathe some life into the party and differ from Biden on many of his unpopular issues. But she hired the Biden team to run her campaign and is basically giving speeches like him. It's a safe route I guess but can't blame voters who didn't like Biden already to not be terribly enthused with her campaign.

The thing that held Biden back was his age. I get it, this is where you start yelling genocide, but if the 2024 version of Biden was the same as the 2019 Biden I think he wins easily as the incumbent.

I think the debate could really make a difference. If he is the rambling, incoherent, lying, low energy, misogynistic, buffoon he usually is the contrast will be obvious to any non MAGA person.

[Ksyrup]

I think she had a bounce, no doubt, but it was going to taper off at some point and that point appears to be now. But the debate could change that? I don't know. I'm not going to watch but my mind is made up - if I'm going to have to listen to Trump for another 4 years, I want that to start as far from now as possible.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The thing that held Biden back was his age. I get it, this is where you start yelling genocide, but if the 2024 version of Biden was the same as the 2019 Biden I think he wins easily as the incumbent.

I think the debate could really make a difference. If he is the rambling, incoherent, lying, low energy, misogynistic, buffoon he usually is the contrast will be obvious to any non MAGA person.

He polled horribly on foreign policy, the economy, inflation, and crime. Maybe the people who were trying to convince everyone that Biden was good a few months ago don't really know much about the current political climate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump said parents are sending their kids to school and they're coming home with gender affirming surgeries.

This is one area where Trump gets a huge pass from the media. These ramblings are insane and if any of our parents started talking like that, we'd be looking for padded rooms to put them in.

Biden's criticism over an unfair media was laughable, but they are right that Trump is not being held to the same standard on age/senility since he dropped out.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He polled horribly on foreign policy, the economy, inflation, and crime. Maybe the people who were trying to convince everyone that Biden was good a few months ago don't really know much about the current political climate.

Yet he was withon the margin of error in almost every swing state so that tells you something about how bad Trump is. A coherent Biden beats him imo. It’s the perfect illustration of how Trump has killed the gop. If they run Haley she wins in a landslide.

[Jas_lov]

Not sure what Nate Silver is doing. He seems to be subtracting 2 points from Harris because of some "convention bounce adjustment." She didn't really get a bounce because the bounce was when she was announced. 538's old model still had Biden slightly ahead even though he was down 3 nationally and in most of the swing states. Now Silver has Trump slightly ahead even though he's down 3 nationally and in most of the swing states. Given that Silver has been critical of 538's model it's kind of funny that he's doing the same thing. Silver says if things stay the way they are then Kamala's odds will go up as we get closer to the election, which is the same thing 538 was saying before Biden dropped out. I don't know what to believe but I think Harris is slightly ahead right now.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Not sure what Nate Silver is doing. He seems to be subtracting 2 points from Harris because of some "convention bounce adjustment." She didn't really get a bounce because the bounce was when she was announced. 538's old model still had Biden slightly ahead even though he was down 3 nationally and in most of the swing states. Now Silver has Trump slightly ahead even though he's down 3 nationally and in most of the swing states. Given that Silver has been critical of 538's model it's kind of funny that he's doing the same thing. Silver says if things stay the way they are then Kamala's odds will go up as we get closer to the election, which is the same thing 538 was saying before Biden dropped out. I don't know what to believe but I think Harris is slightly ahead right now.

If Rasmussen has Harris ahead by a point it's safe to say she's at least 3 points ahead right now. Whether that holds or not remains to be seen. I think her announcement was so close to the DNC that it's difficult to get a bounce there. IMO she has a lot riding on the upcoming debate.

There's a lot of people applying conventional logic to elections in an era with unprecedented moments and hyper-partisanship on both sides. Plus, when Trump is involved the polling can weird both ways.

[Jas_lov]

That's the other thing is Silver says there hasn't been any good state polling for Harris lately. There were some CNN polls today, Bloomberg and other than that it's right wing pollsters like Trafalgar, Rasmussen, Insider Advantage. In 2022 this same thing happened where Trafalgar had Tudor Dixon up 1 to mess with the polling averages and Whitmer wins by double digits. Not sure why they're even included anymore.

[GrantDawg]

https://x.com/yashar/status/18314969...mKfl1lUMQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Mota]

x.com

Someone please let Elon know that Trump was president for 3 of the 5 years in question.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It’s the perfect illustration of how Trump has killed the gop. If they run Haley she wins in a landslide.

This kind of thing is completely unknowable. I doubt it very much however. It's important to keep in mind that there are people who will vote Trump who wouldn't vote Haley. I wish that weren't the case, but ...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This kind of thing is completely unknowable. I doubt it very much however. It's important to keep in mind that there are people who will vote Trump who wouldn't vote Haley. I wish that weren't the case, but ...

Trump has created an electorate issue for the GOP. A significant portion of their supporters don't really care about what has traditionally been the core issues for the party. They want culture wars, political enemies punished, and don't really care about much else.

Even if Trump loses and doesn't hang over the 2026 and 2028 elections, the GOP is going to have a hard time recalibrating the party.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah. I am seeing a few op-eds from "mainstream" conservatives saying that if Trump loses big, then the party can regroup into a pre-Trump form.

And it is amazing that in 2024 there are conservative writers who still think that Genie can go back into the bottle.

I have no idea who will win in November. And regardless of who wins, I have no idea what the post-Trump future looks like. But this idea that the GOP will just peacefully go back to nominating McCains and Romneys is so insane that I can't tell if they are trolling or not by suggesting it.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yeah. I am seeing a few op-eds from "mainstream" conservatives saying that if Trump loses big, then the party can regroup into a pre-Trump form.

And it is amazing that in 2024 there are conservative writers who still think that Genie can go back into the bottle.

I have no idea who will win in November. And regardless of who wins, I have no idea what the post-Trump future looks like. But this idea that the GOP will just peacefully go back to nominating McCains and Romneys is so insane that I can't tell if they are trolling or not by suggesting it.

I think the only way the Trump family goes away is if they lose big. If he loses by 6-7%+, there will suddenly be a lot of brave Republicans there to stand up to him. If it is close, like it has been the last few elections, there is no way that the family gives up the fame and easy money.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yeah. I am seeing a few op-eds from "mainstream" conservatives saying that if Trump loses big, then the party can regroup into a pre-Trump form.

And it is amazing that in 2024 there are conservative writers who still think that Genie can go back into the bottle.

I have no idea who will win in November. And regardless of who wins, I have no idea what the post-Trump future looks like. But this idea that the GOP will just peacefully go back to nominating McCains and Romneys is so insane that I can't tell if they are trolling or not by suggesting it.

The real issue is going to be what the issue has been for the last 8 years - the calculus of what will bring people to the polls? That's why the party has yet to jettison Trump because he is guaranteed to bring people to the polls that the party is afraid will abandon voting if they move away from Trump and can't be replaced with at least as many "others" (moderates, lazy GOPers, other crossovers). Relatedly, it's also why almost none of the party bigwigs directly denounce the racists, Nazis, and other crazies because they need the votes. If they didn't, they'd distance themselves from those people pretty quickly (at least most of the mainstream pols would anyway).

So, even if Trump loses AGAIN, or if he squeaks by but they lose winnable House/Senate seats, there is going to be a lot of grumbling from the party apparatus about what Trump/MAGA really does for them if they continue losing, but it's still going to be the same calculus going forward. The big high-wire act will be moving beyond Trump the person and deciding (or finding out in post-2024 elections) whether carrying MAGA forward without Trump pays as many benefits as it does with him (in terms of core/diehard voter engagement, if not outright winning elections).

[Brian Swartz]

Political movements don't tend to fade away gradually; that can happen, but historically, even modern historically, they just go away and are largely forgotten at a certain point. I think the Republican Party will adjust pretty quickly to a new normal when Trumpism is over. What that new normal is, I don't pretend to know, but if Trumpism were to end in 2024, I expect that by 2028 something much different will be in place.

People have very short memories, which is part of why it's so difficult for a party in power to stay in power; people go looking for an alternative, even if there's fairly recent evidence that the alternative is worse.

[QuikSand]

So, I agree in concept that the full list of Trump tenets could easily fade away.

But the grift is just soooo intoxicating, right? Specifics aside, he has exposed that there's a deep desire/demand among roughly half the electorate for:

-deep distrust of nearly everyone "in power" (govt, media, jews, whomever)

-a willingness to adopt conspiracy theories as a foundation/substitute for actual policy

-an eagerness to blame and scapegoat certain outside groups as a means to promote their own group (non-white/white, immigrants/born-heres, pronoun-users/regular-folk, etc) again as either a foundation or substitute for actual policy

I don't see how this kind of political catnip can go out of style quickly. Trump, with his clever "so many lies, told all the time, with complete vigor" strategy may have had a unique ability to harness that, but "that" remains out there, and an awful lot of people feel more engaged and empowered about their sentiments than ever before.

The Mike Pompeos and Vivek Ramaswamys and Bobby Jindals of the world have all taken notice. At the very worst you will get rich with this line of politics (as there are just rubes everywhere looking to buy coins or pillows or donate to your latest crank endeavor) but at best you get to run the whole show, you just wait for any non-MAGA person to do anything in any way questionable or even merely complicated to explain (e.g. the Iran nuclear deal), and you zoom in on it.

I agree, you can't get this back into the bottle. It's too easy.

[JPhillips]

Why won't Kamala Harris provide more policy specifics?

Donald Trump’s answer on how he will make childcare more affordable: pic.twitter.com/Hwu7R5aIt6

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 5, 2024

[cuervo72]

People actually applauded that answer.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why won't Kamala Harris provide more policy specifics?

Donald Trump’s answer on how he will make childcare more affordable: pic.twitter.com/Hwu7R5aIt6

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 5, 2024

JD Vance says get your grandparents, aunts, and uncles to help with childcare. The government doesn't need to help.

[albionmoonlight]

I've been a registered Dem here (NC) for ~20 years. My voting record is 100% in Dem primaries.

And I've been getting a lot of pro-Trump mailers. It is interested b/c I've never gotten a lot of GOP mail before.

I wonder if the parties just have so much money now that they are sending stuff to every registered voter in a swing state and not even bothering to target or go off lists.

[Danny]

Lol so his answer is to significantly increase the cost of goods via taxation to pay for childcare

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why won't Kamala Harris provide more policy specifics?

Donald Trump’s answer on how he will make childcare more affordable: pic.twitter.com/Hwu7R5aIt6

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 5, 2024

He would have to tax imports at like 200% to make that money.

[GrantDawg]

Florida is the Democrat's Lucy with the football. Every election just as you write them off they put the football down again, and the party says "Maybe this time!"

Presidential Vote Intention Among Cubans:

Harris (D): 47%
Trump (R): 47%

BSP Research / Aug 23, 2024 / n=3000

— Polling USA (@USA_Polling) September 4, 2024

[Ghost Econ]

You take the good, you take the bad,
Some kids get shot, you can't get mad,
The facts of life,
the facts of life.

At least according to JD Vance.

[Ksyrup]

Living with fear is just the price we pay to protect the most important right in this country. After all, freedom is not about living free but making sure everyone can buy, carry and shoot as many guns as they want, wherever they want, even if a few innocent people have to die on a weekly basis. That's the pinnacle of freedom, and we've reached the mountaintop.

[JPhillips]

The god of freedom requires regular sacrifices of children.

[Lathum]

Seeing reports, mind you on Twitter, that the Russian influence indictments include 600 Americans including elected officials. This is going to be nuts.

[Atocep]

Jesse Watters claims Tim Walz isn't masculine enough for women because he drank a milkshake with a straw.