In Nate Silver’s electoral forecast, Trump is now leading Harris by 6.5% to win the electoral college.

This final stretch is eerily similar to Clinton/Trump.

I would appreciate people not knee-jerk downvoting this post just because they don’t like what it implies. It’s worth being aware that Trump has been steadily gaining for a month, Harris has been losing ground, and this model now has her likely to lose. Ignoring these facts makes it difficult to do anything about them.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was a big pusher of the idea that Biden should drop out after the first debate, and that Harris would be the only possible replacement, since she had already won on a ticket with Biden and, as VP, was his understudy anyway.

    There was a lot of pushback from people then, but a handful of people argued against it because they claimed that the heartland of America was simply too sexist to vote for a woman. It explained what happened in 2016, and they said it would happen again.

    I’m wondering if they were right. And the difference between 2020 and 2024 is that enough people in the wrong EC states will simply never vote for a woman as President.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I was fucking pissed as hell (and remain pissed) that the democrats didn’t have a real primary. I think Harris was an extremely weak pick and wouldn’t have survived it. Trump cannot be allowed to be president so Democrats should have found their best candidate.

      And I disagree, somewhat, about gender… I’d hope it’d be irrelevant but it sadly isn’t - but Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and Harris isn’t a great candidate either. Gender is playing a role, but a good candidate (like Warren) could definitely overcome it.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I really thought Mayor Pete would have been a good candidate. He’s a bulldog in debates with Republicans, but we’d probably end up with a similar problem. The obvious choice then probably would have been Gavin Newsom, but that dude just seems like such a slick, slimy douche. But I guess that would have been an advantage.

      Nate Silver’s last Silver Bulletin makes the interesting point that Harris has higher likeability ratings, but she has very little clear messaging. Trump’s pretty clear about what he’s going to do, even if it’s appalling, illegal, or harmful. And as Nate says, he has clear “personal injury attorney” messaging: I’m a slimy, aggressive asshole, but I’m your slimy, aggressive asshole. Kamala’s messaging appears to be (at the surface level), we can’t go back, but we’re going to go forward in a different way, and I’m not Joe Biden, but I’m not not Joe Biden, but, hey, I’m not Trump! I.e., he’s pointing out how muddled her messaging is.

      • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s sad to say, but Buttigieg’s sexuality is as big a challenge in a general election as Harris’ gender - maybe moreso. He’s smart, tenacious, and would be a good leader. I would vote for him over Trump. But too many voters in swing states can’t see beyond the fact that he’s gay.