He is going to lose comfortably.
Mark it.
It’s just a matter of how much violence is going to happen before it’s done and if SCOTUS tries any kind of bullshit.
Vote now. Read about leads later.
Vote.
Mark nothing. Everyone vote.
Don’t forget, it’s not election day yet.
They haven’t really started cheating yet. And Trump hasn’t done what he needs to do (he has only filled 1 bs lawsuit so far)
Early voters will skew towards the civically engaged, which in turn skews towards the educated and left-leaning. Unfortunately, I can’t take too much confidence in this.
Correct. And ALSO - Remember People: This is A LONG GAME. Involving aircraft-carrier-sized loads of bullshit, marches, protests, idiot right-wing news articles, plenty of disinformation panic buttons and many, many, many court cases to wade through.
We’ll be lucky if the contest is officially decided by December without the SCROTUS stepping in and calling it for trump just because.
Point being: don’t expect it to be quick even if early numbers are good. They know they’re going to lose early numbers; that’s not their plan. Their plan is cheating, obfuscation, spreading FUD, and more cheating, plus a liberal (haha) smattering of corruption. Fake electors, proud boys, gravy seals, dipshit FBI and DoD people - it’s a goddamned army of fascist bastards attacking Democracy. And we have to understand that IS what’s going to happen so we can weather it and defeat them.
As usual we will get no help, or very compromised ‘help’, from the corporate news.
There plenty of mega fucks who were voting early. My racist Trump loving neighbor was ahead of us in the early voting line. This fucking race shouldn’t even be close yet here we are.
Robert Reich recently posted a video explaining numbers often skew more blue as votes are counted, especially from more densely populated cities and counties.
So what you’re saying is that the democrats should be the ones interfering with the elections on election day /s :D
“In Pennsylvania, more than 100,000 new voters have already cast their ballots”
That’s huge because new voters aren’t counted by pollsters as “likely voters”. The prime criteria is often “Did you vote in the last election?” or even “Did you vote in the last 2 elections?”
So you look at the left hand column of polling information from PA:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
22 polls, only 4 based on registered voters, 18 “LV” or “Likely Voters”.
That’s the key thing to understand when the discussion turns to “why were the polls so wrong??!?!?”
Good job on voters casting those ballots. The votes actually voted matters infinitely more than the polls, even though they’re interesting.
That’s huge because new voters aren’t counted by pollsters as “likely voters”.
Actually, they might be. In this article, a “new voter” is someone who did not vote in 2020 in Pennsylvania.
If they voted elsewhere in 2020 (ie recently moved to PA) then they could be counted as likely voters in polls even though they are “new voters”.
Yeah, I could see that angle as well:
https://www.centredaily.com/news/state/pennsylvania/article283101998.html
“The federal agency estimates nearly 263,000 people residing in Pennsylvania in 2022 lived in a different state one year ago.”
That being said, when I get polled, they only ask if I’m registered in my current state and if I voted in the last election, not if I voted in this state.
Right, LV polls often don’t ask where you voted.
But this article is not about a poll. They are looking publicly available PA voting records. They look like this:
- Doe, John: voted in 2024, 2020
- Doe, Jane: voted in 2024
PA isn’t going to cross-reference their database with other states. So there is no good way to tell if Jane Doe is a first time voter or just a recent move. Either way, she is a new voter.
That can’t be a real image, can it? How is he more orange than the safety vest??
It’s a high visibility jacket. High visibility stuff messes up photographs.
A shade or two darker and he’s going to look like these guys.
It has to be reflected back into his stupid face.
I’m red/green color deficient, and even I can see it as orange. That’s some intense saturation.
How are you so sure it’s not his face reflecting color onto a gray vest?
I thought that yesterday and then I saw the video.
Yeah. It’s real.
You’d think he’d know how to correctly apply bronzer given that he’s been doing it for years.
It looks he’s using Homer’s make-up shotgun.
Keep in mind, he doesn’t allow anyone else to do it - he does it himself - and his competence is degrading every day.
The vest is reflecting onto his face and making his already orange complexion more pronounced.
OP, you don’t need to repost this in every news community! it would be pretty silly to say its gonna be a “comfortable” loss. its gonna be insanely close and posting this kind of stuff discourages further voting. and also, yes. things will get hairy either way. the best outcome is to assume that the worst could happen, and prepare for it. The SCOUTS is betting on this being close so they can pull their shenanigan again.
I don’t care if they tell you she’s gonna win 100%. do you part and make it happen! …don’t just assume things! go vote, if you haven’t already.
They’re going to ttry and tie this up so it goes to the Supreme Court. Mark it.
Trump has seen himself in the mirror with that splotchy bronzer on and he thinks he looks good. I mean… look at his mouth. WTF.
The New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The New Republic:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
https://newrepublic.com/post/187791/donald-trump-early-voting-numbers-pennsylvania
