Well, Newsweek. That’s really fucking weird of you to say that, because Activote sure isn’t making that claim at all:
So now I’m REALLY fucking curious as to why this article exists, and the data is wrong. Also, Activote is an app, not a “real” polling platform.
Last couple of things I’ve seen from newsweek went hard right. I don’t know when they became part of the propaganda machine, but it’s severe.
Yes, that’s why I checked. It certainly seems there is a concerted effort in their behalf to be publishing positive news for Trump, that is later pointed out to be incorrect and retracted.
How does this address the swing with a single datapoint?
Look at the numbers.
Newsweek has been busted multiple times in previous elections doing this shit, and had to retract and update multiple times this election. They seem to have a real want for good news about Trump’s polls to be true.
I am looking at the numbers. Your graphic says the same thing the article does. That’s why I was asking for clarification
This is not what that poll says at all
Contact the editors and voice your concerns. If they are posting fake statistics, then call them out on it.
Note how this OP is entirely unconcerned with anything but deflection
I didn’t write the article though, so I can’t speak for the writer of the article.
If you have no relation to this or any article, maybe don’t post them.
I post artices that I find interesting. Do you think that only people who are “related” to the articles are allowed to post?!
Here’s another chance – what do you find interesting about it?
I don’t have to explain anything to you. Thank you!
Quit trying to stifle conversation within this thread. People are allowed to discuss this issue amongst themselves beyond simply talking to the publication’s editors.
Suggesting that people can contact editors if they feel information is wrong, isn’t stifling the conversation though. Thank you!
Sure it is. People are fully aware they can contact other parties. They want to have a conversation in here though, and you are recommending they take their complaints elsewhere, when they could be discussing them here.
This is pretty obviously a shallow excuse, technically a recommendation, but really just trying to get under people’s skin.
Nope. Just made a recommendation. But you are free to believe whatever you want to. Thank you! :)
Yes, like I said, technically a recommendation, one that you practically copy/paste with no effort. Also one that serves no useful purpose though. Asides a very possible goal of simply irritating people.
No goal. Just a recommendation. Thank you! :)
Which editors instructed you to post it here?
Are people instructed to post Harris articles here?
Nope, just things they’ve corroborated as true, ideally.
In the sixty-three days since this account was created, it has made five thousand one hundred and seven submissions
That averages out to once every seventeen minutes and forty-five seconds twenty-four hours seven days a week
“They” are actually getting marginally faster over time. I am going to make an educated guess that their post frequency will continue to escalate the closer we get to the election. I’ll leave it open for speculation why that might be so my comment doesn’t get scrubbed…
They are enjoying the chaos they are creating in this community and it will get worse as the election get closer.
I wish they would just be banned until November 6th and see if they come back with the same posting frequency after.
Hard agree.
They’re obviously not being paid. A paid campaign would have metrics and would have already abandoned this dumb shit with zero odds of influencing anyone.
At the start I wouldn’t have been able to tell you if they were a MAGA or a useful idiot. After having everything explained to them over and over, I’m more convinced on them being a MAGA cosplaying as whatever they’re doing here.
Also a peevish child delighting in any attention, even negative.
Didn’t we just do this? I swear, we just did this:
As usual, national polls are useless. We don’t have national elections, and as others pointed out, the poll doesn’t even say what Newsweek says it says. Numbers after the jump.
Now… ALLLLL that being said… Last time I did this, Harris hit 270 exactly. First time this year any candidate hit the magic number.
AZ - Toss Up. Harris +1, +3, Trump +1, +4
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/NV - Toss Up. Tie, Harris +1, Trump +1
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/NM - Harris +5, +8, +10
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-mexico/GA - Toss Up, 5 separate polls show tie votes.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/FL - Trump +6, +13, +14
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/florida/NC - Toss Up, Harris +3, Trump +1, +2, +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/PA - Toss Up, Tie, Harris +1, +4, Trump +1, +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/MI - Tie, Harris +2, +3. 3rd parties 0 to 1%, no impact.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/WI - Harris +1, +2, +3, +4, Trump +1
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/MN - Harris +5, +6, +8
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/Plotted on the map:
As usual, PA is a must win. If Harris takes it, that’s it, she doesn’t need anything else.
Failing that, NC or GA + any 1 other state. AZ + NV alone is not enough, that drops her right at 268.
For Trump, he has to win PA to stay in, that gives him 238, from there he needs 32 more. So NC + GA. Or NV + AZ and either NC or GA.
Minimum 1 state for Harris to win, PA. Also a 2 state win of NC or GA + 1 other. Max would be 3 states. AZ, NV + 1 other.
Minimum 3 states for Trump to win (PA, GA, NC), could be as many as 4 of the 5 outstanding (PA, AZ, NV, + GA or NC)
How to stop feeding the troll:
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-national-polls-1966429
