Do you have a cite others can read?
The Democratic Convention for the past few decades has always made the Republicans look like amateurs. How good it was does not seem to matter – in fact, looking really good may make voters feel like the Democrats are too glitzy.
Just to bring in Nate Silver’s latest update :
“Last update: 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 28 : Maybe a little bit of an RFK effect after all? Kamala Harris’s lead peaked at 4.3 points in our national average the day Kennedy dropped out — and now it’s down to 3.5 points in the now RFK-less version of our model. That’s not bad, but with the convention bounce adjustment the model is applying, the November forecast is about as close to 50/50 as it gets.”
Is there any reason to trust any poll at all at this point? I was reading an article - I think in The Atlantic - that the polls were worse in 2020 than they were in 2016. One example was that they expected Biden to win Wisconsin by 10% and he only won by 1%. Apparently there is a huge contingent of silent Trump voters, and they throw a monkey wrench into all polls when he runs. That’s why the mid-term polling has been much more accurate.
Trust in terms of showing who will win? No.
Trust that the pollsters are doing the best they ethically can to correct past errors? Yes.
Based on polls, I am sure that the change in the Democratic ticket made Trump less likely to win.
Yes, that’s really all that matters, right?
Re last post, consider this – reasons 5 and 6 are the most relevant for this thread:
Is anyone else worried about her interview tomorrow? I think her problem is that she gets defensive when challenged and can come off as abrasive. She doesn’t seem to like talking about herself personally. I hope it doesn’t hurt the campaign too much.
Not at all. Should I be worried that the Democratic presidential candidate is going to answer questions?
I expect that the candidate do that. It’s mandatory.
They are premature before the debates are conducted, in my opinion.
Plus, if polling is based on likely voters, and this time it’s Harris who is bringing out newly excited voters (unlike 2016, when Trump was the one who inspired typically uninvolved people to vote), than she could be expected to under-perform.
I’m hearing (take that for what it’s worth) that it’s going to be pre-taped and edited before broadcast. So of course more fodder for the MAGAts who have gone from “she won’t do interviews” to “she needs Walz there, and can’t interview on her own” to now “she can’t do live interviews, she needs it taped and edited”.
If true, that’s terrible.
Looks like I heard correctly.
“The interview with Bash, who serves as CNN’s chief political correspondent, is expected to take place Thursday afternoon at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters as Harris and Walz tour the battleground state, with the interview airing later that evening.”
Really- by whom? And trump never does.
I am unsure of what it is that you are talking about.
Who ruled it was mandatory? The NYT?
And trump has not given an interview this election cycle.
Before people bring out dates- an interview is where questions are asked- and they are answered. trump does not do that.
I don’t give a fuck what Trump does. That guy is an idiot.
He mostly arranges interviews with friendly questioners, like Elon Musk, although he did take questions from an ABC News reporter at the National Association of Black Journalists convention (7/31/24). He also had had a few press conferences this year.
If you refuse all mainstream interviews, some voters are properly going to wonder whether you have the ability to do it. So not doing it would be a bad idea.
You could also look at the CNN interview as public debate prep.
As for Harris waiting a few weeks to do it, I don’t think that matters.
I agree. But only never-Trump types think of it that way.
What a show! Trump “answering questions” is always an insightful event for all involved.