Here’s a recent poll where Michele Obama came out more than two margins of errors of ahead of Trump.
Also, here’s a pile of salt.

It is most certainly not a small sample size. It’s what allows for a margin of error of ±3.5%* at the 95% confidence level. Here’s a graph of the margin of error vs sample size for 95% confidence interval.

With an 11 point margin, there’s a clear separation of the upper limit bar for Trump and lower limit bar for Obama. For a single poll, assuming the rest of it was well designed and executed, this is an important spread. And the reasons are obvious if you look at the report. She’s able to get 10% more Democratic support and 20% more independent voter support.

Ipsos is a high quality polling company. They don’t make rookie mistakes like sample size. There may be other reasons beyond my reasoning that make this a bad use of polling, but sample size is not it.

* The source incorrectly reported the margin of error for the full survey, both registered and unregistered participants.

This quote from the article really hits home:

Afterward, his aides would try to explain that he had been sick. He had seen two doctors before the debate. He had a fever, a virus. He wasn’t himself.

But while he may have been sick, he was himself. That was the problem.

I’m talking about the date and time of it being changed. You wrote:

dropped the fact checking that afternoon

But from what I can tell, the rules had been set for a couple of months.

I can’t find anything to corroberate #4. Do you have a reference?

Melville spends a chapter comparing the different interpretations of whiteness in Moby Dick. This article talks about that, but I recommend reading the chapter if you get a chance.

Your initial presentation was vague. I agree that it could be made clear, but your initial posts just hinted at it.

There are some similarities and a some important differences. If you don’t acknowledge the differences. I think you haphazardly write responses with half remembered idiomatic expressions, sensationalism, and simplistic thinking.

With that said, you land in positions I might agree with. But you do a disservice to leftists. Do better.

I was contending “Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg … and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless.” Hitler didn’t come to power for some amorphous reasons, but specific decisions by people in power. I agree that material conditions are important, but it’s so vague here that it’s meaningless and can be shifted at any point in this discussion to support your position.

The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics. Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically and support swung to the nsdap, they urged him to give support to Hitler. However, the Nazis had won a plurality of the vote in every Reitsrat election starting in 1930.

Electoral politics alone isn’t the answer. Never was. Garnering support on the ground is difficult work.

Hidenberg handed Hitler the chancellorship. Hidenberg, the only check on the Nazi power, remained president until his death until 1934. After which, using the Enabling Act, Hitler was able to proclaim himself both chancellor and president.

Hitler becomes chancellor because Brünig, Hidenberg, Papen, and Schleicher all think they can control and temper Hitler all while staying in power and keeping the left wing out of power.

How do you make peace with one genocide? I don’t mean this as a ‘gotcha’ question, but it’s literally a thing I don’t know how to handle. Thanks.

Lets go yell at Kayden for his parents choices!

The best argument to get them to vote for him anyway “the Republicans will destroy the country, look at their nominee,” but it’s a really strong argument.

I worry that tactic will result in low voter turnout. And that’s not good for Biden.

The 60/40 split is just untrue. And it’s untrue in a meaningful way. The favorability/unfavorability split is closer to 52/43 leaving 5% in afuzzy place. Without attuning to the needs and concerns of this 5%, a false sense of certainty can emerge leading to being surprised when things don’t go the obvious way.

Subsequently, people lean in to the only thing left to do, cantankerous online debate with people who just don’t get it.

These favorability polls don’t mean as much as giving the people who matter a story to pull that lever for your candidate. And the people that matter are the undecided in swing states. Without meeting and talking to these people, we don’t know what’s important for them.

So two things and I’ll let it be.

First, the migration issue has gained traction among voters in swing states [2]. Our system doesn’t reward the most popular candidste, but the one who can garner the most votes by state.

Swing states matter. And small, undecided groups in swing states matter most.

All the data and risk assessment mean very little. Politics are emotional. They are in the pain of today and worries of tomorrow.

I think your confidence is on shaky ground. And worry that Biden and the Democrats aren’t doing enough of the right things to be seen as better than anything else.

People of a certain level and type of education think data and policies mean more than sentiment and messaging. But for many,t he data is secondary. You can see my comment on gas prices and unemployment being rooted in data and vibes. But the vibes for most people are what matters. And the vibes on election day are what matter most to undecided voters. I don’t think either party really gets the sense of dread that most people have and may never get it.

Which midterm are you talking about? I’m assuming you’re talking about the 2018 mid-term when Democrats picked up 41 seats since they lost the House in 2022. But another way of looking at the last five midterms, you see the midterms going to the party that is not the president’s. So I don’t think that the 2018 midterms provide a great reference point for the presidential election. Additionally, those gains in the 2018 election have slowly eroded giving control in the house to the Republicans.

But I wanted to address your strategy first and foremost since you address messaging. The projected map has Biden at 226, Trump at 235, and 77 to close to call. Those 77 electoral votes are spread across six states:

• Nevada (6 electoral votes)
• Arizona (11)
• Wisconsin (10)
• Michigan (15)
• Pennsylvania (19)
• Georgia (16)

In 2020, all six went Biden by less than 5%. In the 2022 midterm, Republicans gained seats in the house from Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. If those three switch to Trump, Trump wins with 272. Having a record showing in California or New York does little to help with these strategic areas.

I’m not too certain what matters to the voters in these six states, but in Arizona, the BoRDEr cRiSis, as you condescendingly noted, probably matters to them. In all six of those states, you’ll need a get out a vote drive to convince people to vibe with Biden. Usually those people are young and have a little more free time. But not when they see a genocide unfolding in Palestine and the Biden administration being complicit. Are the Arab Americans of Deerborn, MI going to come out and vote for Biden and Tlaib again? Will Tlaib stump for Biden? Are young Blacks in Atlanta or Philly going to come out in droves for Biden? I don’t know.

I don’t know what ground work the DNC has been doing, but I hope they’ve built a trusted network to get people to the polls. Either way, I don’t think the “Republicans are fucked”. It think we are looking at a close election again.