I'm looking at PA, the state I know best, in terms of the Blue Wall, and I'm not every going to doom, but I do not want to be dishonest. I saw thing in the data I did not expect or want to see. The data are still incomplete though, for the cities, & I'd love. . .
. . . .for someone to explain to all of us (or share, if someone already has), the remaining vote in Philly. I believe it's at 85% counted. That's a proportion. What do we know about that vote? I can look it up if you can't answer.
I think many of us remember in 2020 that it looked like PA would fall for a while before we got a big dump. What's that looking like this year? Or, just in general: can you describe this proportion of the outlying vote for us?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2016, data-analysts pointed out that there were patterns in district-level polling that indicated weakness for HRC than were anticipated. For ex, NY would never be competitive & the polled districts wouldn't necessarily be either. But there was systematic softness, there
The smart analysts, at the time, argued we shouldn't just look at national or even state polling. If national data is +/-3 MOE & more micro-data indicates unexpectedly "small" margins in certain districts, perhaps the micro data should drive us to think of the /-3 aspect of MOE.
I don't want to tell you what I think will happen. The data are too unsteady. I will tell you that I am confident. Confident enough that I have it w/in me to talk more about data than about how to prepare for fascism. But we have PTSD; And our PTSD has stimuli, such as confidence
I read through the Selzer poll this morning & I wanted to share a few thoughts. First, we won't know whether these estimates are accurate until we have the real outcomes in hand. That said: The data are exceptionally clean. The kind of data you would want to present to colleagues
What do I mean by this? I'm not a political pollster or trained specifically in polling method or analysis. I do, however, have extensive training in research design & analysis w/in my previous discipline: Hearing & Speech Science. Here is what I mean by "the data are clean. ."
A few general comments: Selzer's method involves minimally touching her data. Her team determines a sampling strategy; they collect the data; they analyze the data. Selzer has been operating *in Iowa* for decades; She & her team have intimate knowledge of *how* to sample Iowans
Indeed. I'll add that we know, from multiple investigations into Russian interference, that they target democratic societies that have significant "potential for protest." Authoritarians use all that is good about us, against us.
They also use everything bad about us--like American racism--against us too. You want to divide anti-fascists? Get them to argue with one another over their best instincts for solving America's worst problems. American racism is real & it is horrible. We will fight it as Americans; Not per Putin's "divide & conquer" framework.
This is, again, why I heap praise upon the KHIVE & associated Black Democrats. White American people with good hearts who want to fight American racism? Easily manipulated. KHIVE? Greatest Bullshit Detectors of all time. You want to fight racism? Follow these great Americans.
The PsychOps on here sometimes shift the intensity of their focus, but the purpose of the focus remains the same: divide Democrats; depress the vote. A major focus of the Ops this week is American Jews. There are trolls claiming to be Jewish shaming Jews for voting for Kamala.
A focus on Jews is not new. There have been accounts pretending to be Jewish and/or Israeli on here for months. Leftist, liberal, moderate, conservative. Jewish Americans have frequently been the target of these bots, as have Black Americans.
Now, there was, I believe, some real-world tension this weekend around Kamala's response to a Q about Israel. Our judgment of her response is a separate conversation. I don't really know enough about what happened to treat the issue w/ the necessary sensitivity in this thread
I can't speak about ground game at this point but, in in broader terms, Kamala Harris is running a strategically masterful campaign, one that I believe is of historical importance. The coalition is diverse, both politically & socially, yet it is also incredibly *cohesive.*
Lyz Cheney & other Republicans who are campaigning for Kamala have not asked for policy changes or rhetorical shifts. Abortion rights & LGBTQ rights have not been sacrificed, nor have POC been thrown under the bus. This is to the credit of many, including both Harris & Cheney.
Democratic voters--when we're able to move past depression & panic--are also staying strong. We're calling out propaganda like never before. Yes, the online "left" is attacking us, as is Jill Stein, but they are no longer attacking us from *within*, as they did in 2016.
No one can say, for sure, what will happen if Trump is elected; what we can say is this: there is a distinct possibility that, if Trump becomes POTUS, every person who could be of Latino descent will be a target for his BrownShirts, even before Trump enacts other "round-up" plans
Trump is not just saying he will round-up people b/c they are here illegally." He is accusing them of being enemies of the state. Of having their own militia. This comes after accusing Haitians of stealing & eating other people's pets. Trump is creating a pretext for violence.
How many times have Trump supporters carried out violence or threats of violence against regular civilians, elected officials, or federal workers?