• otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    You wanna not perpetuate the clickbait BS, and just give us the “detail”, FFS? 🤦🏼‍♂️

    edit: It’s a completely shit “article” of a mere four sections of limp, repetitive “quotes” drowned in ads, etc. that finally give up the ghost:

    "…the folks that we’re focused on, those lower propensity voters that don’t always vote, they are tuning in and showing up at a higher level in support of the vice president.”

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      “So we really like what we’re seeing,” she added. “We’re seeing strong turnout. Our margins are strong, and the folks that we’re focused on, those lower propensity voters that don’t always vote, they are tuning in and showing up at a higher level in support of the vice president.”

      i.e. voter turnout and engagement has been high

      • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 days ago

        Thank the gods for the article, then. That simple phrase alone can’t possibly carry the deep complexity of that convoluted concept. Whew.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      The person who’s job it is to get Harris elected is optimistic? Would you be surprised if Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles are bullish on Trump’s chances?

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    My prediction is Kamala will win everything except Arizona and Georgia.

    They’re will be immediate fuckery in PA with the MAGAts shrieking that illegals voted, but as long as it’s not a 270 vs. 265 EC vote situation, we should be good.

    • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 days ago

      Pa resident here, the fuckery has been going on for months already. Couple weeks ago a federal judge ruled county elections boards were within their rights to refuse to count mail-in ballots with minor clerical deficiencies on the envelope it was mailed in. Pa has 67 counties, guess how many elections boards are run by republicans. Now guess which party benefits more from having those votes thrown out.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    “Our margins are strong, and the folks that we’re focused on, those lower propensity voters that don’t always vote, they are tuning in and showing up at a higher level in support of the vice president.””

    This is important because these are the voters that pollsters don’t count as being “Likely Voters”.

    They specifically mention Nevada in the article, so look at the LEFT hand column of the polling data:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/

    LV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    RV
    RV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    LV
    RV

    15 polls, 12 of them counting “Likely Voters”.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 days ago
    HuffPost - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for HuffPost:

    Wiki: reliable - A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost’s reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.
    Wiki: mixed - In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers’ reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.
    Wiki: unreliable - Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a “Contributor” (also referred to as an “Editorial Partner”). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).


    MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jen-omalley-dillon-confident-2024-kamala-harris_n_671f5305e4b0a55cb4cd95d6

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support