Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is a paid election analyst for The Conversation. His work for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
The US presidential election is on November 5. In Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Kamala Harris has a 48.9-45.5 lead over Donald Trump. In my article for The Conversation last Friday, Harris led by 48.8-45.0. The next important US event is the debate between Harris and Trump next Tuesday (Wednesday at 11am AEST).
It is the Electoral College, not the national popular vote, that is decisive in presidential elections. The Electoral College is expected to be biased to Trump relative to the popular vote, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win in Silver’s model to be the Electoral College favourite.
Harris’ probability of winning the Electoral College in Silver’s model has dropped from 47% last Friday to 42%, with Trump now the favourite at a 58% chance to win. Trump’s win probability has increased every day in this model since August 27, and he’s now at his highest win probability since July 30. Current polling in the most important swing state (Pennsylvania, with 19 electoral votes) only gives Harris a one-point lead, and the model expects further declines for Harris as her convention bounce fades.
UK: no honeymoon for Starmer and Labour after election
At the July 4 UK general election, Labour won a thumping victory with 411 of the 650 House of Commons seats, to 121 Conservatives and 72 Liberal Democrats. This occurred despite Labour winning just 33.7% of the vote, to 23.7% for the Conservatives, 14.3% Reform (but only five seats), 12.2% Lib Dems and 6.7% Greens (four seats).
A new government would normally expect a polling honeymoon, but not this one. There haven’t been many voting intention polls since the election, but a late August BMG poll gave Labour just a 30-26 over the Conservatives with 19% for Reform. A late August More in Common poll gave PM Keir Starmer a net -16 approval rating, while a mid-August Opinium poll had Starmer at -6 after their first poll after the election gave him a +18 net approval. I believe the economic messages from Labour that there’s more pain ahead for the UK are backfiring.
France: still no PM two months after election
The French president (Emmanuel Macron) is the most important French politician, but the system still requires a PM who has the confidence of the lower house of parliament. At snap parliamentary elections that Macron called for June 30 and July 7, the left-wing NFP alliance won 180 of the 577 seats, Macron’s Ensemble 159, the far-right National Rally and allies 142 and the conservative Republicans 39.
While without a majority before the election, Ensemble was in a far better position with 245 seats. On July 23, the NFP agreed on a PM candidate, Lucie Castets, but Macron has no interest in appointing her. A PM needs to be appointed by October 1, the deadline to submit a draft 2025 budget.
Far-right gains at two German state elections
German state elections occurred in Thuringia and Saxony last Sunday. Proportional representation with a 5% threshold was used. In Thuringia, the far-right AfD won 32 of the 88 seats (up ten since 2019), the conservative CDU 23 (up two), the economically left but socially conservative BSW 15 (new), the Left 12 (down 17) and the centre-left SPD six (down two). The Greens and pro-business FDP fell below the 5% threshold and were wiped out.
In Saxony, the CDU won 42 of the 120 seats (down three), the AfD 41 (up three), the BSW 15 (new), the SPD nine (down one), the Greens six (down six) and the Left six (down eight). In Thuringia, the AfD is well short of the 45 seats needed for a majority, and the most likely outcome is a non-AfD government. A year out from the next federal German election, the polls are grim for the current governing coalition of the SPD, Greens and FDP.
Harris hasn’t had much of a convention bounce anyway. I would’ve thought that the bottom line in Silver’s forecast model would IMPROVE for Harris, once his convention bounce adjustment wears off. I’m obviously missing something. I’m not very learned in this area.
https://www.threads.net/@msnbc/post/C_g-1XLxj7L
Wise decision.
evads @ #1 Thursday, September 5th, 2024 – 2:40 pm
I think he said his model allows 2-3 weeks for bounce to deflate.
But it will continue to take close note of swing state polling.
In Saxony, the Left was below the 5% threshold normally needed to enter parliament, but they won two single-member seats. This entitled them to a proportional allocation of seats.
Well done US you bunch of nut jobs.
Harris got a convention bounce from women. Trump got one from men.
I do not like a 42% probability that the Age of Enlightenment will last for a bit longer.
Folks having a punt on Polymarket do and that’s all that matters right now.
No offence, AB, but I think like many, you put too much store in the prognostications of Nate Silver. Silver hasn’t really been a seriously player in election predictions for a decade, and he frankly trades off his reputation from a long while ago. Silver’s views are of no particular import, in my view, and he’s just another pundit, in his case wrapping up such punditry behind semi-bogus statistics (there’s really no precise science behind a “58% chance” of winning an election.
The situation currently is that Harris is definitely going to win 225 Electoral Votes, and Trump 218, which leaves us with the swing states to decide the winner. Currently Harris probably has the edge in Nevada and Wisconsin (a further 16 EVs, taking her to 241), but the other swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, along with the two congressional EVs of Nebraska and Maine) are seeing polling flopping all over the place, all of which is entirely within the margin of error – they in fact, statistical ties. Anyone who tells you they can predict a winner from that is frankly talking out of their arse.
And that’s before we consider the abortion issue, which both polling and real life elections has been telling us has been a huge voter-motivator for the pro choice side (ie Democrats). Funny how male commentators always seem to downplay this issue! But you can bet that the many abortion-related referenda being asked this November, particularly in swing states like Arizona, Nevada, and even Florida (as well as Nebraska), will end up being pretty significant towards the final result.
The UK’s upper house is populated by patronage and parentage.
Will eliminating the latter help to boost Starmer’s sagging popularity?
Indeed, will Starmer be able to pull off this long-overdue reform?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/05/ministers-introduce-plans-to-remove-all-hereditary-peers-from-lords
Edit:
“Of the 92 hereditary peers who retain seats in the Lords, 42 take the Conservative party whip and 28 are cross-benchers. Only two are Labour peers and three are Liberal Democrats. These numbers are fixed and do not change to reflect the makeup of parliament.”
(No surprise that the Tories “take the whip”.) 🙂
C@tmomma
https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/08/30/us-presidential-election-minus-10-weeks/comment-page-8/#comment-4362138
Thanks.
I’m not convinced it’s sharp enough, and hasn’t lost the original clear message, but fair enough.
“. . . [then they can also] figure out the basics of civics.”
Yes they can, but they often don’t want to, so don’t expect them to.
“but… the US does this sort of thing around the globe too. So dont blame the Russians.”
Katich
Exactly the message Russians posing as natives spread all over media/social media. I had you down as someone better than to fall for it.
So I’m with Victoria in her response to you on this.
A very dangerous path to go down. . . where you end up equating the USA with Russia or China. Their endgame is very different and one has checks & balances and the others don’t.
UK
Not surprising that Labour have an enthusiasm deficit instead of a honeymoon – it’s really a continuation of the attitude prior to the election where Labour were merely being used as a tool to get rid of the incumbent Tory (Conservative) government.
Compounded by the deceit that Labour have now been exposed to have, refusing to name policies before the election on tax and the economy and now pretending there’s black holes in the finances that they didn’t know about before.
People don’t like being conned and treated like mugs.
I get why Labour are doing the dirty stuff early on whilst they have a mandate – that’s a correct approach politically, regardless of whether I agree with their policies – but it’s the brazenness of being all moderate in the campaign – to the point that SNP and Reform were saying they were no different to the Conservatives – and then unveiling a clearly socialist plan for this parliament afterwards. Already ceded huge pay awards to the unions and introducing majorly pro-union laws – but clobbering (non-wealthy) pensioners by removing Winter Fuel payment for all but the poorest.
Germany
AfD are a concern, as are the new left-wing outfit BSW who are also pro-Russia although a bit more mainstream, if far left, domestically (and also anti-immigration from a left-wing perspective). BSW’s leader, from whom the party takes its name, hails from the Left (Linke) party before she set up her own.
It seems these pro-Russian attitudes and economic connections with Russia die hard in the old East of Germany especially, indeed Russia is quite entrenched in some of the economies of the East and maintains far too strong cultural links with them and many of their politicians, esp those from SPD, Left, AfD and now BSW. Not so much Greens, FDP or CDU.
It remains to be seen whether AfD evolve to something more mainstream even if still quite right-wing, like Meloni’s party in Italy, Reform in the UK (still on the journey) and even the National Rally somewhat (they will have some tough choices to make if they get into government in the next few years as to how radical they really want to be; may well create some kind of split).
It just seems that the more hard-line AfD-ers seem to be the ones dominating the party and winning the battles unfortunately – but it would be great to have a contributor from Germany on here to tell us more accurately! There may be big regional variations.
‘Hugoaugogo says:
Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 5:06 pm
No offence, AB, but I think like many, you put too much store in the prognostications of Nate Silver. Silver hasn’t really been a seriously player in election predictions for a decade, and he frankly trades off his reputation from a long while ago. Silver’s views are of no particular import, in my view, and he’s just another pundit, in his case wrapping up such punditry behind semi-bogus statistics (there’s really no precise science behind a “58% chance” of winning an election.
The situation currently is that Harris is definitely going to win 225 Electoral Votes, and Trump 218, which leaves us with the swing states to decide the winner. Currently Harris probably has the edge in Nevada and Wisconsin (a further 16 EVs, taking her to 241), but the other swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, along with the two congressional EVs of Nebraska and Maine) are seeing polling flopping all over the place, all of which is entirely within the margin of error – they in fact, statistical ties. Anyone who tells you they can predict a winner from that is frankly talking out of their arse.
And that’s before we consider the abortion issue, which both polling and real life elections has been telling us has been a huge voter-motivator for the pro choice side (ie Democrats). Funny how male commentators always seem to downplay this issue! But you can bet that the many abortion-related referenda being asked this November, particularly in swing states like Arizona, Nevada, and even Florida (as well as Nebraska), will end up being pretty significant towards the final result.’
—————————-
I believe I may be a little bit in between this view and Silver’s view. If Silver were guessing, yes. If Silver were solely going off the polling, yes. But… Silver has a model that is based on what happens when certain conditions were met in previous campaigns. These conditions have been reliable and useful inputs to probability models.
OTOH, it is all a bit like investing in a Super fund… past performance is no… and, IMO, this is where your comments on reproductive rights introduce an entirely new element.
Referring to Nate Silver above, the chances of Trump winning the election have increased to 58% as opposed to Harris at 42%.
Nate Silver’s probabilities are far too volatile, again providing evidence that the betting markets are the superior indicator of probabilities than the form-guide equivalent of opinion polls and the way they are interpreted.
So how are the betting markets playing:
Donald 52%
Kamala 48%
Trump has gained an ascendency that can be crawled back depending on the debate.
At the moment, I concede, Drill Baby Drill just leads.
Centre, your hypothesis – that the pure truth of money flowing through degenerate punters such as myself is of superior predictive value to woke university educated statisticians with their “computer models” and “data”- is most fascinating, but it overlooks the fact that Nate Silver is being paid by a bookie to drum up business right now.
If you examine the actual poll data yourself you’ll see it doesn’t really support the present forecast or the direction of his model.
A very dangerous path to go down. . . where you end up equating the USA with Russia or China. Their endgame is very different
——————————————
Nup. Endgame the same. Security, ability to project power when necessary or even on a whim, and domestic control. You could say ‘national interest’ but it isn’t completely just national interest.
Would I rather live under the US endgame compared to Russias or Chinas? Yes. No doubt. The US currently have a better system of checks and balances on total power. And I live in a Western state.
If Trump and MAGA take over? Less certain.
Economic life in the UK is going to be affected by Brexit for years to come. Idiotically, led by Reactionaries, the UK chose to exile itself from the world’s largest economy. Their built capital, their social capital, their political system is under more stress than at any time in living memory. It’s possible that they will not recover. If things go well for them they might evolve into a Sweden or Norway. But if not, they could become the Tonga of the North Sea.
IMO, Drill baby drill doesn’t lead at th momet basedbon reputable polls and why betting have Trump leading is a mystery to me.
Is it possible that Trump donors are pouring money into betting markets to make look Trump favourite because that is certainly not based on polls other than Rasmussen, Trafalgar and couple rw pollsters?
Caution: Silver company is subsidiary of Peter Theill, who is benefactor of JD Vance because of whom Vance became the senator. Some even say that Trump selectwd Vance as VP candidate on the recommemdation of Theill.
OMG…The shooter is being reported as a 14 year old.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/4/2267891/-OMG-The-shooter-is-being-reported-as-a-14-year-old?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Trump tells supporters ‘we have to get over it’ after Iowa school shooting
His comments came after nearly 36 hours of silence and a day after his GOP rivals addressed the shooting that took the life of a sixth grade student and injured others.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-tells-supporters-get-iowa-school-shooting-move-forward-rcna132610
“Nup. Endgame the same”
Nup. Endgame VERY different.
(I wrote you a long detailed reply which suddenly disappeared sadly and very annoyingly – think I must have hit the wrong button – I couldn’t be bothered/have time to start again, so reduced to the trivial response above, apologies)
“Economic life in the UK is going to be affected by Brexit for years to come. Idiotically, led by Reactionaries, the UK chose to exile itself from the world’s largest economy. Their built capital, their social capital, their political system is under more stress than at any time in living memory. It’s possible that they will not recover. If things go well for them they might evolve into a Sweden or Norway. But if not, they could become the Tonga of the North Sea.”
Stooge, idk where you get your info from – but I live in the UK (and DIDN’T vote for Brexit) and I can reassure you that the above abstract assertion is complete piffle.
There have been some losers, some winners – and a few inconveniences at the borders. But otherwise it’s basically been a non-event and nothing like the hype that a few parts of the media make out and that continental Europe seem to believe.
All the official predictions from neutral bodies that our economy would shrink by double-digit % in the months following Brexit with further massive shocks and shrinkages later, turned out to be hot air.
No wonder the avid Remainers/Rejoiners quietly transformed their narrative to “Where are all the benefits of Brexit?” when the apocalypse we were assured would come to our economy never did. (most Brexiters never claimed there would be massive benefits to the economy, some did but it was about sovereignty – and yes, I know about the advert re NHS on the side of the bus)
I was so annoyed by the falsehoods that I became converted to accepting/embracing Brexit afterwards.
Is the endgame USA invading Canada and sending wave after wave of suicide MAGA dumbclucks at them in the hope that the Canadian defenders reach their pre-programmed kill limit and shut down? Because unless that’s the endgame I’m with BTSays on this one.
BW and others
Please analyse this Trump speechspeech
Trump Dementia Went Commando In Michigan Speech
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/3/2267551/-Trump-Dementia-Went-Commando-In-Michigan-Speech?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
“Here goes:
“She destroyed the city of San Francisco, it’s — and I own a big building there — it’s no — I shouldn’t talk about this but that’s OK I don’t give a damn because this is what I’m doing. I should say it’s the finest city in the world — sell and get the hell out of there, right? But I can’t do that. I don’t care, you know? I lost billions of dollars, billions of dollars. You know, somebody said, ‘What do you think you lost?’ I said, ‘Probably two, three billion. That’s OK, I don’t care.’ They say, ‘You think you’d do it again?’ And that’s the least of it. Nobody. They always say, I don’t know if you know. Lincoln was horribly treated. Uh, Jefferson was pretty horribly. Andrew Jackson they say was the worst of all, that he was treated worse than any other president. I said, ‘Do that study again, because I think there’s nobody close to Trump.’ I even got shot! And who the hell knows where that came from, right?”
“
Adrian
Thanks for your interesting post.
France
I can’t understand why Macron and colleagues haven’t been shouting more about how much better Ensemble did than the polls at the time the election was called – seriously, MUCH better.
So much so, that – again, why aren’t they shouting about it? – Ensemble actually won the MOST seats in the 2nd round of voting when nearly all the seats are decided. The RN and the NFP Alliance (of 4 parties) only overtook them in the total seats once you added the 30-40 they each won in the 1st round.
So to some extent Macron may yet be proved to have awakened the senses of the French populace to the dangers of the far right/far left prior to the ‘big one’ – the next Presidential/Parliamentary elections in 2027. Which I think was his true intention, not Parliamentary majority.
I think he fully prepared for the RN winning a majority but at least knew it would be limited in term length and mitigated by him being President, but would be long enough to expose the RN’s negatives that people don’t yet appreciate.
Yet he also campaigned hard to do as best as possible, and after quite a rebuke in the 1st round turned things round quite substantially in the 2nd round.
But that’s not how it’s being seen in France due to how it was reported – “NFP won not the RN” etc. – which makes it very difficult politically for Macron to appoint a PM from his own party even though that would probably be closest to the centre of political gravity and able (in theory) to command a broad spectrum of support across parties and form a government.
So I guess it will end up being a moderate Socialist or ex-Socialist chosen, who could also command support from Les Republicains if needed in return for some policy favours
I wrote you a long detailed reply which suddenly disappeared sadly
——————————
Yeah yeah. You shoulda seen
my devastating and witty take down of Omar before the cat grabbed it and tore it up.
Bad cat! Obviously a stooge for the crumbling empire.
Ven
He needs treatment.
BT protests too much, IMO.
https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-uk-economy-almost-ps140billion-smaller-because-brexit
“Yeah yeah.”
You might consider telling the truth a novelty, but some of us don’t and what would be the point of my saying it if it wasn’t true as nothing was gained (except an exposure of my IT incompetence perhaps)? I could just have said nothing about it.
Strange reaction.
“BT protests too much, IMO.
https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-uk-economy-almost-ps140billion-smaller-because-brexit”
Boerwar – oh, you’ll be able to find plenty more similar articles, I am sure. They abound. Like the old quote, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
I’m not saying they’re all lying. My point is it can be spun how you want, but the fact is that the dire predictions didn’t happen full stop, that’s why those who have lost their arguments pin their faith on piddling statistics based on one set of numbers or specific context or sector. . . or anything they can find to save face.
Their efforts at making it a self-fulfilling prophecy probably did weaken the economy a little through the loss of confidence in the UK that they promoted through their efforts, but thankfully nothing terribly significant in the big scheme of things.
Endgame to one side, how one gets there matters. Say that the US and Russia broadly want to maximize their power and influence and get the best outcome possible for their respective nations (via intimidation and force, if necessary), entrench established power, and so on. Fine. And probably true enough.
But if one of those is chasing that end via illegal annexations, unprovoked military invasions/land grabs, and a peppering of not-very-subtle extraterritorial assassinations (to name just a few), while the other isn’t, they’re not remotely the same. The ends could match, but the means are completely different.
BT
LOL.
Presented with direct evidence that flatly contradicts your fulminations you start bloviating. I wonder how the new global trading bloc… the Commonwealth of nations… is coming along.
Brexit is an end of Empire fever dream. The White Cliffs of Dover got a geriatric rendition. A swarm of movies about Dunkirk and Churchill and the like did the rounds.
The sooner the Brits wake up that they were totally dudded by charlatans like Farage, the better.
One truly amusing thing, and one I predicted at the time, is that Brexit has speeded up refugee arrivals. After all the big selling point of Brexit was racism.
The reasons were perfectly obvious at the time. But not to the fever dream merchants.
Hugoaugogosays:
Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 5:06 pm
*********************
Hugo. My reading of Nate Silver’s published opinions on the US election is that he 100% agrees with your second paragraph. A “58% probability” is still in “nobody knows, anything could happen” territiory three months out from the election. If it was November 1st I’d be rather more worried.
That said, as with opinion polling, it’s better to be in front than behind.
Edited to Add. A significant part of US public response to the abortion debate must already be incorporated in current opinion polling. It’s not an issue that isn’t already accounted for in Harris’s 3-4% national polling lead
France
“French President Emmanuel Macron has named Michel Barnier as prime minister almost two months after France’s snap elections ended in political deadlock.
Mr Barnier, 73, is the EU’s former chief Brexit negotiator and led talks with the UK government between 2016 and 2019.
A veteran of the right-wing Republicans (LR) party, he has had a long political career and filled various senior posts, both in France and within the EU.
He will now have to form a government that will need to survive a National Assembly divided into three big political blocs, with none able to form a clear majority.
Three years ago Mr Barnier said he wanted to take on President Macron for the French presidency, saying he wanted to limit and take control of immigration. He eventually failed to be the selected as a candidate by his party.
Mr Barnier will be France’s oldest prime minister since the Fifth Republic came into being in 1958.
He is set to succeed Gabriel Attal, France’s youngest ever prime minister, who President Macron first appointed prime minister in early 2024 and who has stayed in post as caretaker since July.”
Trump has very recently flip-flopped in a most high profile and hilarious way around issues of fetal protection, eliciting much consternation and a wonderful show of rhetorical dissonance from the culties and magafriends, so the issue is not necessarily done and fully factored in yet.
Associated Press:
Officials: 4 dead, 14-year-old in custody after Georgia school shooting
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/5/2268026/-Officials-4-dead-14-year-old-in-custody-after-Georgia-school-shooting?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_1&pm_medium=web
John & Cindy McCain’s son endorsing Harris is understandable.
But Liz Cheney? Sure she’s been hounded and suffered from her party for her stand since Jan. 6th, but she’s fairly right-wing unlike the McCains.
Her voting record in congress is pretty exemplary conservative.
She was never going to recant and support Trump in a million years. But you might have expected her to simply vote for the Libertarian candidate or something – or even quietly vote for Harris (she does come from Wyoming, after all, so won’t do any harm) – but a full-throated endorsement of the Democrat candidate who has practically no values in common with her, is quite something.
She clearly is VERY upset with Trump or genuinely VERY worried about what Trump will do out of step with the constitution if he’s elected. Clearly she claims the latter, but I suspect the former may be closer to the mark.
Not that I doubt Cheney is a principled woman who has been terribly treated. The reaction to Jan. 6th should have remained bi-partisan.
Apparently Trump and Harris have never met before.
No doubt they will start with a warm embrace on stage next Tuesday night. . .
‘Black voters in the US are often lumped into one bloc, but a new national survey has found that they are actually defined by specific clusters: legacy civil rights, secular progressives, next-gen traditionalist, rightfully cynical and race-neutral conservative.’
Make of that what you will.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/black-us-voting-bloc-survey
Parker Molloy of The New Republic says that in “sanewashing” most of Trump’s incoherent statements, the mainstream media is misinforming the public.
“This “sanewashing” of Trump’s statements isn’t just poor journalism; it’s a form of misinformation that poses a threat to democracy. By continually reframing Trump’s incoherent and often dangerous rhetoric as conventional political discourse, major news outlets are failing in their duty to inform the public and are instead providing cover for increasingly erratic behavior from a former—and potentially future—president.
The consequences of this journalistic malpractice extend far beyond misleading headlines. By laundering Trump’s words in this fashion, the media is actively participating in the erosion of our shared reality. When major news outlets consistently present a polished version of Trump’s statements, they create an alternate narrative that exists alongside the unfiltered truth available on social media and in unedited footage.
Voters who rely solely on traditional news sources are presented with a version of Trump that bears little resemblance to reality. They see a former president who, while controversial, appears to operate within the bounds of normal political discourse—or at worst, is breaking with it in some kind of refreshing manner. You can see this folie à deux at work in a recent Times piece occasioned by Trump’s amplification of social media posts alleging that Harris owed her career to the provision of “blowjobs”: “Though he has a history of making crass insults about his opponents, the reposts signal Mr. Trump’s willingness to continue to shatter longstanding norms of political speech.” Meanwhile, those who seek out primary sources encounter a starkly different figure—one prone to conspiracy theories, personal attacks, and extreme rhetoric.”
The NYTs, WAPOs, WSJs of this world have their own agenda. They are betting “2 bobs each way”.
When one side (Tories) are bat-shit-crazy, the media cannot indulge in ‘bothsidism’
”
BTSayssays:
Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:46 am
John & Cindy McCain’s son endorsing Harris is understandable.
But Liz Cheney? Sure she’s been hounded and suffered from her party for her stand since Jan. 6th, but she’s fairly right-wing unlike the McCains.
Her voting record in congress is pretty exemplary conservative.
She was never going to recant and support Trump in a million years. But you might have expected her to simply vote for the Libertarian candidate or something – or even quietly vote for Harris (she does come from Wyoming, after all, so won’t do any harm) – but a full-throated endorsement of the Democrat candidate who has practically no values in common with her, is quite something.
She clearly is VERY upset with Trump or genuinely VERY worried about what Trump will do out of step with the constitution if he’s elected. Clearly she claims the latter, but I suspect the former may be closer to the mark.
Not that I doubt Cheney is a principled woman who has been terribly treated. The reaction to Jan. 6th should have remained bi-partisan.
”
To put it mildly, Ms. Cheney is “worried” because Trump is BAT-SHIT-CRAZY.
Ven – thanks for the clarification.
Calling it now – Harris will win
FUBAR and Nostradamus have called it!
‘Allan Lichtman, the historian dubbed the “Nostradamus” of US presidential elections, has predicted that Kamala Harris will win the White House …’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/harris-election-allan-lichtman
Nate Silver has not been a credible pollster for years, so his predictions of a Trump victory I will take with a rather big grain of salt.
As for those writing off Pennsylvania for Harris, I remind you that Biden won the state in 2020, and in 2022 the Democrats won the Senate race and the Governors race too.
BTW, the Trump campaign have pulled their resources out of Minnesota, Virginia and New Hampshire
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/09/05/2024-election-campaign-updates-harris-trump/#link-UJK3FAGMWZGPZH5IAXRWWGVA44
BTSays says:
Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:50 am
Apparently Trump and Harris have never met before.
The reason they have never met before is that Trump, defying centuries of precedent by previous defeated presidents, failed to attend the inauguration on 21/1/2021.
He has also failed to attend the semi-regular get together of all other living presidents at state funerals, historic commemorations and the like.
Petulant.
File under ‘what could possibly go wrong’…
By Marianne LeVine, Jeff Stein and Trisha Thadani
September 5, 2024 at 1:01 p.m. EDT
NEW YORK — Former president Donald Trump formally endorsed a government spending commission that could give Elon Musk broad responsibilities for auditing federal spending and regulations — a move that reflects a tightening political alliance between the two men with less than nine weeks left until Election Day.
Trump’s advisers have discussed the commission for months, and Musk has publicly expressed interest in it on X, the social media platform he owns. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, expressed his support during a speech in New York on Thursday.
“This commission will develop an action plan to totally eliminate fraud and improper payments within six months,” Trump said.
Trump said the new commission would save “trillions of dollars — trillions. It’s massive. For the same service we have right now.” Budget experts have said it is possible a commission could identify tens of billions or possibly hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending cuts, but that it is not credible to imagine the commission cutting trillions of dollars without severely affecting federal services.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/05/donald-trump-elon-musk-election/