US presidential election minus two weeks

Still effectively nothing in it, but all three of the main forecasters detect movement in favour of Donald Trump.

This site has cautioned against getting too excited one way or another about movements inside of a percentage point on polling aggregates or of a few points on probability forecasts, such distinctions more than likely to be quite a bit smaller than the ultimate overall polling error. Nonetheless, it presumably means at least something that Donald Trump has gone from slightly behind to slightly ahead in the forecast models of Nate Silver, The Economist and FiveThirtyEight. Going back to my original point though, Silver makes the following observations:

One thing that might be counterintuitive is that even a normal-sized polling error — polls are typically off by around 3 points in one direction or the other — could lead to one candidate sweeping all 7 key battleground states. In our simulations yesterday, which account for the possibility of a correlated polling error, the most common outcome was Trump winning all 7 swing states: this happened 24 percent of the time. And the next most common was a Harris sweep, which occurred in 15 percent of simulations …

The baseline assumption of the Silver Bulletin model is that while the polls could be wrong again — and in fact, they probably will be wrong to some degree — it’s extremely hard to predict the direction of the error. Empirically, there’s basically no correlation in polling error from one cycle to the next one. And pollsters could be overcompensating if they’re worried about missing low on Trump again or if the 2020 polling error was primarily caused by COVID: Democrats being more likely to “socially distance” and having more time to respond to polls. There are prominent examples of this, such as in the 2017 UK election, where pollsters put a heavy finger on the scale for Tories but Labour beat its polls instead.

Adrian Beaumont has more at The Conversation.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

954 thoughts on “US presidential election minus two weeks”

Comments Page 2 of 20
1 2 3 … 20

  1. Apparently, in a Maine coastal village. In 2016 the Clinton-Trump signs were even. In 2020 they were 2 to 1 for Biden. Last trip to town yesterday, it was 32 Harris, 8 Trump. I like the trajectory!

  5. C@tmomma says:
    Friday, October 25, 2024 at 10:43 am

    You clearly didn’t read the article.

    Know your enemies.

    The Democrats, like you, do not.

  6. When I think about the contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump I can’t help thinking about Marlene Dietrich and the beclowned old man in ‘The Blue Angel’ 🙂

  8. FUBAR,
    I get the perception of inflation is different to the reality and people’s lived experience. However, there is polling that shows this experiential factor is shifting. Also, there has been goalpost shifting by those who are trying to keep the embers alight about people’s inflation experiences. First it was eggs and gas prices, then those prices went down. It’s also Rent and Housing, as it is here but those problems are a result of the sort of rental and house inflation crisis we experienced here as well, which is thankfully abating and has nothing to do with immigration levels, btw. So those who wish to keep it as a hot topic looked around for the next cab off the inflation rank and it seems as though milk and dairy foods will be next but that’s a function of the after effects of the hurricanes. Which is a perfectly normal course of events. But ‘Inflation!!!’, eh? Or, ‘Cost of Living Crisis’. 😐

  11. It’s kind of wild to me that anyone thinks ol’ rapey can win this. Here’s a guy with multiple felonies, about to go to prison, done nothing but rack up scams, election Ls, espionage accusations and pedophile rumours for eight years, but sure, ignore the polls and all fundamentals, he’ll go the distance because people have somehow forgotten he’s a gigantic fascist piece of shit. I can’t buy it.

  12. After the actual election, we can expect legal challenges by the rethugs to end up in the Courts.

    They will lose.

    Hopefully the dust up will be resolved quickly.

  13. Omar Comin’, Because for the most part all of that is baked into people’s perceptions on Trump. What they recall was the booming economy (which was Obama’s work of course) pre-covid and attribute that to Trump. All the pain post covid (which was Trump’s work of course) they attribute to Biden. The unfortunate lead time of around 2 years for economic benefits or costs to hit people’s hip pockets and more importantly psyches often mean the praise/blame gets attributed to the wrong guy.

  15. The Wall Street Journal lost its integrity when Rupert bought it. It doesn’t even make the list on 538. You dig a bit deeper and its a Republican pollster.

    That says enough.

  16. Harris team announces George Soros will be appearing at her next rally. Bernie Sanders was invited but is unable to attend…. oh wait, I have that wrong, my mistake….. it should read Trump (purported billionaire) announces Elon Musk (richest humanoid on earth) to attend his rally. Jeffrey Epstein was invited but is unable to attend.

  17. Republicans now accusing nuns of voter fraud… Every time you think they hit the bottom of the barrel they go lower.

    “The sisters maintain an active website as well as Facebook and Instagram accounts that document their activities and milestones, including a sister’s recent 107th birthday and an Oct. 17 event at the Erie Convention Center where a sister recently interviewed former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming).

    Maloney made the posts on X, he said, to “go public” and “find answers” about the voter registrations connected to the monastery’s address.

    “Glad they put the statement out,” Maloney told The Post. “I respect that, but we’re going to dive a little deeper, confirm that that’s correct.””

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/23/pennsylvania-republican-voting-nuns-erie/

  18. C@tmomma says Friday, October 25, 2024 at 10:43 am

    It’s down to 2.4%

    Inflation is down, but it takes time for people to perceive that. They look at their bills and their pay and see they are paying more than they used to. It takes time for that to reset.

    Inflation over the last four years has been a global phenomenon caused by COVID and war induced supply shocks. It’s just unfortunate for Biden and Harris that it occurred on their watch and so they cop the blame for it. It would have happened if Trump had been president (although his interventions would likely have been far worse).

  22. What I’m seeing is that in the last week polling has moved Trumps way in a small but important manner in the swing states.

    I think about 4 weeks ago there were two important campaign moments. Harris wasn’t able to state effectively how she wasn’t a continuation of Biden, in fact said as much that she’d be the same. And Trump went hard on the no national abortion ban rhetoric (which isn’t really the issue as we know).

    Those two moments are now showing up in the polling, let’s be clear only 1% in most cases. The averages haven’t yet moved an aweful lot nor the outcome models but I expect that to change by the end of next week.

    I’m hardening on a Trump win, and the only thing I can see which may buck the polling numbers is the much touted GOTV ground game the Dems are so proud of.

    May Harris win, but I’m not expecting this to happen.

    The major externality is the war in the middle east. Muslim support for Harris has dropped from around 70% to 50% in the Midwest swing states. In such a tight raise this matters more than it should.

  24. Today’s events for the Democratic Party campaign:

    Vice President Harris will travel to Georgia for a Get Out the Vote rally with former President Barack Obama and Bruce Springsteen.

    Governor Walz will visit Central and Eastern North Carolina, making political stops in Durham, Greenville, and Wilmington to encourage North Carolinians to vote early. In Wilmington, Governor Walz will deliver remarks at a Harris-Walz campaign rally. Following the rally, the Governor will travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    Second Gentleman Emhoff will deliver remarks at Team Harris-Walz block parties in Milwaukee and Kenosha, Wisconsin, encouraging voters to Get Out the Vote and vote early for Vice President Harris, Governor Walz and Wisconsin Democrats.

    Mrs. Walz will do local media interviews with WISC-TV in Madison, Wisconsin, and Native Roots Radio in Wisconsin and Minnesota. She will also participate in a New Hampshire reproductive freedom press call with U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Joyce Craig.

    Just a few examples of additional events happening across the battlegrounds:

    ARIZONA

    U.S. Senator Mark Kelly in Lake Havasu City for a Veterans for Harris-Walz event and Casa Grande for an LD16 canvass launch.

    Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Ruben Gallego, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, and AARA Executive Director Dora Vasquez in Phoenix for a Seniors for Harris-Walz event.

    Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke in Tucson for a Wildcats for Harris-Walz and Democrats Gen Z votes event as part of the “Vote For Our Future” early vote campus college tour

    MICHIGAN

    The Honorable Pete Buttigieg and Congresswoman Annie Kuster in Sterling Heights for a canvass kickoff.

    NEVADA

    Republican TV personality Ana Navarro in Las Vegas for a Nevada Republicans for Harris press conference slamming Donald Trump’s Project 2025 agenda.

    Bill Nye “The Science Guy” in Reno to mobilize and encourage University of Nevada, Reno students to vote early.

    NORTH CAROLINA

    National Security Leaders for America in Greensboro for a press conference.

    DNC Chair Jaime Harrison in Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem for a ‘Black Men’s Breakfast’ and canvass launches.

    Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Charlotte for a ‘March to the Polls’ event and Huntersville for a canvass launch.

    PENNSYLVANIA

    Governor Josh Shapiro, Senator Raphael Warnock, former Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan and former Rep. Jim Greenwood in Lancaster for a New Way Forward ‘Unity’ rally.

    Senator Raphael Warnock in Philadelphia for a Get Out The Vote rally.

    WISCONSIN

    Doc Rivers, Terry Porter, and Governor Wes Moore in Milwaukee for a ‘Dunks for Democracy’ event.

  25. That 1% you are seeing is the demonstrated, well documented and widely discussed effect of the red wave push polling, the actual underlying has not moved. It’s fascinating to see the power of their narrative setting effect in action though. I wonder how widely these talking points will propagate and whether their ability to create a negative perception of Harris’ chances will depress Democratic turnout. Judging from the early voting numbers – they won’t.

  26. Omar Comin’ @ #75 Friday, October 25th, 2024 – 12:12 pm

    That 1% you are seeing is the demonstrated, well documented and widely discussed effect of the red wave push polling, the actual underlying has not moved. It’s fascinating to see the power of their narrative setting effect in action though. I wonder how widely these talking points will propagate and whether their ability to create a negative perception of Harris’ chances will depress Democratic turnout. Judging from the early voting numbers – they won’t.

    In fact, perversely for the Trump campaign, they’ll strengthen some people’s resolve to go vote for Harris/Walz.

  27. I wonder how widely these talking points will propagate and whether their ability to create a negative perception of Harris’ chances will depress Democratic turnout. Judging from the early voting numbers – they won’t.

    They won’t, but that’s not the goal.

    If (yes, if)there’s a coordinated campaign to set up a false narrative where Trump is ahead in all of the swing states and easily going to win, then the motive isn’t to change the election’s outcome. The motive is to set the stage for follow-on efforts to steal the election after a “surprise” loss.

  28. Mostly Interested,
    JVL at The Bulwark has addressed your concerns today in his daily newsletter:

    I’m Sorry But the Math Is Okay for Harris

    God help me, I have Hopium for you.

    1. Vibes
    Most analysis at this point is quantitative. We’re looking at the polls. We’re trying to figure out if Donald Trump has a 45 percent or a 55 percent chance to win. This is an impossible task with an unfalsifiable answer and so we worry over it. Endlessly.

    And I’m going to get to that quant stuff in a minute. But first, let’s take a step back and look at the campaign qualitatively: Pretend that the polls really have shifted a touch in Trump’s favor over the last six weeks. Why would that have happened?

    Who had a better convention and got a larger convention bounce? Kamala Harris.

    Who won the debate? Harris.

    Has the final economic data been good or bad? It’s been very good.

    Who has gotten big, historic endorsements down the stretch from members of the opposing party? Harris.

    Who has campaigned with more energy and vigor? Harris.

    Who has canceled interviews, lost his place on stage, and looked mentally and physically lost? Trump.

    Who has been blindsided by a last-minute scandal? Trump.

    Point is: If you lived through the last six weeks without being allowed to see any polls and I told you that Harris had moved to +7, you’d think that this number made sense.

    It doesn’t make sense that Trump has ticked up a point during this period.1 So we hunt around for rationalizations to explain what is, at root, not qualitatively explicable.2

    Now let’s get to the quantitative stuff, because people have an exaggerated sense of how much variance there is in presidential elections. The reality is:

    * Republican and Democratic candidates perform about the same from year to year.

    * The extent to which R and D vote shares vary is largely dependent on third-party candidates.

    * We already know to within a point or two where Harris and Trump are likely to end up.

    Today I’m going to make the case that we don’t (and can’t) know the outcome of the campaign. But we know more about the likely result than we realize.

    And the result is likely to be that a majority of voters will choose Harris.

    Let’s dive in.

    We’ll start our choose-your-own-adventure by building upper and lower bounds for vote share.

    Do you think Harris will get a lower vote share than Hillary Clinton in 2016?

    I do not.

    Democratic vote share has been steady for a generation. Here are the last six presidential elections:

    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc47699b9-179a-4543-bd56-a30fac091aac_436x304.jpeg
    Democratic presidential candidates live between 48.1 percent and 52.9 percent. Clinton got the lowest vote share of any Dem presidential candidate in a generation, but her campaign had a number of disadvantages.

    * Running for a third term for the in-party.

    * High net-negative favorability.

    * A (minor) health event during the fall autumn.

    * A major (pseudo) scandal in the final days of the election.

    Harris has none of those problems.

    Yet the biggest disadvantage Clinton had was the presence of third-party candidates. Third parties explain most of the variance we see in Democratic vote share. When third parties get more than 3.5 percent of the vote, Democratic candidates are pulled toward the 48 percent lower bound.
    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1d3064a3-8024-4dfa-87e6-23ff4af9e44f_752x306.jpeg

    Will the third-party vote in 2024 will be closer to 1.85 percent or 4.89 percent?

    My view is that it will be much closer to 1.85. Only two third-party candidates (Jill Stein and Chase Oliver) have qualified for the ballot in a significant number of states.

    This is Stein’s third presidential campaign, which gives her a chance to crack 1 percent, but I would not expect much more. Oliver is an unserious candidate even by Libertarian party standards. He has zero name-ID and nothing compelling about him as a candidate. He should perform more like Jo Jorgensen (1.2 percent in 2020) than Gary Johnson (3.28 percent in 2016).

    I’d guess that the third-party vote totals roughly 2 percent.

    Do you think Harris will get a higher vote share than Biden in 2020?

    I do not. Because the third-party candidates are likely to get ≈ 2 percent, it will be hard for Harris to go above the Biden mark. If, on the other hand, the third-party vote craters to < 1 percent, then maybe her ceiling goes higher.

    But for our purposes, let’s say that Harris’s upper bound is 51.3 percent.

    Do you think Trump’s vote share will be comparable to 2016 and 2020?

    I do.

    I wrote an entire newsletter about this recently, but what’s important to understand is that 47 percent isn’t just Trump’s ceiling—it’s basically where all Republican presidential candidates live.
    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff930d6fd-bb00-4175-ac83-70b10fabb450_432x308.jpeg

    The lone exception here is 2004 when George W. Bush was (a) an incumbent and (b) a wartime president.

    I see no reason to expect Trump to perform closer to Bush 2004 than to all of the other Republicans of the last generation.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Trump’s lower bound is still 46.1 percent while his upper limit has shot all the way up to 48 percent. We’re still looking at just a 2.7-point range for where he ends up.

    Do we trust polls, or not?

    I do trust polling. But I also I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to expect these instruments to pinpoint exactly where each candidate will land in bands that are only 3.2- and 2.7-points wide.

    Best-case and worst-case this for me.

    The worst case is that Harris hits her lower bound and Trump hits his upper bound, in which case the election goes 48.1 percent Harris, 48 percent Trump, with nearly 4 percent going to third-party voters.

    I find this unlikely, because the third-party share should be half that.

    But in this worst case, Harris wins a narrow plurality and Trump wins the Electoral College easily.

    Best case? Harris 51.3 percent, Trump 47 percent, with only 1.7 percent going to third parties. Harris wins the Electoral College handily.

    What is the stupidest possible way to guess where Trump and Harris will land?

    Just for the sake of argument, let’s split the difference and imagine that Harris and Trump each land smack in the middle of the ranges we’ve established for them.

    That would give us:

    Harris 49.7 percent

    Trump 47.1 percent

    These numbers leave us with a third-party vote of 3.2 percent—which I do not believe will happen.

    So let’s pretend, again, that the third-party vote is 2 percent, leaving us with a final 1.2 percent to be allocated between Harris and Trump. We split this evenly the two of them because, as I said, we’re building the stupidest possible model. That gives us:

    Harris 50.3 percent

    Trump 47.7 percent

    Would I take those numbers to the bank? No. But as a shorthand expectation for where the race ends up? I mean, we could do worse.

    In the comments, I’d like you to walk me through your thoughts on vote share and draw me a picture of what you’re expecting and why.

    2. Then what?
    Would you take that result? If a genie offered you Harris 50.3, Trump 47.7, would you take it?

    On the one hand, yes—50.3 percent is a flat majority of Americans. It is close to the share George W. Bush won in his 2004 re-elect and would be a higher vote share than all but one Republican candidate since 1992.

    On the other hand, it might not be enough to win the Electoral College. A 2.6 percent margin puts Harris dead in the middle of the EC danger zone where we have no idea which way the swing states break.

    But just as a thought exercise, what happens if Harris hits that number and loses?

    The only time we’ve had a presidential candidate win a popular majority but lose the election was 1876 and it sparked a major crisis.

    I don’t think such a result would cause an immediate crisis this time. I suspect that Democrats would be upset, but Trump would be sworn in with a minimum of drama. But long term? In the long term, I think the crisis would become quite acute.

    It is one thing to win a plurality but lose in the Electoral College. It is another to win a flat majority and be denied power. And to have one party be given an enormous institutional advantage not as an aberration, but for a generation? Well that’s something else altogether.

    Again: A world in which Harris gets close to the Bush 2004 number—the best Republican result since the 1988 election—and loses?

    In the long term, that’s not tenable for a liberal democratic republic.

    So either the system will (somehow) get reformed, or we will cease to be a liberal democracy.3

    But that’s the dark view. And God help me, but I’m having a hard time seeing why the dark view would come to pass.

    Harris has been a good candidate. She has run a good campaign. The macroeconomy favors her. Events have broken her way down the stretch. Her voting coalition is more reliable. Trump is old, tired, and performing badly. And turnout since Dobbs has been at the upper end of the band for most Democratic candidates.

    Honestly, if you forced me to bet, I’d take Harris to go slightly over 50.3 percent.

    All of which is to say that I keep hearing people resign themselves to a Trump victory, but I don’t believe it.

    Trump might win. He’s got what amounts to an even-money chance to win.

    But so does Harris.

    Whatever the vibes say, the math is what it is.

    https://www.thebulwark.com/p/im-sorry-but-the-math-is-okay-for

    (I have left the spelling American)

  29. I’m entirely aware of the red wave push polling flooding the market. But as 538 demonstrated, even when this is taken out of the modelling the results is less than 1% adjustment.

    To be frank Trump would be a horrible outcome for so many reasons, I dont however see it as the end of civilization as we know it. Perhaps a quickening of trends that are already part of the landscape. I dont see a Harris presidency as fundamentally stopping those trends, perhaps slowing in some places, but overall not a transformational experience.

    What are these trends? Climate change quickening, China dominating the eastern hemisphere, a push back and in some cases fracturing of the European zone, a weakening of social safety nets, a strengthening and aggregation of multinationals, a fracturing of the workforce into microscopic pieces that cant collectively bargain. All the fun stuff.

  30. C@t, ta, I got ChatGPT to summarize it. No sleep this week due to the kids. I dont tend to take qualitative factors into my thinking, I tend to lean very heavily on quantitative factors, blame my science background.

    The article argues that Kamala Harris’s campaign momentum is stronger than the current polls suggest, pointing to qualitative factors like her debate performance, endorsements, and strong economic data. In contrast, Trump has faced personal and campaign struggles. The author contends that if one ignored polls and relied on recent events, Harris should have gained a significant lead. Additionally, the piece discusses the predictable nature of U.S. presidential elections and suggests that Harris is likely to win a majority of votes.

  31. MI,
    Not a problem. Gotta devote yourself to the kiddiwinks. 🙂

    What really interested me was the math. ChatGPT doesn’t seem to do granular stuff like that which was in the tables.

  34. Electoral college. The Republican, whomever they are, has a baked in advantage where they can win from as many as 3 points behind. They’re always “likely” to win unless polls are showing an absolute landslide.

    Who needs qualitative factors when you’ve got a finger on the scale?

  35. I think Harris differentiating herself from Biden or Trump handling the issue of abortion are just qualitative aspects of the campaign that you’ve latched onto in your analysis, Mostly Interested

  37. a r @ #84 Friday, October 25th, 2024 – 12:53 pm

    Electoral college. The Republican, whomever they are, has a baked in advantage where they can win from as many as 3 points behind. They’re always “likely” to win unless polls are showing an absolute landslide.

    Who needs qualitative factors when you’ve got a finger on the scale?

    And the Democratic Party have won 3/4 of the last POTUS elections with that EC College.
    #facts

  38. I know the aggregators say they apply house skew to these polls but surely the “garbage in, useful information out” model is now suspect.

  39. And not a surprise to me at least

    BREAKING VIA @WSJ

    Elon Musk has been in regular contact with Vladimir Putin since 2022, discussing a range of topics including personal matters, business, and geopolitics.

    – Putin asked Musk not to activate Starlink over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
    – Musk initially supported Ukraine’s military with Starlink but later restricted its use for offensive operations, aligning with Russia’s interests.
    – Russian officials have pressured Musk on several fronts, including potential threats to his businesses, while Kremlin disinformation campaigns use Musk’s social platform X to influence U.S. politics.
    – Musk’s deep connections to U.S. military projects, including SpaceX’s $1.8 billion classified contracts, raise national security alarms over his close ties to Putin.
    – Musk is now a key backer of Trump’s 2024 campaign and could hold a major role in a future Trump administration.

    wsj.com/world/russia/m…

  41. Just when you thought the US election campaign could not get any more strange and weird.

    FFS, how it is that this kind of thing (and the Arnold Palmer wang story) is NOT instant death for a campaign is beyond me.

    Although, i did watch a Jon Stewart daily show segment where he opined that the Repug /Maga movement are making things so over the top absurd, that voters think its all actually some sort of benign joke.

    Scary times. 🙁

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/24/tucker-carlson-trump-rally-spanking

    “The audience at a Donald Trump rally in Georgia on Wednesday erupted into bizarre chants of “Daddy’s home!” and “Daddy Don!” after an extraordinary and borderline creepy and sexist speech by far-right personality Tucker Carlson likening the Republican presidential candidate to an angry father spanking his daughter.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/24/tucker-carlson-speech-trump-spanking

    “Harris’s spokespeople may dismiss Carlson’s disgusting speech as “weird” but it is less weird than it is terrifying. The idea of Trump as a father figure spanking a woman into submission seems to resonate with a disturbing number of Americans. There is a very real chance that in just two weeks Trump will be voted back into office. “

  45. – Putin asked Musk not to activate Starlink over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
    – Musk initially supported Ukraine’s military with Starlink but later restricted its use for offensive operations, aligning with Russia’s interests.
    – Russian officials have pressured Musk on several fronts, including potential threats to his businesses, while Kremlin disinformation campaigns use Musk’s social platform X to influence U.S. politics.
    – Musk’s deep connections to U.S. military projects, including SpaceX’s $1.8 billion classified contracts, raise national security alarms over his close ties to Putin.
    – Musk is now a key backer of Trump’s 2024 campaign and could hold a major role in a future Trump administration.

    Didn’t we already know basically all of that, aside from maybe the Xi/Taiwan angle?

  47. Matthew Dowd a former Republican pollster says

    ——
    let me relate how bad the RealClear average of polls has been because they include junk polls: in 2022, realclear had Whitmer only winning by 1, she won by 11; had Fetterman in PA losing by 1, he won by 5; had AZ Gov race Dem losing by 3, Dem won by 1; Nevada Sen. had Dem losing by 4, Dem won by one.

  48. The Trump Putin nexus which includes Musk is a thing.

    Those who cried Russia Russia Russia was a hoax should reconsider their position.

  49. Tonight (US time), 22000 people attended Harris rally in Atlanta,GA. It was star-studded rally, which included Spike Lee, Bruce Springsteen and Obama.

Comments Page 2 of 20
1 2 3 … 20

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *