Just a moment...
www.axios.com

A new Morning Consult poll shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump nationally, 51% to 45%.

Key takeaway: “Her 51% of support among likely voters, which is also at a record high, is driven largely by her best figures to date among Democrats, Biden 2020 voters, liberals, women, 18- to 34-year-olds and millennials.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    0·
    1 day ago

    npr had a pew person on this last weekend who suggested single digit leads were essentially dead heats due to all the variables. they said even if you add the margin of error to the lower one it is not accurate.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    Is it really a record though? She should be blowing him out of the water in polls, +20-30%. Trump is a walling man child with zero policy, except hurt and get revenge on the people who’ve wronged hi. In some way.

    It’s just sad that this race is even close.

    • ClanOfTheOcho@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      It’s a sad commentary on our society. It isn’t nearly as healthy as I mistakenly thought it was 10 years ago – clearly I overestimated how well things were going. That this many would throw away The Great Experiment just boggles the mind.

      • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        Alas, we knew democracy would be hard to protect. Surely they at least put forth a strong competent leader in power who cares about the future of the country and that’s wh…

        What’s that? Oh, he’s a greedy idiot with no plan who can’t open his mouth without lying and whines like a spoiled child if people call him out on anything?

        You…

        Fucking…

        DONKEYS.

        • George Washington, post re-animation
        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
          0·
          2 days ago

          No. There has never been that dynamic of a lead. Probably was during FDR or Ike, but that was well before polls.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 days ago

            What they are saying is that in a sane world Donald would be polling below Stein and RFK. In that world, Repubs would be running a different candidate. That candidate being within 5-6% of Kamala would be more because their policies were sensible compromises but not enough for what is needed.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      0·
      2 days ago

      To add to that… register to vote, and check in to make sure you haven’t been culled from the list. And then vote before they have any excuse to remove you.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 days ago

      Biggest difference between then and now is that people now know exactly what they will get into with Trump this time around. Back then, a lot of undecided voters and third -party voters were willing to give him a chance.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      That’s a very interesting poll because in the end HRC got 48 percent of the vote, or 2 percentage points more than in this poll, while DT got 46 percent, 11 percent more than in the poll. One explanation could be that undecided, Johnson and Stein voters changed their minds and (mostly) voted for Trump.

      • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 days ago

        These numbers were also before the Anthony Weiner laptop revelations that Jim Comey dumped on the American public just days before the election.

        • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          Bingo! People keep saying Clinton was ahead as well. Unless there’s a nasty October Surprise for Harris, she’s looking good.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 days ago

            Trump was also still somewhat of an unknown quantity at that point. Everyone knows how they feel about him now.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    0·
    2 days ago

    Trump has a hard ceiling of about 46%. His only way to victory is driving down Harris’ numbers.

    Expect the rhetoric to get much worse.

    • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 days ago

      Trump has a pile of “I don’t want to admit I’m voting for the orange turd but I really like his racism policy” votes that aren’t getting counted in these polls.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        0·
        2 days ago

        You’re talking about under polling, which happened for Trump in 2016 and less so in 20. What makes it a little different this time is looking at state level election runs where Senate and Congressional candidates are up as well.

        • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 days ago

          I think Trump was under polled in 2016 due to this:

          • A month later, on Oct. 28, 2016, Comey told lawmakers in a letter that the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” and that investigators would “review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information.”
          • On Nov. 6, 2016, Comey told Congress in a follow-up memo that the FBI had “reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State” and that officials “have not changed our conclusions.”
          • The election took place Nov. 8, 2016.
    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 days ago

      Trump may have a hard ceiling of “likely voters”, but my fear is that there are a lot of unlikely/“low information” voters that are backing Trump.

      They are simply not paying attention to anything but their paycheck, which is not rising as fast as prices are. They remember all the chaos of the Trump Presidency, but also remember when they could afford rent.

      The same thing happened in 2020. I keep reminding people that 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016. Those people looked at all the chaos of the Trump Presidency and said “Yup! We need more of that”, after not caring 4 years prior.

      Polls don’t matter, votes.do. And thanks to the EC, votes in certain zip codes are more impactful than others. Harris not only needs to get good turnout, but get good turnout in the right zip codes to win this.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        0·
        2 days ago

        If you are Trump, you are counting on unlikely voters. Hell of a thing to count on. Good luck with that.

        There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.

        • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          0·
          1 day ago

          No. You’re counting on your zealots to overthrow the government and violently seize power for you through undemocratic methods.

          He tried to do it once, and he’s going to attempt to fucking do it again. My guess he’s going to try to get Harris’ delegates below the threshhold and the vote for president will go to the gerrymandered GOP house.

        • ccunning@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 days ago

          There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.

          It’s happened five times before (unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying)

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 days ago

            It’s more than two, yeah.

            Of the five, one had no party affiliation (Jackson/Adams) and the rest were all “won” by republicans.

            Expect them to cheat bigly.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 days ago

          There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.

          What exactly do you mean by this? When you say “the electoral vote”, you’re not referring to the number of electors in the electoral college, are you?

          Because if you are then that sounds silly lol, I’m probably misunderstanding you

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
            0·
            2 days ago

            No, you’ve got it right. Most often the electoral vote follows the popular vote. There has only been twice in history when it didn’t. One was Trump in 2016. Clinton won the popular vote. For Trump to do that twice is a very low probability.

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              0·
              2 days ago

              Most often the electoral vote follows the popular vote. There has only been twice in history when it didn’t.

              Wrong.

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 days ago

              Ohhh you just mean “there’ve only been 2 times in history where the popular vote disagreed with the electoral vote.”

              When you said “only 2 times the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote” it sounded like you were comparing the size of the popular vote to the size of the electoral vote. Which would be silly, b/c the popular vote is always larger than the electoral vote lol

      • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        2 days ago

        Nah our approach to polls is fundamentally misguided based on the way we communicate in 2024 - most of them still rely on essentially wardialing a target area until someone answers, so it fundamentally skews toward an older crowd and those gullible enough to take a phone call from an unknown number.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 days ago

          Oh nooooo you obviously don’t understand mathematics! No no, no you see these days they have people sign up online to take a poll whenever the polling company is ready and then they’ll get emailed a link, see, with the poll and they’ll go to that link to give their opinion about the pressing matters of the day! See?

          It’s pretty much an exact 1:1 analogue of how people think when they’re by themselves cleaning the kitchen or whatever. I mean, exact. How strongly do you feel about Dawn diswashing detergent? 5?

          /s