Elections Official US 2024 Presidential Election Megathread: Trump v Harris

[CantCucktheTuck]

Thank you for replying, I posted the wrong link! Fixed now, should’ve been this one.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/29/nx-s1-5169204/virginia-noncitizen-voter-purge

My link gives an example of a person who was born in the US, in Brooklyn, has always been a citizen, moved to VA, and somehow was flagged in this purge.
There is a further example of a voter who simply missed checking the box which affirms they are a citizen, and they were purged. It also quotes a director of elections for one country who reviewed 162 people who were purged, and found that 43 of them had affirmed citizenship in the past, sometimes several times.

It sounds like their registration form has the citizenship check box right at the very top and people are missing it, and not checking it. That’s not really the same as being a “self-identified non-citizen.” That sounds like crappy right wing spin when all that’s really happening is that people aren’t seeing the box they needed to check.

"Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls. Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities.

"This is a Virginia law passed in 2006, signed by then-Governor Tim Kaine, that mandates certain procedures to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls, with safeguards in place to affirm citizenship before removal–and the ultimate failsafe of same-day registration for U.S. citizens to cast a provisional ballot. This law has been applied in every Presidential election by Republicans and Democrats since enacted 18 years ago.

"Virginia will immediately petition the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court, for an emergency stay of the injunction." - Glen Youngkin Govenor of Virgina


You fell for fake news again.....

 

[BFoe]

"Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls. Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities.

"This is a Virginia law passed in 2006, signed by then-Governor Tim Kaine, that mandates certain procedures to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls, with safeguards in place to affirm citizenship before removal–and the ultimate failsafe of same-day registration for U.S. citizens to cast a provisional ballot. This law has been applied in every Presidential election by Republicans and Democrats since enacted 18 years ago.

"Virginia will immediately petition the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court, for an emergency stay of the injunction." - Glen Youngkin Govenor of Virgina


You fell for fake news again.....

Nope.

All you are doing is quoting a Republican governor’s biased right wing view. Federal law states groups of people shouldn’t be removed from ballots within 90 days of an election, and VA really had no business doing what they were doing.

Calling these people “self-identified non-citizens” is misleading at best. I’ve already provided a source verifying some of the stories of voters affected who were indeed citizens.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Nope.

All you are doing is quoting a Republican governor’s biased right wing view. Federal law states groups of people shouldn’t be removed from ballots within 90 days of an election, and VA really had no business doing what they were doing.

Calling these people “self-identified non-citizens” is misleading at best. I’ve already provided a source verifying some of the stories of voters affected who were indeed citizens.

nope

all you are doing is quoting a democrat media outlet's biased left wing view. The 1500 individuals in question not only self-identified as non-citizens initially, but later were also verified to be non-citizens by federal authorities.

The law of the land, the supreme court, disagrees with you and NPR. They have already overturned the biased Virginia court decision. You are spewing fake news.

 

[Richmma80]

It's over for Trump. All the signs point towards Kamala as the next President.

 

[My Spot]

It's over for Trump. All the signs point towards Kamala as the next President.

Huh?

Who Is Favored To Win The 2024 Presidential Election?

538’s 2024 presidential election forecast model showing Democrat Kamala Harris’s and Republican Donald Trump’s chances of winning.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Sakuraba'sEar]

It's over for Trump. All the signs point towards Kamala as the next President.

I haven’t seen these signs but it'll probably be close

 

[mkess101]

I'm sure the odds are very accurate with sports betting too but the difference is that with sports you run far more trials than you ever do with presidential elections. Think about how many fights happen every for years compared to just the one presidential election, of course you'll perceive more upsets in sports even if the sports odds are far more accurate because they run far more trials. We've only had 59 presidential elections and the fact that three have been upsets suggests upsets are probably not that unlikely. In a crude way you can think of it as having a 1/20 chance though even that is misleading as each presidential election is its own multivariate event.

I don't disagree with some of this (specifically the last line--which is similar to what I mentioned in that each election has many variables at play, some of which are unique to that particular event).

And to clarify, these numbers are only since 1900 (you've questioned in the past whether I discuss in good faith, and I do and here's an example) so it helps your argument because it's not 3 of 59, it's 3 of 30.
Where i disagree is in saying that even 3 of 30 would be statistically insignificant (if that's what you're saying). Even with it being a relatively small sample size and with agreement about each election being its own multivariate event...these numbers still hold some significance. For example, if out of the last 30 Bantamweight fights that had a fighter favored at -200 or more, the favorites were 27-3 I'd absolutely look into that as having some significance. Blindly bet any BW favorite of -200 or more? Of course not. But I'd look into it and try to see if maybe the books were setting lines too tight on mismatches, etc. It would matter to some degree, the amount of which would include those other variables.

 

[BFoe]

nope

all you are doing is quoting a democrat media outlet's biased left wing view. The 1500 individuals in question not only self-identified as non-citizens initially, but later were also verified to be non-citizens by federal authorities.

The law of the land, the supreme court, disagrees with you and NPR. They have already overturned the biased Virginia court decision. You are spewing fake news.

Nope.

The NPR link literally interviewed specific verifiable people who were wrongly purged from these rolls. This Associated Press article reporting on SCOTUS’s decision likewise mentions several lawful voters wrongfully purged.
There’s no question whatsoever that lawful voters are being purged from the rolls. Missing a check box on a DMV application is not “self-identifying as a non-citizen.”

You’re also not entirely accurate about SCOTUS’s decision. They didn’t decide on the merits of the case, they allowed the governor’s order to stay in effect pending writ of certiorari. Shame, as it will undoubtedly sow confusion among voters, and those wrongfully affected will have to try and re-register on Election Day and cast provisional ballots.
I’m not really sure how one could seek a writ of certiorari in a timely fashion with Election Day just a few days away.

 

[Falsedawn]

Kellyanne Conway seemed to hold her own and shut a lot of retards up. Kayleigh Mcenany as well. These 2 women would alone eat alive any woman, and most men from the lib side. seems like mark cuban should choke on a cock.

Kellyanne Conway couldn't even hold her own against her teenage daughter lmfao

 

[Confucamus]

I love this.

 

[Scerpi]

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't disagree with some of this (specifically the last line--which is similar to what I mentioned in that each election has many variables at play, some of which are unique to that particular event).

And to clarify, these numbers are only since 1900 (you've questioned in the past whether I discuss in good faith, and I do and here's an example) so it helps your argument because it's not 3 of 59, it's 3 of 30.
Where i disagree is in saying that even 3 of 30 would be statistically insignificant (if that's what you're saying). Even with it being a relatively small sample size and with agreement about each election being its own multivariate event...these numbers still hold some significance. For example, if out of the last 30 Bantamweight fights that had a fighter favored at -200 or more, the favorites were 27-3 I'd absolutely look into that as having some significance. Blindly bet any BW favorite of -200 or more? Of course not. But I'd look into it and try to see if maybe the books were setting lines too tight on mismatches, etc. It would matter to some degree, the amount of which would include those other variables.

A 1/10 failure rate is fairly significant I'd say. I'd also say that the polls are suggesting there isn't a clear favorite and that whatever advantage seem to exist one way or the other are well within the margin of error. This is basically a coin toss.

 

[Err]

A 1/10 failure rate is fairly significant I'd say. I'd also say that the pols are suggesting there isn't a clear favorite and that whatever advantage seem to exist one way or the other are well within the margin of error. This is basically a coin toss.

It’s a coin toss if they’ve corrected for Trumps trend of over performing. If he’s actually +4 above where they currently have him like in 2020 it could be a blowout.

 

[BFoe]

I love this.

Well duh. All lives matter.

Spoiler

 

[Islam Imamate]

It’s a coin toss if they’ve corrected for Trumps trend of over performing. If he’s actually +4 above where they currently have him like in 2020 it could be a blowout.

The polls also predicted a red wave in 2022 and we ended up getting a red trickle. Could be that the polls are overcorrecting and we'll see a Kamala blow out instead.

 

[koquerelle]

Got an email to say my vote has been counted, woo hoo

Are there other ways to confirm a vote?

 

[I Am Legion]

Trump looked geriatric struggling that much to open the door of the truck. Like "order grandpa an elevator chair to get upstairs" level old. That whole stunt backfired from that moment.

Meanwhile he packed MSG and looked great.

 

[I Am Legion]

The polls also predicted a red wave in 2022 and we ended up getting a red trickle. Could be that the polls are overcorrecting and we'll see a Kamala blow out instead.

I think Kamala wins but I can't see a blowout. Too many disgruntled Americans that truly want change. They see Kamala as 4 years of the same.

 

[mkess101]

A 1/10 failure rate is fairly significant I'd say. I'd also say that the polls are suggesting there isn't a clear favorite and that whatever advantage seem to exist one way or the other are well within the margin of error. This is basically a coin toss.

"Failure rate" is an odd way to frame it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with betting lines but a -200 favorite has implied odds of winning 67% of the time. So the implied "failure rate" is 33%. If I'm betting outcomes that win at a 90% clip with betting lines of -200 nonstop, I'm buying my own island.

I think that there are other variables that would need to be explored for sure. Like of these historical last 30 elections where the betting favorite won 27 of them--what did the polls say? Were they lockstep with the odds offered at the books the majority of the time? Or was there a lot of similar examples as this current one where the polls have it as a dead heat but the books have a clear favorite. I think these are some of the variables we're talking about. So again I'm not implying that the betting lines are a stone cold lock of a way to predict electoral results. I do however think its foolish to ignore them or deem them insignificant.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think Kamala wins but I can't see a blowout. Too many disgruntled Americans that truly want change. They see Kamala as 4 years of the same.

I say "blowout" but what I mean is that she comfortably wins the electoral college with something like ~300 electoral votes but she can pull that off with a surprisingly small margin of victory.

Of course she's almost certainly going to win the popular vote but she needs a lot more than that to win the election.

"Failure rate" is an odd way to frame it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with betting lines but a -200 favorite has implied odds of winning 67% of the time. So the implied "failure rate" is 33%. If I'm betting outcomes that win at a 90% clip with betting lines of -200 nonstop, I'm buying my own island.

You keep citing this -200 odds but was every election contested with those odds? Probably not right? The odds going in are one of the major factors. So it could be that the favorite usually wins but if the odds are within a certain margin they become less and less predictive. If all those 3 failed predictions were of presidential elections where the odds on favorite was ~-200 then that might tell us we're within the margin where the odds become less predictive.

I think that there are other variables that would need to be explored for sure. Like of these historical last 30 elections where the betting favorite won 27 of them--what did the polls say? Were they lockstep with the odds offered at the books the majority of the time? Or was there a lot of similar examples as this current one where the polls have it as a dead heat but the books have a clear favorite. I think these are some of the variables we're talking about. So again I'm not implying that the betting lines are a stone cold lock of a way to predict electoral results. I do however think its foolish to ignore them or deem them insignificant.

A lot of these prediction markets are new enough and open to swings from big bets by whales that I would probably trust the polls more and even then the polls are far from perfect. I think as of now the election appears to be almost dead even with no clear advantage either way.