The head of the House Democratic Caucus warned Tuesday that voters should have no faith in Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to certify this year’s presidential election results because of his role in promoting former President Trump’s false claims about the 2020 contest being “rigged.”
“He doesn’t have a track record that would indicate to the American people that he should be believed,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said during a press briefing in the Capitol.
The charge came shortly after Johnson, appearing at the same pressroom podium, had vowed to back the certification of the winner of this year’s contest between Trump and Vice President Harris — if the elections are “free, fair and safe.”
I like how democrats are suddenly making noise weeks before the election about voter fraud and disenfranchisement in Georgia and elsewhere, the traitors in congress, and all the other ways Republicans have been subverting the electoral process. Too little, too late.
This is extra concerning because it seems more likely than not Trump will win this election. I’m not counting on democrats to be able to mount an effective defense of the country as a whole when Trump starts playing dirty pool from the oval office.
Just remember, at best this election is a coin flip, but I tend to agree with the democratic insiders that are confident Harris’s numbers are both soft and inaccurately high. Not to mention even with these theoretically inflated numbers, she’s still doing worse than Hillary and Biden at this point in the election. As we may all recall, Hillary lost and Biden won by barely 44,000 votes.
Effective resistance is going to be very important, and the democrats look about as ignorant and ineffective as ever.
I find this hard to believe
Whether you believe it or not doesn’t particularly matter. I imagine there’s a strong possibility you’re going to be saying “I find this hard to believe” after the election as well.
Explain this then
Aggregated Harris rating, now: 47.3% favorable, 46.5% unfavorable (source)
(Aggregated?) Hillary rating, during 2016 election: ~42.5% favorable, ~52.5% unfavorable (source)
Note that Hillary’s rating looks even lower (by ~2.5%) right before the 2016 election, which might be a better point of comparison, but the graph resolution isn’t good enough so I’m using the Clinton-favored statistics and she still loses.
Sure, fairly easy to explain. Historically, favorability ratings have only a loose connection to actual voting behavior. For example, Donald Trump had consistently low favorability numbers during the 2016 campaign, and many analysts assumed this would prevent him from winning. He also currently has a 10-point unfavorability rating. Yet, he secured the presidency in 2016, and is currently even and trending up in electoral college projections, showing that favorability ratings don’t predict and are often only loosely correlated with electoral outcomes. Similarly, current favorability ratings suggest Harris is struggling in terms of public perception and trending down, but those polls alone don’t fully represent the complex dynamics of a presidential race. Note that your 538 visualization uses a two-year timeline, meaning you’re missing a lot of granularity in favorability since she took over the candidacy. Since that initial jump when she took over for Biden, her numbers have been much more ambidirectional on that front: from low-to-mid 50s to high 40s, etc.
Looking at the current polling data, Vice President Harris is trailing Trump in several critical battleground states like Arizona and Georgia, with Trump holding a 5-point and 4-point lead in these states, respectively. While she holds a slim national lead in some aggregate polls, such as a 3.7% edge in national polling (less than Biden won by), this has not translated into a clear advantage in all key regions and, thereby, the electoral college. Importantly, Biden performed better in similar polls during the 2020 election campaign than Harris is currently performing against Trump.
Compared to Hillary Clinton at the same point in 2016, Harris is polling similarly or worse in some battlegrounds, i.e., on the whole worse. Clinton also struggled with unfavorable ratings but she managed to maintain stronger polling in many regions than Harris currently is up until late in the race.
The issue with relying solely on favorability ratings is that they only capture general sentiment toward a candidate and not the decisive factors like voter enthusiasm, turnout strategies, or key policy stances that can ultimately sway elections. They also don’t capture voter intention, but rather how a broad sampling “feels” about a candidate at any given point in time. Moreover, favorability ratings can fluctuate based on short-term controversies or media coverage and don’t always reflect the strategic or demographic realities that decide elections. In short, while these ratings can provide insights, they shouldn’t be overemphasized as predictors of electoral success, and they’re certainly not useful as a counter-argument to the simple fact that Harris is doing worse than Clinton and Biden at similar points during their respective campaigns.
While it’s frustrating and seemingly unbelievable given who she’s running against, Harris is currently in serious danger of losing the election.
Damn, ok I agree now actually
Thanks for reading it and being open to changing your mind. I appreciate you.
I try :)
And I appreciate you as well! That was a long comment, it takes effort that you’re not sure you’ll get anything back from. Respect