I suspect Harris got her "convention bounce" (as defined by the model) right when she became the nominee, this made the model think she was overperforming pre-convention and now the bounce is fading "early" when the model thinks she should still have it so it seems like she's underperformed.
If this is the theory, knowing how close the swing states are and thus how swingy it can be, most likely this number goes back to maybe 55/45 Trump.
If it goes down in value at the same rate as the last month or something, it'll be ~$1 billion at the end of September. I forget the exact math but something like that.
Trump can sell his 115 million shares on September 25th, everyone trying to get out before that happens.
Absolutely wild campaign finance workaround though. If he sells it all he's still on track to get $1 billion or so. That's his personal wealth, which can be contributed without limit to his campaign.
I'm highly suspicious of the results, as you should always be when a group with a stated political goal releases a poll that shows their favored political goal is what a politician should do.
You have to think there was bias in the presentation, eg the question was framed particularly softly like "if Kamala announced she would abide by current US law including the Leahy Law suspending arms shipments until there is a ceasefire which would save the lives of civilians on both sides" or whatever....that is all 100% true and consistent with what they're saying, but in real life if she did that she'd get millions of dollars of negative ads framing the decision differently.
Or maybe they just ran the poll 5 times and didn't release the others because this one was the best result for them. That doesn't make it an illegitimate poll, but it makes it more likely that the numbers are the high end of the potential benefit from such a stance.
One other way this poll could be true but misleading is that maybe this declaration brings her from 44% to 49%, but it puts Trump from 40% to 51%. Or whatever. It's possible that with no clarity, she goes from 44% to 52% because you can't literally vote undecided, and the 49% number is actually her doing worse than she would have.
Reddit is like this too on the app. Some of the worst algorithm recommendations I've ever seen. "You like (your local city subreddit), you might also like (some city you don't live in subreddit)." Why?
The worst is that is has ruined my porn account because it doesn't recommend NSFW subs so I have to scrape past random unrelated garbage like the Pokémon card valuation subreddit and /r/cement, I counted and it went 40 posts between NSFW posts once. On my account that is exclusively subscribed to NSFW subs.
I kinda hate this framing because it makes it seem inevitable and ever-present. Even on the right it's more like 5% true hate, 28% normal Republican who does not find true hate disqualifying. There's plenty of reason to discredit that or disagree with it etc but it's not the same as being in the 5%.
I was just listening to an interview with an evangelical who was lesser-of-two-evils on Trump, he'll vote for Trump but he's not a True Believer.
Threads was because if you had an Instagram account it ported over.
Bluesky was the Twitter clone made by the old Twitter CEO.
Most people didn't have a problem with Twitter being a corporation, they had a problem with the new owner of the corporation making the experience terrible with his new changes.
They weren't, it was just the example at the furthest end of the spectrum. But your framing of "if it was REALLY bad, Twitter would ban it" can not be the solution. We have legitimate governments tasked with governing based on the will of the people, it's not better to just let Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg decide the law.
We don't dislike government censorship of CSAM. it's all a spectrum based on the legitimacy of the government order and the legitimacy of the tech billionaire's refusal to abide.
If Al Gore had won New Hampshire he would have won even without Florida. It could be important.
That said, it's polling more Democratic than Texas is Republican. By the time you're likely to win New Hampshire you would have already won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and thus the election. Not worth putting resources into.
For once, this complaint is fully justified. She answered the question and said 'next' and they're implying she didn't answer the question by just saying 'next.'
I feel like sometimes "out of context" means they didn't report on additional relevant nuance in an answer but I'm sympathetic to headline authors who need punchy headlines, you can't have a full 20 minute answer in a headline. But this was a 6 word response and they took the last two and pretended she didn't say the first 4. That is bad.
I suspect Harris got her "convention bounce" (as defined by the model) right when she became the nominee, this made the model think she was overperforming pre-convention and now the bounce is fading "early" when the model thinks she should still have it so it seems like she's underperformed.
If this is the theory, knowing how close the swing states are and thus how swingy it can be, most likely this number goes back to maybe 55/45 Trump.