Jolly PlatypusHarris leads Trump 2-1 among the earliest voters, many driven by abortion access: new poll
cabron_offsetsFucking good.
I actually wish they wouldn’t publish early results like this. Because you know there are people who will now go “well, I guess I don’t actually need to vote afterall” or “I guess my Jill Stein vote is actually harmless afterall” etc.
This sort of thing (IMO) potentially gets less Harris votes down the line.
OmegaDems: We got this.
Reps: Fuck I gotta go vote.
[deleted] in lemmyIt will also motivate people who are worried that other people won’t get out and vote, so it will incentivise them.
Not everything needs to be negative.
I can’t see how hearing “D is up 2x over R” doesn’t help R more than D at this stage in the race.
Not everything needs to be negative.
And yet, some things are.
I live in a state that has given all of the electoral college votes to a Republican since Nixon. Seeing a lot of Harris sings instead of Trump and early voting leaning Dem nationwide makes me motivated to vote instead of feeling completely defeated like in prior years.
Not that I think Harris will take the state, but that there is a chance.
Counterpoint: I live in NYC and have seen more Trump signs and merch than I am comfortable with
I live in the DC area. It’s the same even though I know it’s a solid blue area for like a 30 mile radius
That’s why they do it! Gotta manufacture that last-minute nail-biter to keep the eyes glued to the TV for their 24 hour coverage leading up to the polls closing, and as long as it takes to count each state’s votes!
It will also motivate Trump voters to get to the polls to counter. Plus a 2-1 at this point just shows Democrat enthusiasm being high, which is good, but early vote numbers are a poor predictor of election outcomes.
I thought they couldn’t actually count the votes until Election Day?
This is not a count, it’s a poll of people who said they voted.
They can’t, but organizations can conduct exit polls where they simply ask people who they voted for.
FWIW, studies have shown that voters are more likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as winning than one they perceive as losing.
I’d love nothing more than to be wrong, so if there are studies saying I am then that’s great.
It feels like what it should drive is complacency to me (along with energizing the R voters) but I’m super happy for my feeling to be wrong.
People who feel discouraged and demoralized are less likely to put in the effort to vote. The perception that your side is losing tends to demoralize, while the perception that your side is winning tends to be encouraging. And even among undecided voters, the bandwagon effect tends to nudge them towards the side they view as in the lead and more popular. This is why push polls have been around for ages, to influence people by convincing them that your side has more support than it really does.
The idea that people will get complacent is something that I think is largely inspired by the 2016 election, when turnout was relatively low and Hillary lost. But Hillary was also a deeply unpopular candidate with a lot of baggage that voters found hard to ignore. Harris isn’t universally loved, but she’s a lot more popular than Hillary was. And the stakes in 2016 weren’t quite as obvious and stark as they are now.
Those are good points!