Cameroni

Lol, a "fine" and "informative" speech? Really? So what information did Harris provide on how she will pay for her tax cut bribes? Did not hear any info on that. It was a speech high on clichees, but low on actual policy and information. And that voice, surely I'm not the only one who wants to throw the remote at the TV when she opens her mouth? Not to mention the phony insincerity and fake semi-tearful delivery. What a fake this woman.

We both know when it comes to speeches Trum's entertainment value is unmatched. The whole world tunes in.

Yes, and Germany too has severe problems to sustain the 8 billion freebies it hands out to Ukraine and has announced it will scale that back to 50 percent less and then one tenth of it. In the US many are questioning the enormous sums poured into Ukraine. It can't continue indefinitely. Resources are limited in the West.

Actually, a hoarse seagull could probably have sqawked out a better speech than Kamala Harris gave. Painful and embarrassing to watch. Empty clichées. Delivered in that semi-tearful insincerity that characterizes Harris. Phony to the core.

Kamala's speech was a paint-by-numbers collection of clichés. She’s from and for the middle class. She’ll be a president for all Americans. She’ll fight for this country. Anything is possible in America. Another emphasis in her speech — in keeping with how she’s tried to define herself over the last month — was that she was a tough prosecutor. But she was soft by the standards of the time, then ran away from her record during her 2019 presidential campaign and became a fellow traveler of the BLM rioters in 2020. Now, she’s supposedly Wyatt Earp again. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/08/harriss-collection-of-cliches/

In addition she keeps all her policies hidden. Nobody knows what she stands for. Because if voters knew, nobody would vote for her apart from Portland radicals.

MOSCOW, Aug 23 (Reuters) - Russia accused Ukraine on Friday of trying to attack the Kursk nuclear power station overnight in what it called an act of "nuclear terrorism", days before the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog is due to visit the site. Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine on Thursday of trying to attack the facility, and said Moscow had informed the IAEA. The head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, is due to visit the power station next week. He has appealed for maximum restraint to avoid a nuclear accident. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-ukraine-trying-attack-kursk-nuclear-power-plant-with-drone-2024-08-23/

I was actually shocked the Democrats picked Kamala Harris. At the time she had poll ratings of 39 per cent. She wasn't actually a dream candidate, I thought the Democrats had half a dozen better candidates. It was indeed a relief a mediocrity like Kamala Harris got the nomination (well coup annoitment really). However, the Democrat media machine did well to build her up into almost a real personality. Impressive stuff. Pink's peformance at the DNC less so, a bit cringe to be honest.

So the youth and future of America studying at Columbia, Yale et al have the choice of a president who openly and rabidly supports Israel or a one who pretends to care about Palestinians but doesn't even bother to give a speaking slot to a Palestinian American. Got ya.

Why don't you talk about how the DNC had an Israeli couple talk about how their son was held hostage, but oddly no Palestinian American talking about how Israel killed 15000 children? What did Biden and Harris do to bring peace in the Middle East? Apart from siding with Israel as usual? How will that play with young voters in American universities, do you think? Should a Palestinian American have had a speaking spot at the DNC?

That's wishful thinking on your part. It would be hard to think of a worse orator than Kamala Harris. Her voice is grating and unpleasant. Her speech lacked any substance whatsoever. As far as opponents go, Kamala Harris would be the dream for any Trump supporter. Now, if Ms Obama would run. Then, yes, Trump supporters would be worried. That woman can talk. It's a blessing that she is not runnig but instead Kamala Harris.

Indeed, to all intents and purposes polls are a snapshot in time always. They will try to amend their data to reflect new trends but this may or may not succeed in reality. I'm a forex trader and we use a variety of tools to predict how the market will act. However, more often than not the market surprises almost everyone, despite the best info and tools we use to predict what it will do. Reality has too many variables. It's true, past events form future trends...often, but not always. There can be major suprises.

Yes, looks like we are, and the reason I highlighted the undecided voters in swing states was merely because pollsters have highlighted that they believe the swing states and in particular the undecided voters in those states will decide the election. As this is a close election, at this point in time that seemed a reasonable argument to me. Given the importance of the undecided voters in swing states, the difficulty of predicting how they would vote struck me and hence how hard pollsters would have it to predict their numbers or votes accurately, given how some undecided are actually voters who have decided, people who will not turn up to vote and so on. Having looked at Democrat pollsters in particular they certainly do not claim to know the outcome of the election, and I just found it funny how some people here thought polls are Nostradamus like certain predictions. I don't think they are.

Yes, indeed undecided voters are invisible in polls to some degree because polls cannot accurately predict how many undecided there will be, if they will vote, or how they will vote. Some people who claim to be undecided in polls are not. Some who claim they will vote do not. In the end reality is too complex for mathematical modelling to be accurate.

Yes, polls are "somewhat" of a guide. With a strong emphasis on "somewhat". Can they accurately predict how undecided voters in swing states will vote? No. Can they accurately predict how many undecided voters there will be in swing states? No. So "somewhat" yes. But accurate? Not necessarily. Thus it's a bit foolish to get so excited about polls.

First of all there is a risk that a perfectly random sample of a given size may not reflect the characteristics of the population as a whole (known as “sampling error”). In fact, the group of people who participate in any given survey are virtually never an idealised random sub-set of the population that will actually turn out to vote. Instead, they can differ from the eventual mix in important ways, which collectively are known as “non-sampling error”. Then polls are subject to the vagaries of voter turnout. Polls conducted among all adults will include the views of people who are ineligible or not registered to vote. Those limited to registered voters treat all respondents in this group as if they had an equal probability of showing up to vote, which they surely do not. And those that seek to filter out respondents unlikely to vote, or that grant more weight to the views of people who are more likely to show up, can get such calculations wrong. Although no two surveys are identical, ones that use a similar approach to predicting turnout are more likely to wind up with errors of a similar size and direction than are ones that handle it differently. In statistical terms, each of these different methods of turnout projection can produce a “bias”, which is likely to contaminate the results of all the pollsters that use it in a similar way. The group of people pollsters can reach by using live telephone interviewers may have different voting intentions than those they can reach by automated phone calls, or via the internet. Individual pollsters may make methodological choices, such as weighting schemes, that consistently lead to more or less favourable results for a particular political party. Ahead of time, it is impossible to know the direction or size of the bias that each of these characteristics may introduce. Voters who have a soft but consistent preference for one of the two major parties often say they are undecided or planning to vote for a third party. This makes polls in the first half of the year a surprisingly weak predictor of final results. For example, in June 1988, George H.W. Bush trailed Michael Dukakis by 12 percentage points in polling averages (he went on to win by eight). Exactly four years later, Mr Bush led Bill Clinton by ten percentage points, and wound up losing by seven. In more recent years, polling errors have been a bit smaller—but they can still be substantial. In 2000 Mr Bush’s son George W. saw his ten-point lead over Al Gore in the popular vote turn into a deficit during the final three months of the campaign. It took the Electoral College and a disputed 537-vote victory in Florida to save his presidential bid. And notoriously, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump by around eight points in June, August and even October of 2016, before she barely squeaked out a two-point edge in the popular vote. https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/president/how-this-works Ultimately, some people who claim to be undecided are not, they favour one or the other party. Some who claim they will vote for one or the other, do not, or are not eligible to vote. The key point is however that undecided voters in the swing states will determine the election, which is not about who gets the most votes, Clinton got the most votes and lost, because of the way the US electoral system works. Undecided voters do change over time, and polls cannot accurately predict how they will vote. Reality, ultimately, is more complex than science and mathematics will be able to model. We saw this with corona, and we saw it with past polling efforts.

You can watch the polls if you want, but sadly they are useless to determine the outcome of the election. Undecided voters in the swing states will determine the election. And they are not reflected in the polls. On the matter of polls, even democrat pollsters have sounded a warning bell: Democratic pollsters have spent nearly four years trying to fix what went wrong last time. But, they warn, there might still be some other issues. The polls could again underestimate Trump this year — though it might be for some other, unknown reasons. “Every year, we’ve had different curveballs. This is a difficult industry,” said John Anzalone, who was the lead pollster on Biden’s 2020 campaign. “Something’s gonna happen in 2024. You and I, right now, don’t know what that is.” https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/22/democrat-pollsters-kamala-harris-00176065 Funny how professional pollsters are a lot less confident than professional Democrat cheerleaders like you, Irish.

That's hilarious. With one hand they send arms to destroy Russia, with the other they send investment to do business in Russia. The hypocrisy of the US is unrivalled int he world. Unbelievable.

I don't read Fox news, but I see the Wall Street Journal was not impressed: "Kamala Harris’s speech was fine, and delivered with assurance. I prefer “Ask not what your country can do for you” to “Never do anything half-assed,” but tastes vary. Too soon we were hearing phrases like “assure access to capital.” The text didn’t have the feeling of a story being told from some previously unknown inner depth. It stuck to résumé values and life experiences, rather than a sharing of her thinking. I’m not sure it advanced her position with those who aren’t already with her." https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-harris-gets-off-to-a-strong-start-61b6fd9b

Yeah, it works again. The other day it didn't.

Trulove himself said that Kamala Harris was present at court when his guilty verdict was read out and laughed in his face. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13750465/actor-wrongfully-convicted-kamala-harris-taunt.html Kamala Harris being present at court when Trulove had his verdict read out does imply that Kamala Harris was involved to some degree in Trulove's case. It is very normal for more junior prosecturs to run some issues by the more senior lawyer in the department. The Trulove case being high profile it would have been natural for Linda Allen to seek Kamala Harris views on the more delicate aspects of the case. But clearly ultimately Harris will always point to the crooked police officers, never mind that her office had the duty to evaluate the evidence. If 4 relatively uneducated police officers can deceive Kamala Harris so easily, then it would be even easier for diplomats, politicians or secret service people to do so.

Her speech was really poor. Emotional clap trap without an ounce of substance. I was expecting her to start crying any second, the way she talked, but thankfully that spectacle did not happen.

This is so true, I wanted to get the Russian side of the story and go to Russia Today using google. Impossible.

Yes, that article supports the initial sentence that her prosecutorial record will become of paramount importance in this election. For more details on the Trulove case, you can read about it here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13750465/actor-wrongfully-convicted-kamala-harris-taunt.html https://michaelpatrickleahy.com/tom-pappert-explains-kamala-harris-role-in-the-case-of-a-san-francisco-man-wrongfully-convicted-of-murder/

It is truly bizarre to listen to Kamala Harris speak, she sounds like her own words will make her cry any second. So odd. Never mind that she provided no substance whatsoever, how she will fund the promised tax cuts for the middle class for instance, but her delivery is so strange.