one obvious conclusion you can easily come to with so many obvious republicans showing up in NYT undecided voter coverage is that the NYT knows they’re publishing lies. the other less obvious but important one is that republicans are more likely to shamelessly lie about what they believe.

Part of the reason fascism is so hard to succinctly define is that fascists are strategically very slippery and happy to lie about what they believe and want to do. They’re happy to, for example, call themselves “National Socialists” if using the word “socialism” helps them achieve power

My related take is that "undecided voter" nowadays usually means a republican who is undecided as to whether they can actively support Trump, not someone who is ideologically center and deciding between the two parties based on merit

One must wonder why the NYT hasn't descended upon Springfield to talk to ppl in diners. We don't get to hear from rural Midwest white folks now?

another possibility is that people who by all accounts *should* be reliable votes for Trump are genuinely undecided

draw your own inferences about moral character

A couple of the NYT podcasts have covered these undecideds, and they do come off as past GOP voters who have no options. They don't like Trump, but are still conservative. But if this type is over-represented in the remaining undecideds that is bullish for Harris, bc they used to be safe GOP votes

They’re willing to shamelessly lie and also the Times is willing to accept obvious shameless lies, not even delivered very well. The “I am mad that they treated Mitt Romney poorly when I was 11” lady voted for Biden? Gimme a break.

Also a good reason to be skeptical of the polls