The graph I'm linking to below shows how the non-major party voters in Clark County skew young (it appears an outright majority of Gen-Z voters in Clark are not registered with one of the major parties, for example):
Nevada isn't there, not even close to "gone". Early voting is still going on as we speak, and no votes have been counted. The early voting stats do point to reps being ahead *at this point in time*.
There's a rather large part of me that believes we should make it illegal to report these kinds of numbers, because people inevitably try to use them to prove a point or panic or whatever and it accomplishes nothing.
There's value to the campaigns in having this information public; knowing where to focus GOTV operations, for example. But I definitely think it would quiet some irrationality.
Get real! Go for a long walk or switch to decaf, please! Give things time – here’s why:
We know that Clark County, the largest county in Nevada and Democratic stronghold, sent out their mail ballots later than most of the rest of the state. And Washoe County has been late with its vote counts due to a malfunction vote-counting/tabulating machine.
Both of these facts have been mentioned by Jon Ralston. So please don’t focus only on his journalistic hyperbole, which is of course designed to spark your interest and retain your attention!
Did he actually confirm the delay in Clark County ballots? The only place I’ve seen that mentioned is comments on here and have not found any confirmation. The last numbers I see in his blog is that Clark is running 3% behind its share of the vote and earlier reports put it on track.
The more likely explanation is that Republicans have embraced early voting. It’s possible these are new voters but seems unlikely and they are probably cannibalizing ED votes. Essentially the pattern has changed so dramatically that past firewalls / goalposts are meaningless. I think he stated something similar at the beginning of his blog.
Couldn’t that mean just a delay in posting of the results, I don’t think that is necessarily due to the rumor that ballots were delayed.
But again, even if they were delayed, Clark is voting just under their normal percentage. What in the numbers supports the idea that this alleged delay in ballots is causing Dem numbers to be low?
And just to be clear, I’m not advocating for panic or doom. I’m just pointing out that the idea that there was a delay in ballots has been reported on here, and only on here from what I can tell. I haven’t been able to verify it anywhere, and a quick glance at the numbers don’t give any indication that it is making a difference, even if it is true.
Edit to add: this is from his blog yesterday:
“There is no good news in these numbers for Dems, who are basing their hopes on a deluge of mail ballots coming in during the final days and perhaps the day or two after the election (They can be counted for four days after Nov. 5.) and a very favorable split among indies in urban Nevada.“
Since he states that Dems have to hope for deluge of mail ballots (which I don’t necessarily agree with), I think he would have added something to the effect of “which is likely because there was a week’s delay in Clark County residents receiving their ballots” if that were actually the case.
Yes this is what I was trying to conversate about yesterday although I didn't even say NV was gone yet haha
My main points are this:
1) 'Others' are voting now, same as both main parties and we still have the results we have.
2) I would suspect that Culinary Union would be mainly voting in person since their while shtick is that they give time off to vote. And we are losing in person votes a week into the process. So something is wrong here.
It's not panic speak to point this out. It is reality playing out in front of our eyes. Yes we still have two weeks to go. But the trend lines on the face of it do not look good. But I would not say yet that the state is over.
That said, I am pretty skeptical that suddenly the Others will wildly swing Democratic on election day when thus far they have failed to do so.
You do realize that Ralston isn't actually counting the votes right? Registered republicans have voted more than registered democrats. That's the "lead" Ralston speaks of. That specifically doesn't take into account how the independents are voting. In fact, we don't know how anyone is voting. Only that more republicans have voted than democrats. I'm a little concerned by some of these posts that folks don't understand what Ralston is doing. So independents don't necessarily need to "wildly swing" democratic on election day. They may already be wildly democratic voters.
Isn't it a pretty big ask to count on independents voting lopsidedly for Democrats this year? If there's been data backing up a huge Harris advantage among independents this cycle, I sure haven't seen it. And it certainly doesn't track with the 50-50 electorate that pretty much everybody is acknowledging.
Nevada’s NPAs seem to be largely a function of automatic registration passed in 2020 in tandem with the mail balloting law, and demographically their profile looks more D than R in terms of how you’d expect them to vote.
That said it’s a new concept in NV so hard to say. But you’d probably expect them to be more D than in other states where the choice to register I is more deliberate
Oh, I absolutely think that's fair. I'm not saying Dems are up, down or sideways in Nevada or anywhere else. I don't think anyone should be drawing any conclusions from very, very early voting data. But I get the sense that some people here actually think that republicans are leading by 4% or something. Not only is the cake far from being baked, it's completely unknowable what the vote is right now. But some people keep thinking Ralston knows who's actually leading. I'm just pointing out for those less experienced in all this that registered republicans have voted more than registered democrats at this time. But nobody knows what the vote is right now. Nobody knows how independents have voted. And nobody knows where we'll stand on election night (or much later in some cases).
What "50-50 electorate that pretty much everybody is acknowledging"? Saying Trump is supported by close to half the voting public doesn't mean it's 50-50. It could be 54-46 or 53-47. The latter result in particular wouldn't surprise me.
Its plausible. NV presidential vote has been drifting 2.5% to the right relative to the nation every four years since it peaked in 2008 ( almost exactly 2.5% each time). Last time it was 2% to the right of the nation. If the trend continued, then Harris would need to win nationally by more than Biden to win Nevada. But if thats the case then Nevada doesnt matter anyway.
So my a priori assumption was that Trump would win NV by something between 0 and 2%. This jibes with that, but who knows.
On the other hand - here's an interview with Ralston from a couple weeks back talking about how the changes in NV registration law and partisan voting patterns (mail vs early vs day of) talking about how the old reliable patterns he was able to track might not be meaningful this time around (in fact I think this is an issue all around - 2020 changed so much with respect to voting and now alot of it has changed again, that we cant really use early voting for any kind of prediction thats better than what the polls are saying.)
So who knows. Polling suggests a neck and neck race.
You bring up two great points. NV was always going to be a bit shaky with its consistent trend and it was also the one state where we saw a big loss in 2022 (and almost lost CCM)
But I’m glad you point out Ralston himself is trying to figure out how to interpret data in the new normal, and I’ve noticed he seems to hedge much more in his blog than in previous cycles.
This is what I think is odd. If Nevada is such a tossup or even leaning Republican in the presidential race, why have Republicans cut spending for House and Senate? The Dem incumbents all seem fine, but none strike me as exceptionally strong, and if Trump wins Nevada I wouldn't think it's at all unlikely for Republicans to win NV-3 or NV-4. And yet, House Republicans see very little hope there. It's just weird to me when the House as a whole is likely to be very close either way.
The House races, the Senate races and the Presidential all show completely different elections. House polls show a Lean D blue wave year. Senate polls show a Tilt D year. Presidential polls show a Tossup. I would be extremely surprised if these all didn’t consolidate to 1 story after the ballots are counted. Which one? Choose your own adventure.
I will say in general, I agree with Josh Marshall of TPM, polling is extremely confusing this year. Not only are there 3 different outcomes at various levels of federal office, but crosstabs are showing big shifts right among minority voters. That’s contradicted by the large sample size polls of these voters that show almost no change. Meanwhile both non-coll white voters (a little) and college educated white voters (a ton) have shifted left from 2020.
If Harris gains among white voters and large poll samples of minorities don’t show much (if any) of a shift right then just theoretically speaking you’d expect a better performance than Biden got in 2020 (assuming polls are true of course!). You’re also seeing a massive suburban shift left in House polls, which isn’t showing up in the presidential race polls.
I’m leaning towards the fact that most pollsters probably haven’t adjusted their models to Kamala Harris being the nominee instead of Joe Biden (which is kind of expected given 3 months from E-Day Biden dropped out. Probably not enough time to measure impact.
The other thing I’ve noticed, is 2024 depends on the electorate that shows up to vote. If it’s a R+ any amount this year, like many polls have modeled, Democrats are facing a wipeout because that hasn’t happened since Bush! Polls that are modeled around D+3 like 2020, show a 2020 race if not better. I’m very doubtful R’s turnout more than D’s (especially with Harris as nominee, with Biden they would have, no question) in 2024 since they didn’t in 2016 or 2020 with Trump on the ballot, but if they do, yeah Democrats are in trouble.
Please don't do this. There's a ton of anxiety out there right now, so doomerism (even when framed as a question) doesn't help anyone. I object to your question because no one can answer it the way you've presented it. Therefore, it just provokes further anxiety.
A fun next two weeks ahead with people stupidly doing this every day.
Having the right allowed on this website contrary to DK and re-allowing all former banned DK members back has really downgraded the conversations here. I have no problem with pessimists like Mark, he at least puts thoughts into his positions, even if I don’t agree. But this stuff? No.
Every day another one comes along with another derailment and argument. And it’s beyond obvious to anyone with eyes who is not willfully blind that some people are only here to make it a miserable time for the left. Wouldn’t be shocked if some are RRH people doing this on purpose. Warnings and bans should hopefully start coming soon imo. It’s getting out of control.
(UPDATE 8:30pm) More than 31.4 million people have already voted. Over 13.6 million Mail Ballots have been returned, while about 17.7 million people have voted Early In-Person.
Here are the vote totals so far, plus the 2024 Early Vote as a percentage of the Total 2020 Vote, for eight swing states:
GA 47.1% 2,364,666
NC 36.2% 2,007,659*
AZ 30.2% 1,032,284
FL 29.8% 3,325,254*
MI 24.1% 1,344,676•
NV 23.6% 408,835
WI 17.9% 592,902
PA 17.3% 1,203,577•
Other key states, three included because of vital Senate races:
MT 31.3% 191,395
VA 28.2% 1,276,099
TX 22.6% 2,563,564
OH 21.3% 1,270,308
(Vote totals and percentages are from Prof. Michael McDonald’s Election Project, which in turn are based on official reports from the various Secretaries of State. When I update, I’ll change my time-stamp. NB. Apologies for this not appearing as a well-ordered table. If anyone knows how to do that in an ordinary comment, please let me know.)
"One note about slow counts before I share a special treat: Washoe County has a backlog of thousands of mail ballots, as TV reporter/podcaster Ben Margiott reported, and there have been conflicting explanations. Not confidence-inspiring.
Meanwhile, Clark County’s early vote file is all messed up (thank goodness the SOS is getting the breakdowns for the data geeks) , labeling every voter as a nonpartisan and officials claiming it has always been thus. (Narrator: It has not always been thus.) Confidence-inspiring."
Margiott is a reporter for KRNV-TV, the NBC affiliate in Reno.
I'm already aware of Clark County sending out its mail ballots a week later than usual (I was not aware of their early vote file being a total mess until now), so there's several factors at play as to why early voting numbers (at least for now) favor Republicans.
As mentioned above, I don’t read that as evidence that there was a delay of a week in sending out the ballots. It seems like that would have been explicity stated and reported on somewhere.
Are you interpreting “post” as being received? I’m interpreting it as the numbers being released.
The weekend after 10/14 was 10/19-10/20, so that's already passed. Based on the data I'm seeing off Ralston's early voting blog, there isn't a massive lag in Clark mail ballot returns compared to other parts of Nevada, so there must not be a week delay in Clark sending out mail ballots.
As of this morning he stated a 17k lead for Republicans out of 409k ballots.
Edit to fix the numbers as I wasn’t including other parties. Actual numbers are 159384 to 140878 Dem ballots so more like an 18.5k lead for Republicans
"One caveat to the LV screen - it is self-reported - kinda old school. It would explain part of why there's such a large discrepancy. All I can say is that elements of this are pretty different from past final polls they've done, so something for everybody!"
"Vice President Kamala Harris held a 48% to 44% lead over former President Donald Trump among 794 registered Pennsylvania voters, F&M found. That falls within the poll’s 4.3% margin of error.
But among 583 likely voters — registered voters who said they’re “certain” to vote and are “very interested” in the election — she lost her lead. Half of respondents said they’d back Trump, compared to Harris’ 49%. The margin of error for likely voter data grew to 5%."
In other words, 25% of respondents were NOT considered to be a "Likely Voter" because they didn't answer with the highest level answer to BOTH questions. If you're certain to vote but not paying complete attention or if you're paying attention but only probably voting, you're not a "Likely Voter".
Selzer's likely voter screen is even simpler: are you certain to vote, or not? If so, LV. If not, no. I don't see the advantage to F&M of the double-screen with "very interested". One can be uninterested and still determined to vote.
Also note that F&M hasn't ever done this with an LV screen before. I have to wonder if it's an attempt to herd/cover their rear ends in case of a Trump win. I like the RV number of Harris +4, which is in line with the highest-quality polling in PA (NYT-Siena, Monmouth.)
I would call the "likely voter" screen Franklin & Marshall is using a "likely and enthusiastic voter" screen, or LEV. Regular non-enthusiastic voters who vote in every election but are never enthusiastic about it would probably lean fairly heavily Democratic, although that's a pure guestimate on my part.
When your LV sample size is 583 people in a state with 12 million (I know that not all of them are eligible to vote or registered)...I'd say this is statistically suspicious at best.
The RV sample used is consist to what F&M has used in the past, including their previous poll. This was the first poll where F&M created a LV model & it looks like a flop.
They are really stretching ways to not define a likely voter in the traditional manner (so they can't get dinged if the result is wrong). Filtering out people who say they are nearly certain to vote but not as "interested" in the election is goofy.
It would be a shorter list to document the media reports that have NOT referenced concern that Democratic base voters, particularly black men, are insufficiently engaged.
The evidence comes on November 6. That's true of basically everything we're speculating upon here. Your speculations are no more evidence-based than anybody else's.
Record breaking EV numbers is absolutely evidence. Yes, records are being broken because Republicans have also embraced early voting, but I haven’t seen many signs of a massive slow down in Dem early voting.
Actually, they're more often than not right. Remember when guys like you were breathlessly excoriating those sounding the alarm about the MAGA wave sweeping south Florida four years ago? Even if you don't, some of us do remember. So when the alarms are sounding about diminished enthusiasm among base voters, it might be useful to pay attention rather than whistle past graveyards.
They are not. "Guys like you," meaning people that haven't been off meaningfully for a national result since 2014 (when I was off by about a net 4 points)? The alarms are not sounding, the media just continues its trajectory towards ineptitude. I get that the base has fallen out for you locally (and perhaps your local media is even worse than most peoples'), and that's been reflected in your commentary over the past 15+ years, but that is not the case for the majority of the country.
There is 0 lethargy of the Dem base. They’re the most motivated since 2008!!!
I know you’re a pessimist, which is fine, but at least use factual arguments to back up your pov instead of complete nonsense that’s easily debunked with a 1 second google search.
You’re making 2 completely different arguments. And using an anecdote (Obama scolded black men once) to justify your opinion on something completely different (this is a REALLY easy way to lead you astray btw). Don’t use anecdotal evidence (good OR bad for Dems) to inform your opinions!
I’d have more respect for your argument if you just said you believe the small sample size crosstabs in polling despite large sample sizes of these specific demographics showing either a 2020 redux or slight (less than 5 points) shift right because at least then, there’s some actual evidence to backup your opinion.
I don’t know why he did it, but you’re making an assumption and that usually winds up badly for the person doing so. You’re also assuming (even if Obama did do it for the reasons you state) that his argument and state barnstorming will have 0 impact on these voters despite him winning the largest black share of the vote in recent memory. Another risky assumption to make.
You said there’s a lethargy among the Dem base, that is emphatically not true. Gallup hasn’t detected more D enthusiasm since 2008. The evidence in front of us also backs up that poll (volunteers, fundraising etc).
Do men of minority status have a chance to move right in 2024? Absolutely! That’s not what you said though. As we’ve seen over recent election cycles, polling for black voters severely underestimates Democrats in actual election results by a significant margin. Could that change this time? 100%! But given what’s happened before, I’m definitely not betting the farm on this change actually happening.
"All sampled respondents were notified by mail about the survey. Interviews were completed over the phone and online depending on each respondent’s preference."
The more I think about the methodology of this poll, the more I think that the likely voter screen might not have been needed at all. My wife, who is DEFINITELY going to vote, had to be convinced by me to scan the postcard QR code and complete the survey. Who other than a likely voter will take the effort to contact a pollster, as opposed to phone polls when they just responded after being contacted.
Another good day for the GOP. Another day of net gains in requests & cutting the return rate to 5.29%. Better late than never I guess.
A few milestones hit this morning including Allegheny hitting 150k total returns & Philadelphia hitting 100k Dem returns. Requests will probably hit 2 million this weekend with satellite offices open for business again in the bigger counties. The 390k firewall should hit Monday with a big weekend update.
I saw a stat on the app formerly known as Twitter that 42% of PA GOP early voters DID NOT vote early in 2024 while only 12% of Dem early voters also didn't. Does anyone know where that stat comes from to confirm this is true?
Here is some great analysis from Tom Bonier to complement Stephen Mikalik’s insights:
“To give you a sense of how the GOP moving voters from Election Day voting in 2020 to early voting this year is impacting our perception of the early vote, take a look at PA. At this point in 2020 the early (mail) vote was +52D. Which is sort of incredible.
“The current PA vote is +32D. Still very impressive, but a lot lower. Does this mean that the GOP has a massive intensity advantage? No, it means the GOP has just converted the vote mode of a lot of their voters. 43% of their early voters cast an Eday ballot in 2020.
“If we look at the partisanship of the early vote in PA, removing those who voted on Eday in 2020, it is +47D, a full 15 points higher than where it stands with the Eday voters included. Given that we expected Dems to pivot back to Eday to some extent, this is a bit surprising.”
Interesting that the mainstream media is going full red wave and peddling every "Democrats in disarray" story imaginable, yet most of the U.S. House ratings changes over the last couple of months or so have been in favor of Democrats...
The discussion accompanying these changes was interesting. Before making the changes, the two authors "made best guesses of the 18 Toss-ups, and then we compared notes. We both picked the Democrats to win a majority of the Toss-ups, with one of us coming out at 218-217 Republican, and the other coming out at 218-217 Democratic.” After making the four changes, the "ratings show just 7 Republican-held Toss-ups and 7 Democratic-held Toss-ups, for 14 total. The Republicans now have 212 seats at least leaning to them, and Democrats have 209. "
Also, the *really* red rurals are lower than this. There are counties like Kenosha and Racine that are lumped in this bucket, and those have higher turnout relatively speaking. Suburban Rs are voting. Not as sure about rural Rs.
Reposted from very late last night: A lot of the crosstabs on these polls are wack, but there was one that was potentially interesting: Harris led by 10-12 points in all three states among people who said they had already voted. The early vote data from GA and NC so far suggest a split close to 50-50. If (big if) Marist got even somewhat representative samples of people who have already voted, it suggests that Harris is going to do much better than you'd think just looking at the composition of the electorate. Is this off base?
This was discussed on the Discord server this morning and the consensus seems to be that the early vote crosstab is likely as wack as the other crosstabs and that we should not read too much into this.
I would agree with that consensus. GOP seems to be prioritizing EV more this cycle so that kind of stat would augur an absolutely absurd number of R defections or advantage with Indy’s.
But, hey, I’d love to be proven wrong! There was some other poll out there that said (nationally I think) Harris was at like 63% with people who’ve already voted so 🤷♂️
My sense is that Harris isn't leading the early vote in those states by anything like 10-12, but there's probably something there and she's maybe up 2-4. If she ends up getting a little more of the indie/crossover vote than expected, she probably wins the election with more of a cushion in the swing states than Biden had.
Trump significantly underperformed the polls in every single Republican primary except one. (Somehow that now seems entirely forgotten; what does that tell us about polling?) Consider the large percentage of Republican votes Nikki Haley continued to receive, even after she halted her campaign. Consider also how many more women are voting; the gender disparity is 9–10%. Consider the large margins by which every Abortion Referendum passed, even in the reddest states, and far exceeding polling predictions.
So the poll you are citing is entirely credible!
When all is said and done, I think 2024 will see a Pink Tsunami and a Blue Wave election.
Even the MD-Sen Democratic primary this year understated Alsobrooks's support against a more moderate candidate by a fairly significant margin, if I recall correctly.
I expect that was mostly an issue of advertising. Trone had tons of money and blanketed the air waves and mailboxes (I think I got full pagers from him even back into 2023). But Alsobrooks had the support of most of the MD Dem establishment.
Marist is the first one I've seen. I'd be inclined to put more stock in their result if we had seen three firms come up with the same result in one state, as opposed to one firm using the same method in three states and coming up with the same result in each of them.
A lot of the repubs voting early are the repubs who are defecting from trump and either voting for Kamala Harris or someone else. So, feel better now!!!
Have you seen any analysis of how many Republicans would have to be voting for Harris in order to line up with those responses for the already voted folks? Would be really interesting to see how that lines up with Haley’s share of the vote.
A couple of crappy national polls for Harris came out today: WSJ has Trump +3 and CNBC Trump +2. But...both show an R+4 generic ballot. Adjusting for uncontested races, the aggregate House vote was about D+3 in 2020 and R+2 in 2022. Absolutely no House or Senate campaigns anywhere in the country are acting like the environment is 2 points better for the GOP than the midterm was. The vast majority of them are acting like the environment is very close to 2020. I guess they get points for not herding, but I would be shocked if Trump wins the popular vote.
Fabrizio is one of Trump's pollsters (along with McLaughlin), so Fabrizio is doing polling for both the WSJ (with GBAO) and the Trump campaign (with McLaughlin).
They're still a for profit business so it's wild they're sticking their neck out showing a 3 point Trump national lead. As long as republicans will pay for their services regardless, maybe they don't care.
It's Ojibwe. Lots of cities in Wisconsin and Minnesota have names borrowed from the Ojibwe. Similarly Wausau Wisconsin has the same first symbol pronunciation as Waukesha. The middle syllable of Milwaukee is the same too. It's a common sound in the Algonquain language family, which also include Chippewa and Potawatome as well as Ojibwe. Even as a local I struggle to get some of the more difficult words off my tongue, though I know how they sound. Oconomowoc Wisconsin comes to mind.
Native Racinian here. They are pronouced WAW-kuh-shaw and oh-CAH-nuh-muh-wawk. Where WAW rhymes with saw, maw, draw. Occasionally you'll hear a minor stress on the last syllable: WAW-kuh-Shaw.
I've never heard anything like WAH-kah-shaw, Henrik got some odd guidance.
Totally fair. I did for a long time, too. Being from MN, one day I had a lightbulb moment that OGGoldy mentions. We don’t talk like that here. Learn your Ojibwe.
Sorry if this isn't election based enough of a comment, but the Kelly/Mattis statements are really the most damning thing I've ever seen in US politics...The Atlantic says it likely doesn't make any difference because Trump's cult wants him to behave like a Nazi. But I have to believe there's SOME common decency left in the Republican party to think this is a bridge too far...enough to move the needle? I guess we'll see...
Naah. Look at center of the party no name dudes ike Doug Burgum going on national TV to defend Trump against this stuff. They are all in on it. To quote the beautiful and terrible Galadriel - The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.
I mean, I know you're right unfortunately...but then I see things like Mike Turner saying we need to do more to defend Ukraine...like what does he think is going to happen if his guy gets in office?! The collective insanity of almost 50% of this country is unreal. Then again, Rome had many civil wars...so far we only have had 1 so I guess we are due.
The only voters who MAY be convinced by this, are Haley voters in the primary. A very important subsection of voters that aren’t talked about enough and could play a pivotal role. Trump likely wins a majority of them, but the more of those Harris can flip, the better her chances in the election. Could help at the margins. Definitely doesn’t hurt, regardless.
TIPP's tracking poll has Harris +2 in yesterday's sample, with is a two-point net gain compared to 10/22 and four-point net gain compared to 10/20; we'll have to wait to see if there's a clear pro-Harris trend from a very right-wing pollster (they brag about being one of the most accurate pollsters in 2016 or 2020, but that's because nearly everyone else drastically overestimated Democratic support both times).
Anyone remember CNN's Gallup tracking poll in 2000? Gore up 12 then two days later Bush up 8, then a tie....I can't believe i thought that was accurate, what a joke.
When I think of "very right wing pollster", TIPP doesn't even come to mind. Trafalgar, InsiderAdvantage, Rasmussen are all substantially more R leaning.
The articles on their site definitely qualify as very right-wing. Their polling seemed mostly on the level until they came out with that 'Philly stays home' likely voter screen.
They have teamed up with “American Greatness” on state polls, which does give me pause. But they’ve had a good track record on the popular vote the last couple of elections.
Post script to the subthread about the New York ballot propositions yesterday: Email from NY Civil Liberties Union:
Almost time to vote "YES" on Prop 1, "NO" on Props 2-6!
Vote "YES" on Prop 1
Prop 1 is New York's Equal Rights Amendment. Prop 1 will close loopholes in our State Constitution to protect abortion and full equality, so that no politician can get between New Yorkers and our freedoms.[snip the rest because it's uncontroversial for anyone who's socially liberal]
Vote "NO" on Props 2-6
Mayor Adams is attempting an undemocratic ploy to weaken checks and balances in New York City and make it harder to hold police and correction officers accountable. He's pushing five proposals that will be on the ballot in New York City this November.
Proposals 2-6 would expand the Mayor's power at the expense of everyday New Yorkers. They would make it much harder for the City Councilmembers we elect to represent the will of the people. Props 2-6 significantly change New York City's Charter, which is our city's constitution, to weaken checks and balances. They would consolidate more power – with less accountability – in the hands of the Mayor and his appointees.
The proposals would upend the separation of powers in City government and empower the Mayor and agencies like the NYPD and Department of Correction to derail the City Council's legislative process. This will make it even harder than it already is for the Council to pass laws that benefit New Yorkers, deliver badly-needed oversight and accountability, and properly review the Mayor's appointees.
About Zohran Mamdani and Jim Walden, who are mentioned in the digest as having entered the 2025 New York City Mayor's race: I've never heard of them (or had never heard of Mamdani until his name was mentioned yesterday), so that lack of name-recogjnition alone is likely to make them also-rans, though I'd give someone toward the right more of a chance than someone anti-Israel, who I think has no chance to win a citywide position in New York, the city with the largest Jewish population in the world.
So is NV gone?
Huh? Was Las Vegas nuked overnight or something?
Last I checked, Nevada was still there.
Can we please stop doing this with every Jon Ralston update?
It doesn’t look good.
We don't know that, and I really wish people would stop trying to make such confident predictions based on extremely limited information.
Linking to his (Ralston's) actual tweets/blogs would be helpful.
https://nitter.poast.org/RalstonReports/status/1849431497394344123#m
Yes, reps are leading. And still he says "Mail is keeping Dems in the game". This is not over. Don't surrender.
And it's not just about registered Rs vs. Ds. Indies are disproportionately young and will favor Harris.
Yes, good time to remind others that new voters are defaulted to No Party unless they opt in to one specifically.
The graph I'm linking to below shows how the non-major party voters in Clark County skew young (it appears an outright majority of Gen-Z voters in Clark are not registered with one of the major parties, for example):
https://x.com/Andy_Bloch/status/1848828684985323879
No one is surrendering. I think it's fair to ask on an elections website if a race is too far gone or not based on available data.
Nevada isn't there, not even close to "gone". Early voting is still going on as we speak, and no votes have been counted. The early voting stats do point to reps being ahead *at this point in time*.
Why not wait for people to vote before deciding what the results are?
There's a rather large part of me that believes we should make it illegal to report these kinds of numbers, because people inevitably try to use them to prove a point or panic or whatever and it accomplishes nothing.
There's value to the campaigns in having this information public; knowing where to focus GOTV operations, for example. But I definitely think it would quiet some irrationality.
The next really meaningful poll is the ballot count after election day, and I haven't started looking at property in Spain yet. /s
Get real! Go for a long walk or switch to decaf, please! Give things time – here’s why:
We know that Clark County, the largest county in Nevada and Democratic stronghold, sent out their mail ballots later than most of the rest of the state. And Washoe County has been late with its vote counts due to a malfunction vote-counting/tabulating machine.
Both of these facts have been mentioned by Jon Ralston. So please don’t focus only on his journalistic hyperbole, which is of course designed to spark your interest and retain your attention!
PS. Please see Aaron’s more detailed post.
Did he actually confirm the delay in Clark County ballots? The only place I’ve seen that mentioned is comments on here and have not found any confirmation. The last numbers I see in his blog is that Clark is running 3% behind its share of the vote and earlier reports put it on track.
The more likely explanation is that Republicans have embraced early voting. It’s possible these are new voters but seems unlikely and they are probably cannibalizing ED votes. Essentially the pattern has changed so dramatically that past firewalls / goalposts are meaningless. I think he stated something similar at the beginning of his blog.
Ralston already suspects Republicans are cannibalizing their ED vote.
"Still can't tell much until Clark mail starts to post, but that may not happen until the weekend."
– Jon Ralston, Early Voting Blog in the Nevada Independent, report from 10/14:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2024
Couldn’t that mean just a delay in posting of the results, I don’t think that is necessarily due to the rumor that ballots were delayed.
But again, even if they were delayed, Clark is voting just under their normal percentage. What in the numbers supports the idea that this alleged delay in ballots is causing Dem numbers to be low?
And just to be clear, I’m not advocating for panic or doom. I’m just pointing out that the idea that there was a delay in ballots has been reported on here, and only on here from what I can tell. I haven’t been able to verify it anywhere, and a quick glance at the numbers don’t give any indication that it is making a difference, even if it is true.
Edit to add: this is from his blog yesterday:
“There is no good news in these numbers for Dems, who are basing their hopes on a deluge of mail ballots coming in during the final days and perhaps the day or two after the election (They can be counted for four days after Nov. 5.) and a very favorable split among indies in urban Nevada.“
Since he states that Dems have to hope for deluge of mail ballots (which I don’t necessarily agree with), I think he would have added something to the effect of “which is likely because there was a week’s delay in Clark County residents receiving their ballots” if that were actually the case.
Yes this is what I was trying to conversate about yesterday although I didn't even say NV was gone yet haha
My main points are this:
1) 'Others' are voting now, same as both main parties and we still have the results we have.
2) I would suspect that Culinary Union would be mainly voting in person since their while shtick is that they give time off to vote. And we are losing in person votes a week into the process. So something is wrong here.
It's not panic speak to point this out. It is reality playing out in front of our eyes. Yes we still have two weeks to go. But the trend lines on the face of it do not look good. But I would not say yet that the state is over.
That said, I am pretty skeptical that suddenly the Others will wildly swing Democratic on election day when thus far they have failed to do so.
You do realize that Ralston isn't actually counting the votes right? Registered republicans have voted more than registered democrats. That's the "lead" Ralston speaks of. That specifically doesn't take into account how the independents are voting. In fact, we don't know how anyone is voting. Only that more republicans have voted than democrats. I'm a little concerned by some of these posts that folks don't understand what Ralston is doing. So independents don't necessarily need to "wildly swing" democratic on election day. They may already be wildly democratic voters.
Isn't it a pretty big ask to count on independents voting lopsidedly for Democrats this year? If there's been data backing up a huge Harris advantage among independents this cycle, I sure haven't seen it. And it certainly doesn't track with the 50-50 electorate that pretty much everybody is acknowledging.
Nevada’s NPAs seem to be largely a function of automatic registration passed in 2020 in tandem with the mail balloting law, and demographically their profile looks more D than R in terms of how you’d expect them to vote.
That said it’s a new concept in NV so hard to say. But you’d probably expect them to be more D than in other states where the choice to register I is more deliberate
Oh, I absolutely think that's fair. I'm not saying Dems are up, down or sideways in Nevada or anywhere else. I don't think anyone should be drawing any conclusions from very, very early voting data. But I get the sense that some people here actually think that republicans are leading by 4% or something. Not only is the cake far from being baked, it's completely unknowable what the vote is right now. But some people keep thinking Ralston knows who's actually leading. I'm just pointing out for those less experienced in all this that registered republicans have voted more than registered democrats at this time. But nobody knows what the vote is right now. Nobody knows how independents have voted. And nobody knows where we'll stand on election night (or much later in some cases).
What "50-50 electorate that pretty much everybody is acknowledging"? Saying Trump is supported by close to half the voting public doesn't mean it's 50-50. It could be 54-46 or 53-47. The latter result in particular wouldn't surprise me.
Dems usually lose the IP EV. That is not unusual. In 2020 and 2022, the mail vote cancelled it out and then some.
Its plausible. NV presidential vote has been drifting 2.5% to the right relative to the nation every four years since it peaked in 2008 ( almost exactly 2.5% each time). Last time it was 2% to the right of the nation. If the trend continued, then Harris would need to win nationally by more than Biden to win Nevada. But if thats the case then Nevada doesnt matter anyway.
So my a priori assumption was that Trump would win NV by something between 0 and 2%. This jibes with that, but who knows.
On the other hand - here's an interview with Ralston from a couple weeks back talking about how the changes in NV registration law and partisan voting patterns (mail vs early vs day of) talking about how the old reliable patterns he was able to track might not be meaningful this time around (in fact I think this is an issue all around - 2020 changed so much with respect to voting and now alot of it has changed again, that we cant really use early voting for any kind of prediction thats better than what the polls are saying.)
So who knows. Polling suggests a neck and neck race.
Edit: link to the Ralston article (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/why-the-2024-election-in-nevada-is-so-hard-to-predict.html)
You bring up two great points. NV was always going to be a bit shaky with its consistent trend and it was also the one state where we saw a big loss in 2022 (and almost lost CCM)
But I’m glad you point out Ralston himself is trying to figure out how to interpret data in the new normal, and I’ve noticed he seems to hedge much more in his blog than in previous cycles.
Also re: tea leaves, spending decisions by the other commitees on both sides don't indicate NV is in play.
This is what I think is odd. If Nevada is such a tossup or even leaning Republican in the presidential race, why have Republicans cut spending for House and Senate? The Dem incumbents all seem fine, but none strike me as exceptionally strong, and if Trump wins Nevada I wouldn't think it's at all unlikely for Republicans to win NV-3 or NV-4. And yet, House Republicans see very little hope there. It's just weird to me when the House as a whole is likely to be very close either way.
This perplexes me too.
The House races, the Senate races and the Presidential all show completely different elections. House polls show a Lean D blue wave year. Senate polls show a Tilt D year. Presidential polls show a Tossup. I would be extremely surprised if these all didn’t consolidate to 1 story after the ballots are counted. Which one? Choose your own adventure.
I will say in general, I agree with Josh Marshall of TPM, polling is extremely confusing this year. Not only are there 3 different outcomes at various levels of federal office, but crosstabs are showing big shifts right among minority voters. That’s contradicted by the large sample size polls of these voters that show almost no change. Meanwhile both non-coll white voters (a little) and college educated white voters (a ton) have shifted left from 2020.
If Harris gains among white voters and large poll samples of minorities don’t show much (if any) of a shift right then just theoretically speaking you’d expect a better performance than Biden got in 2020 (assuming polls are true of course!). You’re also seeing a massive suburban shift left in House polls, which isn’t showing up in the presidential race polls.
I’m leaning towards the fact that most pollsters probably haven’t adjusted their models to Kamala Harris being the nominee instead of Joe Biden (which is kind of expected given 3 months from E-Day Biden dropped out. Probably not enough time to measure impact.
The other thing I’ve noticed, is 2024 depends on the electorate that shows up to vote. If it’s a R+ any amount this year, like many polls have modeled, Democrats are facing a wipeout because that hasn’t happened since Bush! Polls that are modeled around D+3 like 2020, show a 2020 race if not better. I’m very doubtful R’s turnout more than D’s (especially with Harris as nominee, with Biden they would have, no question) in 2024 since they didn’t in 2016 or 2020 with Trump on the ballot, but if they do, yeah Democrats are in trouble.
Please don't do this. There's a ton of anxiety out there right now, so doomerism (even when framed as a question) doesn't help anyone. I object to your question because no one can answer it the way you've presented it. Therefore, it just provokes further anxiety.
How is it possibly gone 12 days before the election?
A fun next two weeks ahead with people stupidly doing this every day.
Having the right allowed on this website contrary to DK and re-allowing all former banned DK members back has really downgraded the conversations here. I have no problem with pessimists like Mark, he at least puts thoughts into his positions, even if I don’t agree. But this stuff? No.
Every day another one comes along with another derailment and argument. And it’s beyond obvious to anyone with eyes who is not willfully blind that some people are only here to make it a miserable time for the left. Wouldn’t be shocked if some are RRH people doing this on purpose. Warnings and bans should hopefully start coming soon imo. It’s getting out of control.
past time to give you doomerism a long vacation!
EARLY VOTE – KEY STATES
(UPDATE 8:30pm) More than 31.4 million people have already voted. Over 13.6 million Mail Ballots have been returned, while about 17.7 million people have voted Early In-Person.
Here are the vote totals so far, plus the 2024 Early Vote as a percentage of the Total 2020 Vote, for eight swing states:
GA 47.1% 2,364,666
NC 36.2% 2,007,659*
AZ 30.2% 1,032,284
FL 29.8% 3,325,254*
MI 24.1% 1,344,676•
NV 23.6% 408,835
WI 17.9% 592,902
PA 17.3% 1,203,577•
Other key states, three included because of vital Senate races:
MT 31.3% 191,395
VA 28.2% 1,276,099
TX 22.6% 2,563,564
OH 21.3% 1,270,308
(Vote totals and percentages are from Prof. Michael McDonald’s Election Project, which in turn are based on official reports from the various Secretaries of State. When I update, I’ll change my time-stamp. NB. Apologies for this not appearing as a well-ordered table. If anyone knows how to do that in an ordinary comment, please let me know.)
https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/
Interesting note about Nevada early voting:
"One note about slow counts before I share a special treat: Washoe County has a backlog of thousands of mail ballots, as TV reporter/podcaster Ben Margiott reported, and there have been conflicting explanations. Not confidence-inspiring.
Meanwhile, Clark County’s early vote file is all messed up (thank goodness the SOS is getting the breakdowns for the data geeks) , labeling every voter as a nonpartisan and officials claiming it has always been thus. (Narrator: It has not always been thus.) Confidence-inspiring."
Source: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2024
Margiott is a reporter for KRNV-TV, the NBC affiliate in Reno.
I'm already aware of Clark County sending out its mail ballots a week later than usual (I was not aware of their early vote file being a total mess until now), so there's several factors at play as to why early voting numbers (at least for now) favor Republicans.
Great details,! You posted while I was writing my briefer response to OceanBlaze’s panic.
Source for the Clark County mail ballot delay?
From Jon Ralston’s Early Voting Blog in the Nevada Independent, report from 10/14:
"Still can't tell much until Clark mail starts to post, but that may not happen until the weekend."
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2024
As mentioned above, I don’t read that as evidence that there was a delay of a week in sending out the ballots. It seems like that would have been explicity stated and reported on somewhere.
Are you interpreting “post” as being received? I’m interpreting it as the numbers being released.
I did, but admit it’s ambiguous.
The weekend after 10/14 was 10/19-10/20, so that's already passed. Based on the data I'm seeing off Ralston's early voting blog, there isn't a massive lag in Clark mail ballot returns compared to other parts of Nevada, so there must not be a week delay in Clark sending out mail ballots.
I stand corrected.
Thank you guys
What is the actual republican lead in numbers? Ralston says 4.5%
As of this morning he stated a 17k lead for Republicans out of 409k ballots.
Edit to fix the numbers as I wasn’t including other parties. Actual numbers are 159384 to 140878 Dem ballots so more like an 18.5k lead for Republicans
Pennsylvania: FINAL pre-election poll from Franklin & Marshall (@FandMPoll).
🦅 POTUS
– RVs: 48-44 Harris
– LVs: 50-49 Trump
– Harris+4/Trump+1
🏛️ PA SEN
–RVs: 49-42 Casey
– LVs: 49-48 Casey
Casey+7/Casey+1
Very wild difference between the LV and RV screens. Interesting.
https://nitter.poast.org/blockedfreq/status/1849310967680606348#m
"One caveat to the LV screen - it is self-reported - kinda old school. It would explain part of why there's such a large discrepancy. All I can say is that elements of this are pretty different from past final polls they've done, so something for everybody!"
"Vice President Kamala Harris held a 48% to 44% lead over former President Donald Trump among 794 registered Pennsylvania voters, F&M found. That falls within the poll’s 4.3% margin of error.
But among 583 likely voters — registered voters who said they’re “certain” to vote and are “very interested” in the election — she lost her lead. Half of respondents said they’d back Trump, compared to Harris’ 49%. The margin of error for likely voter data grew to 5%."
https://lancasteronline.com/news/politics/voter-turnout-could-be-the-deciding-factor-on-election-day-latest-f-m-poll-finds/article_8a30230c-917f-11ef-b662-03670c378bcf.html
In other words, 25% of respondents were NOT considered to be a "Likely Voter" because they didn't answer with the highest level answer to BOTH questions. If you're certain to vote but not paying complete attention or if you're paying attention but only probably voting, you're not a "Likely Voter".
Selzer's likely voter screen is even simpler: are you certain to vote, or not? If so, LV. If not, no. I don't see the advantage to F&M of the double-screen with "very interested". One can be uninterested and still determined to vote.
Also note that F&M hasn't ever done this with an LV screen before. I have to wonder if it's an attempt to herd/cover their rear ends in case of a Trump win. I like the RV number of Harris +4, which is in line with the highest-quality polling in PA (NYT-Siena, Monmouth.)
"F&M hasn't ever done this with an LV screen before. "
Really? They just polled registered voters?
That isn't as silly as what TIPP did, but the resulting RV/LV gap is no more believable.
Calling what TIPP did last week "silly" is kind.
I would call the "likely voter" screen Franklin & Marshall is using a "likely and enthusiastic voter" screen, or LEV. Regular non-enthusiastic voters who vote in every election but are never enthusiastic about it would probably lean fairly heavily Democratic, although that's a pure guestimate on my part.
With that explanation, the reversal of that also shows the potential size of Trump's cult.
When your LV sample size is 583 people in a state with 12 million (I know that not all of them are eligible to vote or registered)...I'd say this is statistically suspicious at best.
The RV sample used is consist to what F&M has used in the past, including their previous poll. This was the first poll where F&M created a LV model & it looks like a flop.
They are really stretching ways to not define a likely voter in the traditional manner (so they can't get dinged if the result is wrong). Filtering out people who say they are nearly certain to vote but not as "interested" in the election is goofy.
Yes. Certain to vote and likely voters are not one and the same.
Likely voter numbers perhaps consistent with the reported lethargy among the Democratic base.
Reported where? When EV numbers are breaking records everywhere I have trouble taking the idea of lethargy on either side seriously.
It would be a shorter list to document the media reports that have NOT referenced concern that Democratic base voters, particularly black men, are insufficiently engaged.
Well, yes, there are plenty of “concerns”. There are always concerns. What there isn’t is any actual evidence.
The evidence comes on November 6. That's true of basically everything we're speculating upon here. Your speculations are no more evidence-based than anybody else's.
Record breaking EV numbers is absolutely evidence. Yes, records are being broken because Republicans have also embraced early voting, but I haven’t seen many signs of a massive slow down in Dem early voting.
And those media reports have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS been meaningless. Is it really that impossible for you to tune them out?
Actually, they're more often than not right. Remember when guys like you were breathlessly excoriating those sounding the alarm about the MAGA wave sweeping south Florida four years ago? Even if you don't, some of us do remember. So when the alarms are sounding about diminished enthusiasm among base voters, it might be useful to pay attention rather than whistle past graveyards.
They are not. "Guys like you," meaning people that haven't been off meaningfully for a national result since 2014 (when I was off by about a net 4 points)? The alarms are not sounding, the media just continues its trajectory towards ineptitude. I get that the base has fallen out for you locally (and perhaps your local media is even worse than most peoples'), and that's been reflected in your commentary over the past 15+ years, but that is not the case for the majority of the country.
Black men have with maybe the exception of 2008 and 2012, always been the least enthused part of the Democratic base.
I would assume they're basing their models on more recent cycles, particularly 2020. And probably just word of mouth from the canvassers.
There is 0 lethargy of the Dem base. They’re the most motivated since 2008!!!
I know you’re a pessimist, which is fine, but at least use factual arguments to back up your pov instead of complete nonsense that’s easily debunked with a 1 second google search.
So Obama lectured black men for being insufficiently motivated just for the fun of it?
You’re making 2 completely different arguments. And using an anecdote (Obama scolded black men once) to justify your opinion on something completely different (this is a REALLY easy way to lead you astray btw). Don’t use anecdotal evidence (good OR bad for Dems) to inform your opinions!
I’d have more respect for your argument if you just said you believe the small sample size crosstabs in polling despite large sample sizes of these specific demographics showing either a 2020 redux or slight (less than 5 points) shift right because at least then, there’s some actual evidence to backup your opinion.
I don’t know why he did it, but you’re making an assumption and that usually winds up badly for the person doing so. You’re also assuming (even if Obama did do it for the reasons you state) that his argument and state barnstorming will have 0 impact on these voters despite him winning the largest black share of the vote in recent memory. Another risky assumption to make.
You said there’s a lethargy among the Dem base, that is emphatically not true. Gallup hasn’t detected more D enthusiasm since 2008. The evidence in front of us also backs up that poll (volunteers, fundraising etc).
Do men of minority status have a chance to move right in 2024? Absolutely! That’s not what you said though. As we’ve seen over recent election cycles, polling for black voters severely underestimates Democrats in actual election results by a significant margin. Could that change this time? 100%! But given what’s happened before, I’m definitely not betting the farm on this change actually happening.
what "reported lethargy" are you creating in your pessimistic mind...good grief too much "sky is falling" crap going on here.
Interesting side note:
My wife responded to this survey. She received a postcard in the mail with a QR code on it. She scanned it and responded to the survey online.
From the methodology section:
"All sampled respondents were notified by mail about the survey. Interviews were completed over the phone and online depending on each respondent’s preference."
The more I think about the methodology of this poll, the more I think that the likely voter screen might not have been needed at all. My wife, who is DEFINITELY going to vote, had to be convinced by me to scan the postcard QR code and complete the survey. Who other than a likely voter will take the effort to contact a pollster, as opposed to phone polls when they just responded after being contacted.
Thursday's PA Mail-In Ballot Update is in.
41,215 new requests, R+4,202. Overall request advantage now down to D+509,742
84,554 ballot returns, D+9,442. Overall ballot advantage now D+366,092
24k short of the (once) popular firewall, 84k below my firewall
Total Requests:
D - 1,107,350 (56.91%)
R - 597,608 (30.71%)
O - 241,002 (12.38%)
Total - 1,945,960
Total Returns:
D - 726,619 (65.62% return rate)
R - 360,527 (60.33%)
O - 120,917 (50.17%)
Total - 1,208,063
Another good day for the GOP. Another day of net gains in requests & cutting the return rate to 5.29%. Better late than never I guess.
A few milestones hit this morning including Allegheny hitting 150k total returns & Philadelphia hitting 100k Dem returns. Requests will probably hit 2 million this weekend with satellite offices open for business again in the bigger counties. The 390k firewall should hit Monday with a big weekend update.
I saw a stat on the app formerly known as Twitter that 42% of PA GOP early voters DID NOT vote early in 2024 while only 12% of Dem early voters also didn't. Does anyone know where that stat comes from to confirm this is true?
That stat seems too good to be true for us but I’ve seen other analysis suggesting the GOP is cannibalizing at least some of their E-Day vote
PA dem firewall: today 366K, projection for election day: 449K
TargetEarly says that, but it's a few days behind. https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2024?calc_type=voteShare&demo_filters=%5B%7B%22key%22%3A%22registeredParty%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22All%22%7D%5D&state=PA&view_type=state&vote_mode=1
Ok. There must be some report that I'm unaware exists in order to figure this out.
Here is some great analysis from Tom Bonier to complement Stephen Mikalik’s insights:
“To give you a sense of how the GOP moving voters from Election Day voting in 2020 to early voting this year is impacting our perception of the early vote, take a look at PA. At this point in 2020 the early (mail) vote was +52D. Which is sort of incredible.
“The current PA vote is +32D. Still very impressive, but a lot lower. Does this mean that the GOP has a massive intensity advantage? No, it means the GOP has just converted the vote mode of a lot of their voters. 43% of their early voters cast an Eday ballot in 2020.
“If we look at the partisanship of the early vote in PA, removing those who voted on Eday in 2020, it is +47D, a full 15 points higher than where it stands with the Eday voters included. Given that we expected Dems to pivot back to Eday to some extent, this is a bit surprising.”
– Tom Bonier, TargetSmart
https://nitter.poast.org/tbonier/status/1849433757264003249#m
Crystal Ball ratings changes all favor Democrats.
Davis NC 1, Sykes OH 13, wild PA 7 from Tossup to Lean D.
Valadao CA 22 to Lean R
Actually, CA-22 is a shift in favor of the R.
Interesting that the mainstream media is going full red wave and peddling every "Democrats in disarray" story imaginable, yet most of the U.S. House ratings changes over the last couple of months or so have been in favor of Democrats...
The discussion accompanying these changes was interesting. Before making the changes, the two authors "made best guesses of the 18 Toss-ups, and then we compared notes. We both picked the Democrats to win a majority of the Toss-ups, with one of us coming out at 218-217 Republican, and the other coming out at 218-217 Democratic.” After making the four changes, the "ratings show just 7 Republican-held Toss-ups and 7 Democratic-held Toss-ups, for 14 total. The Republicans now have 212 seats at least leaning to them, and Democrats have 209. "
WI update. Total statewide turnout now up to 22%, or roughly 24% of 2020.
WOW: 32% of 2020
Dane: 30% of 2020
Fox Cities: 25% of 2020
Milwaukee: 23% of 2020
Red rurals: roughly 20-21% of 2020
Also, the *really* red rurals are lower than this. There are counties like Kenosha and Racine that are lumped in this bucket, and those have higher turnout relatively speaking. Suburban Rs are voting. Not as sure about rural Rs.
I’d imagine rural Rs are probably a more E-Day friendly cohort?
Yeah, that's also what I'd guess.
Thus far, nothing in the early voting has made me change my views about how the election will go.
And I don't expect that to change before Election Day.
Remind me how you expect it to go?
Elderly golfer in Florida has cardiac arrest?
and what are your views? thanks
Reposted from very late last night: A lot of the crosstabs on these polls are wack, but there was one that was potentially interesting: Harris led by 10-12 points in all three states among people who said they had already voted. The early vote data from GA and NC so far suggest a split close to 50-50. If (big if) Marist got even somewhat representative samples of people who have already voted, it suggests that Harris is going to do much better than you'd think just looking at the composition of the electorate. Is this off base?
This was discussed on the Discord server this morning and the consensus seems to be that the early vote crosstab is likely as wack as the other crosstabs and that we should not read too much into this.
I would agree with that consensus. GOP seems to be prioritizing EV more this cycle so that kind of stat would augur an absolutely absurd number of R defections or advantage with Indy’s.
But, hey, I’d love to be proven wrong! There was some other poll out there that said (nationally I think) Harris was at like 63% with people who’ve already voted so 🤷♂️
My sense is that Harris isn't leading the early vote in those states by anything like 10-12, but there's probably something there and she's maybe up 2-4. If she ends up getting a little more of the indie/crossover vote than expected, she probably wins the election with more of a cushion in the swing states than Biden had.
Fair. And an admittedly low bar to clear - Harris could win WI by a point and be more than doubling Biden’s margin there!
Trump significantly underperformed the polls in every single Republican primary except one. (Somehow that now seems entirely forgotten; what does that tell us about polling?) Consider the large percentage of Republican votes Nikki Haley continued to receive, even after she halted her campaign. Consider also how many more women are voting; the gender disparity is 9–10%. Consider the large margins by which every Abortion Referendum passed, even in the reddest states, and far exceeding polling predictions.
So the poll you are citing is entirely credible!
When all is said and done, I think 2024 will see a Pink Tsunami and a Blue Wave election.
Even the MD-Sen Democratic primary this year understated Alsobrooks's support against a more moderate candidate by a fairly significant margin, if I recall correctly.
I expect that was mostly an issue of advertising. Trone had tons of money and blanketed the air waves and mailboxes (I think I got full pagers from him even back into 2023). But Alsobrooks had the support of most of the MD Dem establishment.
QUESTION: Do we have other polls from swing states that filter people who already voted and specifically ask them HOW they voted?
Marist is the first one I've seen. I'd be inclined to put more stock in their result if we had seen three firms come up with the same result in one state, as opposed to one firm using the same method in three states and coming up with the same result in each of them.
A lot of the repubs voting early are the repubs who are defecting from trump and either voting for Kamala Harris or someone else. So, feel better now!!!
I mean, that's possible, but we have no more evidence of that than anything else that's been claimed in this thread.
We have some evidence from those Marist polls but I'm not sure how much weight we should put on them.
Have you seen any analysis of how many Republicans would have to be voting for Harris in order to line up with those responses for the already voted folks? Would be really interesting to see how that lines up with Haley’s share of the vote.
I’d be interested in such analysis, too.
That seems like copium more than anything else, unfortunately.
Interesting theory. Hope it proves true.
A couple of crappy national polls for Harris came out today: WSJ has Trump +3 and CNBC Trump +2. But...both show an R+4 generic ballot. Adjusting for uncontested races, the aggregate House vote was about D+3 in 2020 and R+2 in 2022. Absolutely no House or Senate campaigns anywhere in the country are acting like the environment is 2 points better for the GOP than the midterm was. The vast majority of them are acting like the environment is very close to 2020. I guess they get points for not herding, but I would be shocked if Trump wins the popular vote.
Who are the pollsters?
WSJ is Fabrizio/GBAO and CNBC is Hart/POS. Both of those are one GOP and one Dem firm.
Fabrizio is one of Trump's pollsters (along with McLaughlin), so Fabrizio is doing polling for both the WSJ (with GBAO) and the Trump campaign (with McLaughlin).
They're still a for profit business so it's wild they're sticking their neck out showing a 3 point Trump national lead. As long as republicans will pay for their services regardless, maybe they don't care.
Yes. If the generic vote is R +4 it would be no surprise that Trump is leading.
And with those two sponsors, tax cut loving Wall Street has weighed in.
I was today years old when I found out Waukesha is pronounced Waka-shaw - I’d always thought it was Waw-Kesha lol
i think it’s subconsciously from the Swingstate days when people referred to the county as Wauke$ha after the singer at the time.
That’s definitely where my mind went haha
It's Ojibwe. Lots of cities in Wisconsin and Minnesota have names borrowed from the Ojibwe. Similarly Wausau Wisconsin has the same first symbol pronunciation as Waukesha. The middle syllable of Milwaukee is the same too. It's a common sound in the Algonquain language family, which also include Chippewa and Potawatome as well as Ojibwe. Even as a local I struggle to get some of the more difficult words off my tongue, though I know how they sound. Oconomowoc Wisconsin comes to mind.
Thank you for this! It’s always interesting to get a good brief on how to pronounce native loan names. We have a ton here in Washington
I remember on Married With Children they pronounced it 'oh-CON-o-mo-woc.' Is that how the locals say it?
Native Racinian here. They are pronouced WAW-kuh-shaw and oh-CAH-nuh-muh-wawk. Where WAW rhymes with saw, maw, draw. Occasionally you'll hear a minor stress on the last syllable: WAW-kuh-Shaw.
I've never heard anything like WAH-kah-shaw, Henrik got some odd guidance.
I helped a friend move to Milwaukee in 2020 and that was the weekend I learned how to pronounce all these places correctly. lol.
Totally fair. I did for a long time, too. Being from MN, one day I had a lightbulb moment that OGGoldy mentions. We don’t talk like that here. Learn your Ojibwe.
Sorry if this isn't election based enough of a comment, but the Kelly/Mattis statements are really the most damning thing I've ever seen in US politics...The Atlantic says it likely doesn't make any difference because Trump's cult wants him to behave like a Nazi. But I have to believe there's SOME common decency left in the Republican party to think this is a bridge too far...enough to move the needle? I guess we'll see...
No, there's not.
There is among a minority of Republican politicians and voters, though way too few of them.
Naah. Look at center of the party no name dudes ike Doug Burgum going on national TV to defend Trump against this stuff. They are all in on it. To quote the beautiful and terrible Galadriel - The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.
I mean, I know you're right unfortunately...but then I see things like Mike Turner saying we need to do more to defend Ukraine...like what does he think is going to happen if his guy gets in office?! The collective insanity of almost 50% of this country is unreal. Then again, Rome had many civil wars...so far we only have had 1 so I guess we are due.
If they got on video and said it, it could make a difference. Anything that can’t appear in an ad really only helps very slightly.
The only voters who MAY be convinced by this, are Haley voters in the primary. A very important subsection of voters that aren’t talked about enough and could play a pivotal role. Trump likely wins a majority of them, but the more of those Harris can flip, the better her chances in the election. Could help at the margins. Definitely doesn’t hurt, regardless.
TIPP's tracking poll has Harris +2 in yesterday's sample, with is a two-point net gain compared to 10/22 and four-point net gain compared to 10/20; we'll have to wait to see if there's a clear pro-Harris trend from a very right-wing pollster (they brag about being one of the most accurate pollsters in 2016 or 2020, but that's because nearly everyone else drastically overestimated Democratic support both times).
https://tippinsights.com/tipp-tracking-poll-day-10-harris-clings-to-slim-lead-as-trumps-surge-fades/
It seems like their brief correction may have been due to a sample; their Harris+2 finding seems quite consistent
I still pulled them from my averages because I'm not sure what the hell they're doing.
Anyone remember CNN's Gallup tracking poll in 2000? Gore up 12 then two days later Bush up 8, then a tie....I can't believe i thought that was accurate, what a joke.
When I think of "very right wing pollster", TIPP doesn't even come to mind. Trafalgar, InsiderAdvantage, Rasmussen are all substantially more R leaning.
The articles on their site definitely qualify as very right-wing. Their polling seemed mostly on the level until they came out with that 'Philly stays home' likely voter screen.
They have teamed up with “American Greatness” on state polls, which does give me pause. But they’ve had a good track record on the popular vote the last couple of elections.
Today it's up to Harris +3 FWIW
Post script to the subthread about the New York ballot propositions yesterday: Email from NY Civil Liberties Union:
Almost time to vote "YES" on Prop 1, "NO" on Props 2-6!
Vote "YES" on Prop 1
Prop 1 is New York's Equal Rights Amendment. Prop 1 will close loopholes in our State Constitution to protect abortion and full equality, so that no politician can get between New Yorkers and our freedoms.[snip the rest because it's uncontroversial for anyone who's socially liberal]
Vote "NO" on Props 2-6
Mayor Adams is attempting an undemocratic ploy to weaken checks and balances in New York City and make it harder to hold police and correction officers accountable. He's pushing five proposals that will be on the ballot in New York City this November.
Proposals 2-6 would expand the Mayor's power at the expense of everyday New Yorkers. They would make it much harder for the City Councilmembers we elect to represent the will of the people. Props 2-6 significantly change New York City's Charter, which is our city's constitution, to weaken checks and balances. They would consolidate more power – with less accountability – in the hands of the Mayor and his appointees.
The proposals would upend the separation of powers in City government and empower the Mayor and agencies like the NYPD and Department of Correction to derail the City Council's legislative process. This will make it even harder than it already is for the Council to pass laws that benefit New Yorkers, deliver badly-needed oversight and accountability, and properly review the Mayor's appointees.
Can you say what each Proposition actually is?
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/10/23/the-6-ballot-measures-nyc-voters-will-decide-2024
Thanks.
About Zohran Mamdani and Jim Walden, who are mentioned in the digest as having entered the 2025 New York City Mayor's race: I've never heard of them (or had never heard of Mamdani until his name was mentioned yesterday), so that lack of name-recogjnition alone is likely to make them also-rans, though I'd give someone toward the right more of a chance than someone anti-Israel, who I think has no chance to win a citywide position in New York, the city with the largest Jewish population in the world.