After AZ, IA is the most likely state for Dems to be able to take away a House delegation majority, thus depriving Trump of the ability to steal the election that way. So its good to see Dems putting some money into taking two seats there.
Everything will have to go right for Dems to prevent the GOP from hitting 26 majorities. They already have 24 safely guaranteed, with Wisconsin likely staying in their column as well (at best, it may become a 4-4 tie). They just need one more state to hit 26, and there are plenty of opportunities in MI, PA, AZ, IA, and AK. One or two tossup races in each of these states will determine whether the GOP hits 26, and Dems have to run the table to prevent it.
All of that said, this is all basically irrelevant now. Now that it's settled that Nebraska will not be changing its EV allocation to winner-take-all (at least not this cycle), there is no realistic path to a 269-269 tie. That was only going to happen if Harris won only the Blue Wall while losing all the other swing states, which would bring her to 269 without NE-02. Now it's basically impossible for that situation to occur, because there's no realistic combination of states that will add up to 269.
The threat was never really a tie - in the case of a true tie, the GOP would have done well enough that they would be gaurenteed a majority of majorities in the House.
The threat was, and still is, that the GOP aided by the courts finds a way to stop several key states from certifying their results and so Harris' proper electoral votes are never counted.
These are completely separate topics, and both are threats to the election. The tie was definitely a huge threat, given that there was a plausible path for Trump to get exactly 269 EVs, which would be a likely victory for him in the U.S. House. With Nebraska declining to change its rules, that scenario is mathematically impossible. Trump is either going to hit 268 and lose or go over 270 and win.
In the event of a tie, the vote doesn't count. Minnesota, for example, has a 4D-4R delegation, and is likely to remain that way. If its delegation votes the party line 4-4, its vote will not count toward the 26 needed for a majority of states. Dems' best hope is to force ties in enough states (i.e. negate their votes) to prevent the GOP from reaching 26 states. Dems also need to prevent the GOP from obtaining majorities in AK, MI, PA, VA, and NV. The GOP could also force ties in ME and CO, but that won't affect the outcome, since Dems cannot reach 26 states anyway.
Then we witness what may be the fall of the Republic (not even joking) as if this is throw to the House and the House deadlocks, we are looking at a constitutional crisis not witnessed in 2 centuries.
Yes of course - but in a world where Dems are winning two in IA, they likely have already won those other seats (most of which they already hold, or were very close in 2022 in the case of AZ).
Is the presidential polling from Iowa to be trusted? Selzer has an excellent reputation, but if Iowa really has narrowed to only +4 for Trump, that’s a political earthquake!
And in 2020 the last Selzer poll, released the last weekend before the election, was far redder than September, probably not the only time before that has happened. So I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Is there any reason to believe that the current Selzer poll is off by 10 percent or more? Unless it is, surely the poll still indicates very significant movement in Iowa, no?.
I wouldn't trust it. Selzer always waits for the weekend before the election to drop her most accurate polls but has her share of questionable polls leading up to that. Living in Iowa, I can't see any indication of a double-digit poll closing in Harris's direction since spring.
People keep saying this but I don't think she literally sits at her desk computing numbers and thinking "I'm gonna put the bad numbers out in September, and save the good ones for November!"
There must be an outside factor in this phenomenon -- more people decide late, she reaches an unusually large number of swingier voters earlier, etc.
Abortion opposition in the GOP predates MAGA by decades. MAGA doesn't actually give much of a shit about abortion, except as a means to manipulate the evangelicals.
I don't think this will stop until there is a new national law allowing abortion (you know, like we had before). Religious voters will continue to oppose abortion and female body autonomy, and the GOP will continue placating them. They cannot surrender on this issue or they will lose a big chunk of their base. And I don't think that will ever change; these people aren't known to evolve with the times. These positions will continue to be highly unpopular, which gives the Dems no choice but to exploit it. It's really been this way for 50 years; the heat was just turned up dramatically by Dobbs and the subsequent fall-out.
Pre-Dobbs, focusing too much on abortion was seen by voters as being somewhat histrionic, and not always a plus. That is no longer true. There's almost nowhere in the country where it isn't a good issue to run on, certainly nowhere that's competitive in the first place.
"MAGA doesn't actually give much of a shit about abortion, except as a means to manipulate the evangelicals."
And vice versa: a means for the Christian Nationalists (huge overlap with White evangelicals) to manipulate, control and transform what was once the Republican Party.
Open question that may or may not be answered on November 5. I've always thought there was a risk of Dobbs messaging being a zero-sum game, motivating one subset of voters while leaving another subset cold. There's no arguing with results that it's been a huge net positive for Democrats since 2022, but might the schism materialize in a Presidential cycle? As is the case for so many things this year, I won't be surprised with either outcome.
When the GOP abandons the cause of making abortion illegal.
Even if Dems pass federal legislation making Roe law again, you would still have lots of GOPers talking about rescinding that law and others arguing to go further and pass a national abortion ban.
Essentially I think it would take a constitutional amendment to really start to end the salience of abortion. If that ever happened, given it would take 3/4ths of the states to get there, it would be a sign that the battle was truly lost and while the true believers would still argue for abortion bans, most sensible politicians would move on.
But until then, the threat of the GOP sweeping in and making Texas' law the law nationally is still there.
Most people I talk with in CA 47 have forgotten that Baugh was indicted and convicted of credit card fraud and election interference. (Overturned on technicality) He was also part of the Orange County underbelly in the 1970s and 80s that was involved in voter intimidation and suppression that caused California to strengthen election laws. We need attack ads linking Baugh to the ugly "behind the orange curtain" voter interference and racism.
I suspect that we are past the date where a candidate whose party loses a state by double digits in a presidential race can win a Senate race and that Tester is in real trouble for that reason. (The same goes for Maryland)
Collins outran Trump by 7%. although it was RCV so maybe she realy would have outrun him by 9-10% in a normal election. Sherrod Brown seems like he's gonna outrun Harris by 10% or so too.
So I wouldnt count Tester out just yet. But if he wins its going to be by the barest of margins.
Tester's prior wins were 1%, 4%, and 3%, respectively, and two of those slim victories were in blue wave elections that occurred during unpopular GOP presidential midterms (2006, 2018). In 2012, which was sort of a neutral election IIRC, he notched his largest victory at 4% (although under 50%), benefitting from presidential-year turnout in a less polarized atmosphere; this is where his personal brand really came into play. In short, he's been somewhat lucky with the timing of his prior elections (as has Sherrod Brown).
Even if 2024 is a blue wave, Tester seems unlikely to survive, when you factor in increased polarization and vengeful, tribal Trumpism. I think that, the more it looks like Kamala is going to win, Trump voters are going to be less likely to support Tester, not just for balance but also as revenge for Trump's loss.
As with Sherrod Brown, if Jon Tester loses it won't be because he's a bad politician. It will be because of the fact that their respective states electorates - ditto with the national electorate - are less and less willing to split their tickets between the Presidential and US Senate picks. The old argument used in the Dakotas and Montana of "send the liberals to Washington, send the conservatives to Bismarck/Pierre/Helena" with few exceptions doesn't hold water anymore. Susan Collins is notable precisely because her continuing to win even as Maine - save CD 2 - in Presidential elections is now the exception rather than the rule.
It certainly does seem disastrous in Montana, tho there's some caveats to consider here. In Maine back in 2020, Collins was also considered a lame duck, and from the polling data her circumstances were arguably even worse. She had several polls late in October showing her trailing by as much as 8 and 2020 was considered a very polarized environment like 2024 now. While I have my doubts that such a split ticket phenomena can recur now in Montana, it's certainly far from impossible. I would also point out that recent polling here has consistently undersampled youth voters considerably. Here voters 18-34 only comprise a pitiful 13% of the electorate. Heck, voters 35-44 only comprise 12% of the electorate, so the total for both groups is an absurdly low 25% of the electorate. If there's a polling error going on here, a good starting place are these crosstabs. For whatever reason, the recent polls seem to either be missing young voters or assuming an absurdly older electorate, which doesn't seem consistent with the fact that this is a presidential election year with a close senate race AND an abortion amendment on the ballot. I suppose we'll have to see how things play out.
The funniest thing today is that we have a Harris +3 in Monmouth and a tie in Muhlenberg... with *zero* gender gap in Monmouth and a nearly *40 point* gender gap in Muhlenberg. Someone ain't right. (Probably multiple someones).
Also interesting about that Monmouth poll is that 2020 validated voters have Trump +1. We seem to win the new registrants by quite a bit (as you'd expect, 18-22 year olds), leading to Harris +3 overall.
Is the SurveyUSA poll showing Nebraska Independent Dan Osborn leading 45–44 against Incumbent Republican Senator Debbie Fischer credible? I really hope this is true, but find it difficult to believe this can happen while the same pollster has Tump 56–40 against Harris.
Credible? Sure. But those 11% not committed to either candidate are definitely Republicans. They'll vote for someone, and it's not great odds they vote for Oaborne, though they could theoretically.
The IA-03 poll seems a little generous but Baccam is a very appealing candidate and has been running a good campaign. I was surprised Cindy Axne came as close as she did to holding on in 2022 despite the headwinds so I went into this race expecting Nunn might be more vulnerable than was the conventional wisdom. Obviously, the trendline in Dallas County will be pivotal.
It's harder for me to see a path for Christine Bohannon as victory in IA-01 now runs entirely through supersized margins in Johnson County in a way that I don't think its population can sustain. All of the local legislative Democrats in southeast Iowa were wiped out in the last four cycles and counties that went double-digits for Democrats for two generations are now 20+ points for Republicans. Bohannon would need to clean up in Scott County to offset this rising GOP tide even though Democrats have basically never "cleaned up" in Scott County at any time in the past. It didn't help at all that the conservative southern exurbs of Des Moines were redistricted into IA-01.
Thought experiment that may help in a roundabout way of determining Kamala's win likelihood -- what do we think her and Trump's actual win % will be (and thus, what the third parties will get)? She's current up by ~3 points nationally in most of the trackers, so let's say that holds. Is it:
- 51-48 (1% to others)
- 50-47 (3% to others)
- 49-46 (5% to others)
- something else?
I am of the mind that even though RFK dropped out, he's still on enough ballots in enough states to get a decent chunk of the vote. I think he'll get 3% of the vote, and Stein and others will combine for 1% of the vote, so that means that the final results would be:
- 49.5% Harris
- 46.5 % Trump (46% of the vote in 3 straight elections!)
NE-Sen is cheap, and is likely a better play than Floridayl, and definitely better than Texas. Fischer is weak, and may present us with the best path to 50 Senate Seats.
After AZ, IA is the most likely state for Dems to be able to take away a House delegation majority, thus depriving Trump of the ability to steal the election that way. So its good to see Dems putting some money into taking two seats there.
Everything will have to go right for Dems to prevent the GOP from hitting 26 majorities. They already have 24 safely guaranteed, with Wisconsin likely staying in their column as well (at best, it may become a 4-4 tie). They just need one more state to hit 26, and there are plenty of opportunities in MI, PA, AZ, IA, and AK. One or two tossup races in each of these states will determine whether the GOP hits 26, and Dems have to run the table to prevent it.
All of that said, this is all basically irrelevant now. Now that it's settled that Nebraska will not be changing its EV allocation to winner-take-all (at least not this cycle), there is no realistic path to a 269-269 tie. That was only going to happen if Harris won only the Blue Wall while losing all the other swing states, which would bring her to 269 without NE-02. Now it's basically impossible for that situation to occur, because there's no realistic combination of states that will add up to 269.
The threat was never really a tie - in the case of a true tie, the GOP would have done well enough that they would be gaurenteed a majority of majorities in the House.
The threat was, and still is, that the GOP aided by the courts finds a way to stop several key states from certifying their results and so Harris' proper electoral votes are never counted.
These are completely separate topics, and both are threats to the election. The tie was definitely a huge threat, given that there was a plausible path for Trump to get exactly 269 EVs, which would be a likely victory for him in the U.S. House. With Nebraska declining to change its rules, that scenario is mathematically impossible. Trump is either going to hit 268 and lose or go over 270 and win.
Faitheless elector
What happens with a state’s vote if the delegation is evenly split and no crossovers?
In the event of a tie, the vote doesn't count. Minnesota, for example, has a 4D-4R delegation, and is likely to remain that way. If its delegation votes the party line 4-4, its vote will not count toward the 26 needed for a majority of states. Dems' best hope is to force ties in enough states (i.e. negate their votes) to prevent the GOP from reaching 26 states. Dems also need to prevent the GOP from obtaining majorities in AK, MI, PA, VA, and NV. The GOP could also force ties in ME and CO, but that won't affect the outcome, since Dems cannot reach 26 states anyway.
Do they have to reach 26 – and not just a majority of votes cast?
Then we witness what may be the fall of the Republic (not even joking) as if this is throw to the House and the House deadlocks, we are looking at a constitutional crisis not witnessed in 2 centuries.
Yes of course - but in a world where Dems are winning two in IA, they likely have already won those other seats (most of which they already hold, or were very close in 2022 in the case of AZ).
Minor editing error here (unintended repetition of a word):
"…no exceptions for rape, exceptions, or medical emergencies."
Thank you!
Is the presidential polling from Iowa to be trusted? Selzer has an excellent reputation, but if Iowa really has narrowed to only +4 for Trump, that’s a political earthquake!
Selzer's last poll in late October is always the most accurate. Her earlier polls are often quite off.
And in 2020 the last Selzer poll, released the last weekend before the election, was far redder than September, probably not the only time before that has happened. So I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Is there any reason to believe that the current Selzer poll is off by 10 percent or more? Unless it is, surely the poll still indicates very significant movement in Iowa, no?.
I wouldn't trust it. Selzer always waits for the weekend before the election to drop her most accurate polls but has her share of questionable polls leading up to that. Living in Iowa, I can't see any indication of a double-digit poll closing in Harris's direction since spring.
People keep saying this but I don't think she literally sits at her desk computing numbers and thinking "I'm gonna put the bad numbers out in September, and save the good ones for November!"
There must be an outside factor in this phenomenon -- more people decide late, she reaches an unusually large number of swingier voters earlier, etc.
So when will abortion stop being an effective message against the GOP?
Only after the Republican Party aborts MAGA. Or when Hell or Mar-a-Lago freezes over, whichever comes first.
Abortion opposition in the GOP predates MAGA by decades. MAGA doesn't actually give much of a shit about abortion, except as a means to manipulate the evangelicals.
I don't think this will stop until there is a new national law allowing abortion (you know, like we had before). Religious voters will continue to oppose abortion and female body autonomy, and the GOP will continue placating them. They cannot surrender on this issue or they will lose a big chunk of their base. And I don't think that will ever change; these people aren't known to evolve with the times. These positions will continue to be highly unpopular, which gives the Dems no choice but to exploit it. It's really been this way for 50 years; the heat was just turned up dramatically by Dobbs and the subsequent fall-out.
Pre-Dobbs, focusing too much on abortion was seen by voters as being somewhat histrionic, and not always a plus. That is no longer true. There's almost nowhere in the country where it isn't a good issue to run on, certainly nowhere that's competitive in the first place.
"MAGA doesn't actually give much of a shit about abortion, except as a means to manipulate the evangelicals."
And vice versa: a means for the Christian Nationalists (huge overlap with White evangelicals) to manipulate, control and transform what was once the Republican Party.
When voters move on to something else.
In practice that should be one election cycle after we manage to restore abortion rights.
Open question that may or may not be answered on November 5. I've always thought there was a risk of Dobbs messaging being a zero-sum game, motivating one subset of voters while leaving another subset cold. There's no arguing with results that it's been a huge net positive for Democrats since 2022, but might the schism materialize in a Presidential cycle? As is the case for so many things this year, I won't be surprised with either outcome.
When the GOP abandons the cause of making abortion illegal.
Even if Dems pass federal legislation making Roe law again, you would still have lots of GOPers talking about rescinding that law and others arguing to go further and pass a national abortion ban.
Essentially I think it would take a constitutional amendment to really start to end the salience of abortion. If that ever happened, given it would take 3/4ths of the states to get there, it would be a sign that the battle was truly lost and while the true believers would still argue for abortion bans, most sensible politicians would move on.
But until then, the threat of the GOP sweeping in and making Texas' law the law nationally is still there.
Good polling from IA and mistly good from CA (save for the 47th).
Disasterous from MT. Up 5 to down 7 for Tester. Gonna need a huge polling miss there.
I have been in the camp that says the post Dobbs Dem poll overperformance will continue, but even I am starting to get pessimistic on MT.
Most people I talk with in CA 47 have forgotten that Baugh was indicted and convicted of credit card fraud and election interference. (Overturned on technicality) He was also part of the Orange County underbelly in the 1970s and 80s that was involved in voter intimidation and suppression that caused California to strengthen election laws. We need attack ads linking Baugh to the ugly "behind the orange curtain" voter interference and racism.
Considering Min was just popped for a DUI and caught on camera trying to use his position to get out of it, might not be the best line of attack
I suspect that we are past the date where a candidate whose party loses a state by double digits in a presidential race can win a Senate race and that Tester is in real trouble for that reason. (The same goes for Maryland)
Exactly. With that in mind, I see a double-digit Trump win coming in Ohio this year.
Collins outran Trump by 7%. although it was RCV so maybe she realy would have outrun him by 9-10% in a normal election. Sherrod Brown seems like he's gonna outrun Harris by 10% or so too.
So I wouldnt count Tester out just yet. But if he wins its going to be by the barest of margins.
Tester's prior wins were 1%, 4%, and 3%, respectively, and two of those slim victories were in blue wave elections that occurred during unpopular GOP presidential midterms (2006, 2018). In 2012, which was sort of a neutral election IIRC, he notched his largest victory at 4% (although under 50%), benefitting from presidential-year turnout in a less polarized atmosphere; this is where his personal brand really came into play. In short, he's been somewhat lucky with the timing of his prior elections (as has Sherrod Brown).
Even if 2024 is a blue wave, Tester seems unlikely to survive, when you factor in increased polarization and vengeful, tribal Trumpism. I think that, the more it looks like Kamala is going to win, Trump voters are going to be less likely to support Tester, not just for balance but also as revenge for Trump's loss.
As with Sherrod Brown, if Jon Tester loses it won't be because he's a bad politician. It will be because of the fact that their respective states electorates - ditto with the national electorate - are less and less willing to split their tickets between the Presidential and US Senate picks. The old argument used in the Dakotas and Montana of "send the liberals to Washington, send the conservatives to Bismarck/Pierre/Helena" with few exceptions doesn't hold water anymore. Susan Collins is notable precisely because her continuing to win even as Maine - save CD 2 - in Presidential elections is now the exception rather than the rule.
Wild to recall that 20 years ago, North and South Dakota had a combined four Democratic Senators.
And Representatives. A full Dem delegation from both states for a while.
It certainly does seem disastrous in Montana, tho there's some caveats to consider here. In Maine back in 2020, Collins was also considered a lame duck, and from the polling data her circumstances were arguably even worse. She had several polls late in October showing her trailing by as much as 8 and 2020 was considered a very polarized environment like 2024 now. While I have my doubts that such a split ticket phenomena can recur now in Montana, it's certainly far from impossible. I would also point out that recent polling here has consistently undersampled youth voters considerably. Here voters 18-34 only comprise a pitiful 13% of the electorate. Heck, voters 35-44 only comprise 12% of the electorate, so the total for both groups is an absurdly low 25% of the electorate. If there's a polling error going on here, a good starting place are these crosstabs. For whatever reason, the recent polls seem to either be missing young voters or assuming an absurdly older electorate, which doesn't seem consistent with the fact that this is a presidential election year with a close senate race AND an abortion amendment on the ballot. I suppose we'll have to see how things play out.
PA Monmouth: Harris 48-45 (extrapolated)
https://x.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1838956747454550404
The funniest thing today is that we have a Harris +3 in Monmouth and a tie in Muhlenberg... with *zero* gender gap in Monmouth and a nearly *40 point* gender gap in Muhlenberg. Someone ain't right. (Probably multiple someones).
Also interesting about that Monmouth poll is that 2020 validated voters have Trump +1. We seem to win the new registrants by quite a bit (as you'd expect, 18-22 year olds), leading to Harris +3 overall.
Susquehana will show a Trump lead, what does that mean? It's a close race, GOTV!
Susquehanna is a pretty right-wing pollster. They had Oz +1 in their last PA-Sen poll in 2022.
So 50% won't vote for Harris, 53% won't vote Trump. I guess you'd want to have the lesser score but i guess they can vote third party.
Monmouth, to my eternal frustration, lets people say they're supporting multiple candidates. It's how we sometimes get polls like this 2022 beauty in GA-Sen where 103% of respondents were for one of the three candidates. https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_ga_102622/
Is the SurveyUSA poll showing Nebraska Independent Dan Osborn leading 45–44 against Incumbent Republican Senator Debbie Fischer credible? I really hope this is true, but find it difficult to believe this can happen while the same pollster has Tump 56–40 against Harris.
Credible? Sure. But those 11% not committed to either candidate are definitely Republicans. They'll vote for someone, and it's not great odds they vote for Oaborne, though they could theoretically.
The IA-03 poll seems a little generous but Baccam is a very appealing candidate and has been running a good campaign. I was surprised Cindy Axne came as close as she did to holding on in 2022 despite the headwinds so I went into this race expecting Nunn might be more vulnerable than was the conventional wisdom. Obviously, the trendline in Dallas County will be pivotal.
It's harder for me to see a path for Christine Bohannon as victory in IA-01 now runs entirely through supersized margins in Johnson County in a way that I don't think its population can sustain. All of the local legislative Democrats in southeast Iowa were wiped out in the last four cycles and counties that went double-digits for Democrats for two generations are now 20+ points for Republicans. Bohannon would need to clean up in Scott County to offset this rising GOP tide even though Democrats have basically never "cleaned up" in Scott County at any time in the past. It didn't help at all that the conservative southern exurbs of Des Moines were redistricted into IA-01.
Thought experiment that may help in a roundabout way of determining Kamala's win likelihood -- what do we think her and Trump's actual win % will be (and thus, what the third parties will get)? She's current up by ~3 points nationally in most of the trackers, so let's say that holds. Is it:
- 51-48 (1% to others)
- 50-47 (3% to others)
- 49-46 (5% to others)
- something else?
I am of the mind that even though RFK dropped out, he's still on enough ballots in enough states to get a decent chunk of the vote. I think he'll get 3% of the vote, and Stein and others will combine for 1% of the vote, so that means that the final results would be:
- 49.5% Harris
- 46.5 % Trump (46% of the vote in 3 straight elections!)
- 3% RFK
- 1% Stein, West, Oliver, others
Thoughts?
NEW Crystal Ball Rating Changes in NEBRASKA
NE-2 electoral vote: Leans D to Likely D
NE-SEN (Fischer vs. Osborn): Safe R to Likely R
https://x.com/kkondik/status/1838975088227451375
I agree.
NE-Sen is cheap, and is likely a better play than Floridayl, and definitely better than Texas. Fischer is weak, and may present us with the best path to 50 Senate Seats.
Do we know if Osborne would caucus with the Dems?
Fischer won't. Osborne could. That is enough for me.
Based on the rumors I've seen on Politics Twitter, it sounds like probably.
Osborn should pull an Angus King and not mention which party he'll caucus with until after the election.
HUH!!!!
General election poll - Hispanic voters
🔴 Trump 52% (+8)
🔵 Harris 44%
Quinnipiac #B - LV - 9/22