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.
It’s a pretty long read but the quotes below are a pretty good synopsis and conclusion
“ Let’s unpack the three rules at the center of the controversy: the “reasonable inquiry” rule, the “examination” rule, and the new “hand count” rule that showed up last week. A close read reveals that the legal and practical import of the rules will almost certainly not hamstring the certification of Georgia’s electoral votes. And even if certification is delayed for some reason, such delays do not open up a legal loophole for Trump to overturn the election.”…
“I could spend the next hundred pages responding to hypothetical nightmare scenarios, but the bottom line is always the same. The likelihood that a Georgia county board’s refusal to certify an election could be used to overthrow a presidential election is basically nil—not zero, but, as a mathematician might say, approaching zero. “
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.
But the chances of that happening are now nearly zero provided Harris wins NE-02. I think there have been some comments on here that a lack of certification could also send it to the House, and I believed that was the case. But apparently it’s not according to the article I linked above. If a state doesn’t certify their votes those votes just get removed the total and whoever has the majority of the remaining Electoral votes wins.
How so? GA is the primary state of concern yeah? Harris can win without it, it’s much more challenging for Trump to do so. On the off chance GAs votes don’t get certified, the only feasible outcome I can think of where Trump would end up with the majority of the remaining votes is if Harris takes NV, MI, WI while Trump takes AZ, PA, and NC. I doubt in that world Harris would have carried GA anyway.
Sure you can play with the math and come up with other scenarios, but they don’t seem very realistic to me. If Harris wins just one of NC, PA, or AZ being denied GAs EVs won’t matter. Again though, this is extremely unlikely to happen.
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.
Could just be a fluke that she keeps getting it right in late October, but the more cynical explanation is that she gives the numbers her polling reflects in the interim and, when it counts, with everything at stake reputationally, she adds a secret sauce based on the tea leaves to get the outcome she expects will materialize in her gut.
Or, polls are only a snapshot in time. Zero idea why so many people think polls today say what the results will be a month and a half from now. It gives us an idea but elections matter and undecided voters are liars who are mostly predisposed to vote one way or another.
Early vote data? I've thought about this for awhile now, and I wonder if she's applying what she learns about the early vote and uses that to dial in her likely voter model. Iowa has a long early vote window and has for years, long before COVID. Maybe that's the secret sauce she uses to hone in on the right number.
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.
I disagree due to voters short memory. Has anything the Republicans have done post Dobbs really been a surprise? Before, abortion was legal, they were pretty up front about what they would do when possible, but it still wasn’t as motivating a factor on the left as it was on the right.
I think there will be a cycle or two where Dems are rewarded for passing a national law legalizing abortion, but after that we’ll be back in a pre Dobbs environment and there will be enough people who think the matter is settled that the Dem’s advantage will disappear.
Women as a whole? No. But considering the current anger seems to be just barely enough to make a win possible, I think there will be enough people for whom it is no longer a salient issue, combined with enough electoral turnover with new voters who think the issue is history and don’t see the threat, that it will no longer be the driving issue it is now.
Certainly there will be a significant number of people, men and women, who realize the potential for reproductive freedom to be taken away again, but I’m skeptical there will be enough of them to provide consistent electoral wins.
For the foreseeable there going to be a drip drip drip of stories of women dying and almost dying due to abortion being illegal and stories of 12 year olds being forced to have their rapist's kids.
Also, from a scientific standpoint, there will continue to be medical breakthroughs resulting in women knowing their fetuses are non-viable, and thus the need for an abortion (my wife had an abortion in 2016 due to the fetus having Edwards Syndrome, with the most likely result being a still birth -- the test that showed us that our fetus had Edwards Syndrome started being available in 2011).
Ahh wait, I don’t think I was clear in my comment. If there is no national law legalizing abortion, then I agree, it will remain a primary issue for Dems for the foreseeable future. I was imagining what would happen once that law is passed. I don’t think the threat of losing abortion rights again will be as powerful as having them taken away. For a significant number of people complacency will set in.
Sorry if it read as though the issue will fade away with the status quo. I pushed back against folks who thought women would “get over it” by 2022 and certainly think as long as the law makes them second class citizens it will be an issue that fires up Dems.
Before Roe was ended most people who cared but weren't diehard into politics figured essentially that Roe would save the day.
Eventually you might be right. But I think it would take the GOP winning a trifecta and failing to rescind Roe legislation to at least start to put people at ease.
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)
I think general demographic trendlines are continuing to work in Trump's favor in Ohio and that the situation is Springfield is specifically beneficial for his message.
I'm pretty confident Springfield will be helpful to Republicans. I can't imagine what the constituency would be in Ohio in support of the Springfield situation outside of the Chamber of Commerce and asylum policy apologists at Oberlin.
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.
I think Harris is going to do relatively well in Ohio thanks to the overtly racist Trump\Vance campaign; keeping the margin close enough for the re-election of Brown
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.
Also, they're out, and they don't show a Trump lead. They have a tie. And they're so right-wing they somehow missed by over two points *to the right* in 2020.
Sorry, this isn't Germany and New Zealand where people cast two votes: one for a person and one for a party. Unless we have an Australian style preferential voting where people rank candidates at the Presidential level, there is ZERO excuse for that.
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.
FWIW from the crosstabs, it looks like Osborn is winning voters under 50 by double digits and voters 50-64 by 8. The overwhelming majority of the undecided voters seem to also fall in these demographics, so if the numbers hold, a big if, Osborn has a good chance to pull off the upset.
True. But, we’ve been through this before. He’ll lose. Fooling voters with running only an Indy and no Dem isn’t going to work. People talk. At grocery stores. At church. At bars. I’d be shocked if the race is within 5% in the end.
I agree, but I still forked over $40 to his campaign tonight. The attempt is necessary, because if the Democrats win Senate seats only where Harris wins, they are likely to end up short.
It's not just that. It's also establishing a brand and connecting to voters that we otherwise are at risk of losing to fringe sychophants and brainwashing from conservative radio and religious indoctrination. Besides, it's not as if there haven't been victories in conservative places, otherwise we wouldn't have Mary Peltola and Jared Golden or a Democratic governor in Kansas and Kentucky for that matter. The effort can and should be made, especially if there's a real possibility of victory. Otherwise we're just conceding without even putting up a fight.
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!)
Even if you think it's overstating RFK (maybe just a smidge.. I think he'll still pull in a decent amount of votes on the ballots he's on) there's no way the non-major party vote will be just 1%. It was last that low in 2008 in a much less polarized time:
I expect the third-party percentage to drop - the candidates running are even more jokers than usual, Dems are more excited than they were in 2020, and Republicans remain steadfastly behind their candidate but there may be a little erosion on his end.
I think the more polarized electorate will reduce the desire to vote for a third party, not increase it.
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.
Unlike Florida we actually do have several polls showing leads or ties for Osborne now, although that could change. We just did recently get a poll showing a lead of Allred in Texas. Worst case scenario, even if Osborne decided to caucus with Republicans, he'd be among the most reliable votes for Democrats, given his platform.
I'm skeptical of Osborn's chances at winning mainly because the undecideds in Nebraska are expected to be largely conservative learning. Likely R sounds right to me.
I’m not referring to this poll in particular but KTVU Bay Area did a segment on the Hispanic community in San Francisco. There are handful of Hispanic voters in the Mission District who are leaning to Trump. Key issue is immigration.
The Hispanic community isn’t entirely together on immigration. Although I don’t doubt Harris will win the majority of Hispanic voters, we can’t assume anything of this voting bloc.
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but there was 2 polls showing Brown trailing now in Ohio. One is from a firm that does its polls apparently all online via mobile app - Activote. Given how new they are, it's hard to gauge their reputation and accuracy. The other was from RMG, the Scott Rasmussen pollster. There was also the Morning Consult poll that showed Brown up by 2, albeit with a smaller margin from their last poll. It's getting increasingly hard to assess these polls as we inch closer to election day and the senate can easily make or break 2024.
Right-wing sponsor, right-leaning firm (missed to the right in 2020 by a couple points and to the right in 2022 by six), and the best they can do is a tie? Same for Rasmussen... tie. Muhlenberg also missed by four or five points to the right in 2022... tie.
Trump has one lead out of thirty-odd polls in PA since the debate, and it's +1 from right-wing Insider Advantage, and is about two weeks old. If it were really tied, wouldn't we be seeing more Trump leads? Especially from the Rasmussens of the world?
The economy/inflation consistently rank as the #1 issue in every poll everywhere. Kamala and every other Democrat are going to have to hammer home the point that inflation is around 3% now after being around 8% in 2022 and the US economy is the strongest in the world at the moment, but more needs to be done to stabilise housing & grocery prices. Hopefully her economic address in Pittsburgh, PA hits the spot. Trump's plans for more tax cuts and mindless (not targeted) tariffs is probably among the most expensive blueprint EVER proposed by a major party presidential nominee in American history; who's the REAL "fiscal conservative"?! 💙🇺🇲
My hunch is they'll really start to hammer home inflation talking points after the next inflation report on October 10th.
After that report, there are no other inflation reports before the election, so if it's good, they'll be able to say inflation is lower and then not get surprised by an unexpected uptick. And the way things are looking right now, it'll probably be good--getting close to 2% overall and 3% without food and energy.
Also, what should be emphasized is that prices are going to go down as last week's Fed Rate cut has started to do and that relief is going to come along the way.
This may be in Pleasanton, CA but at the Stoneridge Mall where I normally shop, I've seen it more packed than it's been for months. This isn't even Labor Day Weekend.
I live in this district and Barbara Lee has represented us over here for decades.
However, I have not seen a single Jennifer Tran yard sign in Berkeley, Albany, or even in Oakland. I don't know of a single person who has mentioned Tran. She also teaches in CSU East Bay, which is located in Hayward, outside of the CA-12 Congressional District.
I'm not arguing this because I'm criticizing Tran's campaign but she's just not visible enough. I'm likely going to vote for Simon considering she graduated from Mills College decades before it closed down (just recently got acquired by Northeastern University) and has a similar profile as Barbara Lee. I just wish the CA-12 campaign would have been more competitive as residents here need more choices to chose from than just going with the anointed choice of Simon.
Sure. Although most of the yard signs in races are for local government and propositions, not the congressional races.
That said, CA-12 is a district that’s dark blue and one of the bluest in the country. I would have hoped there had been more of a contest but it is what it is.
Yeah, I don't think she's becoming a serious enough candidate. On the surface, having a lesbian Asian woman professor would present an interesting profile for a Democratic Candidate running to represent one of the most liberal Congressional districts in the country.
However, Lateefah Simon's taking too much of the oxygen and with Barbara Lee having won re-election by extremely high margins (90.5% of the votes back in 2022), an endorsement by her of Simon pretty much seals the deal for her election chances. Lee is extremely popular in CA-12 and has been for a long time.
Soon after Barbara Lee announced she was running for the Senate, she endorsed Lateefah Simon early on well before Jennifer Tran announced her candidacy. When Lee and the majority of the Democratic Party machine are behind Simon, a true contested primary is much harder to do in a district like CA-12. That means other candidates besides Simon are less compelled to join in.
I will argue against this bc yes they do. I had to live with my parents during my millennial years of moving around and I had to vote in their town in 2012. I got two votes for city council so I went with the woman and the guy with most lawn signs. The woman won but lawn sign guy ended up in a tie with another guy for second and it went to a coin flip.
My gay ass should’ve been in Mpls voting but economic circumstances at the time were what they were. Lawn sign guy got the tie bc of me. And that was prolly my last contribution to that city besides getting pizza at Casey’s whenever I stop at my parents for something. That pizza is Iowa folklore for Presidential candidates and I highly recommend.
The guy I voted for! And then, a city councilor not up for re-election that year ran for mayor and won. So the council had an open seat and had to pick someone to fill it. They picked losing coin flip guy, obviously. So my vote mattered but then a good twist of fate, they both won.
I think the further downballot the race, the more likely that a sign might gain a vote. But the argument on SSP was always that signs are expensive and GOTV efforts are much more cost-effective.
Sigh, what a failure. I will say that his love of good trash management (visiting as a kid, the piles of trash bags on the street were a turnoff) ought to be his one good legacy.
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.
The threat of non-certification seems to be largely overblown and is pretty well debunked here: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-georgia's-new-election-rules-allow-trump-to-steal-the-presidency
It’s a pretty long read but the quotes below are a pretty good synopsis and conclusion
“ Let’s unpack the three rules at the center of the controversy: the “reasonable inquiry” rule, the “examination” rule, and the new “hand count” rule that showed up last week. A close read reveals that the legal and practical import of the rules will almost certainly not hamstring the certification of Georgia’s electoral votes. And even if certification is delayed for some reason, such delays do not open up a legal loophole for Trump to overturn the election.”…
“I could spend the next hundred pages responding to hypothetical nightmare scenarios, but the bottom line is always the same. The likelihood that a Georgia county board’s refusal to certify an election could be used to overthrow a presidential election is basically nil—not zero, but, as a mathematician might say, approaching zero. “
I hope that's right.
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.
But the chances of that happening are now nearly zero provided Harris wins NE-02. I think there have been some comments on here that a lack of certification could also send it to the House, and I believed that was the case. But apparently it’s not according to the article I linked above. If a state doesn’t certify their votes those votes just get removed the total and whoever has the majority of the remaining Electoral votes wins.
Oh man that's much worse.
How so? GA is the primary state of concern yeah? Harris can win without it, it’s much more challenging for Trump to do so. On the off chance GAs votes don’t get certified, the only feasible outcome I can think of where Trump would end up with the majority of the remaining votes is if Harris takes NV, MI, WI while Trump takes AZ, PA, and NC. I doubt in that world Harris would have carried GA anyway.
Sure you can play with the math and come up with other scenarios, but they don’t seem very realistic to me. If Harris wins just one of NC, PA, or AZ being denied GAs EVs won’t matter. Again though, this is extremely unlikely to happen.
The constitution explains exactly what happens though. The vp elect becomes acting president.
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.
Could just be a fluke that she keeps getting it right in late October, but the more cynical explanation is that she gives the numbers her polling reflects in the interim and, when it counts, with everything at stake reputationally, she adds a secret sauce based on the tea leaves to get the outcome she expects will materialize in her gut.
Or, polls are only a snapshot in time. Zero idea why so many people think polls today say what the results will be a month and a half from now. It gives us an idea but elections matter and undecided voters are liars who are mostly predisposed to vote one way or another.
Early vote data? I've thought about this for awhile now, and I wonder if she's applying what she learns about the early vote and uses that to dial in her likely voter model. Iowa has a long early vote window and has for years, long before COVID. Maybe that's the secret sauce she uses to hone in on the right number.
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.
I disagree due to voters short memory. Has anything the Republicans have done post Dobbs really been a surprise? Before, abortion was legal, they were pretty up front about what they would do when possible, but it still wasn’t as motivating a factor on the left as it was on the right.
I think there will be a cycle or two where Dems are rewarded for passing a national law legalizing abortion, but after that we’ll be back in a pre Dobbs environment and there will be enough people who think the matter is settled that the Dem’s advantage will disappear.
You think women have memories that last only 2 election cycles?
Women as a whole? No. But considering the current anger seems to be just barely enough to make a win possible, I think there will be enough people for whom it is no longer a salient issue, combined with enough electoral turnover with new voters who think the issue is history and don’t see the threat, that it will no longer be the driving issue it is now.
Certainly there will be a significant number of people, men and women, who realize the potential for reproductive freedom to be taken away again, but I’m skeptical there will be enough of them to provide consistent electoral wins.
I think you are completely wrong.
For the foreseeable there going to be a drip drip drip of stories of women dying and almost dying due to abortion being illegal and stories of 12 year olds being forced to have their rapist's kids.
Also, from a scientific standpoint, there will continue to be medical breakthroughs resulting in women knowing their fetuses are non-viable, and thus the need for an abortion (my wife had an abortion in 2016 due to the fetus having Edwards Syndrome, with the most likely result being a still birth -- the test that showed us that our fetus had Edwards Syndrome started being available in 2011).
Ahh wait, I don’t think I was clear in my comment. If there is no national law legalizing abortion, then I agree, it will remain a primary issue for Dems for the foreseeable future. I was imagining what would happen once that law is passed. I don’t think the threat of losing abortion rights again will be as powerful as having them taken away. For a significant number of people complacency will set in.
Sorry if it read as though the issue will fade away with the status quo. I pushed back against folks who thought women would “get over it” by 2022 and certainly think as long as the law makes them second class citizens it will be an issue that fires up Dems.
Let's at least see what the final election results are before drawing conclusions about them!
Before Roe was ended most people who cared but weren't diehard into politics figured essentially that Roe would save the day.
Eventually you might be right. But I think it would take the GOP winning a trifecta and failing to rescind Roe legislation to at least start to put people at ease.
When the GOP becomes moderate & center right on party.
No chance it’s going that path in the near or distant future.
Not in the near future. In the distant future, the Sun will become a red giant and envelop the Earth.
So we'll all "live" in red states then.
Never!
^^^^^^ This.
Most of the folks here are men and have never had to worry about getting pregnant.
But I am worried about my daughter getting pregnant. And my wife and I worried a lot about the baby's health when she was pregnant. 🙂
But point taken.
When half the population no longer has to worry about getting pregnant.
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
Or it neutralizes it..
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.
Do you think Vance has helped Trump or hurt himself more in this election, or something else?
I think general demographic trendlines are continuing to work in Trump's favor in Ohio and that the situation is Springfield is specifically beneficial for his message.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins OH in double digits although I'm guessing it'll likely be anywhere between 10-12% points.
He's managed in both 2016 and 2020 to make OH harder for Democrats to win at the presidential level.
Right. That's what I was thinking....Trump +10-12 in OH.
I have to wonder whether the hysterical lies about the Haitian community in Springfield will be more beneficial or harmful to the Republicans.
I don’t know how this will play out in OH except that it will be used by Democrats to fundraise.
Winning elections wise, it might help Brown a bit but I don’t really know.
I'm pretty confident Springfield will be helpful to Republicans. I can't imagine what the constituency would be in Ohio in support of the Springfield situation outside of the Chamber of Commerce and asylum policy apologists at Oberlin.
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.
I'll be astonished if Brown outruns Harris by more than 5 or 6.
Then he's gonna lose and polling suggests he wont.
I think Harris is going to do relatively well in Ohio thanks to the overtly racist Trump\Vance campaign; keeping the margin close enough for the re-election of Brown
Mostly agree, but how do we explain Susan Collins
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.
The real tell is where is the Tester campaign to refute the numbers. Their polls must suck, too.
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.
Also, they're out, and they don't show a Trump lead. They have a tie. And they're so right-wing they somehow missed by over two points *to the right* in 2020.
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/
Sorry, this isn't Germany and New Zealand where people cast two votes: one for a person and one for a party. Unless we have an Australian style preferential voting where people rank candidates at the Presidential level, there is ZERO excuse for that.
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.
FWIW from the crosstabs, it looks like Osborn is winning voters under 50 by double digits and voters 50-64 by 8. The overwhelming majority of the undecided voters seem to also fall in these demographics, so if the numbers hold, a big if, Osborn has a good chance to pull off the upset.
True. But, we’ve been through this before. He’ll lose. Fooling voters with running only an Indy and no Dem isn’t going to work. People talk. At grocery stores. At church. At bars. I’d be shocked if the race is within 5% in the end.
I agree, but I still forked over $40 to his campaign tonight. The attempt is necessary, because if the Democrats win Senate seats only where Harris wins, they are likely to end up short.
It's not just that. It's also establishing a brand and connecting to voters that we otherwise are at risk of losing to fringe sychophants and brainwashing from conservative radio and religious indoctrination. Besides, it's not as if there haven't been victories in conservative places, otherwise we wouldn't have Mary Peltola and Jared Golden or a Democratic governor in Kansas and Kentucky for that matter. The effort can and should be made, especially if there's a real possibility of victory. Otherwise we're just conceding without even putting up a fight.
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?
I think that's a massive overestimation of Kennedy's actual support. I'd be more likely to predict 0.3% of the vote.
My guess is Harris 53%, Trump 46%, combined other under 1%.
Even if you think it's overstating RFK (maybe just a smidge.. I think he'll still pull in a decent amount of votes on the ballots he's on) there's no way the non-major party vote will be just 1%. It was last that low in 2008 in a much less polarized time:
2008 - 1%
2012 - 2%
2016 - 6%
2020 - 2%
2024 - ~3% (my guess, maybe a tad higher)
I expect the third-party percentage to drop - the candidates running are even more jokers than usual, Dems are more excited than they were in 2020, and Republicans remain steadfastly behind their candidate but there may be a little erosion on his end.
I think the more polarized electorate will reduce the desire to vote for a third party, not increase it.
A 7-point win would be huge.
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.
If so, those rumors are likely to make it impossible for him to win.
Osborn should pull an Angus King and not mention which party he'll caucus with until after the election.
I'd put him down for caucus with the majority with certain requests in terms of floor votes/policies and committees.
Especially the Agriculture Committee. This is Nebraska after all.
That begs the question of what he'd do if he were the deciding vote on which party is the majority.
Unlike Florida we actually do have several polls showing leads or ties for Osborne now, although that could change. We just did recently get a poll showing a lead of Allred in Texas. Worst case scenario, even if Osborne decided to caucus with Republicans, he'd be among the most reliable votes for Democrats, given his platform.
What makes her weak?
I'm skeptical of Osborn's chances at winning mainly because the undecideds in Nebraska are expected to be largely conservative learning. Likely R sounds right to me.
HUH!!!!
General election poll - Hispanic voters
🔴 Trump 52% (+8)
🔵 Harris 44%
Quinnipiac #B - LV - 9/22
Literally laughed out loud at this.
Polling is such trash right now.
This is, to be clear, just a subsample of the main Q poll recently released... correct?
Yes.
I’m not referring to this poll in particular but KTVU Bay Area did a segment on the Hispanic community in San Francisco. There are handful of Hispanic voters in the Mission District who are leaning to Trump. Key issue is immigration.
The Hispanic community isn’t entirely together on immigration. Although I don’t doubt Harris will win the majority of Hispanic voters, we can’t assume anything of this voting bloc.
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but there was 2 polls showing Brown trailing now in Ohio. One is from a firm that does its polls apparently all online via mobile app - Activote. Given how new they are, it's hard to gauge their reputation and accuracy. The other was from RMG, the Scott Rasmussen pollster. There was also the Morning Consult poll that showed Brown up by 2, albeit with a smaller margin from their last poll. It's getting increasingly hard to assess these polls as we inch closer to election day and the senate can easily make or break 2024.
Susquehanna PA: Another poll showing a tie. Casey up 8.
https://mcusercontent.com/fadb7f1420fadfe09cc9d0f9c/files/a5dbf8d6-8ad8-c97f-7e78-5c75cbd98c8f/Toplines_PAStatewide_Omnibus_SP_amp_R_LaTorre_Sept2024.pdf
Right-wing sponsor, right-leaning firm (missed to the right in 2020 by a couple points and to the right in 2022 by six), and the best they can do is a tie? Same for Rasmussen... tie. Muhlenberg also missed by four or five points to the right in 2022... tie.
Trump has one lead out of thirty-odd polls in PA since the debate, and it's +1 from right-wing Insider Advantage, and is about two weeks old. If it were really tied, wouldn't we be seeing more Trump leads? Especially from the Rasmussens of the world?
Actually, Emerson had Trump up 1 in a post-debate poll.
I think that was RVs only (which of course RCP uses). LVs it was Harris by less than 0.5.
The economy/inflation consistently rank as the #1 issue in every poll everywhere. Kamala and every other Democrat are going to have to hammer home the point that inflation is around 3% now after being around 8% in 2022 and the US economy is the strongest in the world at the moment, but more needs to be done to stabilise housing & grocery prices. Hopefully her economic address in Pittsburgh, PA hits the spot. Trump's plans for more tax cuts and mindless (not targeted) tariffs is probably among the most expensive blueprint EVER proposed by a major party presidential nominee in American history; who's the REAL "fiscal conservative"?! 💙🇺🇲
My hunch is they'll really start to hammer home inflation talking points after the next inflation report on October 10th.
After that report, there are no other inflation reports before the election, so if it's good, they'll be able to say inflation is lower and then not get surprised by an unexpected uptick. And the way things are looking right now, it'll probably be good--getting close to 2% overall and 3% without food and energy.
Also, what should be emphasized is that prices are going to go down as last week's Fed Rate cut has started to do and that relief is going to come along the way.
This may be in Pleasanton, CA but at the Stoneridge Mall where I normally shop, I've seen it more packed than it's been for months. This isn't even Labor Day Weekend.
CA-12:
I live in this district and Barbara Lee has represented us over here for decades.
However, I have not seen a single Jennifer Tran yard sign in Berkeley, Albany, or even in Oakland. I don't know of a single person who has mentioned Tran. She also teaches in CSU East Bay, which is located in Hayward, outside of the CA-12 Congressional District.
I'm not arguing this because I'm criticizing Tran's campaign but she's just not visible enough. I'm likely going to vote for Simon considering she graduated from Mills College decades before it closed down (just recently got acquired by Northeastern University) and has a similar profile as Barbara Lee. I just wish the CA-12 campaign would have been more competitive as residents here need more choices to chose from than just going with the anointed choice of Simon.
As was always stated on Swing State Project, signs don't vote.
Sure. Although most of the yard signs in races are for local government and propositions, not the congressional races.
That said, CA-12 is a district that’s dark blue and one of the bluest in the country. I would have hoped there had been more of a contest but it is what it is.
From the looks of the primary result; she might have decided to phone it in
You referring to Jennifer Tran?
Yeah, I don't think she's becoming a serious enough candidate. On the surface, having a lesbian Asian woman professor would present an interesting profile for a Democratic Candidate running to represent one of the most liberal Congressional districts in the country.
However, Lateefah Simon's taking too much of the oxygen and with Barbara Lee having won re-election by extremely high margins (90.5% of the votes back in 2022), an endorsement by her of Simon pretty much seals the deal for her election chances. Lee is extremely popular in CA-12 and has been for a long time.
I think you are overanalyzing here; the black candidate is going to win easily
I live here. I know the district well.
Soon after Barbara Lee announced she was running for the Senate, she endorsed Lateefah Simon early on well before Jennifer Tran announced her candidacy. When Lee and the majority of the Democratic Party machine are behind Simon, a true contested primary is much harder to do in a district like CA-12. That means other candidates besides Simon are less compelled to join in.
I will argue against this bc yes they do. I had to live with my parents during my millennial years of moving around and I had to vote in their town in 2012. I got two votes for city council so I went with the woman and the guy with most lawn signs. The woman won but lawn sign guy ended up in a tie with another guy for second and it went to a coin flip.
My gay ass should’ve been in Mpls voting but economic circumstances at the time were what they were. Lawn sign guy got the tie bc of me. And that was prolly my last contribution to that city besides getting pizza at Casey’s whenever I stop at my parents for something. That pizza is Iowa folklore for Presidential candidates and I highly recommend.
Who won the coin flip, out of curiosity?
The guy I voted for! And then, a city councilor not up for re-election that year ran for mayor and won. So the council had an open seat and had to pick someone to fill it. They picked losing coin flip guy, obviously. So my vote mattered but then a good twist of fate, they both won.
That must have been a nice feeling when he won the coin flip! That's a great story.
I think the further downballot the race, the more likely that a sign might gain a vote. But the argument on SSP was always that signs are expensive and GOTV efforts are much more cost-effective.
You are correct about signs and direct contacts to voters as well as the money aspect of bang for the buck
Adams indicted..this Clown could not go away soon enough
We'll know what the charges are tomorrow.
Wonder if anyone will take the favorable media environment to jump into the 2025 mayoral primary...
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Don't always get it right but knew this guy would end up indicted for something when he won back in 2021.
Sigh, what a failure. I will say that his love of good trash management (visiting as a kid, the piles of trash bags on the street were a turnoff) ought to be his one good legacy.
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1478138124425482240