310 Comments
Comment deleted
Oct 12
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

So you don't have to click the link unless you want to: the word is "retarded." So then, a "retarded" woman beat the shit out of him in the debate. He is such a baby!

Expand full comment

I mean, he really talks like an elementary school idiot.

Expand full comment

And unfortunately millions LOVE him for that. His cult never emotionally left elementary school.

Expand full comment

And they were assholes then.

Expand full comment

He called her a 'bitch' in public, frankly I think by now, he can say and do almost any outrageous thing and folks will shrug their shoulders

Expand full comment

Republican voters actively want to degrade and insult their opponents, and Democratic voters already hate him and won't have their decisions altered.

Expand full comment

Republican?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 12
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I mean he physically mocked handicapped people so this is not surprising nor clearly a deal breaker for people who support him.

Expand full comment

This won't change 10 votes; Trump is Trump

Expand full comment

Nothing is offensive anymore (thanks to Trump)

Expand full comment

You mean nothing is offensive to Trumpists. There are plenty of things that are still offensive to other people.

Expand full comment

That is what I meant yes; thanks

Expand full comment

Not true - even the most blatantly obvious and true criticism of Trump or GOP is "offensive" to Trumpets

Expand full comment

RIght.

Expand full comment

He's so close to dropping the n-word between now and election day.

Expand full comment

Will even that change anything? Call me unconvinced

Expand full comment

I still think Anna Paulina Luna is beatable

Expand full comment

Nice, I donated and then

doubled down for Fox to defeat her (FL-13)

Expand full comment

ca-03...can Kevin Kiley be beaten?

Expand full comment

Possible in a strong Democratic year. It's an R+4 district. 2Q reports showed Kiley with a cash advantage of $2.6M to $1.3M over Jessica Morse. I'm waiting to see the 3Q numbers but it looks like Morse is fighting an uphill battle in lean-R terrain. All of the ratings orgs rate it as "Likely R."

Expand full comment

Thanks for the info!

Expand full comment

Jessica Morse seems like a good candidate. She ran before in a different version of the district and was in the mid-40s. She is the underdog in the race, but I sent her a few bucks. If she wins, we will have had a great election.

Expand full comment

Is Kiley unpopular?

Expand full comment

I get the sense that he isn't especially unpopular for a purple-district Republican. He takes constituent service seriously and is much more of a 90s Republican than a MAGA type. He's a better fit for a relatively educated outer-suburban district than Trump is. If he loses, it will be because Trump dragged him down and because too many Democrats moved into Folsom and west Roseville, not because of any self-inflicted wounds.

Expand full comment

Here's to hoping he loses(seems like he's what I call a 'sane' Republican)

Expand full comment

I don't even especially dislike him, I just won't vote for him.

Expand full comment

If you Cali guys get the chance; maybe give us a ground update from your viewpoint on competitive congressional races?

Expand full comment

I will be up in CA-27 starting next week to campaign for George Whitesides working to defeat Mike Garcia. "Mike Garcia" is just Californian for "Mike Johnson". I think this will be the year that Mike runs out of luck.

Expand full comment
Oct 12Edited

I'm glad your working this district. I believe it's the most likely of the SoCal seats to pickup, but the ads against Whitesides are brutal.

In SoCal, the Republicans are running ads tying crime, prop 36, anti Gascon and trying to tie other candidates to "the crime program" and crime from the border, even if statistics don't support it.

Expand full comment

That's my district. The race is certainly heavily contested. Both of them are running a lot of ads, and I've actually seen more for Morse. Kiley is definitely acting worried, he's running quite a few negative ads (as is Morse).

The district is only Trump +2, and Kiley won by about 7 in 2022 when there was no statewide Dem campaign effort. I'd expect Kiley to win by a few points even if the district flips.

Expand full comment

I think Morse would have had a much better chance this year if the CA Dems had not lost so many competitive races in 2022. The party's focus this year is on winning those seats (13, 22, 27, 45) as well as holding 47 and winning 41.

Hats off to Adam Schiff (who could coast in the senate race) for spending time and money in these competitive house districts. And I have heard he is going to, and spending in, CA-3.

I am very interested to see Kiley's and Morse's 3Q reports in a few days.

Expand full comment

It recently occurred to me that despite my reputation for pessimism, I have never in my life predicted a Republican would win the Presidency....

I was too young to be in the prediction business for the elections of the 1980s.

Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 were both easy to see coming.

Even in 2000, when Bush appeared to have the late momentum, virtually every poll in Florida showed Gore leading and I figured he'd win the Electoral College if he won Florida even if he lost the popular vote. Of course, the opposite happened.

In 2004, I was convinced the undecideds would break overwhelmingly for Kerry, putting Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Florida into Kerry's column.

Obama's 2008 win was an easy call by the time the general election cycle came around and his 2012 re-election seemed odds-on through the majority of the campaign.

I was warning about the potential of Trump throughout 2016 but still didn't see a path to victory for him even in the final days before the election as too many states seemed locked down for Hillary.

Biden's victory seemed nearly assured by the fall of 2020, even if it was much more of a contest than expected.

As of this writing, it looks like my Democratic Presidential prediction streak will end in 2024 but we'll see what the next couple of weeks bring.

Expand full comment

Gore won the election, the GOP stole the presidency, so you're 6 for 8.

Expand full comment

The clear intent of the voters in Florida was to elect Gore; agreed

Expand full comment

That one is going to hurt forever....

Expand full comment

Tell me about it; I've lived in Florida for over 30 years; and that race still stings the most

Expand full comment

The first presidential election I really followed closely was 2008. I've never predicted a Republican presidential victory either, but then again the Republicans have never won the popular vote in that time...

Expand full comment

I never make predictions of presidential contests, but it didn't look the least bit hopeful for Dukakis. I don't think I allowed myself to think Mondale would lose until he did, and then by almost 50 states! But it was hardly surprising that he lost, and I understood that people who had voted for Reagan in 1980 wouldn't have enough of a motivation to change their votes, even though they should have. Carter also looked in bad shape in 1980. Since I was 15 in 1980 and wasn't even in the country in 1976, those were the only elections I was aware enough of to see in advance that they were unlikely Democratic wins. Every presidential election since 1992 has looked winnable.

Expand full comment

The first presidential election I followed had to have been and hopefully remains the most unusual. I was about 10 in 1968, and my Dad had me following Nixon. Of course in the spring of that year MLK was assassinated, then Bobby Kennedy the night of the California primary.

My dad was a big Nixon supporter, but didn't get to vote for him. On Nov 1, he had a massive heart attack and was hospitalized for almost 2 weeks before he died. The day after his funeral mom decided to relocate to Arizona against me and my brother's wishes.

Quite the year.

Expand full comment

How did things turn out in Arizona?

Expand full comment

My brother and I both left Arizona at the first opportunity we had. I've been in California for 43 years, my brother in Illinois/Wisconsin for 50 years, and Mom in California for 3 years, and she likes California better.

Expand full comment

My 3 older siblings were all leaving AZ after high school in the early 80's as well, but none ended up in CA despite that still being the promised land for AZ teenagers back then. I did come to CA, after college, for what I then thought was a temporary sojourn, 26 years ago now, by which time the huge net influx from AZ had begun reversing.

Expand full comment

just an anecdote about CA: lived here for all my 79 years; a high school buddy who was badly poisioned by Agent Orange in Vietnam was living in FL when he contacted me out of the blue a few years ago. Said he had everything but cancer from Agent Orange. He wanted to leave FL (because of the weather) and I asked him if he was moving back to CA. Hell no, he said, their politics suck so bad I am going to live in a senior community near Lake Havasu, AZ: I love the fact I can carry a gun! He died 6 months after moving to AZ.

Expand full comment

Did he die from the Agent Orange, or the gun?

Expand full comment

Wow. Your dad must not have been very old. Had to have been horribly traumatic for you at that age.

Expand full comment
Oct 12Edited

45. Yes it was rather traumatic.

Mom just turned 98.

Expand full comment

Good luck to your Mom

Expand full comment

And Mom just cast a vote for Harris, Schiff,Min, and D all the way down, plus just took a cross country airplane trip by herself. I'll never get that old, lol.

Expand full comment

My first was 2008 as well. I wasn't particularly interested in politics at that time (just a first year PhD student) but was stunned by how dimwitted Sarah Palin sounded during her interview with Katie Couric and even more stunned when finding out she was the VP nominee for a major party. That was when I started paying attention.

Expand full comment

I was shocked by Palin's nomination as well, she made Dan Quayle look like an inspired choice. Thankfully by the time she was nominated I was both "Never GOP" AND already sure Obama was winning so I didn't ever have to sweat her proximity to the Oval Office.

Expand full comment

I took a different tact with Palin; I just laughed hysterically every time she'd give an interview

Expand full comment

I've wrongly gone through this thought process several times. My first election was 1980 (I was almost 22), and I couldn't believe people saw presidential material in Ronnie, let alone twice. Then W Bush came along who I thought was too stupid to get elected.

Then came Trump and he made Reagan and Bush look good.

What in the hell has happened to my country?

Expand full comment

Yeah, I never thought the late war criminal and plutocrat GHWB was a genius, but by comparison with Raygun, Shrub, and the Oval Office Orangutan he's a gentleman, a scholar, and a statesman.

Expand full comment

And a legitimate vet unlike those other wannabes

Expand full comment

Wouldn't we be dancing on the tables about a Palin Presidency if it was a choice between her and Trump? At the very least, I don't think Palin is a sociopath.

Expand full comment

trump won't win

Expand full comment

The knowledge gained in 2016 that he can win should be enough to keep it from happening again, but that was pretty much true in 2004 as well.

Expand full comment

2004 did have some critical things happen in Bush's electoral favor since 2000.

That said, this country is in an electoral environment where presidential elections look likely to be closely contested for the foreseeable future. It's where our coalitions are plus the shitty rules that are in place.

Expand full comment

"2004 did have some critical things happen in Bush's electoral favor since 2000."

Yes indeed. He ignored warnings so that he didn't prevent the worst single act of terrorism on American soil, promoted and decorated those who also ignored the warnings while firing some of those who gave them, and then attacked and occupied two countries, one of which had done absolutely nothing to the U.S. during his presidency. The fact that he was instead treated as the necessary protector of the United States whom it was unpatriotic to oppose should give us a lot of pause in predicting how a majority of the American electorate may evaluate Trump today. Remember, they're convinced the economy was better under his disastrous stewardship than during this historic recovery.

Expand full comment

Fully agreed. It was bullshit that his incompetence made him more popular. But at the end of the day, that was the reality of it and it did boost him in 2004.

Considering how astronomically his approvals went up, I think in a kinder alternative timeline 2004 would have been a small wave in our favor, like 2008 was.

Expand full comment

In politics, a lot of the time, perception is more important than reality; the perception about Bush Jr was that he was a tough Texan; yet, the reality was that it was actually Kerry who was a decorated veteran; I still feel that a more strongly response to the 'swift boating' and quicker was needed

Expand full comment

Definitely.

Expand full comment

Because the electorate has decided to pretend that COVID didn't happen. We can point out all we want that it did. They would and will continue to dismiss it as "fearmongering."

Expand full comment

John Kerry was not a strong candidate and succumbed to lies.

Expand full comment

He made his share of mistakes but he outran the fundamentals of the cycle and wrestled Bush's approval ratings down at least 10% over the course of the campaign. I don't think he seems so bad in retrospect.

Expand full comment

Huh. I've been voting since 1988 and the only election I really got wrong was 2016. I was 'who knows?' about 2000 and 2004, though.

Trump could win this year, but I don't see a reason to expect it. Harris has small poll leads (especially if you exclude troll polls) in enough states to win, and I don't expect Trump to benefit from a polling error again: the current generic ballot test is less favorable for Dems than both parties' spending patterns suggest, demographic creep should favor Dems (relevant when most polls are weighting to recalled vote), and Dems appear to have a ground game advantage this year after the pandemic put them at a disadvantage in 2020.

Expand full comment

Great post; I think when all is said and done, the Democratic GOTV will provide a crucial 2-3% advantage in all 7 swing states(bringing them all into a possible winning sweep; with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania being key; the rest being icing on the cake)

Expand full comment

Hopefully after the other day in Detroit, those blue and blue-leaning areas of Michigan will be out in large numbers for Kamala. Will be hilarious if Trump lost Michigan now, after the horrible lies he spoke about Detroit (while in Detroit). Serves him right!! 💙🇺🇲

Expand full comment

I could see it helping turnout for us in Detroit itself, but it's important to note that, despite the truth being the opposite, many in this state outside of Detroit view it the way Trump described. This is true even in the inner ring suburbs. Racism is a hell of a mental illness.

Expand full comment

I have to believe that it's a net negative statewide; it would seem to me that anyone that liked that stuff was already strongly MAGA; undecided voters are undecided for a reason and this stuff can't be helpful to Trump imo

Expand full comment

I don't think it helps him, but I'm skeptical whether it hurts him all that much, having grown up in the Detroit suburbs.

Expand full comment

Imo it might actually benefit inner city turnout; pissing people off is not a great political message; I'd also add that Trump has just given a booster to the Democratic GOTV effort by pissing them off into working even harder to show Trump up(we shall see I guess)

Expand full comment

The gamble is if it outweighs scaring enough voters to turn-out for Trump. Their campaign says yes. And, it looks cool and macho that he shit talked them in their own city. It’s a fair assessment. There is also the question of if Trump said that in the calculating manner I described or if he’s just a dumb fuck.

Expand full comment

I am going with, he's just a dumb fuck

Expand full comment

Republicans in EVERY state hate their state's biggest city. Those people are already Trump voters.

This will help us turn out our voters and will turn off some educated suburban voters

Expand full comment

I'm not talking about just Republicans though. There is a lot of hate from the suburbs toward Detroit, and almost all of it is racialized, even if they won't admit it.

Do I think it gains any votes for Trump? No. But I'm skeptical that it loses him any significant number of votes.

Expand full comment

didn't he do the same thing essentially with Milwaukee a while back?

Expand full comment

He hates every city, weird for a New Yorker.

Expand full comment

He's racist

Expand full comment

I know, but he's a New Yorker. I don't think most racist New Yorkers hate New York.

Expand full comment

Lmao

Expand full comment

Yup, just before the Republican convention, which of course was held in(you guessed it) Milwaukee !

Expand full comment

The latest Times/Inquirer/Siena polls found Donald Trump with a six-point advantage in Arizona, and Kamala Harris with a four-point lead in Pennsylvania.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/us/politics/times-siena-arizona-pennsylvania-polls.html

Expand full comment

I'll take it.

Expand full comment

That's quite the spread but if I had to choose, I'm obviously choosing Pennsylvania; I'm still betting that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are going to vote as a block(with closer to larger margin in this order; Wisc>Penn>Mich)

Expand full comment

Another interesting thing here: Harris isn't outrunning Casey. Harris +4, Casey +4. Convergence at last...

(This is bullish for Harris IMO. Casey is an institution and if Harris is matching his numbers, that's a good sign).

Expand full comment

Six point lead for Trump ehh? Do you think Siena believes that poll is accurate?

Expand full comment

Seems awful bullish imo

Expand full comment

Siena has now found a double-digit spread in Florida and a six-point spread in Arizona. It could be that they're way off or it could be that Siena's model is picking up on a shift to Trump among Hispanics that other pollsters are not.

Expand full comment

It would almost have to be Hispanic men

Expand full comment

Reading their methodology, it seems tailor-made for selecting a conservatively skewed Hispanic sample.

Expand full comment

But their Hispanic sample is Harris +20. In this particular poll, it's the white vote that is causing a mid-size Trump lead.

(In their earlier Trump+5 in AZ, it was the Hispanic sample. Funny how they get the same topline with entirely different splits).

Expand full comment

D+20 Hispanic vote is skewed right in AZ for a Presidential election. Santa Cruz County voted D+35 last time and it’s 1/7th Non-Hispanic White.

Expand full comment

how so?

Expand full comment

What isn't often acknowledged is that racism isn't limited to white people. In Phoenix, in areas that are Latino and Black, there is friction. I personally know some Latino neighbors in Arizona who voted for Biden who won't vote for Harris.

This isn't limited to Arizona by any means. In LA, the Kevin DeLeon controversy involved Latinos being anti black, but also anti other Latino groups.

Expand full comment

I am still not convinced that they vote for Trump(but I get your point)

Expand full comment

The thing is, there were people saying similar things about Latino attitudes toward Obama, yet he got huge support from Latinos.

Expand full comment

And Obama didn't win Arizona either time, although Arizona has become more Democratic since 2012, and in 2008 an Arizonan was in the race.

Biden only won my 10K votes

Expand full comment

Correct. But the general point is the same.

Expand full comment

Obama is male, Harris is female though.

Expand full comment

Machismo could play a role. I again feel disconnected from how anyone can see a man who inherited 400 million dollars from daddy and has never stopped whining about how hard his life is for him to be "macho" but some people just really hate the idea of women and women of color running anything.

Expand full comment

I wonder who the Trump-Gallego voters are.

Expand full comment

Me too; Hispanic men???

Expand full comment

Probably

Expand full comment

While I’m sure Hispanic male Trump voters are probably more likely to vote for Gallego than white male Trump voters, given the relative proportions the demographics among Trump voters, I’d bet a fair amount that white male Trump voters voting for Gallego outnumber their Hispanic male counterparts. There are an order of magnitude more white Trump voters than Hispanic Trump voters in AZ.

Expand full comment

In raw numbers; likely

Expand full comment

beginning to think more and more that AZ will end up being irrelevant.

Expand full comment

Not the tipping point state certainly but honestly, I think Gallego will wipe the floor with Lake (can't wait to see her go into crazy mode; They Stole It Again!!!!!!!)

Expand full comment

Only 2% of interviews were conducted in Spanish in AZ. That’s a lousy Hispanic sample.

Expand full comment

Sorry, poorly worded, 19% of the sample was Hispanic in AZ, to take the survey in Spanish required answering a callback, if they wrote their methodology correctly, only 2% not 2 percentage points, of the Hispanic respondents were surveyed in Spanish. That’s 3 people.

Expand full comment

Aside from the obvious response rate issue, projections already predict that as much as a quarter of the electorate in Arizona alone will be Hispanic. In terms of statistics, that means this poll and prolly others, undersampled Hispanic voters by as much as 4-5%. In a swing state with a sizable share of Hispanic voters that's a damn big deal. I hope they're not trying to "correct" this with some weighing bs like saying "Dems are expected to win less Hispanic and black voters each year" which has minimal basis and is purely speculation.

Expand full comment

In AZ 6% of the population is native, and they're at 2% of this sample.

Expand full comment

There's a decent possibility that Arizona may be the new Nevada in terms of unpredictable polling. Hispanic voters comprise a whopping 30% of the electorate roughly on both states alone and it's already tricky enough as it is to reach out to younger voters for polling. Combine that with the difficulty of training and getting multilingual staff and outreach to many voters who may otherwise be unreachable. This is also often true with Asian voters who also make up a sizable, tho much smaller share of the electorate. If that wasn't enough Arizona also has a decent chunk of indigenous voters, who are often hard to reach and the language barriers there are even more challenging. Hard to say whether the pollsters are overcompensating for any MAGA effect or not. Still, just look at the AZ Governor race and see how wildly off the polls were, and mind you this was including many left leaning and reputable nonpartisan pollsters too.

Expand full comment

The regional cross tabs mirror what I consider to be our path to victory in Pennsylvania: running up the score in Allegheny (67-31) while closing the gap in South Central PA (47-50) to compensate for slippage in Philly (77-20) and a clear loss in the West (39-56).

Kamala should also do much better than reported for the Philly suburbs (53-43), assuming that includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. She'll win the latter three by a minimum 15 (more likely a minimum 20, possibly 30+ in DelCo and MontCo) while winning Bucks by +/- 5.

Definitely still a toss-up for sure, but considering the EV trends and polling from non-partisan sources, I'd rather be us.

Expand full comment

I'm not convinced of any slippage in Philly(Imo running up the raw margin in philly is attainable)

Expand full comment

I hope you're right, and you very well could be. In 2020, Hispanic neighborhoods in North Philly shifted noticeably right; my worry is they'll continue to slip this election, too. The Philly early vote is also lagging other Dem counties. Fingers crossed for a strong showing on election day.

Expand full comment

She should do better. That’s why Trump is going after his own territory so hard bc it’s his best way of countering suburban/exurban areas growing more tired of him.

Expand full comment

Agreed

Expand full comment

Does anyone here believe that Trump will win the popular vote? If so, why?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 13
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Do you have a prediction?

Expand full comment

Two things would have to happen but both seem plausible.....

First, the spread in Florida would have to be as wide as Siena's poll indicated, or at least in that ballpark, while the large shift toward Trump in New York would have to happen and shave mid-six-figure vote totals from Harris compared to Biden.

And second, the advertised swing to Trump by Hispanic and Black men would have to materialize. In 2020, one out of nine Hispanics who went for Hillary flipped to Trump. If that happened again, it would probably not be picked up by poll modeling and would enlarge Trump's margins in Texas and shrink them in California. It would affect other states too, of course, but the point is that if demographic trends pumped up Trump's numbers substantially in the four largest states in the country, it'd go a long way toward a national popular vote win.

From where things sit today, I'm betting it's a 50-50 proposition.

Expand full comment

It's not impossible, but we have an awful lot of polling on this and it basically all points to Harris +3. Maybe +2 on a bad day or +4 on a good day.

Expand full comment

I'm with you; imo Trump has a hard ceiling of roughly 46% nationwide and in 2016 Hillary ran at 48% to Trump's 46%; I feel like Harris will run at least 1% minimum more than Hillary to make her floor somewhere in the 48-49% range(that gives you roughly 5% leftover; and out of those I'd give roughly half to third party votes); this gives us Trump 46-47%; Harris 50-51%; and combined others at 2-3%

Expand full comment

Not sure why you think third parties will get 2-3% of the vote - the number of "double haters", who are the ones most likely to vote third party, has dropped dramatically since Biden dropped out and Harris replaced him. I think 2% is the absolute ceiling for third-party votes this year, and I'm expecting closer to 1%.

Expand full comment

Just going by past couple of presidential elections; I am hoping that you are correct; imo the lower that number is, the better for Harris

Expand full comment

By the way, what are your numbers??

Expand full comment

?? My numbers for what?

Expand full comment

The post ??

Expand full comment

nope: KH=52 Felon=46

Expand full comment

I suspect this will be within 2 percentage points, possibly just 1, of the final result.

Expand full comment

All 3 of us are pretty close to one another

Expand full comment

A month or so ago I thought Harris would win the popular vote by 4-7 points. Now I'm thinking 2-7 points as the polls are not as good as I thought they would be at this point. I still think that if Trump benefits from a polling error it's likely to be modest, while Harris could potentially get a big one.

Expand full comment

What's your current prediction?

Expand full comment

Don't put any money on this, but Harris wins by 4 nationally and wins every swing state except maybe Arizona.

Expand full comment

So roughly 51-47%?..we all seem to be in the same ballpark(interesting)

Expand full comment

https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/12/migrants-arent-taking-jobs-from-blacks-and-hispanics/

I think most of us knew this, but unfortunately, as Goebbels knew, if you repeat a big lie often enough, it becomes true to people.

Expand full comment

The reality is that there are millions of available jobs that Americans simply won't apply for or work them(the govt put out a report over the summer from the CBO pointing out the next 20 years of actuarial data stating just how much MORE immigration our economy needs to be efficient, not less)

Expand full comment

https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/12/trump-has-clear-edge-on-handling-israel-ukraine-wars/

Per a Wall St. Journal poll:

"Trump leads Harris among swing-state voters, 50% to 39%, on who is best able to handle Russia’s war in Ukraine and has a wider advantage, 48% to 33%, on who is better suited to handle the Israel-Hamas war."

The Wall St. Journal is paywalled, so I don't know whether this is a poll of registered or some modeling of "likely" voters.

All that said, I think we ought to be very cautious about assuming Harris will win, given that voters seem to trust Trump more on the economy, immigration, and now on wars. They are seriously, dangerously wrong, but they will determine who wins the election in each state unless the Supreme Court annuls their votes or there is some other kind of theft. This poll may have the same problems as others, and their models may be flawed, but if they're not, we should consider Harris in danger and act accordingly.

Expand full comment

Here's the question I keep coming back to. In how many states did the Republicans do better in 2012 than in 2010? As far as I can remember, the answer is very few, if any.

It's why my predictions are still these: https://www.270towin.com/maps/07k6W. Only maybe 30-40% of this is based on polls - the rest is fundamentals, previous election results, fundraising/ground game, etc. (meaning that these predictions are very unlikely to change before the election). It's really hard for me to see how Dems can do so well in MI/PA in 2022, despite low urban and minority turnout, and yet somehow lose those states this year when Democratic turnout will be much higher.

Expand full comment

Go out on a limb! Do you think KH will win any of the 3: AZ, GA, NC? Even WSJ/Murdoch pollster has KH winning with 278 EVs!

Expand full comment

Imo AZ>GA>NC

Expand full comment

I suspect Arizona will be so close that we won't know election night, and possibly for several days after. I suspect Arizona could see violence.

Expand full comment

I think the violence might depend somewhat on the outcomes in the other battlegrounds

Expand full comment

Mark me down for all 3.

Expand full comment

That is crazy - he will give the Ukraine to Putin (leading to more offensive attacks by him; he will let Netanyahu annihilate the Palestinians in Gaza . Neither of these paths will lead to peace. They will encourage strong men to attack the vulnerable.

Expand full comment

They don't think so because "wars didn't happen when he was President."

Expand full comment

Except that we were still at war in Afghanistan.

Expand full comment

They don't blame Orange Slob for that. If anything it was "inherited from Obama."

Expand full comment

Those are issue where we would typically expect Republicans to be better regarded.

Expand full comment

Why would we expect Trump to be better regarded on war?

Expand full comment

Because voters think Republicans are tough and Democrats are weak. Voters are morons.

Expand full comment

Not because voters are isolationists?

Expand full comment

That is a good point, and probably plays into it as well.

Expand full comment

Again because "wars didn't happen during his Presidency." They blame Harris for the messes in Iran, I/P, and Ukraine.

Expand full comment

That's absolutely stupid. Does anyone understand what Vice President really means?

Expand full comment

She's Biden's VP though. They blame her because "Biden started the wars."

Expand full comment

And to pre-emptively respond to a comment that Mark27 (I can't help but still call him that) may make, higher educated turnout in midterms does not necessarily mean higher Democratic turnout. Mark likes to point out that there was higher turnout among educated voters in 2022, and tries to claim that this means there will be a surge in turnout among voters without a college degree, a surge that he assumes will be heavily Republican. However, it is difficult to square that assumption with the fact that, despite any education-related trends, Republican turnout was still higher than Democratic turnout in 2022. If you look at precinct election results in MI, PA, or almost any state, turnout in heavily Republican precincts was higher than turnout in heavily Democratic precincts (sometimes by significant margins). In a presidential election, there will be much less of a gap, and the voters who didn't vote in 2022 but will vote this year will still be heavily Democratic, if maybe not quite as much as those who voted in 2022 (i.e. a heavily minority, working-class precinct that voted 80-20 Dem in 2022 might see their new voters this year vote only 75-25 Dem, but that's still an increase in the overall Dem vote margin).

Expand full comment

By all means, continue to call me Mark27! I tried to claim that name again but Substack said it was already taken (yet "Mark" wasn't?).

Your point is well-taken about blue county versus red county turnout in 2022.

Expand full comment

Can you change it to Mark27a or something like that? I've done that before.

Expand full comment

Or how about The Real Mark27?

Expand full comment

Sounds like a DJ

Expand full comment

That's why the GOTV advantage we have is so important(as to farming the Republican gotv out to grifters like Charlie kirk)

Expand full comment

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t turnout among core Ds in 2022 really bad? Like, 2010/14 bad, but we won on persuasion?

Expand full comment

I think so, yeah. And it's tough for me to see how voters who were persuaded to vote for Dems in 2022 thanks to our anti-Trump or pro-choice messaging would vote for Trump now.

Expand full comment

2010/14 level of bad turnout only in certain areas in certain states. Everyone remembers Florida and New York?

Also very bad for minority voter dominated areas. Most city centers, rural Black Belt, etc.

Expand full comment

I know we shouldn't discount any polls we don't like but I refuse to take seriously any poll/pollster connected to Murdoch...he has his agenda and will do what he needs to do in order to control the dialogue.

Expand full comment

Is there any record of Wall Street Journal polls being manipulated? Fox News polls are reputable, in spite of the organization. I don't think we should assume guilt by association.

Expand full comment

Not directly related to your post, but imo fox(and the other right-wing outlets) will run that same 'RED WAVE' !!!!! BS from the last cycle; so maybe not the polling side of fox, but definitely the 'news' side will act disreputable

Expand full comment

Do you think anyone reading needs to be convinced that an entertainment organization with "news" in its name that's had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for libel is disreputable?

Expand full comment

just me but I don't trust them

Expand full comment

Do you also not trust Fox News polls?

Expand full comment

don't they use a different polling company? one that is supposedly bi-partisan?

Expand full comment

It's the same one they've had forever(pretty sure)

Expand full comment

it says right there that the pollster Wall Street Journal used is a Democratic pollster and Fabrizio/Lee Associates. Fabrizio is Trump’s internal pollster. There have been many polls that Fabrizio has been jointly putting out recently to affect the narrative

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-swing-state-poll-trump-1967690

Expand full comment

In Bob Woodward’s soon-to-be released book War, Gen. Mark Milley rightly called Donald Trump “a fascist to the core.”

Let’s defeat fascism by electing Kamala Harris!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/11/bob-woodward-book-mark-milley-trump

Expand full comment

Drip, drip, drip, drip, continuing

Expand full comment

North Carolina

"Even though Democrats still have a 115,000 voter registration edge over Republicans, today marks the first day in NC history where Republicans have more active voters than Democrats (by 3,371).

The lead in active voters is a big reason why Republicans are expected to outvote Democrats this year in North Carolina.

When we look at the absentee requests, demographic and party shares have leveled off to the point where we're no longer going to move much in one direction. The independent request share will rise slightly as the Democratic request share drops, and Republicans will likely end up where they are now.

On the returns side, we're still on track to finish with about a Democratic +8% return edge on Republicans, but returns have been slow and will pick up the pace when early in-person voting starts and voters can drop off their ballots."

Expand full comment

FACT: 75 of 80 planned early voting sites in Western NC will be open throughout the early voting period, from Oct. 17 through Nov. 2. That is remarkable, considering Helene's destruction.

And 4 of the 5 that were lost are in Buncombe County, which will still have TEN early voting sites.

Expand full comment

I think we all know that many progressive voters, especially younger ones, tend to be independents.

Expand full comment

What’s considered an “active voter”?

Expand full comment

An inactive voter is a voter who the county board of elections has not had any contact with for two federal election cycles.

Expand full comment

2020 and 2022. Both elections registered Rs had higher turnout than Ds, by a lot in 2022. Hence more Ds (long term residents) marked as inactive. Esp those on the coastal plains.

Expand full comment

All inactive voters have plenty of notice to get back on the rolls; laziness is always a factor

Expand full comment

The downside: the inner coastal plains still have a substantial chunk registered White Democrats being Dixiecrats. Wilmington area saw some population explosion of over 10%, if anything the newcomers is more or less even. OBX counties also have 10% increase, (population centers of them are actually inside Albemarle /Pamlico sound, some people call them inner banks. I don’t like the name) and the newcomers there overwhelmingly Republican.

The upside, a lot of transplants to the suburb/exurbs of Triangle and Charlotte, registered as NPAs but quite D leaning. Asheville and surrounding suburbs are getting bluer.

My guess is today’s nominal 120k D registration edge worth more than the 400k+ edge four years ago.

Expand full comment

If you are correct(I don't doubt it); then NC is 50\50 with our side holding a better gotv hand; would you agree?

Expand full comment

Yes.

I would say Rs have a teeny tiny voter base edge there, much smaller than 4 years ago. D base voters in the suburbs generally have slightly higher turnout than average, but the Black voters in city center and the east plains usually have lower than average turnout.

So overall I would say, NC polls are meaningless now. Whoever wins the turnout wins it. The margin may be down to how Asheville or “inner banks” vote.

BTW, the mail votes banked so far, of course a lot from suburbs and quite blue right now. The red coasts are actually much bluer at this moment than they would be finally, with Ds there return ballots early.

The inner coastal plains/Black belt’s turnout is slow and looks very red. A lot of Dixiecrats, and Black voters are not into VBM that much.

So I don’t know much to say, other than that we have to see some in person voting to know the turnout pattern.

Expand full comment

What is obx?

Expand full comment

Outer banks?

Expand full comment

That makes sense.

Expand full comment

Somewhat off topic(apologies);But Florida amendment 3(the marijuana amendment)Direct mailers are almost all geared to the seniors in our state on the pro side(which I just find fascinating in a way);not that I am disagreeing with the strategy in any way; it just kinda sez Jimmy Buffet voters, here we come !

Expand full comment

This is probably an overly broad generalization, but I don't think direct mail has much effect on younger voters. (It just goes straight into the recycling) Older voters generally read it first, at least.

Expand full comment

Totally agree; good post

Expand full comment

It may be a strategy unique to MAGAs and Trump, but satire seems highly effective at derailing and sapping any momentum and energy outta them. Apparently just a few days ago Trump made another attack on Jimmy Kimmel for a joke he made about him at the Oscars nearly 7 months ago. Trump can dish out a lot of insults, but ironically he's very bad at taking insults. Satire can be a very effective tool and weapon.

Expand full comment

Which plays right into Kimmels next monologue about Trump

Expand full comment

https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1844887796235825372?t=ZTkQB94r6g74G_OiVWsyvQ&s=19

"Of last 15 general election polls released in PA, 12 have right/GOP affiliations.

Their campaign to game the polling averages and make it appear like Trump is winning - when he isn't - escalated in last few days."

Expand full comment

Since September 30 (last Monday), there have been almost as many Republican-aligned polls released as non-partisan polls — with Democratic-aligned polls basically non-existent.

🟣 Non-partisan-aligned polls: 33

🔴 Republican-aligned polls: 26

🔵 Democratic-aligned polls: 1

https://x.com/admcrlsn/status/1844767513722126559?t=JAIyh9W4Pfoe7LhQqmx49A&s=19

Expand full comment

Republicans would not be dropping a dozen skewed polls at this point if they thought they were winning!

Expand full comment

That's exactly the point Rosenberg is making in the tweets

Expand full comment

Yes!!!

Expand full comment

https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/12/why-the-polls-might-be-underestimating-harris/

This is a little complicated, so click the link, but here's part of it:

"If someone mistakenly says they voted for Biden in 2020 but had actually voted for Trump, and then says they plan to vote for Trump in 2024, it will look like there’s been a shift toward Trump when there actually hasn’t been.”

Expand full comment

How many people actually forget who they voted for in past Presidential elections? I have a hard time believing they make up a significant percentage of the electorate.

Expand full comment

Political scientists say a lot of people misremember. In particular they say they voted for the winner when that actually voted for the loser.

Expand full comment

They always convince themselves they actually voted for the winner; it's a weird coping mechanism(this was literally taught to me in politics sci 101); it's very strange because the ballot now is a secret ballot and the election is over

Expand full comment

After Watergate, the majority of Americans claimed to have voted for McGovern. If they "misremember", it's because they want to forget something.

Expand full comment

Since the beginning of the pandemic, my practice during the High Holidays has been to find a Conservative synagogue with a traditional liturgy (no organ or other instruments except for shofars) to follow. I'm funny, in that I'm an agnostic without rational beliefs in the existence of a personal god, but I like a Modern Orthodox service or something close to that when I do go to the synagogue, because I feel like if I'm going to pray, I might as well really do it in a place where they believe it's a commandment and not something you can take or leave. Of course, I could physically attend services now, but my local synagogue changed to reserved seating only during the teeth of the pandemic and charges like $225 to attend, plus, to be honest, if I don't go in person, I don't face any pressure to attend on the Sabbath, which is just not a reasonable commitment for a musician.

Anyway, this is all introduction. I believe some of you live in the Atlanta area. Are any of you familiar with congregation Ahavath Achim (=brotherly love)? I really liked their services and related to the points of view they expressed, except that they're a lot more pro-Israel and involved with Israel than I am. They seem like a progressive congregation that's very much involved in the wider community.

Expand full comment