mtutiger

So, apparently there's a debate going on tonight.... Why? I have no clue.

Good question. Regardless, when people say polling one year out isn't predictive, that might be an example of why

I didn't say Biden was popular... clearly he has significant issues. But the general election campaign has not started yet. And when we have evidence that comes in by way of actual votes being counted in actual states, that should mean at least as much as than n=1000 in Pennsylvania. I dont see any of that sort of introspection right now.

Again, we've already had this debate so we don't need to rehash it, but Biden's issues in polling aren't a reflection of Trump's popularity.

As far as I can tell, they didn't abstain in Ohio or Pennsylvania last night. In particular, PA saw some pretty eye-opening numbers.

By Trump actually being on the ballot. (Which he will be)

It feels like an AJ Hinch specific move, and I approve as well

Did not hear these publicized much today, but the Georgia result is much different than the NYT poll

Probably the most interesting theory I've heard to date.

Shortly after the 2022 Midterms (in which Michigan voted in favor of Proposal 3), I had a conservative acquaintance of mine remark / complain about how much the media was focused on cases of rape/incest/health of mother about how you never used to hear about those exceptions that much prior to that election. And it's just like, well, yeah, you didn't hear about them because there was a minimum standard set for the entire country by which someone in those situations could resolve those issues.... and that, for people in a bunch of states, that was no longer the case. Taking out Roe V. Wade raised the saliency of these issues, but it also has raised a lot of questions for parents who are in childbearing years, as well as OBGYNs who have to navigate these tricky issues, particularly in states with strict laws against the practice. It should come as no surprise that this issue is still an issue.

The Virginia results are interesting because it was the first real case of the party trying to explicitly run on 15-week limit, which is (at least on the GOP side) seen as a compromise position. And it kinda didn't work for a variety of reasons, not the least of which that the general electorate really doesn't trust the party on that issue. As a policy at the national level, a reason that something like that is a non-starter, IMO, is that it would provide a ceiling but no floor.... put another way, a 15 week ban that isn't coupled with some sort of minimum baseline of abortion coverage in states that currently have strict bans on the practice seems like it isn't really going to solve any problems for a lot of voters.

I've said it a few times around here, but I'm not sure that people grasp how much of Donald Trump's 2016 win came with the idea that he was actually moderate on abortion (among other issues) relative to a standard Republican. Obviously, he ended up losing in 2020 in some small part because he made a much stronger embrace with evangelicals while in office (although I suspect other factors loomed larger).... but Dobbs I think drives an even deeper wedge between this Trump-style GOP and voters in the Midwest/Rust Belt states because many of them are not drawn to the GOP for the same reasons that an evangelical voter in the South is. It really has blunted a lot of the momentum that was built upon that initial victory. It kinda ties to tie into something I said after the H2H polls between Biden and Trump that got a lot of press over the weekend were released.... the results of that polling data doesn't mean Trump is popular at all. It tells me that Biden, going forward, is going to need to work hard to consolidate his vote. Hopefully he can, whether it be through campaigning or whether it's by Trump being more salient as the campaign really starts to get underway.

This is a really good point... one party seems willing to at least attempt to course correct, the other just continually doubles down.

I also don't think that Americans really vote on foreign policy to the degree that the internet / SM thinks they do. The other reality as well regarding this particular discussion about the degree to which it's helping / hurting is that some of the concerns regarding certain groups (ie. Arab Americans in Michigan) kinda elides the fact that overall, given the importance of Jewish voters to the Democratic coalition and the general level of sympathy that Americans as a whole have to Israel (even if they don't love everything Bibi / the Israeli govt is doing at the moment), there's a significant amount of political risk associated with doing what pro-Palestinian activists are asking as well. And I simply don't think that's ever acknowledged.

In general, nationwide beyond the more covered races, it was a pretty terrible night overall for the book-ban / culture war GOP types from what I can tell.

I don't want to lean too hard into the "polls are all wrong" considering that, all told, the pollsters who played in yesterday's election (except Emerson, who continued their trend from 2022 of overestimating GOP results by about 5 points) largely had decent nights overall. Of course, there wasn't a whole lot of polling of any of the races at play last night to begin with though, but it's worth noting. But I think, to your point, one thing that isn't being discussed that should maybe be explored is whether non-response bias is a factor. Not just because of modes of contact for poll respondents, but also because this has been a tougher period for the President and, historically, that situation tends to lead to a less representative set of responses. It was talked about quite a bit during 2020 as being a reason why polls were understating Trump support (2020, as we all know, was a really tough period for Trump because of COVID and how he handled it), but the internalized view of polling (then and now, whether it's accurate or not) is that it always understates GOP/Trump support, so I wonder if those vibes might be inhibiting the discourse here as well. But that's also on top of the reads on younger/non-white voters.... The Times/Siena polls, along with a few national polls, are telling a story (ie. 18-29 being about even) that is radically different than a year ago or three years ago. I don't blame the Times for standing behind it's polling, and certainly it has a good reputation as a pollster, but I would expect maybe just a little more circumspection about that kind of finding as well.

My impression from moving back to the Midwest is true Michigan is the Las Vegas of weed sales. It's legal here too but, because of regulation and taxes, people will still drive to New Buffalo for it

It seems the explanation being produced this morning is that Democrats are now the high-propensity voters and that turnout will be different next year. Which is true, next year should be a more GOP leaning environment, I won't argue that. But with results last night, I'm guessing that in most (or all of these races) that younger and non-white voters voted in favor of Dem candidates / causes by massive margins. So, going off of this, logically this would mean that groups voting 40-50+% in favor of Dem candidates / causes are going to turn around in 2024 and run about even in a matchup between Donald Trump / Joe Biden. If I was producing the polls or writing the op-eds, I would be asking whether any of that passes the smell test. I don't expect those groups to have that wide of a gap in 2024, but a 50% swing seems unlikely to me.

I have no proof oh whether it is a true desire to elevate Trump or not, but there's an element of laziness to their reporting. My own two cents is that they outsource a lot of their shoeleather reporting to polls and draw simple conclusions to them, often grounded in past precedents. Which, I don't know, a lot of what we are seeing out in the field (ie. GOP getting their asses kicked while an unpopular Dem is in office) is fairly unprecedented. And polls alone might not be enough to explain what is actually going on under the hood.

Just absolute brain worms stuff here... I have serious concerns about Biden's standing but, no, I don't think tonight was bad for him or his party. And if the Dems shat the bed, their opinions would likely be similar. Heads I win, tails you lose. Also, it remains hilarious when Nate talks about "elite opinion" as if he isn't, you know, part of that whole crowd

This was a really bad night for the GOP.... really bad. Their one signature win (MS Gov) probably ends up being around 3-4% when it's all said and done as well. Now, here's why that's bad for Joe Biden....

2 cycles in a row where the media said abortion didn't matter... 2 cycles in a row where it was a big factor.

The polls are what they are, but this is shaping up to be another disappointing midterm/offyear election for the GOP since Trump has come on board.

Watching some of the returns tonight, kinda wondering why the donor class isn't fantasizing about Andy Beshear more...

I think it's fine to not like choices and and all, but while the choice isn't binary, the result will be. Everybody is entitled to vote however they please, it's a personal choice; but for me, given the system we have, as terrible as it is, if I'm given a choice between only two candidates who actually have a chance to be President, I'm picking between those two candidates. I would love to have more choices, but that would require significant changes to our electoral system; this isn't a parliamentary system, nor is like France where there's almost guaranteed run-off after the first round. So really, I don't feel as if there's much choice but to play the game as I see it. Others MMV.