mtutiger

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.

Cygnal is a (R) pollster as well. The Times poll was horrific, but also a reminder that it isnt the only pollster either.

Prior to November 2020, I tended to be more in the "institutions would hold" camp, but frankly even in the event that there's hyperbole involved, I would prefer that we not have to test them in the first place to the degree that another Trump term would.

Exactly. That's the part of me that thinks that the "we're still a year out" point matters - the campaign really hasn't started yet (ie. Biden isn't out there campaigning, the GOP Primary is, nominally at least, ongoing). I don't think the electorate is paying that close of attention to any of this and is responding to their anxieties in the here and now. That is going to change, Trump will have to be in front of cameras more, Biden will start truly campaigning against him. And the situation more broadly could change, for better or worse. Not making predictions or saying changes are for the good or not, but there's a long way to go....

I do think he at least talked about policy more in 2016 and 2020.... particularly in 2016. But regardless, my point is kinda rhetorical - I don't think that what we are seeing from him now (ie. largely substance free) is gonna change. His personal problems will likely be his platform as a candidate in 2024. And people are going to have to decide whether that's a good enough reason to vote or not vote for him (or to vote third party, but that's a whole other debate)

I do think the "revenge" issue is a problem for him as a general election candidate. Not just for what it portends, but also because for a lot of voters (ie. the ones who will decide the next election, in the suburbs of Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly, etc.), that's not a winner for them. That's not an argument for them to cast a ballot for Trump and, despite of all Biden's issues, still remains a blinking neon sign pointing toward not voting for Trump. My question is this: can he present even a modicum of a platform beyond just revenge? I think he's largely out of focus right now, he hasn't faced the press much, he's done some rallies that are largely substance free. And Biden, as the actual POTUS, is way more in focus and dealing with significant issues such as the Middle East, economic issues, etc. But in the general election, I don't know that he can run as the substance-free candidate that he has to date. He will have to pivot - he probably will, but we haven't seen it yet because I don't think he's really been challenged enough (both in terms of the GOP Primary and in terms of polling) to do it.

Anybody? As dumb as a scenario that involves Biden being replaced by someone not named Kamala Harris would be, I still don't understand what exactly Gavin Newsom brings to the table that Josh Shapiro, Big Gretch, JB Pritzker, or probably 20-30 other Dem politicians bring. It all just feels like a media hype-train thing from the NYC/DC Beltway crowd that isn't grounded in any sort of reality.

And he only was in 18 games as a Tiger... It's fine.... they can course correct if they need to.

The Zack Short era has ended

That would require compromise. And there are few people in today's day and age willing to accept any compromises politically. Different example, but as someone who just moved from Texas (ie. the most gerrymandered state in the country) to Illinois (ie. the second-most gerrymandered state in the country), it's why I kinda laugh when conservatives complain about how the lines are drawn here - gerrymandering is a scourge, but if we are being honest with ourselves, it's not going away nationally without some sort of consensus or understanding between the parties. But that's not gonna happen, so....

Bump... Genuinely curious about why this guy keeps getting floated.

Jenna Ellis with a New York accent, this one...

Trump isn't sinking, but I also dont think everything he does is brilliant politically and that his brand is almost entirely built on holding a certain percentage of the GOP Primary electorate (which, no, is not a representative sample of the American public). I would argue that some of the poor performances in Midterms and Special Elections since 2020 are a pretty good example of the liabilities he presents... candidates who pushed the big lie in swing states tended to do a lot worse than normal counterparts, for instance. I just think some folks people (those who support him and who don't) attribute God-like qualities to him when he really doesn't deserve that kind of regard. He's eminently beatable and not well liked in his own regard, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

This appears to be going well

The general contours are the same, no doubt. I'm just not going to pretend he's an electoral powerhouse like FDR when he's clearly not. He has liabilities too.