mtutiger

It's natural to want to compare this campaign to 2020 and 2016, but Dobbs (which is underplayed a lot when discussing politics) is a big differentiator... anyone who claims to know how big or little of a difference that makes in this election is lying. We need to see it. As far as his campaign is concerned, he's run a terrible campaign and Harris, given what she was left with, has made the most of her opportunities. And he's raised far less money than Harris (and Biden), suggesting there's a real difference in enthusiasm this time. If he wins, it's mostly going to be on an anti-incumbency environment versus anything he's proactively doing to win.... his campaign is that bad.

It's very possible.... I don't know if she's in 50/50 odds at this point. I just believe that being relentlessly negative all the time does way more harm than good.

She's not losing all the polls...

It doesn't make it any less noteworthy or relevant.

The Post-Dobbs landscape is a real difference....

Probably right... although if I were putting money on it, I'd want the candidate who has a 10 point favorability advantage over the other. Objectively.

Couldn't you say the same of her opponent?

Polls have lately shown that she has closed the gap with him on the economy, and his decision to run ads talking about trans issues and immigration also exclusively seems to suggest that might be the case.

It's honestly women of any demographic.... same damn story all down the line. The media has talked about the Barstool Bros and Theo Von and all the rest so much during this cycle, but at the end of the day, Trump is marketing to a demo that (historically) doesn't show up when the chips are down. People talk about the upside, or just assume that it will happen, but it's far from a guarantee...

Kamala Harris generally is about 7-10 points more popular than Donald Trump in most polls. Women make up a greater percentage of the population of the United States than men, and they vote at higher margins. In the bigger picture, I think the Democratic Party has work to do with younger men, but if you're making a bet on demographics, would you make it with younger women or younger men? Honest question.

Totally, they count too.... There's a tendency to just assume that Dobbs and January 6th just don't matter in how people look at elections, and if they, lo and behold, end up mattering when we look back next Thursday, it'll be the third election cycle in a row (Midterms, 2023 off year elections) where that assumption ended up being flawed.

This is also the first election we have had Post-Dobbs... I don't know that the experiences of people on this board necessarily map easily onto the kinds of voters that might make that jump based on that issue, I'll put it that way.

I think the global environment of anti-incumbency across the world post-pandemic (w/ inflation in particular) is a thing... but America has actually weathered it better than most (economic sentiment is about as high as it was in July 2021 per the UM at the moment) *and* the GOP nominated Donald Trump... who, while perhaps more popular than he's been, is still a really unpopular figure and someone who has near universal name recognition. For whom impressions are calcified. Having said all of that, I more or less agree, and I think people are way too dismissive of the idea that pollsters are going above and beyond not trying to underestimate him again.

By that same token, would you be surprised by that either? I've seen posts on this board stating that it's ridiculous to suggest that there are Rs who might vote for Harris when I know a few IRL.

I've never heard anyone make this argument. Not once.

The aggregators have Trump as the favorite right now, generally in the range of 55% favored... That's never happened before this late in an election. And having been on the other side of this in 2016 (when Hillary was a 70% favorite), I just see a lot of the same overconfidence despite it being closer based on today's models It's a coin flip, full stop. But it doesn't seem like most Trump voters treat it that way

Sure, but Trump's supporters tout polls (and betting markets) to back their confidence way more than they ever did before.... at the expense of every other factor (whether it be fundraising or crowd sizes or whatever). That's materially different.... and gives me Hillary 2016 vibes. I'm not saying one way or another that he will lose, it's just what I'm seeing.

Case in point... One campaign is leaking five days before the election, one isn't.

I'll take Biff at his word that it isn't because he's MAGA... but the overall assuredness of the MAGAs this time around gives me Hillary 2016 vibes.

There isn't anything really specific about early voter turnout that I think is important, but I do think better / larger turnout in these bigger cities, particularly in the blue wall, is meaningful. Certainly in terms of early voting some of it may be cannibalizing as Oblong has suggested, but I doubt that it's entirely explainable in that way. In Detroit's case, maybe some of it is that recent law changes have just made it easier for Detroiters (and Michiganders) to vote, which would naturally just lead to a higher turnout. Overall, if someone came from the future and told me that Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia each saw their overall turnout increase by 2-3% versus 2020 and asked me who I thought would win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania respectively, it'd be pretty easy to respond "Harris"

Got it... I suppose that second paragraph was better addressed to another poster.

My view on Early Vote Numbers is that while they aren't all that meaningful to the average person, I do think people in campaigns or in elections administration positions can use that data to make informed reasonable judgments. Ie. People who do this **** for a living. I don't know if Winfrey is ultimately correct here, we'll find out in a few days. (She was more or less in the ballpark in 2020 IIRC). But I doubt that she has incentive to make statements that she doesn't believe to be accurate, especially on a subject like this.

That's a big big deal if it materializes... Potentially thousands of additional raw votes given the general partisanship of Detroit

If there is one real disappointment throughout this entire thing, it's that Mitt Romney still hasn't done the right thing here... don't know how much it matters, but it's obvious.

The Governors race is competitive because the Lt. Gov candidate (they run as a ticket in IN) is certifiable, probably the main reason (her only chance involves a big turnout in that district). Helping Frank Mrvan in IN-1 is a secondary reason, although he's probably OK.