mtutiger

Awesome... Definitely wouldn't be controversial at all

The Washington Post made it official.... overall editorials aren't really meaningful that much anymore, I get that, but the way they spiked this led me to cancel my subscription. Just not going to contribute to that.

In general, you would expect that erosion to show up in other actual elections as well. Latinos are different because there has been a pattern of small erosion with that group in non-Presidential elections - Trump will likely make incremental gains with them this time as well (another problem that needs to be fixed long term by Ds). We just aren't seeing that with black voters to any large degree, and with pollsters in particular, we have seen a number of examples (2022 GA Senate, 2023 MS Governor) of crosstabs being wildly off once the votes have been cast.

After seeing what took place in 2020, I don't think anybody should put too much trust into any poll. Regardless of whether it tells you what you want to hear or doesn't

Inevitably expect to be told I'm wrong on this, but if we are talking about young male's drift toward Trump and how it impacts the youth vote as a whole, you just cannot ignore the other side of the coin (young female voters). Sociologically, I think it's a problem that needs to be addressed ASAP.... as it pertains to this specific election? I'd obviously rather they do better, but it's just not clear at this point.

Youth polling (from Harvard/IOP) has suggested that younger women will improve on 2020 for Harris, so that could ultimately end up washing out. It's for sure a longer term problem though.

I think the fact that they have her improving by 1% with college whites and 6% with non-college whites while performing overall worse is something. At the very highest level, I think it comes down to assumptions about turnout with minority and younger voters; they see an older whiter electorate which, even with gains with whites across education level by Harris, would still benefit Trump. IDK how much I ultimately believe that, but it's possible I suppose. It would also explain why she looks stronger in MI/PA/WI than she does in the south and southwest states.

I think a lot of folks see these endorsements and conclude that they don't mean anything and won't change any minds.... maybe to a large extent, that's true, but I do think it's fair to take it as evidence of what their constituents might do versus what they did in previous elections.

For what it's worth, the poll was 48-48, obviously not a great result for Harris. Although the overall picture of the electorate they paint (older, whiter versus 2020, lower turnout) has been pretty consistent throughout this cycle.

It's a little more established in Nevada just because they've been voting my mail and early for so long, to be fair.... but the 2020 factor matters a lot. It was just a very different election that's hard to compare against.

The other piece of context that needs to be considered with early voting (and probably why, outside of Nevada and Ralston, it's dangerous to read too far into it unless you do this stuff for a living), is that turnout methods are changing; R's have embraced early voting methods more versus 2020 and 2022, which is resulting in people who previously voted *on* EDay to be captured in early voting this time around. Ralston's blog mentions it happening in NV, but it's also happening to varying degrees in the other states, particularly in PA, NC and GA (with white voters; GA doesn't have party registration but white voters are used as somewhat of a proxy for Rs) The result of this is that it changes the dynamic or expectations of why EDay is like.... and makes comparing what happened in 2020 or (to a lesser extent) 2022 more of a fools errand.

Ralston's analysis is spot on - although I do imagine, as he suggests, that Clark/Washoe mail will catch up and Dems/Rs will end up close at the end of early voting. Just because of the rise of non-party voters in Nevada, if I had to guess, it'll come down to who wins that particular group in the state.

The Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota) is surprisingly blue, even in some of the red areas and areas where Trump has excelled electorally since coming down the escalator.

More money is always good, but more donors = more enthusiasm. There's a reason whenever they release their numbers they often mention how much came from small dollar donors.

The Mayor of OKC is voting for Harris

No argument there, and from what I can tell, the campaign appears aware of that

There are a few things that make MI naturally tougher than PA/WI, but the one that gets slept on is just the amount of mid-sized cities the state has. Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Muskegon, Saginaw, Flint, Lansing. Particularly in WI, there just isn't the same sort of dichotomy. Obviously he can win, 2016 demonstrated that and close polling shouldn't make anyone complacent.... but even with the issues with the Arab community (people who know better have continually ignored the larger demographics of the state in pursuit of the story, frankly), this state is the toughest of the seven. It always has been.

I share your concerns, but MSU is arguably the most credible pollster from a reputation standpoint to poll Michigan in quite a while. Also the guy who runs it (Matt Grossman) is pretty clear eyed and impartial. I do stand by what I said above though.... the political geography for Trump, even with the concerns about the Arab population in Michigan, really isn't that great. He lost the state by 150,000 votes last time and it's very likely that Oakland, Kent, Ottawa, etc. are going to shift left in this cycle. And with Detroit potentially *exceeding* 2020 turnout (very possible), it's very tough sledding.

People don't want to admit it (particularly in media), but resistance types have been right a lot over the past eight years

A bit old, but the data does show how difficult a lift MI is for DJT

Tracking polls are really volatile, but I do wonder if there was a specific event on one of the days that caused that dip to happen or if it was just who they sampled one of the days

If they think they have Wisconsin in the bag, that's about as "reverse 2016" as it gets.

Where the main candidate goes and doesn't go says a lot.... ultimately they are the main attraction, not the VP (and certainly not JD Vance) I'm not saying they aren't expending effort in the state, but from a strategic standpoint, it signals that Wisconsin is lower on the priority list, at least at the moment.

JD Vance isn't Donald Trump, last I checked.... in many ways. Also, take a look at where Vance gave the speech (ie. Waukesha)

I have my issues with polling, but pretty skeptical of reading too far into early vote numbers (particularly as they are being compared to 2020). Nevada is the one state where it has historically worked, but even there due to automatic voter registration (and the tendency for many of folks to register as unaffiliated), it's not clear how much we can glean off of that.