mtutiger

TC is a satellite city for places like Cadillac and Grayling, so it makes sense. But showing up 3-4 hours late to a rally is pretty disrespectful of people's time.

Seems like terrible time management

I don't know if the allegations are true or not, and the evidence is thin. The story will go nowhere as always. But if I'm being honest with myself, knowing what I know about the guy, there's zero chance he hasn't done some really bad stuff with women over the years. And with Access Hollywood, he's been on tape admitting it. And he's currently paying out to EJ Carroll because of one incident as well.

I understand the context just fine.

I agree with you in principle, but they could have made this decision in March of 2023 to little fanfare... instead, they did it 10 days before the 2024 Presidential Election.

Always funny when people call Trump the candidate for the workin' man... especially when you see how the bulk of his campaign has been funded by elites and billionaires, and how much sucking up to him by billionaires is occurring in this cycle.

Swampy

He is right, and the folks saying "well, no one cares about endorsements" are missing the point; the billionaire owner telling the board what they can and can not put out there 10 days before this particular election was never not going to cause controversy. I personally don't care about paper endorsements, but it's pretty clear what happened here and, at least in my view, really hits at the issue of trust.

Wow

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