mtutiger

It's not clear the degree, but I think there's enough evidence to suggest that Latino voters are an issue for Harris.... the degree to which its the case is still a fair question (I'd guess Trump still pulls less than 40%, but improves). It's probably a factor in why Arizona has polled worse than the other swing states. To a much lesser degree, black voters as well. Overall, non-white demos have gotten a lot of attention this cycle, but rural white voters and what they do matters a lot.... I genuinely don't know, both in terms of share and turnout, what will happen there. Some of that is influenced by what I see in day to day life where I live and just, in general, not really having any numbers to look at.

Tangentially, one thing that the polling miss in 2020 taught me was that aggregators and analysts spend way too much time talking about margins and not enough time talking about share. Biden had some big margins at times in a number of different states and nationally, but he was generally always stuck in a band between 50-52% in terms of share. And, wouldn't you know it, low and behold, what did Biden end up getting nationally??? 51% It's a tighter race today, but Harris is pretty regularly hitting Biden's 2020 share in national and swing state polling.... nobody should feel comfortable with the outcome of this race, it's a coin flip, maybe slightly favoring Harris, but I think we need to step back and understand how the circumstances of each of these races might be different.

The polls said there were a lot of undecided voters between the two candidates, as well as third party voters... more than in the polling aggregates today. And as we would later find out, most of those undecideds broke for Trump and the third parties were far less impactful than expected. Fast forward to today, in the aggregate, there are far fewer undecideds, third party candidates are basically a non-factor and Kamala is a lot closer to 50% than Hillary ever was in 2016. I don't know if she wins or not, the race has overall has been pretty stable and frankly hasn't changed much since the DNC.... I just think "but 2016" is a really tiresome framing for a completely different election with a completely different electorate.

There are just so many ways it could go wrong, not the least of which as Cohn describes in the second tweet, people misremember and tend to associate their vote with the winner / incumbent. Or also people saying they voted for a candidate and didn't even vote at all! Really really glad I'm not in that line of work....

Leon Musk.... Well known Commonwealth-knower lol

Why?

This was a really interesting read... I still remember Cohn saying at one point in 2020 that recall vote was unreliable, yet many of his colleagues are now engaged in using it to weight samples

I would also add that, at least my from my understanding, Michigan has made a number of changes (opening mail-in voting, automatic registration, etc.) that make it easier to vote - wonder if one of the impacts of these changes would result in a higher baseline turnout for a city like Detroit that, historically, is really low turnout. Ultimately won't know until November 5, but it's something to consider.

With the usual caveats about early voting analysis, Detroit's return rate here is... something. Could just be processing speed, although again that cuts against perceptions too lol

One key difference beside the dollar figure is that, in all likelihood, Kamala Harris would enter office with divided government due to how terrible the Senate landscape is for the Dems this year. If Trump wins, he likely has the entire legislature, and if the Rs do control both the House and the Senate, the likelihood of any resistance to his plans is very low.

This feels overdue.... anyone that has watched him for any length of time can see he isn't what he used to be.

He's a chip off the old block apparently... more money than brains.

I guess you can try that with people who are telling you they are voting for Trump (not much to lose I guess), but I'm not sure that shame is the best strategy on someone is telling you they plan to write-in a candidate... there's a risk of alienation that could lead to a worse outcome (ie. pushing them back to Trump)

Isn't that sort of what we are discussing though? By all accounts, 1776 is a Republican.... he has historically voted Republican, he would like to vote Republican, he has stated that, at least in this election, he will not vote for Donald Trump. Definitionally, that counts as a negative to Republican turnout. That's a win, take the W and move on. The bigger piece at play, perhaps something that his experience touches on but is something we will have to wait and see until Election Day is a real phenomena, is that the energy in a lot of GOP areas just doesn't seem to be where it was four years ago or in 2016. Granted IL isn't a competitive state, maybe the feeling is different driving around rural WI or MI, but I'm not seeing the energy here. People are under-indexing the possibility that he slips in the rural Midwest IMO.

The situations are different in a number of ways, but Musk reminds me of Rudy Giuliani a lot insofar that there was a point where they could have just proceeded like normal people would in their situations and kept their legacies and reputations and.... just didn't. (I have theories, but we'll leave it at that) Musk made a conscious choice over the past couple of years to become a political figure, and his reputation will pay a price going forward. Certainly his businesses have.... Twitter is worth far less than when he bought it and Tesla's future is far more cloudy as well.

I'd requote everything I wrote a couple of days ago, but again: I think it is smart and meaningful for Harris's campaign to court disaffected Rs. They will even flip a few votes this time around, just as Biden did in 2020. Particularly in places like suburban Milwaukee, Charlotte, Philly, Raleigh, Detroit, it will matter. But even if you don't flip a vote but someone chooses to leave the box blank or not show up, that's a win. Just take it and move on... Shaming people further doesn't advance the cause at all... if anything it is counterproductive

Howard Dean paid a far higher price for way less as far as I'm concerned

Not seeing a lot about soil or water anywhere in there lol

I've gotten to the point as well, it's a different mind set and I get it. Didn't feel that way in 2016. I approach these elections from the viewpoint that, for better or worse, there's two options on the ballot that can actually *win*... For me to feel like my voice is being heard, it leaves me choosing for the lesser of two evils. I have voted GOP on occasion, but since after 2008 (grew up in a really conservative household and shifted after that election), that has largely been Democratic. But others approach it differently, and I cannot say whether I'm unequivocally right on that... The odiousness of Trump, whose character frankly challenges me frequently to the values I learned growing up, makes it harder admittedly. I will say this though from a purely political and cynical angle, and something I wish more Dems and liberals understood... while a vote flip is a +2, a write-in or a blank line is a +1. I absolutely think it's smart to target disaffected conservatives for actual votes, but we need to accept there will be folks who are not going to get there. Making the case is good, but being ****ty and indignant about it if someone cannot get there is looking a gift horse in the mouth IMO

The Iowa ones are the most important ones and the movement is notable, but while I don't want to get too in the weeds on this stuff, I'm not sure there was really any justification for IN-01 or IL-17 to ever be "Lean D"... Obviously Cook knows more than we do, but in general they take a really really cautious approach, particularly with D candidates.... took them forever to move Josh Stein's race off of "Toss Up", for instance.

Less certain that he will do it than I was a few months ago, but aside from maybe Mattis or Kelly, Mitt Romney is the biggest possible endorsement left.... would be meaningful in both AZ and NV.

High quality partisan pollster... Again, backs up what we are seeing in WI. We won't know it until Election Day, but I think Trump is soft in the rural MW. At least the Upper Midwest anyway

Don't think it's the most important thing, but the tonal difference between what occurred last night and what occurs with literally any debate Donald Trump is involved in is notable.

How someone views the debate here turns on how much you think the average viewer cares about style over substance. And especially in this era, it's easy to think voters aren't savvy or cannot see through BS.... particularly those in the middle. I don't think it was all bad for JD, I think he may have even done a little bit to help the ticket (not the least of which maybe helping his favorables a bit), I'm just not surprised that it looks like more of a draw among the overall pool of voters than what the experts thought it would be in real time.

Ewsieg makes some good points, but on the issue polling, Vance got clobbered on abortion per CBS. Receptive to the idea he did what he could there given how bad the position the GOP finds themselves in, but I doubt it worked