And my response is: who knows? They could be misleading (-which- public polls?) to act against public complacency or it could be totally accurate. Either way, it shouldn't change anyone's behavior.
And my response is: who knows? They could be misleading (-which- public polls?) to act against public complacency or it could be totally accurate. Either way, it shouldn't change anyone's behavior.
Campaigns that are clearly but not overwhelmingly ahead almost always try to frame their races as being neck and neck to discourage complacency. Their statement wouldn't be technically inaccurate as long as their numbers aren't as good as the polls showing the best numbers for Harris have been.
I think the unsaid second part of it is “so keep donating”. Agree it’s impossible to say which polls are correct, but a message of “we’re surging in the polls and looking good” is going to get far fewer donations than “it’s not over yet and we need to keep fighting over the next 2.5 months”.
Are you sure that would get fewer donations than: "Things are looking good, but the election is still close. Be part of a winning team! Donate and volunteer today!"?
Am I sure? No, but I suspect for most people donating comes from a sense of need rather than a desire to fit in. I am sure there has been research on the motivations but can’t say I’ve ever read it. But if a feeling of inclusivity was more effective than fear I suspect we wouldn’t see as many “I need your help” emails / texts. You do raise a valid point though, people are willing to spend a lot of money in order to feel included. But there is usually something tangible they get in return so it’s not quite the same. The SPCA could have used happy puppies in the Sarah McLachlan commercial to fund raise, instead they went for heartbreakingly depressive.
There have been comments before that the typical constant drumbeat of "WE'RE GONNA LOSE UNLESS YOU DONATE RIGHT NOW!" from many candidates depresses donations and votes, but I haven't studied the psychology of it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. There’s several different messages one can send. From everything is sunshine and ponies to the world is gonna end unless you send me $20 right now. Trump uses the latter pretty effectively, but I think that plays to his target audience. Again, no evidence but I would hypothesize that feeling like you’re needed is going to spur more Dem leaning people to donate than “everything is awesome”, especially for folks with less discretionary income. But you’ve got me curious, will try to find some literature about it.
Better that than being overconfident. Maybe the private/campaign polls are making relatively pessimistic or at least conservative assumptions about public opinion and turnout, which is preferable to repeating Clinton's 2016 mistakes such as expanding into reach states and not doing enough in swingy ones that they falsely thought they had locked down.
Though if not for Comey and the media's e-mail coverage, who knows, those optimistic assumptions might actually have panned out....
She almost certainly would have won without Comey violating the rulebook. But the Clinton campaign shouldn't have been so confident in a contest that was that close to start with.
One of the things that has been driving pollsters mad is that Trump brings a lot of typically non-participating voters when he's on the ballot so that's where that is coming from.
On that note, does Nate Cohn still think that there are going to be huge mobs of African-American and Hispanic voters, who have never voted in any election before, who are going to show up at the polls this fall and vote for Trump?
I think the conclusion is the same. Harris needs one of the three bigger states, PA/NC/GA, which are probably all tossup at this moment. Winning all blue states + MI/WI/NV/AZ +NE02, is not enough. Even as one new poll shows her winning ME02, that would only get to 269.
On the other hand, she might have already got enough cushion in these states, possibly MI + 2 of the 3 WI/AZ/NV, such that 1 out of the bigger 3 would be sufficient. That is, Trump would need all 3 to win.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/08/23/harris-super-pac-says-public-polls-are-too-rosy/
less “rosy” than public polls suggest
And my response is: who knows? They could be misleading (-which- public polls?) to act against public complacency or it could be totally accurate. Either way, it shouldn't change anyone's behavior.
Campaigns that are clearly but not overwhelmingly ahead almost always try to frame their races as being neck and neck to discourage complacency. Their statement wouldn't be technically inaccurate as long as their numbers aren't as good as the polls showing the best numbers for Harris have been.
Exactly.
I think the unsaid second part of it is “so keep donating”. Agree it’s impossible to say which polls are correct, but a message of “we’re surging in the polls and looking good” is going to get far fewer donations than “it’s not over yet and we need to keep fighting over the next 2.5 months”.
Are you sure that would get fewer donations than: "Things are looking good, but the election is still close. Be part of a winning team! Donate and volunteer today!"?
Am I sure? No, but I suspect for most people donating comes from a sense of need rather than a desire to fit in. I am sure there has been research on the motivations but can’t say I’ve ever read it. But if a feeling of inclusivity was more effective than fear I suspect we wouldn’t see as many “I need your help” emails / texts. You do raise a valid point though, people are willing to spend a lot of money in order to feel included. But there is usually something tangible they get in return so it’s not quite the same. The SPCA could have used happy puppies in the Sarah McLachlan commercial to fund raise, instead they went for heartbreakingly depressive.
There have been comments before that the typical constant drumbeat of "WE'RE GONNA LOSE UNLESS YOU DONATE RIGHT NOW!" from many candidates depresses donations and votes, but I haven't studied the psychology of it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. There’s several different messages one can send. From everything is sunshine and ponies to the world is gonna end unless you send me $20 right now. Trump uses the latter pretty effectively, but I think that plays to his target audience. Again, no evidence but I would hypothesize that feeling like you’re needed is going to spur more Dem leaning people to donate than “everything is awesome”, especially for folks with less discretionary income. But you’ve got me curious, will try to find some literature about it.
It would be great and fascinating to see any studies of the effects of different donation solicitation messages.
Better that than being overconfident. Maybe the private/campaign polls are making relatively pessimistic or at least conservative assumptions about public opinion and turnout, which is preferable to repeating Clinton's 2016 mistakes such as expanding into reach states and not doing enough in swingy ones that they falsely thought they had locked down.
Though if not for Comey and the media's e-mail coverage, who knows, those optimistic assumptions might actually have panned out....
She almost certainly would have won without Comey violating the rulebook. But the Clinton campaign shouldn't have been so confident in a contest that was that close to start with.
One of the things that has been driving pollsters mad is that Trump brings a lot of typically non-participating voters when he's on the ballot so that's where that is coming from.
On that note, does Nate Cohn still think that there are going to be huge mobs of African-American and Hispanic voters, who have never voted in any election before, who are going to show up at the polls this fall and vote for Trump?
This time, I'm optimistic that'll be far more for her.
I think the conclusion is the same. Harris needs one of the three bigger states, PA/NC/GA, which are probably all tossup at this moment. Winning all blue states + MI/WI/NV/AZ +NE02, is not enough. Even as one new poll shows her winning ME02, that would only get to 269.
On the other hand, she might have already got enough cushion in these states, possibly MI + 2 of the 3 WI/AZ/NV, such that 1 out of the bigger 3 would be sufficient. That is, Trump would need all 3 to win.