Yep. With each passing day, it gets harder to spin this as benign....and harder to believe the problem will be contained entirely within Nevada state lines.
Yep. With each passing day, it gets harder to spin this as benign....and harder to believe the problem will be contained entirely within Nevada state lines.
All indications show that Democratic turnout in this election will be just fine. We literally had an entire discussion about this in yesterday's Digest.
It's hard to avoid saying things like that when commenters (not Mark specifically - I've seen several others do that here as well) willfully ignore everything that has been discussed in previous Digests.
Turnout thus far has been quite robust. Harris has quite a strong ground game, as multiple commenters here have mentioned either canvassing themselves or having been canvassed. And presidential elections very rarely have substantial turnout differences between the two parties, and there are no indications that this election will be any different.
I won't contradict you with the confidence some others have, but I also can't agree with your conclusion, with a week still to go. I've yet to seen it proven (and given the massive disruptions to historical vote method patterns, I don't think it can be for a number of years yet) that Republicans voting earlier + Democrats voting later = Democrats actually won't vote at the same share of the electorate in the end. That because more Republicans have voted currently, that we know more Republicans will still have voted by the time the last vote is counted. How could we know that? Democrats built up an insane 1 million vote "firewall" in Pennsylvania in 2020 that was ultimately meaningless, a million more Republicans simply voted on election day. How can we know that election day won't feature many more Democrats voting this time around, when the remaining electorate gets bluer and bluer the larger the GOP early vote lead becomes? How do we know anything about vote method in the first presidential election following the massive disruption of 2020?
In most states I'd agree with you but in Nevada, shouldn't the Reid Machine be more effective in mobilizing their soldiers to the polls at more optimal times so as not to let the narrative slip away? Maybe they're playing rope-a-dope and holding off for an election day stampede to keep Republicans overconfident, but that seems a little far-fetched. It seems more likely that the machine has taken on some rust.
I don't know why people are so dismissive of your concern here. It's definitely possible that Harris still wins Nevada, it's not looking looking apocalyptic for Dems or anything, but it's definitely worrisome.
What keeps me a little optimistic for Nevada is that both parties cut spending for the House races, but still the EV vote doesn't look great.
The ad spending cuts for Lee and Horsford are especially baffling with this backdrop. Somebody must know something that those of us can't see from afar.
In politics, ALWAYS follow the money(if the Nevada collapse were a real thing, then the Republicans would not be the one doing the triage); in the Reid Machine, I Trust
I think in the end people are going to vote when and how they want to vote, regardless of what the machine tells them. There's such an obvious reason why Democrats voted super early in 2020 (and it wasn't to build a positive narrative). That reason is now gone, and we've got plenty of evidence that 2020 e-day Republicans are finally warming up to voting early. Ralston keeps drawing comparisons to 2014 but also the voter pool simply had a bigger Dem edge back then. The declining of which (and the massive increase in unaffiliated) is its own topic. Let's just see how this one goes and maybe in 2028 we can try to draw some apples to apples comparisons in NV early vote.
I don't really understand why anyone is pushing back against you for your point that the Democrats want people to vote early and they're not doing so in expected numbers in Nevada so far. Yes, maybe that will be mitigated by x, y and z, but it's clear evidence and the x, y and z are conjecture.
No. I realize the math doesn't quite work but at this point I'll let it stand since I said it was my final prediction. Perhaps if my numbers are exactly right Harris would still win the popular vote by 1 point.
My feeling is that since we always consider Ralston the best expert on what's actually happening in Nevada, we need to take him just as seriously when he's downbeat on Democratic prospects as when he's upbeat. I realize interpretations of what he's getting at differ somewhat, but the bottom line is that we can't take people seriously only when they're saying things we want to hear. But as for whatever it is having to do with other states, I doubt that.
Absolutely, but Ralston hasnтАЩt quite pointed out the doom and gloom that is reflected by some on here. While continuously pointing out that things are looking good for Republicans, he has also stated multiple times that the dynamics this year are so different that past analyses are not really comparable. Which is essentially him admitting his whole model may busted.
But at the same time, we really shouldnтАЩt take people seriously when theyтАЩre selective in what things they listen to as well. The NV polls have been remarkably consistent showing a toss up. There has not been any last minute spending in the competitive House seats by either party that IтАЩm aware of. We have multiple, pretty much daily now, polls showing that Harris is running significantly ahead of the party ID in already cast ballots. This may be bias, but if there is one party that looks like it is in panic mode to me, it sure ainтАЩt the Democrats.
NV could be an outlier from other tossup states, though, and it's certainly conceivable that 3 House districts and a Senate campaign with a weak Republican candidate could diverge from presidential voting. No, I don't understand or relate to anyone who could vote for Trump and then vote against other Republican candidates whose election wouldn't result in any similar kind of extreme crisis for American democracy, but we know they exist.
Yep. With each passing day, it gets harder to spin this as benign....and harder to believe the problem will be contained entirely within Nevada state lines.
This is a joke, right?
All indications show that Democratic turnout in this election will be just fine. We literally had an entire discussion about this in yesterday's Digest.
The first line in your comment is needlessly hostile. Do not engage that way.
It's hard to avoid saying things like that when commenters (not Mark specifically - I've seen several others do that here as well) willfully ignore everything that has been discussed in previous Digests.
I am asking you to find a way to restrain yourself. Thank you.
There's a difference between ignoring things and disagreeing with them, isn't there?
Not sure how it's possible to disagree with Skaje's comment yesterday: https://www.the-downballot.com/p/morning-digest-mississippi-republicans/comment/74430919
You saw Mark's reply right below that comment.
What "all indications"?
Turnout thus far has been quite robust. Harris has quite a strong ground game, as multiple commenters here have mentioned either canvassing themselves or having been canvassed. And presidential elections very rarely have substantial turnout differences between the two parties, and there are no indications that this election will be any different.
You're talking about Nevada?
I'm talking about America as a whole.
Maybe I lost the thread somewhere, but I thought this discussion was mainly about Nevada.
It really isn't.
Someone should post Skaje's comment from yesterday's Digest at the top of every Digest from now until the election.
In fact, maybe I might do that.
I won't contradict you with the confidence some others have, but I also can't agree with your conclusion, with a week still to go. I've yet to seen it proven (and given the massive disruptions to historical vote method patterns, I don't think it can be for a number of years yet) that Republicans voting earlier + Democrats voting later = Democrats actually won't vote at the same share of the electorate in the end. That because more Republicans have voted currently, that we know more Republicans will still have voted by the time the last vote is counted. How could we know that? Democrats built up an insane 1 million vote "firewall" in Pennsylvania in 2020 that was ultimately meaningless, a million more Republicans simply voted on election day. How can we know that election day won't feature many more Democrats voting this time around, when the remaining electorate gets bluer and bluer the larger the GOP early vote lead becomes? How do we know anything about vote method in the first presidential election following the massive disruption of 2020?
In most states I'd agree with you but in Nevada, shouldn't the Reid Machine be more effective in mobilizing their soldiers to the polls at more optimal times so as not to let the narrative slip away? Maybe they're playing rope-a-dope and holding off for an election day stampede to keep Republicans overconfident, but that seems a little far-fetched. It seems more likely that the machine has taken on some rust.
Maybe the Reid Machine doesn't give a crap about the "narrative" and only cares about the actual election results.
And maybe we should do the same.
They've given a crap about the narrative and banking early votes in the past but decided to take this year off?
I don't know why people are so dismissive of your concern here. It's definitely possible that Harris still wins Nevada, it's not looking looking apocalyptic for Dems or anything, but it's definitely worrisome.
What keeps me a little optimistic for Nevada is that both parties cut spending for the House races, but still the EV vote doesn't look great.
The ad spending cuts for Lee and Horsford are especially baffling with this backdrop. Somebody must know something that those of us can't see from afar.
It sure seems so.
Maybe the late ballot delivery in Clark (if that happened) is still having ramifications in the tea leaves we're reading?
In politics, ALWAYS follow the money(if the Nevada collapse were a real thing, then the Republicans would not be the one doing the triage); in the Reid Machine, I Trust
The money is usually right or turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there are exceptions.
I think in the end people are going to vote when and how they want to vote, regardless of what the machine tells them. There's such an obvious reason why Democrats voted super early in 2020 (and it wasn't to build a positive narrative). That reason is now gone, and we've got plenty of evidence that 2020 e-day Republicans are finally warming up to voting early. Ralston keeps drawing comparisons to 2014 but also the voter pool simply had a bigger Dem edge back then. The declining of which (and the massive increase in unaffiliated) is its own topic. Let's just see how this one goes and maybe in 2028 we can try to draw some apples to apples comparisons in NV early vote.
I don't really understand why anyone is pushing back against you for your point that the Democrats want people to vote early and they're not doing so in expected numbers in Nevada so far. Yes, maybe that will be mitigated by x, y and z, but it's clear evidence and the x, y and z are conjecture.
Did you work out your new spread state by state yet?
No. I realize the math doesn't quite work but at this point I'll let it stand since I said it was my final prediction. Perhaps if my numbers are exactly right Harris would still win the popular vote by 1 point.
My feeling is that since we always consider Ralston the best expert on what's actually happening in Nevada, we need to take him just as seriously when he's downbeat on Democratic prospects as when he's upbeat. I realize interpretations of what he's getting at differ somewhat, but the bottom line is that we can't take people seriously only when they're saying things we want to hear. But as for whatever it is having to do with other states, I doubt that.
He's worth listening to 80% of the time. In the leadup to elections, he's a typically hyperbolic reporter looking to get/keep people engaged.
Absolutely, but Ralston hasnтАЩt quite pointed out the doom and gloom that is reflected by some on here. While continuously pointing out that things are looking good for Republicans, he has also stated multiple times that the dynamics this year are so different that past analyses are not really comparable. Which is essentially him admitting his whole model may busted.
But at the same time, we really shouldnтАЩt take people seriously when theyтАЩre selective in what things they listen to as well. The NV polls have been remarkably consistent showing a toss up. There has not been any last minute spending in the competitive House seats by either party that IтАЩm aware of. We have multiple, pretty much daily now, polls showing that Harris is running significantly ahead of the party ID in already cast ballots. This may be bias, but if there is one party that looks like it is in panic mode to me, it sure ainтАЩt the Democrats.
NV could be an outlier from other tossup states, though, and it's certainly conceivable that 3 House districts and a Senate campaign with a weak Republican candidate could diverge from presidential voting. No, I don't understand or relate to anyone who could vote for Trump and then vote against other Republican candidates whose election wouldn't result in any similar kind of extreme crisis for American democracy, but we know they exist.