I figured there would be a cross-current of a further Democratic-trending managerial class and a shift to Trump with Hispanics in Texas this year. Siena's sample was far redder than everybody else's in Florida and now they're seeing the same in Texas. Makes me wonder if their modeling is more rooted in the 2024 electorate while everybody else's is still lost in 2020.
You also rather conveniently forgot to include another equal possibility: that every other poll is right and NYT/Siena are the only ones wrong in misreading the 2024 election. Either take all of the data and average it or take none of the data and make it your opinion. Latching on only to the polls that fit your opinion and ignoring all the other polls that don’t fit your view is completely biased, just as much as say believing BigVillage Harris+7 polls and ignoring all the others.
That certain is a possibility. I never said it wasn't. Hence my final sentence began with "makes me wonder if their modeling...." as opposed to declaratively assigning any supremacy to the Siena poll.
something to keep in mind - NYT/Siena has had trouble polling Texas and the SW in the past. Not sure how many people remember, but their polls of CA, AZ, NV, and TX were inaccurate and too favorable to the GOP in 2018 when they polled lots of House and Senate races in that region. I wonder if something similar might be happening this year.
Because their AZ polls have produced fairly strong pro-GOP outliers too, not just this TX poll.
The New York Times polls this year are a joke. Are they saying that Trump will pick up 5 1/2 percent in Texas in 4 years when all the demographic information says that Texas has been trending blue?
think that is too strong. They still are a very good pollster, especially with how transparently Nate Cohn discusses what is going on and what they are trying to do.
That said, they have had a number of important misses in the past, so we absolutely shouldn't take their polls as gospel. But they themselves would say that I think.
They can be a good pollster, and their polls this year could still be a joke. Only the election results will show whether they were close to being on target or wildly off.
Also Texas hasn't elected a Democrat statewide in 30 years. There's much less of an incentive to poll it accurately than you would have with a more competitive state.
Agreed. But thinking the presidential race is competitive there is a bridge too far for many people. I think it could be and wouldn't rate the state more than Likely-R for the presidential race.
The presidential race might be competitive-ish, but with Harris' best poll all cycle showing her down 3 there isn't a reason to think it's seriously in play.
Depends a lot on the salience of the border issue and the stability of the Hispanic vote for Democrats, which even the Harris campaign expressed doubt about over the weekend. My predictions factored in a net GOP advantage as I suspect the vulnerable Democratic demographics will outnumber the managerial class voters abandoning the GOP, but only by a couple of points. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a wash entirely as most polling has indicated, and it wouldn't surprise me if the coalition switcheroo was even more lopsided in favor of Trump as the Siena poll indicates.
TEXAS GE: NYT/@SienaResearch
2-WAY
🟥 Trump: 52% (+10)
🟦 Harris: 42%
FULL FIELD
🟥 Trump: 51% (+11)
🟦 Harris: 40%
🟪 Oliver: 1%
🟩 Stein: 1%
——
TX Senate
🟥 Cruz (inc): 50% (+4)
🟦 Allred: 46%
——
#1 (3.0/3.0) | 1,180 LV | October 23-26
If Allred is running 6-7 points ahead of Kamala, I like his chances
Yes, but not if Trump wins by 11. That would be out of keeping with usual results there, though.
That goes without saying I think
Trump will likely win TX by a margin similar to back in 2020. Very doubtful in this environment he wins TX by double digits.
I figured there would be a cross-current of a further Democratic-trending managerial class and a shift to Trump with Hispanics in Texas this year. Siena's sample was far redder than everybody else's in Florida and now they're seeing the same in Texas. Makes me wonder if their modeling is more rooted in the 2024 electorate while everybody else's is still lost in 2020.
We don’t as yet know what the 2024 electorate will be though, so if their sample is redder that would be a projection not something rooted in fact.
How can you possibly model the 2024 electorate ahead of time except by chance?
You also rather conveniently forgot to include another equal possibility: that every other poll is right and NYT/Siena are the only ones wrong in misreading the 2024 election. Either take all of the data and average it or take none of the data and make it your opinion. Latching on only to the polls that fit your opinion and ignoring all the other polls that don’t fit your view is completely biased, just as much as say believing BigVillage Harris+7 polls and ignoring all the others.
That certain is a possibility. I never said it wasn't. Hence my final sentence began with "makes me wonder if their modeling...." as opposed to declaratively assigning any supremacy to the Siena poll.
something to keep in mind - NYT/Siena has had trouble polling Texas and the SW in the past. Not sure how many people remember, but their polls of CA, AZ, NV, and TX were inaccurate and too favorable to the GOP in 2018 when they polled lots of House and Senate races in that region. I wonder if something similar might be happening this year.
Because their AZ polls have produced fairly strong pro-GOP outliers too, not just this TX poll.
The New York Times polls this year are a joke. Are they saying that Trump will pick up 5 1/2 percent in Texas in 4 years when all the demographic information says that Texas has been trending blue?
think that is too strong. They still are a very good pollster, especially with how transparently Nate Cohn discusses what is going on and what they are trying to do.
That said, they have had a number of important misses in the past, so we absolutely shouldn't take their polls as gospel. But they themselves would say that I think.
They can be a good pollster, and their polls this year could still be a joke. Only the election results will show whether they were close to being on target or wildly off.
Also Texas hasn't elected a Democrat statewide in 30 years. There's much less of an incentive to poll it accurately than you would have with a more competitive state.
Or a more obviously competitive one.
Hard to credibly claim that Allred–Cruz isn’t obviously competitive.
Agreed. But thinking the presidential race is competitive there is a bridge too far for many people. I think it could be and wouldn't rate the state more than Likely-R for the presidential race.
The presidential race might be competitive-ish, but with Harris' best poll all cycle showing her down 3 there isn't a reason to think it's seriously in play.
I don't disagree, but if all hell really breaks loose, Florida and Texas would be the next states after North Carolina to flip.
Depends a lot on the salience of the border issue and the stability of the Hispanic vote for Democrats, which even the Harris campaign expressed doubt about over the weekend. My predictions factored in a net GOP advantage as I suspect the vulnerable Democratic demographics will outnumber the managerial class voters abandoning the GOP, but only by a couple of points. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a wash entirely as most polling has indicated, and it wouldn't surprise me if the coalition switcheroo was even more lopsided in favor of Trump as the Siena poll indicates.
What assumptions do NYT/Siena make about the gender gaps? Anyone know off-hand?