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.
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 AllredтАУCruz isnтАЩt 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?